The people that make claims on fossil fuel subsidies include tax breaks in their claim. I’m talking about it from the perspective that this is an error. If someone was to claim tax breaks for renewables was a subsidy they would also be in error.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
So there's a tiny downturn in emmisions and all of a sudden you become terrribly interested in correlation after disregarding the correlation between emissions growth, CO2 concentration and climate since, I dunno, forever
It is strange to you because you are thinking about it from the wrong perspective. If the government gave special tax relief benefits to a specific industry (just say they didn’t have to pay any tax) that wasn’t available to other competitive industries, then this policy isn’t a subsidy. Rather the taxation policy that applies to the other industries is a subsidy to all those that receive the redistributed funds. Like I already stated, the economic and ethical implications of both the taxation and tax relief policies are not equivalent.
Free market advocates don’t argue for the same tax policy to apply to all, they argue against taxes altogether!
It's still a distortion of the market given all companies and individuals pay tax (except Newscorp... and others) so an industry that gets tax breaks has an advantage over industries that don't. Agree it's not a subsidy in the way the subsidies are generally considered. But it's still a market distortion.
We don't really care about your position that tax is theft by violence - it's not pertinent to the debate here, which is about market distortion due to unequal treatment.
You live in a strange world. Kudos to you for sticking with what you believe in, but frankly its a load of claptrap.
I know you live in a world where there is no socialist system at all, ie. no free education / no free healthcare but don't you see the issues with that?? What happens to those that can't afford it?
Redistributed funds are not real in the real world, those taxes go towards government funded activities that are not privatised so there is no subsidy going back.
A world with no taxes etc will not and does not exist so I'm not sure why you constantly try to live in one where it does.
I will rephrase it in terms you can't get antsy about.
Given that a 9% decrease in emissions for one year did not register...
If a transition to renewables results in a 5% decrease in yearly emissions at a global cost of say, $5 trillion, how long should it be before we see a payoff in the form of slowing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Three years? Five? Ten? Do we double expenditure to $10 trillion and hope for the best? What is the benchmark?
It is very much on point. The market distortion isn’t the tax relief, it is the taxation!
Dude, you started the antsy-ness. No self-awareness, a bit like your hero Trump.
If we achieve the goals of the Paris treaty then they anticipate we'll restrict global warming to a 2.1 degree increase. Which is not great, not terrible as the guy said in Chernobyl. But, like Chernobyl, that will turn out to be pretty terrible.
You've forgotten/conveniently left out quantifying the cost of doing nothing as well - what are the economic costs of climate change at the current rates. These guys had a stab at that in Australia. https://www.sgsep.com.au/assets/main/Australias_Clean_Economy_MSSI_Issues_Paper12.pdf
The other thing you've forgotten is that many energies transitioning will have a neutral or a positive effect on economic growth. Old industries die, they are replaced. Perhaps you've heard of this happening here and there over history.
Dude, seriously, no one cares. How many times can you say "taxation is theft" to us in a million possible ways and not realise that it's not what we are talking about here.
Like I've said a million times, make a libertarian/Mises/Hayek thread and go knock yourself out there
Heh.
Antsy sh!t-stir.
If CO2 is responsible for the majority of global temperature increase, surely CO2 concentration is the canary in the coal mine? Which brings us back to the question I posed.
There is no such thing as free education and free healthcare, it is being paid for by forced redistribution. In reality it is stolen education and stolen healthcare. Don’t you see issues with that? Theft doesn’t appear to me to be a good idea if you wish to enshrine social cooperation.
What happens to those that can’t afford it? Well instead of being incentivised to fall back on forced redistribution, people would be more inclined to work harder, strengthen bonds between their family and friends, strengthen their bonds with their local community etc. If they can’t provide for themselves they will need to rely on the voluntary charity of others. Without the government meddling in our lives we would all be richer and in a better position to support the charities important to us individually. Wouldn’t you rather decide where your charity money in your personal budget is allocated instead of being forced to pay for a centralised planning body to decide for you? I personally donate over $600 annually but I could do much more if I didn’t have to pay the crazy amount of tax I have to pay plus when I die I would have a much larger benefit to convey to the charities that can demonstrate good performance over time and serve causes that are important to me.
“redistributed funds are not in the real world”, what does that even mean? The redistributed funds subsidises all that receive the funds. As an example, all government employees are subsidised by the private sector.
Whether or not taxation can be rid of or not is irrelevant to understanding economic law. I talk about it because I am interested in holding logically consistent arguments.
Last edited:
Wtf are you on about, you said the point is about market distortion and I pointed out you claiming a tax relief is the market distortion is incorrect, it is the taxation that is the market distortion.
The market process is a voluntary process of exchange between consenting parties, taxation isn’t voluntary (it is theft, try not to cry about the truth of that please) hence of relevance to the point on market distortions.
The point is, we are looking at what is happening in the real world, not theory which is where you reside.
Facts are that taxes exist and are going nowhere, so when reviewing industries that are given an unfair advantage via whatever type of subsidy / tax advantages is what we need to look at. Arguing that a tax benefit to a certain industry is not a subsidy because no businesses should pay tax is not providing any real world solutions.
You have to give him credit for persisting despite a complete lack of interest on the part of the audience
Yeah kudos to sticking to his beliefs and its an interesting topic, however I don't have time to constantly talk through the theoretical issues with society. I'd much rather review real life and where competing industries have unfair advantages.
When looking at the problem from your perspective, you come up with wack solutions because you frame the problem wrong. To you, the problem is unequal tax treatment so a viable solution is to increase taxes. If one holds an understanding of economics and ethics (call that theory if you want) one can understand the problem properly (i.e. understand the real world). The problem is the taxation policy itself because economically it distorts the market process and ethically it is wrong (some seem bored about this reality interestingly) and breaks down social cooperation.
Last edited:
You seem unaware that to do this is impossible without a theoretical framework in which to understand what constitutes an advantage, whether this advantage is fair or unfair, whether this is a problem and if it is a problem what the true nature of the problem is.
