12 ms·
Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.
by MostlyStable 1y ago
Example #5621 that a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have.
- aidenn0 1y agoThat's overly reductive. 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. 2. You can work around #1 by applying incentives for manufacturers to make more efficient cars should lead any carbon tax 3. If you just reward companies based on fleet-average fuel economy without regard to vehicle size, then it would be rather bad for US car companies (who employ unionized workers) that historically make larger cars than Asian and European companies. 4. So the first thing done was to have a separate standard for passenger vehicles and light-trucks, but this resulted in minivans and SUVs being made in such a way as to get the light-truck rating 5. We then ended up with the size-based calculation we have today, but the formula is (IMO) overly punitive on small vehicles. Given that the formula was forward looking, it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated.
- bflesch 1y agoMeanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU.
- cogman10 1y agoWhich is bonkers. If ever there was a thing that should be taxed it's jet fuel for private jets. 300% tax on private jet fuel would be reasonable. The emissions just to shuttle rich people from one side of the country to the next (For some, multiple times per day) is insane. You should need to be a billionaire just to afford flying private jets and it should still eat a significant portion of your income if that's what you choose to do. And for what? Like, we live in the modern era, why does anyone need to travel from NY to Florida to Texas to California in a day?
- Gibbon1 1y agoI have a suspicion the reason why super wealthy people like say Musk but he isn't the only one hate subways and high speed rail is because they fly everywhere. You might like if you could get on the subway in Glen Park and be at lands end in half an hour. You might like getting on a high speed rail and being in LA in 4 hours. These guy will never ride a subway or take a train anywhere.
- gonzoflip 1y agoI'm no Musk fanboy, but it is funny you mention him not liking subways or high speed rail because didn't he try to build a subterranean high speed rail?
- AlexandrB 1y agoThe hyperloop was a shit idea from day one and thus far no one has been able to make it work. It's also entirely possible that Elon Musk floated this as a distraction to stop the development of "regular" high speed rain in California[1]. The Las Vegas "loop"[2], on the other hand, is basically a parody of a subway - with a fraction of the capacity. > In July 2021, the peak passenger flow was recorded at 1,355 passengers per hour. As a comparison Toronto's subway can handle 28,000 passengers per hour[3] per direction or more. [1] https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-california-high-spee-1849402460/ https://www.jalopnik.com/did-musk-propose-hyperloop-to-stop-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Lo... [3] https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-ridership-2018 https://dailyhive.com/toronto/ttc-toronto-subway-station-rid...
- gonzoflip 1y agoDid I say it was a good idea? I was merely pointing out that there's evidence that he is not the best example for people that hate high-speed rails and subways. >Stop the development of high speed rail in California I thought that got funded, what happened?
- ikekkdcjkfke 1y agoFfs
- michpoch 1y agoWhat makes a jet private? Should Trump's Boegin 757 count as one? What if an airline is flying a jet with no passengers? Cargo jets?
- foobarchu 1y agoThe same thing that differentiate a private car from public transportation or freight, I would think. This distinction isn't a particularly novel problem.
- michpoch 1y agoWe don't differentiate these in any significant way. Do buses in your country pay different rate for fuel? There are vans carrying 6 people on international routes in Europe, is this public transport? Private? Anyone can book it.
- aceofspades19 1y agoWell actually, lots of places have special fuel for farm vehicles that are exempt from certain taxes. It's dyed a certain colour so if you get caught with that colour of fuel in your vehicle you can get in trouble. So its not a crazy thing to suggest that we tax different fuel at different rates.
- almostnormal 1y ago> Meanwhile jet fuel for private jets is (and remains) not taxed at all, even in the EU. Not correct. Fuel for private aviation is taxed, including jet fuel and avgas. However, there are very few "private" jets, most are operated by some company, and therefore not private. Jet-A1 for a truely privately operated C172 with a diesel engine is taxed.
