Ocasio-Cortez floats 70% marginal tax on the super wealthy to fund Green New Deal

[Endus]

Do you know how carbon taxes work?

It does just that. It taxes based on how much people pollute, those that pollute the most end up paying more.

Well, to go a step further, what the desired outcome of a carbon tax program is that the costs for wasteful carbon-emission-heavy processes will increase, and the costs of green energy will stay flat. GHG-emitting processes will become economically unfeasible, and just to save money, people will increase investment into green energy diversification. It'll be cheaper to build windmills and local solar and hydro and geothermal, than it is to build coal, oil, or natural gas-burning plants.

The goal isn't to make people pay more, it's to increase costs and drive social change through self-interest.

Wouldn't you need a book on climate and shit to find the best solution, and not a book on economics?

Fucking liberals xD

Depends on if you're trying to address the physical changes in the climate (in which case you'd need to look at science), or if you're trying to address the society's behaviour that's contributing to the problem (in which case, yeah, economics. Duh.)

[Theodarzna]

Any economics books will cite carbon tax as the best way to address climate change.

Leftist ignorance ugh.

Congrats, economists, or at least a majority of them are subject to a specific ideological lens. Ignoring that industrial production and Capitalism created the crisis to begin with.

[Felya]

Congrats, economists, or at least a majority of them are subject to a specific ideological lens. Ignoring that industrial production and Capitalism created the crisis to begin with.

It’s simply industrialization, not anything to do with capitalism. China is a significant contributor and USSR was no slouch.

[Xeones]

Tell that to the people who lose their jobs when minimum wages increase. Rich people put profit over everything else.

This is a lie. There is literally no evidence to support this. The reason we need minimum wages is because they put profit over everything.

You people act like we've never raised the minimum wage before or no other nation in a world has minimum wages to view effects of.

[NED funded]

Wouldn't you need a book on climate and shit to find the best solution, and not a book on economics?

Fucking liberals xD

Because the issue of climate change is one of decisions??

Economics studies why and how people make choices and polluting is one of them. Simple concept, how do you adress am externality? You make it more expensive and less convenient.

[Zaktar]

It’s simply industrialization, not anything to do with capitalism. China is a significant contributor and USSR was no slouch.

Naw, capitalism plays its part in the story. Efficient allocation of resources over the short term will lead to very poor long-term choices. The more we fetishize markets and cling to the notion that allowing them to function in some sort of a "pure" manner, rather than using them in a disciplined and conscious manner, the more we will allow capitalism to destroy us. This doesn't mean capitalism should be thrown out or that we should give into something like pure communism/socialism, it just means ideas like the one presented in the OP are worth considering. We need to find ways to incentivize socially constructive behavior if we want society to keep existing.

This is a lie. There is literally no evidence to support this. The reason we need minimum wages is because they put profit over everything.

You people act like we've never raised the minimum wage before or no other nation in a world has minimum wages to view effects of.

To be fair, there is a lot of abstract bullshit that supports that notion that any time you raise minimum wage you lose industry, it's not hard to see how people get fooled, it just doesn't play out that way in the real world (where it counts).

[SirBeef]

Naw, capitalism plays its part in the story. Efficient allocation of resources over the short term will lead to very poor long-term choices. The more we fetishize markets and cling to the notion that allowing them to function in some sort of a "pure" manner, rather than using them in a disciplined and conscious manner, the more we will allow capitalism to destroy us. This doesn't mean capitalism should be thrown out or that we should give into something like pure communism/socialism, it just means ideas like the one presented in the OP are worth considering. We need to find ways to incentivize socially constructive behavior if we want society to keep existing.



To be fair, there is a lot of abstract bullshit that supports that notion that any time you raise minimum wage you lose industry, it's not hard to see how people get fooled, it just doesn't play out that way in the real world (where it counts).

It's minimal compared to the gains and growth seen as a result of the increase.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Without the tax cut Trump wouldnt have been able to float McDonalds and Burger King for the Clemson team.



