3 ms·

Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. Actual criticism of real problems in California

Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. Actual criticism of real problems in California (which seems to be doing better than most states in most ways, but isn't perfect) gets buried under tribal political nonsense, where everything is an outrage.

roenxi 2y ago
> Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. It isn't crazy, but it is a bad idea. There should be one debate where we work out how much support successful people are expected to provide for their less successful peers, and one transfer payment to cover it. Then everyone pays for things as equals. Setting up multiple parallel societies where everyone has a different experience and financial incentives is wasteful. It ends up in situations where the electricity provider needs to consult with someone's accountant to work out what to charge customers. That is kinda crazy. A customer's tax position has nothing to do with the services they are provided and linking them is going to have weird second order effects. It is the same lunacy as linking paying for medical services and employment together and we have all seen how that worked out for the US. Linking parts of the system together at random is not the path to a high-functioning administrative state.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  > linking paying for medical services and employment together which was heavily encouraged by tax policies and government-imposed price controls on labor...
- nrook 2y ago
  When you see really goofy progressive taxes, if you look behind them, you'll usually see a strong legal or political barrier behind more sensible ones. This is why you are always hearing about ridiculous Amazon taxes coming out of the state of Washington; the place has no income tax, and progressive income taxes have been held to be unconstitutional there. So they have to get creative if they want a progressive tax. Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment. (It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)
rnrn 2y ago
1. CA already has progressive taxation. 2. The “income-graduated fixed charge” is not taxation - it is paid to a corporation, not a government entity.
Aunche 2y ago
The most successful social democracies actually have significantly flatter taxes than the US. IMO, overly progressive taxes are the reason why nobody gives a shit that the government is so inefficient at spending money. Those who benefit the most from government services aren't paying for the waste, and the rich either are privileged enough not to care or become overly antagonist towards the government altogether.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
The problem with this is that many Californians who can afford solar can afford batteries too. If you live in socal its not unreasonable to decide you're just going off grid entirely in the face of income based fees. Then utilites will have to raise the price even more on the poor customers who arent being subsidized anymore

roenxi 2y ago

> Progressive taxation to support a basic shared infrastructure with strong network effects is entirely sensible. It isn't crazy, but it is a bad idea. There should be one debate where we work out how much support successful people are expected to provide for their less successful peers, and one transfer payment to cover it. Then everyone pays for things as equals. Setting up multiple parallel societies where everyone has a different experience and financial incentives is wasteful. It ends up in situations where the electricity provider needs to consult with someone's accountant to work out what to charge customers. That is kinda crazy. A customer's tax position has nothing to do with the services they are provided and linking them is going to have weird second order effects. It is the same lunacy as linking paying for medical services and employment together and we have all seen how that worked out for the US. Linking parts of the system together at random is not the path to a high-functioning administrative state.

sokoloff 2y ago
> linking paying for medical services and employment together which was heavily encouraged by tax policies and government-imposed price controls on labor...
nrook 2y ago
When you see really goofy progressive taxes, if you look behind them, you'll usually see a strong legal or political barrier behind more sensible ones. This is why you are always hearing about ridiculous Amazon taxes coming out of the state of Washington; the place has no income tax, and progressive income taxes have been held to be unconstitutional there. So they have to get creative if they want a progressive tax. Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment. (It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)

rnrn 2y ago

1. CA already has progressive taxation. 2. The “income-graduated fixed charge” is not taxation - it is paid to a corporation, not a government entity.

Aunche 2y ago

The most successful social democracies actually have significantly flatter taxes than the US. IMO, overly progressive taxes are the reason why nobody gives a shit that the government is so inefficient at spending money. Those who benefit the most from government services aren't paying for the waste, and the rich either are privileged enough not to care or become overly antagonist towards the government altogether.

HDThoreaun 2y ago

The problem with this is that many Californians who can afford solar can afford batteries too. If you live in socal its not unreasonable to decide you're just going off grid entirely in the face of income based fees. Then utilites will have to raise the price even more on the poor customers who arent being subsidized anymore