I don't understand the narrative around Socialism these days and even less why nobody tells it like it is.
This thread is in part related to the few minutes I caught of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 60 minutes...

So somebody is greedy if they seek to make a profit, but it is not greed if you want to see that money taken off them and distributed to yourself?  :ugh:
"Ocasio-Cortez has opposed and voted against the Democratic lead pay-as-you-go rule that is designed to prevent an increase to the deficit by requiring new expenditures be met with either a tax increase or a matching spending cut. She joins Ro Khanna in condemning the rule as hamstringing new or expanded progressive policies."
This is rife in my  country also, idealism without monetary constraint.
I remember an interview with a lifeguard where they said the first rule you are taught is don't drown yourself as you can't help anyone.
Well a bankrupt economy cannot support anyone.

So we should tax the rich at 70% to pay for renewable energy? Yes, according to AOC.

This is a sign that neither the left or the right cares about the environment.
If you care about the environment, then you are willing for every man woman and child to pay for it.
The Paris Climate accords show us that politicians are unable to have an intelligent conversation with their constituents in any country.
These climate targets would see an increase in energy costs in the vicinity of US$5,000 per houselhold.

In 2017, the marginal cost of generating power from an existing coal station is less than $40/MWh, while wind power is $60-70/MWh (explained below). So why do people say renewables are now cheaper than coal?
Is it because we are going to tax the crap out of carbon? That doesn't make it cheaper.

Nobody discusses the cost to people and everyone just says that yes climate change is important is someone else is paying...  :suspic:
Renewable energy is a joke, people keep talking about the cost of renewable energy coming down which it is... But it is not always sunny or windy... So...
In the absence of real storage technology (Which is slowly advancing) we still need fossil fuel base load power.
So we will in fact have two energy networks running side by side.
Okay, maybe you burn less coal and oil, which makes for a small impact in the price of the energy, but the power generators still have the same overheads for maintenance and transmission, so the less energy we use of the base systems the more expensive per kw/hr.

What happens when you ignore the ramifications and try to meet arbitrary targets for renewable energy and decreased carbon usage.
You get riots like the yellow vest movement in Paris:
The nationwide protests have been escalating since Nov. 17, amid growing anger over rising fuel taxes and the high cost of living.
Why is the cost of fuel rising? Taxes including a carbon tax to assist in meeting the Paris accords.


It's all a disaster and the world is screwed, because nobody wants to pay for what we need.
If you think that taxing somebody else is the answer to solving the climate change dilemma then it makes you part of the problem.

We cannot have things that we cannot pay for.
Reform the tax system everywhere, flat 30% tax across business and all individuals with no exemptions.
let investment in renewable energies be considered a tax credit and see what happens.
We are simply not going to lower our carbon productions, so lets see the best way to deal with the results.
Simplest way is to pour money into Nuclear Fusion research and in the short term, nuclear power.

iNCY rant over  :rockin:

I just want to clarify you know a 70% tax rate doesn’t mean you take $7 out of every $10 a person makes, right?

Before I debate, just want to make sure we’re on the same page.

Yes, I do understand how taxation works.
An argument for higher taxes is a different one to whether everyone has a responsibility in regards to addressing and financing action on climate change, is it not?

I mean, no, not really. Those with the (far, far) greater resources can far more easily support the initiatives.

Flat taxes always disproportionately impact the poor, because the base living expenses take up a far larger amount of their limited income than the wealthy. Raising their income to ~triple the current rate is only going to damage their lives.

The country thrived at a higher tax rate than this for the rich. They'll be JUST fine supporting a 70% tax rate.

Jan 16, 2019 23:15:30 GMT KJ said:

I mean, no, not really. Those with the (far, far) greater resources can far more easily support the initiatives.

Flat taxes always disproportionately impact the poor, because the base living expenses take up a far larger amount of their limited income than the wealthy. Raising their income to ~triple the current rate is only going to damage their lives.

The country thrived at a higher tax rate than this for the rich. They'll be JUST fine supporting a 70% tax rate.

Okay, that is not the question though...
Does climate change affect all people?

The whole point of climate change policy is to increase the price of energy until it hurts, forcing people and business to find lower energy consuming methods of living their lives.
Do you think that nobody on an average income or below should be hurt by rising energy costs?
Because if you are, you are saying climate change is not important comparatively to a person's quality of life.

And you're not alone, the majority of the world just don't have the balls to say that they don't really care that much about climate change.  :verysad:
I'm not trying to be an asshole (As you know, I don't need to try :rolleyes: ) I am neither an optimist or a pessimist, I am a realist.

This thread is linking climate change and the tax rate, as if it's a 1:1 ratio. That entire position is a loaded question at best.

Of course climate change impacts everyone.

And of course everyone cannot support the fight against climate change, be it equal percentages of income or dollars.

It's always the middle of the road the fight hardest for the 1%. It's the most insane thing I've ever seen. The big income families will be JUST FINE.

Jan 17, 2019 0:47:45 GMT KJ said:

This thread is linking climate change and the tax rate, as if it's a 1:1 ratio. That entire position is a loaded question at best.

Of course climate change impacts everyone.

And of course everyone cannot support the fight against climate change, be it equal percentages of income or dollars.

It's always the middle of the road the fight hardest for the 1%. It's the most insane thing I've ever seen. The big income families will be JUST FINE.

So studies have shown that achieving the Paris climate targets increase the cost of energy to a family at approximately $5,000 per year.
Your answer is that the richer people should pay a greater portion of the increased energy costs.

