How much of your income would you be willing to give up to tackle climate change?

[Window]

I was filling out a survey and this was one of the questions they asked. Thought it might be interesting to see results on here too.

I took the question to mean a reduction in income either due to direct taxes or rise in expenses. Or what's the largest amount I would be willing to consider to support a climate change policy with some impact on income.

I realise the arguments against having individuals bear the cost of climate change but I think any sort of drastic price control or government action (which should have been taken by now) will eventually translate into some reductions in discretionary income in the form of higher costs for households or lower dividends for shareholders - which affects households as well since their savings are probably in the stock market. This is a simplistic scenario and I know there would be differences in impact on households of different income levels depending on policy but I thought it would be an interesting question to consider.

Edit: Since many are misinterpreting the question, it's not asking for an income tax contribution but how much of an increase in expenses or loss in income you would be willing to absorb from a policy, which may arise from a targeted pigovian tax on specific services and items or some other policy.

 

[gutter_trash]

I pay taxes, that's enough

 

[Deleted member 18944]

nah I'm good

 

[BAD]

Huh? Shouldn't corporations foot the bill? They have the biggest influence and I already pay taxes to the government to do this as well

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I don't see how this would help at all tbh.

Most people are underpaid already, everyone is going to say none.

 

[FliX]

If I knew it would actually be used for the greater good. 30%+

 

[BDS]

Tax the wealthy. There is no reason a working-class person should be forced to give up their income when the obscenely wealthy can already cover it.

 

[QuigleyMcShine]

I pay taxes, that's enough

Click to shrink...

It should be, absolutely.

But barring the political will to fix that waste of tax revenue, I voted 5-10%.

 

[Deleted member 11985]

Do you have a link to the survey?

 

[808s & Villainy]

So, let me get this straight, individuals should take cuts to their income while corporations, the ones actually contributing on a large scale...what? Keep on keeping on? And the government which already have the tax revenue to push climate change initiatives...what? Keep pushing minor changes?

Do I have this straight?

 

[パンダさん]

Huh? Shouldn't corporations foot the bill? They have the biggest influence and I already pay taxes to the government to do this as well

Click to shrink...

This

 

[Landy828]

The part of my taxes that goes to the military and putting money in trash Government officials pockets.

 

[Midramble]

Struggling with this answer as my head keeps shouting large percentages but then starts shouting that whoever takes it wont do shit with it so it'll just line someone else's pockets.

That said, if the government said it was raising my tax rate by 20% towards climate change initiatives I would view that as a positive. Though there would be pretty big repercussions politically of they didnt follow through, which seems the norm...

 

[Platy]

If I give everything I have I will make an exact ZERO change.

 

[Kill3r7]

If you want it to succeed the cost should be passed on to deeper pockets (wealthy and corporations). Since we know that is unlikely to happen then don't expect the working class to foot the bill.

 

[Window]

Do you have a link to the survey?

Click to shrink...

https://australiatalks.abc.net.au/

 

[Pilgrimzero]

I can barely live on what I make after taxes. Paycheck to paycheck is quite a lifestyle

 

[T002 Tyrant]

If this was a magical situation where for the rest of my life everyone had to give up 30% of their salary rich or poor and magically all the carbon dioxide blanketing the ozone disappeared then yes. But If not, I want to see a detailed plan on exactly what the money went towards and a guarantee that it would reverse climate change within my lifetime.

 

[FernandoRocker]

WTF. None. Zero.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I put about 3% of my income towards green energy, climate advocacy, and natural protections. This is pretty much all I can afford.

But I am of the mind that the people actually responsible for climate crisis should be the ones paying for it. It is outrageous to me that the lower class would be burdened with a climate tax while corporations or the ultra-wealthy continue to cause environmental and climate damage without penalty.

 

[Chaos Legion]

Not a penny

 

[DonaldKimball]

How about the guys at the top pay for it

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I'll gladly listen and change my habits.

Giving up income just because? No.

 

[Deleted member 11985]

https://australiatalks.abc.net.au/

Click to shrink...

Ok, thanks. It looks legit. I was worried it was one of those "surveys" like the GOP puts out that are basically just fear mongering propaganda in survey form.

 

[Shelbyville Milhouse]

I mean, is it a guaranteed thing? Cause me giving up 30% of my income isn't gonna do shit if all those fucking oil companies keep doing what they are doing.
Otherwise, sure have 30% of my income to save the planet.

 

[The Albatross]

I don't think income taxes should be used, I think something like VAT should be... and I think a 5-10% VAT on products that are known contributors to climate damage seems like a reasonable place to start.

And people who say, "But VAT is a poor tax and it's not a progressive tax like income tax!" This isn't a tax intended to solve income inequality or wealth disparity, it's a tax specifically to curb consumer behavior and punish corporate behavior, while collecting additional revenue to try to combat those negative contributions to the climate, so the standard "poor tax" argument doesn't apply.

 

[Deleted member 38573]

disgusting thread

 

[Jogi]

I'd give up a ton if corporations were willing to do so as well and there was an actual plan in place. Citizens do far more than massive corporations already for the betterment of society, but until the corporations get on board its pretty much a useless endeavor.

 

[C.Mongler]

I pay my taxes, I possess maybe like 0.0000001% of the world's wealth. Not really sure why the onus would be on me here and not the rich fucks causing it.

