I apologize if that hurt your feelings. Seriously though, you aren't trying very hard to understand the points being made.
Climate change extremes?
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
You don't think euthanizing people would be fascist or some other really bad -ist?
Another example of you being purposefully dense or lazy. Can't help you much with that...
Is the rise in CO2 as alarming as we're told? If the answer is yes, our efforts at reduction should match the level of alarm using all possible means, not just politically palatable to the wealthy ones.
You didn't hurt my feelings. I'm just pointing out the obvious. When you start throwing out the ad hominems and start the "you aren't trying to comprehend" posts, it's because you can't post a rebuttal of any substance. It happens every single time we have this discussion.
Do you actually believe this is a defensible position or is it just really bad trolling?
Sorry, your the dude who insists that either we need to kill humans or this issue doesn't exist. If you truly can't see any other courses forward you are not as intelligent as I believed, not willing to approach this issue with an open mind, or perhaps something else.
If you really believed in global warming you would be in favor of death squads
I'm not the one struggling to defend anything. Either the rise of CO2 is alarming and the certain peril of our planet is on deck as a result or it isn't.
What is your belief, dave?
OK dave, show me where I insisted we kill humans. You seem to be getting Toon level desperate. Hopefully you can quote the post I said that in to back up this juvenile post of yours. Toon level posts from you kind of surprises me.
How will we track fuel use? And will an annual rebate actually work for poor people who will be hardest hit by a fuel tax at the time of purchase? Will once a year help their ability to afford gas to get to work and still eat?
How can we track individual fuel use through tracking production tax?
Weekly rebates sounds like a very large and expensive endeavor.
The farting and breathing thing?
Let me revise: if you really believe in global warming you would be in favor of Russian revolution style limits on housing and travel
You don't have to track individual use if you track production.
My company is about to go out of business due to cutting weekly checks
If we're not tracking individual use, how are we going to know that you're using 80 gallons of gas per week because you choose to drive a Bentley Flying Spur and I only use 10 gallons a week because I drive a Hyundai Accent?
Pointing out that humans produce CO2 by farting and breathing is advocating Russian revolution style limits on housing and travel?
Do you understand the level of rip-ass someone has to achieve to come close to your average automobile’s CO2 emissions?
I know that. Those taxes generally hurt poor people while having a negligible impact on the wealthy. If you tax at a level that will financially impact the wealthy, the poor will be priced out of buying gas. You brought up redistribution as a solution to that. I asked what the redistribution looks like. You said rebates. Now I'm trying to figure out how those rebates will be determined.
Rebates are equally distributed. Taxes vary with consumption, everyone gets the same rebate though.
I'll agree to it if every other person in the world also agrees to paying their share of their commensurate CO2 footprint. Not just in writing. Anyone can pencil whip a document. But in actual green dollars and/or life style changes.
Get the real offenders to pay (China, India) and I'll pay. Until then, we'll continue to be good stewards of the environment but won't fund other people's lives.
Get the real offenders to pay (China, India) and I'll pay. Until then, we'll continue to be good stewards of the environment but won't fund other people's lives.
I'm making some proposals to reduce the outsized share of CO2 emissions that the wealthy produce. Reducing the human contribution to climate change probably needs something more than lip service.
So a person making 12,000 a year gets the same rebate as someone making 60,000 a year? Explain to me how that design alleviates the disproportionate financial burden that a production tax puts on lower income people.
Just skipping right over the more palatable solutions though because it is hard to write weekly checks.
Yes. If you use less than average amount of fuel then your rebate is a larger amount than the taxes paid on the production of fuel you use.
I'm going to use hypothetical numbers to see this with math. Tell me if I have your concept down.
We're going to impose an additional $5.00 per gallon tax on gasoline production. We'll say that gas is currently $3.50 a gallon. The total consumer cost is $8.50 per gallon. For simplicity, the set average use is 20 gallons per week.
Jan is low income, making $231 a week. She drives a fuel efficient car and uses 12 gallons of gas per week per week. She was paying $42 a week for gasoline, or 18% of her weekly income. She's now paying $102 a week for the same gas, or 44% of her weekly income. To break even she will need to recoup the extra $60 tax burden.
Bill is middle class, making $1,385 per week. His family uses 20 gallons of gas per week, right at the average. He was paying $70 a week for gas, 5% of his income. He's now paying $170 per week, 12% of his income. He would need to recoup $100 per week to break even.
Ralph is a high earner, making $27,077 per week. His family has several gas guzzling luxury cars and uses 70 gallons per week. He was paying $245 per week on gas, just barely 1% of his weekly income. He's now paying $595, 2% of his income. He would need to recoup $350 per week to break even.
A week's tax collection for the 3 would be $510 dollars. I'm assuming that revenue would pay for the rebate program but the cost to administer would be negligible, let's say $10 per week for these 3 people?
If we divide it equally, $167 per person, Jan actually makes money from the program, an additional $65 per week. Bill's tax burden is essentially none. Ralph's tax burden after rebate is actually just an additional 0.7% of his weekly income.
Assuming this is the idea, will Ralph really get rid of the gas guzzling luxury vehicles and significantly reduce his family's carbon emissions over a mere 0.7% additional tax burden on his weekly income? I'm not convinced. While Jan will definitely benefit monetarily, Ralph and Bill will likely not change much of what they do.
If the goal is just to transfer wealth from Ralph to Jan, sounds like a great idea. If the goal is reducing carbon emissions, I'm not seeing it.
Gotta use the average consumption specified above. The revenue per person on average will be $100, and the rebate per person on average will be $100. We will administer it with general Treasury Department funds just to keep the numbers round.
You got the dynamics figured out. If $5 a gallon is not enough to reduce consumption, just increase the tax to $10 per gallon. Is it your contention that there is no price at which we would use less gas on aggregate?
Looks like Jan is about to upgrade to an F350.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
90 Million Shady Transactions from Over 4 Million Government Credit Cards
- Latest: LAY THE WOODY
-