4 ms·

Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd, and I'm not even sure it's particularly tied to a "system". Being rich means you

by latch 12y ago

Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd, and I'm not even sure it's particularly tied to a "system". Being rich means you get to fly business class or first class, which means you get to pollute more. It means you get to upgrade your toxic electronics yearly instead of having to sacrifice and make them last 2 years. You can get to eat rarer and presumably more expensive food. You get to live in a bigger house, which destroyed more land, and takes more energy. You get a bigger wardrobe, and a greater number of watches. You can keep your house at 20C during summer instead of 30C. You get to drink imported beer instead of Budweiser. Or, inverse: why does someone rich like you get to pollute with their car, when someone poor like me has to take the bus? This is specifically what the tax tries to address. And even if the super-rich don't care, you end up with a lot of money (and it would be a lot), that can easily result in net gains; assuming your government isn't stupid (you know, like stop putting money into oil sands projects and establish yourself as a leader in practically any other technology).

bnegreve 12y ago
> Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd. Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person. Now, taxes are fine in many cases, but not always. For example, you probably wouldn't want to live in a country where you can pay for a (taxed) killing service. Hopefully, we agree that this would be "odd". The problem here is precisely to decide whether it is odd or not to let people emit as much as CO2 as they want (provided that they pay for the tax). Or if we should put a hard limit on it (i.e. a regulation). I personally think it is indeed a bit odd.
- zo1 12y ago
  >"Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person." A sad world we live in when people view taxes as a means to "control" the amount of consumption by the rich.
  - bnegreve 12y ago
    Taxes such as the ones on CO2 emissions are made to influence people's behaviour. That's why I think strict regulations are sometime better than taxes because they don't really influence people, or at least not in a sneaky way like taxes do.

by latch 12y ago

bnegreve 12y ago

> Someone with money gets to consume more than someone without. This isn't odd. Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person. Now, taxes are fine in many cases, but not always. For example, you probably wouldn't want to live in a country where you can pay for a (taxed) killing service. Hopefully, we agree that this would be "odd". The problem here is precisely to decide whether it is odd or not to let people emit as much as CO2 as they want (provided that they pay for the tax). Or if we should put a hard limit on it (i.e. a regulation). I personally think it is indeed a bit odd.

zo1 12y ago
>"Yes, but taxes and regulations are meant to exert a control how much more you can consume as a rich person." A sad world we live in when people view taxes as a means to "control" the amount of consumption by the rich.
- bnegreve 12y ago
  Taxes such as the ones on CO2 emissions are made to influence people's behaviour. That's why I think strict regulations are sometime better than taxes because they don't really influence people, or at least not in a sneaky way like taxes do.