Pigovian taxes, gas tax

[ahnuld]

Not enough economic/political discussions (not centered on iraq) so ill start one. Im a big fan of pigovian taxes right now in the states.

From wiki: A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity. For instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the pollution. Certain types of Pigovian taxes are sometimes referred to as sin taxes, for example taxes on alcohol and cigarettes.

So basically it lowers the amount of bad things people consume by making it cost more thus artificially lowering demand. I turly feel this is the best way to solve environmental problems and americas national savings problems at the same time. If the government put these taxes on gaz, by say charging an extra dollar per gallon, there would be a huge reduction in the amount of gas consumed. And so as not to hurt the economy through extra taxes, we could lower income taxes by the same amount so that the revenues offset. This way we are promoting conservation, and encouraging more production (by lower income taxes).

Im 7 tabling now so im sure im missing alot of great arguments, but that is the jist of it. Greg Mankiw, a econ. prof from harvard, is a big fan of pigovian taxes as well. He talks about them and their effectivness in his blog, here http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/road-pricing.html. Hes also Romneys economic advisor.

So thoughts? As americans, would you put up with a dollar tax on gas if they lowered income taxes by the same amount? Alot of politicians think its political suicde to do that, but I think if properly explained most americans would be on board.

[lapoker17]

i fully support straight consumption taxes - on everything we buy - and the residual effect on (or elimination of) personal income taxes. i think charging taxes based on the "morality" (for lack of a better word) of the purchase is beyond awful.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
i fully support straight consumption taxes - on everything we buy - and the residual effect on (or elimination of) personal income taxes. i think charging taxes based on the "morality" (for lack of a better word) of the purchase is beyond awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

this post made me think of consumption tax campaign as well. for one, a person's ability to accumulate wealth is a simpler path.

if a tricky politician used a moral springboard to launch a consumptive campaign, however, i wouldn't judge him for that. i would support his effort (as my father has). at the same time i don't see money as the source of all evil, I see a lack of money as such.

after all, that piece of paper is the world's biggest form of trust. why denigrate it? i give it to you, and you trust that the next person you give it to will exchange equal value of things and/or services (plus or minus your prudence). that's why money has been historically centered in the temples. and that's why poker can be a mind-f*ck. how much trust is in 3-barreling your AK float?

and, no, i will not give you on money for a SNG cause you went busto with bad bankroll management. oh wait, that was my bad.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
As americans, would you put up with a dollar tax on gas if they lowered income taxes by the same amount?

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the impact this would have on public transportation, such as buses?

Also, wouldn't this just benefit the rich more, since they would get the biggest break from income taxes? It seems to me this would be extremely hard to give a fair break on income taxes across the board.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
As americans, would you put up with a dollar tax on gas if they lowered income taxes by the same amount?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I'm taxed where I choose, and rewarded for frugality.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the impact this would have on public transportation, such as buses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their revenue tax structure would shift. It would make public transportation more expensive, and private companies would move into the sector improving fuel economy to compete on cost. Government load would lessen, a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, wouldn't this just benefit the rich more, since they would get the biggest break from income taxes? It seems to me this would be extremely hard to give a fair break on income taxes across the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the rich wouldn't get the biggest break. In some models, there is no income tax at all. The biggest savers would get the biggest break % wise, and the rich would get the biggest break in $ volume. Home Values, Stock Market, and commodities (?) would appreciate. Anybody reinvesting that money would see bigger gains. And, you pay taxes at what you bought it at, not how much money you made!

Lastly, a side effect would be wasted consumption would minimize. How would under-the-radar money transfer (read:poker) be impacted, I wonder?

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the impact this would have on public transportation, such as buses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their revenue tax structure would shift. It would make public transportation more expensive, and private companies would move into the sector improving fuel economy to compete on cost. Government load would lessen, a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't this just price out public transportation for the people who need it the most though? I don't see how you can have a supply & demand model on public transportation because you'll price out the poor while the people who could afford it can also afford to not use it and will continue to not use it.

[ QUOTE ]
No, the rich wouldn't get the biggest break. In some models, there is no income tax at all. The biggest savers would get the biggest break % wise, and the rich would get the biggest break in $ volume. Home Values, Stock Market, and commodities (?) would appreciate. Anybody reinvesting that money would see bigger gains. And, you pay taxes at what you bought it at, not how much money you made!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an Econ retard so just ignore me if I'm not making any sense but with the way you explained things, it sounds like the rich get richer and the poor get poor. You talk about appreciating goods but what appreciatable goods do poor people have that would make this to their advantage? They don't own homes, they don't own stocks.

[whoisthedrizzle]

I don't know much about econ, but I thought a marketable or transferable permit tax is supposed to be better than a Pigouvian. Is this wrong?

[kidcolin]

I don't like the idea of letting the gov't decide the line between "moral" and "immoral" or even "good" and "bad", in terms of consumer decisions. The "environmental problems" are still up for debate, and there's already some scandal rumors from the "green" side regarding Gore and his carbon credit purchases (not claiming to be an expert, just heard about it yesterday. But it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made off of this environmental hysteria).

I don't get the part about improving the economy, either. I'm no economic expert, so maybe someone can clarify for me. Wouldn't taxing gas/oil ultimately hurt businesses? Meaning less production, less jobs, less $$$. So is it really a net save per capita? I'm really just curious, not saying you're wrong.

[WillMagic]

This is the first of two responses. The first will be a "i'm simply trying to win the debate, and advocate for the status quo" response, and the second will be a "i'm an anarcho-capitalist and here is a solution that you will think is off-the-wall but is really best."

Let's begin.

[ QUOTE ]

If the government put these taxes on gaz, by say charging an extra dollar per gallon, there would be a huge reduction in the amount of gas consumed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not, but you are overlooking the most important point - gas will be much more expensive. And when the price of gas goes up the price of everything goes up, as gas is used to transport every consumer good in existence. So, plan, so far, reduces the standard of living of every single person in America by a significant amount.

[ QUOTE ]
And so as not to hurt the economy through extra taxes, we could lower income taxes by the same amount so that the revenues offset.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two policies in combination will make the tax system in general much much more regressive. Where the tax on gas affects everyone equally, the income tax gives the poor something of a break, and cutting the income tax really has no benefit to the poor. So, congratulations, plan makes the lives of the poor much much harder, as they have to pay more for everything they buy. More hungry kids, more destitute families, etc.

The income tax cut is actually a good idea (assuming a commensurate reduction spending, of course,) but it doesn't turn the Pigovian taxes into a good idea.

Whatever environmental benefits plan tries to claim...it's hard to see how they can outweigh reducing the standard of living of every poor person in America. And I would argue that the environmental benefits that would come from plan would be meager. A $1 per gallon increase in the price of gas would have a minimal change on the carbon output of this country, and really, we have no idea what the problem will be with global warming. It's folly to take drastic measures to solve a problem now when...

a) we don't know if the problem will really be all that bad
b) we have thirty years both to see what new technology comes out to deal with global-warming
c) there may very well be man-made solutions to global warming that don't involve destroying the standard of living of our lower class

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of letting the gov't decide the line between "moral" and "immoral" or even "good" and "bad", in terms of consumer decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Victor]

so do you think pro poker players should be taxed more than other citizens since gambling is sin?

