Why don't we raise the gas tax?

[MikeH]

1st world agriculture subsidies aren't making food cheaper to the end consumer, they are just making 3rd world agriculture uncompetitive.

And if 'the poor' are paying less tax because they aren't subsidising agriculture they can spend it on more expensive food anyway.

[MikeH]

By subsidising in many cases we are also encouraging inefficient agriculture

[Felch]

1st world agriculture subsidies aren't making food cheaper to the end consumer, they are just making 3rd world agriculture uncompetitive.

And if 'the poor' are paying less tax because they aren't subsidising agriculture they can spend it on more expensive food anyway.

Nobody is arguing in favor of agriculture subsidies. Jon brought it up because he has poor reading comprehension skills, and Imran continued it because he'd rather duck the issue of taxing the poor for his social engineering schemes. The question is "Should we raise the price of food to counter the negative externality of agricultural pollution?" Do you think it's right to impose a regressive tax in order to change people's behavior?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I think you are missing the obvious. But I'll get to that in a bit. Uber-capitalist economists are against agg subsidies as well because of their massive distortions of the market. Why do we produce so much corn? Because of ethanol subidies and that corn has to be used somewhere, so they are force fed to cattle instead of grass, because corn with subsidy is cheaper.

The obvious that you are missing is that I want the government to do more to provide for the poor. Yes, prices will go up due to ending the distortions caused by agg subsidies. Yes prices will go up to make things healthier and better off for society as a whole. Therefore I would like the government to do quite a bit more in providing for the poor. I want the government to make sure the poor recieve health care. I want the government to make sure the poor get enough money to eat. I want the government to make sure that the poor can get retraining for jobs. I want the government to help out the working poor by raising the minimum wage and incentivize hiring through tax breaks. And if people lose work, I want the government to do more to get them back on their feet.

You see social engineering and welfare as 'bad words'. I do not. I see it as our duty as a society to provide for the least of those among us (and yes, it is strongly guided by my faith, but so what).

[MikeH]

The question is "Should we raise the price of food to counter the negative externality of agricultural pollution?" Do you think it's right to impose a regressive tax in order to change people's behavior?

No, in that case I'd tax the polluter. (we certainly shouldn't be subsidising them for polluting)
It can be, in some cases.

[MikeH]

eg. Tobacco, alcohol taxes. Especially if the income goes to medical treatment, prevention etc.

[The Mad Monk]

Government should protect people from other people; it has no business protecting people from themselves.

[Felch]

I think you are missing the obvious. But I'll get to that in a bit. Uber-capitalist economists are against agg subsidies as well because of their massive distortions of the market. Why do we produce so much corn? Because of ethanol subidies and that corn has to be used somewhere, so they are force fed to cattle instead of grass, because corn with subsidy is cheaper.

The obvious that you are missing is that I want the government to do more to provide for the poor. Yes, prices will go up due to ending the distortions caused by agg subsidies. Yes prices will go up to make things healthier and better off for society as a whole. Therefore I would like the government to do quite a bit more in providing for the poor. I want the government to make sure the poor recieve health care. I want the government to make sure the poor get enough money to eat. I want the government to make sure that the poor can get retraining for jobs. I want the government to help out the working poor by raising the minimum wage and incentivize hiring through tax breaks. And if people lose work, I want the government to do more to get them back on their feet.

You see social engineering and welfare as 'bad words'. I do not. I see it as our duty as a society to provide for the least of those among us (and yes, it is strongly guided by my faith, but so what).

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

[Felch]

No, in that case I'd tax the polluter. (we certainly shouldn't be subsidising them for polluting)
It can be, in some cases.

Do you think the polluter won't pass those costs on to the consumer? Do you think that the rise in food prices would be insignificant to the poor? Tobacco and alcohol aren't necessities, food most certainly is.

[MikeH]

Some of those things are not clear cut.

eg. Alcohol abuse certainly doesn't just affect an individual. It's also easy to avoid the tax. And it's a tax on a luxury.

[MikeH]

Do you think the polluter won't pass those costs on to the consumer? Do you think that the rise in food prices would be insignificant to the poor? Tobacco and alcohol aren't necessities, food most certainly is.

WTF the solution for the polluter to being taxed for pollution is not to pollute not to raise prices.

[Felch]

This isn't a Captain Planet cartoon, farmers aren't polluting out of malice. They pollute because that's what they have to do to increase productivity and remain competitive in the marketplace. Whether they pay the pigovian tax or change their methods, prices will rise.

[MikeH]

At the moment there's no incentive for them to make any change.

Our big agri-business models are very efficient in terms of cost per food item, but they are very inefficient in terms of food per land area. We could feed more people with less land if we used higher labour models with more mixed crops, and more rotation which would cost more.

And most of us in the 1st world, even the poor, are incredibly rich and waste huge quantities of food. If the average family just reduced how much they wasted by overbuying they'd save the money.

[Jon Miller]

And become healthier.

And 3rd world countries would have more food.

And pollution would go down.

And....

It is a terrible terrible subsidy.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

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).