This. Because your post is reasonable and informative, it will be seen by the hive-mind as corporate shilling bullshit and down-modded into oblivion. That's a shame. I'm no fan of Comcast - they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs, but you've pointed out one of the issues with the push for government-regulated "network neutrality", and that there are issues that the end-point consumers just don't understand and won't even listen to.
There are a LOT more issues at stake, here, and we should not let the debate be controlled by a bunch of Internet users that are angry because they're Netflix is buffering during their Califonication-watching marathon.
When Clinton was proposing to his health care fix back in the 90s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org], the Republicans came up with this brilliant plan of using mandates to buy private insurance. Sound familiar?
What fucked up that approach was qualifying it with "government approved", and then adding every kind of coverage plus the kitchen sink into the requirements. Remember "catastrophic coverage" plans? Yea, that's all that most young healthy people need, but they are illegal now. Because old, fat, and self-destructive people need more coverage than that, so healthy, young, and hard-working people need to pay for that too. Because we can't going around asking people to be taking some responsibility for their own health, now can we?
When President Lawnchair had a democratic-controlled congress he still caved to republican demands. If the democrats would have rallied under their own principles they could have passed a logical, non-conservative, non-big-business-handout health care reform bill; but they were weak and allowed the minority republicans to bully them in to this awful piece of garbage that we have now. He didn't make any meaningful changes in his first 6 years, he won't be making any in his last 2 either.
Nope, he passed the plan as designed, and it worked because the AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID, and they'll ask for this piece of shit because they'll believe whatever lie the "most transparent administration" tells them.
why in the world do people assume lower gas prices mean higher consumption?
That is called elastic demand. Almost everything has elastic demand. Assuming the opposite would be very silly indeed.
For nearly all market for gasoline, the demand IS inelastic. Truckers need to ship goods, people need to go to work. Gas prices get high enough, some people might look closer and a more fuel-efficient car if they are in the market for one, or some people might not take a vacation or stay closer to home, but that is such a small portion of the market as to look mostly like noise. If the cost of beef goes up enough, lots of people will be eating more chicken, but there are no substitutes for getting food to the grocery stores, or keeping gas in the car you can afford so you can keep getting to work. Moronic anecdotes about a minor uptick in sales of Hummers, or other less fuel efficient personal vehicles, is just noise, and these decisions will have no discernible affect on the price of gas, or pollution, for that matter.
Higher minimum wage and unemployment benefits would do a lot more to help the poor while avoiding the problems associated with direct and indirect gasoline subsidies, which is what ignoring pollution ultimately amounts to.
Don't worry - we'll be increasing energy prices and exporting our pollution to China, now that Obama has a new agreement to do just that. So we'll get even more unemployed to buy even more cheap crap from Walmart, and they can hire even more 29-hour-per-week part-timers that will live on food stamps and heavy subsidies from Obamacare.
There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.
And you buy all your milk and pet food from China.
Well now that Obama has made a climate change agreement with China that will accelerate US exports of pollution to China for at least the next 20 years, you can look forward to buying even more stuff from China.
The problem with tying tax increases to this type of "inflation" measure is the market itself they are measuring. In basic economics we assume that prices rise and fall based on supply and demand. But the “market” measured in this index is vanishingly small. 13 states currently use the index to adjust their fuel taxes. The “consumers” in the market are exclusively governments, and the producers are exclusively government contractors, often organized using industry groups like the VTCA. So now we have a feedback loop that starts to eliminate downward pressure on prices. And in a closed market such as this, when consumers are provided exactly the amount of funding required for their purchases, we get an ever-spiraling increase in costs, all borne by taxpayers with no recourse except pressuring legislators to take action in repealing a tax. And with powerful lobby groups like the VTCA and the many planning commissions that represent construction contractors, opposing such a reversal it is unlikely to happen. So we end up with a tax that increases perpetually even as relative wage income declines.
