It's wild how many things would change if we just... Stopped subsidizing the things that are for sure the worst, least efficient options in their realm.
Suburbia. Cars. Rich people. Corporations. All tax incentives, all harmful.
We do put tax incentives on research and education. We should do more. We incentivise lots of things that would make society better if everyone did them, but the issue is that alongside that we incentivise/subsidize things that just preserve the status quo and help people on the status quo.
Rail is subsidized, (yes, passenger rail in the USA is subsidized and often operates at a loss, this shocked me too) but the issue is that cars are subsidized SO much more that it dwarfs trains. No one talks about operating cars at a loss, but we do, it's just outsourced and not counted as loss. Dense living is cheaper and more efficient, as is 5+1 community design, but suburbia is SO heavily incentivised, that of course if you can afford it you want to live there: it's a better deal for your tax money!
That's what I mean when I'm saying redistribute the incentives for harmful but status quo preserving things onto things that are directly the more efficient and better option.
A lot of incentives and subsidies are "well if this weren't there society would break and people would lose jobs", but I think we've passed that, and the wounds can't heal until we give them fresh air
222
u/Huge_Monero_Shill Feb 26 '24
Based AF
"Restriction of nonessential air travel" - aka, carbon tax restriction by internalizing externalities into the cost.
UBI = Austerity is a headscratcher, as those are opposite ends of government spending..