Despair, Courage, & Hope in an Age of Environmental Turmoil

[Cutlass]

There's nothing reasonable about wealth redistribution (unless your one of the lazy ass poor people).

The wealth distribution is destroying capitalism, and destroying the prosperity of everyone.

This really seems to show everything anyone needs to know about why you are a denier. It's all about your own personal greed and selfishness. You simply don't care about the harm your actions do to others, because you feel entitled to act that way.

 

[Murky]

There's lots of reasons people are poor aside from laziness if you take the time to learn about it.

 

[Dale]

The wealth distribution is destroying capitalism, and destroying the prosperity of everyone.

This really seems to show everything anyone needs to know about why you are a denier. It's all about your own personal greed and selfishness. You simply don't care about the harm your actions do to others, because you feel entitled to act that way.

So because I work hard to help improve the services the organisation I work for can supply the public (which happens to be a not-for-profit left-wing green Church), and because I work hard to support my family and give my kids the best opportunities in life, and because I believe in earning enough and not living outside your means so as to not require Government assistance, I'm personally greedy and selfish? And if you really need to know, I'm a volunteer sports coach teaching kids how to play Aussie Rules and a cub scout leader.

You don't know Jack about me and your assumption about me shows how pitiful and jealous you are of people who are actually making something of their life.

 

[peter grimes]

There's nothing reasonable about wealth redistribution (unless your one of the lazy ass poor people).

So because I work hard to help improve the services the organisation I work for can supply the public (which happens to be a not-for-profit left-wing green Church), and because I work hard to support my family and give my kids the best opportunities in life, and because I believe in earning enough and not living outside your means so as to not require Government assistance, I'm personally greedy and selfish? And if you really need to know, I'm a volunteer sports coach teaching kids how to play Aussie Rules and a cub scout leader.

You don't know Jack about me and your assumption about me shows how pitiful and jealous you are of people who are actually making something of their life.

Your first comment, quoted above, reads as if you think anyone who needs government assistance is making a choice to be lazy, then combined with the second part it implies that the only people who are making something of their lives are people like you, whatever that means.

You can't really get too upset some of us draw a natural conclusion from that first sentence. You called anyone who gets something from society "lazy-assed poor people" Do you stand by that, or are would you agree that poverty isn't quite so black & white?

 

[Dale]

Your first comment, quoted above, reads as if you think anyone who needs government assistance is making a choice to be lazy, then combined with the second part it implies that the only people who are making something of their lives are people like you, whatever that means.

You can't really get too upset some of us draw a natural conclusion from that first sentence. You called anyone who gets something from society "lazy-assed poor people" Do you stand by that, or are would you agree that poverty isn't quite so black & white?

I disagree completely with this current 'Age of Entitlement'. People who are unable to provide for their basic needs fair enough, but these days nearly everyone has their hand out to the Govt demanding their cut. There are so many examples these days of people who should take more responsibility and reduce their burden on society.

Why should I have to pay for the lazy-ass bum who chooses not to work? Why should I have to pay for the drugged up hooker with 4 kids? There are much more important and useful things for the Govt to invest taxes into than these types of people.

And if you feel insulted by that view then you're as much a part of this 'Age of Entitlement' problem as them.

 

[peter grimes]

Entitlement, eh? Be careful with that one - it cuts both ways.

But I'm glad you expanded on this - I guess Cutlass et alia weren't too far off.

 

[Crezth]

Dale, can everyone be a CEO?

 

[Dale]

Entitlement, eh? Be careful with that one - it cuts both ways.

But I'm glad you expanded on this - I guess Cutlass et alia weren't too far off.

So not liking the fact some people expect Govt handouts whilst not doing anything productive for society is greedy and selfish eh?

Oh the irony.

Dale, can everyone be a CEO?

Who said you have to be a CEO to be self-sufficient? Live within your means. Not that hard a concept to understand. I'm an ordinary web developer, no CEO here. Not even middle management.

