Why not tax private jets out of business? | Hacker News Reader

Why not tax private jets out of business?

pressherald.com

52 pointswebdoodle121 comments

Plans like this are based on envy and not reality. Private jets contribute a minimal amount of carbon emissions. Yes they are outsized compared to the emissions per-passenger on a commercial jet. Yes the people who use them to fly to lunch should probably reflect on their choices. But they are not the low hanging fruit. Private jets also provide good jobs for pilots, mechanics, airport staff, as well as jobs for the people who build them, the people who build and program the avionics, the engines, etc.

I hate the jobs argument. It's like saying, "we should keep the concentration camps open, what are all the guards going to do". Any antisocial/harmful activity will employ people to do it, that doesn't mean we should condone it.

Even more -- our civilization has a certain amount of productive capacity. I'm not saying we can or should have a central state planner to determine how to allocate it, though tax policy is often aimed at steering it. But I do wish that those skilled mechanics and engineers who work on private jets or yachts or cruise ships (and the raw resources used in their construction) would go instead to, like, more housing and offshore wind and nuclear reactors etc...

You hate the jobs argument but made a nazi reference in the same paragraph?

What is your counter argument here?

good job pretending to care about rigor.

That roping nazis into every discussion is a super cheap and intellectually lazy rhetorics.

I hate the jobs argument.

Man, I hate to digress this much, but I've recently seen the absurd end result of this thinking. Local Redmond, WA city council incumbent candidate running this year said they would work to support local business that have been hard-hit by COVID, et al. This councilperson's solution: advocate for return-to-work policies. The implied outcome being that the returned-to-office workers will suddenly visit those businesses now that they're back in the office. (One can read my almost-a-direct quote on Carson's campaign website.) Well, at least we know who David Carson works for, and it ain't you.

I am not local to redmond. But isn’t that town just dominated by Microsoft? And aren’t they going back to office regardless of what some town council member says one way or the other?

But isn’t that town just dominated by Microsoft?

Used to be, not so much now I don't think. Of my neighbors within a few houses of me: one Google (used to be MSFT), one Facebook, one game studio (who's games you might have heard of), Microsoft neighbors one house over, my Microsoft spouse, and me working at a small hardware company. But that's just anecdotal, and even if it's accurate, it's still a town that largely thinks of itself as a "Microsoft town" AFAICT. (Aside: good $DEITY, maybe my neighbors don't all work at Microsoft, but do any of them not work in software?)

But you're on the right track, as I thought perhaps it was just an easy nod to the largest employer in town, and maybe it is. But the statement was so logically asinine that I'm not exactly sure what his intent was.

> Well, at least we know who David Carson works for, and it ain't you.

It's pretty rare to have a government that works only for you. Probably the only people to experience that are absolute monarchs and the like.

David Carson has constituents, and some of them have interests different than yours. Welcome to democracy.

As an aside: one of the irksome things about software engineers and other tech people is they frequently embrace the idea of "creative destruction," but I think that's mainly because they imagine themselves as the ones who will always be doing the destroying and reaping the benefits, instead of as the ones who will be destroyed.

I generally agree, but I fear we do this every time with every topic. Everything isn't low hanging fruit, it's always something else somewhere else that should be changed. It's not the plastic bags it's the cow industry, it's not the cow industry it's the oil drills, it's not the oil drills it's the cars we drive, it's not the cars we drive it's the private jets celebs use, etc.

At some point, we're all going to have to realize this is an insane way to solve issues and that we can't solve certain issues without making inconvenient adjustments.

Private jets are irrelevant. There aren’t enough to even matter.

A hundred years of burning coal. Now that will cause some real global warming.

Hard to believe we burn more coal now than ever.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/coal-consumption-hit-an-all-...

Someone should do the math. If we had to guess, is 1 year of coal equivalent to 100 years of all of aviation?

Guess who owns the companies that bought the governments that subsidize coal production for the last century and a half? These hand wavy arguments about scale ignore the fact that the superrich and their ability to capture governance and policy are the whole problem. Put a real carbon tax on their consumption and they will not "reflect on their choices" but could become more supportive of energy policies that don't doom their customers and themselves.

I don't think it's jealousy, I think most people just have no sense of relative scale, or they too easily accept their first instinct, and don't understand how hard it is to get a sense of relative scale.

They should pay for their externalities just like everything else.

All the rich folk who fly about on private jets should stop talking about climate change. If you can assure me that, then they can continue to fly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-private-jets-car...

> All the rich folk who fly about on private jets should stop talking about climate change. If you can assure me that, then they can continue to fly.

