Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I've been following your theme in the comments, but you are missing the point I was trying to make.

The objective of my suggestion was not to compensate people for doing things that were ultimately anti-social, but to lower the cost to society in general.

That there may be some who are bigger winners than others is not the central concern, in fact every policy we have is slanted this way. Take the most popular one by the Republicans, a tax break for some activity. Right now there is one which proposes a break to buy health insurance. Obviously those in the 35% bracket get more value than someone who pays no taxes. So the aim that the tax break will make health insurance more affordable is a fraud. It's a giveback to those who least need the help.

However, getting gas guzzlers off the road faster will lower demand in general which will benefit everyone since fuel prices will go down as a result (or at least rise more slowly).

Sometimes you have to create unequal incentives to promote a greater good.

There is nothing stopping you from proposing a modification of my plan that would cover those whom you highlighted.

Your objections are just another variant on the libertarian viewpoint that people should suffer from their own misfortunes, even those beyond their control.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not so. But the well-to-do (and this includes the US middle class) should not have their consumption (and mistakes) subsidized by (ultimately) the poor in China whose labor is used to finance that consumption and those mistakes.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Sat Jun 21st, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]