/s

[Draco-Onis]

Congrats, economists, or at least a majority of them are subject to a specific ideological lens. Ignoring that industrial production and Capitalism created the crisis to begin with.

ROFLMAO

Carbon taxation is a right wing free market solution to climate change you know back when they believed in science, the left wanted more regulation.

[Theodarzna]

ROFLMAO

Carbon taxation is a right-wing free market solution to climate change you know back when they believed in science, the left wanted more regulation.

When have I ever, and I am dead SERIOUS, EVER been pro-free market? Like I really want to know if there was some point where I praised "muh markets". I really need a citation here.

[NED funded]

ROFLMAO

Carbon taxation is a right wing free market solution to climate change you know back when they believed in science, the left wanted more regulation.

Notorious right wing free market people like Krugman.

From his blog:

In principle, yes. As any card-carrying economist can tell you, there are big advantages to discouraging pollution by putting a price on emissions, which you can do either by imposing a tax or by creating a cap-and-trade system in which people buy and sell emission permits.

It’s Economics 101: A pollution tax or equivalent creates broad-based incentives in a way less comprehensive policies can’t. Why? Because it encourages people to reduce their carbon footprint in all possible ways, from using renewable energy, to conservation, to shifting consumption away from energy-intensive products.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/o...democrats.html

[Felya]

Tell that to the people who lose their jobs when minimum wages increase. Rich people put profit over everything else.

Several cities have implemented a 15$ minimum wage and national unemployment is 3.8%. Instead, why don’t you tell these corporations that they can have the same results, but with less workers. They will really be grateful for you saving them money if they have workers that are expendable. I don’t understand how an increase in minimum wage, would cause the same job to be able to complete, with less people. I am not aware of such powers in increasing minimum wage.

- - - Updated - - -

When have I ever, and I am dead SERIOUS, EVER been pro-free market? Like I really want to know if there was some point where I praised "muh markets". I really need a citation here.

This is where being a contrarian is a problem. A contrarian that doesn’t own their bullshit, is just a liar. Maybe make more jokes about tossing liberals off helicopters? Maybe it’s creating an impression of you that you don’t like? I’d think about that, not blame others for it.

[Draco-Onis]

Notorious right wing free market people like Krugman.

Look up cap and trade maybe pick up a history book sometime.

- - - Updated - - -

When have I ever, and I am dead SERIOUS, EVER been pro-free market? Like I really want to know if there was some point where I praised "muh markets". I really need a citation here.

Your post was pretty clear in its assertion but nice try deflecting.

Congrats, economists, or at least a majority of them are subject to a specific ideological lens

Muh evil liburals economists

[Felya]

Your post was pretty clear in its assertion but nice try deflecting.

Muh evil liburals economists

I think @Machismo liked this one. But, this is a concept I called having the ego of a peacock, but fortitude of an ostrich. The concept of being iconoclastic or contrarian, but without paying the price that makes those have any risk. The reason those are even a thing, is because of the negative reaction and thus bullshit you have to deal with for expressing such opinions. Without the negative reaction, it’s just being disengenous... since that’s what the end result is... complaining about being misunderstood. You have to follow through...

- - - Updated - - -

Naw, capitalism plays its part in the story. Efficient allocation of resources over the short term will lead to very poor long-term choices. The more we fetishize markets and cling to the notion that allowing them to function in some sort of a "pure" manner, rather than using them in a disciplined and conscious manner, the more we will allow capitalism to destroy us. This doesn't mean capitalism should be thrown out or that we should give into something like pure communism/socialism, it just means ideas like the one presented in the OP are worth considering. We need to find ways to incentivize socially constructive behavior if we want society to keep existing.

I am not talking pure, since that’s not realistic. I don’t believe in capitalism or socialism in extremes, simply because I like World of Warcraft and think for profit healthcare is extortion. But, I don’t see either one as responsible. It may be my expression of infinite monkeys typing on infinite keyboards, but every folly of capitalism you can imagine, I have holomodor in my back pocket.