A EU politican came by plane (first thought to be a private jet but turns out it was a commercial plane IIUC) to a climate change conference, then two streets before the place where the meeting was happening she hopped on a bicycle "because green"... Bicycle escorted by two SUVs.

Ridiculous.

Seen that one too. The show must go on! Happened many times before, also, with different politicians in different countries. Anyways, the SUVs are for security. Have to be always at hand. Can you imagine being without them, in the public?

What?

Are you referring to Theresa Ribiera(Spainish Minister) incident? Stop getting your news from tabloids. Records showed she was driven to the event. While being on a bike and followed by 2 SUV full of bodyguard seems ridiculous, there are sometime protocol to follow. She used a bike sharing service for the journey between her hotel and the conference venue. She and was also seen on a bike at another occasion on the same trip. If we can stop acting like offenced Virgin and spend time finding real solutions, that would be nice.

Sounds like she puts more carbon into the atmosphere than the people she is scolding.

This is also my problem. I have no issue with private jets, but I have huge issue with people who are flying on them and then start virtue signaling about climate change. Like could you clean up your house first, before you will start lecturing other people how they should clean their houses?

If a cigarette smoker, on oxygen due to lung cancer but still smoking, tells you smoking is bad for your health - is that virtue signaling?

Being rich is a helluva drug. They need help getting off their addiction. Tax 'em all, heavily.

Yes that's obvious hypocritical virtue signaling. Especially when he is puffing the smoke right into somebody's face.

I described an anti-smoking public service advertisement from when I was a teenager.

What virtue do you see in that?

Then it was hypocritical anti-smoking public service. Like somebody taking a massive dump on my porch while telling me that it is bad. I mean, then why are you doing it?

Because some smokers are addicted to nicotine, and can't stop even though they know it's what's killing them, and even knowing that an open flame near an oxygen line is a fire danger that will kill them quicker.

Just because the Marlboro Man looks cool smoking when he's young doesn't mean it's worth having lung cancer later on, as the Marlboro Man lies in a hospital bed with tubes in him.

I don't know any dump-takers with an addition like you describe, so think you have failed to understand my point.

Other addicts are similar. If a homeless alcoholic tells you his life was ruined by his addition to alcohol and that you shouldn't take his path, then takes another swig out of his beer, is that really hypocritical virtue signaling? Or is it truthful advice?

If a heroine addict, in a drainage culvert preparing another dose, looks up at you when you walk by and says "stay off heroin, kid, it will fuck up up" - is that really hypocritical virtue signaling? Or are you going to join him?

If you think all of that is 'virtue signaling', then we have a fundamentally different understanding of what that term means.

Super-rich people are addicted to wealth. They love it. Even when they know their lifestyle is bad, they don't want to give up, even though they could.

Look at them - even their charity work mostly serves [1] to glorify their power and prestige, and whitewash their moral crimes [2].

Every time you think of Bill Gates, of Elon Musk, of Al Gore, remember that they are addicts to wealth, unwilling to give up their addition. And to be clear, I'm not saying I could either, had I their money.

Tax them all, heavily, until they are merely rich - say, $10 million. Provide social workers to help them live a normal life. Get them off their addiction [3].

[1] The two counter-examples I am considering are Dolly Parton and MacKenzie Scott. Scott's philanthropy in particular highlights how the super-wealthy really are more interested in control than giving.

[2] Carnegie, to start a very long list.

[3] The cleverer of them say they need the influence which comes with their wealth to change things for the better, like Warren Buffett and the "Buffett Rule", so can't give up their wealth unilaterally. Let's help those poor sods by taxing them.

Yes smoker telling me that smoking is bad is hypocritical virtue signaling. Rich people telling me to walk so they can hop on their private jet and fly away is hypocritical virtue signaling.

No amount of mental gymnastics you are trying to present here will change it.

"then we have a fundamentally different understanding of what that term means."

My view is that the role of government helps regulate maximizing value for society as a hole (wherein externalities are not reflected in private market transactions), which requires coordinating some form of collective action.

The guiding principle of these decisions should be to redirect the value from a disproportionate harm to society toward ameliorating those harms. So infact the contribution to climate change from a private jet far outweighs that of a commercial jet. That is because few people are inducing great harm, rather than that carbon being more efficiently used across more people. So in exchange for inducing [x] amount of carbon, society gains nearly nothing from a private jet flight where as commercial moves vastly more people.

Indeed there are also ethical considerations of using a private jet when there is a more efficient alternative (commercial), that could be taxed as a 'vice'.

