4 ms·
I think it pays to be more specific. Carbon is a generic term that can include all carbon-based lifeforms, including humans. Also, taxing normal people for CO2
by rgrieselhuber 5y ago
I think it pays to be more specific. Carbon is a generic term that can include all carbon-based lifeforms, including humans. Also, taxing normal people for CO2 emissions just gives more money to the people who designed these systems in the first place.
- intrasight 5y agoI should get a tax credit - for being mostly sequestered carbon ;)
- allemagne 5y agoIf you tax CO2 emissions by everyone, and then distribute the money equally among the population, normal people end up with more money afterwards because they tend to emit less CO2 than rich people. It is also better at reducing emissions, because then less CO2-intensive options become cheaper than the alternative.
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoAnd who will be in charge of making sure that happens?
- allemagne 5y agoSounds like you have a great method of shooting down ideas based on something besides their own merits.
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoIt’s just a simple question. If we’re going to add more to the tax burden with the promise that the money then be equally distributed, it’s fair to wonder who would be in charge of making sure it’s actually done correctly.
- imtringued 5y agoYour complaint is valid. Politicians should implement the dividend first and then start taxing to align incentives.
- rgrieselhuber 5y agoNow we’re talking. The best way to sell it will be to call it a tax reduction and start by reducing the tax burden on people with a net worth less than $1B, adjusted for inflation. Then fund the entire program to align incentives by implementing a CO2 tax on those with a net worth of > $1B, inflation adjusted, with no loopholes for deductions. Do that and outlaw lobbying and it would have a chance at working.