4 ms·

I think the term "redistribution" adds confusion to the issue. The idea behind a carbon tax like that is that polluters owe everyone else something (they're tak

I think the term "redistribution" adds confusion to the issue. The idea behind a carbon tax like that is that polluters owe everyone else something (they're taking from tax payers in various ways: air quality, property value, life expectancy), and the easiest way for them to pay up is through a tax. Viewed through that lens, libertarians may view a carbon tax as getting rid of free-rider pollution producers. The value of those things being given up in exchange for whatever is being produced is no longer being completely ignored. It would also have the effect of restricting the least efficient/profitable pollution producing processes.

hammock 9y ago
You're assuming ignorance on the part of libertarians. However I think you'll find that many understand the problem of externalities fine and simply disagree with the common tax "solution" taught in Econ 101 classes around the country. Some example reading to open your mind: https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument
- epistasis 9y ago
  Having read that, I'm not finding myself enlightened or my mind opened in the least. What was the point, other than it's hard to calculate externalities? Argument that "it's hard" is not much of an argument at all. It does make me think that there's considerable flexibility in a "libertarian" position on externalities though.
  - hammock 9y ago
    It's not hard, it's impossible. Prices are revealed through transaction only..
    - epistasis 9y ago
      That's an article of faith, not an article of fact. But I do agree that the best pricing schemes involve settling on price through transaction. Take, for example, cap & trade schemes. This is a widely used mechanism to manage negative externalities. Externalities exist, whether or not the "Austrian" school has a way to deal with them. Considering the issue, deciding that one's philosophy can't deal with them, and therefore deciding to stick one's head in the sand instead is why mises.org remains fringe. It's an irrational, religious framework.
      - hammock 9y ago
        >That's an article of faith, not an article of fact. Read Mises Human Action and you will understand.. Austrian economics is a priori (built from first principles) not a posteriori (empirically derived)
    - avita1 9y ago
      I read your comment earlier and saved it for later. I too find myself unenlightened. Fine it's impossible to correctly calculate externalities. I don't see the line from there to: "BigCo dumped a ton of waste in my pond, but it's unfair for the government coerce BigCo to compensate me because there's a chance the I might get more than the true value of that pond."
      - hammock 9y ago
        Do you own the pond? As long as property rights exist and are enforced you could negotiate a settlement with BigCo
milesvp 9y ago
I'm torn on environmental taxes. As an economist, I see them as a truly vital form of offsetting negative externalities. The problem is that environmental externalities can be very hard to measure, and it often becomes political, rather than emperical. Worse, is that taxes only get larger over time (and very very rarely sunset, even if legislation specifies a sunset claus). This makes me very nervous about something as nebulous as a "carbon" tax. Carbon is in nearly everything we care about on this planet, and it feels like it's opening a pandora's box. For things like transportation I'd much rather see a "miles traveled" tax than a carbon tax (it could even be tiered for electric vehicles). It's far more specific, and thus harder to lead to crazy far reaching taxes in tangential areas.
- zeroer 9y ago
  > I'd much rather see a "miles traveled" tax than a carbon tax Why? The harm done is relative to emissions, which is exactly proportional to the volume of fuel going in. A tax on miles traveled would unfairly punish cars with great (or infinite) gas mileage. (Unless you think the relevant externality is cars on the road...)
  - labster 9y ago
    A few externalities do happen from cars on the road. Oil leaks are one. Aerosol pollution (black carbon type) from wearing down tires on the road. Roadkill impact on wildlife. But they're dwarfed by non-environmental factors like road wear-and-tear, and accidents, which are covered by other taxes and insurance.
- epistasis 9y ago
  > Worse, is that taxes only get larger over time (and very very rarely sunset, even if legislation specifies a sunset claus) The past 40 years of politics shows that this is simply not true in reality, though it is often repeated. There is significant political will to lower taxes, and taxes get lowered frequently. More frequently on the wealthy, but frequently nonetheless. When it comes to taxing externalities and improving market function, there's often significant room to improve the market. As long as costs can be estimated within ~50% it's going to be a big win to legislate them. However, since the cost of going over is often not linear, it can be difficult to enforce in a fair way in the market without some sort of auction scheme like what goes on in cap & trade. A miles tax is far worse than a carbon tax; it's far more of a stab in the dark. It doesn't even account for wear & tear in any way, which is dependent on an polynomial of the vehicle weight. Large fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, are planning on an $80/ton carbon tax. There's zero reason to not phase this in along with the Paris accords. It's silly to ignore the work that those, negatively affected by the tax, have already agreed is going to happen.