It can be frustrating. While at the "Lockn Festival" in Virginia, my phone kept thinking it was in Scottsdale, Arizona. The weather reports were bad enough, but the worst part was the time on my phone kept coming up in Mountain time, so I was always 2 hours behind. I think that issue was because they brought in mobile towers, since that rural part of Virginia doesn't normally have any mobile coverage, and I guess someone forgot to set the location on the towers.
Is this country, the govt represents the people. A crime against the state is a crime against society.
You mean like the crime of "driving while black"?
Since I've already quoted Spooner, I might as well go ahead and pull out a choice quote from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" as a response to this inane comment:
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.... Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
That's true. But not the GP called it "crime", as in, they are put away for non-crimes (i.e., they were incarcerated despite the lack of an identifiable victim.
The STATE is the victim.
No. The "state" cannot be a victim, it owns a monopoly on "legal" violence, and exists only to protect the rights of its citizens. If the State can claim to be a victim and kill and incarcerate citizens because to protect itself from its people, then it has become a tyranny and should be dismantled. The state should rightly fear its people, not the other way around.
And since you seem to be implying that possession and/or distribution of some state-declared contraband (an act the state punishes blacks for very disproportionally than whites), I'll leave this quote from Lysander Spooner right here for you to ponder:
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property. In vices, the very essence of crime - that is, the design to injure the person or property of another - is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practices a vice with any such criminal intent. He practices his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others. Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property, and the corresponding coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood a truth.
While I certainly agree that the "victim" mentality is not helpful, let's not pretend that racism is not real and pervasive.
"Real", yes, absolutely. Pervasive in hiring decisions for tech workers? I don't think so. It really does not make any sense. It is certainly something that I have seen zero evidence of from many years in the tech world - just the opposite, in fact. You could say it's pervasive in traffic stops (and that is something that we should try to fix), but uniformed cops don't hire programmers.
I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.
Then maybe the prosecutors should have thrown bunch of those charges at him instead. There are so many laws on the books for so many things that some people speculate that everyone commits three felonies a day.
The courts are apparently completely ignoring the purpose, and, indeed the name of the law itself. We typically call it Sarbanes-Oxley, but that's only because it's shorter than the real name of the act, which is the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The law was enacted, according to the summary in the bill, "to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws". Claiming it applies in this case is to ignore the clear intent of Congress for the entire law itself - why is parsing a few passages out of it even necessary?
To be fair, whilst I'm not defending the way the law is written, let's not forget that the whole reason it was written- because without it a series of financial scandals meant it cost tens of billion for the rest too.
I haven't heard of any bankers or investment brokers being arrested and jailed with the law. None. Clearly, US law enforcement is much more concerned with jailing fishermen that worrying about Americans losing their homes and retirement savings. After all, plenty of that Wall Street money is landing right there in the lobbyist's offices in Washington, and fishermen seem to be inept and figuring out whose bread they need to butter in order to maintain their livelihood.
Medium is like a crowd-sourced blog with no ads... what's the issue you have with it?
Of all the BS on Slashdot, this is much more akin to its roots of aggregating less-know tech articles.
Ummm... No. Medium is not really "crowd-sourced". And it certainly has ads, it just doesn't have "obvious" advertising of products, rather the whole thing is to include lots of "native advertising". Or... "product placement" if you prefer. I signed up for Medium a long time ago. I do like some of the stories - some are informative in that they prompt me to research deeper in some topics. But don't suffer from the illusion that this is some popular, organically grown blog site, with authors submitting stories like commentators and submitters on/. It's more like what/. is trying to become: Something that looks like a user-driven comment site, but that's actually a new media channel for companies. In this case, I suspect it's an attempt by Wales and other officers at Wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign to drive up donations. But Medium is that kind of vehicle for any corporation.
Medium doesn't really hide what they do, but you have to dig a little bit to figure out what they are and what they are doing. These are journalists that know journalism is a lousy way to try to make a living these days, with newspapers and magazines dying out, and advertising as an Internet news funding model unable to generate enough revenue to support the kind of staff that traditional print, and even cable news, has been able to support in the past. So this is another idea to generate that revenue (not that there is anything wrong with that, but people should be aware of what's going on, and the funding that is driving the agenda).
