5 ms·

I am certainly no libertarian but I think the framing is a bit uncharitable, anarcho-capitalism is a radical fringe, the vast majority of ideological libertaria

I am certainly no libertarian but I think the framing is a bit uncharitable, anarcho-capitalism is a radical fringe, the vast majority of ideological libertarians (my estimate) are okay with the state internalizing externalities, although there would be objections to its ability to do this fairly and effectively

aoeuasdf1 10y ago
In this case, it isn't fair - the externality is pollution, but the fee is unrelated to the emission levels of the vehicle. But even such an inefficient system is still superior to doing nothing and letting the public suffer the externalities.
- lend000 10y ago
  It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. An example: the Obama administration set forth a regulation that forces automakers to produce one 50 MPG vehicle in their line-up within the next five years. Of course, this is a stealth tax which has similar negative effects (and positive ones) to a higher gasoline tax, but the negative effects -- like higher car prices -- are less traceable to the mandate, which is good for politics. However, there are less obvious negative effects, like raising the barrier to entry for competition (it is no coincidence that the heavily regulated auto industry has very few startups -- Tesla being an anomaly.) A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax.
  - J-dawg 10y ago
    In Europe we have high taxes on fuels and CO2 emissions, but London and Paris still have worse air pollution than many US cities. Mostly because automakers focussed on Diesel engines to maximise MPG at the cost of everything else (NOx, particulates etc)
    - jabl 10y ago
      Yes, and many European countries tax diesel less than gasoline. I think when these sorts of policies were enacted only heavy vehicles like trucks, buses and cars that were driven a lot (taxis, mostly) used diesel, and there was an extra yearly per-vehicle "diesel tax" that made buying a diesel car economically unfavorable unless you drove a lot. I think this sort-of ties into the political ideology where "luxury consumption" is bad. I.e. truckers transport Important Stuff(TM) and thus deserve a tax rebate on fuel, whereas a private person driving their own vehicle is bad, and should be discouraged. But, the world changed (or, lets say the balance between the different taxes, incomes etc.) and at some point it started to make economic sense for the average Joe to buy a diesel car instead of a gasoline one. But of course, changing the tax policy by getting rid of the diesel tax rebate runs into fierce opposition by the trucking/taxi/etc. lobby. So here we are.
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    > It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. It's because the issue they're directly trying to tackle is congestion, not pollution (which is only being tackled as a secondary issue). Also, in Britain there are already high petrol taxes, they make up about half the price of fuel. In general it's a good thing, and it does discourage a completely car dependent society - people to live closer to the centre, closer to work, use alternatives like walking, cycling, public transport etc - but it's not a particularly direct way to tackle air pollution, or at least it doesn't tackle the particular spikes in air pollution you get in the cities. In order to tackle air pollution in London using only fuel tax, you'd have to make driving in the countryside ruinously expensive. So you get layered policy - medium fuel tax nationwide, congestion charge for the centre (where it is the biggest issue), and an air pollution charge, or limit, covering the whole city. I do agree that often politicians are not that great at designing these things (the proposed air pollution charge in London is rather strangely designed for instance), and the complexity is partly incompetence, but it's also partly because the problem is complicated.
    - lend000 10y ago
      See my other comment -- why not just have an added petrol tax at city gas stations? They are trying to address both issues, but the issue of just 'being around' (the source of congestion) is a very dubious thing to tax, whereas carbon emissions are not and taxing them produces the same intended incentives.
  - bjelkeman-again 10y ago
    My thoughts are that large, and therefore complex, political structures have a harder time converting the right idea to something that can be implemented practically. Sweden, where the OP example comes from, is a relatively small political entity. 10 million people represented by 349 members of parliament, who are elected through a proportional representation system. We have high gasoline taxes. Actually a carbondioxide tax and an energy tax. It also attracts VAT. In 2016 the petrol (95) price was 13,02 SEK / litre ($1.50) of what 8,64 SEK ($0.99) was taxes. However, in Stockholm it wasn't enough to combat emissions and congestion. So rather than penalising all car travel across the relatively sparsely populated country, it seemed to make sense to have a toll at the city borders.
    - lend000 10y ago
      > So rather than penalising all car travel across the relatively sparsely populated country, Everyone has brought up this point, but I think a higher city petrol tax would cover that.
  - geon 10y ago
    > A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax. Wouldn't that be the point? Low mpg cars are undesireable.
    - lend000 10y ago
      It would be producing the most fuel efficient SUV's on the market, and it wouldn't be allowed to compete... Some people are going to get SUV's or trucks no matter what.
  - robrenaud 10y ago
    Congestion is not a kind of linear cost, and pollution is not its only externality. It also makes everyone else around you slower. Congestion is actually complicated. Once a place is congested, the marginal addition of a car makes traffic flow relatively much worse, and vice versa for the removal of a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic_flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
    - lend000 10y ago
      It's extremely complicated -- far too complex to effectively tax every aspect, especially with a scheme like the one proposed. It matters whether you're making turns into traffic, where you're going, length of time on the road, how many others are on the route you chose, how quickly you accelerate, how alert of a driver you are, the type of car your drive, whether you're a pedestrian who rushes to go at the end of a signal, etc. But I don't like the idea of taxing people for "being out" when it's a stretch to fundamentally link that to infringing on the rights of others in a way that truly needs to be regulated. They already paid for the roads, and should be able to use them as they please. The petrol tax captures the necessary incentive.