hammock 9y ago

You're assuming ignorance on the part of libertarians. However I think you'll find that many understand the problem of externalities fine and simply disagree with the common tax "solution" taught in Econ 101 classes around the country. Some example reading to open your mind: https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument https://mises.org/library/externalities-argument

epistasis 9y ago
Having read that, I'm not finding myself enlightened or my mind opened in the least. What was the point, other than it's hard to calculate externalities? Argument that "it's hard" is not much of an argument at all. It does make me think that there's considerable flexibility in a "libertarian" position on externalities though.
- hammock 9y ago
  It's not hard, it's impossible. Prices are revealed through transaction only..
  - epistasis 9y ago
    That's an article of faith, not an article of fact. But I do agree that the best pricing schemes involve settling on price through transaction. Take, for example, cap & trade schemes. This is a widely used mechanism to manage negative externalities. Externalities exist, whether or not the "Austrian" school has a way to deal with them. Considering the issue, deciding that one's philosophy can't deal with them, and therefore deciding to stick one's head in the sand instead is why mises.org remains fringe. It's an irrational, religious framework.
    - hammock 9y ago
      >That's an article of faith, not an article of fact. Read Mises Human Action and you will understand.. Austrian economics is a priori (built from first principles) not a posteriori (empirically derived)
  - avita1 9y ago
    I read your comment earlier and saved it for later. I too find myself unenlightened. Fine it's impossible to correctly calculate externalities. I don't see the line from there to: "BigCo dumped a ton of waste in my pond, but it's unfair for the government coerce BigCo to compensate me because there's a chance the I might get more than the true value of that pond."
    - hammock 9y ago
      Do you own the pond? As long as property rights exist and are enforced you could negotiate a settlement with BigCo

milesvp 9y ago

I'm torn on environmental taxes. As an economist, I see them as a truly vital form of offsetting negative externalities. The problem is that environmental externalities can be very hard to measure, and it often becomes political, rather than emperical. Worse, is that taxes only get larger over time (and very very rarely sunset, even if legislation specifies a sunset claus). This makes me very nervous about something as nebulous as a "carbon" tax. Carbon is in nearly everything we care about on this planet, and it feels like it's opening a pandora's box. For things like transportation I'd much rather see a "miles traveled" tax than a carbon tax (it could even be tiered for electric vehicles). It's far more specific, and thus harder to lead to crazy far reaching taxes in tangential areas.

zeroer 9y ago
> I'd much rather see a "miles traveled" tax than a carbon tax Why? The harm done is relative to emissions, which is exactly proportional to the volume of fuel going in. A tax on miles traveled would unfairly punish cars with great (or infinite) gas mileage. (Unless you think the relevant externality is cars on the road...)
- labster 9y ago
  A few externalities do happen from cars on the road. Oil leaks are one. Aerosol pollution (black carbon type) from wearing down tires on the road. Roadkill impact on wildlife. But they're dwarfed by non-environmental factors like road wear-and-tear, and accidents, which are covered by other taxes and insurance.
epistasis 9y ago
> Worse, is that taxes only get larger over time (and very very rarely sunset, even if legislation specifies a sunset claus) The past 40 years of politics shows that this is simply not true in reality, though it is often repeated. There is significant political will to lower taxes, and taxes get lowered frequently. More frequently on the wealthy, but frequently nonetheless. When it comes to taxing externalities and improving market function, there's often significant room to improve the market. As long as costs can be estimated within ~50% it's going to be a big win to legislate them. However, since the cost of going over is often not linear, it can be difficult to enforce in a fair way in the market without some sort of auction scheme like what goes on in cap & trade. A miles tax is far worse than a carbon tax; it's far more of a stab in the dark. It doesn't even account for wear & tear in any way, which is dependent on an polynomial of the vehicle weight. Large fossil fuel companies, like Exxon, are planning on an $80/ton carbon tax. There's zero reason to not phase this in along with the Paris accords. It's silly to ignore the work that those, negatively affected by the tax, have already agreed is going to happen.