Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 12, 08:55
2: Dec 11, 23:59
3: Dec 11, 14:43
4: Dec 11, 11:29
5: Dec 11, 07:59
6: Dec 10, 18:15
7: Dec 10, 12:28
8: Dec 10, 09:30
9: Dec 10, 05:59
10: Dec 9, 17:07
11: Dec 9, 13:47
12: Dec 9, 10:33
13: Dec 9, 07:33
14: Dec 8, 17:50
15: Dec 8, 10:32
16: Dec 8, 06:23
17: Dec 7, 16:52
18: Dec 7, 07:17
19: Dec 6, 14:40
20: Dec 6, 10:07
Posts: 151
In response to
"
BUT, that's just on an individual level. It compounds as the usage goes up/parallelizes, so it's somewhat effective in that way. -- nm
"
by
Beryllium
It's still regressive. -- nm
Posted by
mud
Jun 12 '19, 09:29
(No message)
Responses:
Lets keep the poor people off our roads! -- nm
-
I am shloot!
Jun 12, 09:32
5
What would a progressive carbon tax look like? -- nm
-
Beryllium
Jun 12, 09:50
4
First thought would be to offset it with a refundable income tax credit -- nm
-
Super Daddy Princess
Jun 12, 10:00
3
It's also been suggested that taking the carbon tax profits and directing them toward services for those in need would help to offset regressiveness.
-
Beryllium
Jun 12, 10:12
2
Except those taxes paid by multinational corporations will just get added to the cost of goods, so the consumer ends up paying anyway. -- (edited)
-
Super Daddy Princess
Jun 12, 10:27
1
Counter-argument: The current state of the world acts as a subsidy to those corporations, which effectively compounds the emissions problem.
-
Beryllium
Jun 12, 10:30
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
