4 ms·

Taxation as a punishment or as a way to stop people from doing something is does not work. One main reason: People actually pay the tax. So now, the government

Taxation as a punishment or as a way to stop people from doing something is does not work. One main reason: People actually pay the tax. So now, the government has an additional revenue stream, they villify the thing being taxed just enough to justify the tax but they still want the revenue stream. Fossil fuel tax? Cigarette tax? Alcohol tax? Look at app the things people have stopped using/doing... The Cobra effect is the term used to describe this logical fallacy. [1] When you tax something, you are giving it legitimacy. You're saying:"Not only is this activity legitimate and socially acceptable, for the right to enjoy this activity, you need to pay the government that is enabling you to enjoy this right" Solutions: 1) Make a law that lets employees sue companies (class action),where the executive pay gap relative to cost of living and value of skill/work (things the plantiff has to prove) can be used to estimate lost wages 2) Make it a felony (wage theft). Provided, the standard of living for any employee (or employees of contractors and vendors) fail to make an income that is N% lower than any other employee/exec. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

koheripbal 7y ago
I think your general argument, that taxes don't change behavior, is too vague to be so broadly accurate. There are studies that show that cigarette taxes reduce teen smoking rates, for example. A better example are all the corporate taxes that very clearly alter where corporations choose to operate. Our company, for example, has specifically avoided opening up an office in California and New York City exactly because there are a number of regulations and that just make operating elsewhere more attractive.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Most people who smoke don't even know cigarettes have a special tax. It costs what it costs, a little than a bigmac at mcdonalds for a pack of cigs and less than six-pack of beer. I agree with your last argument, but companies like apple and google will remain and they might end up paying billions in taxes and shrug it off as an operating cost. Now, politicians will say a lot against wage gap but man...who's gonna mess with a few billion dollars of revenue, this is money they can say "I will do ______ without raising taxes" with
Ericson2314 7y ago
I'm sorry the Cobra effect is literally the exact opposite of s punative tax. In that case the British spent money, here the government raises money. This whole "giving legitimacy" argument is why we have a war and drugs without needle exchanges. It's terrible counterproductive puritsanism that's been debunked countless times and cost thousands of lives. Now, it is possible for governments to rely on punitive taxes in twisted ways, but this tends to be on the local level, small towns with harassing police forces. I would worry less in a huge rich state with many revenue streams.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  In this case corporations are spending money instead of the government. Who spends money changed but the fact that an incentive to continue bad behavior is implemented is the same (and the whole point of the cobra effect). In this case the california government becomes enabler of the wage gap, the incentive is tax revenue. What does the war on drugs have to do with this? Do you think taxing drugs is a solution? Why not legalize it without any tax, if it is harmful, require people to take it under medical supervision where they can get help with the real cause (if they choose to). That's such a straw man argument. It's not just "poor" states that rely on taxes as revenue. Granted a small revenue stream has little power, but in this case not only would the revenue not be small but even if it was, large states are operated like large corps, this means no revenue stream is too small, it should at least be enough to cover for enforcement costs. Laws are meaningless without enforcement. If they're willing to pay the tax,guess what happens? Politicians start making unrelates promises counting on this revenue. Bottom line, taxation is a means of revenue for a government. It is not a way of punishing people, you can't and shouldn't make punishment profitable for the punisher. That is a recipe for injustice. But if you do go ahead with this, the revenue should be used strictly for enforcement costs and to remedy the situatuon (in this case directly to the pocket of low level employees).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

koheripbal 7y ago

I think your general argument, that taxes don't change behavior, is too vague to be so broadly accurate. There are studies that show that cigarette taxes reduce teen smoking rates, for example. A better example are all the corporate taxes that very clearly alter where corporations choose to operate. Our company, for example, has specifically avoided opening up an office in California and New York City exactly because there are a number of regulations and that just make operating elsewhere more attractive.

badrabbit 7y ago
Most people who smoke don't even know cigarettes have a special tax. It costs what it costs, a little than a bigmac at mcdonalds for a pack of cigs and less than six-pack of beer. I agree with your last argument, but companies like apple and google will remain and they might end up paying billions in taxes and shrug it off as an operating cost. Now, politicians will say a lot against wage gap but man...who's gonna mess with a few billion dollars of revenue, this is money they can say "I will do ______ without raising taxes" with

Ericson2314 7y ago

I'm sorry the Cobra effect is literally the exact opposite of s punative tax. In that case the British spent money, here the government raises money. This whole "giving legitimacy" argument is why we have a war and drugs without needle exchanges. It's terrible counterproductive puritsanism that's been debunked countless times and cost thousands of lives. Now, it is possible for governments to rely on punitive taxes in twisted ways, but this tends to be on the local level, small towns with harassing police forces. I would worry less in a huge rich state with many revenue streams.

badrabbit 7y ago
In this case corporations are spending money instead of the government. Who spends money changed but the fact that an incentive to continue bad behavior is implemented is the same (and the whole point of the cobra effect). In this case the california government becomes enabler of the wage gap, the incentive is tax revenue. What does the war on drugs have to do with this? Do you think taxing drugs is a solution? Why not legalize it without any tax, if it is harmful, require people to take it under medical supervision where they can get help with the real cause (if they choose to). That's such a straw man argument. It's not just "poor" states that rely on taxes as revenue. Granted a small revenue stream has little power, but in this case not only would the revenue not be small but even if it was, large states are operated like large corps, this means no revenue stream is too small, it should at least be enough to cover for enforcement costs. Laws are meaningless without enforcement. If they're willing to pay the tax,guess what happens? Politicians start making unrelates promises counting on this revenue. Bottom line, taxation is a means of revenue for a government. It is not a way of punishing people, you can't and shouldn't make punishment profitable for the punisher. That is a recipe for injustice. But if you do go ahead with this, the revenue should be used strictly for enforcement costs and to remedy the situatuon (in this case directly to the pocket of low level employees).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]