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of letting the gov't decide the line between "moral" and "immoral" or even "good" and "bad", in terms of consumer decisions. The "environmental problems" are still up for debate, and there's already some scandal rumors from the "green" side regarding Gore and his carbon credit purchases (not claiming to be an expert, just heard about it yesterday. But it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made off of this environmental hysteria).

I don't get the part about improving the economy, either. I'm no economic expert, so maybe someone can clarify for me. Wouldn't taxing gas/oil ultimately hurt businesses? Meaning less production, less jobs, less $$$. So is it really a net save per capita? I'm really just curious, not saying you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I should clarify, Im not a huge fan of government deciding what to tax more heavily than others based on "sin" but more based on current problems that the market isnt addressing for whatever reason (generally flaws in our laws, not the free market theory). Some things that are legal are extemely harmfill (like cigarettes) and I have no problem taxing it more since it will lead to lower rates of useage. And a main reason I do that is becuase I live in canada, where we have a public health system. People who smoke cost our system way more than a non smoker in their lifetimes. To make up for that cost, tax them.


Based on what colin said, it wont hurt the economy. Gas will be more expensive but labour costs (wages) will decrease proportionally (since end of day take home pay, or what workers agree to recieve when they sign the contract, goes up).

It would actually help the US economy, which suffers from a lack of saving. This reduction in income tax, and increase in consumption tax results in more savings.

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
so do you think pro poker players should be taxed more than other citizens since gambling is sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

no I think people should pay their fair share. See my cigarette argument above.

[ahnuld]

Heres what Charles Wheelan wrote about a gas tax

Should we implement a federal carbon tax and/or significantly raise the gas tax?

My answer: Absolutely. If you believe in markets when they work well, then you have to understand how they need to be tweaked when they don't. If page 10 of any introductory economics text explains the wonders of supply and demand, page 12 usually explains that markets don't deliver an efficient outcome when eager buyers and sellers impose some harm, or negative externality, on a third party.

If I can change the oil in your car more cheaply than the competition by dumping the old oil in Lake Michigan, that's not the kind of market transaction that got Milton Friedman so excited. Yes, I make profits and you save money -- a mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange -- but anybody who cares about Lake Michigan is not happy at all, and they aren't represented in our little transaction.

When the price of some activity is artificially cheap because society is picking up part of the tab, people do too much of it. That's not the economically efficient outcome that markets usually deliver. One standard economic fix is to impose a tax on whatever private activity imposes the social cost; when the price of the activity goes up, people do less of it.

That's exactly what a carbon tax or a higher gas tax would do. There's nothing voluntary about me breathing your tailpipe emissions. If we raise the private cost of driving, people will be less likely to commute 60 miles alone in a Chevy Tahoe.

The optimal market outcome isn't always synonymous with doing nothing; in this case, the market works best when the government does something. That something happens to be a tax, or anything else that raises the cost of the polluting behavior.

[ahnuld]

Also, a dollar tax increase would not be fully paid by the consumer"

"A basic principle of tax analysis -- taught in most freshman economics courses -- is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer. In this case, as a higher gas tax discouraged oil consumption, the price of oil would fall in world markets. As a result, the price of gas to consumers would rise by less than the increase in the tax. Some of the tax would in effect be paid by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela."

[cbloom]

Gasoline usage is basically being heavily subsidized at the moment by our government, when you consider all the military activity due to gasoline, direct subsidies for energy companies, usage of nationally owned resources, the spending on roads & highways, etc. etc. When you start to consider the future cost of cleanup which will be paid by the government, we probably need at least $1/gallon tax just to break even.

[guids]

On the surface the pigovian tax described by the OP seems pretty facist to me, and the way the governtment of the US at least is setup, there would be way to much abuse of the system. Personally, the "sin" taxes should not come in the form of taxation from the govt imo, it should come from the people who have to deal with the consequences to make it more fair. Ie, not all people who smoke develop cancer, and not all people who drink develop cirrohsis, but the ones who do partake in such things should be taxed at the time they are to receive care, by the companies that do teh work. Im not sure how the medical aspects work, but Im sure it would be fairly simple if the lung cancer came from consistent cigarette use, and if it is, they should be taxed X amount of dollars to get their treatment (and technically this happens as smokers health insurance is higher to begin with), if they cant come up with the money, they suffer the consequences.

[guids]

Im under the assumption that letting the biggest "savers" have the biggest breaks would be terrible for our economy?

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
Im under the assumption that letting the biggest "savers" have the biggest breaks would be terrible for our economy?

[/ QUOTE ]


a main issue with america right now is a lack of domestic savings. If savers get tax breaks (not that I said they would, just responding to your post) then national savings rates go up, and you guys are on your way to fixing the balance of payments problems. Also, increased saving means lower interest rates (I can explain that if someone doesnt follow) which encourages economic growth.

[bobman0330]

Characterizing a gas tax as a sin tax is pretty absurd. I don't think most people are in favor of it because gasoline is morally objectionable, they favor it out of concerns about global warming and pollution.

I favor some sort of carbon-control mechanism, but my current, not-very-studied opinion is that a cap-and-trade system would be best. For those who aren't familiar, the basic idea is that the government would auction off permits for X tons of CO2 emission per year. Individuals could then sell the permits to willing buyers.

I see several advantages. First, it gives policymakers greater power to effect total carbon output. Second, all CO2 output is reached, rather than just focusing on gasoline. Third, a market in carbon permits would do a better job of allocating costs and carbon allowances than the government ever could.

[centaurmyth]

Pigovian tax laws more effectively address a finite supply of resources, not because of morality, nor in spite of it.
Sustainability becomes another facet of our economy, along with value, quality, and timeliness. It is not against them. But the value matrix shifts. Towards the private sector in our conversation about mass transit, which is +EV.
Towards sustainability in other areas.

It is a fallacy to judge this model based upon its perceived morality implications just because it can address sustainability.

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]

It is a fallacy to judge this model based upon its perceived morality implications just because it can address sustainability.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with nearly all of your comments in the thread including the fact that the morality angle detracts from why consumption related taxes are a positive thing. i probably shouldn't have even used morality in my initial post, but it seemed like the OP was using sin tax and consumption tax almost interchangeably.

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a fallacy to judge this model based upon its perceived morality implications just because it can address sustainability.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with nearly all of your comments in the thread including the fact that the morality angle detracts from why consumption related taxes are a positive thing. i probably shouldn't have even used morality in my initial post, but it seemed like the OP was using sin tax and consumption tax almost interchangeably.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree too, but for the record I barely said anything about sin taxes. It was 1/2 a line in the wiki entry saying sometimes ppl call them sin taxes. Thats it.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not, but you are overlooking the most important point - gas will be much more expensive. And when the price of gas goes up the price of everything goes up, as gas is used to transport every consumer good in existence. So, plan, so far, reduces the standard of living of every single person in America by a significant amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

How has this not been commented on?

