hat percent of your income are you willing to give up to solve the obvious environmental problems?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Nov 30, 2021.

?

How much wealth and current/future income would you give up to solve the big environmental problems?

  1. 0% SLAY THE WHALES

    11.1%
  2. 10%

    11.1%
  3. 20%

    22.2%
  4. 30%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 40%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. 50%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. 60%

    11.1%
  8. 70%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. 80%

    11.1%
  10. 90%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. 100% End civilization completely, return to hunter gatherers forever

    33.3%
  1. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,831
    Location:
    California
    Ok, say we can cap global warming RIGHT NOW at +2c. This is it, all or nothing! What permanent percentage of your wealth and income are you willing to forego. Everyone else is in on it too. This is REAL PURCHASING POWER so no like "hurr durr if we all lose half our money, our money buys double"

    The other obvious big things will be solved as well, like plastic pollution, freeway pollution, they'll build a bunch of trains, mass switch to solar, we'll have new super blimps that fly low over the oceans so the container ships stop molesting the whales with their low frequency hums, the end to junk-mail, sustainable farming, THATS RIGHT WE SAVE THE WHALES, end the deforestation, you know all the good stuff.
     
    El_Machinae likes this.
  2. Broken_Erika

    Broken_Erika Nothing

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    Messages:
    8,951
    Location:
    Glasgnopolis, Grottland
    It's Nuke the Whales, not slay the whales!
    Spoiler :


     
  3. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    28,562
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    I voted 80% but does that mean everyone else also has to give up 80%?
     
  4. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,730
    Location:
    UK
    80% of what earn is nothing compared to what 80% of someone who earns ten times more than me. I appreciate the exercise, though for family reasons I literally can't spare much right now, so my value would be correspondingly lower.

    If I could set an arbitrary threshold over which any additional money I ever earn went towards making this happen, I would. Heck, it could even be my current wage once we're not renting and the children are grown up.

    The problem is the inequality of a set percentage. Regardless of people being in on it or not, my 10% or 20% could be far more actual money than someone earning less than me could ever give. And like I pointed out, this goes the other way. There are people rich enough to give away 99% of their material wealth and still have enough for ten human lifetimes or more. How do we rationalise this?
     
  5. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,291
    Location:
    Canberra
    This is not a very granular survey lol. No country would be spending 10% of consolidated revenue on environmental or climate outcomes., and I have to think every country switching to doing that would likely be spending multiples of what is needed.
     
    Gorbles likes this.
  6. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,921
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    You might be able to cap atmospheric temperature, but there's little anybody can do to stop ocean temperatures rising for the next century or two.
     
  7. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Super Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    45,070
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    How about requiring all campaign funds to be matched with an equal amount going to meeting the 2c standard?
     
  8. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    14,537
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Even ony authoritarian dreams I'm only putting tax up 5% across the board creeping up to 50% on the really rich.

    And I would focus on social housing and clean energy over things like UBI etc.
     
  9. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,831
    Location:
    California
    Sorry your majesties, I didn't craft a perfect real world person-by-person comprehensive plan instead of asking HOW MUCH WOULD **YOU** GIVE UP of your own situation.
     
    El_Machinae likes this.
  10. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,831
    Location:
    California
    That looks expensive


    edit: OBLIGATORY https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...at-hypotheticals-and-stipulations-are.283166/


    We don't, I'm asking how much would you give up. If the answer is 0% because of your reasons, it's 0%

    I didn't ask about countries spending consolidated income, I asked how much would you be willing to give up.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
    El_Machinae likes this.
  11. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    19,291
    Location:
    Canberra
    Sure but due to this fact, the question as put is kinda meaningless. Because given tax rates and govt spending, all required answers would presumably be between the first two options of the eleven presented.

    My effective income tax rate is probably in the 20 to 30 per cent range. That means if the govt decided to spend 10% of its revenue (either by raising taxes or reallocating existing spending) on climate and environment, roughly 20 times as much as it spends now, the cost to me would be like 2 or 3 per cent of my income.

    If they decided to spend a full third of all revenue on environmental outcomes, roughly 60 times as now spent, it still wouldn't push me above option 2 of 10% in this poll.

    Nobody should be answering anything other than 0% and 10% here, and the most plausible rounded answer is probably actually 0%.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2021
  12. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,921
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Zero.
    I want the tundra to thaw and for ants to have their chance at "ruling" the world for the next billion years.
     
  13. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,831
    Location:
    California
    Ok, but how much would you be willing to sacrifice? 0-10%?
     
  14. Gorbles

    Gorbles Load Balanced

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,730
    Location:
    UK
    But you said everyone was all-in on this. I'm just trying to understand the relevance of asking each of us personally then, devoid of any other context? What are you hoping to understand?
     
  15. amadeus

    amadeus Gimme a C! A bouncy C!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    36,995
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Yes, I am willing to give the % I spend on hats.
     
  16. Aiken_Drumn

    Aiken_Drumn King

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2021
    Messages:
    715
    Location:
    NES/FG/SF Activity:Arguing the toss
    I would support far greater tax on anyone earning above £50k as a household in order to fight climate change.
     
  17. amadeus

    amadeus Gimme a C! A bouncy C!

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    36,995
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Well then I’d be moving to Bevington-on-Marsh, or Durdley, or Wickham Cross, where I can stretch my pound further.
     
  18. Snerk

    Snerk Smeghead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Norway. You'll never leave
    Good question, I dunno really. But in general I don't support flat taxes as they are silly. I support using loads more resources on climate and environmental problems. But tax (and tax hard) where the real wealth lies, not people trying to make ends meet.
     
    Gorbles likes this.
  19. Angst

    Angst Rambling and inconsistent

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,968
    Location:
    A Silver Mt. Zion
    As others have noted, when you're poor, a lot of these numbers really cut into your income. Being poor (like, by Danish standards), I literally can't spare much if I want to eat. That said, I'd spare as much as is humanly possible. Basically everything past bills and base purchase needs.

    To me, poll would be interesting if it asked past necessary bills ie rent, utilities and food. If so I'd not go lower than 70% myself.
     
    Gorbles and haroon like this.
  20. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    10,925
    Location:
    Cambridge
    If I am reading the question correctly, it could be rephrased as:

    If we are going to solve the environmental catastrophe everyone has to give up X% for their income/spending power. You get to choose for everyone. If you choose to give up X% then we save the world. If you choose not to then the world dies. What value of X is the threshold above which you let the world die?

    Put like that, everyone says 100% do they not?
     
    Hygro likes this.

Share This Page