|
Overview of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas does not give one hope. You can choose between whatever Germaine Greer is regurgitating, or Cater and Sloan's celebration of inequality, or Nial Ferguson's bloodthirsty view on history. I suppose it makes a change from US politics.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
bowmore posted:No, I just can't afford meat most of the time (when someone isn't paying for hello fresh for me) Ah yes, the fiscaltarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:Obviously the rich are far more responsible for climate change than the poor and should pay more but meat consumption is one area where CEOs are not eating hundreds of times more meat than average people. Oh cool so it’s a regressive tax
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
Amoeba102 posted:Ah yes, the fiscaltarian.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
bowmore posted:most of the poor or not well off don't eat meat, or probably shouldn't be spending money on sub-par meat Tax the poor out of a sometimes treat meal, got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
My favourite part of facebook is watching my friend who is a greens councilor post about how his electorate has the healthiest diet of anyone in Victoria. Anything is possible when you are loving rich and environmentally aware!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Oh cool so it’s a regressive tax one of my least favourite things about the posters in this thread is their enthusiasm for regressive sin taxes
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
TAXING CIGARETTES IS A TAX ON THE POOR SUBSIDISE DURRIES
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
bowmore posted:lmao Glad you like my turn of phrase. I only eat what i can afford too, so my main meats are chicken, mince and sausages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Day tax on meat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Lid posted:TAXING CIGARETTES IS A TAX ON THE POOR Charging $35 for a pack of darts that addicted people with stressful lovely lives keep buying and remaining poor is great. Like you are extracting $7000 per annum now (conservatively) from someone who is likely a little bit older and probably likely to need government assistance later in life. Why? It's not to help anyone. JBP fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Lid posted:TAXING CIGARETTES IS A TAX ON THE POOR ken oath
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
meat is murder, it shouldn't come cheap or be a treat tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
JBP posted:Just loving ban them or offer something that isn't $35 packs of darts that addicted people with stressful lovely lives keep buying and remaining poor. The chop chop market must not be allowed onshore and must be dealt with on Nauru
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
bowmore posted:meat is murder, it shouldn't come cheap or be a treat tbh You can't murder an animal. You slaughter it. Lid posted:The chop chop market must not be allowed onshore and must be dealt with on Nauru I edited this but yeah, chop chop and illegal import tobacco is currently dominating in the west of Melbourne. $15 a pack. Now you're talking my language.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
bowmore posted:No, I just can't afford meat most of the time (when someone isn't paying for hello fresh for me)  bowmore posted:meat is murder, it shouldn't come cheap or be a treat tbh Ah, now I get it. Just because I don't like something, everyone else has to. Good job Herr Diktator
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
meat ration
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
The environmental argument for not eating meat is better when it comes to me and I've cut back on meat a lot (maybe red meat once a week, chicken/fish three times and the rest is veges or eating out). I don't really care about animals slaughtered for food and the industry provides basically the only half decent jobs for new immigrants and steady, ok paying jobs of last resort for battlers, particularly when you compare meatworking to farm or produce work which is just a loving rabble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
Do it. DO IT! Tony Abbott and conservative MPs campaign to take back control of Liberal party https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/08/tony-abbott-and-conservative-mps-campaign-to-take-back-control-of-liberal-party quote:Tony Abbott and like-minded conservatives are in the midst of a concerted push to claim back the heart and soul of the Liberal party and potentially reinstall him as leader should the party find itself in opposition after next year’s federal election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
You Am I posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
the only good sin tax is a tax on wealth
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
I kind of feel like, morally, ethically, environmentally and practically, people who eat meat (myself included) should be forced to pay the true cost of producing it. Sorry, poor people (myself included)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
im alan jones posted:the only good sin tax is a licence to punt
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
JBP posted:You can't murder an animal. You slaughter it. I don't smoke, but how garbage is chop chop compared to what you'd buy off the shelf?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Halo14 posted:Do it. DO IT! Last page  Jonah Galtberg posted:one of my least favourite things about the posters in this thread is their enthusiasm for regressive sin taxes I don't think BBJoey was cheering for it my friend
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Halo14 posted:Do it. DO IT! Helping.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
we really need mixed member proportional voting and these fuckhead conservatives could split and have their own party
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Oh, dang. Current polls have them set to lose (possibly hugely, but that's what they said about the US midterms) so re-installing Abbott as Opposition Leader practically guarantees two straight non-Coalition governments, and that's all I can hope for