Have you noticed that you can only create an "account" on Medium with a Twitter or Facebook account link? Yea, that's the case? Is Facebook helping fund Medium? Maybe. Twitter money certainly is They are trying to bring in companies and especially start-ups to get their marketing messages out on Medium. If you look around, you can find plenty of articles that come down to shameless promotion, which is how I view this one. How many news stories show up on cable and network news that are primarily done for someone promoting a book? That's not incidental to Medium stories - it's what the built Medium FOR.
So, I don't know if you can really call it "crowd sourced". It's another Silicon Valley startup, with no obvious business model, but lots of funding and wealthy Silicon Valley Gen Xer's running it.
It seems more and more stories on/. are just native advertising. Digging through all the stories to find something interesting is like digging through an email account with no spam filters.
Moreover, even thought the First Amendment clearly forbids Congressional abridgment of the Press, the Supreme Court has allowed multiple exceptions [wikipedia.org].
Oh, of course. Can't let the citizens go saying anything they want any time they feel like it, can we? Need to get that Constitutional Amendment passed quickly, too, since the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision is so dangerous! After all, four years of campaign financing is now ALMOST as much money as is spent on Halloween candy every year.
Plus, well, with all the hand-held devices available all over the place, that "press" moniker is a little too loosely interpreted, isn't it? Time to require licensing for journalists, wouldn't you say? After all, we can require licensing for owning a weapon, why not for having protections of "the press", too? The pen, after all, is mightier than the sword.
The First Amendment doesn't have the "In order to maintain a well regulated militia"-type clause.
Since you point out the speech limitations the SCOUST has allowed, I should point out that they have rule that clause really has no bearing on the right to bear arms, which was unequivocally ruled to be a right of the people, not state governments.
(Sorry it's not a Wikipedia link - since I'm not a douchebag, I don't link to Wikipedia as a reference.)
Freedom of the press as named in the freakin First Amendment of the Constitution,
Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....
Correct. Just as the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and muzzle loaders.
Tax the wealth on the other hand, and suddenly not only does it make a difference, it makes a difference that actually distributes across "class." Sure, people will just avoid "owning" anything but that's okay, because avoiding owning anything means the wealth is constantly shifting around in the wild where it boosts the economy in the form of jobs, markups, sales tax, fees, etc.
I've proposed looking at a wealth tax before - as you point out, it could significantly improve the overall economy for a broader group of people. But every time, I get vigorous opposition to even discussing the idea from both the left and the right. I don't know why that is the case, it's not a radical idea, it's used successfully in many places.
I think a carbon tax is the only workable plan. If you rebate the tax on a per capita basis the poor should end up with more.
What carbon would you like to tax? The electricity people use? Or just some portion based on percentage of generation? Or do you include everyone with wood-burning fireplaces? Do you buy wood pellet stoves for everyone? More for coal? Less for nuclear? Who is poor? What about the middle class - sounds like AGAIN they get to pay the VAST MAJORITY, when they have already been squeezed and squeezed and have lost the value of their wages for 40 YEARS and now you want to take MORE?? Not only that, you want them to pay more for power AND more for power for the POOR that they are already helping support??? We all know the rich will not be affected, because they will WRITE THE LAW!!
Finding the political will to do this may be difficult.
That's because we have more pressing problems to fix.
Slashdot Mirror
No - they were ground-based.
This. Because your post is reasonable and informative, it will be seen by the hive-mind as corporate shilling bullshit and down-modded into oblivion. That's a shame. I'm no fan of Comcast - they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs, but you've pointed out one of the issues with the push for government-regulated "network neutrality", and that there are issues that the end-point consumers just don't understand and won't even listen to.
There are a LOT more issues at stake, here, and we should not let the debate be controlled by a bunch of Internet users that are angry because they're Netflix is buffering during their Califonication-watching marathon.