BTW many local governments do tax gasoline heavily. I live in Howard County, MD where gas is 20 cents per gallon cheaper than in Montgomery County, MD. The bulk of this price difference comes from taxes levied by the Montgomery Country government.

[w_alloy]

The objections to the op by smart people in this thread are shocking to me. I thought it was commonly known by anyone who has ever taken an econ class that taxes of this type are the way to go. Externalities need to be taxed. My understanding is the government believes so too, with a few notable exceptions like gas tax, which is currently exempt for political reasons.

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not, but you are overlooking the most important point - gas will be much more expensive. And when the price of gas goes up the price of everything goes up, as gas is used to transport every consumer good in existence. So, plan, so far, reduces the standard of living of every single person in America by a significant amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

How has this not been commented on?

BTW many local governments do tax gasoline heavily. I live in Howard County, MD where gas is 20 cents per gallon cheaper than in Montgomery County, MD. The bulk of this price difference comes from taxes levied by the Montgomery Country government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did comment on that. One, gas costs will not increase much as the tax because the true price will go down (see my posts above). And 2, its just moving expenses around. None will be poorer, the money isnt evaporating like the first poster insinuates. The higher expenses are canceled out by lower income taxes. Consumers dont suffer at all on a net basis, they just pay more to consume, and keep more money they earn. The whole point of the tax is to make consuming gas less attractive and offer incentives to work harder and produce more. This would undoubtedly be a positive for the economy.


w alloy, thats part of the reason why I made this thread, because most people have some backwards thinking on economic theory.

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]
Externalities need to be taxed.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you mean "rather than" income not "in addition to" income? if so, i agree.

also, i think your contention that all smart people and a large percentage of government/politicians favor consumption taxes is, unfortunately, wrong.

[kidcolin]

w_alloy,

You added nothing to this thread. Not of all of us took econ classes /images/graemlins/smile.gif, so try and explain why.

ahnuld,

I don't see how this doesn't really hurt a lot of businesses.

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree too, but for the record I barely said anything about sin taxes. It was 1/2 a line in the wiki entry saying sometimes ppl call them sin taxes. Thats it.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, you're right - i only read it once and that jumped out at me - apologies. btw, good topic.

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
w_alloy,

You added nothing to this thread. Not of all of us took econ classes /images/graemlins/smile.gif, so try and explain why.

ahnuld,

I don't see how this doesn't really hurt a lot of businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

net costs dont increase for businesses. where is the harm?

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree too, but for the record I barely said anything about sin taxes. It was 1/2 a line in the wiki entry saying sometimes ppl call them sin taxes. Thats it.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, you're right - i only read it once and that jumped out at me - apologies. btw, good topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

apologies? we f*ck up, no need to kow-tow (except for mutual respect). i still want to know their influence upon poker, i haven't figured it out, a little help?

[diddle]

This thread is a scary example of how people with good intentions can [censored] things up terribly.

A gas tax definitively lowers the standard of living for poorer people.

I thought that price controls had already been dismissed by smart people because they are harmful. There is always a privileged group that benefits when price levels are artificially set. This comes at the expense of most everyone else.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a scary example of how people with good intentions can [censored] things up terribly.

A gas tax definitively lowers the standard of living for poorer people.

I thought that price controls had already been dismissed by smart people because they are harmful. There is always a privileged group that benefits when price levels are artificially set. This comes at the expense of most everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, this is such an incomplete analysis of the merits or detractions of consumptive taxation. your bashing of it is one-dimensional in its considerations (undecided).

tho, i understand fearing changes of this magnitude. to compensate, if it varies from the status quo, i up my standards in consideration of it. pigovian taxes have weight.

look at the thread again with an eye on multi-dimensional solutions. i've found that the more problems a service solves, the more value (higher price/greater distribution) it is worth.

[kyleb]

ahnuld,

These taxes are great in theory - but then you have the problem of the government deciding what is and what is not "bad" for us as individuals.

[diddle]

I defer to WillMagic's post.

I simply don't agree with artificially raising the cost of basic goods.

[lapoker17]

[ QUOTE ]


I simply don't agree with artificially raising the cost of basic goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, by your definition here, doesn't income tax already do this?

i mean, i agree with you if your point is that taxes are essentially evil (because govt constantly proves inept and corrupt wrt money) and that privatization and free markets are often the answer, but i'm not sure that's what you're saying.

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is a scary example of how people with good intentions can [censored] things up terribly.

A gas tax definitively lowers the standard of living for poorer people.

I thought that price controls had already been dismissed by smart people because they are harmful. There is always a privileged group that benefits when price levels are artificially set. This comes at the expense of most everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]


explain how a gas tax combined with income tax reductions lowers living standards plz.

[7ontheline]

Poor people use a comparatively higher amount of their income for basic necessary goods. The rich person may buy more expensive food/cars/goods etc., but in general poor and rich people will eat the same amount, drive the same amount, use the same amount of gas, electricity, etc. Obviously, this is not completely true, but this is why these purely consumption taxes are regressive. The income tax is a way of evening things out so that people who can afford to pay more do so and subsidize those with less.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
Poor people use a comparatively higher amount of their income for basic necessary goods. The rich person may buy more expensive food/cars/goods etc., but in general poor and rich people will eat the same amount, drive the same amount, use the same amount of gas, electricity, etc. Obviously, this is not completely true, but this is why these purely consumption taxes are regressive. The income tax is a way of evening things out so that people who can afford to pay more do so and subsidize those with less.

[/ QUOTE ]

this does not engage the issue sufficiently. it can be inferred that you are against it, but your reasoning is terse.

a different look at class inequality: let's say the same amount of money were taxed at the end of the day from the income and consumptive models overall. where then would you find problem with it?

[RiverFenix]

Do we agree the supply/demand curve looks something like this for gasoline consumption? Dont need to agree on equilibrium point but more interested on thoughts of the shape/properties of each curve. Gasoline demand is relatively inelastic for the possible price range and the supply curve is elastic but more linear. Yes/No?

If we agree on that the box represents the affects of a gasoline tax (if 42c wasnt high enough!). Ill chime in with more thoughts if people agree with the graph.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6081/gastaxht4.jpg

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Im a big fan of using force to get people to behave in line with my personal preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Pigovian tax laws more effectively address a finite supply of resources

[/ QUOTE ]

More effectively than what? Market pricing?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
explain how a gas tax combined with income tax reductions lowers living standards plz.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that a random poor person who pays $20 in gas taxes under this plan would have a $20 reduction in income tax?

If so, this plan *will* reduce everyone's standard of living. The reason is quite simple. A *lot* of gas is consumed by parties who pay no income tax at all.

Do you seriously think this will have no effect on prices? Anything that requires energy to produce or distribute will have higher costs, and income tax reductions are not going to offset these increases.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Maybe, maybe not, but you are overlooking the most important point - gas will be much more expensive. And when the price of gas goes up the price of everything goes up, as gas is used to transport every consumer good in existence. So, plan, so far, reduces the standard of living of every single person in America by a significant amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

How has this not been commented on?