 

[Cutlass]

So because I work hard to help improve the services the organisation I work for can supply the public (which happens to be a not-for-profit left-wing green Church), and because I work hard to support my family and give my kids the best opportunities in life, and because I believe in earning enough and not living outside your means so as to not require Government assistance, I'm personally greedy and selfish? And if you really need to know, I'm a volunteer sports coach teaching kids how to play Aussie Rules and a cub scout leader.

You don't know Jack about me and your assumption about me shows how pitiful and jealous you are of people who are actually making something of their life.

And yet your posts here are the posts equal to that of a person who is deliberately making things harder on the less fortunate, just because it might inconvenience you. Go figure.

 

[Murky]

Sometimes your means are below the level required to live like most people do. Have you have read "The Grapes of Wrath?" If you don't like reading there is a movie version. Some poverty is generational too where by growing up in it you don't learn the skills required to escape it. Then there are people struggling with various addictions. Some have a record that makes getting gainful employment difficult. There's a couple good movies by Laurie Collyer that sheds some light on these types of struggles people are going through.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423169/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1517249/

All that is really beside the point when it comes to climate change. If you acknowledge that is real, is human cause and presents a threat, and you have the means to fight it then shouldn't you take some responsibility there regardless of who benefits in the short term?

 

[Rashiminos]

What absolute bull!

I worked my ass off at school to get good marks and then two Uni degrees. Then for 18 years working jobs pushing to increase my skills, job level and salary. Basically, I've spent the last 24 years working hard to get to the position I'm in, and I get repaid by being screwed over.

That would be labor exploitation in a nutshell, tsk.

It seems a bit selfish and petty to put your own desire to retain wealth above the need to take steps to address climate change. I mean the wealthy in general. If you make a six figure salary every year and already have a lot of money and property is it really so much to ask that you chip in a bit more than someone who has barely enough to live on?

Possibly. There's also the possibility that the someones in question are not particularly interested in adapting to the changes in question, and with a(n exaggerated) finite availability of resources, it would be rather wasteful to let both be disposed of...

The wealth distribution is destroying capitalism,

Not really. Capitalism is alive and... well.

and destroying the prosperity of everyone.

Not everyone is meant to be prosperous under the current circumstances.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's ok. Many people lack the intelligence and/or the desire to understand that not all lives are created the same. He probably doesn't have the lineage of tenant farmers, as one example, to understand that damned useful people, people society needs, can work their asses off for the betterment of all and still be poor. Or, perhaps, one might believe that damned useful people should be poor, so long as they aren't one's self. One's self being superior in some material way, of course. Couple that with the quite legitimate desire to see society reward hard work with compensation, and it's easy to be braindead enough to confuse scattered correlation with causation between lack of compensation and lack of hard work. Even if the data disproves it over and over and over again.

 

[Rashiminos]

Who said you have to be a CEO to be self-sufficient? Live within your means. Not that hard a concept to understand. I'm an ordinary web developer, no CEO here. Not even middle management.

So what's the deal with whinging about your diplomas? Live within the means provided for you. Is that not what you're arguing?

 

[Dale]

And yet your posts here are the posts equal to that of a person who is deliberately making things harder on the less fortunate, just because it might inconvenience you. Go figure.

Less fortunate by situation is one thing, but less fortunate by choice be damned. I just don't understand how people can support the notion of giving a free ride to people with no interest in bettering themselves or doing something for society.

All that is really beside the point when it comes to climate change. If you acknowledge that is real, is human cause and presents a threat, and you have the means to fight it then shouldn't you take some responsibility there regardless of who benefits in the short term?

And if you don't believe it's a threat?

That aside, Australia's carbon tax was pure wealth redistribution in its compensation model. Sure, a flat tax produces the desired result of the amount of tax paid based on consumption (so richies who consume more, pay more). But to be equitable (like you strangely believe a carbon tax is) then the compensation should be consumption based too. Poor people don't get hit that much with a carbon tax because they're not consuming much. A carbon tax impacts a richie quite highly because of their consumption. Therefore, the compensation should be linked to consumption. Linking to income makes it a pure wealth distribution. Take based on rich consumption, give based on poor income.