aoeuasdf1 10y ago

In this case, it isn't fair - the externality is pollution, but the fee is unrelated to the emission levels of the vehicle. But even such an inefficient system is still superior to doing nothing and letting the public suffer the externalities.

lend000 10y ago
It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. An example: the Obama administration set forth a regulation that forces automakers to produce one 50 MPG vehicle in their line-up within the next five years. Of course, this is a stealth tax which has similar negative effects (and positive ones) to a higher gasoline tax, but the negative effects -- like higher car prices -- are less traceable to the mandate, which is good for politics. However, there are less obvious negative effects, like raising the barrier to entry for competition (it is no coincidence that the heavily regulated auto industry has very few startups -- Tesla being an anomaly.) A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax.
- J-dawg 10y ago
  In Europe we have high taxes on fuels and CO2 emissions, but London and Paris still have worse air pollution than many US cities. Mostly because automakers focussed on Diesel engines to maximise MPG at the cost of everything else (NOx, particulates etc)
  - jabl 10y ago
    Yes, and many European countries tax diesel less than gasoline. I think when these sorts of policies were enacted only heavy vehicles like trucks, buses and cars that were driven a lot (taxis, mostly) used diesel, and there was an extra yearly per-vehicle "diesel tax" that made buying a diesel car economically unfavorable unless you drove a lot. I think this sort-of ties into the political ideology where "luxury consumption" is bad. I.e. truckers transport Important Stuff(TM) and thus deserve a tax rebate on fuel, whereas a private person driving their own vehicle is bad, and should be discouraged. But, the world changed (or, lets say the balance between the different taxes, incomes etc.) and at some point it started to make economic sense for the average Joe to buy a diesel car instead of a gasoline one. But of course, changing the tax policy by getting rid of the diesel tax rebate runs into fierce opposition by the trucking/taxi/etc. lobby. So here we are.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  > It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. It's because the issue they're directly trying to tackle is congestion, not pollution (which is only being tackled as a secondary issue). Also, in Britain there are already high petrol taxes, they make up about half the price of fuel. In general it's a good thing, and it does discourage a completely car dependent society - people to live closer to the centre, closer to work, use alternatives like walking, cycling, public transport etc - but it's not a particularly direct way to tackle air pollution, or at least it doesn't tackle the particular spikes in air pollution you get in the cities. In order to tackle air pollution in London using only fuel tax, you'd have to make driving in the countryside ruinously expensive. So you get layered policy - medium fuel tax nationwide, congestion charge for the centre (where it is the biggest issue), and an air pollution charge, or limit, covering the whole city. I do agree that often politicians are not that great at designing these things (the proposed air pollution charge in London is rather strangely designed for instance), and the complexity is partly incompetence, but it's also partly because the problem is complicated.
  - lend000 10y ago
    See my other comment -- why not just have an added petrol tax at city gas stations? They are trying to address both issues, but the issue of just 'being around' (the source of congestion) is a very dubious thing to tax, whereas carbon emissions are not and taxing them produces the same intended incentives.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  My thoughts are that large, and therefore complex, political structures have a harder time converting the right idea to something that can be implemented practically. Sweden, where the OP example comes from, is a relatively small political entity. 10 million people represented by 349 members of parliament, who are elected through a proportional representation system. We have high gasoline taxes. Actually a carbondioxide tax and an energy tax. It also attracts VAT. In 2016 the petrol (95) price was 13,02 SEK / litre ($1.50) of what 8,64 SEK ($0.99) was taxes. However, in Stockholm it wasn't enough to combat emissions and congestion. So rather than penalising all car travel across the relatively sparsely populated country, it seemed to make sense to have a toll at the city borders.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > So rather than penalising all car travel across the relatively sparsely populated country, Everyone has brought up this point, but I think a higher city petrol tax would cover that.
- geon 10y ago
  > A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax. Wouldn't that be the point? Low mpg cars are undesireable.
  - lend000 10y ago
    It would be producing the most fuel efficient SUV's on the market, and it wouldn't be allowed to compete... Some people are going to get SUV's or trucks no matter what.
- robrenaud 10y ago
  Congestion is not a kind of linear cost, and pollution is not its only externality. It also makes everyone else around you slower. Congestion is actually complicated. Once a place is congested, the marginal addition of a car makes traffic flow relatively much worse, and vice versa for the removal of a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic_flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
  - lend000 10y ago
    It's extremely complicated -- far too complex to effectively tax every aspect, especially with a scheme like the one proposed. It matters whether you're making turns into traffic, where you're going, length of time on the road, how many others are on the route you chose, how quickly you accelerate, how alert of a driver you are, the type of car your drive, whether you're a pedestrian who rushes to go at the end of a signal, etc. But I don't like the idea of taxing people for "being out" when it's a stretch to fundamentally link that to infringing on the rights of others in a way that truly needs to be regulated. They already paid for the roads, and should be able to use them as they please. The petrol tax captures the necessary incentive.