6 ms·
It would be great for the taxpayer if you could do that but the government would lose out on so much revenue. So I think any such proposal is dead on arrival.
by BuyMyBitcoins 6y ago
It would be great for the taxpayer if you could do that but the government would lose out on so much revenue. So I think any such proposal is dead on arrival.
- Consultant32452 6y agoI think it’s important to recognize that taxes are not primarily about revenue. The government can just create/inflate as much money into existence as it wants. All taxes are about behavior control and signaling. We’re either trying to discourage a behavior or signal we’re sticking it to some group or other who is getting taxed. Once you see the world through this lens all of these tax laws make much more sense.
- syshum 6y agoI think it is important to recognize that taxes when used for anything other then revenue are highly unethical and should be opposed by the population
- evo 6y agoI feel like they're one of the only tools we have collectively as a society to counteract "tragedy of the commons"/negative externality situations. Is a tax that brings the financial costs of an action in line with its distributed societal costs that unethical?
- syshum 6y agoGovernment taxation is very very ineffective tool, and rarely accomplishes that goal. I would love for you to cite and example of a taxation scheme in use today that is right now countering an actual negative externality Governments do not have a track record for being trust worthily enough to be placed in charge of controlling externalities, it would inevitably be used to usurp power, and liberty from the people, while unjustly enriching their political allies. This happens time and time again yet people still believe government is not only the "best" way to control things, but more stockily believe it is the "only" way to do so despite 1000's of years of historical record proving otherwise
- dontreact 6y agoWhat are alternatives to controlling negative externalities? My understanding is that they are by definition not fixable by the free market, and anything that is not the free market is government essentially.
- ghostwriter 6y agoprivatise everything so that the owners are able to sue those who negatively impact their assets https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-elephants-privatize-them https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-save-the-e...
- fighterpilot 6y agoHow would that work for air pollution?
- Consultant32452 6y agoHow would suing them work?
- fighterpilot 6y agoHow does that get around the free rider problem? If someone is polluting the air, they're making everyone's life worse by epsilon. If I'm to sue them, all the cost of the lawsuit is privatized, and all the benefit is socialized
- Consultant32452 6y agoAs opposed to the current system where they still pollute, they still kill you, but you're not even allowed to sue because the state owns the air/water and lets them pollute and you get no compensation.
- fighterpilot 6y agoAlmost no taxes are based on negative externalities. I'd love it if that changes, but productive activity is primarily what's taxed, unfortunately.
- wonminute 6y agoFederal Government, maybe. But State and Local do not have this option.
- gizmo686 6y agoIt is also part of fiscal/monetary policy. Sure, the government could increase the money supply. but if the amount of spending they want to do is greater than the amount they want to increase the money supply by, they need some way to reconcile the two, which taxes provide.