3 ms·

I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to he

I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to help poor people. However, rich people benefit more since they typically have a car and a bigger one.

codyb 4y ago
Every good a poor person buys is shipped by fuel though? Edit: And the rich are more likely to be able to afford electric vehicles and appliances _and_ they of course are more likely to be able to take a hit to their finances and an upsurge in costs. The difference between going to the movies less and having to weigh getting all the food you need or all the toiletries you need is obviously quite large.
- scratcheee 4y ago
  There's no doubt they help the poor a _little bit_ . The question is whether there exist alternative solutions that help the poor a lot more by not wasting so much helping the rich (or especially in this case - those buying and selling fossil fuels, industries we'd prefer to be slowing down rather than encouraging with tax breaks). Eg if the same money "spent" on this tax break had instead been a invested in raising the minimum income tax ceiling, benefits, and pensions (by equivalent amounts), it would presumably have gotten more money into the pockets of those most hurt by fuel inflation, which was the claimed goal of the change, but done less to benefit the fossil fuel industry and those who don't really need tax breaks. Or to go more extreme you could add an untaxed fuel ration (there is a shortage after all), paid for by higher taxes on extreme usage, thus reducing overuse and increasing affordability at the same time. But that's practically communism, so can't possibly be done (to be fair, it'd be very expensive to implement, so not sure it's a serious suggestion).
  - amalter 4y ago
    To be fair, this is exactly what the TFA suggests: > Policymakers have mostly responded to the shock with broad-based price-suppressing measures, including subsidies, tax reductions, and price controls. > Going forward, the policy emphasis should shift rapidly towards allowing price signals to operate more freely and providing income relief to the vulnerable.
hackerlight 4y ago
Because of democracy. There's little car-driving voters hate more than higher fuel prices. And unfortunately car-driving voters are a majority of voters, so everyone else is forced by the government to subsidize them.
flohofwoe 4y ago
Not owning a car is a luxury in many areas outside cities that only the rich can afford though.
nextstep 4y ago
Because in a capitalist society, democracy is a means of settling disputes among the ruling classes. The system favors the wealthy because the wealthy control the system.
raverbashing 4y ago
This only works if the product in question is not a necessity (and its cost doesn't impact anything else). Especially as the alternatives are limited I'm all for using fuel taxes to subsidize clean energy and electrical cars though
jhoechtl 4y ago
Public transport? Hauling goods? A ton of other reasons where added transport costs add to increased life expenditures. It's not about the private car
ant6n 4y ago
Hey but at the same time Germans got the 9€ Ticket — a monthly pass for all transit, including regional rail, in all of Germany. The neoliberal coalition partner blocked its extension though, so now ppl are back to paying 60-150€ per month for transit.

codyb 4y ago

Every good a poor person buys is shipped by fuel though? Edit: And the rich are more likely to be able to afford electric vehicles and appliances _and_ they of course are more likely to be able to take a hit to their finances and an upsurge in costs. The difference between going to the movies less and having to weigh getting all the food you need or all the toiletries you need is obviously quite large.

scratcheee 4y ago
There's no doubt they help the poor a _little bit_ . The question is whether there exist alternative solutions that help the poor a lot more by not wasting so much helping the rich (or especially in this case - those buying and selling fossil fuels, industries we'd prefer to be slowing down rather than encouraging with tax breaks). Eg if the same money "spent" on this tax break had instead been a invested in raising the minimum income tax ceiling, benefits, and pensions (by equivalent amounts), it would presumably have gotten more money into the pockets of those most hurt by fuel inflation, which was the claimed goal of the change, but done less to benefit the fossil fuel industry and those who don't really need tax breaks. Or to go more extreme you could add an untaxed fuel ration (there is a shortage after all), paid for by higher taxes on extreme usage, thus reducing overuse and increasing affordability at the same time. But that's practically communism, so can't possibly be done (to be fair, it'd be very expensive to implement, so not sure it's a serious suggestion).
- amalter 4y ago
  To be fair, this is exactly what the TFA suggests: > Policymakers have mostly responded to the shock with broad-based price-suppressing measures, including subsidies, tax reductions, and price controls. > Going forward, the policy emphasis should shift rapidly towards allowing price signals to operate more freely and providing income relief to the vulnerable.

hackerlight 4y ago

Because of democracy. There's little car-driving voters hate more than higher fuel prices. And unfortunately car-driving voters are a majority of voters, so everyone else is forced by the government to subsidize them.

flohofwoe 4y ago

Not owning a car is a luxury in many areas outside cities that only the rich can afford though.

nextstep 4y ago

Because in a capitalist society, democracy is a means of settling disputes among the ruling classes. The system favors the wealthy because the wealthy control the system.

raverbashing 4y ago

This only works if the product in question is not a necessity (and its cost doesn't impact anything else). Especially as the alternatives are limited I'm all for using fuel taxes to subsidize clean energy and electrical cars though

jhoechtl 4y ago

Public transport? Hauling goods? A ton of other reasons where added transport costs add to increased life expenditures. It's not about the private car

ant6n 4y ago

Hey but at the same time Germans got the 9€ Ticket — a monthly pass for all transit, including regional rail, in all of Germany. The neoliberal coalition partner blocked its extension though, so now ppl are back to paying 60-150€ per month for transit.