Comment by morepedantic

>But a system that makes it so you must drive an ICE vehicle to participate in the economy

You're literally subsidizing this system by preventing use taxes on gasoline.

>provides tax breaks to the rich

42% of people pay no income tax, and 80% pay net zero or less. Poor people care how benefits are apportioned amongst the poor, not how taxes are apportioned amongst the rich.

>You don’t know anything about my moral system.

I know enough: you hate use taxes, because they are regressive (when the metric is % of income, not when it is magnitude).

But use taxes, like any price, provide critical feedback to the consumer to avoid failure modes like the tragedy of the commons.

In this particular case that feedback acts as a restoring force against the literal destruction of the planet's habitability. My moral system doesn't preclude use taxes on general principle, but your moral system does. Ergo, I'm offering a moral system that will save the planet, innumerable ecosystems, and possibly the human species, but you're offering a moral system that lets us feel warm and fuzzy, emphasis on warm.

>I know that you declared all regressive use taxes in all cases as morally right.

What an odd interpretation. I was clearly referring specifically to the regressive aspect of use taxes, not declaring the holiness of every particular use tax conceivable, historical, and existing.

A: "Breathing is 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So you want everyone to smoke crack!"

A: "Income taxes are 100% moral, fine, upstanding, and ethical." B: "So we should tax 120% of income!"

Of all the ways you could have interpreted my statement you chose the most absurd.