Freyr’s Plan to ‘Make Britain Great Again’
General principle: tax activities that destroy wealth; spend on liberating people to produce wealth.
Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gasses which cause global warming, which destroys wealth. Also, these fuels are generally imported from oil producing nations, which means any money spent on them is money leaving the UK. We are giving our wealth to the oil companies in exchange for something that destroys wealth.
There are other activities that destroy wealth. Smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, killing the body into which so much has been invested, and on the way, consuming the resources of the healthcare system, destroying more wealth. There is no economic benefit to this. Tabaco is not illegal, but it is heavily taxed, thereby returning some of that wealth to the government.
We can apply this same principle to burning fossil fuels. Tabaco destroys
workers citizens and fossil fuels destroy the environment. Same same but different.
A high tax on fossil fuels and other activities that produce greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide isn’t the only one, just the one we produce the most of) would set up an economic incentive that individuals and companies would respond to naturally. No need for complicated quotas. No need to think about ‘mother earth’ anymore. Us citizens can all just go back to thinking about money.
A country does not exist in isolation. If we just unilaterally implement a high carbon tax, without taxing imports, then it will always be cheaper to import products from other countries without a high carbon tax, so all our money would leave the UK.
Therefore, any product imported from a country without the same (or greater) carbon tax (and corresponding import tax), must be taxed based on the greenhouse gasses used to make it.
This similarly reclaims some of the money that would have left the country.
Imported items will probably be more expensive if they are from companies that aren’t economically motivated to reduce their emissions, because they are competing with UK companies that are economically motivated to reduce their emissions. That said, if foreign companies want to compete in our market, then they’ll have to reduce their emissions. This can only be a good thing.
Currently most people are poor wage slaves. (yes I know that’s about America but I’m sure the UK isn’t much different, and it’s such a well made video :P)
Meanwhile automation is going to keep taking our jobs. So less and less work is actually needed, and more and more work revolves around trying to get people to buy things that they don’t need.
Yet there is a huge amount of work that would be helpful but is not done because it is not profitable or because it is might not turn out to be profitable.
If we distribute 100% of that revenue from the tax on greenhouse gasses equally between every citizen, rich and poor alike, this will start to change.
And it will have a multiplicative effect on the economy. If everyone has more money to spend, they will go out and spend it, which will give the businesses they spend it on more money etc. The money goes round and round in a positive feedback loop.
Another effect of this ‘Universal Basic Income’ (yeah, it’s not a new idea) is that people who have an idea for a new business can quit their job without having to worry about money. Entrepreneurs make more wealth than anyone else, but wage slaves cannot become entrepreneurs.
Trials1 of Universal Basic Income have revealed that almost everyone keeps working. The difference will be, everyone is motivated by the carrot of “more wealth” instead of the stick of “die of poverty”.
We don’t need the stick of poverty in order to produce all the wealth we need.
And when people can afford not to work, you have to pay them more in order to motivate them to work, which means much higher wages (which then get ploughed straight back into the economy, round and round) and strong economic incentives to automate. This is a good thing. There being less work to do is a good thing. See Fully Automated Luxury (Gay Space) Communism.
Without the threat of poverty and death, we might have time to tell the truth, get our need for emotional intimacy met, and become truly happy.
Oh and did I mention it would also reduce dependency on expensive and wasteful medical intervention. So many illnesses are indirectly caused by poverty.
A challenge is that we won’t know exactly what level of taxation would produce what level of revenue. Which means either there’s a delay between implementing tax, and distributing it, or a guess is made and money has to be borrowed.
If guessing and borrowing is seen as too risky, then I suggest a gradual approach: start at 5% and gradually increase. This would also give everyone a chance to see where the pain points are going to be, and prepare for them before they come into full force.
I see no reason not to increase such a tax up to 90% or higher. Emmitting greenhouse gasses isn’t something we want to be doing anyway.
Oh yeah, and don’t forget to tax aviation. A lot.
My proposal doesn’t affect any other taxes or benefits. I suggest that they all stay exactly as they are until everyone has gotten used to the new and booming economy. Let’s just change one thing at a time. This will mean people are less scared, and can see the difference the new system makes, without misattributing it to other factors.
Also, let’s build hyperloops. They seem cool.
Fast transportation between cities boosts the economies of both.
that I completely can’t be bothered to find the citations for ↩