> e.g. via taxes ... There is no need for the yuppie and the coffee.

The taxes are also paid for by the yuppies at a disproportionate rate to their income share.

See: share of income taxes as broken out by income segment, in most every developed nation.

One of the central defining characteristics of a yuppie is a well-paying job. That means paying higher, progressive tax rates in most affluent nations, including Australia.

https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

See: what happens to California if you remove the tech yuppies pulling down $200,000 - $500,000, as well as their party buckets of equity compensation, the taxes of which the state rolls around in during the good times. California would become a formal second world disaster with no ability to fund anything. Illinois with nicer weather.

I meant no need for yuppies to pay for coffee delivered by done in order to accomplish the goal of researching how to deliver medicines in hard to reach places. They may coincidentally have to do with each other (emphasis on “may”), but not causally.

Norway tried this with carbon capture.

It ended up with a big payday for big oil IIRC.

Now that we are getting the socialists back in power (they was the ones behind the last attempt) they've promised to have companies buy into it too instead of just using taxes.

It would be interesting to know why this is downvoted:

I consider myself fluent in Norwegian, did I still miss something?

Edit: to be clear, I don't care at all about those stupid point. For that matter dang should be free to reset them every day like he seems to do with his own.

I only care about them as an indication of whether what I said came across as wrong or something.

It seems to be bringing up an relatively off topic political dispute without doing the work to justify the relevance or the claims being made. This makes it easy for people to see nothing more than anti carbon tax, anti socialist political baiting. This doesn't tend to lead to productive conversations and thus is likely to get downvoted on a political basis.

A more productive comment would have talked about how the Norwegian carbon tax was intended to fund research and how exactly it failed to do that and instead just created profits for oil companies.

Ok, I see, thanks.

I don't have time to fix it now, but yes, this is my point:

I'm not against taxing pollution or using tax income to fund research, only against the part where we (Norway) literally gave money to companies without demanding results.