- sokoloff 1y agoThis is a common trope, but is incorrect, at least for the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta...
- breakyerself 1y agoCarbon taxes become progressive with the simple step of returning the revenue to taxpayers as a dividend payment using the existing social security payment infrastructure. Richer people have such outsized carbon footprints that most people would get back more in dividends than they lost in higher costs.
- MostlyStable 1y agoAll carbon tax is inherently regressive but that's also trivially fixable. Make it revenue neutral and give every citizen a flat portion of the total collected revenue. Bam, it is now progressive, since on average richer people will spend more on fuel (and therefore the tax) even though it is likely a much smaller percentage of their spending. Every single one of your ideas has problems that are solved by a carbon tax. Taxes are simple, they accomplish what you want, and they don't have loopholes. A carbon tax will _never_ have the unintended consequence of making emissions worse. Many of our current regulations, including the one I was responding to do exactly that because they actually cause people to buy larger trucks than they otherwise would with worse fuel efficiency. A carbon tax might not on it's own be enough to solve the problem (especially if you set it to low), but no matter what level you set it, it will help. Thanks to unintended consequences, many of our current regulations are actively counter productive, while _also_ having negative economic and other costs.
- abakker 1y agoAll costs are regressive to people with less ability to bear them. By making them not regressive we don't change behavior! It doesn't matter if they're regressive if the objective is to get people to not drive or to burn less gas. Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones.
- MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago> Shifting the cost to the rich doesn't change behavior and it doesn't reduce actual carbon. Shifting cost to the emitters is a better way to put it. If a factory can make 10m in upgrades over time to reduce their carbon tax burden by 15m over time, they are definitely going to do it. So I disagree: I say it does change behavior and it does reduce actual carbon. > There's a lot more low-income emitters than high income ones Whether that's true or not it does not mean a carbon tax would not 'reduce actual carbon'.
- otterley 1y ago
- danans 1y ago> 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. You give it back to poor as a income-phased out refundable tax credit. Crucially, base it not on how much they drive or consume, but on their income. Name it something like the "Worker's Energy Credit". In the worst case, it cancels out the carbon tax spent by them commensurate with their lower income. In the best case poor people who don't drive much actually come out ahead, and it's just a very progressive sales tax. The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it.
- dgfitz 1y ago> The rich might hate it, and call it "redistribution", which is fine because that's exactly what it is, and what taxes have always been, but this one would redistribute downwards instead of upwards, and incentivize lower carbon emissions by those who can afford it. Larry Page would be pumped. His annual salary is $1. I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. I would be interested in reading a study where all the tax laws in the country were burned down and rebuilt, with no loopholes or exceptions. Also, eliminate borrowing against a stock portfolio. That is downright evil.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> I feel pretty strongly that adding exceptions and loopholes to taxes only benefit wealthy people, which is the opposite of the intent. It depends what the exception is. If the exceptions are "we treat a form of income received disproportionately by the rich a 'not income' and tax it at a lower rate, and on top of that we add an extra tax on top of income tax on labor income, and cap the larger part of that extra tax, too, to avoid burdening high earners", that helps the rich, sure. But there are plenty of exceptions possible that don't do that.
- danans 1y ago
- bongodongobob 1y agoAre you saying used car sales would have a carbon tax? I've never heard anyone suggest anything like that. It's just a tax on new items.
- xvokcarts 1y agoLooks like as long as only positive change is allowed to touch the poor, there will be little change.
- austhrow743 1y agoGoing to let us burn because not doing so would be regressive.
- AdrianB1 1y agoIf you want to reduce carbon emissions, if the tax is regressive or not does not matter as long as you tax emissions. If you want to mix too many things, you will not get a good solution for any.
- DrNosferatu 1y agoThis.
