4 ms·
By definition yes, but you need to prove the externality is there and actually worse than your proposed tax.
by R0b0t1 5y ago
By definition yes, but you need to prove the externality is there and actually worse than your proposed tax.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 5y agoI was worried that was your position. If you still need further proof of global warming and it's deleterious effects then providing proof is impossible.
- R0b0t1 5y agoNot proof of global warming, proof that this is the most efficacious tax to undertake and will not distort the market to be worse.
- teddyh 5y agoIt’s not practically possible to prove that something is the most efficient alternative – you’d have to exhaustively show that all possible alternatives are worse. It’s more reasonable for you to provide an even better alternative, since you seem to believe that one exists. Once two specific options are named, the two can be compared in earnest.