5 ms·

Taxes shouldn't be a means of controlling behavior in a free society. Pass a law or leave it alone. Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges t

Taxes shouldn't be a means of controlling behavior in a free society. Pass a law or leave it alone. Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't.

rahimnathwani 7y ago
Many people believe that: - markets are an efficient way to allocate resources between competing ends - many activities cause negative externalities (costs that are borne by neighbours/society in general, and not by the entity that benefits from the activity) For people who believe the above, taxes on externalities (e.g. a price paid per unit of pollution generated) are a way to improve the overall outcome for society by ensuring that, e.g. polluting activities are only undertaken if the added value exceeds the cost to society. "Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't." In the children's book 'The Lorax', a man becomes rich and, in the process, destroys a local habitat for fish and other wildlife. If his polluting activities had been taxed: - he may have produced less - he may have been incentivised to find less polluting methods to make his products - he may have done the same, but the government could have used the taxes on finding a new habitat for the fish/whatever In the story, the man and his family became rich. It was the ordinary people and animals that lost out.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  The cost to society is pretty much incalculable due to black markets and who is to say your vices shouldn't be taxed over mine? > In the children's book 'The Lorax', a man becomes rich and, in the process, destroys a local habitat for fish and other wildlife. If his polluting activities had been taxed Did you seriously just cite a fictional book as evidence to your point?
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    "The cost to society is pretty much incalculable" Even if we cannot put precise figures on externalities, that doesn't mean we can't improve market efficiency and societal outcomes by taxing them based on reasonable estimates. "and who is to say your vices shouldn't be taxed over mine?" I'm not talking about taxing vices (e.g. taxes on activities that do self-harm). I'm talking about taxing externalities. "Did you seriously just cite a fictional book as evidence to your point?" I didn't cite it as evidence. I used the context from the book as an example of a situation where taxes could help drive better outcomes.
taxationisdeft 7y ago
edit: it appears rahimnathwani has worded his comment better. you should respond to that one instead >Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't. what privileges would the rich have due to this type of taxation that the poor wouldn't? gas already costs money. and if say, a poor person has to commute on bike instead of car, while a rich person could continue to commute in car, isn't that the free market doing it's job? this seems like the ideal situation to prevent the tragedy of the commons: if the costs of a rich person being taxed on their ride are outweighed by the benefits (and vice versa for a poor person), doesn't that mean that society is "allocating pollution" in a more efficient manner than if they both had to commute on bike (based on the economic value generated between these people)? >Taxes shouldn't be a means of controlling behavior in a free society. Pass a law or leave it alone. why should it be this way? I am curious why you would think this way. I've heard these kinds of arguments with respect to parking, and I still disagreed with them
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  > why should it be this way? I am curious why you would think this way. I've heard these kinds of arguments with respect to parking, and I still disagreed with them Because what right do you have to determine what behavior is tax worthy over me in a free country where we are all equal? And if you say the solution is to vote on it, then my response is that there is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.
  - taxationisdeft 7y ago
    so you are arguing that I ought not have the right to vote for policy that disadvantages others? perhaps in regard to protected groups[1]. I thought you would present an argument for this method of taxation being more authoritarian than using environmental regulation (i.e. just banning cars with bad fuel economy, or setting CO2 limits on households) instead. (I find the latter more oppressive in my opinion) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
satyrnein 7y ago
There's a difference between "sin taxes" that discourage behavior for paternalistic reasons and taxes meant to price externalities back in. Cap-and-trade is another way to use market mechanisms to put scarce goods/rights to their most productive use.
- malandrew 7y ago
  Taxes that price externalities back in should ONLY be used to offset those externalities. Most of the time however politicians use the externality as an argument to pass the tax but plan to us the money for their own pet issues.

Taxes shouldn't be a means of controlling behavior in a free society. Pass a law or leave it alone. Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't.

rahimnathwani 7y ago

Many people believe that: - markets are an efficient way to allocate resources between competing ends - many activities cause negative externalities (costs that are borne by neighbours/society in general, and not by the entity that benefits from the activity) For people who believe the above, taxes on externalities (e.g. a price paid per unit of pollution generated) are a way to improve the overall outcome for society by ensuring that, e.g. polluting activities are only undertaken if the added value exceeds the cost to society. "Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't." In the children's book 'The Lorax', a man becomes rich and, in the process, destroys a local habitat for fish and other wildlife. If his polluting activities had been taxed: - he may have produced less - he may have been incentivised to find less polluting methods to make his products - he may have done the same, but the government could have used the taxes on finding a new habitat for the fish/whatever In the story, the man and his family became rich. It was the ordinary people and animals that lost out.

blackflame7000 7y ago
The cost to society is pretty much incalculable due to black markets and who is to say your vices shouldn't be taxed over mine? > In the children's book 'The Lorax', a man becomes rich and, in the process, destroys a local habitat for fish and other wildlife. If his polluting activities had been taxed Did you seriously just cite a fictional book as evidence to your point?
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  "The cost to society is pretty much incalculable" Even if we cannot put precise figures on externalities, that doesn't mean we can't improve market efficiency and societal outcomes by taxing them based on reasonable estimates. "and who is to say your vices shouldn't be taxed over mine?" I'm not talking about taxing vices (e.g. taxes on activities that do self-harm). I'm talking about taxing externalities. "Did you seriously just cite a fictional book as evidence to your point?" I didn't cite it as evidence. I used the context from the book as an example of a situation where taxes could help drive better outcomes.

taxationisdeft 7y ago

edit: it appears rahimnathwani has worded his comment better. you should respond to that one instead >Taxes make it so only the rich can have certain privileges the rest can't. what privileges would the rich have due to this type of taxation that the poor wouldn't? gas already costs money. and if say, a poor person has to commute on bike instead of car, while a rich person could continue to commute in car, isn't that the free market doing it's job? this seems like the ideal situation to prevent the tragedy of the commons: if the costs of a rich person being taxed on their ride are outweighed by the benefits (and vice versa for a poor person), doesn't that mean that society is "allocating pollution" in a more efficient manner than if they both had to commute on bike (based on the economic value generated between these people)? >Taxes shouldn't be a means of controlling behavior in a free society. Pass a law or leave it alone. why should it be this way? I am curious why you would think this way. I've heard these kinds of arguments with respect to parking, and I still disagreed with them

blackflame7000 7y ago
> why should it be this way? I am curious why you would think this way. I've heard these kinds of arguments with respect to parking, and I still disagreed with them Because what right do you have to determine what behavior is tax worthy over me in a free country where we are all equal? And if you say the solution is to vote on it, then my response is that there is a reason we are a republic and not a democracy.
- taxationisdeft 7y ago
  so you are arguing that I ought not have the right to vote for policy that disadvantages others? perhaps in regard to protected groups[1]. I thought you would present an argument for this method of taxation being more authoritarian than using environmental regulation (i.e. just banning cars with bad fuel economy, or setting CO2 limits on households) instead. (I find the latter more oppressive in my opinion) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

satyrnein 7y ago

There's a difference between "sin taxes" that discourage behavior for paternalistic reasons and taxes meant to price externalities back in. Cap-and-trade is another way to use market mechanisms to put scarce goods/rights to their most productive use.

malandrew 7y ago
Taxes that price externalities back in should ONLY be used to offset those externalities. Most of the time however politicians use the externality as an argument to pass the tax but plan to us the money for their own pet issues.