5 ms·

Or - hear me out - maybe just use taxes to fund government rather than pursuing political/social agendas.

Retric 3y ago
Taxing externalities increases economic efficiency which has major benefits to everyone rich or poor. The trick is to avoid a swiss cheese patchwork of taxes designed to benefit specific groups and currently incentivizes private jets. Thus you want carbon taxes that make private jets significantly more expensive not a private jet specific tax.
- frumper 3y ago
  Genuinely curious, how does taxing carbon increase economic efficiency?
  - advisedwang 3y ago
    Negative externalities such as climate impact are a cost that is not priced in. This results in higher production than is actually economically optimal.
    - RhysU 3y ago
      What was the incremental taxation rate that should have been assessed throughout the industrial revolution to price in then-present and then-future externalities?
      - Retric 3y ago
        No one rate would have been perfect over such a long period. All the way back in the 1600’s coal pollution was considered a significant problem which prompted legislation by King James I to restrict coal burning. There were few effective mitigation strategies, though ultra tall smokestacks were fairly effective in reducing harm to those in the imitate surroundings so very early on that may have been useful etc. Similarly outside of large cities the health effects where less significant. That said, as recently as 1952 a single 5 day event killed 4,000-12,000 people in London depending on how it’s counted. So, the ideal rate would have been non zero even before climate change was a significant issue.
        RhysU 3y ago
        I agree pollution from the industrial revolution started long ago (i.e. King James I) and it's killed people recently (i.e London 1952). I agree the correct rate is non-zero. There should be some average rate that approximates whatever instantaneous rate would have been instantaneously perfect. We have the benefit of being able to look backward on this era with near-perfect information. A proposal for taxation for externalities that is historically calibrated has a chance of being adopted. Otherwise, it's just fist shaking and chanting "externalities".
  - Root_Denied 3y ago
    I'll admit that when they say "efficient" that word is doing a lot of work. Disincentivizing private jet usage simultaneously incentivizes alternatives, the most analogous of which is buying at ticket on a major airline. Those airlines operate at economies of scale and are far more efficient in their use of fuel/person/mile than private jets. Less analogous alternatives would be setting up a remote meeting or phone call.
  - bckygldstn 3y ago
    A business that creates $1 of value by imposing $2 of costs on other parties is wasteful: the economy would be better off if such business models didn't exist. For carbon these costs look like increased healthcare due to pollution, decreased agricultural efficiency due to weather changes, government paying for environmental remediation or carbon capture, loss of tourism when the USA and Europe is covered in smoke for large parts of the summer, ski fields closing due to lack of snow. Why can't we let the free market sort this out? More than most externalities, carbon pollution is expensive to reverse: CO2 that costs $10 to suck out of the air might only cost a company $1 to not emit in the first place. There's also a time component: if there were no taxes or fees for dumping waste we'd have a really efficient decade in the stock market then all be dead by the end of the century.
  - Retric 3y ago
    That’s a surprisingly deep question. The point of the economy is to maximize benefits while minimizing downside. Burning fossil fuels cases problems such as respiratory issues, but it also has major benefits for the people doing it like being able to travel quickly. We don’t want to ban it, but you want your personal benefit while convincing other people to burn less because it harms you. Further you don’t want the overheated of a complex system because that’s expensive. Enter a flat carbon tax where people can decide to keep doing everything the same way at the cost of paying more, but they also get cleaner air from the people who did cut their emissions. While the people who cut back get both cleaner air and the benefits from other peoples carbon taxes. You do need to pick a reasonable tax rate, but you avoid the planned economy issues from say cap and trade or company specific EV subsidies. Finally, the real benefit is when building new infrastructure. A 1 cent or even 10 cent per gallon carbon tax might not change your driving behavior but it’s going to convince many people to get more expensive but also more energy efficient systems because the ROI increases. Which then increases R&D and economy of scale for such systems, you basically get the benefit of a subsidy without spending taxpayers money.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Much more of our taxes go to the military to fund our failed overseas ventures.
- caseysoftware 3y ago
  Unfortunately, the data doesn't agree with you: Social Security: 21% Health: 14% Medicare: 13% Income Security: 13% National Defense: 13% Ref: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#federal-spending-overview https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget. So that's like saying your health insurance premiums and 401K contributions are part of the federal budget, which is obviously ridiculous.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget They're absolutely part of the budget [1]. They're just not part of the discretionary budget. Defence is the largest discretionary line. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget_fy22.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget...
    - caseysoftware 3y ago
      Then you should write to that website and explain why they're wrong. I bet treasury.gov would appreciate it.
      - mikestew 3y ago
        The website is fine, it is your use of it that is wrong. From where I stand, those errors have been well-documented by other commenters, so I don't know that further writing on the subject is necessary. Or perhaps you have a more thorough rebuttal to what was a reasonable comment.
Inityx 3y ago
Both aspects of this, choosing who is taxed and choosing where the money goes, are political choices. The choice is not "agenda" vs. "no agenda", it's "stated agenda" vs. "tacit agenda".
- taeric 3y ago
  Put another way, this isn't just "politically choosing where the money goes," this is using the political machinery for us to determine what the cost of something is. You could argue that we shouldn't use the political engines to do this, but that quickly runs against the fact that politics just means people, at large. Is why even "scientific communities" would have disagreements on what should be prioritized. I do think we could do better, but I hesitate to offer a concrete better way due to my own ignorance in knowing of one.
jimbob45 3y ago
To reduce carbon emissions in the aviation sector, we should steeply tax private jet travel and direct those funds toward climate mitigation and green infrastructure. I'm guessing this is what your comment is replying to? I agree that there's really no need for the second part to solve the core problem - overuse of private jets.
screwturner68 3y ago
we use taxes to encourage/discourage political and social agendas all the time why should this be any different?

