4 ms·

>If the money in is proportional to carbon, and the money out gets distributed perfectly evenly by population then the net result is progressive. Monetarily, s

by Aunche 4y ago

>If the money in is proportional to carbon, and the money out gets distributed perfectly evenly by population then the net result is progressive. Monetarily, sure, but in practice the effect would feel regressive because income scales more faster than emissions. Someone who is 1000x richer than average isn't going to live in 1000 houses, eat 1000x more beef, or drive 1000 cars simultaneously. This means that they're in a much better position to simply eat the cost of a carbon tax while the poor and middle class will actually have to make the sacrifices to reduce emissions by carpooling, turning the heat down in winter, etc.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
The rich person will also receive a much smaller portion of their income in the rebate (and then pay 1000x the poor person for their flights and to fuel their yacht, and 100x to cool their house with glass walls and run their pool, etc etc). The tax is mildly regressive and the rebate is extremely progressive. The poor person who makes all those lifestyle changes in response to the tax is much better off than they were as the upper bound on their contribution sans rebate is less than what they were paying to begin with. So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash.
- Aunche 4y ago
  >So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash. They would have fewer options. They already have the choice to reduce to emissions without a carbon tax, and now they have financial pressure to go down that path. And no, it's not "fake concern". As I've said many times, I'm pro carbon tax. I'm explaining the real economic factors that make the carbon tax politically infeasible. All it takes is a particularly cold month in the north, where people are far more reliant natural gas heating, for the pro-carbon tax camp to completely burn all their political capital for the next hundred years.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're lying though. If you have $200 in your pocket for heating and natural gas heating costs $190 (because you have an equal share if the rebate but a smaller than equal share of the tax burden), you're far better off than if you have $100 in your pocket and it costs $100. If there are other options that cost $150, you now have the freedom to choose them when previously your only choice was gas.
imtringued 4y ago
As I already said, the rich own businesses and those businesses won't sit still and pay carbon taxes if they can avoid them.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
So rich people give a bunch of money to poor people, but that's regressive because the rich people don't notice it very much? The poor don't have to sacrifice anything unless the average carbon emissions drop to below what the poor are currently consuming. Until that happens, the poor can continue to emit whatever they currently do and get paid for the fact that they don't consume more.

by Aunche 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The rich person will also receive a much smaller portion of their income in the rebate (and then pay 1000x the poor person for their flights and to fuel their yacht, and 100x to cool their house with glass walls and run their pool, etc etc). The tax is mildly regressive and the rebate is extremely progressive. The poor person who makes all those lifestyle changes in response to the tax is much better off than they were as the upper bound on their contribution sans rebate is less than what they were paying to begin with. So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash.

Aunche 4y ago
>So stop your fake concern for the poor who would have more options, and more spare cash. They would have fewer options. They already have the choice to reduce to emissions without a carbon tax, and now they have financial pressure to go down that path. And no, it's not "fake concern". As I've said many times, I'm pro carbon tax. I'm explaining the real economic factors that make the carbon tax politically infeasible. All it takes is a particularly cold month in the north, where people are far more reliant natural gas heating, for the pro-carbon tax camp to completely burn all their political capital for the next hundred years.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  You're lying though. If you have $200 in your pocket for heating and natural gas heating costs $190 (because you have an equal share if the rebate but a smaller than equal share of the tax burden), you're far better off than if you have $100 in your pocket and it costs $100. If there are other options that cost $150, you now have the freedom to choose them when previously your only choice was gas.

imtringued 4y ago

As I already said, the rich own businesses and those businesses won't sit still and pay carbon taxes if they can avoid them.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

So rich people give a bunch of money to poor people, but that's regressive because the rich people don't notice it very much? The poor don't have to sacrifice anything unless the average carbon emissions drop to below what the poor are currently consuming. Until that happens, the poor can continue to emit whatever they currently do and get paid for the fact that they don't consume more.