BTW many local governments do tax gasoline heavily. I live in Howard County, MD where gas is 20 cents per gallon cheaper than in Montgomery County, MD. The bulk of this price difference comes from taxes levied by the Montgomery Country government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did comment on that. One, gas costs will not increase much as the tax because the true price will go down (see my posts above).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's just flat-out ridiculous. "See, by making this thing more expensive, we make it cheaper!" Not going to fly.

[ QUOTE ]
And 2, its just moving expenses around. None will be poorer, the money isnt evaporating like the first poster insinuates. The higher expenses are canceled out by lower income taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is non-responsive to my argument that an income tax cut...wait for it...doesn't help the poor because the poor pay almost nothing in income taxes.

[ QUOTE ]
Consumers dont suffer at all on a net basis, they just pay more to consume

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bad. Remember that "reduced standard of living" concept? This is what I was talking about.

[ QUOTE ]
and keep more money they earn.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is good. So why don't we do what leads to the latter, cut the income tax, while not doing what leads to the former, the Pigovian tax?

[ QUOTE ]
The whole point of the tax is to make consuming gas less attractive and offer incentives to work harder and produce more. This would undoubtedly be a positive for the economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, again, the latter would, but the former wouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]
w alloy, thats part of the reason why I made this thread, because most people have some backwards thinking on economic theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are saying that taxing something actually makes it cheaper, so...yeah, I guess that your reason for making the thread holds...

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
The higher expenses are canceled out by lower income taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a large portion of the US that doesn't pay any income tax. Students working part time for example.

[WillMagic]

RiverFenix,

I don't agree with your graph, at all. The idea that you could pull the demand curve out of thin air and have it be correct...yeah, no.

[blackize]

Btw, anyone who hasn't heard of the Fairtax proposal should really pick up a copy of the book Fairtax and check it out. It is a very interesting consumption tax that appears to be worlds better than our current income tax method.

Edit: I'd like to have some discussion on the subject in this thread or elsewhere if anyone else is interested.

[blackize]

Something that nobody seems to have considered yet:

The demand for gasoline is relatively resistant to price change. If you cut gas prices to .01/gallon there may be a small increase in demand but you won't have people driving in circles all day saying, "HOT DAMN THIS IS CHEAP GAS!" When you increase prices people still do the amount of driving they feel is necessary. They may not take the cross country family vacation and they may consolidate trips somewhat, but they will still drive to work every day and take Billy to soccer practice twice a week and drive to church on Sunday.

Also by artificially increasing the price of gas in such a way you are going to have a negative effect on a number of things. Foremost in my mind is housing prices. Right now the majority of Americans live in suburbs and commute relatively long distances to work. If we raise gas prices by a dollar tomorrow, their home values will drop significantly while properties in metropolitan areas will see a great appreciation in value. This would screw your average homeowner out of a lot of money, increase debt in America, and adversely affect the economy.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
I should clarify, Im not a huge fan of government deciding what to tax more heavily than others based on "sin" but more based on current problems that the market isnt addressing for whatever reason (generally flaws in our laws, not the free market theory). Some things that are legal are extemely harmfill (like cigarettes) and I have no problem taxing it more since it will lead to lower rates of useage. And a main reason I do that is becuase I live in canada, where we have a public health system. People who smoke cost our system way more than a non smoker in their lifetimes. To make up for that cost, tax them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent argument for why universal health care is bad.


[ QUOTE ]
Based on what colin said, it wont hurt the economy. Gas will be more expensive but labour costs (wages) will decrease proportionally (since end of day take home pay, or what workers agree to recieve when they sign the contract, goes up).

It would actually help the US economy, which suffers from a lack of saving. This reduction in income tax, and increase in consumption tax results in more savings.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great example of what is most irritating about your position. You keep trying to tie the income tax cut and the pigovian tax increase into the same policy, so that you can piggyback all the benefits that come from an income tax cut on to the pigovian tax.

That doesn't cut it. The Pigovian tax needs to stand as a good idea on its own, in the absence of an income tax cut. If it doesn't, then even if the combined policies are net beneficial, we should still just implement the income tax cut and discard the Pigovian tax.

So far all you've been doing is listing the benefits that come from the income tax cut. What are the actual benefits that come from the Pigovian tax?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, anyone who hasn't heard of the Fairtax proposal should really pick up a copy of the book Fairtax and check it out. It is a very interesting consumption tax that appears to be worlds better than our current income tax method.

Edit: I'd like to have some discussion on the subject in this thread or elsewhere if anyone else is interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be happy to discuss this with you in another thread, but I'd just like to point out that the concept of a "fair tax" is an oxymoron.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the first of two responses. The first will be a "i'm simply trying to win the debate, and advocate for the status quo" response, and the second will be a "i'm an anarcho-capitalist and here is a solution that you will think is off-the-wall but is really best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will -

Eagerly awaiting the second half of your contribution!

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we agree the supply/demand curve looks something like this for gasoline consumption? Dont need to agree on equilibrium point but more interested on thoughts of the shape/properties of each curve. Gasoline demand is relatively inelastic for the possible price range and the supply curve is elastic but more linear. Yes/No?

If we agree on that the box represents the affects of a gasoline tax (if 42c wasnt high enough!). Ill chime in with more thoughts if people agree with the graph.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6081/gastaxht4.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

At least in the near term, gas supply is a lot more inelastic than you propose. No matter what the price of gas is, the Saudis have nothing better to do with their land than pump out all the crude oil. Exxon has nothing better to do with crude oil than refine it and sell it. In the long-term, you'd expect to see less effort devoted to finding new reserves and to using complicated extraction procedures to up the yield of wells, but given the enormous profits oil companies make, it's possible that effect won't be substantial.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
At least in the near term, gas supply is a lot more inelastic than you propose. No matter what the price of gas is, the Saudis have nothing better to do with their land than pump out all the crude oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

They limit production currently. They can increase or decrease the worldwide supply almost at will.

[El Diablo]

All,

Regarding the uneven impact of consumption taxes on the poor. What if everyone had a certain exemption. Say, taxes on $xxx of good, $xxx of gas, etc are all rebated?

I guess what I'm proposing is elimnation of income tax and then a substantial consumption tax on everything above some basic threshold levels.

[lapoker17]

yes diablo. there is a component like that in a number of the consumption based proposals. makes good sense to me.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
what I'm proposing is elimnation of income tax and then a substantial consumption tax on everything above some basic threshold levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

ditto.

obv, most of the debate, especially by the detractors, has been centered around incomplete information... for a bunch of poker players, who would have thought?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

All,

Regarding the uneven impact of consumption taxes on the poor. What if everyone had a certain exemption. Say, taxes on $xxx of good, $xxx of gas, etc are all rebated?

I guess what I'm proposing is elimnation of income tax and then a substantial consumption tax on everything above some basic threshold levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fairtax bill includes something like this. The way it is worded in the bill, everyone receives a rebate based on the taxes incurred for basic cost of living based on their family size.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im a big fan of using force to get people to behave in line with my personal preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

spreading AC to the EDF = Brilliant!

[TyFuji]

Not an econ person here, but wouldn't lowering the amount of Gas consumed hurt the economy?

I'm not sure, but I think that there are other more complex ripples to just increasing the price of gas.

