I am not denying that the upper class may pay a lesser percentage of their wealth. What I am saying is that even if it is true, this is not relevant to the discussion on carbon pricing because that is not the objective in the first place.

The point of the carbon pricing is to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis.

Wealth redistribution is well deserving of its own discussion. However, on its own wouldn't be a very effective tool to address the climate crisis as it does not hit the core of the issue, which is greenhouse gas emissions.

Okay, so the problem is that because fossil fuels are cheap, most people don't find it very worthwhile to explore new or more efficient ways to do things. This is especially true for the wealthy, for whom gas and heating costs are basically nothing, so they will do dumb shit like heat their homes while leaving windows open, or buy larger and less efficient luxury cars.

The federal program fixes this. It adds a small cost to using fossil fuels, collects that money, and pays it back out to everyone. That means that people who use more carbon than average (which, again, is the willfully wasteful) will see a small penalty for their waste, while the people who are already trying their best to cut back will see a LARGE benefit, as they get a direct payment of cash for doing their part to conserve. If you are about average, there's very little impact on you, but you NOW have an economic inventive to try and economize.