4 ms·

I'm not sure what you're even going off on at this point. You completely ignored my comment about how CA is handling things like fire code and fire insurance. I

I'm not sure what you're even going off on at this point. You completely ignored my comment about how CA is handling things like fire code and fire insurance. It seems like youre just trying to start a political flame war.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
I'm unsure how this isn't political. Some states are economic engines of the US, some states are net takers of resources. States that have resources by way of being economic engines should protect themselves from the coming impact of climate change (if one doesn't believe in climate change, or the impending risk it presents, don't bother replying, there is no common ground to be had). That's it, that's the thesis. How California is handling fire code and mitigation currently is somewhat immaterial; more importantly, they have the resources by way of their economy to fix the problem if and when they choose to (to spend to de-risk against fire risk). They have the economy of a developed nation state. They can spend whatever is required when they decide to appropriately spend. If you don't have the resources to defend against climate risk, or don't believe in the risk, you have little recourse against it. This could've been a collective action problem at the nation state level; it no longer is due to political choices by people who believe a global climate phenomenon is a hoax. So those who can afford it must go it alone for the foreseeable future.
- giantg2 1y ago
  So according to you CA has the resources to rebuild themselves and should protect themselves, but you consider it immaterial that they are choosing not to protect themselves with fire code and insurance changes? This sounds classist - we can do whatever we want because we have money, but we don't want to pay taxes because that might help other states that are also making suboptimal choices. But both Florida and Texas (your examples) are also donor states. It's hard to find what the basis is for your thesis when it seems to be applied irrespective of the facts.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    Yes, I am saying if you have the economic resources as a state, you should not help other states economically that do not believe in climate change (within the context of climate mitigation spending and transfers). Why would you help people working against you or who don't believe in what you're defending against?
    - giantg2 1y ago
      Money is fungible, taxes don't work that way, both of your examples of FL and TX produce more fed tax revenue than they receive, so it's hard to see how you think this would apply.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        States can increase their income taxes, which can be deducted against federal income taxes. This keeps the tax revenue internal to the state and avoids sending it to a federal government who would spend the tax revenue suboptimally. These funds can be spent on climate mitigation programs within a state. If your state has no income tax and relies on the federal government, that’s unfortunate (I suppose increasing property and sales tax is an option, if not regressive). SALT limits have been bumped to $40k from $10k: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction Lots of ways to make this work with policy.
        giantg2 1y ago
        Not really. They're still going to get the money, but the deficit will be bigger.
        jaybrendansmith 1y ago
        Love this line of thought. Tired of dealing with bible thumpers who can't understand the basic physics of carbon in the atmosphere. All productive states (aka BLUE states) should keep their money and tell the feds to FAFO at this point. We need to protect ourselves, if they want to have their idiotic belief systems that's too bad. "Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn't care."

toomuchtodo 1y ago

I'm unsure how this isn't political. Some states are economic engines of the US, some states are net takers of resources. States that have resources by way of being economic engines should protect themselves from the coming impact of climate change (if one doesn't believe in climate change, or the impending risk it presents, don't bother replying, there is no common ground to be had). That's it, that's the thesis. How California is handling fire code and mitigation currently is somewhat immaterial; more importantly, they have the resources by way of their economy to fix the problem if and when they choose to (to spend to de-risk against fire risk). They have the economy of a developed nation state. They can spend whatever is required when they decide to appropriately spend. If you don't have the resources to defend against climate risk, or don't believe in the risk, you have little recourse against it. This could've been a collective action problem at the nation state level; it no longer is due to political choices by people who believe a global climate phenomenon is a hoax. So those who can afford it must go it alone for the foreseeable future.

giantg2 1y ago
So according to you CA has the resources to rebuild themselves and should protect themselves, but you consider it immaterial that they are choosing not to protect themselves with fire code and insurance changes? This sounds classist - we can do whatever we want because we have money, but we don't want to pay taxes because that might help other states that are also making suboptimal choices. But both Florida and Texas (your examples) are also donor states. It's hard to find what the basis is for your thesis when it seems to be applied irrespective of the facts.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  Yes, I am saying if you have the economic resources as a state, you should not help other states economically that do not believe in climate change (within the context of climate mitigation spending and transfers). Why would you help people working against you or who don't believe in what you're defending against?
  - giantg2 1y ago
    Money is fungible, taxes don't work that way, both of your examples of FL and TX produce more fed tax revenue than they receive, so it's hard to see how you think this would apply.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      States can increase their income taxes, which can be deducted against federal income taxes. This keeps the tax revenue internal to the state and avoids sending it to a federal government who would spend the tax revenue suboptimally. These funds can be spent on climate mitigation programs within a state. If your state has no income tax and relies on the federal government, that’s unfortunate (I suppose increasing property and sales tax is an option, if not regressive). SALT limits have been bumped to $40k from $10k: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/taxes/salt-tax-deduction Lots of ways to make this work with policy.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        Not really. They're still going to get the money, but the deficit will be bigger.
      - jaybrendansmith 1y ago
        Love this line of thought. Tired of dealing with bible thumpers who can't understand the basic physics of carbon in the atmosphere. All productive states (aka BLUE states) should keep their money and tell the feds to FAFO at this point. We need to protect ourselves, if they want to have their idiotic belief systems that's too bad. "Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy - live or die - is strictly your business and the universe doesn't care."