"Subsidies could be based on income, and capped at a certain level to ensure subsidies are used by those who need them, and those who don’t need them aren’t straining the pot of available subsidies."
As you go on to state in the sentence following the one above, such a policy (means-testing) ends up expanding govt bureaucracy to the point where the additional costs accrued end up exceeding the cost of a universal subsidy.
I've heard about the idea of imposing a universal carbon tax get floated around, haven't heard much about the specifics surrounding it though.
The specifics of a carbon tax would definitely need to be properly balanced. Too harsh and people would find alternative methods that avoid carbon. Too lenient and the tax would be useless.
For your first point on bureaucracy, I agree there is the potential for greater bureaucratic holdup, hence why this would need to also be balanced. It’s not guaranteed that the additional costs of selective subsidies would outweigh the costs of universal subsidies, but I acknowledge the possibility and if you have further evidence I’d love to hear it! There are many options here. Perhaps an independent body that manages subsidies outside of government control, or an assessment of the current red tape and regulation surrounding subsidies on a government level. Perhaps it’s the optimist in me who hopes there is a fairer, more streamlined solution to this. Any further comments I’d love to discuss, thanks!
"Subsidies could be based on income, and capped at a certain level to ensure subsidies are used by those who need them, and those who don’t need them aren’t straining the pot of available subsidies."
As you go on to state in the sentence following the one above, such a policy (means-testing) ends up expanding govt bureaucracy to the point where the additional costs accrued end up exceeding the cost of a universal subsidy.
I've heard about the idea of imposing a universal carbon tax get floated around, haven't heard much about the specifics surrounding it though.
The specifics of a carbon tax would definitely need to be properly balanced. Too harsh and people would find alternative methods that avoid carbon. Too lenient and the tax would be useless.
For your first point on bureaucracy, I agree there is the potential for greater bureaucratic holdup, hence why this would need to also be balanced. It’s not guaranteed that the additional costs of selective subsidies would outweigh the costs of universal subsidies, but I acknowledge the possibility and if you have further evidence I’d love to hear it! There are many options here. Perhaps an independent body that manages subsidies outside of government control, or an assessment of the current red tape and regulation surrounding subsidies on a government level. Perhaps it’s the optimist in me who hopes there is a fairer, more streamlined solution to this. Any further comments I’d love to discuss, thanks!