5 ms·

Is there a carbon credit for that? If not, there should be a tax on employers for RTO, in the cause of realizing externalities.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
There never was a tax to begin with, in fact there is the opposite (tax credits) in a lot of America if a business decides to open up a shiny new $200 million concrete jungle and forces employees to commute in.
- barney54 3y ago
  Tax credits for what exactly?
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    For bringing business to the community. People will move to live close to the office, the company itself pays taxes in the future to the township, more traffic = more opportunities for small business. It's generally seen as healthy for an economy, but the huge downside is the environmental externalities are completely ignored. Depending on the community, they may be required to do an environmental study which does...many things that I'm not familiar with. All I know is a lot of new buildings in my area come with lots of green space and solar panels over parking lots. And probably other green things.
    - xur17 3y ago
      One of my favorite examples: my Dad worked at a F100 company, and they moved a large group of employees to a new office building. That office building was taxed in a special "opportunity zone" that gave the employer tax credits while the employees got stuck with a new higher local income tax.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Fundamentally, the problem is that the worker should be given incentives to bring their income to an area. This allows a community to diversify economically, vs handouts to large corporations who will continually wield their business contributions against a jurisdiction to continue to obtain substantial tax breaks or other economic concessions, and when they finally leave, they do substantial harm to the community. As a community, you then cater to workers to draw and keep them there (not maliciously, simply providing high quality of life like a community should), and they will continue to contribute to the community by way of their spending from income (on taxes and consumption) for their productive lifespan.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Fundamentally, the problem is that the worker should be given incentives to bring their income to an area This can be done naturally, if local government intervention is low, so there's more money for local businesses to spend, or unnaturally, if local government intervention is high, so local businesses have less decision power, and the local government spends that money on infrastructure for companies coming in who pay less tax.
    - d3w4s9 3y ago
      I understand how it works but it just seems a zero sum game. When someone moves from city A to city B, it's more tax for city B but less for A, and it often happens in one direction than the other. Same for companies. Reminds me of the silly and meaningless "border war" between Missouri and Kansas.
      - Izkata 3y ago
        Typically cities A and B fall under different local governments (states or counties or whatever), making it not zero sum for the government of city B to attract the business.
      - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
        > I understand how it works but it just seems a zero sum game. Not necessarily, most companies are growing and building new offices in addition to existing ones.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Public companies will be required to report their carbon emissions as part of new SEC rules. Perhaps this could be reported to the SEC if they don't report these emissions? Sounds like securities fraud to me if they don't (hat tip to Matt Levine's "Everything is securities fraud" series). Buy some shares, get some standing, spin up the legal apparatus. Not legal advice. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46 > The proposed rules also would require a registrant to disclose information about its direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased electricity or other forms of energy (Scope 2). In addition, a registrant would be required to disclose GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities in its value chain (Scope 3), if material or if the registrant has set a GHG emissions target or goal that includes Scope 3 emissions. These proposals for GHG emissions disclosures would provide investors with decision-useful information to assess a registrant’s exposure to, and management of, climate-related risks, and in particular transition risks. The proposed rules would provide a safe harbor for liability from Scope 3 emissions disclosure and an exemption from the Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement for smaller reporting companies. The proposed disclosures are similar to those that many companies already provide based on broadly accepted disclosure frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
dehrmann 3y ago
Credits should be for actually removing carbon. Credits for this devolve really quickly into giving people credits because they bought a sedan instead of a truck. Tax emissions, credit removal. Less tax is its own reward.
Eumenes 3y ago
Companies should be taxed MORE for having people work in an office?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Yes. They are causing negative externalities without exposure to the costs. Why would we collectively not force them to internalize the costs of their requirements? Pay up. Tangentially, it is sort of fun to potentially wield capitalist economic mechanisms against poor human decisions powered by hierarchical social power structures causing detriment to physical systems. Not all hacks require code (although, one could consider statute and executive branch rule making a form of code processed by the legal system I suppose).
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    They pay them by paying their employees, who pay for transport.
    - lowmagnet 3y ago
      …but not the pollution, road maintenance due to extra wear, fuel economy stagnation, etc. That is what gp was referring to: externalities, which you don't directly pay for
      - sahila 3y ago
        Gas tax and car registrations cover a fair amount of what you're talking about.
        smileysteve 3y ago
        I've got some bad news for you about the gas tax for repairs; at least on US Interstate highways. > (2021) The transit and highway accounts are projected to have a shortfall of $207B over the next 10 years https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we... > The American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives U.S. infrastructure a C-minus, is calling on the government and private sector to increase spending on roads and bridges by at least $2.5 trillion within a decade. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-...
usefulcat 3y ago
It would be far, far more direct to just have a carbon tax.
- vikingerik 3y ago
  You realize the effect would be to drive businesses out to foreign jurisdictions that don't have that carbon tax.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    Tariffs on goods that originate from countries that don't properly account for this externality. If a country doesn't want to collect it from their domestic producers, we'll handle it on our end. Companies offshoring production to avoid the carbon tax will be a no-op.
  - p0nce 3y ago
    Same with VAT really. Yet some business just stay there.
nicoburns 3y ago
The tax is typically on fuel, which employees pay for. In theory this ought to filter through to employers who may well end up having to pay more for in-office employees to cover the extra costs. Whether that plays out in practice I'm not sure.

