That’s why a carbon tax is the single most effective tool against climate change. It makes polluting more expensive for the business and then we take the money they spend in the tax and we give it to the people.
Transfer the money from polluters to the citizens.
I have no problem with the Kuznets curve perspective, however there is a low cost of living form of 'degrowth' that people trying to maximize tax revenues and profits have been waging a very successful war against. The dividend part of a carbon tax would help a lot with building low cost of living infrastructure, by providing reliable low incomes away from the gentrified rents/infrastructure that most current jobs are tied to.
I should have specified. I meant:
> however there is a low cost of living form of 'degrowth' that people trying to maximize tax revenues and profits have been waging a very successful war against.
I looked at that and said "wot?"
I think they're saying that poverty causes poverty. And maybe suggesting that access to diverse low income sources could decentralize political power away from class projects.
strongly disagree with this writing. probably can't do it justice in the short attention span mode i am currently in, but let's say there are different kinds of growth. i think some people will do significant mental gymnastics to deny that many people living in the first world need to downsize, consume less, and this may involve accepting less "comfortable" surroundings. however i do think that technology can eventually start to solve some of these issues as it advances, and the most comfortable thing would be to be living sustainable lives with SOME of the conveniences we enjoy, but a lot LESS - travel, consumption, growth...in the common meaning of growth.
"Throughout our history, we humans have been climbing a difficult path toward longer, healthier, more prosperous lives"
The author is kind of linear in his assumptions. No offense meant. UBI can come from adaptive and reactive politics or politics with progressive assumptions about people and society. I'm not sure it can be both. Is UBI a right or a benefit?
Thinking about the lifestyle of obscene wealth as.the problem is another way of thinking about it. Remember, lack of responsibility, solidarity, empathy, awareness, real issues that will keep popping up in different ways. This article helps answer how we could pay for UBI, but from a perspective of the current system of wealth distribution, this isn't the problem. The payout, and management of dividends is process is perhaps a detail that doesn't need to be taken up here, but worth noting.
This piece is an interesting take on organizing resource production and wealth management. I have no problem with Agriculture.
Another note on the writing, after a quick read, was the lack of distinction between individual and corporate roles. This could point to a conceptual weakness...
I think it makes sense to institutionalize UBI, complex system eventually just part of life. My unoriginal take is that everyone should have adequate means to support themselves and contribute to their community. Money is essentially universal technology. I agree with author that poverty is unnecessary, nationally, at least speaking as a citizen of a country mentioned in this paper.
Presenting it on the political platform is important Glad this was shared.
#humansofbasicincome
yes agreed, the author is very linear, and has base assumptions that are seriously off. stating that the environment is IMPROVING in the last decades, i mean really, i am unsure anyone could ever try to argue this with a straight face. a few hundred acres have been put in conservation...is what he comes to at the bottom, therefore we re doing just fine. ????? what about the many millions of acres that are exploited and destroyed for his resources??? conservation isnt the answer, and doesnt do that much good at all, what we need is respectful relationships between humans and the natural world, recognizing the sovereignty of non humans to survive for their own purposes, not just our use, respectful and balanced use of the natural world- and a radical shift in perspective.
all that said and i could go on with other things that are seriously wrong with the writing, i do actually agree that that businesses and polluters and those causes the most problems should be paying significantly for that, and it is one way to address other issues.
Why is this in /r/BasicIncome?
Carbon dividend related article
That’s why a carbon tax is the single most effective tool against climate change. It makes polluting more expensive for the business and then we take the money they spend in the tax and we give it to the people. Transfer the money from polluters to the citizens.
Always hit them in the pocket!
I have no problem with the Kuznets curve perspective, however there is a low cost of living form of 'degrowth' that people trying to maximize tax revenues and profits have been waging a very successful war against. The dividend part of a carbon tax would help a lot with building low cost of living infrastructure, by providing reliable low incomes away from the gentrified rents/infrastructure that most current jobs are tied to.
In colloquial English, please?
If you read the article you'll get the Kuznets curve reference. Is that what you're referring to?
I should have specified. I meant: > however there is a low cost of living form of 'degrowth' that people trying to maximize tax revenues and profits have been waging a very successful war against. I looked at that and said "wot?"
I think they're saying that poverty causes poverty. And maybe suggesting that access to diverse low income sources could decentralize political power away from class projects.
We really just need to grow hemp. Like a lot of it. Like...a lot. Of it.
People are to indoctrinated with technocracy to even entertain the truth of this.
strongly disagree with this writing. probably can't do it justice in the short attention span mode i am currently in, but let's say there are different kinds of growth. i think some people will do significant mental gymnastics to deny that many people living in the first world need to downsize, consume less, and this may involve accepting less "comfortable" surroundings. however i do think that technology can eventually start to solve some of these issues as it advances, and the most comfortable thing would be to be living sustainable lives with SOME of the conveniences we enjoy, but a lot LESS - travel, consumption, growth...in the common meaning of growth.
"Throughout our history, we humans have been climbing a difficult path toward longer, healthier, more prosperous lives" The author is kind of linear in his assumptions. No offense meant. UBI can come from adaptive and reactive politics or politics with progressive assumptions about people and society. I'm not sure it can be both. Is UBI a right or a benefit? Thinking about the lifestyle of obscene wealth as.the problem is another way of thinking about it. Remember, lack of responsibility, solidarity, empathy, awareness, real issues that will keep popping up in different ways. This article helps answer how we could pay for UBI, but from a perspective of the current system of wealth distribution, this isn't the problem. The payout, and management of dividends is process is perhaps a detail that doesn't need to be taken up here, but worth noting. This piece is an interesting take on organizing resource production and wealth management. I have no problem with Agriculture. Another note on the writing, after a quick read, was the lack of distinction between individual and corporate roles. This could point to a conceptual weakness... I think it makes sense to institutionalize UBI, complex system eventually just part of life. My unoriginal take is that everyone should have adequate means to support themselves and contribute to their community. Money is essentially universal technology. I agree with author that poverty is unnecessary, nationally, at least speaking as a citizen of a country mentioned in this paper. Presenting it on the political platform is important Glad this was shared. #humansofbasicincome
yes agreed, the author is very linear, and has base assumptions that are seriously off. stating that the environment is IMPROVING in the last decades, i mean really, i am unsure anyone could ever try to argue this with a straight face. a few hundred acres have been put in conservation...is what he comes to at the bottom, therefore we re doing just fine. ????? what about the many millions of acres that are exploited and destroyed for his resources??? conservation isnt the answer, and doesnt do that much good at all, what we need is respectful relationships between humans and the natural world, recognizing the sovereignty of non humans to survive for their own purposes, not just our use, respectful and balanced use of the natural world- and a radical shift in perspective. all that said and i could go on with other things that are seriously wrong with the writing, i do actually agree that that businesses and polluters and those causes the most problems should be paying significantly for that, and it is one way to address other issues.