[ZeroGravitas]

The problem with this is that you suddenly find that all the people who you thought were arguing in good faith about not liking government intervention, were actually only doing that as a tactic to stall specific things they didn't like, not as a general principle.

They'll have a completely new set of disingenuous talking points (unsubsidized fuel would hit the poorest hardest!) ready to confuse people and to stall that action as well.

[DuskStar]

> They'll have a completely new set of disingenuous talking points (unsubsidized fuel would hit the poorest hardest!) ready to confuse people and to stall that action as well.

Wasn't that literally the left's argument against carbon taxes on Oregon?

[ZeroGravitas]

If they argued for some counterbalancing arrangement with the money raised they were probably on the left if they just said "well, I guess we just have to stick with what we currently do, it's not like government intervention would be desirable here" then they were probably not actually on the left.

[DuskStar]

The initial proposal was for the carbon tax to be revenue-neutral and (IIRC) returned as a per-capita rebate. That didn't pass, so the followup used the revenue for social programs as an attempt at bipartisanship. The followup also failed to pass, though.

[Gibbon1]

Imposing taxes on poor people who have little agency/power seems kind of pointless.

[gedy]

You see the same thing with 'free speech'