How much of your income would you be willing to give up to tackle climate change?
- Thread starter Window
- Start date
Okay, but what does that have to do with taxes? The question wasn't "Would you be okay with the price of so and so going up" it was specifically about taxes, which specifically go towards the government, which has proven itself inept in properly taxing and holding accountable the biggest causers of climate change. So while you have a valid point, it isn't the question being posed by the OP
This thread has this underlying assumption that a lack of tax revenue is the reason we don't have more aggressive policies against climate change when that isn't the case in the US. Not remotely. We have trillions of tax dollars either misappropriated, wasted, or not even collected so why should we pump more money into that as if that was the problem in the first place?
Edit: I admit I must've glossed over the "rise in expenses" part. My bad, OP.
I think my point still holds true that other things have to change to actually justify that rise. If corporations simply charge more, then barely do anything, or don't do nearly enough to justify what they gain in people paying more for their services, then it seems like the same situation as we have now
Jesus, I'm like one of the few that said 30% or more?
Guess people like money more than life, confirmed.
Guess people like money more than life, confirmed.
OP
OP
Umm no if you look at the OP I mention both scenarios not just taxes. Admittedly the poll question could have been better phrased.
0.0%
On second thought...it's mid-October and it's hot as fuck outside. I'll go with 2%. God dammit.
On second thought...it's mid-October and it's hot as fuck outside. I'll go with 2%. God dammit.
Because I live comfortably and don't have much need or desire for more material things outside video games, I would happily give all my extra cash to saving the world.
It says right in the OP about the rise of expenses though.
I feel like people who post things like this need to say how much they earn and what bills they have each month. Otherwise it's useless high horse bullshit.
You'd be happy to give 30% away. Most people would be glad to have 30% to give away.
Im sure it's more than just that, but please try to make it seems like this is a simple choice for everyone.
You're obviously in a very good financial position if you could easily give away 30% of your weekly income while the other 78% of the US lives paycheck to paycheck.
You can call that privilege if you want but I've been anywhere from dirt poor to just getting by my entire life and don't see that as privileged. I would give up everything if it would help save my kids and their future. Everything.
You're absolutely right though that stopping all the greed and pollution and what not has to be a priority.
I think in reality a lot of people really do not care though, both because they themselves will be old or dead when the shit hits the fan, or they just don't comprehend the world we may have to suffer in in the years to come.
Agreed completely
(I still picked "none at all" because I'm currently unemployed and have no income 😭 ⚰)
OP
OP
Yeah I don't think expecting everyone to be able to make such large contributions is fair. The idea here was not put obligations on people but to see their willingness and ability across different ranges.
The point is that it shouldn't be us who give up money to tackle this problem.
The question is poorly framed. You're asking the public to give up their money to solve a corporate/industry issue. You're asking them to foot the bill, with money most of them dont have, so the people actually causing the issue dont have to feel the pain of the transition and be slightly less absurdly rich. In essence, the premise is flawed from the start.
If I can pay 10% to my church, I can pay 10% to my planet. As my income will increase I will donate more money to tackle climate change, it's build into my business plan.
~5% income via taxes for a NASA like department that's properly funded (unlike NASA today) to create and deploy technologies to reverse the effects. A bit to subsidize research to get renewables and fail safe fission to dominate electricity - mostly fission as renewables will price out most other forms of electricity soon.
I already pay an extra $600/year roughly for 100% renewable electricity.
I already pay an extra $600/year roughly for 100% renewable electricity.
The Australian government offers rebates for home solar panel installations which is far better way to entice people to think environmentally than a flat tax and the hope the government doesn't squander it.
Most people are not selfless. Motivating then to think in terms of their own self-interest is a far more effective strategy politically.
Most people are not selfless. Motivating then to think in terms of their own self-interest is a far more effective strategy politically.
100% agree here. Everyone should list what they make and what their expenses are and whether they pay for their own housing or if they live in someone else's house rent free because they are still in school.
All of those are important especially when we have some coming in here to shame those who won't give away income.
I'll start.
My household makes a combined $100k a year and we have a 10 year old child. We live on Long Island which is one of the most expensive places to live because of very high taxes.
For example, on that $100k we actually bring home around $70k after taxes and it goes faster than some may think.