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

There never was a tax to begin with, in fact there is the opposite (tax credits) in a lot of America if a business decides to open up a shiny new $200 million concrete jungle and forces employees to commute in.

barney54 3y ago
Tax credits for what exactly?
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  For bringing business to the community. People will move to live close to the office, the company itself pays taxes in the future to the township, more traffic = more opportunities for small business. It's generally seen as healthy for an economy, but the huge downside is the environmental externalities are completely ignored. Depending on the community, they may be required to do an environmental study which does...many things that I'm not familiar with. All I know is a lot of new buildings in my area come with lots of green space and solar panels over parking lots. And probably other green things.
  - xur17 3y ago
    One of my favorite examples: my Dad worked at a F100 company, and they moved a large group of employees to a new office building. That office building was taxed in a special "opportunity zone" that gave the employer tax credits while the employees got stuck with a new higher local income tax.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Fundamentally, the problem is that the worker should be given incentives to bring their income to an area. This allows a community to diversify economically, vs handouts to large corporations who will continually wield their business contributions against a jurisdiction to continue to obtain substantial tax breaks or other economic concessions, and when they finally leave, they do substantial harm to the community. As a community, you then cater to workers to draw and keep them there (not maliciously, simply providing high quality of life like a community should), and they will continue to contribute to the community by way of their spending from income (on taxes and consumption) for their productive lifespan.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Fundamentally, the problem is that the worker should be given incentives to bring their income to an area This can be done naturally, if local government intervention is low, so there's more money for local businesses to spend, or unnaturally, if local government intervention is high, so local businesses have less decision power, and the local government spends that money on infrastructure for companies coming in who pay less tax.
  - d3w4s9 3y ago
    I understand how it works but it just seems a zero sum game. When someone moves from city A to city B, it's more tax for city B but less for A, and it often happens in one direction than the other. Same for companies. Reminds me of the silly and meaningless "border war" between Missouri and Kansas.
    - Izkata 3y ago
      Typically cities A and B fall under different local governments (states or counties or whatever), making it not zero sum for the government of city B to attract the business.
    - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
      > I understand how it works but it just seems a zero sum game. Not necessarily, most companies are growing and building new offices in addition to existing ones.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Public companies will be required to report their carbon emissions as part of new SEC rules. Perhaps this could be reported to the SEC if they don't report these emissions? Sounds like securities fraud to me if they don't (hat tip to Matt Levine's "Everything is securities fraud" series). Buy some shares, get some standing, spin up the legal apparatus. Not legal advice. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-46 > The proposed rules also would require a registrant to disclose information about its direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased electricity or other forms of energy (Scope 2). In addition, a registrant would be required to disclose GHG emissions from upstream and downstream activities in its value chain (Scope 3), if material or if the registrant has set a GHG emissions target or goal that includes Scope 3 emissions. These proposals for GHG emissions disclosures would provide investors with decision-useful information to assess a registrant’s exposure to, and management of, climate-related risks, and in particular transition risks. The proposed rules would provide a safe harbor for liability from Scope 3 emissions disclosure and an exemption from the Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirement for smaller reporting companies. The proposed disclosures are similar to those that many companies already provide based on broadly accepted disclosure frameworks, such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

dehrmann 3y ago

Credits should be for actually removing carbon. Credits for this devolve really quickly into giving people credits because they bought a sedan instead of a truck. Tax emissions, credit removal. Less tax is its own reward.

Eumenes 3y ago

Companies should be taxed MORE for having people work in an office?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Yes. They are causing negative externalities without exposure to the costs. Why would we collectively not force them to internalize the costs of their requirements? Pay up. Tangentially, it is sort of fun to potentially wield capitalist economic mechanisms against poor human decisions powered by hierarchical social power structures causing detriment to physical systems. Not all hacks require code (although, one could consider statute and executive branch rule making a form of code processed by the legal system I suppose).
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  They pay them by paying their employees, who pay for transport.
  - lowmagnet 3y ago
    …but not the pollution, road maintenance due to extra wear, fuel economy stagnation, etc. That is what gp was referring to: externalities, which you don't directly pay for
    - sahila 3y ago
      Gas tax and car registrations cover a fair amount of what you're talking about.
      - smileysteve 3y ago
        I've got some bad news for you about the gas tax for repairs; at least on US Interstate highways. > (2021) The transit and highway accounts are projected to have a shortfall of $207B over the next 10 years https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we... > The American Society of Civil Engineers, which gives U.S. infrastructure a C-minus, is calling on the government and private sector to increase spending on roads and bridges by at least $2.5 trillion within a decade. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-history-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-fund-new-infrastructure https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-gas-taxs-tortured-...

usefulcat 3y ago

It would be far, far more direct to just have a carbon tax.

vikingerik 3y ago
You realize the effect would be to drive businesses out to foreign jurisdictions that don't have that carbon tax.
- function_seven 3y ago
  Tariffs on goods that originate from countries that don't properly account for this externality. If a country doesn't want to collect it from their domestic producers, we'll handle it on our end. Companies offshoring production to avoid the carbon tax will be a no-op.
- p0nce 3y ago
  Same with VAT really. Yet some business just stay there.

nicoburns 3y ago

The tax is typically on fuel, which employees pay for. In theory this ought to filter through to employers who may well end up having to pay more for in-office employees to cover the extra costs. Whether that plays out in practice I'm not sure.