3 ms·

> If country X can produce food cheaper than yours, your farmers will be unprofitable and you'll end up importing food It really depends on where the tipping p

by flukus 8y ago

> If country X can produce food cheaper than yours, your farmers will be unprofitable and you'll end up importing food It really depends on where the tipping point is, country X might have a slight advantage but measures like this can widen the gap, then secondary factors like economies of scale kick in. > If both countries impose a carbon tax in the same amount, nothing about that has changed. Most international agreements are (rightfully) trying to give developing countries a reprieve and let the developed ones shoulder must of the short term burden for the renewable transition. But it's happening at the same time that we're reducing tariffs and developing countries get a double advantage while the working class in developed nations get a kick in the guts. > Moreover, the best way to do a carbon tax is to just give the money back to people -- use it to fund a UBI I'm all for both, but using a carbon tax to fund UBI would invert the incentive, governments would want companies polluting more to fund their welfare commitments. We see the same with high cigarette taxes, the government gets dependent on them for general revenue.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> It really depends on where the tipping point is, country X might have a slight advantage but measures like this can widen the gap, then secondary factors like economies of scale kick in. For most markets with behaviors like that you're already doomed, because the other country will figure it out and borrow some money so they can operate temporarily at a loss or convince the government to provide temporary subsidies until they achieve the economies of scale. More likely a marginal cost increase would only result in a marginal reduction in demand. Notice also that this is the exact argument used against anything that increases costs on local businesses. France might have some candidate regulations nearer to the front of the line than the carbon tax if they were actually interested in taking that seriously. > Most international agreements are (rightfully) trying to give developing countries a reprieve and let the developed ones shoulder must of the short term burden for the renewable transition. But then it's doing what it's supposed to do. Why volunteer for a burden and then complain when it comes? > But it's happening at the same time that we're reducing tariffs and developing countries get a double advantage while the working class in developed nations get a kick in the guts. Which is why all the money should be going to a UBI. > I'm all for both, but using a carbon tax to fund UBI would invert the incentive, governments would want companies polluting more to fund their welfare commitments. We see the same with high cigarette taxes, the government gets dependent on them for general revenue. This is a generic anti-tax argument. If the government collected tax revenues from American tech companies, they would become dependent on the money and become unwilling to resist their privacy invasions, therefore they should subject all those companies to no taxes. The thing about that argument in this case is that it only applies as long as the carbon tax exists, which will make it continue to exist, which is good. Moreover, the easiest way for the government to placate recipients and give them more money isn't to get people to burn more oil (which is pretty hard if you're taxing it heavily), it's to raise the carbon tax rate. Which is also good. At some point people will actually stop burning oil and the UBI would have to be funded some other way if you want to keep it, but so what? Having that problem implies having solved the original one. And having a population that has seen the benefits of a UBI and wants to continue having it seems like a pretty good problem to have too.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  The thing is, nobody can afford a reasonable UBI. US even if they'd put all the military spending into it would do about $200 per month and person. Without a lot of social services, this does not work. Poland cannot afford 200 PLN (about $60) if we put the whole budget into this which is impossible. It gets strained even with child bonus... Those are back off the envelope calculations and an unfixable problem. If you introduce a cutoff it's no longer universal and you still probably cannot afford it.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    A UBI doesn't work like a normal spending program, because it's cash. If you're at the median and to fund the $1000/person UBI you have to pay an additional $1000 in tax, you aren't paying $1000 more, you're net of zero. The above-median person who pays $1200 in tax isn't paying $1200, they're paying $200. The below-median person who pays $800 in tax isn't paying $800, they're receiving $200. This is also why a cut off saves you nothing. If the person at the 85th percentile would have been paying $2000 in tax and receiving a $1000 UBI, and you eliminate their UBI so that they only pay $1000 in tax, zero real difference has been made to anyone. A phase out only changes anything if the nominal tax reduction it allows goes to a different income level than the people subject to the phase out -- but if that's what you wanted, you could do it by just changing their respective tax rates to begin with. Which is a lot easier to reason about, so that you don't do dumb stuff like impose a 35% UBI phase out plus a 25% marginal tax rate (effectively a 60% marginal tax rate) on middle income people, while charging a lower tax rate to higher income people. More to the point, the context here is using a carbon tax to fund the UBI, which makes the point succinctly. If the average person is paying $100/month in carbon tax, it funds a $100/person/month UBI. A carbon tax is quite regressive -- more even than sales tax -- but the UBI is at least as anti-regressive, so it cancels. The only difference it makes is to the people with a higher or lower than average carbon footprint, so it gives everyone the incentive to be on the below average side, which is exactly the purpose.

