Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
Speak for yourself, or for Trumpers, or for Republicans. For other groups provide proof.

Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.
 
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
 
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
Speak for yourself, or for Trumpers, or for Republicans. For other groups provide proof.

Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.

I already did provide proof you just ignore anything you don't agree with.

Oilpan4 said:
"The AP found Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change. A $1 per month fee was favored by 57 percent of those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 opposed".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna962001

Call it what you want, Fee, tax, state sanctioned theft, turns out the majority of voters don't want to pay $10 per month or more to fix global warming.
Is NBC an AP too conservative for you?
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

Of course that's what's going to happen.
 
Lothsahn said:
I bet you could get a significant minority of Republicans to buy into a carbon tax if it came with an income tax cut.

Perhaps. Probably not, however.

The Democrats will notice that the income tax cut helps mostly upper income people, and the carbon tax hurts mostly lower income people. They will be at conflicted by this. So if this effort fails, like the Washington carbon tax, getting the majority support of the Democrats and almost no support from Republicans, then the loss can be blamed on the Democrats.
 
Oilpan4 said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

Of course that's what's going to happen.
BS.

There are infinite ways to reduce carbon pollution without taxation. You are just making excuses. Look at your own posts -- you tell us that your burn coal in your home. You posted a nonsensical alarmist thread that electric rates in NM are going to drastically rise due to carbon regulation.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Oilpan4 said:
Most people don't want to pay a tax to fix global warming, even when they believe man is the cause.
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

The point to collecting a tax isn't always just the income. It is to convince people to do less of the thing taxed as the thing taxed costs them directly more. The value of the tax can be positive even if the money is spend on gold toilets.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of –1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Bold is mine.
 
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

Of course that's what's going to happen.
BS.

There are infinite ways to reduce carbon pollution without taxation. You are just making excuses. Look at your own posts -- you tell us that your burn coal in your home. You posted a nonsensical alarmist thread that electric rates in NM are going to drastically rise due to carbon regulation.

Summary:
You do not curb carbon pollution yourself
You oppose carbon pollution limits
You want others to pay for your carbon pollution

Calling it 'taxes' is just dog whistle Repuke propaganda.
 
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
^This^

They'll collect more taxes and it won't fix anything. It will be like the department of education, creating new problems and solving nothing. When it doesn't work the answer proposed will be to throw even more at it in ever increasing sums, all of which does nothing but line the pockets of special interests.

Of course that's what's going to happen.
BS.

There are infinite ways to reduce carbon pollution without taxation. You are just making excuses. Look at your own posts -- you tell us that your burn coal in your home. You posted a nonsensical alarmist thread that electric rates in NM are going to drastically rise due to carbon regulation.

So you got nothing but ignore the facts and insult people as usual.

I'm like most of the people in that survey.
Believe in climate change and don't believe in paying for it for.
 
Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.


"The AP found Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change, if the monthly charge is $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 opposed".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna962001
 
Oilpan4 said:
Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.
You can only be responsible for yourself.

That is why you presumably vote. Your choice is stark: you can choose an AGW denying idiot who thinks coal is clean, or a politician who recognizes AGW as a national emergency
That is why you choose whether to burn coal and wood in your home.
That is why you choose whether to tell your utility if you want clean energy.

Your vote may fail, but without it you definitely fail.
 
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.
You can only be responsible for yourself.

That is why you presumably vote. Your choice is stark: you can choose an AGW denying idiot who thinks coal is clean, or a politician who recognizes AGW as a national emergency
That is why you choose whether to burn coal and wood in your home.
That is why you choose whether to tell your utility if you want clean energy.

Your vote may fail, but without it you definitely fail.

So more name calling, personal attacks and insults is all you have?
Present me with an argument that might convince the undecided people to join the 28% and pay up $10 per month to help fight climate change.
(Insulting them probably won't work)
Just a pitch. I don't even want a source, just a logical, friendly idea of your own making that might convince some who already believes in climate change to pay up.

Oilpan4 said:
I'm like most of the people in that survey.
Believe in climate change

You call me a climate change denyer even after I post that.
You can't get anything right today you are really on a roll.
 
SageBrush said:
Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.

Let's not lie. Unless it's voluntary, it's a tax. It may be a tax levied to account for the harm on society. The tax is completely reasonable--if you damage my life and property (which air pollution does), ethically you should compensate me. But it is still a tax.

Secondly, proposing a compromise where there is a carbon tax for a revenue neutral income tax cut is not "their playbook". I would much prefer we simply levy a carbon tax, take all proceeds, and issue a quarterly tax-free check divided evenly amongst all American citizens. The money would never touch the general fund at all. Universal Basic Income and environmental protection all at once. But if we cannot get majority support for an initiative like that, I would propose an income tax cut to make it revenue neutral. I suspect that is something that could pass.

Stop trying to group everyone into "us" and "them". You have good facts and arguments, which you repeatedly undermine with your insults and identity politics.
 
I find the idea of a carbon tax totally disingenuous. It's like an indulgence in the Catholic Church. So what you're doing is destroying the planet but as long as you pay me some money it's okay. The inevitable result will be the wealthier people just pay the tax and enjoy their limousines, megayachts and private jets and the folks further down the economic spectrum get shafted. Then the gnashing of teeth will be over that inequity in life, and we'll have another leftist politician offering a solution for that. OMG school teachers can't afford to put gas in their tanks. Women and children hardest hit. Let me guess, carbon tax subsidies to offset the disproportionate burden.
 
Lothsahn said:
SageBrush said:
Second, it is not a tax.
It is a willingness to sometimes pay more now to reduce the (delayed to one degree or another) harmful effects of pollution and carbon.

Let's not lie. Unless it's voluntary, it's a tax. It may be a tax levied to account for the harm on society. The tax is completely reasonable--if you damage my life and property (which air pollution does), ethically you should compensate me. But it is still a tax.

Secondly, proposing a compromise where there is a carbon tax for a revenue neutral income tax cut is not "their playbook". I would much prefer we simply levy a carbon tax, take all proceeds, and issue a quarterly tax-free check divided evenly amongst all American citizens. The money would never touch the general fund at all. Universal Basic Income and environmental protection all at once. But if we cannot get majority support for an initiative like that, I would propose an income tax cut to make it revenue neutral. I suspect that is something that could pass.

Stop trying to group everyone into "us" and "them". You have good facts and arguments, which you repeatedly undermine with your insults and identity politics.

Doesn't matter what verbal gymnastics are employed. We know what it is.

No other explanation is offered, but it's not a tax. What a joke.
 
Oilpan4 said:
[friendly idea of your own making that might convince some who already believes in climate change to pay up.

Why does it have to be friendly. Does it also have to come with a pacifier ? Why is not enough for you to be responsible for your actions ?
Why do you think your beliefs matter ? What part of reading a thermometer requires belief ?
What part of reading a pH meter requires belief ?
What part of the greenhouse effect requires belief ?

It has taken 20 years for the general Republican electorate in the USA to reach a (barely) majority opinion that the earth is warming, but only a small minority accept that the warming is human caused. Even fewer accept that the warming is a near term emergency. What level of understanding have you reached ?
 
Back
Top