- nullc 1y ago> 1. Poorer people tend to drive older vehicles, so if you solely encourage higher fuel economies by taxing carbon emissions, then the tax is (at least short-term) regressive. The idea that policy makers care about this in any meaningful sense is absurd given the EV mandates, as EV's radically change the lifecycle costs of cars in a way that is absolutely destructive to people who aren't wealthy. EV's lower the 'fueling' cost but shift part of it into large cashflow crushing battery replacement costs. Automobiles have been a significant engine in elevating less wealthy americans because you can buy a old junky car for very little and keep it limping along with use-proportional fuel costs and minor maintenance. Even if it's an inefficient car, you use it to go to work, so you're making money to pay for the fuel. Less work, less work fuel required. EV's significantly break the model and will push many more less wealthy people onto predatory financing which they'll never escape. Yet policy makers refuse to even discuss the life-cycle cashflow difference of EVs, and continue to more forward with policies to eventually mandate their use. > it was almost certain to be wrong in one direction or the other, but it hasn't been updated. It's been broken all along. We've had decades to fix it.
- renewiltord 1y agoYeah that’s the truth. The mass of poor people are the predominant polluters. They produce little of value and pollute a lot. So the question then is whether you care about the environment or about the poor and most people would rather the latter.
- morepedantic 1y agoTIL poor people can't pollute, so their market segment shouldn't be incentivized to cut pollution. TIL that US car companies won't make smaller cars in the face of different regulations, even though they made larger cars in response to current regulations. The only way to avoid perversions is to tax the problem directly. The market will adjust to all proxies in unintended and harmful ways.
- parineum 1y agoA disincentive on a thing you don't want makes people choose another thing that you may or may not want. The only way to avoid perversions is to incentivize the things you want. Taxing cigarettes led to vaping. Maybe less bad but still a nuisance.
- morepedantic 1y agoAre you agreeing with me, or did you drop a negative twice?
- parineum 1y agoYou're statement is not true. Disincentives don't make people make good choices, they make them make different choices. Incentives guide people to make a specific choice.
- morepedantic 1y agoIt is the role of a central planner to pick a particular outcome, and it's also the worst strategy of the modern era. Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Your belief that you should make the positive choice on behalf of others is the most dangerous philosophy of the 20th century.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- timewizard 1y agoFuel is already taxed. What would a "carbon tax" add here?
- rcpt 1y agoThe purpose of the CAFE regulations is very explicitly to favor American automakers who make big trucks.
- tlb 1y agoIt wasn't the intended purpose. It turned out that way because the Detroit lobbyists were smarter and more motivated than the government policy people, and they bamboozled them.
- smallmancontrov 1y agoThe congress critters knew what they were doing and didn't do it for free.
- aidenn0 1y agoThat was one of several purposes.
- bgnn 1y agowhy can't we just tax the gas at the pump? this is, at least, what I'm used to in Europe.
- brianwawok 1y agoWe do. But it’s a super regressive tax. Lots of very poor people depend on a bad MPG car to get to work and live.
- bgnn 1y agothat's a different problem. US cities used to have good publhc transport, but the urvanization policies since 50s is car-centric. plus, because of the American cars having huge engines they have bad MPG. The current situation US is in is nothing to do with the tax regime.
- morepedantic 1y agoIf you subsidize polluting life-styles, you'll get pollution. You think the rich suffer from pollution and car dependency? It's not at all clear that taxing gas will lead to worse outcomes for the poor. It's entirely clear that subsidizing pollution from the poor will lead to worse outcomes for the planet.
- kaishiro 1y agoWhat isn’t clear about the fact that increasing commuting costs for those living paycheck to paycheck leads to a worse outcome?
- morepedantic 1y agoBecause you're only considering first-order effects. Behaviors, markets, and systems will evolve around the new rules. Public transit could improve. People could trade in SUVs for hybrid sedans. People could carpool. People could bike. People could walk. Corner stores could re-open. People could demand zoning changes, instead of fighting every nearby development.