by flukus 8y ago

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> It really depends on where the tipping point is, country X might have a slight advantage but measures like this can widen the gap, then secondary factors like economies of scale kick in. For most markets with behaviors like that you're already doomed, because the other country will figure it out and borrow some money so they can operate temporarily at a loss or convince the government to provide temporary subsidies until they achieve the economies of scale. More likely a marginal cost increase would only result in a marginal reduction in demand. Notice also that this is the exact argument used against anything that increases costs on local businesses. France might have some candidate regulations nearer to the front of the line than the carbon tax if they were actually interested in taking that seriously. > Most international agreements are (rightfully) trying to give developing countries a reprieve and let the developed ones shoulder must of the short term burden for the renewable transition. But then it's doing what it's supposed to do. Why volunteer for a burden and then complain when it comes? > But it's happening at the same time that we're reducing tariffs and developing countries get a double advantage while the working class in developed nations get a kick in the guts. Which is why all the money should be going to a UBI. > I'm all for both, but using a carbon tax to fund UBI would invert the incentive, governments would want companies polluting more to fund their welfare commitments. We see the same with high cigarette taxes, the government gets dependent on them for general revenue. This is a generic anti-tax argument. If the government collected tax revenues from American tech companies, they would become dependent on the money and become unwilling to resist their privacy invasions, therefore they should subject all those companies to no taxes. The thing about that argument in this case is that it only applies as long as the carbon tax exists, which will make it continue to exist, which is good. Moreover, the easiest way for the government to placate recipients and give them more money isn't to get people to burn more oil (which is pretty hard if you're taxing it heavily), it's to raise the carbon tax rate. Which is also good. At some point people will actually stop burning oil and the UBI would have to be funded some other way if you want to keep it, but so what? Having that problem implies having solved the original one. And having a population that has seen the benefits of a UBI and wants to continue having it seems like a pretty good problem to have too.

AstralStorm 8y ago
The thing is, nobody can afford a reasonable UBI. US even if they'd put all the military spending into it would do about $200 per month and person. Without a lot of social services, this does not work. Poland cannot afford 200 PLN (about $60) if we put the whole budget into this which is impossible. It gets strained even with child bonus... Those are back off the envelope calculations and an unfixable problem. If you introduce a cutoff it's no longer universal and you still probably cannot afford it.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  A UBI doesn't work like a normal spending program, because it's cash. If you're at the median and to fund the $1000/person UBI you have to pay an additional $1000 in tax, you aren't paying $1000 more, you're net of zero. The above-median person who pays $1200 in tax isn't paying $1200, they're paying $200. The below-median person who pays $800 in tax isn't paying $800, they're receiving $200. This is also why a cut off saves you nothing. If the person at the 85th percentile would have been paying $2000 in tax and receiving a $1000 UBI, and you eliminate their UBI so that they only pay $1000 in tax, zero real difference has been made to anyone. A phase out only changes anything if the nominal tax reduction it allows goes to a different income level than the people subject to the phase out -- but if that's what you wanted, you could do it by just changing their respective tax rates to begin with. Which is a lot easier to reason about, so that you don't do dumb stuff like impose a 35% UBI phase out plus a 25% marginal tax rate (effectively a 60% marginal tax rate) on middle income people, while charging a lower tax rate to higher income people. More to the point, the context here is using a carbon tax to fund the UBI, which makes the point succinctly. If the average person is paying $100/month in carbon tax, it funds a $100/person/month UBI. A carbon tax is quite regressive -- more even than sales tax -- but the UBI is at least as anti-regressive, so it cancels. The only difference it makes is to the people with a higher or lower than average carbon footprint, so it gives everyone the incentive to be on the below average side, which is exactly the purpose.