HN Explorer

Ask HN: Why no tax breaks for non meat eaters without cars?

2 points by wturner ↗ HN
The two things that contribute to carbon emissions more than anything (from what I've come to understand) is the energy needed to fulfill the demand for cars and the energy needed to fulfill the demand to to grow, kill and eat cows (See the documentary named "Cowspiracy").

The U.S. has tax incentives for citizens to buy electric cars even though every car made contributes to the problem regardless if it stores energy in a battery or a gas tank. If you refuse to own a car and truly abstain from contributing to the problem in the first place - you do not get a tax break.

Are their any groups striving to encourage strong government enforced financial (or other)incentives for people that truly live a simple life and abstain from contributing to many of these problem at their roots? I mean is the shit even on anybody's radar ?

This post is part satire but it's rooted in an honest question. Its a novelty post to see what people say. I like this kind of thing.

5 comments

[ 375 ms ] story [ 1546 ms ] thread
anovikov
Cars are themselves taxed and so is gasoline. In Europe much much more so than in U.S. So in a way not having a car you have a tax break (and public transportation, whenever it exists, is subsidized, because it almost never breaks even, so you have another tax break).

And taxing meat is a bad idea. If meat gets more expensive, people will eat even more fast carbs and sugars, which will mean ballooning healthcare costs.

wturner
Good point, my post was intended to spark off a conversation on how to reward individuals for abstaining their consumption of bad things. Not to funnel their habits towards worse things.
pedalpete
I like your post as an interesting though project.

My initial reaction was "yeah, why not a tax break for not having a car", but I'm not sure why you would get a tax break for not eating meat. Are you thinking a carbon credit type of thing.

On deeper inspection, it actually probably doesn't make much sense to give you a tax break on these sorts of things.

Your tax dollars are helping the entire system run. You still use streets, so why would you get a tax break for not having a car?

Also, tax is not an a la carte purchase. In some ways I wish it was, but it isn't.

I've always been interested in the idea of paying my taxes, but getting to say where it goes. So on my tax return, I can allocate what percentage of my taxes go to different parts of gov't.

How many people would spend more on public health and less on military. More on roads and less on farm subsidies, etc etc?

There are a few problems with this approach.

1) Many people may not understand the long-term effects of what their taxes go to, and that could cause major issues, but I like it as a concept. Vote with your Tax Dollars.

2) It couldn't be a direct percent of your tax dollars, otherwise those paying more tax would have more say, so it would have to be averaged across all tax payers.

wturner
Citizens "should" be able to vote their tax allocation. To compensate for "bad user input" a certain percentage would be designated as "pool" which would just mean the government allocates as it deems best.This could be 10 percent or something. I know people have distrust in government but the truth is some policy makers are simply more aware than the common citizen and that body of understanding should be respected - to a point.
collyw
Not having children would make a far bigger environmental impact than both of those things. No tax breaks for that either.