When Clinton was proposing to his health care fix back in the 90s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org], the Republicans came up with this brilliant plan of using mandates to buy private insurance. Sound familiar?
What fucked up that approach was qualifying it with "government approved", and then adding every kind of coverage plus the kitchen sink into the requirements. Remember "catastrophic coverage" plans? Yea, that's all that most young healthy people need, but they are illegal now. Because old, fat, and self-destructive people need more coverage than that, so healthy, young, and hard-working people need to pay for that too. Because we can't going around asking people to be taking some responsibility for their own health, now can we?
When President Lawnchair had a democratic-controlled congress he still caved to republican demands. If the democrats would have rallied under their own principles they could have passed a logical, non-conservative, non-big-business-handout health care reform bill; but they were weak and allowed the minority republicans to bully them in to this awful piece of garbage that we have now. He didn't make any meaningful changes in his first 6 years, he won't be making any in his last 2 either.
Nope, he passed the plan as designed, and it worked because the AMERICAN VOTERS ARE STUPID, and they'll ask for this piece of shit because they'll believe whatever lie the "most transparent administration" tells them.
why in the world do people assume lower gas prices mean higher consumption?
That is called elastic demand. Almost everything has elastic demand. Assuming the opposite would be very silly indeed.
For nearly all market for gasoline, the demand IS inelastic. Truckers need to ship goods, people need to go to work. Gas prices get high enough, some people might look closer and a more fuel-efficient car if they are in the market for one, or some people might not take a vacation or stay closer to home, but that is such a small portion of the market as to look mostly like noise. If the cost of beef goes up enough, lots of people will be eating more chicken, but there are no substitutes for getting food to the grocery stores, or keeping gas in the car you can afford so you can keep getting to work. Moronic anecdotes about a minor uptick in sales of Hummers, or other less fuel efficient personal vehicles, is just noise, and these decisions will have no discernible affect on the price of gas, or pollution, for that matter.
Higher minimum wage and unemployment benefits would do a lot more to help the poor while avoiding the problems associated with direct and indirect gasoline subsidies, which is what ignoring pollution ultimately amounts to.
Don't worry - we'll be increasing energy prices and exporting our pollution to China, now that Obama has a new agreement to do just that. So we'll get even more unemployed to buy even more cheap crap from Walmart, and they can hire even more 29-hour-per-week part-timers that will live on food stamps and heavy subsidies from Obamacare.
There is no downside to lower gas prices. lower prices on anything is always a positive.
And you buy all your milk and pet food from China.
Well now that Obama has made a climate change agreement with China that will accelerate US exports of pollution to China for at least the next 20 years, you can look forward to buying even more stuff from China.
The problem with these proposals is that the "indexed to inflation" idea doesn't actually use inflation to adjust gas prices. It uses an artificial (and experimental) index called the "Producer Price Index” (PPI). Specifically the category that is supposed to track prices for “Other nonresidential construction”. What this means is that taxes for consumers change based on what contractors charge governments for road construction.
The problem with tying tax increases to this type of "inflation" measure is the market itself they are measuring. In basic economics we assume that prices rise and fall based on supply and demand. But the “market” measured in this index is vanishingly small. 13 states currently use the index to adjust their fuel taxes. The “consumers” in the market are exclusively governments, and the producers are exclusively government contractors, often organized using industry groups like the VTCA. So now we have a feedback loop that starts to eliminate downward pressure on prices. And in a closed market such as this, when consumers are provided exactly the amount of funding required for their purchases, we get an ever-spiraling increase in costs, all borne by taxpayers with no recourse except pressuring legislators to take action in repealing a tax. And with powerful lobby groups like the VTCA and the many planning commissions that represent construction contractors, opposing such a reversal it is unlikely to happen. So we end up with a tax that increases perpetually even as relative wage income declines.
So we just phase-in the tax slowly, because AMERICANS ARE STUPID and they will never notice.
