4 ms·

Wouldn't a carbon tax that is noticeable to these guys be crippling for pretty much everyone else? Yes, you get the money back eventually, but there's a time l

Wouldn't a carbon tax that is noticeable to these guys be crippling for pretty much everyone else? Yes, you get the money back eventually, but there's a time lag and no amortisation. Big purchases might become impractical.

londons_explore 3y ago
You can always give the money back beforehand if necessary.
morsch 3y ago
Oh, I doubt rich people will care. They're rich, they don't have to care about any monetary incentives for their personal behaviour, if they don't want to. But the tax will still have the effect of moving money from them to people who are less well off. At least for the forseeable future. Like I said, it's a fool's errand to try and fix climate change and wealth inequality in one fell swoop. Sadly, trying that will just end up solving neither. Rich people are rich, they can do more than poor people, now that means they can buy a fancy car and good healthcare while poor people can't, soon it might mean they can fly across the globe four times a year while poor people can't. We should fix wealth inequality, too.
- Leherenn 3y ago
  Sure, but as you said in the end a carbon tax sounds more like a wealth redistribution scheme than something that helps with climate change. If you give more money to the less well off, they'll just polute/consume more. Meanwhile the well offs will still consume as much and just pay a bit more for it. Or you make it potent enough, but then it will only effectively affect the less well off. Unlikely to be popular. Ultimately, it feels like you need a non-linear carbon tax, but it sounds unfeasible to implement.
  - morsch 3y ago
    The idea is to make it potent enough to affect the behaviour of those 95% of the population that's responsible for 75% of the emissions (I made up that number, happy to be corrected) and whose behavior you can affect with economical nudging. No, they won't like that part. But hopefully the extra income will soften the blow. The idea being that with it, you can either afford some of the high-emission-behavior you were used to. Or you can afford more of the low-emission-behavior than you were used to. Comparatively a lot more, because it's both taxed lower and you have extra income.

londons_explore 3y ago

You can always give the money back beforehand if necessary.

morsch 3y ago

Oh, I doubt rich people will care. They're rich, they don't have to care about any monetary incentives for their personal behaviour, if they don't want to. But the tax will still have the effect of moving money from them to people who are less well off. At least for the forseeable future. Like I said, it's a fool's errand to try and fix climate change and wealth inequality in one fell swoop. Sadly, trying that will just end up solving neither. Rich people are rich, they can do more than poor people, now that means they can buy a fancy car and good healthcare while poor people can't, soon it might mean they can fly across the globe four times a year while poor people can't. We should fix wealth inequality, too.

Leherenn 3y ago
Sure, but as you said in the end a carbon tax sounds more like a wealth redistribution scheme than something that helps with climate change. If you give more money to the less well off, they'll just polute/consume more. Meanwhile the well offs will still consume as much and just pay a bit more for it. Or you make it potent enough, but then it will only effectively affect the less well off. Unlikely to be popular. Ultimately, it feels like you need a non-linear carbon tax, but it sounds unfeasible to implement.
- morsch 3y ago
  The idea is to make it potent enough to affect the behaviour of those 95% of the population that's responsible for 75% of the emissions (I made up that number, happy to be corrected) and whose behavior you can affect with economical nudging. No, they won't like that part. But hopefully the extra income will soften the blow. The idea being that with it, you can either afford some of the high-emission-behavior you were used to. Or you can afford more of the low-emission-behavior than you were used to. Comparatively a lot more, because it's both taxed lower and you have extra income.