4 ms·
Wouldn't this in effect add a regressive tax to staple products like bread and flour, which are transported by trucks and would require raised prices to be pass
by hnick 4y ago
Wouldn't this in effect add a regressive tax to staple products like bread and flour, which are transported by trucks and would require raised prices to be passed on? I'd be interested in seeing the numbers and what price rise if any would be expected.
- jrajav 4y agoAre trucks an unavoidable reality of transportation? I don't think so. If there are ways to transport those staples aside from using trucks, it seems like an effective tax on using trucks would just be an optimization that encourages alternatives that don't spread as much damage onto general infrastructure.
- bargle0 4y agoWhat are the alternatives? Back every store up to a rail line?
- swayvil 4y agoLocalize manufacturing for one.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0x7E6 4y agomanufacturing out of thin air? if you aren't transporting the finished product, then you're transporting the ingredients. unless you picture raising wheat in urban environment, in which case I'll just leave you to it.
- swayvil 4y agoGrow wheat in fields close to town. Use smaller trucks (than gigantic semis) for transportation. This ain't rocket science.
- sacrosancty 4y agoLots of smaller trucks.
- brailsafe 4y agoThat's pretty much how it was done before trucks became mainstream.
- hnick 4y agoFor the last miles, delivering parcels to people and pallets to commerce, they are for sure. Rail just won't work well at that level of granularity. Between cities is probably another story where rail makes more sense but I'd guess it's much easier to schedule a truck at the last minute and you're not beholden to whoever operates the rail network(s).
- p_j_w 4y agoWhat percentage of the cost of a loaf of bread is last mile delivery?
- jrajav 4y agoI assumed we were talking about the high-tonnage 18-wheeler semis in context, not last-mile delivery.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoWhat are you going to replace those with?
- franga2000 4y agoTrains
- konschubert 4y ago
- eru 4y agoWhy regressive? Are you arguing that making people pay for bread at all is 'regressive'?
- hnick 4y agoRegressive because the new "tax" on the bread is a flat value, independent of the buyer's income and means. That's what the word means when it comes to taxes and fees. And yes, eating to survive is kind of regressive in that sense, but it's not what I'm talking about. If we generally assume society is unfair but still balanced around current expenditures, adding more may upset that balance.
- eru 4y agoIn the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether any one particular fee or tax is progressive or flat or regressive. It's the overall tax burden (or net payment, for poor people) of the whole system that's important for these kinds of fairness considerations. The design of individual taxes should be more concerned with efficiency and deadweight losses.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoThat seems reasonable, a rise on prices of stable commodities can easily be counterbalanced by reducing taxes elsewhere.
- hnick 4y agoI agree with that. But there has to be minimal delay between any expense and refund if you are making the up front cost higher for the lower income brackets. Waiting until the end of the year for a rebate won't be good enough.
- eru 4y agoI wasn't suggesting to give people a rebate for bread. Just the opposite. Bread should cost whatever it fetches on the market (and that will include pigovian taxes, if any). The amount and frequency of welfare transfers to poor people should be independent of how much bread they buy and when. To give a concrete example: you get your welfare check at the start of the month, and the government doesn't whether you buy bread with it or noodles, and shouldn't give you a refund either way.
- palmtree3000 4y agoSure, but you can make it as progressive as you want by redistributing the tax income back to people.
- ksaj 4y agoThe logistics and shipping are all part of the price of the food and whatever other items you buy. If it was solely up to the trucking companies to pay for the road wear, the increase in costs will then of course be added to the price of the food and everything else that gets shipped. So the people will end up paying for it either way, but through food (etc.) costs. I suppose it might be cheaper for drivers that way, but groceries and other items will all be more expensive, even for those who do not drive.
- throwaway894345 4y agoThe tax income in this scenario is already devoted to paying for road improvements. There’s nothing left to be redistributed back. You can raise another tax for redistribution if you’re so inclined, but you can’t spend the money for road repair on redistribution (or else the road doesn’t get repaired, defeating the purpose).
- adrianN 4y agoTransportation is quite cheap per loaf of bread. You can make it substantially more expensive without affecting the retail price by more than a cent or two.