Lastly one day there may be a point where we need to ban these type of emissions wholesale rather than look at an efficiency basis.(Example: no amount of heroin is useful to society), but for carbon that conversation has not yet entered mainstream political discussions. (A hard cap on emissions would make flying only available to the very rich). Therefore it is both practical and just to tax private jet carbon.

An observation: from interning at a firm adjacent to private aviation I noticed that there appears no upper bound the demand for private aviation. Even in the scenario where a tax does not change demand for private jet miles, it will at the very least provide funding for ameliorating the harms to society from the marginal production of carbon emissions.

That's not the right argument. The right argument is if there is a problem with something not reflected in the price of the product a reasonable approach is to tax the product to cover the externality and thnm STFU. The externality in this case is emissions so tax the emissions and STFU. There is no good argument for government to treat one emission differently than another, it matters not whether said emission comes from a kardashian private jet or public transit carrying nurses and doctors to provide charity healthcare. Tax the emission and STFU. The STFU part is very important because free markets are self regulating, which lets people making good capital allocations prosper and limits bad allocators and most of you are bad allocators, especially most of you government types and authoritarian types. Let the market run and be pleasantly surprised by the unforseen benefits that accrue to you. (Government should still aggressively break up monopoly and oligopoly but that is a different discussion of a corner case rather than this discussion of the core tenet of how the system functions so well.)

That's probably the wrong argument.

The right one is that private jets are a net productivity gain. Getting a person to a place more quickly then commercial is going to make all of us more wealthy. If we're all wealthier we can afford to do any number of different things.

Or - hear me out - maybe just use taxes to fund government rather than pursuing political/social agendas.

Taxing externalities increases economic efficiency which has major benefits to everyone rich or poor.

The trick is to avoid a swiss cheese patchwork of taxes designed to benefit specific groups and currently incentivizes private jets. Thus you want carbon taxes that make private jets significantly more expensive not a private jet specific tax.

Genuinely curious, how does taxing carbon increase economic efficiency?

Negative externalities such as climate impact are a cost that is not priced in. This results in higher production than is actually economically optimal.

What was the incremental taxation rate that should have been assessed throughout the industrial revolution to price in then-present and then-future externalities?

No one rate would have been perfect over such a long period.

All the way back in the 1600’s coal pollution was considered a significant problem which prompted legislation by King James I to restrict coal burning. There were few effective mitigation strategies, though ultra tall smokestacks were fairly effective in reducing harm to those in the imitate surroundings so very early on that may have been useful etc. Similarly outside of large cities the health effects where less significant.

That said, as recently as 1952 a single 5 day event killed 4,000-12,000 people in London depending on how it’s counted. So, the ideal rate would have been non zero even before climate change was a significant issue.

I agree pollution from the industrial revolution started long ago (i.e. King James I) and it's killed people recently (i.e London 1952). I agree the correct rate is non-zero.

There should be some average rate that approximates whatever instantaneous rate would have been instantaneously perfect.

We have the benefit of being able to look backward on this era with near-perfect information. A proposal for taxation for externalities that is historically calibrated has a chance of being adopted. Otherwise, it's just fist shaking and chanting "externalities".

I'll admit that when they say "efficient" that word is doing a lot of work.

Disincentivizing private jet usage simultaneously incentivizes alternatives, the most analogous of which is buying at ticket on a major airline. Those airlines operate at economies of scale and are far more efficient in their use of fuel/person/mile than private jets. Less analogous alternatives would be setting up a remote meeting or phone call.

A business that creates $1 of value by imposing $2 of costs on other parties is wasteful: the economy would be better off if such business models didn't exist.

For carbon these costs look like increased healthcare due to pollution, decreased agricultural efficiency due to weather changes, government paying for environmental remediation or carbon capture, loss of tourism when the USA and Europe is covered in smoke for large parts of the summer, ski fields closing due to lack of snow.

Why can't we let the free market sort this out? More than most externalities, carbon pollution is expensive to reverse: CO2 that costs $10 to suck out of the air might only cost a company $1 to not emit in the first place.

There's also a time component: if there were no taxes or fees for dumping waste we'd have a really efficient decade in the stock market then all be dead by the end of the century.

That’s a surprisingly deep question.

The point of the economy is to maximize benefits while minimizing downside.

Burning fossil fuels cases problems such as respiratory issues, but it also has major benefits for the people doing it like being able to travel quickly. We don’t want to ban it, but you want your personal benefit while convincing other people to burn less because it harms you. Further you don’t want the overheated of a complex system because that’s expensive.

