4 ms·

> I'm wary to advocate this position too strongly because if implemented in a vacuum it would be a very regressive tax (in the hurts poor people sense), but I w

by ceras 10y ago

> I'm wary to advocate this position too strongly because if implemented in a vacuum it would be a very regressive tax (in the hurts poor people sense), but I would be very in favor of it with something counterbalancing that harm. Since this often comes up as a criticism of policies that eliminate subsidies, I want to emphasize your point that there are simple ways to counterbalance such a harm. The easiest is you shave off some tax revenue from the wealthiest users/residents and redistribute exactly the amount back to the poor they would need to purchase the good as no-strings-attached cash. This makes poor people who choose to use the previously-subsidized good no worse off than before, but frees up those who never wanted to use it to find a different use of that money (e.g. public transit, or moving closer and paying higher rent but paying less in transportation).

oliwarner 10y ago
So you'd remove an indirect tax, implement a new direct tax and then implement a welfare system to help people pay the new direct tax? Car stamps? Just pulling on my reply to same, varying your tax on a person's earnings is a much better way of means testing life than by separately means testing every tax.
- ceras 10y ago
  Not car stamps: the important distinction is that the welfare should not be earmarked for a specific use. This allows the market to behave naturally and no longer force non-users to pay the indirect tax while letting poor people who want to pay it not suffer material consequences vs. the indirect tax.
  - oliwarner 10y ago
    The welfare side of this is already handled quite effectively through income tax banding, though as you say, that does indirectly tax everybody for infrastructure. But what's wrong with that? We all pay for national defence. We all pay for nationally funded arts and schooling and science. Even people without children or cancer or an interest in weird concept dance. We pay for this stuff because it makes our countries better, as a whole. Infrastructure is no different. Even ignoring that, how do you issue this welfare to people who are paying this/these road use tax? Tax them less at the pump or the tolls? Who implements this? And that still isn't fair. They're not paying for the roads they use. This money goes nationwide. Or does Tincanville (pop 30) have to shoulder the cost of their entire road network now? Unless you're willing to take this to the absolute bureaucratic extreme, and make some people pay tons for low-use roads (which age naturally, regardless of use) an indirect tax of some description is the only way to keep the entire road network viable.

by ceras 10y ago

oliwarner 10y ago

So you'd remove an indirect tax, implement a new direct tax and then implement a welfare system to help people pay the new direct tax? Car stamps? Just pulling on my reply to same, varying your tax on a person's earnings is a much better way of means testing life than by separately means testing every tax.

ceras 10y ago
Not car stamps: the important distinction is that the welfare should not be earmarked for a specific use. This allows the market to behave naturally and no longer force non-users to pay the indirect tax while letting poor people who want to pay it not suffer material consequences vs. the indirect tax.
- oliwarner 10y ago
  The welfare side of this is already handled quite effectively through income tax banding, though as you say, that does indirectly tax everybody for infrastructure. But what's wrong with that? We all pay for national defence. We all pay for nationally funded arts and schooling and science. Even people without children or cancer or an interest in weird concept dance. We pay for this stuff because it makes our countries better, as a whole. Infrastructure is no different. Even ignoring that, how do you issue this welfare to people who are paying this/these road use tax? Tax them less at the pump or the tolls? Who implements this? And that still isn't fair. They're not paying for the roads they use. This money goes nationwide. Or does Tincanville (pop 30) have to shoulder the cost of their entire road network now? Unless you're willing to take this to the absolute bureaucratic extreme, and make some people pay tons for low-use roads (which age naturally, regardless of use) an indirect tax of some description is the only way to keep the entire road network viable.