• Maëlys@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wealth owners: billionaires should be degraded to millionaires, starting from the industrial revolution. and voila!

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    The biggest polluters should, like oil and gas industries. They’ve profited off the destruction, they should pay their fair share in cleaning it up.

  • LilNaib@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    in the form of flat fees on their monthly electric bills

    Base fees are regressive and financially disincentivize progress.

    If you want people to use less electricity, remove base fees and increase usage fees.

    Another way of looking at it: imagine you had to pay a big fee to enter the grocery store, but once inside, everything was similarly priced. A potato would cost almost the same as a ribeye steak. You’d see lots of people walking out with steak, and as a result we’d have a major increase in agriculutural climate emissions.

    Electricity is the same way. When everyone’s paying base fees to artificially lower usage rates, poor people are subsidizing the extravagant usage of the rich.

    Remove regressive base fees and charge people for the damage they do.

      • LilNaib@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The article says:

        The Golden State’s poorest residents — those already enrolled in discounted rate programs — would pay small fixed charges.

        and

        Millionaires and billionaires would be slapped with the same fixed charges as middle-class families struggling to get by

        Maybe I’m misreading, or maybe the article is poorly written, but it sounds like everyone would be paying fixed fees.

        Setting a fee based on income sounds super error prone and vulnerable to gaming in the same way that the rich can avoid taxation. Imagine a CEO making $1 in salary with the rest in stocks, how would that be charged? Or imagine $1 in salary, but the rest in free housing, food, transportation, etc. What’s the overhead for properly monitoring all this? It must be huge to do a credible job. We’re already not doing it and repeating the same obvious error can only be assumed to be intentional.

        Just remove base fees and charge people for their usage. Poor people already use much less electricity than rich people so they would save money under my proposal, while the people who use more would have to pay more.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I agree that better enforcement of income tax payment by the wealthy is important.

          Denying that it can be done is just defeatism

          • LilNaib@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not saying it can’t be done, just that it isn’t.

            We should work toward proven solutions instead.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              The Inflation Reduction Act actually included a lot of money to have the IRS catch wealthy tax cheats. It seems to be working.

              Since state taxation is based on federal taxation, this should improve state revenue as well.

  • kozy138@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Lawyers are responsible”

    They’re responsible for the lax climate regulations. They are also responsible for putting more strict regulations in place.