3 ms·

You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can cons

You seem to think the point of a taxation scheme is to tax everything. It's not. It's to 1) fund services while 2) minimizing distortions. If someone can consume land of no value and produce huge amounts of value from it, that's a good thing. They should be entitled to as much upside as they can produce.

s1artibartfast 1mo ago
Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.
- wat10000 1mo ago
  I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who benefits and how much. For example, a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is distortionary but appropriate in my view. Paying for the cost of wear and tear is a "distortion", because it changes the amount consumed. I argue that the cost of maintaining and building roads should factor into road consumption decisions! Another example, If people want to live in remote fire-prone areas, they should pay more taxes to account for the higher state costs of infrastructure and safety, not fewer taxes because the land is cheaper than urban zones. The people driving the cost would be disconnected from the burden, and incentivized to drive them higher! Distortion is a feature, not a bug.
    - estearum 1mo ago
      I'd argue this is a baseline error. The efficient baseline policy for roads is to have a consumption tax attached. It is therefore deviations from this efficient baseline that are distortionary, which is actually the absence of a consumption tax. Distortion isn't just "produces different behavior," because if it were, then any tax change in any direction to anything would be distortionary. Distortion is when a tax produces less-efficient behavior. For goods like roads, the inefficient-behavior state is the one created by not having consumption taxes.
      - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
        If you are arguing the efficient baseline for roads is a use tax, then we agree! The un-priced state of government infrastructure and service use is a market failure, but this is exactly what modern georgism and LVT calls for in its myopic focus on land and natural resources!
        estearum 1mo ago
        Yes, we do agree on that. Georgism actually does not argue against Pigouvian taxes or use taxes per se. His view is more that you should expect to get less of whatever you tax. In this case, our shared view is that you actually want to tax road usage because you want less of it. I doubt George thought that people should use roads less, so I presume he wouldn't have been fond of the idea of taxing their use. And it's worth noting the vast majority of LVTers or Georgists are not "single-taxers." They typically would believe that no tax scheme in lieu of a high LVT will produce desirable results, but not necessarily that any additional taxes on top of an LVT are necessarily bad.
        s1artibartfast 1mo ago
        Yeah, perhaps I am arguing too much with with vocal online LVT proponents, and my criticisms should be directed at them rather than Henry George. I think single taxers or mostly single taxers have bad policy, and also overestimate the difference in revenue from current property taxation of land and improvements. I most often hear it as an alternative to income taxes and paired as a funding source for universal healthcare and UBI. I haven't read Progress and Poverty but my understanding is George wanted to abolish state-sponsored charity/welfare. I think LVT as a social solution to poverty is largely out of date, and more of a niche policy fix for some urban NIMBY problems. Particularly because modern modes of consumption, value production, and (dare I say it) rent seeking have grown beyond material inputs.
- estearum 1mo ago
  Which political ideology wants taxation generally to create market distortions? Virtually every political persuasion favors some types of Pigouvian taxes, which are deliberately designed to do this, but which believe that it's generally good for a tax to be distortive by its own merits?
  - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
    I said minimizing distortion isnt a purpose , not that I find i find it desirable on its own merits. So as you point out, one large segment of voters are interested in pigovian taxes. I think there is also a large overlapping segment that want taxes to optimize or reform behavior absent externalities for things they don't like. However, I think the biggest moral consensus amongst voters is for taxes levied on the beneficiaries from the public work or institutions funded. The public cares not if a tax has absolutely zero distortion when it is levied on the masses to benefit the few. This more resembles income, profit, or use taxes.

s1artibartfast 1mo ago

Im more a small goverment type. That said, the point of a taxation scheme is not to "minimize distortions". If you think that is important, thats fine, but it isn't a commonly held position. Funnily, It is mostly Georgists that think it is a very important property of a tax.

wat10000 1mo ago
I'm curious as to how a small government type would be so derisive toward the idea of a goal of minimizing distortions in taxation. "Minimize distortions" is another way of saying that the tax minimizes government interference in the economy. Seems like exactly the sort of thing a small government type would want.
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  I see the two as completely independent, and I think proportionality overrides non-distortion. I dont care if a tax has zero distortion when it is levied predominantly on one person to benefit another, or levied on the masses to benefit the few. Those who get the lion's share of the benefit should carry the lion's share of the cost. Distortion has a very specific economic meaning which has nothing to do with who benefits and how much. For example, a fuel tax to fund highway maintenance is distortionary but appropriate in my view. Paying for the cost of wear and tear is a "distortion", because it changes the amount consumed. I argue that the cost of maintaining and building roads should factor into road consumption decisions! Another example, If people want to live in remote fire-prone areas, they should pay more taxes to account for the higher state costs of infrastructure and safety, not fewer taxes because the land is cheaper than urban zones. The people driving the cost would be disconnected from the burden, and incentivized to drive them higher! Distortion is a feature, not a bug.
  - estearum 1mo ago
    I'd argue this is a baseline error. The efficient baseline policy for roads is to have a consumption tax attached. It is therefore deviations from this efficient baseline that are distortionary, which is actually the absence of a consumption tax. Distortion isn't just "produces different behavior," because if it were, then any tax change in any direction to anything would be distortionary. Distortion is when a tax produces less-efficient behavior. For goods like roads, the inefficient-behavior state is the one created by not having consumption taxes.
    - s1artibartfast 1mo ago
      If you are arguing the efficient baseline for roads is a use tax, then we agree! The un-priced state of government infrastructure and service use is a market failure, but this is exactly what modern georgism and LVT calls for in its myopic focus on land and natural resources!
      - estearum 1mo ago
        Yes, we do agree on that. Georgism actually does not argue against Pigouvian taxes or use taxes per se. His view is more that you should expect to get less of whatever you tax. In this case, our shared view is that you actually want to tax road usage because you want less of it. I doubt George thought that people should use roads less, so I presume he wouldn't have been fond of the idea of taxing their use. And it's worth noting the vast majority of LVTers or Georgists are not "single-taxers." They typically would believe that no tax scheme in lieu of a high LVT will produce desirable results, but not necessarily that any additional taxes on top of an LVT are necessarily bad.
        s1artibartfast 1mo ago
        Yeah, perhaps I am arguing too much with with vocal online LVT proponents, and my criticisms should be directed at them rather than Henry George. I think single taxers or mostly single taxers have bad policy, and also overestimate the difference in revenue from current property taxation of land and improvements. I most often hear it as an alternative to income taxes and paired as a funding source for universal healthcare and UBI. I haven't read Progress and Poverty but my understanding is George wanted to abolish state-sponsored charity/welfare. I think LVT as a social solution to poverty is largely out of date, and more of a niche policy fix for some urban NIMBY problems. Particularly because modern modes of consumption, value production, and (dare I say it) rent seeking have grown beyond material inputs.
estearum 1mo ago
Which political ideology wants taxation generally to create market distortions? Virtually every political persuasion favors some types of Pigouvian taxes, which are deliberately designed to do this, but which believe that it's generally good for a tax to be distortive by its own merits?
- s1artibartfast 1mo ago
  I said minimizing distortion isnt a purpose , not that I find i find it desirable on its own merits. So as you point out, one large segment of voters are interested in pigovian taxes. I think there is also a large overlapping segment that want taxes to optimize or reform behavior absent externalities for things they don't like. However, I think the biggest moral consensus amongst voters is for taxes levied on the beneficiaries from the public work or institutions funded. The public cares not if a tax has absolutely zero distortion when it is levied on the masses to benefit the few. This more resembles income, profit, or use taxes.