|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 19, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
I mean, they would pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Not that the quantity would be greater.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean, they would pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. Not that the quantity would be greater.
Your still not explaining how the poor would pay more during a carbon tax.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Let's say a poor person makes $40,000 a year, and a rich person makes a million a year. Let's say they drive the same distance to work. Let us also assume that they drive cars with about equal km/l. Then, they would pay the same amount of tax, but it would be a larger percentage of the poor person's income, since his income is smaller.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's say a poor person makes $40,000 a year, and a rich person makes a million a year. Let's say they drive the same distance to work. Let us also assume that they drive cars with about equal km/l. Then, they would pay the same amount of tax, but it would be a larger percentage of the poor person's income, since his income is smaller.
 Wrong move pal.
Your suggesting to tax the people instead of the factory. The sad truth is that the tax on the people will have no effect whatsoever, the tax on factorys MAY have a small effect.
So please, get your mind right before you try to suggest carbon tax again. Non-needed taxing is completely useless.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:46 PM |
|
|
We'd be taxing gas, which causes pollution. This would encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 10:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We'd be taxing gas, which causes pollution. This would encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient cars.
*fails Will check very badly*
We'd be taxing pollution, and by that you must attack the factory not the people. In a war you want the general or places making weapons down, in contrast to the common solider. You want the recruitment camps gone, before you got soliders everywhere running around like ants.
Gas tax? SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE! Lets do someting that has no effect and is just an excuse to hoard money to the goverment, and that is what it is.
Leave the people alone, if they want cars that don't pollute but nobody produces those they can't have em.
Enforce regulations instead. No car with pollution over X cannot be sold on the marked, nor traded. Do a bonus to scap old pollution cars instead, just do that instead. Tax the industri that spews out chemicals instead if we are doing pollution tax, but then again if its impossible to scale it without making it break the point.
So basicaly we are selling of the enviroment, and basicaly in this case means we would do that. A pollution tax on the top of heavy regulations on the other hand would be the exact opposite, it would be someting that is made for the ends.
Enforce in heavy teaching on pollution in the schools on the top of that, so we don't have a "that bad" bunch of sheeps. The people are sheeps, the goverment can be shepards or wolfs.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 11:10 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:11, 19 Apr 2009.
|
I'm with Diablo on this one.
What once seemed like a rational idea suddenly turned into an utter fail for more than obvious reasons.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 11:15 PM |
|
|
Forbidding and/or Taxing stuff is more a nuissance than it is a good reaction. People should be encouraged positively, rather than annoyed with suchs measures.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 12:18 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:20, 20 Apr 2009.
|
MVass, I think you missed the thread.
This one is about Greens. 
Yeah, I know, it gets confusing after you flood the entire OSM with the same topic.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 01:26 AM |
|
|
Oops! I'm sorry. I feel very stupid now. 
Anyway, cars produce a great deal of pollution, and encouraging fuel efficiency by making pollution more expensive would go a good way to solving that. Cap-and-trade is a separate measure which would affect factories and the like - completely independently of the gas tax.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Forbidding and/or Taxing stuff is more a nuissance than it is a good reaction. People should be encouraged positively, rather than annoyed with suchs measures.
That's only until they get used to it.
Or else you go and "encourage positively" terrorists too, for example. It doesn't always work
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 03:11 AM |
|
|
Lexxan:
I prefer taxing pollution because pollution is a negative thing.
Next thing you know, we'll be paying people not to murder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 10:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, cars produce a great deal of pollution, and encouraging fuel efficiency by making pollution more expensive would go a good way to solving that.
................... People can only buy those cars if they are sold, and people(the sheeps) are not making them.
Quote:
Cap-and-trade is a separate measure which would affect factories and the like - completely independently of the gas tax.
Admite defeat. It was not in your initial suggestion, and you opposed it in ways.
Pollution tax without heavy regulations is just a bad excuse to make money.
Quote:
Forbidding and/or Taxing stuff is more a nuissance than it is a good reaction. People should be encouraged positively, rather than annoyed with suchs measures.
Lets se: The people who makes and sell cars would be affected, and the scrap deal would not be crap for those cars that we want of the roads.
The factory would feel it, and they would bend over because they have no choice. It would also force up the amount spendt on research on "how to not pollute?", since more would obiusly be there for it(they would not have a choice).
The consumers? They would not feel it. Trust me.
Edit: If there is a problem, it must be solved. If nobody wants to do anything about it and it becomes bigger and bigger me must sooner or later enforce it to be dealt with.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 02:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People can only buy those cars if they are sold, and people(the sheeps) are not making them.
