385
Bitcoin miners win legal battle to keep mum about energy use [US]
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
385 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59407 readers
2253 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it’s really really easily to implement taxation that’s not regressive.
A progressive tax that means the biggest users pay the most would probably be ideal (but then that's mostly true in every situation)
Why is it not that way already?
Because it would affect rich folks more, so they spend some money now to convince lawmakers not to charge them more later.
So it's not so easy to implement after all
Did I say easy? I think I said ideal.
How comes I never saw that implemented, then? Progressive taxation stops "progressing" at around the 100k threshold and that's basically just a decent salary. The Rich are never really affected by it.
Carbon credits would be a way to level the ground in some situations and could give you a right to say NO to people consuming more than their share, or at least account for externalities and get paid if you allow them to use your "quota".