Enter a flat carbon tax where people can decide to keep doing everything the same way at the cost of paying more, but they also get cleaner air from the people who did cut their emissions. While the people who cut back get both cleaner air and the benefits from other peoples carbon taxes.

You do need to pick a reasonable tax rate, but you avoid the planned economy issues from say cap and trade or company specific EV subsidies.

Finally, the real benefit is when building new infrastructure. A 1 cent or even 10 cent per gallon carbon tax might not change your driving behavior but it’s going to convince many people to get more expensive but also more energy efficient systems because the ROI increases. Which then increases R&D and economy of scale for such systems, you basically get the benefit of a subsidy without spending taxpayers money.

Much more of our taxes go to the military to fund our failed overseas ventures.

Unfortunately, the data doesn't agree with you:

Social Security: 21%

Health: 14%

Medicare: 13%

Income Security: 13%

National Defense: 13%

Ref: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget. So that's like saying your health insurance premiums and 401K contributions are part of the federal budget, which is obviously ridiculous.

I thought Social Security being fully funded was an accounting fiction, and it is accruing meaningful liabilities for the general budget?

That’s exactly what it is. An accounting fiction. Same thing with the supposed “Fed balance sheet.”

I'm curious if you could expand on what you mean about it being an accounting fiction. I've never seen anything that didn't show it would be fine without funds getting siphoned out of it.

I mean it doesn’t have an independent legal existence. You pay social security taxes to the federal government and the government pays out social security checks. It’s only political rhetoric that connects the two. At any time congress can alter anything about the system.

If your social security tax payments created a legally vested property right in some account, protected by the due process clause, then it would be a different situation—-not an accounting fiction.

Since it is the government, anything at that level would still be at the whims of, the government. Such that I don't really see your point? Are you wanting it to be argued that they'd have to pass a resolution to change whether or not they can use the funds? Isn't that basically what already happened?

You could argue that it could have been done in a different way, but the odds are silly high that that wouldn't have changed anything. Budgetary spend and allocation is controlled by congress, such that it would have only changed the nature of the resolution.

More, you would just be changing the nature of the "fiction." Akin to saying the federal reserve is separate from the government. I mean, yeah, but it is also established by the government. And I expect that winds of the controlling party would blow it about as well as it does the EPA and such.

No, social security still is in surplus (the general budget owes it money because congress borrowed it). A lot of the money that is classified as "federal debut" is owed to social security (which is why we are in a situation where the USA owes a lot of federal debt to the USA).

In 2030 something, it will run out of surplus and become insolvent without actual injections from the general budget or via some other change, like removing the applicable income cap. Then you can say "SS is accounting fiction, I told you so", but in 2023 you can't say that yet.

Because SS and medicare are paid for via specific payroll taxes labelled as such on your paycheck (rather than any other tax levied by the government), the books have always been kept separate.

> Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget

They're absolutely part of the budget [1]. They're just not part of the discretionary budget. Defence is the largest discretionary line.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget...

Then you should write to that website and explain why they're wrong. I bet treasury.gov would appreciate it.

The website is fine, it is your use of it that is wrong. From where I stand, those errors have been well-documented by other commenters, so I don't know that further writing on the subject is necessary. Or perhaps you have a more thorough rebuttal to what was a reasonable comment.

This is kind of misleading in its own way, though? Social Security is also where a large portion of the revenue comes from, per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html.

I suppose you can make some arguments that we make money from military. But it always feels weird to say we need SS cuts when the data equally shows that we don't. Uncap the max on SS tax, and it would look hilariously fine.

Also, social security contributes to taxable income.

To that 13% add the 5% spent on veterans services.

Both aspects of this, choosing who is taxed and choosing where the money goes, are political choices.

The choice is not "agenda" vs. "no agenda", it's "stated agenda" vs. "tacit agenda".

Put another way, this isn't just "politically choosing where the money goes," this is using the political machinery for us to determine what the cost of something is.

You could argue that we shouldn't use the political engines to do this, but that quickly runs against the fact that politics just means people, at large. Is why even "scientific communities" would have disagreements on what should be prioritized.

I do think we could do better, but I hesitate to offer a concrete better way due to my own ignorance in knowing of one.

To reduce carbon emissions in the aviation sector, we should steeply tax private jet travel and direct those funds toward climate mitigation and green infrastructure.

I'm guessing this is what your comment is replying to? I agree that there's really no need for the second part to solve the core problem - overuse of private jets.

we use taxes to encourage/discourage political and social agendas all the time why should this be any different?