My guess is that it would hurt the economy in the short run, but the demand for a cheap, clean gas (that the government wouldn't tax, obviously) would result in a new widely accepted fuel standard a number of years down the line.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is the first of two responses. The first will be a "i'm simply trying to win the debate, and advocate for the status quo" response, and the second will be a "i'm an anarcho-capitalist and here is a solution that you will think is off-the-wall but is really best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will -

Eagerly awaiting the second half of your contribution!

[/ QUOTE ]

Right.

Sell the roads.

Seriously, the government should sell the roads.

From a great post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4672114&page=0&vc=1) on the subject by Borodog:

"Pollution costs would no longer be externalized. Currently the costs of pollution from traffic is externalized, i.e. the people pumping out the pollution do not have to pay for the damages it causes. If the roads were privately owned and were polluting the air and affecting neighboring properties, they would be liable to lawsuits. In fact, they would probably be sued so often they would just negotiate payment schedules with surrounding properties owners to compensate them for their damages. This would be a internalized cost that the road companies would pass on to their customers. There would be incentives to purchase, and hence incentives to develop, ever lower-emissions vehicles because the the roads would be cheaper for the owners who drove cleaner vehicles."

There's other points that follow from this. Isn't it interesting that most of the transportation of goods in this country is done by truck and not by train? Trains should be much cheaper - they are more powerful, they run much, much more efficiently...but they aren't subsidized. So businesses use trucks, because the incentives have changed, which means that pollution is significantly higher than it should be.

Oh, and for those of you who have arguments to make against this idea, you should read the Borodog post I linked to above, because it's very thorough and refutes many of the basic arguments against private roads.

EDIT: I'm not trying to discourage responses with my last point, I do like debating this out, I'm just saying you don't want to look silly when make your argument and I can respond with a verbatim quote from Boro's post.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Regarding the uneven impact of consumption taxes on the poor. What if everyone had a certain exemption. Say, taxes on $xxx of good, $xxx of gas, etc are all rebated?

I guess what I'm proposing is elimnation of income tax and then a substantial consumption tax on everything above some basic threshold levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a negative sales tax (a riff off of Milton Friedman's negative income tax.) It might suck slightly less than the current system. That's not saying much though.

The most important factor in determining how bad a tax will be is not how the tax will be collected but how much money it will take away from the taxpayers. Fundamentally taxes hurt people, no matter what form they come in. If your plan would take less money than the current plan, then it would be better, if it took more it would be worse.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

The most important factor in determining how bad a tax will be is not how the tax will be collected but how much money it will take away from the taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something to be said for changing the way our taxes are collected and levied. Eliminating the need for volumes upon volumes of tax code makes it so that millions of Americans don't have to spend countless hours or dollars figuring out their burden to get their "refund". I put refund in quotes because it is money they should have had all along, held for them without interest.

The fairtax bill I keep referencing addresses all of this by making a simple flat tax on consumption which eliminates the complexity. Since it is a mandatory pay as you go system, taking hours to do your taxes or paying a CPA to do them is no longer necessary and the money and time that is otherwise consumed by the complexity of the tax code can be put to better use. It would be collected at the register in the same way that state sales taxes are, eliminating the need for the IRS.

[centaurmyth]

[ QUOTE ]
There is something to be said for changing the way our taxes are collected and levied. Eliminating the need for volumes upon volumes of tax code makes it so that millions of Americans don't have to spend countless hours or dollars figuring out their burden to get their "refund". I put refund in quotes because it is money they should have had all along, held for them without interest.

The fairtax bill I keep referencing addresses all of this by making a simple flat tax on consumption which eliminates the complexity. Since it is a mandatory pay as you go system, taking hours to do your taxes or paying a CPA to do them is no longer necessary and the money and time that is otherwise consumed by the complexity of the tax code can be put to better use. It would be collected at the register in the same way that state sales taxes are, eliminating the need for the IRS.

[/ QUOTE ]

EXACTLY. And, to boot, investments are taxed at cost, not gain. Savers are blessed, and investors doubly so.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The most important factor in determining how bad a tax will be is not how the tax will be collected but how much money it will take away from the taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something to be said for changing the way our taxes are collected and levied. Eliminating the need for volumes upon volumes of tax code makes it so that millions of Americans don't have to spend countless hours or dollars figuring out their burden to get their "refund". I put refund in quotes because it is money they should have had all along, held for them without interest.

The fairtax bill I keep referencing addresses all of this by making a simple flat tax on consumption which eliminates the complexity. Since it is a mandatory pay as you go system, taking hours to do your taxes or paying a CPA to do them is no longer necessary and the money and time that is otherwise consumed by the complexity of the tax code can be put to better use. It would be collected at the register in the same way that state sales taxes are, eliminating the need for the IRS.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only quibble is I personally think it's better for taxes to be collected in a haphazard and inefficient way. That way less gets collected and it's much easier for people to "evade," both good things from my perspective.

But other than that what you're saying isn't false. My original point still holds, though.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

My only quibble is I personally think it's better for taxes to be collected in a haphazard and inefficient way. That way less gets collected and it's much easier for people to "evade," both good things from my perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to an extent. I see taxes as a necessary evil. There are a number of things that I think the government needs to provide for citizens. But our government goes too far and increases its spending every year.

Inefficient collection might make it easier to evade or to ensure that less gets collected, but it seems like this just increases the burden on honest citizens. Every dollar that the IRS spends researching how internet gambling works(to catch evaders) is a dollar of some honest person's payment. In reality, that dollar costs a good deal more than a dollar to the taxpayer once you factor in the loss of interest, the man hours he spent preparing his return, and the dollars he spent on the accountant. So while inefficient collections are better for the few who get away with evasion, it makes things worse on everyone else several times over.

[ahnuld]

According to the frasier institute, 13 cents out of every tax dollar collected is currently being spend on doing taxes and tax compliance.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a number of things that I think the government needs to provide for citizens. But our government goes too far and increases its spending every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Do you think it's possible to ever contain this beast?

2) Why do you think government is the only way of providing these certain things?

2b) What exactly are these things that need to be provided by government?

2c) How is it determined whether good/service X is or is not in this special class of things that must be provided by government?

3) Even if you can show that government is required to provide X, Y and Z, how do you justifiy forcibly including anyone in a given government?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a number of things that I think the government needs to provide for citizens. But our government goes too far and increases its spending every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Do you think it's possible to ever contain this beast?

2) Why do you think government is the only way of providing these certain things?

2b) What exactly are these things that need to be provided by government?

2c) How is it determined whether good/service X is or is not in this special class of things that must be provided by government?

3) Even if you can show that government is required to provide X, Y and Z, how do you justifiy forcibly including anyone in a given government?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with people who believe in state-based programs being "necessary" is that they will use arguments that cannot be empirically proven to be true.

Your points are good, and I agree, but there's no way that anyone can answer these questions in a satisfactory manner. I think you know that, though.

[WillMagic]

kyle,

Yeah, we know. It's why we're anarchists and not minarchists.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

1) Do you think it's possible to ever contain this beast?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take it from the tone of this first question that you think government is almost entirely unnecessary. I agree for the most part, but I think that scaling the government in this country back entirely is too difficult and very unlikely.

