4 ms·
You're right that you don't need to compensate for harms with such a tax (so my first sentence was imprecise). But I also don't see what's wrong with attempting
by tylerhou 5y ago
You're right that you don't need to compensate for harms with such a tax (so my first sentence was imprecise). But I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to distribute (some of) the revenue in such a way to compensate for harms.
- _rpd 5y ago> But I also don't see what's wrong with attempting to distribute (some of) the revenue in such a way to compensate for harms. It becomes a big political fight over how much of the revenue should be directed to social programs, so the tax policy changes every 4 years. A straight rebate gets wide support and taking it away becomes more and more unpopular as people get used to receiving it.
- tmathmeyer 5y agoBecause the attempt causes the laws to fail in referendum perhaps.