|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 21, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You mean, if the climate deteriorates because of carbondioxide it was ok, since people paid their dues?
If people are willing to accept the full costs of their actions, then it's fine. The thing is, in most transactions, the only people involved are the buyer and the seller. Not so when it comes to cars.
Quote:
Why should THEY suddenly suffer, when you could simply FORCE the car manufacturers via law to reduce carbondioxide production of their cars?
Two reasons: a gas tax is much less coercive, and also because with a gas tax you can have trade-offs (that is, a guy could choose to pay more and keep driving a fuel-inefficient car, instead of being forced to switch).
Quote:
Well, people don't need 8 cylinders and 400 HPs either. It's capitalism, remember?
That's why I'm not banning anything. I'm just making people pay for the consequences of their actions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 08:11 AM |
|
|
And here is the flaw in your line of thinking:
Quote:
Quote:
You mean, if the climate deteriorates because of carbondioxide it was ok, since people paid their dues?
If people are willing to accept the full costs of their actions, then it's fine. The thing is, in most transactions, the only people involved are the buyer and the seller. Not so when it comes to cars.
Quote:
Well, people don't need 8 cylinders and 400 HPs either. It's capitalism, remember?
That's why I'm not banning anything. I'm just making people pay for the consequences of their actions.
See the bold print? Because there are more people involved than buyer and seller, THE PEOPLE INVOLVED have to live with the consequences of those who are willing to pay. However, I (and many others) don't want to live with the consequences of others not caring and having a big wallet:
Let's say, we had no indoor plumbing and people would still empty their waste onto the streets. Now, apart from the stink and the rats scientists found out that this is a good climate for all kinds of plagues, so it might be a good idea to do something about it. Something like indoor plumbing and canalisation would come in handy in the long run, but of course that will cost money to install and a lot of time. In the meantime people may help themselves by building a cess pit with an outhouse, getting the waste from the streets...
Someone comes up with the idea of a waste tax: you can still empty your waste into the streets, provided you pay the tax, instead of troubling yourself with digging pits and building outhouses.
Which means, those who build it, will still have the waste in front of their doorstep, the rats under their feet and the stink in their noses because there are those who just pay for the right to damage everyone else.
Which leaves the law.
Tell the industry how things have to be - this is common practise: you don't put a tax an products having made in works without proper filter systems to encourage the industry to build them, you make a law ordering them to do it if they want to produce. Period. That's what the government is supposed to do:
protecting health and lifes of all people under their jurisdiction and not protecting the right of the wallet to do as much damage as much can buy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's say, we had no indoor plumbing and people would still empty their waste onto the streets. Now, apart from the stink and the rats scientists found out that this is a good climate for all kinds of plagues, so it might be a good idea to do something about it.
If you look at it from an objective point of view, why should we be destroying those rats' habitats? [/TheDeath] 
And yeah, I don't see your point. A waste tax would've been better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 03:19 PM |
|
|
In that case I've nothing to add - you probably wouldn't even see the point then if you had to wade knee deep through the waste in spite of the fact that you had built a nice a little cess pit, while the taxes raised from those whose fault that was would busily be spent on air refreshener produced by said tax payers.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you look at it from an objective point of view, why should we be destroying those rats' habitats? [/TheDeath]
Waste isn't natural. So maybe artificial habitat
Quote:
And yeah, I don't see your point. A waste tax would've been better.
Look, they pay the waste tax. But what about YOU, let's say, the freaking neighbour? You still have to smell that **** if the other dude still wastes and pays the damn tax.
That would be like saying: let's calculate the WORTH of a human being in society (economically speaking, I'm sure it's no problem for capitalism), and when a criminal kills, we'll just make him pay that amount, possibly twice as much so we gain something from it. If he does, he's free to go. LOL
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 10:45 PM |
|
|
Well, actually the situation with waste is even easier solved than the one with gasoline - just use the Coase theorem.
Quote:
when a criminal kills, we'll just make him pay that amount, possibly twice as much so we gain something from it. If he does, he's free to go
That's completely ignoring the concept of trade-offs. With pollution, some people are harmed, and some people (more than one - as it arises as a consequence of voluntary exchange) are helped. With murder, one person is harmed (greatly), and one person may be helped.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's completely ignoring the concept of trade-offs. With pollution, some people are harmed, and some people (more than one - as it arises as a consequence of voluntary exchange) are helped. With murder, one person is harmed (greatly), and one person may be helped.
