
Ask HN: Why no tax breaks for non meat eaters without cars? - wturner
The two things that contribute to carbon emissions more than anything  (from what I&#x27;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 &quot;Cowspiracy&quot;).<p>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.<p>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&#x27;s radar ?<p>This post is part satire but it&#x27;s rooted in an honest question. Its a novelty post to see what people say. I like this kind of thing.
======
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.