FYI: This commentary is due to a US bill recently introduced that would increase fuel taxes for private jet travel from the current $0.22 to $1.95 per gallon.

Private jet travel does not exist.

I’ve noticed a shift in tone of late on this site from “let’s invent the future” to “let’s shame the wealthy wasters of the world”.

So let’s say that we have a private jet tax that is some scalable amount to make people stop flying private.

1) commercial flights typically are not as direct as a private flight can be since small regional airports can accommodate small jets and not commercial ones. So if you were to fly into Houston you could fly to the side of town you wanted instead of the north(iah) or central (hou) part of town. That saves upwards of an hour of driving afterwards.

2) does this fix our carbon problem? Unfortunately no.

3) even electric cars are 40-50 years away from going away. There is nowhere near the same amount of charging infrastructure in the US to support mass adoption.

The only real way to get adoption of cleaner technologies is to make them better than their carbon generating alternatives in most if not every way. I’m all for getting off of fossil fuels. I’m personally looking for opportunities to push forward better and cleaner energy technologies. Articles like these are just journalistic dunks on the rich. Of course we have to mention Kim K who is the epitome of a wasteful vapid human being who flys around going from lunch to party on her jet. Of 8 billion people there are 1000 who ride planes too much. Never mind that many countries still burn coal for electricity we need to stop these rich folks!!!

> I’ve noticed a shift in tone of late on this site from “let’s invent the future” to “let’s shame the wealthy wasters of the world”.

These aren't mutually exclusive.

> Never mind that many countries still burn coal for electricity we need to stop these rich folks!!!

We are talking about the people managing companies that tell us, the "regular folk", to recycle, to lower our electricity usage, to stop wasting water. The same companies responsible for the vast majority of the CO emissions, plastic production, water waste dumping.

Of course regular people are mad at the rich. They have every right to be.

Private jets are just the tip of the iceberg. They should not be a thing, and they are a symbol of how the super rich are above everyone else. I would compare it to hunting rhinos: it is likely that the very few people who could afford this aren't behind the extinction of white rhinos in Africa, but they still should not be allowed to do it.

I appreciate the response and it prompted me to think of the following questions/comments. Hopefully this comes across as curious questions and not attacks or contrarian.

1)Flying in private jets != killing an rhino. Yes a jet harms the environment. Not debating that at all. However, they are more like a drop of water in the ocean in terms of pollution. 2) If this is the tip of the iceberg what are we taking away next because the amount of consumption is too conspicuous? 3) why should a private jet not be a thing? is there no reason ever for a private jet? 4) when was the last time someone shamed you into complying? Did it make you change your mind willingly and not resent the person who shamed you? Is that the way to affect change in a healthy way? 5) what companies are telling you to change your habits? Genuinely curious- what are you having to do that you don’t want to because a rich company is telling you to change? I’m really trying to think of one and cannot. 6) which rich people specifically are you or people supposed to be mad at? For what reasons? Should they not be allowed to be rich? Is being rich a bad thing? I can think of a few things that even Kim K has done that are good for society (judicial reform being a big one)

Private jets are usually not owned by companies e.G. in the EU, but by a shell company in another jurisdiction. They are most often not owned (directly) by the people who use them, but by shell companies (for tax evasion reasons, e.G. VAT evasion) that those people control over a chain of ownerships.

Same for yachts, apartments in NYC or London etc. Rich people don't own stuff (directly).

I used to work in the industry. My understanding is that the vast majority of private jets (not including general aviation) is owned by or managed by firms that charter out their jet. (Like a taxi business). Of course there's nuance between those business models.

Yes kind of, but the leasing companies have only one customer, see

"Lewis Hamilton avoided taxes on £16.5m jet using Isle of Man scheme

The big four accountancy firm EY and Appleby [..] helped Hamilton and dozens of other clients set up seemingly artificial leasing businesses through which they rented their own jets from themselves."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/06/lewis-hamilton-...

So what? The proposal is a tax on fuel. That tax is paid where the fuel is bought, as a portion of its direct cost. You can't "hide" that.

"private jet fuel"

It's not private, it's a company jet. So how to you distinguish this jet from a commercial airliner? The company is smaller than United? The larger jets of United pay the lower tax? So United can no longer own small jets?

This will lead to people buying larger jets, if needed they will buy A220. The effect being that more CO2 is produced. High tax if you don't sell tickets? Then the shell companies will sell tickets for the flights to the people who use the jet and own the shell company.

Or smaller jets get larger tanks and go to Mexico or the Bahamas, then fly back to the US.