To answer this question, yes I think it is possible to reign in government spending. I don't think it is likely any time soon.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Why do you think government is the only way of providing these certain things?

[/ QUOTE ]

The key things I feel the government needs to provide I can't imagine getting from another means. I think you'll see what I mean when I answer 2b.

[ QUOTE ]

2b) What exactly are these things that need to be provided by government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just off the top of my head here:

Police
Fire/Rescue personnel
MVA/DMV motor services including vehicle registration and driver licensing
A defensive military force
Justice system(judges, court appointed attorneys, prisons etc.)

[ QUOTE ]

2c) How is it determined whether good/service X is or is not in this special class of things that must be provided by government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the services I listed above require the people give up a great deal of authority to whoever carries out those tasks. I believe that government is the most effective vehicle to carry out those services, especially the protective services(Military, Police, Fire/Rescue).

[ QUOTE ]
3) Even if you can show that government is required to provide X, Y and Z, how do you justifiy forcibly including anyone in a given government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this just seems a little ridiculous. If you don't like the laws of the land, move elsewhere. If you believe that we should live in a world without law, then you're out of luck. The rest of us don't want the sick people out there free to rape, murder, or steal. To prevent these things a law must be present and someone must have authority to enforce that law. By giving up the power to enforce it, you are in effect creating government. It seems like government is a societal necessity.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that scaling the government in this country back entirely is too difficult and very unlikely.

To answer this question, yes I think it is possible to reign in government spending. I don't think it is likely any time soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could change that would improve the likelyhood of this?

[ QUOTE ]
The key things I feel the government needs to provide I can't imagine getting from another means.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you see why this is a horrible argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2b) What exactly are these things that need to be provided by government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just off the top of my head here:

Police
Fire/Rescue personnel
MVA/DMV motor services including vehicle registration and driver licensing
A defensive military force
Justice system(judges, court appointed attorneys, prisons etc.)

[ QUOTE ]

2c) How is it determined whether good/service X is or is not in this special class of things that must be provided by government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the services I listed above require the people give up a great deal of authority to whoever carries out those tasks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a bad thing. And false, to boot. I don't have to give up any authority to protect my property. In fact, giving up authority is directly counter to protecting my property.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that government is the most effective vehicle to carry out those services, especially the protective services(Military, Police, Fire/Rescue).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this just a gut feeling?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Even if you can show that government is required to provide X, Y and Z, how do you justifiy forcibly including anyone in a given government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this just seems a little ridiculous. If you don't like the laws of the land, move elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the question. Why do you need to include me in your government in order for it to work? Saying that it is "the law of the land" is more than just dodging the question, it's begging it.

I don't have to move in order to use a different grocery store than you.

I don't have to move in order to use a different barber than you.

I don't have to move in order to use a different bank than you.

Now, why is police, fire, road provision any different?

I am on *my property* (or so I'm told). Now, why do I need to be forcibly subjected to someone else's rules and regulations?

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe that we should live in a world without law, then you're out of luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about that?

[ QUOTE ]
The rest of us don't want the sick people out there free to rape, murder, or steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, your government has solved those problems?

[blackize]

Until you show that you are open to discussion on these points rather than DUCY arguments, this will be my last post on this subject.

[ QUOTE ]

What could change that would improve the likelyhood of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would require educating the masses to either get better politicians or rebel. An event cause is much more likely to spark this sort of change. Something like the complete destruction of DC.

[ QUOTE ]

The key things I feel the government needs to provide I can't imagine getting from another means. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you see why this is a horrible argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't an argument. It is just a statement that I can't think of a better way of providing certain things. How do you propose to handle the creation of and enforcement of law?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to give up any authority to protect my property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, say the United States government becomes your ideal government tomorrow(Monday). Say on Tuesday China invades. Who rounds up the troops, who strategically deploys them, etc. National defense and a number of other property protection services require that you give up authority.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, why is police, fire, road provision any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first two aren't services that can be paid for as they're needed. Police and fire protection require men and resources 365 days a year 24 hours a day. You wouldn't be able to afford their services if they charged on a per incident basis.

[ QUOTE ]

If you believe that we should live in a world without law, then you're out of luck.[ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I have inferred from your posts that you believe there should be laws but that you should be able to pick and choose which laws apply to you. Laws would become meaningless in this fashion and thus we would live in a world without law.

[ QUOTE ]

The rest of us don't want the sick people out there free to rape, murder, or steal.[ QUOTE ]
Oh, your government has solved those problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a counterpoint. My point was that in your lawless society the people above are free to do as they please. In a society with law they may still choose to disobey the law but will be imprisoned for it, thus decreasing the people on the street who are looking to commit such atrocities.

Edit: In addition to the last part, I'm sure you agree that murderers, thieves, rapists, and the like all need to be punished or removed from society. It would be best if they could be rehabilitated and become productive members of society. I don't know of any way to do this so we settle for imprisonment and execution as both deterrents and to keep them from committing the crime again at least for the term of their incarceration. How do you reconcile the need to imprison or kill another person with your belief that you don't have to give up authority to anyone? Who are you to deny another person his right to life or freedom when you believe that you do not have to give such authority to another?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a counterpoint. My point was that in your lawless society the people above are free to do as they please. In a society with law they may still choose to disobey the law but will be imprisoned for it, thus decreasing the people on the street who are looking to commit such atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever considered the idea that if you get caught killing someone that you will be killed by someone else in retaliation?

[ahnuld]

klyeb makes alot of good points in terms of what government should provide. Id just want to add goods that we cant separate on a per user basis, such as a dam that protects a whole city, where if you provide one person, you provide them all with the service.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you ever considered the idea that if you get caught killing someone that you will be killed by someone else in retaliation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that the murderer/rapist/thief won't be caught with a dedicated police force?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Have you ever considered the idea that if you get caught killing someone that you will be killed by someone else in retaliation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered that the murderer/rapist/thief won't be caught with a dedicated police force?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes, I have. This happens all the time.

[blackize]

Then how do you propose that said police force works? According to you and pvn, it has no authority over the people so it can't detain, kill, or injure the criminal. Let's not forget that without the current threat obstruction of justice charges significantly more crimes would go unsolved.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you propose to handle the creation of and enforcement of law?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I also don't propose how to handle the growing, processing, and distribution of food. But it happens, because people like to eat.

Centrally-planned "this should be done in such-and-such manner" answers are exactly the problem, not the solution.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to give up any authority to protect my property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, say the United States government becomes your ideal government tomorrow(Monday).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oxymoron, but lets go with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Say on Tuesday China invades. Who rounds up the troops, who strategically deploys them, etc. National defense and a number of other property protection services require that you give up authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

All you've done is shown that rapid change leads to a large number of unsatisfied demands. You've done nothing to demonstrate that a market in defense services is impossible, and you've done nothing to show that individuals must give up authority to obtain such defense.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, why is police, fire, road provision any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first two aren't services that can be paid for as they're needed. Police and fire protection require men and resources 365 days a year 24 hours a day. You wouldn't be able to afford their services if they charged on a per incident basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about requiring that they be paid for on a per-incident basis? I can afford insurance. I can afford the taxes that are levied now to pay for this stuff. Why can I suddenly not afford it when I'm free to procure it in an open, competitive market?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you believe that we should live in a world without law, then you're out of luck.[ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I have inferred from your posts that you believe there should be laws but that you should be able to pick and choose which laws apply to you. Laws would become meaningless in this fashion and thus we would live in a world without law.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to make logical leaps. You fill in blanks with whatever pops into your head, then you accuse me of not being interested in discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The rest of us don't want the sick people out there free to rape, murder, or steal.[ QUOTE ]
Oh, your government has solved those problems?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a counterpoint. My point was that in your lawless society the people above are free to do as they please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently they are free to do as they please in this society, too.