LOL I'm sorry, is it just me being tired as it's 5 AM, or did you actually imply that a criminal paying is not ok, but if it's systematic murder like say mafia or something organized ("multiple" persons), that it's ok? Nevermind the fact that it's going to be way cheaper (individual vs organization... clearly a no-brainer which one can better pay, right?).
how arbitrary... 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
LOL I'm sorry, is it just me being tired as it's 5 AM, or did you actually imply that a criminal paying is not ok, but if it's systematic murder like say mafia or something organized ("multiple" persons), that it's ok?
Nope, because if it's a mafia killing, then the mafia is the killer - so it's not "multiple" persons.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 07:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, actually the situation with waste is even easier solved than the one with gasoline - just use the Coase theorem.
Quote:
when a criminal kills, we'll just make him pay that amount, possibly twice as much so we gain something from it. If he does, he's free to go
That's completely ignoring the concept of trade-offs. With pollution, some people are harmed, and some people (more than one - as it arises as a consequence of voluntary exchange) are helped. With murder, one person is harmed (greatly), and one person may be helped.
Did you really understand the problem?
There's a ton of people sitting on a big ship. All movement about the ship is damaging the ship deck, and there are already small holes through which water is oozing. The ship has a certain capacity to self-repair, if left alone and untroubled, but once a certain stage is reached it will sink (even though it's unknown how deep the water is - the ship may sink only up to a point and then simply run aground leaving survivors).
Now, it has been determined that especially the current kind of shoe models people wear are very damaging, and it's clear that different kind of shoes are needed that are not so damaging (you won't be able to move about much without shoes on that ship).
Now someone comes up with the idea to TAX the shoes depending on their size and weight, which translates to letting the people pay for the wear and tear they produce with the shoes that THE INDUSTRY makes for them.
So where is Coase here? Where is a conflict of interests with both sides profiting?
We simply need DIFFERENT kind of shoes - everyone. The tax won't stop the wear and tear. It may lessen it slightly - but not more? People may simply decide to bite the bullet and reduce something else instead - less restaurant visits, a beer instead a bottle of sparkling wine, burgers instead of a steak, everything, actually, they feel more unnecessary than their car.
Not to mention the fact that a tax will foster the feeling that you can BUY your right to pollute - you pay ergo you can do it.
The tax would only help in connection with a timeline: From 2015 on a new car must not produce any carbondioxide (or something like that). If such a timeline was there such a law would help reduce the output up to that point.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 02:26 PM |
|
|
You just don't get it. In that case, a tax would be better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 03:45 PM |
|
|
Better for whom and for which purpose?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:05 PM |
|
|
Better for all concerned. The people willing to pay the tax would be better off. The people not willing to pay the tax would at least be no worse off than they would be under your suggestion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You just don't get it. In that case, a tax would be better.
Thats without any backup on the argument along with all you throw against out arguments has failed and been proven wrong. Unless the tax is like insane, its not going to have any effect. And still people could just ignore it.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Better for all concerned. The people willing to pay the tax would be better off. The people not willing to pay the tax would at least be no worse off than they would be under your suggestion.
HUH? Why would they be better off? They would pay more for the same, that would do the same damage. I mean, if something I do has a negative effect, for example pollute the water for everyone, why am I better off when I still pollute it, but pay more for it?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 23, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
HUH? Why would they be better off? They would pay more for the same
I mean, better off compared to your suggestion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 07:28 AM |
|
|
That's rich coming from you. A solution that leads to people paying more for the same which doesn't do something for the problem is supposed to be better than a solution that leads to people paying the same for something new that helps solving the problem?
Ah, I see: you've put your blindfold on and intend to keep it that way, because ideology forces you to propagate minimal governmental action in a non-invasive way, and of course there must be an ultraliberal solution for everything, no matter the consequences.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 07:37 AM |
|
|
Mvass, what is the point of tax if they will pay and still sink?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 02:46 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Ah, I see: you've put your blindfold on and intend to keep it that way, because ideology forces you to propagate minimal governmental action coercion in a non-invasive way, and of course there must be an ultraliberal socialist solution for everything, no matter the consequences.
Fixed.
And if I am an ultraliberal, I accept that. Indeed, I am proud of it. Liberals are defenders of liberty - of free men in a free land. And so, that is one of the greatest compliments one can receive.
Doom:
That question shows that you (as well as many other people) are approaching things from the wrong perspective. They are being forced to pay for the consequences of their actions. But the consequences of their actions do not have an infinite cost.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 02:52 PM |
|
|
So you think everything can be taxed, regardless of effect?
Set a fine for killing people, I will kill you, pay the penalty and be free and happy.
Pointless.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2009 02:54 PM |
|
|
TheDeath already asked about that, and I explained why murder is different.
Actually, murder is completely different. With pollution, there are externalities resulting from voluntary exchange. With murder, there are no externalities or voluntary exchange.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