 

[CreepingFear]

Why the fuck should I when we have billionaires, millionaires, and corporations who aren't paying their share? Tax the fuck out of those cunts.

 

[Detective Loki]

lol trusting them to use your taxes wisely

it'll go towards a drone that drops bombs on civilians in Afghanistan

 

[Jegriva]

I pay taxes, that's enough

Click to shrink...

I voted 10-20%, but this.

 

[Pankratous]

Absolutely zero, because I'm not in the 1%.

 

[PeskyToaster]

If this is based on the US, money isn't the issue. We have enough to fund anything we want.

 

[Torpedo Vegas]

I guess I could eat less than once a day.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Nothing, because my personal effect on climate change is miniscule, plus I pay already high taxes in Germany for a lot of things.

I use extensive public transport in my city plus the wider metropolitan region:
Straßenbahn (Trams)
Buses (which some are e-buses)
U-Bahn (metro)
ICE/IC/DB Regio/S-Bahn
I ride my bicycle or walk.

This is every day, maybe one day I cycle to work, maybe one day I use the tram and bus. To get around the city for daily activities I never use my car. Sometimes motorcycle. My car is for traveling to other EU countries like for holiday. As I like the part of the road trip. Even if I don't feel like driving the car, taking the ICE to France, Netherlands, etc, is the cleanest mode of travel vs a flight or car.

Plus everyone does recycling here in Germany too.

I don't eat much red meat either, relative to fish and other white meat.

That's just a few off the top of my head. My personal contribution is significantly lower than people for example that drive everywhere in some countries. The biggest contribution a person can have to climate change is their car use, everything else is miniscule.

The real offenders of climate change are a handful of countries, especially 3 of them, and their major climate contributing companies.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

If meat costs more, that's fine, I'll eat less of it. If plastic costs more I'll buy less of it. I'm already trying to minimize my Amazon usage to cut back on the impact of shipping a tiny lithium battery in a box big enough for a pair of shoes jfc.

But the whole premise of the cost of climate action being the burden of the commoner is bullshit invented by the wealthy to deflect attention from themselves. It's just like taxes, they like to trick people into thinking tax rates should be flat to be fair, that they aren't responsible for a disproportionate amount. But they are. And they are disproportionately responsible for climate change too, and thus deserve the brunt of the cost.

Of course they will try to burden us with the cost by increasing prices and decreasing wages. Thats where government must step in.

 

[Deleted member 9241]

Every red cent of my taxes.

 

[HanSoloCup]

I mean, I spend somewhere between 5-10% of my income each month upgrading various pieces of my house to be more energy efficient. But I don't think the average person should be forced to give up any additional income beyond taxes for this. The corporations should be the ones striving to use their gains to make the biggest difference.

 

[gutter_trash]

put the onus on industry and coporations,

make electric cars affordable,
make new home energy effecient

blablbla

the reason why people still use combustible cars is because used ones are cheap

as for homes, people only get what they can afford

 

[SliceSabre]

Not a red cent since billionaires exist.

 

[Window]

People need to think about the flow on effects of any policy targeting only profits of corporations. Some of those margin reductions would be passed on as price increases to consumers. Decrease in shareholder value will have lesser impact on low income households but affect middle income households due to their savings being tied up as investments in the stock market though all of this is assuming a blanket tax on all corporations, a industry specific tax may encourage substitution where possible and reduce the income impacts.

 

[Pomerlaw]

The carbon tax works. Tax pollution, and hit the big polluters the most, not the average person.

 

[Chivalry]

Tax the rich, give everyone UBI.

 

[Renna Hazel]

I voted 5-10 percent and that's based around the idea of a proposed plan that I think would work. Climate change isn't at the top of my concern list however, so I wouldn't go much higher than 5 percent.

 

[Window]

I don't think income taxes should be used, I think something like VAT should be... and I think a 5-10% VAT on products that are known contributors to climate damage seems like a reasonable place to start.

And people who say, "But VAT is a poor tax and it's not a progressive tax like income tax!" This isn't a tax intended to solve income inequality or wealth disparity, it's a tax specifically to curb consumer behavior and punish corporate behavior, while collecting additional revenue to try to combat those negative contributions to the climate, so the standard "poor tax" argument doesn't apply.

Click to shrink...

Those are known as pigovian taxes. I wasn't meaning to propose any specific policy and certainly not an income tax but more for people to consider how much of an impact on their discretionary income would they accept in supporting a policy. The impact may arise in the form of increased expenses for common items like fuel or electricity or in the form of reduction in returns on investment in the stock market (impacting retirement savings).

 

[BasilZero]

Tax the corporations , government gets enough tax as is from the people

 

[Deleted member 23381]

Why would I give anything lmao.

 

[Illusion]

The majority of pollutions and problems come from corporations, not singular household individuals.

Corporations that pollute should be footing 100% of the bill.

 

[Sidebuster]

For dumb "how far you'd go" exercises, this isn't a great one.

We'd be better off theorizing shutting power off (that comes from dirty polluting sources) to everyone but essential services only. You HAVE to power your house / business with clean energy whether that's from hydro-electric dams, solar, wind, nuclear, etc. Then have something like "health insurance" that'll install solar panels and batteries to homes that can't afford to do it themselves if they need it for medical reasons.

The same would go for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Only essential services and public transit can use gas and diesel (until they can be converted to electric with a real deadline). For everyone else, it's walking, bicycles, electric cars / motorcycles, and public transit.