6 ms·

It sounds like your argument is to make fuel and power more expensive? How does that not disproportionately harm poor communities, and how is that not just a ca

It sounds like your argument is to make fuel and power more expensive? How does that not disproportionately harm poor communities, and how is that not just a carbon tax with extra steps? EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass or "Getcha", just trying to see where you're coming from.

antris 5y ago
Part of the tax income being directed towards income support for the least wealthy people.
marchingtomars 5y ago
I think we need to take Money from those who have done the polluting, to their private financial gain, at the expensive of the public of our planet, since a certain timeframe-- such as 1950. Those who have made decisions leading to massive pollution expulsion while they profited... those are the ones who should pay first. People such as: - The Koch brothers - The Military and the politicians, bureaucrats, and Weapons company executives associated with bases & machines that have spilled the most pollutants - Executives of Fossil Fuel companies See, it's like we're playing this game where... a window was open and these executives were able to loot the house and escape. And now they are trying to close that window and run off with their loot. Nope, bring them back. Hold them accountable. Take the assets they (their family, their estate) earned while polluting our planet. Do that, before looking at the little guy and saying "Pay your fair share!" Because my question is "What about those evil sociopathic polluting fat cats who not only got away, but lobbied and legislated to allow their escape"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cromka 5y ago
I suppose this could be solved by having non-linear energy pricing. I.e. if you use up to whatever your total consumption should comfortably be as a person, you pay the regular rate. Once you hit what would be considered unrealistic consumption, you pay twice the rate or so.
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  Means testing has never been a positive thing for poor people. I don’t believe you can have capitalism without rampant global warming. We should already understand these dystopian proposals are just asking for failure.
spiralx 5y ago
You pair the tax with a redistributive dividend to ensure that the change is neutral for the least well-off. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-dividends-are-having-a-moment/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-divi... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-a-win-win-for-people-and-for-the-climate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-...
- derekjdanserl 5y ago
  So, means testing?
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    As implemented in Canada, no; all carbon tax dividends (less an amdminisrration fee?) are distrubuted equally to citizens. At least that’s my understanding. I haven’t studied it deeply. The net result is that the people with the lowest carbon footprint make a profit and the ones with the most take a loss. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.

antris 5y ago

Part of the tax income being directed towards income support for the least wealthy people.

marchingtomars 5y ago

I think we need to take Money from those who have done the polluting, to their private financial gain, at the expensive of the public of our planet, since a certain timeframe-- such as 1950. Those who have made decisions leading to massive pollution expulsion while they profited... those are the ones who should pay first. People such as: - The Koch brothers - The Military and the politicians, bureaucrats, and Weapons company executives associated with bases & machines that have spilled the most pollutants - Executives of Fossil Fuel companies See, it's like we're playing this game where... a window was open and these executives were able to loot the house and escape. And now they are trying to close that window and run off with their loot. Nope, bring them back. Hold them accountable. Take the assets they (their family, their estate) earned while polluting our planet. Do that, before looking at the little guy and saying "Pay your fair share!" Because my question is "What about those evil sociopathic polluting fat cats who not only got away, but lobbied and legislated to allow their escape"

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cromka 5y ago

I suppose this could be solved by having non-linear energy pricing. I.e. if you use up to whatever your total consumption should comfortably be as a person, you pay the regular rate. Once you hit what would be considered unrealistic consumption, you pay twice the rate or so.

derekjdanserl 5y ago
Means testing has never been a positive thing for poor people. I don’t believe you can have capitalism without rampant global warming. We should already understand these dystopian proposals are just asking for failure.

spiralx 5y ago

You pair the tax with a redistributive dividend to ensure that the change is neutral for the least well-off. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-dividends-are-having-a-moment/ https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-divi... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-a-win-win-for-people-and-for-the-climate/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-...

derekjdanserl 5y ago
So, means testing?
- jdlshore 5y ago
  As implemented in Canada, no; all carbon tax dividends (less an amdminisrration fee?) are distrubuted equally to citizens. At least that’s my understanding. I haven’t studied it deeply. The net result is that the people with the lowest carbon footprint make a profit and the ones with the most take a loss. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.