5 ms·

>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes!

>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes! Soo much wrong here... Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse (in the extreme) governments SHOULD NOT use taxation to pick winners and losers, nor to legislate morality, they should use taxation ONLY to collect revenue to projects and programs approved by the people, and for no other purpose

ErikVandeWater 4y ago
Taxing activities that have negative externalities is a positive use of taxation. It's better than forbidding such behavior for many reasons. The simplest reason is that it's better to make revenue dis-incentivizing something bad (pollution) as opposed to dis-incentivizing something good (income).
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  To the extent that I would agree, it would IMO only be ethical for a government tax negative externalities to directly pay for mitigation, control, etc , i.e a carbon tax that directly goes to carbon removal / capture. taxing exernalties then using the money for unrelated projects i.e taxing cigarettes to pay for schools, is something I would oppose
  - TimPC 4y ago
    Taxing negative externalities works to reduce those externalities even without mitigation though. I’d much rather have a government that taxes things we want less of than things we want more of. The status quo is income tax, which is far worse than any Pigovian tax.
dsr_ 4y ago
When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES. (You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES. As is the person who I was reply to, their comment was that the government should not need to view taxation as revenue, I disagree >You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse In the extreme of the parent comment, were a government ceases taxation (since they do not need the revenue) and just prints money to pay for everything the collapse of that currency is inevitable.
throwaway2037 4y ago
How do you feel about relatively high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes? I enjoy a good beer, but I understand the reason for alcohol tax. Do you also favor low cigarette taxation? The "end of life" costs for heavy cigarette smokers cannot be overlooked! Also, the UK had a lot of success with the sugar tax.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  I guess that depends on what you define as "success" going along with the not using taxes to legislate morality, I also do not believe it is the role of government to protect someone from their own bad choices (i.e sugar or cigarettes), going along with this is one of the reasons I oppose a single payer government run health care system in the US, because if we have a UK style health system then adding in all of these legislative actions to control every aspect of a persons life becomes a valid cost control argument I dont want the government telling me what I can or can not eat, or setting tax policy on their recommendation. I also grew up with the food pyramid as the "government approved" diet that today most people agree is terrible, and if it did not directly cause it heavily aided in the obesity epidemic we have today (in the US). Distrust in government is our (the US) founding principle, and I have a HEAVY distrust of all government experts. As one of our presidents famously said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"

ErikVandeWater 4y ago

Taxing activities that have negative externalities is a positive use of taxation. It's better than forbidding such behavior for many reasons. The simplest reason is that it's better to make revenue dis-incentivizing something bad (pollution) as opposed to dis-incentivizing something good (income).

phpisthebest 4y ago
To the extent that I would agree, it would IMO only be ethical for a government tax negative externalities to directly pay for mitigation, control, etc , i.e a carbon tax that directly goes to carbon removal / capture. taxing exernalties then using the money for unrelated projects i.e taxing cigarettes to pay for schools, is something I would oppose
- TimPC 4y ago
  Taxing negative externalities works to reduce those externalities even without mitigation though. I’d much rather have a government that taxes things we want less of than things we want more of. The status quo is income tax, which is far worse than any Pigovian tax.

dsr_ 4y ago

When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES. (You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)

phpisthebest 4y ago
>When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES. As is the person who I was reply to, their comment was that the government should not need to view taxation as revenue, I disagree >You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse In the extreme of the parent comment, were a government ceases taxation (since they do not need the revenue) and just prints money to pay for everything the collapse of that currency is inevitable.

throwaway2037 4y ago

How do you feel about relatively high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes? I enjoy a good beer, but I understand the reason for alcohol tax. Do you also favor low cigarette taxation? The "end of life" costs for heavy cigarette smokers cannot be overlooked! Also, the UK had a lot of success with the sugar tax.

phpisthebest 4y ago
I guess that depends on what you define as "success" going along with the not using taxes to legislate morality, I also do not believe it is the role of government to protect someone from their own bad choices (i.e sugar or cigarettes), going along with this is one of the reasons I oppose a single payer government run health care system in the US, because if we have a UK style health system then adding in all of these legislative actions to control every aspect of a persons life becomes a valid cost control argument I dont want the government telling me what I can or can not eat, or setting tax policy on their recommendation. I also grew up with the food pyramid as the "government approved" diet that today most people agree is terrible, and if it did not directly cause it heavily aided in the obesity epidemic we have today (in the US). Distrust in government is our (the US) founding principle, and I have a HEAVY distrust of all government experts. As one of our presidents famously said "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help"