Life after the IRS...

[Gee]

Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel-prize winning economist) spoke at Google a while ago. Watching his speech, he made a very important point that could fit into Paul's campaign well.

He asked the question of why we tax good things like income, when we could tax bad things like pollution? When you tax something, you get less of it. So in Dr. Paul's perfect world, with no IRS and a small federal government, I think it makes more sense to tax pollution than to have a universal excise tax like RP has proposed (and was used prior to 1913). If someone presented this idea to Dr. Paul, I think he'd like it, and it would probably help him score some points with liberals when he talks about his ideal government (as he did at Google).

What do you think?

Off topic, but Stiglitz also talked about how damaging the IMF was to developing countries, and how the USA's trade deals are more or less manipulated by special interest campaign funds at the expense of developing countries as well. He's really critical of the IMF, and echoes a lot of the things RP says about our international dealings. I don't know if I agree on his proposal that governments should act on information asymmetry in markets, but otherwise he seems pretty sound. He was an economic adviser under Clinton, and it seems like he was fired for his views.

[ThePieSwindler]

A tax on pollution is fine in my eyes as long as it is a tax on actual real pollution, and goes toward improving the country rather than into the pockets of the federal reserve owners like the income tax does. That means, no bullshit worldwide carbon taxes that the global warming crowd (backed by powerful global bankers, of course) advocates, since then youd have to tax our breathing :rolleyes:.

[ecliptic]

Let's charge the true cost of anything up-front. A good example is how we are lied to regarding wind power. We are led to believe that windpower just isn't competitive. The true costs of oil and coal are vastly higher than the initial costs. We all pay later for the pollution via skyrocketing rates of cancer and many other related healthcare costs. The wars required to keep up with American gas-guzzling SUV's are another massive hidden cost. The airborne mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants is killing the entire globe. How much will that ultimately cost?

The same applies to other products that rely on chemical technologies based on oil. Many of these products can be replaced today with Hemp-based alternatives.

Windpower is a viable solution using today's technology.

Plug-in hybrid vehicles can realize 180 miles-per-gallon using today's technology.

If the electricity for these PHEV's comes from wind we could realize 100% reductions in air pollution for transportation.

Let's get behind these solutions and expose the true costs of oil, coal, and oil-based products.

http://www.hymotion.com/index.htm

http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html

http://www.pluginamerica.com/

http://www.repower5m.de/index_flash_uk.htm

http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/index.htm

[Slugg]

since then youd have to tax our breathing :rolleyes:.

You ARE breathing the Federal Governments Air now!!! You should be taxed...


wait...that was kind of a lame one-liner...how about:

With some of the halitosis I smell around here, some people's breath SHOULD be taxed!!!


eh...

Don't forget to tip your waitress (so she can pay her taxes)...


okay, I'm done

[Mesogen]

A tax on pollution is fine in my eyes as long as it is a tax on actual real pollution, and goes toward improving the country rather than into the pockets of the federal reserve owners like the income tax does. That means, no bullshit worldwide carbon taxes that the global warming crowd (backed by powerful global bankers, of course) advocates, since then youd have to tax our breathing :rolleyes:.

I'd say a lawsuit is the best way to "tax" polluters. But that relies on public attitudes and common law. But a tax would allow big polluters to simply pay the tax and still pollute. Pollution then just becomes a revenue stream. The same thing goes for fines. Rich companies can just pay the fines and add it into their operating expenses. If you want to really end the company's pollution, you have to change the laws to something like 3 strike laws. You can pay the fine twice, but the third time, people go to jail.

(Yes, I think it's part of the government's job, in principle, to pass and enforce environmental laws. It's part of protecting the rights of individuals.)

[Gee]

I'd say a lawsuit is the best way to "tax" polluters. But that relies on public attitudes and common law. But a tax would allow big polluters to simply pay the tax and still pollute. Pollution then just becomes a revenue stream. The same thing goes for fines. Rich companies can just pay the fines and add it into their operating expenses. If you want to really end the company's pollution, you have to change the laws to something like 3 strike laws. You can pay the fine twice, but the third time, people go to jail.
Eh, assuming the tax scales with pollution output, it would reduce pollution across the board. Larger corporations could only afford to pollute more if they did more business for the same unit of pollution, meaning they serve more customers (a good thing). Whenever you tax something you get less of it.

The government needs to generate revenue in some way, and I don't see any reason not to tax bad things if we have to tax something. I do agree that lawsuits should be used in the case of polluting private property, but a lot of water and air is not "private".

ecliptic, I agree with you, but I think its probably pretty hard to calculate the true cost of something like pollution. I think in practice we'd have to adjust the taxes to alter the amount of pollution made until it fell within reasonable bounds. Then I agree, you'd see more people move towards greener technologies if the full cost of polluting was realized by the polluters.

[austin356]

While I am personally a hardcore Austrian that believes the market should sort this out and be done through private property rights/etc.... I will say exchanging the income/wage taxes in exchange for a smaller pollution tax AND Green/Progressive support, then that compromise is acceptable to me.

The thing is, you can pick your battles and still keep your puristic principles, so long as any compromise brings the system closer to said principles.

[Gee]

While I am personally a hardcore Austrian that believes the market should sort this out and be done through private property rights/etc.... I will say exchanging the income/wage taxes in exchange for a smaller pollution tax AND Green/Progressive support, then that compromise is acceptable to me.
Well, how can air and (most) water pollution be sorted out through property rights? My absolutely ideal form of air/water pollution control would be to establish a market for each type of pollutant (like is talked about with carbon). The right to pollute would be bought and sold by businesses as needed, with the total number of shares outstanding indicating the maximum amount of pollution which the government would allow. You could also tax each share annually for income.


The thing is, you can pick your battles and still keep your puristic principles, so long as any compromise brings the system closer to said principles.
Very true, in fact thats really the only way to get anything done. I always look at it in terms of opportunity cost. You never get an ideal opportunity, so you always have to make compromises. So you want to chose the action which has the best cost relative to the other choices.

[austin356]

Well, how can air and (most) water pollution be sorted out through property rights? My absolutely ideal form of air/water pollution control would be to establish a market for each type of pollutant (like is talked about with carbon). The right to pollute would be bought and sold by businesses as needed, with the total number of shares outstanding indicating the maximum amount of pollution which the government would allow. You could also tax each share annually for income.

Well first let me say I believe the collective owns the air and water (Lake Michigan, not the pond in my back yard).... So said collective has property rights to that property. I would favor what you discussed above, so long as it is voluntary. If someone accepts the system you sort of outlined above and follows the rules that way, then they are contractually not liable for civil prosecution (from the public, not other individuals); but also that being said I would not want to force that system on someone as prior restraint, but rather sue their pants off if they do not accept the voluntary contracts and then pollute the collective's property.



Very true, in fact thats really the only way to get anything done. I always look at it in terms of opportunity cost. You never get an ideal opportunity, so you always have to make compromises. So you want to chose the action which has the best cost relative to the other choices.


Well the people who like me (broadly speaking) number around 15% of the population. But then if you include Paleoconservatives (another 15%) and some non-statist Dems/Greens (another 15%), you have a broad coalition, much larger than either of the current coalitions. CATO is not necesarly trying to form this broad coalition for general liberty, but just trying to FORCE themselves into the Republican party, which is another method; One that worked for the Neocons, who when doing so where up against a challenge 100x greater than what CATO's challenge is.