It can be frustrating. While at the "Lockn Festival" in Virginia, my phone kept thinking it was in Scottsdale, Arizona. The weather reports were bad enough, but the worst part was the time on my phone kept coming up in Mountain time, so I was always 2 hours behind. I think that issue was because they brought in mobile towers, since that rural part of Virginia doesn't normally have any mobile coverage, and I guess someone forgot to set the location on the towers.
Is this country, the govt represents the people. A crime against the state is a crime against society.
You mean like the crime of "driving while black"?
Since I've already quoted Spooner, I might as well go ahead and pull out a choice quote from Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" as a response to this inane comment:
there's no such thing as a victimless crime.
That's true. But not the GP called it "crime", as in, they are put away for non-crimes (i.e., they were incarcerated despite the lack of an identifiable victim.
The STATE is the victim.
No. The "state" cannot be a victim, it owns a monopoly on "legal" violence, and exists only to protect the rights of its citizens. If the State can claim to be a victim and kill and incarcerate citizens because to protect itself from its people, then it has become a tyranny and should be dismantled. The state should rightly fear its people, not the other way around.
And since you seem to be implying that possession and/or distribution of some state-declared contraband (an act the state punishes blacks for very disproportionally than whites), I'll leave this quote from Lysander Spooner right here for you to ponder:
While I certainly agree that the "victim" mentality is not helpful, let's not pretend that racism is not real and pervasive.
"Real", yes, absolutely. Pervasive in hiring decisions for tech workers? I don't think so. It really does not make any sense. It is certainly something that I have seen zero evidence of from many years in the tech world - just the opposite, in fact. You could say it's pervasive in traffic stops (and that is something that we should try to fix), but uniformed cops don't hire programmers.
In the medical world, the ops table has 12 people each with minor specialization.
Imagine if there was one doctor doing the prep, drugs, cleaning, cutting, sewing up, the works.
Imagine you're out in the middle of nowhere with a life-threatening trauma wound and there is only one doctor available.
I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.
Then maybe the prosecutors should have thrown bunch of those charges at him instead. There are so many laws on the books for so many things that some people speculate that everyone commits three felonies a day.
The courts are apparently completely ignoring the purpose, and, indeed the name of the law itself. We typically call it Sarbanes-Oxley, but that's only because it's shorter than the real name of the act, which is the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The law was enacted, according to the summary in the bill, "to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws". Claiming it applies in this case is to ignore the clear intent of Congress for the entire law itself - why is parsing a few passages out of it even necessary?
To be fair, whilst I'm not defending the way the law is written, let's not forget that the whole reason it was written- because without it a series of financial scandals meant it cost tens of billion for the rest too.
I haven't heard of any bankers or investment brokers being arrested and jailed with the law. None. Clearly, US law enforcement is much more concerned with jailing fishermen that worrying about Americans losing their homes and retirement savings. After all, plenty of that Wall Street money is landing right there in the lobbyist's offices in Washington, and fishermen seem to be inept and figuring out whose bread they need to butter in order to maintain their livelihood.
Medium is like a crowd-sourced blog with no ads... what's the issue you have with it?
Of all the BS on Slashdot, this is much more akin to its roots of aggregating less-know tech articles.
Ummm... No. Medium is not really "crowd-sourced". And it certainly has ads, it just doesn't have "obvious" advertising of products, rather the whole thing is to include lots of "native advertising". Or ... "product placement" if you prefer. I signed up for Medium a long time ago. I do like some of the stories - some are informative in that they prompt me to research deeper in some topics. But don't suffer from the illusion that this is some popular, organically grown blog site, with authors submitting stories like commentators and submitters on /. It's more like what /. is trying to become: Something that looks like a user-driven comment site, but that's actually a new media channel for companies. In this case, I suspect it's an attempt by Wales and other officers at Wikipedia as part of a marketing campaign to drive up donations. But Medium is that kind of vehicle for any corporation.