The problem with your answer is that it is exactly the pain on increased energy costs that drives societies to lower the energy usage.
In your model there is no net reduction in carbon, because the price has increased but there is no pain.
The whole point of the Paris targets is "No, you can't have a car running on gasoline" and the way this is accomplished is by taxing the living hell out of energy until the point most people can't afford it and the market cries out for affordable electric vehicles that run on unicorn tears and fairy farts.

And when you do this... You get riots, like France.
But nobody has the courage to tell it like this to the broader population.
You can eat beef and drive a big car or you can have no global warming, they're your choices.

Yes, that is my answer.

Jan 17, 2019 1:16:02 GMT KJ said:

Yes, that is my answer.

So then not a serious issue?
You think everyone should scrap the Paris accords and look for a way to manage our inevitable Global warming?

If you are advocating no significant increases in energy prices for the vast percentage of the population then the treaty is impossible to meet.
Just so we're clear, the targets are a 26% reduction in Carbon in 2035 from 2005 levels.
Even achieving this, temperatures go up a degree.

You stated: Your answer is that the richer people should pay a greater portion of the increased energy costs.

Yes. That is my answer. The wealthy will pay more than the poor. Because they can.

If YOU really cared about climate change, you wouldn’t be trying to balance a checkbook that treats everyone equally. You’re more worried about “capitalism.” It’s cool - just admit it.

Jan 17, 2019 11:14:33 GMT KJ said:

You stated: Your answer is that the richer people should pay a greater portion of the increased energy costs.

Yes. That is my answer. The wealthy will pay more than the poor. Because they can.

If YOU really cared about climate change, you wouldn’t be trying to balance a checkbook that treats everyone equally. You’re more worried about “capitalism.” It’s cool - just admit it.

No, I'm not I advocate a 90% death tax on anything over a million dollars...

If the whole method of reducing the consumption of energy is to make it more expensive, except we now say we're not going to make it more expensive for most people...
Then you have no climate policy at all.

Jan 17, 2019 12:45:33 GMT iNCY said:

Jan 17, 2019 11:14:33 GMT KJ said:

You stated: Your answer is that the richer people should pay a greater portion of the increased energy costs.

Yes. That is my answer. The wealthy will pay more than the poor. Because they can.

If YOU really cared about climate change, you wouldn’t be trying to balance a checkbook that treats everyone equally. You’re more worried about “capitalism.” It’s cool - just admit it.

No, I'm not I advocate a 90% death tax on anything over a million dollars...

If the whole method of reducing the consumption of energy is to make it more expensive, except we now say we're not going to make it more expensive for most people...
Then you have no climate policy at all.

Yeah, the tax isn’t limited to consumption. I think that should happen too. They both should happen and policies should be dedicated towards making fossil fuels more expensive AND deeper rebates on alternative energy for all consumers.

It has to hurt everyone or there's no change in behaviour.

You can discourage smoking by increasing the sales tax on cigarettes until they are prohibitively expensive.
But... if you then say they're too expensive for poor people so we are going to keep the price the same but increase income taxes on the rich.... What is the net effect of the policy?

I agree the Government should over tax incentives for companies to work in the field of carbon reduction whatever form that takes. I think narrowing to renewable energy is a mistake. Carbon capture, nuclear waste storage and disposal are examples of areas that could have profound impacts.

Taxes on climate change are easy. And whether your classic left leaning government admits it or not, it's little to do with 'rising temperatures' and more to do with offsetting idiotic spending.

Take the car for example. In the last 40 years, if there had been little advancement in fuel efficiency, power and performance of the engine and of course emissions, and your first thought as a politician or big thinker was to simply tax the driver more for the right to drive such an outdated and agriculture machine instead of the development of a much better, more efficient, cleaner vehicle - your thinking is wrong. 

I see a lot of talk about taxes, and targets but little actual action around real sustainability from anyone. Or change. Or development. At least in my electorate. My State.. well, most of Australia.

Jan 17, 2019 22:35:50 GMT NATH45 said:

Taxes on climate change are easy. And whether your classic left leaning government admits it or not, it's little to do with 'rising temperatures' and more to do with offsetting idiotic spending.

Take the car for example. In the last 40 years, if there had been little advancement in fuel efficiency, power and performance of the engine and of course emissions, and your first thought as a politician or big thinker was to simply tax the driver more for the right to drive such an outdated and agriculture machine instead of the development of a much better, more efficient, cleaner vehicle - your thinking is wrong. 

I see a lot of talk about taxes, and targets but little actual action around real sustainability from anyone. Or change. Or development. At least in my electorate. My State.. well, most of Australia.

Yes, you are exactly right.
In a market based economy, nothing changes until their is a financial requirement for them to do so.
What does a company stand to gain from sinking millions of dollars into research and development if their is no financial reason to do so?
Altruism doesn't rate highly on the list of Shareholder concerns.

I don’t have any trouble with the idea of doing both, increasing the cost of energy (whether that be through gas taxes, taxation on unsustainable industries like beef that will be passed on to consumers, etc.) and taxing the rich at a higher rate to find the resources to pay for solutions.

Jan 18, 2019 2:40:07 GMT mikec said:

I don’t have any trouble with the idea of doing both, increasing the cost of energy (whether that be through gas taxes, taxation on unsustainable industries like beef that will be passed on to consumers, etc.) and taxing the rich at a higher rate to find the resources to pay for solutions.

Agreed.

One penalized old tech, the other funds new.