We eat almost all organic foods and barely any beef. It isn't cheap. We also have a home to pay for as well as before and after care for school because both and my wife work all day long.
Giving away 10-30% of our income isn't simple to do and in order to do so we would probably have to lose our home, which would be monumentally stupid as we would no longer be paying to ourselves and instead to a landlord as rent rises where my mortgage would not. Not to mention any plans of retirement goes right out the window.
How's that for nuance? Something conversations on this site lack 9 times out 10.
Here's the thing. I'm essentially a socialist. I don't need wealth. I don't want it. In my opinion, all of society's focus right now should be on stopping further damage to the environment and yes, everyone should contribute in any way they can. But we live in a capitalist, hierarchic society. And as such, the ones benefitting the most have to be the ones contributing the most. I will never make such demands from the poor before the rich pay their due. First make the rich pay and change, then we'll talk about how the common people can help as well.
Fuck outta here. None at all.
Taxes are bad enough now you're asking for
My hard earned money to fix other peoples fuck ups? I'm good.
Taxes are bad enough now you're asking for
My hard earned money to fix other peoples fuck ups? I'm good.
How about first we look at cutting the ridiculous subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, and instead impose massive fines on them.
Then we tax the wealthy and the big corporations in a fairer way more generally.
After that we can look at how those taxes are spent, like, oh, I dunno, maybe slashing the military budget.
Somewhere along the line we regulate for pollutants and plastics and generally make destroying the environment have a cost for big business.
A ways down the list, we can implement a progressive "climate tax" or something, if necessary.
Framing the issue in this "How much would you pay?" way is dumb.
Then we tax the wealthy and the big corporations in a fairer way more generally.
After that we can look at how those taxes are spent, like, oh, I dunno, maybe slashing the military budget.
Somewhere along the line we regulate for pollutants and plastics and generally make destroying the environment have a cost for big business.
A ways down the list, we can implement a progressive "climate tax" or something, if necessary.
Framing the issue in this "How much would you pay?" way is dumb.
Zero. My impact on the environment is microscopic compared to the actual root causes of man-made climate change.
If the government could demonstrate that it had already done everything in its power to address these, and it still wasn't enough, then I'd accept additional taxes to fund further R&D. My salary wouldn't be the best place to apply those taxes, though; they belong on fuel, road tax, flights, and the products of space-inefficient farming.
If the government could demonstrate that it had already done everything in its power to address these, and it still wasn't enough, then I'd accept additional taxes to fund further R&D. My salary wouldn't be the best place to apply those taxes, though; they belong on fuel, road tax, flights, and the products of space-inefficient farming.
Won't all those things simply just raise the cost to everyone else?
As opposed to paying a huge percentage of our income to clean up their externalities (this thread)? I think I'd rather have the choice to buy or not
I barely make enough money to live. I don't have the money to give to fix corporation and capitalist fuck ups
The results of this are kinda wild to me. However, not too surprising. It makes it very easy to see how changes in progressive climate policy can be made super unpopular. There are so many things left out of this hypothetical, like what will the tax change be on richer people, what policies will be instituted using this money etc.
You said tax the big corporations. Those corporations make the products that you and I buy. You said reduce the fossil fuel subsidies. Those oil companies produce the gas that you and I buy. You said regulate the pollutants and plastic wastes from companies. Those companies produce the things you and I buy. All of those things will have a direct impact at the end level cost to everyone else. Nowhere did you say tax companies like Ferarri who only produce high end products.
But in most cases you won't have the choice. People will still need to buy gas to fuel their cars to go to work. People will still need to buy the basic necessities of every day living. There will be a choice in buying that next video game, but there's going to be a big hit on daily essentials which will leave people no choice.
Or maybe they are just tired of this shit being pawned off on the common man?
It's absolutely fucking stupid how much burden the average person is expected to bear when the majority of these issues are caused by giant corporations.
Start from the top and work down, not the other way around. Let's not pretend the easiest or best way to tackle this problem is by taxing the average person 30% of their income.
The point is, if somebody doesnt, we all die. I'm cool with no money if we can all stay alive.
Edit: for reference, I'm poor as fuck, by the way. Like, 600 or less paychecks poor, but money isnt more important than life, period. I'd give it all away if it meant a serious effort towards climate change.