[ QUOTE ]
In a society with law they may still choose to disobey the law but will be imprisoned for it, thus decreasing the people on the street who are looking to commit such atrocities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you assume there is no accountability without a monopolized police force?

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: In addition to the last part, I'm sure you agree that murderers, thieves, rapists, and the like all need to be punished or removed from society. It would be best if they could be rehabilitated and become productive members of society. I don't know of any way to do this so we settle for imprisonment and execution as both deterrents and to keep them from committing the crime again at least for the term of their incarceration. How do you reconcile the need to imprison or kill another person with your belief that you don't have to give up authority to anyone? Who are you to deny another person his right to life or freedom when you believe that you do not have to give such authority to another?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who am I denying the right to life or freedom to? You're the one saying that imprisonment is a "need". If a man wants to associate with murderers and rapists, I have no objection to him doing so.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Then how do you propose that said police force works? According to you and pvn, it has no authority over the people so it can't detain, kill, or injure the criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone initiates a coercive transaction against my will, that person has no legitimate expection of my reaction; in fact, he would be wise to expect that force will be returned in order to stop or close that transaction.

Do you think self-defense is illegitimate for individuals, that only the state can rightfully protect you?

[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget that without the current threat obstruction of justice charges significantly more crimes would go unsolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes. We all feel safer with Martha safely behind bars.

Let me ask you this: would you prefer to associate with people who cooperation with criminal investigations, or would you prefer not to associate with them?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Then how do you propose that said police force works? According to you and pvn, it has no authority over the people so it can't detain, kill, or injure the criminal. Let's not forget that without the current threat obstruction of justice charges significantly more crimes would go unsolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

You said that murderers/rapists/etc don't get caught using the current police force. I don't disagree.

If you meant that without a police force, people won't get caught, I'm not sure why people can't defend themselves against coercion/force. Typically bad [censored] happens to you because you put yourself in that position.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how do you propose that said police force works? According to you and pvn, it has no authority over the people so it can't detain, kill, or injure the criminal. Let's not forget that without the current threat obstruction of justice charges significantly more crimes would go unsolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

You said that murderers/rapists/etc don't get caught using the current police force. I don't disagree.

If you meant that without a police force, people won't get caught, I'm not sure why people can't defend themselves against coercion/force. Typically bad [censored] happens to you because you put yourself in that position.

[/ QUOTE ]

People get confused by the variance. Sure, you might get away with robbing a bank. But try making a career out of it.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how do you propose that said police force works? According to you and pvn, it has no authority over the people so it can't detain, kill, or injure the criminal. Let's not forget that without the current threat obstruction of justice charges significantly more crimes would go unsolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

You said that murderers/rapists/etc don't get caught using the current police force. I don't disagree.

If you meant that without a police force, people won't get caught, I'm not sure why people can't defend themselves against coercion/force. Typically bad [censored] happens to you because you put yourself in that position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people can't defend themselves against coercion/force. They also can't fight their own fires. I'm not sure how anyone can't see that. Police/fire etc are provided for everyone by the government because 'we' have decided that everyone deserves the protection of law and from fires, regardless of their income/ability to carry water in buckets.

Since most people can't defend themselves, there is a definite need for police forces of some kind. Private police companies would be a logistical nightmare (just think of the jurisdictional problems). You could always have mafia type policing, ala Goodfellas, which is pretty good, but has absolutely no oversight, and allows certain elements absolute power.

So far you have argued a lot, but provided no viable alternative to having a state-run police/fire service.

[kyleb]

If police and fire coverage is so necessary, then there would obviously be a service that provided coverage that you could pay for if you so desired.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
If police and fire coverage is so necessary, then there would obviously be a service that provided coverage that you could pay for if you so desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the society you want to live in, I really can't argue with that. But this system would create a huge underclass that couldn't afford coverage. I suppose we can spend our weekends hunting them for sport, flushing them out of their apartment buildings with molotov cocktails.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If police and fire coverage is so necessary, then there would obviously be a service that provided coverage that you could pay for if you so desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the society you want to live in, I really can't argue with that. But this system would create a huge underclass that couldn't afford coverage. I suppose we can spend our weekends hunting them for sport, flushing them out of their apartment buildings with molotov cocktails.

[/ QUOTE ]

We live in a society where the underclass can't afford medical insurance or various other protections, we are taxed at every turn, our government is ridiculously inefficient and unaccountable to the sovereign, and we are denied civil liberties and rights on a daily basis.

Get this fact of life through your head: Life will suck for many people in the world regardless of what you or anyone else does to save them. This does not render false the idea that you should help them, but expecting miracles to be performed by an inefficient organization is fairly ridiculous.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people can't defend themselves against coercion/force. They also can't fight their own fires. I'm not sure how anyone can't see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't build a car. I certainly can't afford the factories and stuff needed to build one, but I have one. I have no idea how a pencil is constructed, much less delivered to Wal-Mart, but I am still able to write.

[ QUOTE ]
Police/fire etc are provided for everyone by the government because 'we' have decided that everyone deserves the protection of law and from fires, regardless of their income/ability to carry water in buckets.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, there you go. If you decide that everyone should have (whatever), then go right ahead and give everyone that whatever. Nobody cares. The point in contention is where you make other people pay for it. Because when you say "we decide X, so we pay for X" the "we" that is doing the deciding is not quite the same as the "we" who is doing the paying.

[ QUOTE ]
Since most people can't defend themselves, there is a definite need for police forces of some kind. Private police companies would be a logistical nightmare (just think of the jurisdictional problems).

[/ QUOTE ]

What problems? In my neighborhood, there are at least five different guys mowing yards. There is no conflict between them, even though they are competing for my business. They are not impaired by the presense of other yard-mowers in the area.

[ QUOTE ]
You could always have mafia type policing, ala Goodfellas, which is pretty good, but has absolutely no oversight, and allows certain elements absolute power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could argue that if you wanted a state, you could have north korea. If we're just going to pick the worst possible example and go with that, states beat the mafia by a factor of about thirty xillion.

[ QUOTE ]
So far you have argued a lot, but provided no viable alternative to having a state-run police/fire service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Should a murder suspect, in order to go free, be compelled to prove who actually committed the murder?

