4 ms·

If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Ostensibly, the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO

If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Ostensibly, the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), as long as they are paying fairly for it.

YetAnotherNick 2y ago
The news title is such wrong. They meant billioniares who have share in greenhouse gas emitting companies have million times more than average shareholder. It's not related to emitting greenhouse gas. The problem with carbon tax is the opposite. It would disproportionately tax poor higher. The carbon usage doesn't go up by 100x if the income increases by 100x.
- kelseyfrog 2y ago
  Except not all carbon taxes are equal. Taxing investments[1] in carbon emitting investments is such a proposal. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI (2m22s)
- specialist 2y ago
  What's the alternative(s)? IIRC carbon tax would be at point of use? So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? IIRC 2, most carbon tax advocates are also huge into investing in public transit, EVs, weatherization, heat pumps. In fact, BIL and IRA stipulate 40% apportionment. So doesn't that mitigate the regressiveness of a carbon tax?
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    > So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? No, the people using metal, concrete, electricity would pay it. It's not like the profitability of industry goes down over tax.
nawgz 2y ago
It's not like money can meaningfully reduce carbon in the atmosphere at this point in time, so it's pretty much impossible to "earn" the "right" to this type of destructive externality.
- charliea0 2y ago
  You can remove carbon from the atmosphere for $1000 per ton. That would be a reasonable emission tax.
candiddevmike 2y ago
> the rich have earned their greater share Source?
ipaddr 2y ago
Should they have more votes in elections? Money can only buy things that are for sale.
- ribosometronome 2y ago
  Well, he's not proposing letting Zuck buy anything, he's saying we should be taxing Zuck so that his buying of stuff isn't also destroying the planet. Being able to buy stuff that negatively affects the planet isn't really in question by most people.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
psadauskas 2y ago
Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9...) Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Or 640,000x the minimum wage?
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.
- qaq 2y ago
  So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.
  - worik 2y ago
    > he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.
worik 2y ago
> If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Really? > the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), Do you think so? The future of our organised society is threatened by this. Is that OK if you are rich and have "earned [sic] their greater share" Think about it....

YetAnotherNick 2y ago

The news title is such wrong. They meant billioniares who have share in greenhouse gas emitting companies have million times more than average shareholder. It's not related to emitting greenhouse gas. The problem with carbon tax is the opposite. It would disproportionately tax poor higher. The carbon usage doesn't go up by 100x if the income increases by 100x.

kelseyfrog 2y ago
Except not all carbon taxes are equal. Taxing investments[1] in carbon emitting investments is such a proposal. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgA0UgSEDjI (2m22s)
specialist 2y ago
What's the alternative(s)? IIRC carbon tax would be at point of use? So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? IIRC 2, most carbon tax advocates are also huge into investing in public transit, EVs, weatherization, heat pumps. In fact, BIL and IRA stipulate 40% apportionment. So doesn't that mitigate the regressiveness of a carbon tax?
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  > So biggest "hard to transition" polluters like metal, concrete, electricity would pay most? No, the people using metal, concrete, electricity would pay it. It's not like the profitability of industry goes down over tax.

nawgz 2y ago

It's not like money can meaningfully reduce carbon in the atmosphere at this point in time, so it's pretty much impossible to "earn" the "right" to this type of destructive externality.

charliea0 2y ago
You can remove carbon from the atmosphere for $1000 per ton. That would be a reasonable emission tax.

candiddevmike 2y ago

> the rich have earned their greater share Source?

ipaddr 2y ago

Should they have more votes in elections? Money can only buy things that are for sale.

ribosometronome 2y ago
Well, he's not proposing letting Zuck buy anything, he's saying we should be taxing Zuck so that his buying of stuff isn't also destroying the planet. Being able to buy stuff that negatively affects the planet isn't really in question by most people.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

psadauskas 2y ago

Zuckerberg made ~$10,000,000/hr last year (source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9-170242251.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-made-around-9...) Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Or 640,000x the minimum wage?

BurningFrog 2y ago
Empirically, that is how much money people have voluntarily given him. He was clearly worth the money for those people.
qaq 2y ago
So when FB stock tanked and he lost a ton of money does it mean he was making minus whatever number of millions per hour. Maybe converting asset valuation to hourly earnings is not that great of an idea. Anyone can buy FB shares and get same upside Zuck gets.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Do you think the "greater share" he "earned" is really 10,000x the average tech worker? Yes. It doesn't seem unreasonable to the point of dismissal to consider that he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the avererage person, particularly the average minimum-wage earner, does. That doesn't mean he has. But the number being four or five orders of magnitude doesn't strike me as damning.
- worik 2y ago
  > he's changed the world to within many orders of magnitude of that which the ... the average minimum-wage earner, does. Golly. He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > He changed the world, so now he gets to burn it? Non sequitur. A college student having a pet can be reasonable. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they like with it.

worik 2y ago

> If carbon emissions were taxed I would have no issue with this. Really? > the rich have earned their greater share of the national wealth/output (including CO2 emission budget), Do you think so? The future of our organised society is threatened by this. Is that OK if you are rich and have "earned [sic] their greater share" Think about it....