Because there is not enough demand. An increased gas tax would increase that demand.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 03:26 PM |
|
|
Let's bring in some facts, shall we?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html
This first table is a history of the US fuel consumption from 1960 onwards. You may not that the average mileage per gallon and passenger car has increased from the low 13.5 in 1970 to over 22 starting in 2000, while the absolute consumption in gallons is more or less constant since then, with a slight tendency upwards.
The tendency for ALL cars is different though, showing a massive increase, and a lower increase in average mileage.
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
The second table shows simply the price development for fuel in the US, and there isn't much of a relation.
You don't need to be a prophet to foresee that people simply are not able to significantly reduce the average mileage: the US are a big and wide country and people NEED to drive from their homes to their work and so on. A carbon tax won't do anything since fuel economy for normal engines is reaching its technical limits - you'd have to seriously change design and concepts of cars, but hauling weights will always cost a certain amount of fuel. All changes cost money - better roads and tires with less roll resistance, optimzed aerodynamics and so on, reduced ways to work and so on will need investments by the people as well.
So the only solution here is to actively support the development of alternative engines - Hybrids are doing a lot for fuel economy, but if you think about the fact that the most active producer here is Lexus, the luxus brand of Toyota, who's offering ALL their cars with hybrids, starting at about 43000 $, it's clear that the clientel for those cars are not really caring about a carbon tax, but instead are just reassuring their green conscience - if you disregard for a moment the fact that ANY Lexus whether hybrid powered or not won't have such a high mpg rate, since they start with 3.3 litre engines with 268 HP or something like that.
So what we need here are clear and simple LAWS and DIRECTIONS for the manudactorers to reduce the output of their cars MASSIVELY.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:56, 20 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
I prefer taxing pollution because pollution is a negative thing.
Sorry, I don't really care for setting the precedent of sin taxes. Allow them to tax pollution and next thing you know they'll be taxing R-rated movies and bacon cheeseburgers.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
JJ:
It's true that the demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic, so a change in prices won't have a large immediate effect. However, in the long run, it will have an effect. It takes some time, though - and, as the graph you posted shows, the prices constantly fluctuate.
But I've seen the effects of high gas prices. Even in the relatively short time when gas was expensive (that is, more expensive than it is now), I saw many people sell their SUVs and buy smaller cars.
Corribus:
Green taxes are not sin taxes. There's a difference between taxing R-rated movies and pollution: you watching R-rated movies doesn't affect anybody else; pollution does.
As for bacon cheeseburgers, that's only if we get universal health care.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
People use the same argument about taxes on pornography or drinking.
But in any case, are you advocating a pollution tax on someone for driving a car? For drinking water out of a nondisposable bottle? Maybe you'd also advocate a childbirth tax - after all, by contributing to overpopulation, you're influencing pollution and hurting us all. Where does it end?
No, thanks. I think we have enough taxes. I'm sick of all these new creative taxes. I'm even more sick of the government telling you they're passing these taxes for our benefit. Which is BS, of course. The government is issuing these taxes to make money, because they have too many pork programs and not enough income to pay for them all.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
(A rare disagreement. This may be interesting.  )
Quote:
People use the same argument about taxes on pornography or drinking.
And they're wrong. Because pornography and drinking have no inherent externalities. Polluting activities do.
For now, I'm only advocating a carbon tax (maybe paired with cap-and-trade). The childbirth tax would be completely different, because it would make people pay for something for which they're not responsible. The polluter should be the one who is paying - and the parents are not responsible for the child's pollution.
As for your point about taxes, it's a valid one, but don't you think it makes more sense to tax bad things (like pollution) than good things (like working)?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2009 10:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
It's true that the demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic, so a change in prices won't have a large immediate effect. However, in the long run, it will have an effect. It takes some time, though - and, as the graph you posted shows, the prices constantly fluctuate.
But I've seen the effects of high gas prices. Even in the relatively short time when gas was expensive (that is, more expensive than it is now), I saw many people sell their SUVs and buy smaller cars.
Corribus:
Green taxes are not sin taxes. There's a difference between taxing R-rated movies and pollution: you watching R-rated movies doesn't affect anybody else; pollution does.
As for bacon cheeseburgers, that's only if we get universal health care.
You miss the point. Fuel efficiency nearly doubled AND prices went uo, but STILL absolute gallons used went UP. More cars, more miles.
So there is NO reason whatsoever to expect ANY effect from higher prices.
What we need is at least a HALVING of carbondioxides and that won't happen with a tax.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
