Posts by mccx
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Kyoto was supposed to be a step toward global emissions caps that would mean countries couldn't continue to increase their carbon footprints by importing high-emissions goods without those goods facing a carbon price somewhere. That next step didn't happen because neither developing nor developed countries were willing to agree to what that global cap would look like.
NZ not signing up for Kyoto 2 doesn't make that better, it just means it may be even longer before any global agreement on emissions caps comes into effect. The EU and Australian emissions policies may not be good, but worse than nothing? I'm skeptical about that.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to DexterX,
a majority of individuals making moderate changes in their daily routine is part of a solution
Well of course it's part of a solution, but in the absence of broad changes in social, political and technological frameworks a majority of individuals will not or cannot make changes that will be effective. Reworking how transportation, housing and industry (broadly, including agriculture) use energy and emit greenhouse gases is going to be necessary before people are capable and willing to make changes in their life. If someone lives in an energy inefficient house 20 kms from where they work and shop and the majority of food and goods that are available for them to consume generate significant emissions there are significant social, economic and planning barrier to them adopting low-emissions behaviours. I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think making it primarily about individual choice and responsibility is going to lead to better solutions.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to DexterX,
There are two path we can go down, however if one is going to believe in climate change then one should practice that belief, otherwise they are just become the voices of those who stand looking or sit looking stuck in traffic.
Action on reducing emissions is not so simple as having the individuals who accept the reality of climate change changing their behaviour. The climate issue is fundamentally a social, political and technological problem. Reducing global emissions is a collective action problem. Behavioural changes will of course be a part of this, but a minority of individuals making moderate changes in their daily routine isn't a solution. Expecting that individuals to drastically alter their lives before we take the climate issue seriously is both counter-productive and misunderstands the nature of the problem.
-
I am not defending such a system. Call it wrong. Call it immoral. But don’t call it a subsidy.
If a subsidy is assistance paid from a government to a private interest then taxing someone less than their equitable share has the same effect as taxing equitably but then giving 20% back to particular interests you deem worthy.
"Don't call it a subsidy" relies on a nominal rather than functional difference and – I think – reinforces the Romney-style argument that their hard earned millions are their own and the government and the bludgers should be grateful that the wealthy even pay the taxes that they do, even if it's a less than equitable share.
I think calling it a subsidy puts inequitable tax rates front-and-centre as a political decision no different than public health care or interest-free student loans.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Taxing someone at 15% instead of 35% is not a subsidy.
If you're taxing high incomes at 15% and low incomes at 35% then it most certainly is. Or if you're taxing income from activity A at 15% and income from activity B at 35% then it most certainly is.
And someone should tell Sam Seaborn than if the top 1% have 40% of total wealth, then they're getting off light paying 22% of the total taxes.
-
Of related interest, the New York Times's Public Editor asks for reader input on,
whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.