- ponector 1y agoI think the best way is to tax fuel itself. This way worse mpg result in more tax. Tax diesel more than gasoline, LNG less.
- michpoch 1y agoThis is already done, in Europe most of the fuel costs are taxes.
- ChadNauseam 1y agoThat makes sense, but there would be no incentive to switch to an engine that emits less carbon for the same fuel consumption (if such a thing exists)
- AdrianB1 1y agoYou don't create carbon out of thin air, it's from the fuel, so burning the same quantity of fuel will result in the same quantity of carbon, no matter how the engine works. Therefore a tax on fuel is a tax on carbon.
- idiotsecant 1y agoIncomplete combustion is a big component of emissions, and it's exactly what you're saying doesn't exist
- cma 1y agoThose eventually degrade to CO2 so the increased warming from them compared to co2 by mass is temporary, like with methane.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoYes but since incomplete combustion is inverse correlated with fuel efficiency (unburned fuel is wasted fuel), it's not really a trade off. What is a trade off is NO emissions vs fuel efficiency. Burning your fuel oxygen rich will burn of more fuel, but also makes more NO (due to higher temperatures if I remember correctly).
- guywithahat 1y agoI don’t think it would be possible to produce a carbon tax that’s simple
- patmcc 1y agoTax the fuel. Gasoline now has a $X/gallon tax, as does propane, as does coal, whatever. What is the difficulty with that?
- kasey_junk 1y agoIt’s extremely regressive. You’d need to also give a rebate based on income level.
- Spooky23 1y agoThat’s the excuse that is used for agriculture. They sell a vision of a Fisher Price toy farm, but make policy for giant Midwest farms. The proverbial blue collar truck owner is already screwed. Random surburban dude should be paying through the nose for his F-250. Create demand for fuel efficiency, and you’ll have cars like my dad’s 1993 Escort Wagon, that got 45mpg.
- patmcc 1y agoGive everybody $1000 (or whatever) to offset that. Ends up being neutral for some folks, a net benefit to the poor, and a net cost to the rich. This is already how lots of jurisdictions handle regressive taxes.
- morepedantic 1y agoTax the poor for carbon emission. They'll adjust. People will walk, bike, take the bus, car pool, and buy used hybrids instead of mustangs. PS, regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical.
- kasey_junk 1y ago> regressive use taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical Turns out you are wrong.
- conductr 1y agoThis has been a known problem and could be changed if the political will to make common sense policy changes and corrections when needed was anywhere near existing. Unfortunately, we live in a [political] dystopia
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> a simple carbon tax would be miles better than the complex morass of regulations we currently have Doesn't this just punt the morass into the magic variable of one's carbon footprint? How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.)
- SecretDreams 1y ago> How about this: fleet efficiency standards are stupid, anachronistic and counterproductive. Scrap them. Then, separarately, create a consumer-side rebate based on a vehicle's mileage. (Because a gas tax breaks American brains.) It's a good concept that is also ripe for abuse with anyone who has some amount of "fuck your rules" money. Same reason why fines that don't scale with income/earnings in some form often do nothing to deter "the rich". I certainly like carrots more than sticks, but we need a couple of sticks as well.
- morepedantic 1y agoScaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, at which point just make it illegal. Most fines are proportional to damages. Criminalizing fossil fuels is insane. The fines should cover the externalities.
- SecretDreams 1y ago> Scaling fines with income only works to hard stop behavior, No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. What does someone affluent care if they have to pay a $100 speeding ticket or a $20 parking ticket? That's just the cost of business for them.
- morepedantic 1y ago>No, it makes it so that the outcome is more equally felt across all income levels. Because you want to... hard stop behavior. Parking violations cause harm, so the fine should be a function of damage to society, not some weird fetish to make people feel pain. If behavior is so unacceptable that you want to prevent it altogether, criminalize it.
- osigurdson 1y agoIf interested in a case study, have a look at Canada's experiment with it.