Taxing externalities increases economic efficiency which has major benefits to everyone rich or poor. The trick is to avoid a swiss cheese patchwork of taxes designed to benefit specific groups and currently incentivizes private jets. Thus you want carbon taxes that make private jets significantly more expensive not a private jet specific tax.

frumper 3y ago
Genuinely curious, how does taxing carbon increase economic efficiency?
- advisedwang 3y ago
  Negative externalities such as climate impact are a cost that is not priced in. This results in higher production than is actually economically optimal.
  - RhysU 3y ago
    What was the incremental taxation rate that should have been assessed throughout the industrial revolution to price in then-present and then-future externalities?
    - Retric 3y ago
      No one rate would have been perfect over such a long period. All the way back in the 1600’s coal pollution was considered a significant problem which prompted legislation by King James I to restrict coal burning. There were few effective mitigation strategies, though ultra tall smokestacks were fairly effective in reducing harm to those in the imitate surroundings so very early on that may have been useful etc. Similarly outside of large cities the health effects where less significant. That said, as recently as 1952 a single 5 day event killed 4,000-12,000 people in London depending on how it’s counted. So, the ideal rate would have been non zero even before climate change was a significant issue.
      - RhysU 3y ago
        I agree pollution from the industrial revolution started long ago (i.e. King James I) and it's killed people recently (i.e London 1952). I agree the correct rate is non-zero. There should be some average rate that approximates whatever instantaneous rate would have been instantaneously perfect. We have the benefit of being able to look backward on this era with near-perfect information. A proposal for taxation for externalities that is historically calibrated has a chance of being adopted. Otherwise, it's just fist shaking and chanting "externalities".
- Root_Denied 3y ago
  I'll admit that when they say "efficient" that word is doing a lot of work. Disincentivizing private jet usage simultaneously incentivizes alternatives, the most analogous of which is buying at ticket on a major airline. Those airlines operate at economies of scale and are far more efficient in their use of fuel/person/mile than private jets. Less analogous alternatives would be setting up a remote meeting or phone call.
- bckygldstn 3y ago
  A business that creates $1 of value by imposing $2 of costs on other parties is wasteful: the economy would be better off if such business models didn't exist. For carbon these costs look like increased healthcare due to pollution, decreased agricultural efficiency due to weather changes, government paying for environmental remediation or carbon capture, loss of tourism when the USA and Europe is covered in smoke for large parts of the summer, ski fields closing due to lack of snow. Why can't we let the free market sort this out? More than most externalities, carbon pollution is expensive to reverse: CO2 that costs $10 to suck out of the air might only cost a company $1 to not emit in the first place. There's also a time component: if there were no taxes or fees for dumping waste we'd have a really efficient decade in the stock market then all be dead by the end of the century.
- Retric 3y ago
  That’s a surprisingly deep question. The point of the economy is to maximize benefits while minimizing downside. Burning fossil fuels cases problems such as respiratory issues, but it also has major benefits for the people doing it like being able to travel quickly. We don’t want to ban it, but you want your personal benefit while convincing other people to burn less because it harms you. Further you don’t want the overheated of a complex system because that’s expensive. Enter a flat carbon tax where people can decide to keep doing everything the same way at the cost of paying more, but they also get cleaner air from the people who did cut their emissions. While the people who cut back get both cleaner air and the benefits from other peoples carbon taxes. You do need to pick a reasonable tax rate, but you avoid the planned economy issues from say cap and trade or company specific EV subsidies. Finally, the real benefit is when building new infrastructure. A 1 cent or even 10 cent per gallon carbon tax might not change your driving behavior but it’s going to convince many people to get more expensive but also more energy efficient systems because the ROI increases. Which then increases R&D and economy of scale for such systems, you basically get the benefit of a subsidy without spending taxpayers money.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Much more of our taxes go to the military to fund our failed overseas ventures.

caseysoftware 3y ago
Unfortunately, the data doesn't agree with you: Social Security: 21% Health: 14% Medicare: 13% Income Security: 13% National Defense: 13% Ref: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#federal-spending-overview https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget. So that's like saying your health insurance premiums and 401K contributions are part of the federal budget, which is obviously ridiculous.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget They're absolutely part of the budget [1]. They're just not part of the discretionary budget. Defence is the largest discretionary line. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget_fy22.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget...
  - caseysoftware 3y ago
    Then you should write to that website and explain why they're wrong. I bet treasury.gov would appreciate it.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      The website is fine, it is your use of it that is wrong. From where I stand, those errors have been well-documented by other commenters, so I don't know that further writing on the subject is necessary. Or perhaps you have a more thorough rebuttal to what was a reasonable comment.

Inityx 3y ago

Both aspects of this, choosing who is taxed and choosing where the money goes, are political choices. The choice is not "agenda" vs. "no agenda", it's "stated agenda" vs. "tacit agenda".

taeric 3y ago
Put another way, this isn't just "politically choosing where the money goes," this is using the political machinery for us to determine what the cost of something is. You could argue that we shouldn't use the political engines to do this, but that quickly runs against the fact that politics just means people, at large. Is why even "scientific communities" would have disagreements on what should be prioritized. I do think we could do better, but I hesitate to offer a concrete better way due to my own ignorance in knowing of one.

jimbob45 3y ago

To reduce carbon emissions in the aviation sector, we should steeply tax private jet travel and direct those funds toward climate mitigation and green infrastructure. I'm guessing this is what your comment is replying to? I agree that there's really no need for the second part to solve the core problem - overuse of private jets.

screwturner68 3y ago

we use taxes to encourage/discourage political and social agendas all the time why should this be any different?