Progressive pricing is good yes, but the parent is right that a non-progressive price increase is born mostly by the poor. In fact I'd wager that's why sin taxes are effective, because the largest consumers of cigarettes, soda, etc are poor people
> In fact I'd wager that's why sin taxes are effective, because the largest consumers of cigarettes, soda, etc are poor people
I'm not a fan of sin taxes. To me, taxes are for funding the government and should not be a form of punishment. If you punish people with taxes or try to change their behavior then you're just breeding resentment against taxes. Then the population votes to decrease taxes every chance they get because they're associated with punishment. Also, isn't a sin tax basically a fine with no chance to plead your case?
> Sugar taxes are effective in decreasing consumption of sugary beverages.
You missed my point. I agree they reduce consumption, but only on the poor. There will never be any progressive pricing that will affect the wealthy in any substantial way unless we determine the price as a percent of income.
> Since when has raising the price of anything changed anyone’s behavior?
Making water 2x more expensive probably isn't going to cause you to drink less water, but it might make you consider a variety of water conservation measures, like low flow showers, dishwashers, or low water landscaping.
This comment seems wildly out of touch. When a majority of Americans can't afford a $500 unexpected emergency expense[1][2], you think a $100 increase is trivial?
It's taken about 6 months to double, and there was about an 8%-10% drop in demand. That drop was from levels that were already substantially depressed from the pandemic.
I'd also wager that changes in demand of gasoline is muted because some people will still need gasoline to get groceries and to work, where irrigating one's lawn is luxury by comparison. When I turn off my irrigation, I see a drop of 60-70% water usage.
Counterpoint: I'm making a comfortable living as a developer in California, and my wife also works. We don't exactly have a mansion or a personal airplane, but it's not like we're short of money, ever.
My wife will still be very angry if water bill goes up from $100 to $200.
Price anchoring is a really powerful tool: you can cut down plastic bag usage drastically by simply mandating that they should be sold at 10 cents.
It’s only too cheap for these huge farms due to how corrupt and poorly thought out the water rights process was in the 1800s. The rural poor in CA already have water problems (e.g. Tulare county) and the urban poor already pay full freight.
So you don't raise the price of water for typical households, which is only a small percentage of their budget, and instead raise the price of food, which is generally a much larger percentage of their budget?
1. you're trying to imply that because food budget is greater than water budget, that raising water prices on farmers will affect households more. This does not make any sense. Only a fraction of the price of food paid by a household is attributable to the price of water, so you can't really conclude that just because households spend more money on food than on water, that increasing water prices on farmers will cost them more.
2. even if that were the case, it's a necessary evil to incentivize lower water use crops. Suppose there were only two types of food, apples and oranges. They both cost around the same right now, but oranges require 10x more water. Raising water prices will raise orange prices, but that's arguably a good thing because it forces consumers to choose more water efficient foods. I don't see how the alternative (ie. continue subsidizing oranges even though they're more costly to society) is any better. Not to mention, you can redistribute the excess earnings back to citizens to make this revenue neutral.
I'm not sure there is a better solution though. Perhaps cattle and almonds were not meant to be raised/grown in California.
Tangential example: I understand aluminum recycling plants dot the Columbia river because (hydro-electric) power is cheap. In a similar way, water-dependent agriculture and animal husbandry ought to follow the water.
Oh noes! All the people for whom almond consumption represents a significant amount of their daily calories will have to switch to some pedestrian food! Quelle horror!
The discussion is not about raising the price of water just for almond growers. It is about raising it for all usage other than typical households. The comment I replied to specifically mentioned cattle ranchers, for example.
Beef is an immensely inefficient food. I love steak and hamburgers and roasts and all those delicious things but if we ever want to reach sustainability they will cost quite a bit more.
Progressive pricing of water for larger consumers helps alleviate impact on the poor.