Medium doesn't really hide what they do, but you have to dig a little bit to figure out what they are and what they are doing. These are journalists that know journalism is a lousy way to try to make a living these days, with newspapers and magazines dying out, and advertising as an Internet news funding model unable to generate enough revenue to support the kind of staff that traditional print, and even cable news, has been able to support in the past. So this is another idea to generate that revenue (not that there is anything wrong with that, but people should be aware of what's going on, and the funding that is driving the agenda).
Have you noticed that you can only create an "account" on Medium with a Twitter or Facebook account link? Yea, that's the case? Is Facebook helping fund Medium? Maybe. Twitter money certainly is They are trying to bring in companies and especially start-ups to get their marketing messages out on Medium. If you look around, you can find plenty of articles that come down to shameless promotion, which is how I view this one. How many news stories show up on cable and network news that are primarily done for someone promoting a book? That's not incidental to Medium stories - it's what the built Medium FOR.
So, I don't know if you can really call it "crowd sourced". It's another Silicon Valley startup, with no obvious business model, but lots of funding and wealthy Silicon Valley Gen Xer's running it.
It seems more and more stories on /. are just native advertising. Digging through all the stories to find something interesting is like digging through an email account with no spam filters.
The middle class should, on average, break even.
Better check your math. The only way that's possible is if either their buying power goes down, or the tax will generate negative revenue.
In 2008 Heller happened. Look it up.
... and to a "well regulated militia"...
2007 called, they want their incorrect interpretation of the Constitution back.
Moreover, even thought the First Amendment clearly forbids Congressional abridgment of the Press, the Supreme Court has allowed multiple exceptions [wikipedia.org].
Oh, of course. Can't let the citizens go saying anything they want any time they feel like it, can we? Need to get that Constitutional Amendment passed quickly, too, since the SCOTUS Citizen's United decision is so dangerous! After all, four years of campaign financing is now ALMOST as much money as is spent on Halloween candy every year.
Plus, well, with all the hand-held devices available all over the place, that "press" moniker is a little too loosely interpreted, isn't it? Time to require licensing for journalists, wouldn't you say? After all, we can require licensing for owning a weapon, why not for having protections of "the press", too? The pen, after all, is mightier than the sword.
The First Amendment doesn't have the "In order to maintain a well regulated militia"-type clause.
Since you point out the speech limitations the SCOUST has allowed, I should point out that they have rule that clause really has no bearing on the right to bear arms, which was unequivocally ruled to be a right of the people, not state governments.
(Sorry it's not a Wikipedia link - since I'm not a douchebag, I don't link to Wikipedia as a reference.)
Funny, I always assumed that that only applied to handset printing presses such as existed during the 18th Century, and reporters who travelled by sailing ship, horse, or foot to find and spread the story....
Correct. Just as the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and muzzle loaders.
Tax the wealth on the other hand, and suddenly not only does it make a difference, it makes a difference that actually distributes across "class." Sure, people will just avoid "owning" anything but that's okay, because avoiding owning anything means the wealth is constantly shifting around in the wild where it boosts the economy in the form of jobs, markups, sales tax, fees, etc.
I've proposed looking at a wealth tax before - as you point out, it could significantly improve the overall economy for a broader group of people. But every time, I get vigorous opposition to even discussing the idea from both the left and the right. I don't know why that is the case, it's not a radical idea, it's used successfully in many places.
I think a carbon tax is the only workable plan. If you rebate the tax on a per capita basis the poor should end up with more.
What carbon would you like to tax? The electricity people use? Or just some portion based on percentage of generation? Or do you include everyone with wood-burning fireplaces? Do you buy wood pellet stoves for everyone? More for coal? Less for nuclear? Who is poor? What about the middle class - sounds like AGAIN they get to pay the VAST MAJORITY, when they have already been squeezed and squeezed and have lost the value of their wages for 40 YEARS and now you want to take MORE?? Not only that, you want them to pay more for power AND more for power for the POOR that they are already helping support??? We all know the rich will not be affected, because they will WRITE THE LAW!!
Finding the political will to do this may be difficult.
That's because we have more pressing problems to fix.