In that sense, I just cannot blame an ideology as a whole. My view is very simple... there is right time and place for just about everything. Capitalism has me by the balls with gaming and I need socialism, so a doctor doesn’t ask how much I am willing to pay to save my balls... cyka blyat... that’s a lot of money.

[BadJoke]I bolted a couple of words I didn’t like, just sayin, I’d avoid using them. The bold “don’t” is yours... feel free to use that... unless the question is to give me stuff. Then remove it from your vocabulary. Damn it... there I am being a capitalist? [/BadJoke]

[Adam Jensen]

Tell that to the people who lose their jobs when minimum wages increase. Rich people put profit over everything else.

Literally hasn't happened at any point in history when we've raised the minimum wage.

[Felya]

Literally hasn't happened at any point in history when we've raised the minimum wage.

Is it irony to say rich people will put profit over everything else, while arguing that there are expendable workers being kept on, because the pay is low enough? What happened to profit? Expendable workers are costing money, before and after a minimum wage increase.

[Xeones]

To be fair, there is a lot of abstract bullshit that supports that notion that any time you raise minimum wage you lose industry, it's not hard to see how people get fooled, it just doesn't play out that way in the real world (where it counts).

I don't know about abstract. What they chose to do is just look at one segment of the economy and ignore the rest. "If you raise wages it raises costs and that will get rid of jobs!" As if that is the only consideration they are capable of having with how wildly complex the economy is.

It doesn't matter that there is no documentation to support the idea that prices will rise to directly offset a minimum wage increase, all documentation suggests it will have little to no impact on prices.
It doesn't matter that buying power will actually bolster the economy and drive the creation or security of jobs.
It doesn't matter that increased wages on the lower levels will provide an upward pressure on wages that will help battle stagnation.

And yet there famous counter point there might be a family restaurant somewhere that can't afford minimum wage. First off I'd describe that as a failing business I don't have much sympathy, if you can't afford to pay a living wage you probably don't need to exist. I'm more or less ok with farm subsidies for national security, but thats not generally what they are referring to.

[Endus]

Literally hasn't happened at any point in history when we've raised the minimum wage.

And because actual research is a good thing, here's a quick article with a bunch of source material linked afterwards; https://www.businessforafairminimumw...cause-job-loss

The idea that minimum wage increases cause job losses is just . . . objectively incorrect. They made up a claim, never checked any data, and declared themselves correct without needing any factual evidence to support themselves.

[Sunseeker]

Is it irony to say rich people will put profit over everything else, while arguing that there are expendable workers being kept on, because the pay is low enough? What happened to profit? Expendable workers are costing money, before and after a minimum wage increase.

And if there are rich people who would literally rather destroy their own business than pay their people more...shouldn't we do something about that?

I just don't get how conservatives can simultaneously hold this idea of freedom and the american spirit and hard work will get you everywhere; only to turn around and claim that we are powerless against the wealthy and any moves we make against them will just fuck us over.

And in before someone says: it's just internet tryhards; I've had these discussions with real people. People with skills, educated skills! Manual labor skills! All the skills! And they just look at me like I've got a dick on my forehead when I suggest that if a wealthy employer is treating them poorly, they shouldn't stand for that, and that they don't need that wealthy person to employ them. THEY have the skills, THEY do the work, THEY don't need the wealthy business owners! But nooooo I'm the crazy dirty liberal for suggesting we not be beholden to the wealthy.

[Slybak]

ROFLMAO

Carbon taxation is a right wing free market solution to climate change you know back when they believed in science, the left wanted more regulation.

1) Creating prohibitive costs via taxation (or from fines for violating emissions caps) is well within the confines of the conventional liberal regulatory state. Cap and Trade was the neoliberal market solution before conservatives finally discovered that it loaned credence to the fact that markets cannot exist without the state to create them, and thus turned against it. The actual conservative solution to pollution, or really to any negative externality whose costs are invariably socialized, is to chastise anyone who isn't a wealthy parasite as insufficiently virtuous.

2) Not all critiques of capitalism are left-wing in nature. Fascism is also critique of capitalism, just an extremely incoherent one.