4 ms·

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 privilege

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

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