[dohboi]

"All those social needs being met translates to how many more hundreds of millions or billions of consumers?"

That is based on a number of unsupported assumptions, including that the richest are not already consuming at or beyond those rates, directly and indirectly.

[Cog]

I guess the solution is to make rich people poor so they won't consume as much. Or just kill them, whatever works. LOL

[Outcast_Searcher]

I guess the solution is to make rich people poor so they won't consume as much. Or just kill them, whatever works. LOL

And that's the problem, what to do about it that would be reasonable or work.

Re the article in Ibon's post above, talking about how if the wealth of the top 10 billionaires could just be magically confiscated, then all sorts of problems could be addressed.

Naturally, not a word about how the wealthy already generally pay a tremendous amount of income taxes in countries like the US. Not a word about what arbitrarily stealing peoples' money because someone says they "need" it does to the incentive to work, social stability, economic progress or productivity, etc.

If we lived on an infinite planet with no pollution, AGW, resource, etc. problems, then it would be easy. We wouldn't need to do anything.

But we don't. Science and observation and math and logic clearly establish that we don't.

But what should we do? That's a tough one. Opinions will vary, clearly.

...

I still would like to see replacing income taxes with consumption taxes, and have the consumption taxes based on how much damage the consumption causes.

1). No more punishing people for being highly productive.

2). People are financially incented not to mindlessly destroy the planet via consuming all they can with no consequences.

3). And most importantly, IMO, there is now a huge net financial incentive for humanity to be more efficient about consumption. I believe all that brainpower geared toward such efficiency in pure self interest would do FAR more good than endless rules, regulations, etc. in the current system.

It's a different way of thinking, but it seems to me it would work better than what we have. If it means less economic growth, so be it. And as for unfairness, well, does a rich guy REALLY need multiple yachts to water ski behind? If so, at least let him pay for ALL the ecological damage they cause.

(And since the poor and middle class pays for their own damage too, I don't even see it as being unfair).

[KaiserJeep]

The thing is, that aside from the embedded energy of production, the additional automobiles, boats, or airplanes owned by some average rich person does no more damage than a single example of each would do, because collectively they are driven the same number of hours and consume the same amount of fuel that one like vehicle would consume driven/piloted/steered the same distance. But there are average wealthy people and then there are wealthy pr*cks. One example of a wealthy pr*ck that annoys me frequently here in California, is Larry Elllison, the billionaire owner of Oracle corporation. He has a very noisy vintage airliner that does not meet the current noise pollution standards for the San Jose airport. He never-the-less arranged for his jet to fly in and out of that airport, and he's the only one allowed to make that much noise. So every time he circles the valley and lands, everybody knows which pr*ck it is.

My problem with consumption taxes is that they, too need to be progressive. The Larry Ellison's and the Donald Trump's of the world, with their oversized jetliner private planes that consume the same amount of fuel as a jetliner that carries 100+ or 300+ people, should pay the same amount of jet fuel tax as the airline. Unless we can get creative and charge them a progressive tax that increases as passengers per plane goes DOWN.

As an example of the madness that IS today, the small Nantucket airport has very limited jet airplane facilities. The jet engine starters that they have are limited to the specifioc models of the Boeng 737 that the single jet airline uses (Summer only). Yet the island is now one of the "in" destinations for the rich and famous, and I was appalled at the huge mansions appearing on the pristine moors.

But what is a rich pr*ck to do if their private jumbo jet plane does not match the single version of jet engine starter that the island now has? The answer is that they park on the periphery of the airport, with tie-downs, and they allow one engine to idle continuously for the number of weeks that they decide to stay, so that one engine can start all the others. Never mind that the idling turbofan engine burns tremendous amounts of fuel, idling at low elevation in it's least efficient operating range. Never mind that some people (like me for example) live less than a mile from said airport and can hear the damned planes 24x7 during Summer months. Never mind that the engine experiences so much wear that it must be rebuilt at 4X the rate of one not so abused. It's all worth it when a rich selfish pr*ck of an owner can phone ahead and have his jet topped off and ready for him at a bare 60 minutes notice. Never mind that the airport itself charges a $10K+ fee to jump the queue of carefully sequenced Summer flight plans. Never mind the outrageous amount of fuel consumed, or the pollution (hydrocarbon and audible) produced by the idling jets. Because rich pr*cks can do anything they want.

