Why don't we raise the gas tax?

[MikeH]

Yeah. You are reducing the overall tax bill by getting rid of the subsidies. Give that back to the poor in tax credits or reduce their tax rate. Easy.

[Felch]

So the poor are wasteful slobs? I don't think you're actually that heartless, but it's hard not to get that impression from your post.

I agree that monoculture farming is less sustainable than companion planting, but I don't think it's right to raise food prices on the poor so that the wealthy can feel better about themselves. Feel free to buy from farms that are more ecologically conscious, but please don't force the poor to choose between heirloom tomatoes and heating their homes.

[Jon Miller]

Why are you in favor of giving to the poor in harmful ways (harmful to them, harmful to poor in other countries, harmful to the environment) via agri-subsidies and not to the poor in helpful ways (straight transfer payments)?

JM

[Felch]

I'm not sure you can come to the conclusion that it's "ducking the issue", unless you are stating it because it sounds cool.

The answer is, quite obvious if you actually read my posts in this thread, yes. But we should also balance it by policies that provide more for the poor (one obvious way is to take how much those agg subsidies cost and pass it on to the poor).

So you want to have a tax on every possible externality, from air pollution in gas to water pollution from fertilizer runoff, but then you want to spend money to help the poor? Fair enough. How much money do you plan on spending to administer this insanely huge and expensive government scheme? How much money would you be willing to see paid out in fraudulent claims? What's the cutoff for poor? Is it going to be a strict cutoff, where people below the line get a big check every year and people above pay through the nose to finance it? Or is there going to be a gradual diminishing in benefits as people move up through the tax brackets? How much of your salary are you willing to give up to pay for this? What if people want to impose politically contentious taxes on dubious externalities?

What if conservatives want to tax childless couples more for Social Security? After all, Social Security relies on future generations to remain solvent. Childless couples have far more disposable income, and will rely on other people's children to supplement their retirement income.

What if gun owners want to tax non-owners for the security benefits provided by widespread gun ownership? The deterrence factor of widespread gun ownership reduces the likelihood of burglaries, but non-owners are free-riders in this arrangement.

Have you taken a second to consider the unintended consequences of your scheme? Or are you so caught up in your utopian delusions that you assume no harm can possibly come from it?

Why are you in favor of giving to the poor in harmful ways (harmful to them, harmful to poor in other countries, harmful to the environment) via agri-subsidies and not to the poor in helpful ways (straight transfer payments)?

JM

Jon, please learn to read. Nobody is arguing in favor of agriculture subsidies. I oppose pigovian taxes on food and gasoline. Imran supports them, and want to compensate through complicated and expensive schemes that will only make the poor more reliant on the government than they already are.

[giblets]

You're still ducking the issue. Please answer my question. Is it appropriate to use regressive taxation as a tool for social engineering?

No, but it is appropriate to use regressive taxation to protect people from other people, which is what implementing a tax that is proportionate to an activity's externalities does. The government is more than capable of making other parts of the tax code progressive enough that the overall tax burden will tax a larger percentage of income from the rich. The government is also capable of establishing programs for the poor (like food stamps) so there is no reason to think that the net effect of government policy will be to make getting enough to eat harder.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you want to have a tax on every possible externality, from air pollution in gas to water pollution from fertilizer runoff, but then you want to spend money to help the poor? Fair enough. How much money do you plan on spending to administer this insanely huge and expensive government scheme? How much money would you be willing to see paid out in fraudulent claims? What's the cutoff for poor? Is it going to be a strict cutoff, where people below the line get a big check every year and people above pay through the nose to finance it? Or is there going to be a gradual diminishing in benefits as people move up through the tax brackets? How much of your salary are you willing to give up to pay for this? What if people want to impose politically contentious taxes on dubious externalities?

No one has suggested taxing every single possible externality. It is hard to tax every possible externality as we can't be sure of every externality (law of unintended consequences) as of yet, but taxing those things we know to provide high negative externalities should be a worthy goal. And as pointed out, the costs of the tax breaks which help sustain some of those externalities can be diverted to the least of these (as well as higher taxes on higher tax brackets and savings from dialing down defense). I'd prefer a gradual diminishing of benefits, but I'm not a technocrat and don't necessarily have to go into that much detail in advocating broad based goals (and if that offend you, do you normal ask for the nitty gritty of everyone's broad political vision when discussing things with them).

And what is this about a complicated scheme? You save x amount from not doing certain subsidies, that amount is available for poverty relief.

What if conservatives want to tax childless couples more for Social Security? After all, Social Security relies on future generations to remain solvent. Childless couples have far more disposable income, and will rely on other people's children to supplement their retirement income.

What if gun owners want to tax non-owners for the security benefits provided by widespread gun ownership? The deterrence factor of widespread gun ownership reduces the likelihood of burglaries, but non-owners are free-riders in this arrangement.

Have you taken a second to consider the unintended consequences of your scheme? Or are you so caught up in your utopian delusions that you assume no harm can possibly come from it?

It's like you think that no laws deal with free rider issues (and the more common way to deal with it is to give a tax break to those who provide positive externalities - like giving tax breaks for people buy solar panels & paying people who use solar energy for putting more energy into the grid). Is this concept THAT new for you?

[notyoueither]

You obviously do want the government to do more. You want the government to raise the price of food, and make it even more difficult for the poor to eat.

Bear in mind that if the poor aren't paying more for their food, then the policy of pricing externalities is compromised. While I agree that our ag policy is flawed (I'd prefer cheap veggies over cheap corn and meat), that's not the issue we're discussing. We're talking about making poor people pay the price of your social engineering schemes. Gasoline taxes are inherently regressive, and while a lawyer might not feel much of a pinch, others certainly will.

Why not put the amount of agg subsidies into transfers to the poor so they can afford food?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Felch: Furthermore, I think you are making this needlessly complicated simply to cast your opponents in a bad light. Let's focus on gas taxes for one. We know, through studies, that automobile emmissions have subtantial negative externalities mostly involve respitory problems and global climate change issues. So we decide to increase the gas tax in order to pay for some of those negative externalities and discourage low gas milage cars and automobile use in general, which reduces the negative externality. The money collected on the tax can then be used for increased mass transit, tax credits on low gas milage automobiles, direct poverty relief, etc.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I want the gas tax much higher. That will reduce the driving by poor people and leave more room for me, as well as paying for better roads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Aren't the roads in Texas bigger anyways?

[notyoueither]

They have to be so that the queers can avoid the steers.

[Main_Brain]

How much does Gas cost in the US at this Point? Germany today hit an depressive 1,70@/l Super (Roz 95) [incl. Taxes ~91 Cent]
Which equals 6,435 Dollars per Gallon. Damn the Weekend Peak

[giblets]

Around $3.60 a gallon, I think.

[Al B. Sure!]

Around $3.60 a gallon, I think.

No.

The average U.S. retail price for a gallon of regular gasoline stood at $3.741 a gallon Friday

[Hauldren Collider]

Wow, he was so far off