@phillmv that's the political-economic point! to flip the political incentives.

for the median household a carbon-tax-and-dividend should not be a burden but a source of net income, creating a constituency that seeks to maintain it and even to increase the rate.

(there is and will always be an influential counter constituency, the high-carbon-consumption wealthy, of course, and businesses that pay the tax but receive no rebate.)

@phillmv (the most compelling pushback comes from people who are not wealthy, but whose lifestyles are structurally more dependent on carbon use than others. the rural non-rich have to drive a lot, since they may live far from towns. one perspective is to say this is the carbon tax doing its work, that people should move to where they can live with a lower footprint until there are few enough ruralites they earn enough to overcome the tax.)

@phillmv (but an alternative perspective takes existing communities as having a moral right to survive, despite their high per-capita environmental weight. this is certainly the perspective of people living in those communities! if we want to accommodate that perspective, the policy becomes harder to design, because anything other than flat, per-person or tax-unit distribution invites all kinds of gaming.)