I want to shoot an old lady in the head. The old lady objects. Should she be expected to provide me with a "viable alternative" to shooting her in the head? The burden of proof is on the party which makes the claim. If the proponents of the state want to claim that their monopoly (whatever) service and the coercive funding scheme that goes with it is justified, let them present the case. The opponents of that have no obligation to provide any counter.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If police and fire coverage is so necessary, then there would obviously be a service that provided coverage that you could pay for if you so desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the society you want to live in, I really can't argue with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you *are* arguing with that. If you support any territorial monopoly, you are arguing with that.

[ QUOTE ]
But this system would create a huge underclass that couldn't afford coverage.

[/ QUOTE ]

This system does not create that underclass. The underclass already exists.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose we can spend our weekends hunting them for sport, flushing them out of their apartment buildings with molotov cocktails.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetical. You're given a 24-hour total law enforcement immunity card. Do you go out and start killing bums?

[ahnuld]

pvn,

all the economic principles you are thinking of regarding free markets being way more efficient are correct, but they all depend on property rights and contracts being upheld. If those two things do not occur, we cannot really trade and society revents back to growing ones own food. The reason we need public law and protection is so property rights are respected and contract is upheld. You seem to be suggesting a system where we buy our own protection, but then couldnt the richest just take what he wanted since he can buy the most protection? In the long run under that system everyone is worse off.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]

We live in a society where the underclass can't afford medical insurance or various other protections, we are taxed at every turn, our government is ridiculously inefficient and unaccountable to the sovereign, and we are denied civil liberties and rights on a daily basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but this is pretty much irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]

Get this fact of life through your head: Life will suck for many people in the world regardless of what you or anyone else does to save them. This does not render false the idea that you should help them, but expecting miracles to be performed by an inefficient organization is fairly ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't paint me as some dewy-eyed communist. Keeping law and order among the poor is not just a 'miracle' that we provide out of the goodness of our hearts. We have strong economic incentives to keep poor people safe and working. There is an economic cost to increase in crime, not to mention the loss of security.

How exactly would your police coverage work? Would there still be police on the streets, or is this coverage for home use only? What is to prevent rampant street crime? Would your coverage include a bodygaurd?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


Hypothetical. You're given a 24-hour total law enforcement immunity card. Do you go out and start killing bums?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I do start robbing banks, mugging people, stealing cars, and robbing houses.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Hypothetical. You're given a 24-hour total law enforcement immunity card. Do you go out and start killing bums?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I do start robbing banks, mugging people, stealing cars, and robbing houses.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically hoping that you won't run into someone that has a gun or can kick the [censored] out of you?

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Hypothetical. You're given a 24-hour total law enforcement immunity card. Do you go out and start killing bums?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I do start robbing banks, mugging people, stealing cars, and robbing houses.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're basically hoping that you won't run into someone that has a gun or can kick the [censored] out of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you honestly trying to argue that eliminating police protection won't increase crime in poor areas?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
How exactly would your police coverage work? Would there still be police on the streets, or is this coverage for home use only? What is to prevent rampant street crime? Would your coverage include a bodygaurd?

[/ QUOTE ]

They haven't addressed many of the problems involved in a privatized police force, and I doubt that they can.

Why is it a good idea to give the police force a financial incentive to create a need for its services?

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]


So you're basically hoping that you won't run into someone that has a gun or can kick the [censored] out of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm going to have my gun drawn when I commit these crimes. I'm expecting that I won't run into anyone who can draw their gun faster than I can blow them away with mine already drawn.

Your response also ignores the fact that I can go from house to house looting people who I know aren't home.

[kidcolin]

ugh this is terrible.

[ QUOTE ]
Your response also ignores the fact that I can go from house to house looting people who I know aren't home.

[/ QUOTE ]

Security systems? This can happen with a public police force, too. I don't really see your point. A neighborhood can collectively agree on purchasing a neighborhood patrol unit. I don't even know that I disagree with you, blackize, but you're doing a really terrible job of providing examples and reasoning.

I like reading through some of the AC threads because I find it interesting and it's something I haven't thought a ton about, but you guys realize you blow up every thread you touch, right? You're like messageboard terrorists.

[sledghammer]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since most people can't defend themselves, there is a definite need for police forces of some kind. Private police companies would be a logistical nightmare (just think of the jurisdictional problems).

[/ QUOTE ]

What problems? In my neighborhood, there are at least five different guys mowing yards. There is no conflict between them, even though they are competing for my business. They are not impaired by the presense of other yard-mowers in the area.

[ QUOTE ]
So far you have argued a lot, but provided no viable alternative to having a state-run police/fire service.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? Should a murder suspect, in order to go free, be compelled to prove who actually committed the murder?

I want to shoot an old lady in the head. The old lady objects. Should she be expected to provide me with a "viable alternative" to shooting her in the head? The burden of proof is on the party which makes the claim. If the proponents of the state want to claim that their monopoly (whatever) service and the coercive funding scheme that goes with it is justified, let them present the case. The opponents of that have no obligation to provide any counter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to learn that analogies are not arguments, especially not your analogies. Yard-mowers are not police. YOU are the one making a claim that we don't need a universal police force, so YOU have to support it. How would you ever think otherwise? You must write some wierd letters to your senator.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
Security systems?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people don't have them and a great number can't afford them. And for a security system to be effective it has to call the police. Under privatized police force this is paying for the security twice.

Edit: That is without considering the fact that the people we are discussing don't have anything worth securing with a security system

[ QUOTE ]
This can happen with a public police force, too. I don't really see your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypothetical was posed as a response to this

[ QUOTE ]
If police and fire coverage is so necessary, then there would obviously be a service that provided coverage that you could pay for if you so desired. [ QUOTE ]
But this system would create a huge underclass that couldn't afford coverage. I suppose we can spend our weekends hunting them for sport, flushing them out of their apartment buildings with molotov cocktails.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was to illustrate that the people who cannot afford police coverage are at a much greater risk under this proposed private police force. That is unless of course you believe that criminals are so dumb that they wouldn't target those who have no police protection and are likely to be spending 16 hours a day out of the house working. I mean look at any riot, the first thing people do when they realize the police are too busy to stop them is start looting.

[ QUOTE ]
A neighborhood can collectively agree on purchasing a neighborhood patrol unit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is irrelevant since we are discussing those who cannot afford protection.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know that I disagree with you, blackize, but you're doing a really terrible job of providing examples and reasoning.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've done an adequate job of providing examples. My thinking on this is muddled since I haven't given it any consideration outside of the last day, so my reasoning may not be sound or effectively communicated in some areas.

[tomdemaine]

If you can't afford simple protection what do you have that is worth stealing?

[blackize]

Even the very poorest Americans have TVs

[El Diablo]

All,

Locking this thread now.

I remind you of this paragraph from the rules.

"Politics and opinion threads: I'm all for them. However, I'm not for circular, repetitive arguments. And I'm not for stupid bickering. So, offer your thoughts and rebuttals to points people make. But do one round of that. Don't respond back with the same point you already made. If three people have made the point already, don't pile on repeating the same thing. Don't make snarky, trolling posts. An occassional witty rip on someone is of course fine. And, yes, I'll make arbitrary judgements about what falls into each category. I'm happy to have discussions about anything, just don't want them to erupt into long bitchfests."

Keep this in mind. Next thread like this we'll do some forum exiling.