Politicians are the worst people in second order thinking. Other explanation is they are populist and don't care if the stuff they do works.

(Will need to read the bill, the article is sparse on facts)

[Edit] Read the bill. It is sparse on implementation, it only says "commercial" has lower taxes, (going back to the 2017 with a hypothetical example) well Hamilton buying a ticket from the Notlimah Ltd. Airline of Panama enables the Notlimah Airline company to pay lower taxes. How is this working? Other people need to be able to buy tickets for the company to be called commercial? His friends buy tickets. Other people beside his friends need to be able to buy (how to enforce this?)? Ok, everyone with a coupon card can buy. Or: The airline changes it's terms of service to everyone with a net income of >$10M/y is allowed to buy a ticket.

Or a ticket costs $1M flight, H. pays N. Airline, then the money gets back to H. to a bank account on the Bahamas.

I really would like to know how to enforce this.

Beside this 1 line of how it should be applied, it has pages and pages on who should get the money, one list

   (A) Black
   (B) African American
   (C) Asia
   (D) Pacific Islander
   (E) Other non-White race
   (F) Hispanic
   (G) Latino
   (H) Linguistically isolated
   (I) Middle Eastern and North African.

and another e.G.

  (A) a Federally recognized Indian Tribe
  (B) a State-recognized Indian Tribe
  (C) an Alaska Native community
  (D) a Native Hawaiian community 
  (E) any other Indigenous community

So very low effort in the bill on how to get the money, a lot of effort in the bill on how to spread the money.

And this is the trick, rich leftist politicians do:

Proposing anti-rich laws that do not hurt their rich friends at all and being hurrayed by their naive voters, instead of doing things that hurt their rich friends.

I don't think there are many people who fly enough that it's economical for them to buy an A220 in order to save $1.73/gal on jet fuel. (That's the actual proposed change in taxes.)

The title of the article was "Why not tax private jets out of business?" The smallest plane United operates is a "EMB 145" which should be in reach for many of these people (Google search says "$2,395,000" - which is cheaper than many Gulfstreams)

Why not tax all fossil carbon fuels with a universal refundable tax of $1/kg? That way you wallop the private jets at ~$1000/hr and more importantly you also discourage the real culprits, Americans driving around in pickup trucks, with a smaller but still effective incentive. Plus, being universally refundable, it also acts as a sort of UBI that puts money into the pockets of people who don't use fossil fuels.

What is a universal refundable tax?

The revenues of the tax are redistributed to everyone with a regular payment. For example a weekly or monthly check. Americans buy roughly 1 gallon of motor fuel per day per capita, so a $5/gallon (example) tax would result in a household of 4 people receiving a $600 check every month. For people who use less than the average amount of fuel, it's free money.

This is basically how Canada carbon tax is supposed to work and it's far from being unanimous even if most will end up paying less.

Does anyone, without subversive motives, actually agree with the premise that removing all incentives to be successful is a good idea?

There’s a very large chasm between being successful, and having $10s of billions of dollars in net worth.

Do you really think someone worth $100m can’t live a life of absolute luxury and choose how and if they want to ever work a day in their life?

Their $10s of billions is not a vault full of gold coins in their basement, like Scrooge McDuck has. It represents companies and investments that are creating jobs and wealth for lots of people, probably many of the people who post here owe their job to a billionaire. Those things would not exist if "net worth" were somehow capped at $100m.

> Those things would not exist if "net worth" were somehow capped at $100m.

Of course they would, and the world would likely be a much better place for it. Those companies you speak of are mega-corporations that tend to operate outside the laws we all get to follow, and typically result in monopolies or oligopolies.

There are VERY few industries that NEED a company worth hundreds of billions of dollars to operate. In almost all cases you’d be better off with hundreds of companies worth hundreds of millions competing for your business.

Sure they would. The companies would just have to have different ownership models that incentivized more distributed ownership between more people. If we somehow said that no one could own more than $100 million of a company, then for every person who has $1 billion of a company now, there would be 10 people with $100 million instead. This would be a net benefit to society.

They would be the same 10 people all owning shares of each other's companies if you said one person couldn't own more than x of a company.

Where do all these other people who have the money to own all these shares come from? If they existed they'd be buying the shares right now, and probably own them. You hand wave that this would be a net benefit to society but don't say how, or even demonstrate an understanding of how any of this works.

This is all a misunderstanding of power, where it lies, how it works. We imagine the government has power and we can democratically change the fabric of reality, will our desire into existence with no blowback or fallout. The people that own these companies, they cannot be stopped. They exist because they have to exist, they emerge naturally. Someone always holds all the cards. If you try to pass laws to stop it they'll just hide it from you and do it anyway.

