Quote (Black XistenZ @ May 19 2019 08:57pm)
regarding the kerosine:
at the moment, flight kerosine has tax exemptions which give air traffic an unfair and unjustified advantage over cars/buses/trains. there is no good reason for this tax break whatsoever, and it is incentivizing the most eco-unfriendly way of travelling. therefore, it should go asap.
a revenue-neutral CO2 tax (i.e. the entire revenue generated through this tax is given back to the people, so that those who produce below average CO2 emissions are net beneficiaries) would be an interesting idea in theory. but in practice, I'd have zero point zero trust in our politicians pulling it off without keeping some of this tax revenue for other budgets, so that such a tax would constitute a true tax hike. I'm with ampoo on this one: it would be foolish to assume that our politicians would pull off such a tax in good faith.
moreover, it would be a prime example of a slippery slope: the environmentalists want CO2 emissions to decrease considerably, and a CO2 tax of moderate scope just wouldnt create very big reductions. therefore, it has to be strongly assumed that this CO2 tax would be raised over time, to the point of making certain things prohibitively expensive.
and on top of all that, I also think that a CO2 tax would not produce the right kind of steering effect. it would disproportionately punish people living in more rural regions where a comprehensive public transport just isnt feasible, so that they are dependent on their cars. and of course commuters. hence, such a tax would punish the rural space and incentivize even more rural exodus to the cities, despite this already being a huge problem all across the developed world. exploding rent and real estate prices in cities are already a huge problem, as is the desolation of rural areas, and such a tax would only exacerbate both.
of course, it is no surprise that this tax is proposed by environmentalists and voters of green parties - those demographics are disproportionately urban and well-off. in general, all almost all green parties propagate the exact kinds of sacrifice and consumption reduction which would disproportionately affect others and spare their own lifestyle.
Hmm I agree with some points, although the considered CO2 tax increase over time, would be needed because of it having effect. The Achilles' heel of a CO2 tax, is the delicate balancing act of a tax that is designed to abolish itself. Overall if the tax is redistributed equally, the poor should benefit from it, even in the rural areas, for consuming less than average.. Still.. there should be kept a small buffer of the tax to not redistribute equally for.. let's say for instance a commuting subsidy for lower incomes.
btw. We've got an international agreement, that though shalt not put a tax on airplane fuel.. An ancient measure to spurr the flight industry.. Don't think they need a tax advantage anymore
This post was edited by Knoppie on May 20 2019 11:58am