3 ms·
If it covers all negative externalities such that a private jet flight becomes as relatively expensive for a billionaire as it does for an average worker then I
by gadders 4y ago
If it covers all negative externalities such that a private jet flight becomes as relatively expensive for a billionaire as it does for an average worker then I'm all for it.
Otherwise it's just a case of people with power/money legislating for external costs that will never materially affect them. They should have some skin in the game.
- CalRobert 4y agoBut money helps overcome all sorts of shortages and material inconveniences. Are you saying we need to end that before we can marginally increase the cost of flying?
- gadders 4y ago22% isn't marginal, and a large part of my flight cost is already tax. I'm happy with "natural" inconveniences - not everyone gets to have a Ferrari - but not with people legislating for rules they have no intention of being affected by or complying with.
- CalRobert 4y agoHow should we get people to use fewer fossil fuels without making them cost more?
- gadders 4y agoWell, the reason we need to make them cost more is because the replacements are sub-par. If the replacement technologies were better, you wouldn't need to. Regardless of this, how do we make billionaires use less fossil fuels?
- CalRobert 4y agoYou did not answer my question. As far as the billionaires, we could ban fossil fuel use entirely, for one. We could also tax billionaires extremely heavily (we should), and tax fossil fuels so they're less appealing. We could also work on campaigns to shame people for it but that seems unlikely to have much success, we're not talking about fur jackets here.
- gadders 4y agoI did not answer your question, but I don't think it's the correct question. The correct question is "How should we get people to use fewer fossil fuels without implementing regressive changes that unduly affect the less well off?"