SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the everybody-should-pay-their-fair-share dept.
On Saturday, November 16th, around 282,000 people blocked roads and highways all over France. The protesters, nicknamed the gillets jaunes after the yellow warning vests they wore, had organized through Facebook. Their beef: the increase in environmental taxes on gasoline, on top of a number of other tax increases.
We don't disagree with having to pay more to help act for the environment and fight climate change, was the general opinion, but why should it be only the little folks who have to pay while the elite can easily grin and bear it -- why not tax also all that heavy fuel burned by aeroplanes and tanker ships?
The action, which persisted throughout the day, resulted in over 100 wounded and one tragic death when a mother driving her child to hospital panicked.
The protesters do have a point. While media and politics rightly, if very, very much belatedly, are warning about climate change, the alternatives proposed clearly are not to be taken seriously.
The hard choices we need to face apparently come down to cities investing in smart cameras to fine visitors based on production year and type of their automobile. Public transport investing will come, but not to the countryside where car/ride sharing, Uber and similar services simply are not viable; Tesla and relatives are on another price planet for ordinary people.
As to the EU's emission trading system (ETS) that should drive industry to climate change action: news broke on the same day as the gillets jaunes actions that Britain -- on the verge of leaving the EU -- is one of the biggest net exporters of such credits: Britain had 900 million of these credits too much, for the years 2013-2015 alone.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:41PM (25 children)
http://www.lessgovletsgo.org/index.html [lessgovletsgo.org]
One engineers proposal -- originally from the USA 1970s "oil crisis", still makes sense to me today. It neatly kills several birds with one stone. Introduction below, more detail at the link above:
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:05PM (4 children)
There's a problem there. Congress doesn't have the explicit constitutional authority to gather money in that manner and cannot legally gather money in any manner not explicitly granted. It would require an amendment to be done legally without it being a tax or tariff.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:13PM (3 children)
> Congress doesn't have the explicit constitutional authority to gather money in that manner and cannot legally gather money in any manner not explicitly granted.
Congress collects money in all sorts of ways, doesn't seem all that different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund [wikipedia.org] to me.
A further quote from http://www.lessgovletsgo.org/proposal.html [lessgovletsgo.org] :
> That is the policy, somewhat simplified. Elsewhere in this website is a "white paper" in which we have tried to foresee many of the details for which action would need to be taken.
Note that this scheme doesn't have to be implemented quickly, it could start out with a small tax/rebate to get the system primed and then ratchet up over time. Similar to social security taxes...(ducking!)
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:38PM (2 children)
I did qualify that with the word "legally". Congress has done quite a number of things over the years it isn't legally entitled to do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:50PM (1 child)
Different AC -- but realize that "legally" ultimately is determined by SCOTUS. And they have ruled that anytime the government is collecting money for a sufficiently good reason, we can all PRETEND that it is "legally" a "tax."
See Chief Justice Roberts and his ruling on Obamacare. Also, if the Constitution could pretend that black "people" weren't people when the US was founded, surely we can all pretend that any money collected by the government is legally a "tax" when it suits our purposes.
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:35PM
It's supposed to be determined by the constitution. SCOTUS making decisions even it knows are bullshit doesn't change a single word of our founding document.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13PM (19 children)
The paper makes the assumption that the economy would continue on as before. We don't live in a static non-reactive economy. Yes, fuel consumption would partially shift to non-fossil fuels, but these are not at a stage where they can fully supplant the fossil infrastructure even now, and certainly weren't in the 70s.
There are offsetting inflationary and deflationary pressures, at first blush I would go with early inflation followed by a deflationary spiral and economic collapse making the 20's seem like paradise. (More realistically I see the law getting backed out so fast it would make your head swim...)
Labor would become progressively more expensive to obtain. The economy and many aspects of business would simply shut down. Those in the labor pool that exited the economy first would be at an advantage over those that attempted to continue.
The military eventually becomes non viable and Russia and China roll in in their diesel powered tanks and pick over the spoils. Cyrillic or Hanzi....decisions decisions....
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:16PM
yeah, ok, the 30s. TGD just started in '29 :-p
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:17PM (17 children)
Or, you know, this could be a functional equivalent to the universal basic income that is currently under discussion. Getting some (not much) money into the hands of the poorest people is one way to prime the economy--they spend it right away, unlike the rich that squirrel it away.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:10PM (14 children)
So long as they work 40 hours a week, i have no problem with them getting a basic income level.
.
I don't care much what they do, or how little utility it provides, but this concept being floated of we'll pay you to live while you do whatever you want and others work their lives away supporting it is inequitable.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)
Why 40? Why not 50? Or 30?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @09:37PM
30?
.
.
Hmmm, well TFA is about France I guess.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 18 2018, @08:26PM (11 children)
So implement the basic income and abolish minimum wage at the same time. Let employers entice people to be employees in the time honored manner of offering pay enough to make the time and effort worthwhile to the employee.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:29PM (10 children)
And you need a handout for that, why?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @12:06AM (1 child)
Looks like TMB got triggered.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 19 2018, @12:29AM
Looks like you don't know what triggered means.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 19 2018, @12:38AM (4 children)
Because markets only work properly when both sides are free to walk away.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 19 2018, @02:35AM (3 children)
You think you're not? Interesting.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Monday November 19 2018, @05:49AM (2 children)
So you figure if people have no bread they should just eat cake?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 21 2018, @10:54AM (1 child)
No, I figure there is more than one potential employer in the area. Which is going to be true for pretty much anywhere that the state doesn't own the means of production.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday November 21 2018, @06:18PM
And how would that constitute walking away from an unfavorable market?
Unemployment would need to be about zero for the employment market to work properly. Since that doesn't happen, it doesn't work. Basic income would allow people to leave the market for a while until it became more favorable.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday November 19 2018, @01:01AM (2 children)
Because trickle down is a lie and the world doesn't need that much work doing anymore anyway. Automation.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @01:27AM
Are you aware that Trumps fed is just now ending the biggest, unprecedented, trickle down operation in known history: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS [stlouisfed.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 19 2018, @02:36AM
Who said anything about trickle-down?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @05:16AM (1 child)
Money hoarding isn't a real thing. A bigger problem with the scheme is that the tax would be heavily regressive.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 21 2018, @10:56AM
Serves em right for all the progressive taxes they've pushed over the years.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.