That would be labor exploitation in a nutshell, tsk.

Huh, and here I thought it was getting a good job so I could provide for my family. Your comment seems to imply that you believe working hard and moving up in a career to get a better position/salary is exploitation instead of reward. So do you believe that slackers should get better career options?

So what's the deal with whinging about your diplomas? Live within the means provided for you. Is that not what you're arguing?

I wasn't whinging, and I do live within my means. If you read back the last couple of pages you find the whinging is from people who don't believe in working for a better future. They seem to expect to be given one instead.

 

[Rashiminos]

Huh, and here I thought it was getting a good job so I could provide for my family. Your comment seems to imply that you believe working hard and moving up in a career to get a better position/salary is exploitation instead of reward.

Pointless question excised. You seem to believe working hard and advancing in a career entitles you to both rewards and deliverance from exploitation.

I wasn't whinging, and I do live within my means.

You were, else you would not have made comments about getting screwed over.

If you read back the last couple of pages you find the whinging is from people who don't believe in working for a better future. They seem to expect to be given one instead.

Not everyone has the same idea of what a better future entails, and some of them have been saying the same about you. With that aside, it appears to me that your idea of a better future is getting in line to serve a certain class of employers with hard work, which is not so much your idea as theirs, and their idea tending to leave groups of people out of opportunity where convenient.

 

[Murky]

And if you don't believe it's a threat?

Then you will eventually because the problem is continually getting worse.

That aside, Australia's carbon tax was pure wealth redistribution in its compensation model. Sure, a flat tax produces the desired result of the amount of tax paid based on consumption (so richies who consume more, pay more). But to be equitable (like you strangely believe a carbon tax is) then the compensation should be consumption based too. Poor people don't get hit that much with a carbon tax because they're not consuming much. A carbon tax impacts a richie quite highly because of their consumption. Therefore, the compensation should be linked to consumption. Linking to income makes it a pure wealth distribution. Take based on rich consumption, give based on poor income.

It sounds more like your opposition to redistribution of wealth is what turned you against the carbon tax more than if it was being effective at reducing emissions. How did things go for the carbon-emission intense industries after it went into effect? I seem to recall reading that they were in a dismal state at one point, having to write down some huge losses. That sounds like it was affecting them. How did the clean energy technologies fair before and after the carbon tax? Did they do any better? Were emissions measurably lower or higher?

 

[Cutlass]

Less fortunate by situation is one thing, but less fortunate by choice be damned. I just don't understand how people can support the notion of giving a free ride to people with no interest in bettering themselves or doing something for society.

The very fact that you can pretend that this is actually a thing is a demonstration that your own personal greed and selfishness is your driving motivation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, to swing back on track. The whole 'carbon tax' will need to be regressive, due to the fact that it's a consumption tax. The citizen dividend scheme would have to allow for that. Honestly, wouldn't a straight per capita cheque work out? Firstly, due to the marginal utility of money and progressive income tax schemes, poorer people WILL get more money back. As well, since most carbon consumption will be done by the rich, they'll "pull up" the average income generated from the whole carbon tax scheme in the first place.

The resentment towards a progressive compensation scheme is one of perspective, though. Seriously, if you resent poor people getting 'your' money, then just consume less carbon?

 

[Dale]

Then you will eventually because the problem is continually getting worse.



It sounds more like your opposition to redistribution of wealth is what turned you against the carbon tax more than if it was being effective at reducing emissions. How did things go for the carbon-emission intense industries after it went into effect? I seem to recall reading that they were in a dismal state at one point, having to write down some huge losses. That sounds like it was affecting them. How did the clean energy technologies fair before and after the carbon tax? Did they do any better? Were emissions measurably lower or higher?

Check for yourself: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sit...pting to climate change in remote Roviana.pdf

Summary: National emissions have dropped from their 2008-9 peak, but the carbon tax period saw no change from pre-tax to now. So the carbon tax has done nothing to reduce national emissions.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the goal is entirely to create incentive (carrot AND stick) to reduce emissions. Give the free market time, energy consumption isn't terribly elastic.