3 ms·
But when you talk about incentive structures you have to consider both sides to understand the final price. Taking a one sided view doesn’t explain the final pr
by fnordpiglet 4y ago
But when you talk about incentive structures you have to consider both sides to understand the final price. Taking a one sided view doesn’t explain the final price at all.
- woodruffw 4y agoWhich side am I missing? When people buy cigarettes at the store, it's generally understood that the tax they're paying is used, in part, to offset the social ills of smoking. I would expect a similar understanding when purchasing large cars.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoThe insurance company doesn’t care about your safety, just how risky you are and the expected payout for insurance over your lifetime subtracted from the income produced from the policy. They don’t increase it to change behavior as you imply. This is different than the government taxation which is less about revenue and costs than about public health incentive creation.
- woodruffw 4y agoOkay. In that case, I think I strongly prefer the tax!
- rootusrootus 4y ago> Okay. In that case, I think I strongly prefer the tax! I'm reading this as you preferring a moral solution rather than a technical one? You must feel pretty confident that the folks in charge of governing will always have priorities that align with your own.
- woodruffw 4y agoThese are both moral solutions, in my book; the GP has convinced me that one is more effective than the other. I don't think any such law will ever come into effect. So I don't feel the need to be confident (or the opposite) with respect to my elected officials. It's all wishing.