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Mad Katter posted:I don't smoke, but how garbage is chop chop compared to what you'd buy off the shelf? I've only ever bummed them but they're pretty harsh, man. The Hong Kong darts are fine though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
starkebn posted:we really need mixed member proportional voting and these fuckhead conservatives could split and have their own party How would that work compared to our current system? Note: the average punter doesn't understand our current system
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I kind of feel like, morally, ethically, environmentally and practically, people who eat meat (myself included) should be forced to pay the true cost of producing it. Sorry, poor people (myself included)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:How would that work compared to our current system? they could have their "we're conservative crackpots" party and still get voted in because there are enough people who would vote for them, whereas now if you're not either LIB or LAB you've got almost no chance
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I kind of feel like, morally, ethically, environmentally and practically, people who eat meat (myself included) should be forced to pay the true cost of producing it. Sorry, poor people (myself included) What is the "true cost"? What if my moral and ethical framework doesn't align with your dollar value? Why is it cool to just pay an indulgence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
JBP posted:What is the "true cost"? What if my moral and ethical framework doesn't align with your dollar value? Why is it cool to just pay an indulgence? I would use the IPCC modelling for determining the effects of carbon, and I would be happy to use an estimation of dollar cost based on punitive fines we currently have for willfully polluting the environment that does things like make species go extinct, lowers lifespans of humans, destroys industries etc. Not optimal or precise but it uses our current societal framework, just expands it to a product that even managed to avoid our dreaded carbon tax of all things. I know a lot of people's ethical framework is, these days, 'gently caress it we are already hosed who cares' or something akin to science denialism, if that's what you are hinting towards then my answer is, I don't care, fall in line, maggot (ethically, at least)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
JBP posted:What is the "true cost"? What if my moral and ethical framework doesn't align with your dollar value? Why is it cool to just pay an indulgence? Yeah you could make the same argument against a carbon tax though and it would be bullshit there too. If you consider things like pollution to be an externality that you're not responsible for, the public and most often the poor end up paying the bill down the line anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
 lobbying politicians to float ideas like this helps the megacorps who are *actually* responsible for climate change to avoid responsibility and make the plebs bicker amongst themselves and hurt poor people
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Mad Katter posted:Yeah you could make the same argument against a carbon tax though and it would be bullshit there too. Morality and ethics are nebulous, cost of pollution is not nebulous. You can measure it. The Before Times posted:
Yep. Make the corporation pay. If that flows on to a consumer via their cost, fine. Don't introduce flat taxation on individuals. e: companies love to minimise costs as well, so if they're getting slammed on price they're going to try and find a way to make poo poo cheaper. If that means avoiding carbon output then good. Give them some carrots for doing it too. JBP fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
JBP posted:e: companies love to minimise costs as well, so if they're getting slammed on price they're going to try and find a way to make poo poo cheaper. If that means avoiding carbon output then good. Give them some carrots for doing it too. This is why we saw a huge reduction in carbon emissions when there was a price on it at the company level, and a huge rise once the price was repealed. Businesses will choose the path of least
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:
My point exactly. Consumer morality achieves absolutely nothing if industry continues to evade change. If we all went vegetarian tomorrow it wouldn't make a dent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
bell jar posted:This is why we saw a huge reduction in carbon emissions when there was a price on it at the company level, and a huge rise once the price was repealed. Businesses will choose the path of least The carbon tax worked really well because there was a reasonable alternative for carbon polluting energy for a lot of industries. Swanny and his boys worked out the cost that would get passed on to consumers from industries where change wasn't really likely or possible (truckin' industry, for example) and gave a 'refund', plus a few bucks. It was good. There's no alternative for the greenhouse gasses cows produce, there's no reasonable capture method out for agriculture in particular right now either. The reductions in cost aren't really possible, so long as they are still selling meat. A good analogue to it, I think is tobacco. The tobacco tax is a tax levied against the tobacco producers, not the individual. But when the government raises the tax, we all know who pays it. One could argue it works out a bit different, because tobacco is incredibly addictive, but I've given up cigarettes and still can't give up meat so idk Edit: to clarify I agree the tax should be levied against the companies, like with tobacco, it's just we need to accept the cost will almost entirely be passed on, like tobacco. I'm not sure what sin taxes everyone thinks are supposed to be applied to the individual. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:39
|
|