3 ms·

It really should be the other way; they ought to tax office space punitively in order to coerce people not to commute at all. Commuting is a major source of emi

It really should be the other way; they ought to tax office space punitively in order to coerce people not to commute at all. Commuting is a major source of emissions, personal health ailments, and encourages human-hostile urban design.

eru 3y ago
I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by their users via electronic tolls instead of by general taxes, etc. (And remove 'commuting allowances' that one can claim as a deduction on income taxes.) And if you still want to levy taxes, levy them on what you don't like, and not some imprecise proxy like office space. Eg directly on emissions or negative health externalities.
- dleslie 3y ago
  > If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Canada is doing that with a carbon tax that impacts drivers directly, and it's become a hot target for populist outrage. Better to tax the owners of the office buildings and parkades, as it would cause less public outrage.
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes, public opinion is often idiotic.
- r00fus 3y ago
  While I agree with your points, taxing driving is as popular as the bubonic plague. People who like cars and or freedom don't like it, the economist angle will say that it will push the cost of consumer goods way up due to trucking etc. Honestly there should be more gas taxes (that's not per-gallon but % of sale price) but again, will fail until EVs become dominant.
  - eru 3y ago
    Why do you suggest petrol should be taxed as a % of sales price and not per litre? The negative externalities we are worried about occur mostly in proportion to how many litres of petrol we burn, not how many pennies we pay for them, do they?
- lolinder 3y ago
  Why is your proposed solution better? What makes theirs worse than the disease? Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees. These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy. Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are required to commute?
  - eru 3y ago
    > Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence It's the same principle that also explains why it doesn't make a difference (in the long run) whether it's officially the employer or employee who pays the income tax on a worker's income. > These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy. What makes you think so? > Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are required to commute? The purpose of a Pigouvian tax is not necessarily to substantially alter the volume of the taxed activity, but to internalize the externalities, so private cost-benefit decisions can reflect the impact on both individual and society. If companies somehow benefit enough from commuting that they are willing to pay people enough to make them agree to put up with it, who are we to judge the arrangement?
martin8412 3y ago
It's also a major source of income from taxes on things like fuel.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Nope. Fuel taxes only constitute about 1.5% of revenue for state and local governments that collect them. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/motor-fuel-taxes https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
They kinda do, property taxes on commercial real estate play that role.

eru 3y ago

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by their users via electronic tolls instead of by general taxes, etc. (And remove 'commuting allowances' that one can claim as a deduction on income taxes.) And if you still want to levy taxes, levy them on what you don't like, and not some imprecise proxy like office space. Eg directly on emissions or negative health externalities.

dleslie 3y ago
> If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Canada is doing that with a carbon tax that impacts drivers directly, and it's become a hot target for populist outrage. Better to tax the owners of the office buildings and parkades, as it would cause less public outrage.
- eru 3y ago
  Yes, public opinion is often idiotic.
r00fus 3y ago
While I agree with your points, taxing driving is as popular as the bubonic plague. People who like cars and or freedom don't like it, the economist angle will say that it will push the cost of consumer goods way up due to trucking etc. Honestly there should be more gas taxes (that's not per-gallon but % of sale price) but again, will fail until EVs become dominant.
- eru 3y ago
  Why do you suggest petrol should be taxed as a % of sales price and not per litre? The negative externalities we are worried about occur mostly in proportion to how many litres of petrol we burn, not how many pennies we pay for them, do they?
lolinder 3y ago
Why is your proposed solution better? What makes theirs worse than the disease? Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees. These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy. Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are required to commute?
- eru 3y ago
  > Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence It's the same principle that also explains why it doesn't make a difference (in the long run) whether it's officially the employer or employee who pays the income tax on a worker's income. > These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy. What makes you think so? > Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are required to commute? The purpose of a Pigouvian tax is not necessarily to substantially alter the volume of the taxed activity, but to internalize the externalities, so private cost-benefit decisions can reflect the impact on both individual and society. If companies somehow benefit enough from commuting that they are willing to pay people enough to make them agree to put up with it, who are we to judge the arrangement?

martin8412 3y ago

It's also a major source of income from taxes on things like fuel.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Nope. Fuel taxes only constitute about 1.5% of revenue for state and local governments that collect them. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/motor-fuel-taxes https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

DonsDiscountGas 3y ago

They kinda do, property taxes on commercial real estate play that role.