[Plantagenet]

park on the periphery of the airport, with tie-downs, and they allow one engine to idle continuously for the number of weeks that they decide to stay, so that one engine can start all the others. Never mind that the idling turbofan engine burns tremendous amounts of fuel, idling at low elevation in it's least efficient operating range. Never mind that some people (like me for example) live less than a mile from said airport and can hear the damned planes 24x7 during Summer months. Never mind that the engine experiences so much wear that it must be rebuilt at 4X the rate of one not so abused. It's all worth it when a rich selfish pr*ck of an owner can phone ahead and have his jet topped off and ready for him at a bare 60 minutes notice. Never mind that the airport itself charges a $10K+ fee to jump the queue of carefully sequenced Summer flight plans. Never mind the outrageous amount of fuel consumed, or the pollution (hydrocarbon and audible) produced by the idling jets. Because rich pr*cks can do anything they want.

Sorry to hear your idyllic and paradisiacal house on Nantucket is beset by the noise of rich people and their private jets.

The best way for you to combat that is for you to buy some loudspeakers and blast extremely loud rap music or bollywood music or something else horrible back at them 24-7. Or maybe get a radio and tune in some come-to-jesus radio station and pump that out of your loudspeakers at full volume.

Then, once you've got their attention, see if you can negotiate some kind of truce where everyone turns down the noise and you can all go back to enjoying the blessed silence.

Cheers!

[dohboi]

[KaiserJeep]

Actually I know about those planes only from my annoyed Brother-In-Law who lives next door. The only time I heard the noise personally was the 2 days when we went to the Mother-In-Law's funeral.

I have decided I need a scheme to allow me to experience Nantucket in the Summer, but until then, we plan to live there only when the tourists, and the traffic gridlock they bring, are gone. So far my best idea is an electric tricycle with a cargo basket. I could use the bike paths and avoid the delays.

It is possible to get on and off the island relatively unscathed by traffic delays if you plan ahead and book reservations on the red-eye ferries. That way you can drive to and from your home without delay. But during Summer, there are so many vehicles clogging the roads, that a daytime grocery store visit, just 3 miles round trip, is a 3+ hour ordeal.

Travel times could be halved with simple traffic lights. But one of the island's claims to fame is that there are zero traffic lights, and the town selectmen are loathe to make the change.

One other change this brought about is that emergency vehicles are impeded. This turns every ambulance call into a helicopter ride, with a $10K fee tacked onto the ER visit. Sometimes this gets waived for year round residents, who would otherwise lose their homes.

Edit: BTW, there are FAA regulations against fuelling jets with operating engines, outside of emergency situations. But somehow these do not get enforced on Nantucket, the jet fuel is delivered daily to the idling planes. Rich pr*cks again.

[Outcast_Searcher]

My problem with consumption taxes is that they, too need to be progressive. The Larry Ellison's and the Donald Trump's of the world, with their oversized jetliner private planes that consume the same amount of fuel as a jetliner that carries 100+ or 300+ people, should pay the same amount of jet fuel tax as the airline. Unless we can get creative and charge them a progressive tax that increases as passengers per plane goes DOWN.

I absolutely agree. I was trying not to make my post above even longer, unless I got a serious response.

There is no reason consumption taxes can't be progressive. I've outlined this before. And in fact, I think they should be not only progressive, but get exponential at some point.

Done right, this could address the needs of the poor and modest CO2 producers, as well as put limits on the rich folks who literally have lots of money to burn.

So as an example for fossil fuels we burn.

For things like gasoline or diesel, the first, say, 300 gallons or so could have no CO2 tax. This would let a poor family drive their efficient car to nearby work, the market, the doctor, etc, without significant taxes. And anyone else too, willing to live a low CO2 lifestyle transport wise.

