6 ms·
I've heard versions of this before. It sounds almost like a no-brainer to me. Of course you should tax resources more than labor, especially non-renewable resou
by api 12y ago
I've heard versions of this before. It sounds almost like a no-brainer to me. Of course you should tax resources more than labor, especially non-renewable resources and those with negative externalities.
- epistasis 12y agoFor example, a carbon tax? That definitely sounds like a no-brainer to me, unfortunately there's significant political resistance to even a fact-based debate on that one.
- gd1 12y agoDo you mean a carbon dioxide tax?
- epistasis 12y agoOf course! I've never encountered any unintentional confusion when using the term "carbon tax." For more understanding of what is meant by the term, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax
- clarkm 12y agoDoes having additional children count as using more non-renewable resources, or is it providing more labor?
- api 12y agoIt provides more labor. Whether or not it uses more resources, and which resources, depends. But if you tax resources themselves, it doesn't matter. I'd say tax non-renewable resources and externalities (e.g. CO2) most of all, for the same reason you tax liquor and cigarettes.
- rayiner 12y agoBoth. But kids will be taxed on their resource consumption and, when they grow up, their labor.
- dublinclontarf 12y agoIf I buy gold and bury it in the back yard, try taxing that.