4 ms·

Oh, I see what you're saying. Then no, taxes like this are not pigovian if pigovian means (wiki:) to "correct an undesirable or inefficient market outcome, and

Oh, I see what you're saying. Then no, taxes like this are not pigovian if pigovian means (wiki:) to "correct an undesirable or inefficient market outcome, and [to do so] by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities". Again, that goal is impossible with speeding tickets. The "negative externality" in this case is literally that someone dies. Someone (a lot of someones) lose their kid, their life partner, their parent. Can you apply relatively simple financial analysis to assign a dollar value to that? Sure, but fuck the kind of person that wants to do that; that is not acceptable for any so-called "justice system." The point of the tax is not to "correct the undesirable outcome" but rather to avert it as much as possible using reasonable techniques. And no, the rich absolutely should not be allowed to do it more.

ikeboy 7y ago
Pigovian taxes are applied to mortal situations all the time. The most famous example is probably a carbon tax. >The point of the tax is not to "correct the undesirable outcome" but rather to avert it as much as possible using reasonable techniques. If you want to avert it as much as possible, set a million dollar fine for everyone. Why is that unreasonable in your view? If you don't think that would be a good idea, you're implicitly valuing it at less than a million dollars.
- john-radio 7y ago
  Well, I don't have a million dollars, so I wouldn't be able to pay that fine. It does not make sense to try to implement an unsupportable system. I did not say a good objective was to avert people from speeding "as much as possible" (or I would simply destroy all cars). I said "as much as possible using reasonable techniques." I am not trying to revolutionize the field of public policy economics, here; I am just arguing against a system that assumes that a dollar means the same thing to me that it does to Steve Jobs; it does not, and some adjustment is appropriate.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    You're definitely arguing with various premises of public policy economics. Although you believe monetary fines are appropriate, you also claim to think we can't trade-off sacred values such as avoiding crime against mundane values like money. The beauty of a Pigovian system is it doesn't require any assumptions as to how much money is worth to different people, or for that matter how much actions are worth. It just calculates the harm to society of the action and sets a fine accordingly. This is very much standard economics, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/725557 https://www.jstor.org/stable/725557 with 300 citations.

ikeboy 7y ago

Pigovian taxes are applied to mortal situations all the time. The most famous example is probably a carbon tax. >The point of the tax is not to "correct the undesirable outcome" but rather to avert it as much as possible using reasonable techniques. If you want to avert it as much as possible, set a million dollar fine for everyone. Why is that unreasonable in your view? If you don't think that would be a good idea, you're implicitly valuing it at less than a million dollars.

john-radio 7y ago
Well, I don't have a million dollars, so I wouldn't be able to pay that fine. It does not make sense to try to implement an unsupportable system. I did not say a good objective was to avert people from speeding "as much as possible" (or I would simply destroy all cars). I said "as much as possible using reasonable techniques." I am not trying to revolutionize the field of public policy economics, here; I am just arguing against a system that assumes that a dollar means the same thing to me that it does to Steve Jobs; it does not, and some adjustment is appropriate.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  You're definitely arguing with various premises of public policy economics. Although you believe monetary fines are appropriate, you also claim to think we can't trade-off sacred values such as avoiding crime against mundane values like money. The beauty of a Pigovian system is it doesn't require any assumptions as to how much money is worth to different people, or for that matter how much actions are worth. It just calculates the harm to society of the action and sets a fine accordingly. This is very much standard economics, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/725557 https://www.jstor.org/stable/725557 with 300 citations.