[raxxorrax]

Not only did it not reduce fuel consumption, the money was also used to fix holes in our social security system and almost nothing was done for the environment. Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport.

People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others.

Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past.

I think the current little pupil rebellion is something very worth supporting. But their demands are naive.

Your proposition would be a more efficient mechanism.

Currently there is a discussion about giving people a fixed amount of money for the additional costs this tax would cause.

What a waste of time...

[sgift]

> Turned out people are dependent on cars. And they really are, to a degree that cannot be satisfied by public transport.

It turned out the taxes are not high enough. If people really were depended on cars, but were hurt by the high taxes, car makers would sell smaller cars. They don't. Extremely big cars, totally unneeded by almost anyone, are still the most popular models. Why? Cause the costs of having and using one are not as high as you make it sound.

> People in Germany advocating an additional tax have either never worked, payed bills, are stupendously rich, just insane or don't have responsibilities towards others.

Yeah, sure. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is one of the above. It couldn't be that they tend to have a bit more foresight than you.

> Sorry, there is a limit on how much you can use taxes and that limit is staunchly in the red because of naive promises made in the past.

Taxes in Germany have never been lower than in the last 20 years for significant parts of the population. The problem in Germany right now isn't high taxes, it's low wages. A problem which hits parts of the population that usually don't even pay taxes (or if they do almost none).

[grecht]

> It turned out the taxes are not high enough. If people really were depended on cars, but were hurt by the high taxes, car makers would sell smaller cars. They don't. Extremely big cars, totally unneeded by almost anyone, are still the most popular models. Why? Cause the costs of having and using one are not as high as you make it sound.

No, no, and no. Cars are getting more and more efficient, and there are many affordable efficient cars today. It‘s just that people in rich countries like to display their wealth by getting a big car. But there are still people that live in the countryside, who have no other means of transportation, that‘d get hit pretty hard by even higher taxes on fuel. It‘s how they get to work, how they get their groceries, how they get to their friends‘ place.

It‘s easy to renounce something if you‘re not dependent on it.

> A problem which hits parts of the population that usually don't even pay taxes (or if they do almost none)

What part of the population exactly are you referring to? Low-income households? Tax evaders?

[sgift]

> No, no, and no. Cars are getting more and more efficient, and there are many affordable efficient cars today.

Which people don't buy most of the time. By your explanation many people seem to be either rich or the price of cars (over lifetime) is still too low. I don't see the majority of people being rich, so that only leaves the other option.

> But there are still people that live in the countryside, who have no other means of transportation, that‘d get hit pretty hard by even higher taxes on fuel. It‘s how they get to work, how they get their groceries, how they get to their friends‘ place.

People in the country-side are the first to state that higher rent is the price of living in a city -- to turn that around: Higher transportation costs are the price of living in the country-side.

> Low-income households? Tax evaders?

The first. You don't pay taxes below a certain income, low wages still hit you. Tax evaders are usually not hit by either.

[grecht]

> Which people don‘t buy most of the time.

Now you‘re just imagining things. In 2018, 36.5% of the newly registered cars in Germany were small or compact[0]. Also have a look at this statistic [1].

> higher rent is the price of living in a city [...] Higher transportation costs are the price of living in the country-side.

Exactly. Now think about this: They live in the countryside BECAUSE they cannot afford to live in the city, which ends up being cheaper even if you have to pay for a car, especially with the current housing market situation in cities.

[0] https://www.kba.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2019/Fahrzeu...

[1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165065/umfrag...

[sgift]

> In 2018, 36.5% of the newly registered cars in Germany were small or compact[0]

To quote your first source:

> Mehr als die Hälfte aller Neuzulassungen entfielen auf die Segmente Kompaktklasse (22,0 %), SUVs (18,3 %), Kleinwagen (14,5 %) und Mittelklasse (10,9 %). Die SUVs verzeichneten mit +20,8 Prozent den deutlichsten Zuwachs in der Jahresbilanz, gefolgt von den Wohnmobilen (+15,5 %) und der Oberklasse (+12,4 %).

SUVs were the second biggest segment and had the highest increase. The third highest increase was for luxury cars. 36,5% for small or compact also means over 60% weren't small or compact. Your source seems to support my conclusions pretty well.

> Exactly. Now think about this: They live in the countryside BECAUSE they cannot afford to live in the city, which ends up being cheaper even if you have to pay for a car, especially with the current housing market situation in cities.

Most poor people live in cities. People in the country side usually live there because they want big houses and "live in the green", not because they cannot afford rent. On the contrary, poor people usually have to live in the city despite the high rent, cause that's where low-wage jobs exist.

[grecht]

> Your source seems to support my conclusion pretty well.

Not quite. You said „which people don‘t buy most of the time“ (referring to efficient cars), which could not be more wrong judging by both of my sources. But sure, people by SUVs, which I never denied. In fact, I also think that‘s a bad thing.

[raxxorrax]

True, some people do indeed buy cars that I would think are way too large. But you should pay close attention to the demographic which does.

> Everyone who doesn't agree with you is one of the above.

It was no judgement. I was also on that train a while ago.

> The problem in Germany right now isn't high taxes, it's low wages.

Partially agreed. There is no reference as to what constitutes too high taxes honestly, but the point stands. Having low wages doesn't really allow for tax increases either.

> Taxes in Germany have never been lower than in the last 20 years

Not true at all. Income taxes maybe, but not overall tax contribution. What I mean is the quota of all taxes combined (Steuerquote). We are setting record after record here. We can be proud of ourselves...

[black_puppydog]

Seriously? Give out certificates (yes, that idea is not new, it's just limited to certain industries at the moment) and then let the price develop? Those certificates would be a rare resource. How many of those would the non-rich be able to afford, eh? If you look at movements such as extinction rebellion, reducing social (including financial) inequality is part and parcel of what they demand, exactly because the rich have not been paying their fair share. This is true on a national level, as well as a global level.

And yes, this all requires drastic lifestyle changes. That's the point. No lifestyle change, no climate effect. Simple as that.

[raxxorrax]

I agree but how do you think this drastic lifestyle change look would look like? The price of emission certificates would be reflected in the products you buy, of course.

That is a huge part of the criticism against a tax for households that are just responsible for 1/5th of emissions and I wouldn't include them in the emission trade at all. Because even today people don't waste significant energy for basic needs like heating, so any instrument can only be that effective.

And corporations are currently the only ones paying for every tonne of CO² they emit. And you want to change that to be extended to everyone... You might argue that they should pay more, but...

Of course people in many political parties are rubbing their hands that you actually want to increase tax burdens. Money solves problems, right?

[black_puppydog]

Looking at how much the top tax brackets (income and corporate) have moved over the last decades, I have an idea where to get the money to solve things. Plus, done like that, it would actually be a relative benefit to lower income tiers. Of course, that would still mean no flights or meat for poorer people, while rich people could afford those luxuries. But they need to be luxuries, at least until we figure out how to provide them in a climate neutral way.

[tomjen3]

They demand that because they are Marxists, but Marxism assumes that the entire system will soon collapse and must be replaced with Marxism, which was probably a sensible prediction when Marx made his observations, but hasn't been the case for 2 centuries.

So Marxists try to make it come true, by doing destructive things like the rebellion.