Then for more moderate users, like the folks who drive an average of 13,000ish miles a year, for usage over that 300 gallons to something like maybe 1000 gallons, a significant but not crippling CO2 tax could be used. Maybe a couple dollars a gallon or something. For those who hate that, there's EV's, bikes, buses, trains, scooters, walking, etc. Or living close to work, etc.

Then for the rich users flying around on private jets and stuff, the taxes could get really big, in several progressive stages. Make the tax big enough, and maybe even THEY would be more reasonable. If not, at least the tax could be used toward building green energy resources like government funds to build lots of charging stations, incentives to put solar panels on roofs, etc.

This is just off the top, but the idea should be sound. The main downside is usage would need to be tracked, and corruption would need to be fought. Draconian fines and big jail terms for large scale offenders might help (i.e. those cheating to avoid the CO2 tax). With modern debit/credit card technology, this transpo fuel purchase tracking wouldn't be difficult to implement.

A perfect system? No. Better than what we've got if tuned properly? I think so.

[Cog]

@outcast_searcher

And as for unfairness, well, does a rich guy REALLY need multiple yachts to water ski behind?

I'm so glad we have self-appointed mothers to tell everyone what they need. Why not just fully embrace the social justice you really want by killing them? You know you want to. If the environmental impact is so severe, then killing the rich would benefit the planet. So get your gun and go to work.

[KaiserJeep]

Cog, that was totally unfair. Not only has OS done the math, but he has read this thread, which obviously you did not. Or if you did, you did not properly address the content.

I earlier made the point that anybody collecting vintage cars, trucks, boats, or airplanes does not consume any more fuel than anybody using one like vehicle for the same amount of miles. Collectors are not the problem, rich pr*cks who think that the rules are for everybody else are the real problem. Conspicious consumption of FF's for any reason whatsoever is the problem.

I don't know if it was this thread or another, but a few weeks back I talked about the wife's cousin, a plumber who owns the two cigarette racer boats, and fuels them at 500 gallons of marine diesel at a pop, for a single day of entertainment. He should be penalized for that conspicious consumption somehow, in a way that the owner of a 50+ year old fishing trawler, who buys the same amount of fuel and uses it to produce a lot of seafood over a week's time, is not penalized.

OS has given useful input and YOU have responded seemingly without thought. What ARE your actual thoughts about the conspicious and wasteful consumption of FF's, versus your knee-jerk response? Because I too champion personal freedom, but I also personally suffer the consequences of excessive FF usage, in both California and on Nantucket, where air quality in both places is far below where it should be, and rich pr*cks are partly to blame.

[Newfie]

At least part of the proble here is we have folks, both sides, cherry picking arguments, zeroing in on some tiny facet they feel free to hate.

Stand back and try to get a clear picture of the BIG picture and all this becomes partisan whining.

Big pictur is we have 7.5 billion folks and we can support maybe a billion. How we get to one billion is s mystery he seems likely to be a horrid mess no matter how you cut it.

This is just a circular blame game. I don’t blame the super rich, they are simply playing a part in our human culture. Human culture creates and destroys the celebrity, it’s part of what we are. Also I would not change positions with Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. I’ve worked long and hard to cultivate my wealth, which is different from their wealth. It’s hard to imagine they are happier and more free than I.

Also it’s BS that the super rich are as rich as is proclaimed. They have an account with lots of digits, but it’s not usually really liquid money, they can’t cash out and give away $5 billion. Funny money. Fake wealth. BS.

[Newfie]

KJ,
On this one I need to point out I’ve made a similar comment to Cog. I get where he is coming from, what he is responding to. There is a certain emotional content imbedded in the message that Cog is unmasking.

Cogs style is rather crude and blunt and brutal. In this particular case though I think he is reflecting the message he is hearing. I hear it too.

[Outcast_Searcher]

@outcast_searcher

And as for unfairness, well, does a rich guy REALLY need multiple yachts to water ski behind?

I'm so glad we have self-appointed mothers to tell everyone what they need. Why not just fully embrace the social justice you really want by killing them? You know you want to. If the environmental impact is so severe, then killing the rich would benefit the planet. So get your gun and go to work.

