The latter is what I think a lot of people aren't thinking of when they respond to this thread.I took the question to mean a reduction in income either due to direct taxes or rise in expenses.
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.
Well the issue is that if you look around ERA you have posts saying to buy more expensive food options. You have posts saying to buy more expensive cars when I'm sure many here can't afford them.
Now we have posts expecting people to turn aside a good chunk of their income too.
Cant keep just asking people to raise their bills and then on top of that expect those same people to reduce their income. It's actually quite simple to understand the poll results.
Also if you're comfortable giving up 30% of your income I'm very curious to know what you do for a living and whether or not you're supporting a family, because to be honest I have to assume you make really good money or someone is providing a roof over your head.
Like I have 30% to just "give away." Are you going to be the sole arbiter of what expenses are valid and which are not?
Yeah I don't get it either. I think people are either missing the flow on effects of their policy proposals or want radical change from market based to a state planned economy. A tax on the super wealthy or luxuries could also maybe minimise impact on middle and low income households, using that money to subsidise green alternatives but I have not thought about its flow on implications.I'm really curious as to what people think the government should actually do, or businesses actually do, or the government taxing the rich and businesses would actually do that doesn't in the end make you pay more for things you buy, and the cost of daily necessities? It's easy to point the finger at somewhere else but there's no realistic scenario where the rest of us get isolated from having this hit us financially. What are people thinking of where we don't in the end get this financially? Legitimately curious as to what I'm not considering.
That's for all those loaded folks on here that make 100k + a year to pay, I'm just trying to survive out here I'm not paying no climate tax.
Well for people who make less it is a lot. I wonder if all the people who want the rich to pay taxes would feel the same if they had to pay them as well.
Well for people who make less it is a lot. I wonder if all the people who want the rich to pay taxes would feel the same if they had to pay them as well.
Well I still think 100k and up should pay when we are talking about giving back to society.I mean, you said it yourself - you don't want to pat them, but you want the wealthy to pay them as well.
I get that if you make less, and on paper, it sounds like a lot but in reality it isn't. It's not even close to true wealth, where the inequality is.
This is much worse lol.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.
Well I still think 100k and up should pay when we are talking about giving back to society.
The wealthy should pay too, it should just start at 100k and increase from there.Then the GOP misinformation campaign moves on as planned, with the wealthy safe using the middle class as a shield.
Well I still think 100k and up should pay when we are talking about giving back to society.
I live in a costal city, I'm spitting distance from the ocean and I'm not talking about combined Incomes. Teachers out here make Bank btw it's not a low wage area.That $100k making nurse is probably contributing a whole lot more than you are.
You are wildly clueless if you believe $100k is some magical threshold that makes problems go away, especially if you live in a coastal city in the US. Nurses, teachers, those people working in IT or families with two people making $50k each are not the problem and not the ones we should be targeting.
As someone else already correctly mentioned it only shields the wealthy as people continue to feed into the garbage that the middle class is the culprit and like clock work the middle and lower class keep arguing amongst themselves while those at the top keep walking away with all the money, fucking shit up and experiencing zero consequence.
So in defense of that nurse who contributes to society by working to keep people alive and healthy, or that nurse who cares for children with mental disabilities as my wife does, what do you do and how do you contribute to society?
100k is nothing living in California. We make well over this and still have to monitor spending habits here and there.That's for all those loaded folks on here that make 100k + a year to pay, I'm just trying to survive out here I'm not paying no climate tax.
I live in a costal city, I'm spitting distance from the ocean and I'm not talking about combined Incomes. Teachers out here make Bank btw it's not a low wage area.
Of course i know who they are, trump loving conservatives.So even better. If you understand teachers are some of those who make good money and are part of that $100k you are targeting then why is it on them to give back to society? They already are by educating our children. They aren't the ones directly messing up the planet so why is it on them to pay a tax while you aren't?
Do you magically contribute more becuase you make less? I just don't get your argument when you use "give back to society". You seem to know full well who these $100k earners are.
There are several possibilities, but to put it simple: A reasonable carbon tax would punish those who consume above the country's average, while benefits those who consume less. This can either happen in form of tax benefits, subsidies for public transportation or a general tax reduction for the sake of installing a new carbon tax.I'm really curious as to what people think the government should actually do, or businesses actually do, or the government taxing the rich and businesses would actually do that doesn't in the end make you pay more for things you buy, and the cost of daily necessities? It's easy to point the finger at somewhere else but there's no realistic scenario where the rest of us get isolated from having this hit us financially. What are people thinking of where we don't in the end get this financially? Legitimately curious as to what I'm not considering.
Holy shit at the amount of "fuck you, got mine" in this thread on a forum that talks mountains of shit about climate change.
Most of us would be happy to chip in IF corporations and billionaires also contributed in the SAME WAY, as in paying their taxes, paying the same percentage, etc. That's the only way this could work, cause right now it's placing the blame on the common person when their contribution to pollution is significantly less.Holy shit at the amount of "fuck you, got mine" in this thread on a forum that talks mountains of shit about climate change.
LOL. It's not "fuck you, got mine".Holy shit at the amount of "fuck you, got mine" in this thread on a forum that talks mountains of shit about climate change.
I never said they all are,Yes, all teachers are Trump loving conservatives. Jeez... do you even think before you type?
Im positive this conversation isn't going to really go anywhere so if you wish to have the last word, by all means go ahead.