Somewhat like the paper wraps a large number of words around a really basic (and laughably ridiculous) premise, you've wrapped a large number of words around a really basic troll technique: isolating one thing I said, plugging in your own set of silly assumptions (e.g., that a couple of tokers in their parents' basement have already saved enough money that a ~10x increase would leave them financially independent, and that they could stay in their parents' basement for the 33 years it would take to reach that point), ignoring the larger context of my analogy, and having your way with the resultant straw man. Thus endeth the benefit of the doubt.
The big-picture point you're ducking is that the authors' math requires worldwide reductions of a degree and over a sustained of a period of time that will not happen. Once more, and all together now: Will. Not. Happen.
Though they of course can't suffer the loss of face that would result from saying this in plain English, the authors themselves pretty much admit their entire premise is a pipe dream: "We cannot predict where civilization will be mid-century, but a decadal staircase based on a carbon law, if adopted broadly, may provide essential economic boundary conditions to make a zero-emissions future an inevitability rather than wishful thinking." So if every country of any size across the globe commits to a framework that would force them to implement every single condition the authors say is required for such sustained reductions at such an aggressive rate (including, according to the authors, little no to oil use worldwide less than 23 years from now -- there are many other hilarious examples, but I think that one most succinctly captures the wide-eyed naivete of it all), ipso facto those reductions will happen. Really sage stuff.
Thus, my original point fully stands: a supposed peer-reviewed science journal is simultaneously wasting space and flushing what remaining credibility it might have by publishing what the authors themselves basically admit is really just a pie-in-the-sky fairy tale -- one which, when you strip away the sciency-sounding veneer and cloud of two-dollar words, is qualitatively indistinguishable from my example.
You strike me as a last-word sort of guy, so have at it. I've spent more than enough time putting the rattle back up on the high chair on this one.