3 ms·

The question is "Do Pigovian taxes hurt the poor?" Not "Is sugar the same as sugar?"

• yellowapple 4y ago
  Soda taxes are sin taxes, not Pigovian taxes. Also, if the reason to tax soda is specifically because it's unhealthy, then it's asinine to not extend that logic consistently.
  • specialist 4y ago
    How else would you characterize Pigovian taxes?
    • yellowapple 4y ago
      Pigovian taxes are on the production/supply side, sin taxes are on the consumption/demand side. Supply-side taxation is much more economically efficient, much harder to dodge, and far less regressive than demand-side taxation, and also ensures that it's producers and importers motivated to produce/import less harmful products rather than punishing consumers for being consumers.
      • specialist 4y ago
        For future, I'll write "sin taxes, a type of Pigovian taxes". Thank you for correcting me. The question remains if you support concern trolling over sin taxes, a type of Pigovian taxes as a means to thwart progress. Or maybe pedantry is its own reward.
        • yellowapple 4y ago
          > For future, I'll write "sin taxes, a type of Pigovian taxes". Then you would still be incorrect, because - as explained above - sin taxes are not a "type of" Pigovian tax, but something entirely different. They might have similar motivations, but they are applied very differently and have very different socioeconomic effects. > The question remains if you support concern trolling over sin taxes, a type of Pigovian taxes as a means to thwart progress. The answer remains that sin taxes - unlike Pigovian taxes - do not result in progress, therefore leaving nothing to "thwart". But hey, maybe unwarranted condescension and confident incorrectness are, like pedantry, their own reward.