> There’s a very large chasm between being successful, and having $10s of billions of dollars in net worth.

Because of marginal utility, there really isn't such a large chasm. Every additional dollar has less utility than the dollar that preceded it. Capping what producers can earn or use their means/money on is a good way to stifle innovation and productivity. Also, what indication is there that the government won't squander taxes from this in the same way they have squandered taxes from so many other things?

>Also, what indication is there that the government won't squander taxes from this in the same way they have squandered taxes from so many other things?

Everybody in the US likes to talk about the golden age of the 50s. The top marginal tax rate was pushing 90%.

Empirical data answers your question. Trickle down economics has been a provable disaster with the VAST majority of wealth accumulating in the hands of a few.

> Everybody in the US likes to talk about the golden age of the 50s. The top marginal tax rate was pushing 90%.

The effective tax rate was never actually that high. There are always carve outs to lower the rate.

https://www.aei.org/economics/public-economics/were-taxes-re...

https://checkyourfact.com/2019/01/09/fact-check-90-percent-t...

> Empirical data answers your question. Trickle down economics has been a provable disaster with the VAST majority of wealth accumulating in the hands of a few.

At no point did I mention "trickle down economics". I mentioned innovation and productivity, things that are easily measured. The gap between productivity and wages in the US only widely diverged once going off of hard money. This is because the upper class own assets (largely unaffected by monetary inflation) and the lower/middle class own currency (heavily affected by monetary inflation). If the empirical data you speak of is so evident, please provide some references for it. I don't subscribe to "trickle down economics" so I don't know anything about it.

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

Getting to indulge in unethical behaviour (like private jet use) is not the kind of reward we should be setting to steer people.

Making it harder and more expensive to fly by private jet is hardly "removing all incentives to be successful".

To be successful enough to be worth hundreds of millions and zip around in private jet, completely oblivious to how normal people lead their lifes ?

Oh tell me what benefit does that have for the rest of the society?

There is basically no thing single human can do that can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year to society. It's all skimming off top people that actually put the work in.

Well, maybe if someone cured cancer but we all know that if someone did company hiring him and their CEO would reap most of the profits anyway

What coercive mechanism made people buy JK Rowlings books, and made her a billionaire?

Who did JK Rowling exploit to funnel so much of those book sales towards herself?

If someone buys a Harry Potter book, is she not entitled to a portion of the money?

In winner take all dynamics, like what books parents buy for their kids, a person can easily earn 1000 times more than the average person by doing a similar amount of work.

Above a certain level I could certainly get behind saying no she's not entitled to it. 100% marginal tax rates above $10 million in annual earnings seem perfectly reasonable to me.

That won’t stop her from being a billionaire. She could have ownership of a company that would make her net worth orders of magnitude higher than any earnings cap.

You cannot put a cap on a company’s worth, because it’s a guess.

They can decide to nationalise those companies as well, but then she could take her skills to another country. Then that country loses all of her earnings for sure.

The other way to stop her from being filthy rich would be to make people stop liking her books. Which at this point one should ask how much damage one is willing to do to stop a person from being rich.

Didn't say anything about taking all their money. Just making sure they actually pay the taxes and not avoid that in million ways they have, both for themselves and for their corporations. Majority of government tax income should come from corporate, not individuals.

You say they aren't worth what they get paid, and you assess that how? Don't you think the millions of people paying them know better than you who should be paid for what?

Have you considered the fact that it is you that is paying them for what they bring into your life? Every time you buy a TV, order something on Amazon, go to Walmart, use a card instead of cash, you are paying these people because you like what your money buys you.

> Have you considered the fact that it is you that is paying them for what they bring into your life?

So far they have been mostly stopping what I want to be brought to life. Every time promising game developer gets bought then their games got watered down for mass appeal and ultimately becoming irrelevant.

> Have you considered the fact that it is you that is paying them for what they bring into your life?

That's the problem, there is no other choice! No matter from who you buy it always ends up supporting some billionaire, you can't buy TV from some indie company. The least they can do is pay fucking taxes from that profits. Individual taxes should be not main government income, corporate ones should be.

If they can have privilege of getting profits worked on by whole company the least they can do is to contribute same or more than individuals do to the budget.

Have you considered that some billionaire always gets a cut because theyre an important part of the ecosystem? Why is it you can't find a business stream without a rich guy there? Who do you think pays those construction workers to build the factory before it will ever produce a single dime of revenue?

