7 ms·

Government 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 toda

by syshum 6y ago

Government 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 ago
What 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 ago
  privatise 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 ago
    How would that work for air pollution?
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      How would suing them work?
      - fighterpilot 6y ago
        How 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 ago
        As 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 ago
        It's a good point that the air being fully public leads to a tragedy of the commons situation. Either way, we're asking a lot of the comperence of the system. If the air were privatized we'd still need a legal system that isn't corrupted by special interests. Since it'd still be (I'm assuming) a representative democratic process that creates that system, corporatism is still possible. Thoughts? I've always seen a pollution tax as a Libertarian friendly solution to air pollution. A libertarian system needs to raise some tax money, so isn't it better that all tax money comes from a tax on externalities ? If we don't tax externalities then aren't we left to tax productive activity which is even worse?
        syshum 6y ago
        The only way it would be remotely libertarian would be if you upended the entire tax system and replaced it with Single Tax system aka Geo-Libertarianism... But that is not in the cards, and no one is proposing that, they want to ADD these externality based taxation ON TOP of the tax on productivity
        fighterpilot 6y ago
        I agree that in practice it's largely a ploy to get more revenue to the state. But at the same time, the tax itself seems to follow from a first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. Negative externalities can be seen as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. An externality tax would be one practical way to achieve that, and therefore seems wholly consistent with the Libertarian view.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      In theory by owning a certain part of the atmosphere above your country. The government would then set a maximum CO2 limit in ppm that is allowed on your cubic metres of atmosphere. In practice it is heavily simplified and you don't get to own portions of the atmosphere, instead you get usage rights, which means the right to pollute a certain amount. This is done via cap and trade already.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    That didn't work for pigs and chicken.
imtringued 6y ago
Singapore has high taxes on cars to reduce congestion. People stopped driving. Germany has high taxes on gasoline. People buy more efficient cars. Norway has taxes on ICEs but no taxes on EVs. Lots of people buy EVs. Land value taxes reduce the economic loss caused by rent seeking. Carbon taxes reduce CO2 emissions. >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 Who cares about the last 1000 years of historical record when the necessity of government activity only depends on the current state of the economy? There are barely any absolutes in economics, almost everything depends on the situation in question.

by syshum 6y ago

dontreact 6y ago

What 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 ago
privatise 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 ago
  How would that work for air pollution?
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    How would suing them work?
    - fighterpilot 6y ago
      How 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 ago
        As 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 ago
        It's a good point that the air being fully public leads to a tragedy of the commons situation. Either way, we're asking a lot of the comperence of the system. If the air were privatized we'd still need a legal system that isn't corrupted by special interests. Since it'd still be (I'm assuming) a representative democratic process that creates that system, corporatism is still possible. Thoughts? I've always seen a pollution tax as a Libertarian friendly solution to air pollution. A libertarian system needs to raise some tax money, so isn't it better that all tax money comes from a tax on externalities ? If we don't tax externalities then aren't we left to tax productive activity which is even worse?
        syshum 6y ago
        The only way it would be remotely libertarian would be if you upended the entire tax system and replaced it with Single Tax system aka Geo-Libertarianism... But that is not in the cards, and no one is proposing that, they want to ADD these externality based taxation ON TOP of the tax on productivity
        fighterpilot 6y ago
        I agree that in practice it's largely a ploy to get more revenue to the state. But at the same time, the tax itself seems to follow from a first principles examination of Libertarian axioms. Negative externalities can be seen as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. The role of the state in a Libertarian framework is to protect individuals from such unwanted force by enacting force onto the aggressor. An externality tax would be one practical way to achieve that, and therefore seems wholly consistent with the Libertarian view.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    In theory by owning a certain part of the atmosphere above your country. The government would then set a maximum CO2 limit in ppm that is allowed on your cubic metres of atmosphere. In practice it is heavily simplified and you don't get to own portions of the atmosphere, instead you get usage rights, which means the right to pollute a certain amount. This is done via cap and trade already.
- imtringued 6y ago
  That didn't work for pigs and chicken.

imtringued 6y ago

Singapore has high taxes on cars to reduce congestion. People stopped driving. Germany has high taxes on gasoline. People buy more efficient cars. Norway has taxes on ICEs but no taxes on EVs. Lots of people buy EVs. Land value taxes reduce the economic loss caused by rent seeking. Carbon taxes reduce CO2 emissions. >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 Who cares about the last 1000 years of historical record when the necessity of government activity only depends on the current state of the economy? There are barely any absolutes in economics, almost everything depends on the situation in question.