3 ms·
Yeah, but everything has to be progressive. We can't reduce emissions by taxing EVERYONE to reduce emissions. We have to try to squeeze 76% of the reductions fr
by onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Yeah, but everything has to be progressive. We can't reduce emissions by taxing EVERYONE to reduce emissions. We have to try to squeeze 76% of the reductions from the top 1%.
The problem is - if you ACTUALLY want to do something about emissions - they aren't as unevenly distributed as wealth. Everyone needs to cut back. And just like taxes - everyone is willing to raise taxes on someone else. Everyone is willing to force everyone else to cut their emissions. Hardly anyone wants their own taxes to go up, or reduce their own emissions.
- adrianN 4y agoGive everyone a fixed amount of money if you want to make this more progressive than it is naturally (poor people emit less carbon already).
- ericd 4y agoIs that first sentence sarcastic? Anyway, these tax proposals are usually accompanied by an evenly distributed dividend that makes them revenue neutral. The net effect is that people who live close to work, don't fly, don't eat lots of produce from the other hemisphere, etc should be net gainers, and everyone else will pay more. In most categories, the rich will probably end up paying more on average, since they consume more.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoNo - that's the one it seems economists recommend. Politicians go with what panders to their base, not with what economists recommend.
- ericd 4y agoYeah, fair enough, I see what you meant in your other comment.