It's really unfortunate when people have to go straight to hyperbole and anger and can't have a reasonable conversation. Ignoring the problem is a position. If you want to just ignore the problem and have us fry ourselves as fast as we can consume our earned wealth, OK. Why not just state that instead of going straight to "killing the rich"?

Some people around here may have said or implied that at some point. **I**, OTOH, never have and never would. I constantly defend the rich re the massive income taxes they collectively pay and argue for eliminating the income taxes and thus not punishing the rich for having large incomes (whether it be from a salary or business or investments).

Seriously -- I think you're angry at the wrong person.

[Newfie]

You make a good point.

Being angry at the wrong person is a common problem on these boards. It’s sometimes hard to keep identities distinct. We pick up on trends and patterns. All is not always clear.

It would only surprise me if that didn’t happen.

[Cog]

Outcast_Searcher's theory on income redistribution:

Collectors are not the problem, rich pr*cks who think that the rules are for everybody else are the real problem.

So kill them and save the planet. I swear you sound more Marxist every day with your confiscation of wealth theories.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Big pictur is we have 7.5 billion folks and we can support maybe a billion. How we get to one billion is s mystery he seems likely to be a horrid mess no matter how you cut it.

This is just a circular blame game.

I don't understand why I'm seen as "blaming" anyone. I'm just looking for the a potential, somewhat practical (partial) solution, that won't kill anyone, at least not in the short term.

Yes, if we could easily get to a billion or less total population, that would be GREAT for dealing with fixing the biosphere.

But since I don't see 6.5 billion people lining up to sacrifice themselves, and I've never advocated killing people, I'm looking for a more realistic, if imperfect solution to at least do SOMETHING besides watch the biosphere be cooked.

Is that so terrible?

I haven't raised my voice here. As Reagan would have said, I haven't fired a shot.

Is looking for something better, vs. a total solution, just a non-starter?

Am I being unreasonable? That's not my intent, despite Cog's reaction.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Outcast_Searcher's theory on income redistribution:

Collectors are not the problem, rich pr*cks who think that the rules are for everybody else are the real problem.

So kill them and save the planet. I swear you sound more Marxist every day with your confiscation of wealth theories.

You seem less and less rational about this. Kind of sad really, but that's your choice.

Do you grasp that with no income taxes that rich folks could choose to pay far LESS taxes? You seem to be so wound up about "confiscation of wealth" that you can't even look at concepts.

[Cog]

I understand your concepts all too well. You are hypocritical with them. You want a progressive consumption tax that will fall most heavily on the 10%. You don't care that the other 90% of the population will be immune to this tax. For them, you don't care if they breed like rabbits and consume even more resources in your over-heated world.

You are out to get the rich no matter how you have to go about it. They are the problem in your world, not the other 90%. But its not socially acceptable to get rid of the 90%, so you pick the target that is not popular. The 10%. So cut to the chase and simply kill the 10% and all of your problems will be solved.

You voted for Obama twice didn't you? That is a simple yes or no question. You also voted for Hillary didn't you?

[KaiserJeep]

Cog, you just clearly and without a doubt, attacked OS in a partisan political way.

Earlier, you quoted something I said and tried to refute OS's argument with it.

You are going to have to try harder and use more logic and less emotion to make your points. Because so far, you are being offensive and ineffective.

Newfie, I got your point as well, but I feel you are cutting Cog too much slack. I know he can make reasonable arguments, he has done so before.

For the record, all three of us are US Patriots and believe in personal freedom. So does OS, for that matter.

The possession of almost unlimited wealth is a PROBLEM, pure and simple, when it breeds contempt for our laws.

[Newfie]

Understood,

But these are very emotional topics and you are not the only poster.

I think in part what we are dealing with is that all of us want a solution, some are veryndissolusioned that a solution exists, not all see solutions or concepts in the same light, so what sort under good to one guy sounds horrible to someone else.

And some posters tend to get on a point and rag on it, and rah on it, and rag on it. That eventually gets under ones skin.

Yes, you have a point. But in the wider scheme of things so does Cog. I don’t see you guys so much as yelling at each other but as talking past one another, yelling at the fellow behind.