3 ms·

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 y

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.