You talk about billionaires and corporate taxes. You know billionaires are individuals, not corporations, right? And you know that they pay taxes? Also did you know that corporations don't actually make any money, the people that work there and own shares in them get the profit, and pay taxes when they do? At least the rich ones do, the not rich people who own these companies are people like you and me who have 401ks and pay no taxes on our share of the profits these companies generate, and that accounts for most of the ownership in them.

Taxing private jets, is not the same as "removing all incentives to be successful".

Oh no! The wealthy won't be able to fly private anymore? Why even continue to live, right?

because the people who write the rules fly in private jets

Feels like they're using climate change as an excuse to annoy rich people, who will not stop flying just because it costs $200 more. Why not spend your energy on something that would actually move the needle on climate change?

My words ... whole air travel is 1.9% of emissions, animal ag is 15%, aprox?

Phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, stop subsidies for animal agriculture (redirect them to regenerative ag. and vegetables), start massive afforesting. Right?

Yes, you will eat bugs while rich people will continue enjoying their steaks

Yes, that's the whole point of being rich... you can afford luxurious things...

You want meat to be a thing only rich people can afford? And you justify this by saying you want to help the poor?

Invictus0 said they wanted to actually do something about climate change. They never said they wanted to help the poor.

Read the usernames. I never said a single word about meat. What I am saying is that rich people should obviously be able to buy more things than poor people, that is the definition of being rich. And I have no qualm about rich people existing, even billionaires: presumably they generated more value for the rest of the society than their wealth, and if not, then it's up to society to change the tax code.

Private jets are not just used to transport rich people, they are used for all the same reasons one uses other aviation. For example suppose a factory has a major equipment failure and replacement parts are all the way across the country--and it is costing many thousands of dollars an hour with the factory down. One might well use a private jet to get the replacement equipment there as quickly as possible.

Because the main users of private jets are policymakers. For example when the G20 COP26 summit

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/11/05/118-...

>118 Private Jets Take Leaders To COP26 Climate Summit Burning Over 1,000 Tons Of CO2

> As the COP26 climate conference opened on Monday (1 November), 50 private jets landed at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, ferrying their passengers to one of the most critical environmental summits in history.

If the goal is to end private jet flights, why would you just tax them instead of banning them outright?

Because banning them is more contrary than making them pay their "fair share".

You have passing the law, exceptions from the wealthy and/or powerful, and then you have enforcement (for the wealthy and powerful).

But the article perhaps doesn't go far enough; Tax private flights to pay their "fair share" of airport and ATC costs; and then guilt all of the businesses into also being "carbon offset" (like the major carriers)

Aircraft already pay quite expensive landing/parking fees. For a small jet at a major airport this can easily be $500+ to land, and several hundred a day for a parking spot. ATC is well paid for.

A few reasons...mainly because it is not the goal of everyone. Taxing is a compromise between not taxing at all and a full on ban. Taxing is less worrisome to most people because you are not losing the right to do something, you just have to pay more. Also, taxing can act to offset whatever negative impact the offending act has.

As it mentions in the article, it allows people who have the wealth and love private jet travel enough to have the option to prioritize it and pay the extra taxes. The proposed tax is about a 9x jump. It's a lot but the excise tax on jet fuel isn't the only thing making private jet travel expensive. It'll still be well with in reach for many of the ultra rich.

It's a flashy title for clicks that doesn't well represent the contents. But I don't know if as many people would click "Why not raise taxes on private jet travel so its cost to flier better represents its cost to society as whole?"

Because many of the people that make the rules rent or own jets?

Because there are many good reasons to own a jet beyond "I must flex on the poors?"

Because there are many kinds of business and charter jets and most of them use super energy-efficient engines that don't produce as much of a carbon footprint as usually reported?

Tax fuel instead if we care about the environment. Let the market decide how to prioritize.

If you want to use taxes to cut CO2 the low hanging fruit is the livestock industry (especially beef.)

Of course, most Americans would see that as an attack on freedom, and both parties are afraid of being seen as anti farmer.

Because life is full of power laws and some of the people flying private jets have outsized effect on the economy. (I’m not saying I think it’s fair or something. It’s a value free observation.)

Why not tax aircons out of business? The damage is orders of magnitude higher.

People die without air conditioning. Private jets are a frivolous luxury. No comparison

Some (very small) subset of private jet flights are medical transfers to higher-level hospitals.

I lived in an African desert for 3 years. 50C+/125F+ temperatures being normal. No electricity, so no air con. Nobody died.

People don't die without air con. Stupid people might, but they always will.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com