7 ms·

We should consider a single plastic toy, bought from Amazon, used for a few months and thrown away: The material and minerals are taken from the ground, factori

We should consider a single plastic toy, bought from Amazon, used for a few months and thrown away: The material and minerals are taken from the ground, factories to produce it, ship to the harbour, overseas, to stores, to the consumer, and then - disposal? For what? Animals are living creatures, that inspired (and still inspire - so many movies, stories, sport teams, logos, metaphors) humanity for ages. Many, many daily things we can really live without. Think shoedazzle. Do we really need new shoes monthly, or "get obsessed"[1] about shoes? Can we at least buy something with better quality that lasts for years? This shopping and comforts have a cruel irreversible price tag on animals and wildlife. Add to this wars and conflicts all around the world, and the results are devastating. [1] Home page of http://www.shoedazzle.com/ http://www.shoedazzle.com/

judk 12y ago
Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.
- robertfw 12y ago
  The need for more pervades everyone, it is not a matter of "I have spare cash, lets spend it!", our society revolves around the accumulation of crap. It is a broad cultural change that is needed, not a tax code tweak.
- mrfusion 12y ago
  Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an income tax that discourages working.
  - minikites 12y ago
    Taxes on income don't reduce working any more than the price of insulin affects how much a diabetic needs. If your taxes go up 5% tomorrow, would you work 5% less?
    - mrfusion 12y ago
      I think over the long term it would affect my decision, yes.
      - efuquen 12y ago
        Please explain this reasoning? Do you have any direct evidence this would be the case, in a general sense and not just personally? Income taxes in the US were the highest they've ever been in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and those were some of the most productive decades in this country's history.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      This is just false. Even Slate, which is hardly a right-wing bastion, concedes that there is an effect (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/if_they_tax_do_we_relax.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...) If we subjected you to a 99% tax rate tomorrow, would you work less than before? A yes answer is all that is needed to concede the point theoretically. Then, we're just arguing about magnitude. And I just don't believe you if you answer no: Who is going to work a full-time $50,000 a year job when they're only taking home $500/year? For further reading, Paul Graham has argued that redistribution through higher tax rates leas to less entrepreneurship (http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)
      - SnowProblem 12y ago
        If you suddenly went from a 30% to 40% tax rate, couldn't you imagine working more to make up the difference? There is a lot of social pressure to maintain lifestyle. American wages have stagnated since the 70s and people are working longer hours than ever.
        jeremyt 12y ago
        To answer your question honestly, it's going to depend on how much disposable income I have. If I'm making enough to pay for all of my needs and wants after the rate goes up, then I'll probably work less... Because what's the point? If the difference is whether I can pay rent or not, then I'll probably work more.
  - dntrkv 12y ago
    Isn't consumption what drives the huge American economy? I'm not an economist, but it seems like implementing a bigger sales tax would reduce consumption, which would reduce profits, which would results in less jobs and smaller salaries. So in effect you would be reducing take home pay and increasing the price of goods. Is my logic here incorrect?
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  I'd argue it isn't the wealthy buying disposable goods. They have the money to buy the good stuff. If any demographic is buying more often than the other, it's actually the poor, who don't have the money to spend $1,000 for a blender that may last.
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
>For what? Money. I think that you just described the tragedy of the commons.[1] Individuals acting in their own self-interest contrary to everyone's long-term best interests by depleting common resources. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

judk 12y ago

Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.

robertfw 12y ago
The need for more pervades everyone, it is not a matter of "I have spare cash, lets spend it!", our society revolves around the accumulation of crap. It is a broad cultural change that is needed, not a tax code tweak.
mrfusion 12y ago
Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an income tax that discourages working.
- minikites 12y ago
  Taxes on income don't reduce working any more than the price of insulin affects how much a diabetic needs. If your taxes go up 5% tomorrow, would you work 5% less?
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    I think over the long term it would affect my decision, yes.
    - efuquen 12y ago
      Please explain this reasoning? Do you have any direct evidence this would be the case, in a general sense and not just personally? Income taxes in the US were the highest they've ever been in the 50s, 60s, and 70s and those were some of the most productive decades in this country's history.
  - jeremyt 12y ago
    This is just false. Even Slate, which is hardly a right-wing bastion, concedes that there is an effect (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/if_they_tax_do_we_relax.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...) If we subjected you to a 99% tax rate tomorrow, would you work less than before? A yes answer is all that is needed to concede the point theoretically. Then, we're just arguing about magnitude. And I just don't believe you if you answer no: Who is going to work a full-time $50,000 a year job when they're only taking home $500/year? For further reading, Paul Graham has argued that redistribution through higher tax rates leas to less entrepreneurship (http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)
    - SnowProblem 12y ago
      If you suddenly went from a 30% to 40% tax rate, couldn't you imagine working more to make up the difference? There is a lot of social pressure to maintain lifestyle. American wages have stagnated since the 70s and people are working longer hours than ever.
      - jeremyt 12y ago
        To answer your question honestly, it's going to depend on how much disposable income I have. If I'm making enough to pay for all of my needs and wants after the rate goes up, then I'll probably work less... Because what's the point? If the difference is whether I can pay rent or not, then I'll probably work more.
- dntrkv 12y ago
  Isn't consumption what drives the huge American economy? I'm not an economist, but it seems like implementing a bigger sales tax would reduce consumption, which would reduce profits, which would results in less jobs and smaller salaries. So in effect you would be reducing take home pay and increasing the price of goods. Is my logic here incorrect?
TheCraiggers 12y ago
I'd argue it isn't the wealthy buying disposable goods. They have the money to buy the good stuff. If any demographic is buying more often than the other, it's actually the poor, who don't have the money to spend $1,000 for a blender that may last.

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago

>For what? Money. I think that you just described the tragedy of the commons.[1] Individuals acting in their own self-interest contrary to everyone's long-term best interests by depleting common resources. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons