Originally posted by WajomaBoth types of taxes have different reasons. Pollution taxes are to discourage pollution and the income is used to clean up the pollution that's still there. Other taxes are simply there to pay for the services a governement gives you. You can disagree with the amount of services the governement provides and thus the level of taxation, but the reasoning behind both kind of taxes is solid.
No I don't see the rationale, because you say it's used as a form of punishment for 'externality' producers. Surely you'd be totally opposed on taxes on someone doing something as commendable as trying to feed their family.
It seems when you're doing good you get taxed, and when you're doing bad you get taxed.
Originally posted by BartsYou really don't see the contradiction?
Both types of taxes have different reasons. Pollution taxes are to discourage pollution and the income is used to clean up the pollution that's still there. Other taxes are simply there to pay for the services a governement gives you. You can disagree with the amount of services the governement provides and thus the level of taxation, but the reasoning behind both kind of taxes is solid.
Originally posted by kmax87So you see no contradiction there kmax? There's this 'tax externalities' theory because 'externalities' are bad. So people shouldn't be taxed when they're doing good - right?
Obviously to punish him until he works out its much better not to work and live on the dole stupid!
Can't have it two ways, contradictions are only possible in a muddled mind.
Some taxes are used to discourage certain behaviors, but they can't all be used for that, because if they succeeded the government wouldn't have enough tax revenue. We can tax some things we want to discouarge, and then we can tax some things - like income - the demand for which is high enough that taxes won't discourage, or to any great degree, to guarantee a functional income for the government.
There's plenty of room to argue about where to set the balance, or how much to tax one thing, vs. another. What you can't argue is that it's a contradiction, since we're not under any obligation to tax punitively in every single instance. Just because some taxes are intended to be punitive doesn't mean all taxes have to be punitive. They might have a punitive secondary effect, but we might have to accept that effect to keep things running; we can't shift the whole tax burden over to punitive tax policies.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterBut, in a way consumption tax does discourage work. If they are increased, then the price of product will go up, wich would counter the increased money available by reducing income taxes. Other cons are that they discourage tourism and increase cross-border shopping. The pros is that they can be better targeted, so they can be used to discourage behavior like smoking and be entirely lifted for necesities like food.
In America, we have income, property, capital gains and estate taxes. I think it far better to discourage consumption than work and thrift.
Originally posted by darthmixI prefer English
Some taxes are used to discourage certain behaviors, but they can't all be used for that, because if they succeeded the government wouldn't have enough tax revenue. We can tax some things we want to discouarge, and then we can tax some things - like income - the demand for which is high enough that taxes won't discourage, or to any great degree, to g keep things running; we can't shift the whole tax burden over to punitive tax policies.
Contradiction:
1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWho the hell can afford 30.000 dollars for a bloody car?
The co-founder of PayPal says that within the next four years, he hopes to produce a practical, $30,000, all-electric car. Aside from some engineering problems (only gets 200 miles to the battery), this looks very promising. Even better, the government wasn't involved in the car's development.
Debate: Why do we need governments to regulate ou ...[text shortened]... olving this issue?
EDIT: Here's the link to the story:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145876
Here's an example of how taxation discourages voluntary co-operation.
There are two farmers, Fred and Trev, they have neighbouring properties. They decide to plant different crops that require harvesting at different times so that each can help the other out. It's all going well, a mutual trade that is mutually beneficial. Then one day Fred gets a visit from his accountant, Fred explains his deal with Trev.
"Jayzus Keyrist Fred, you can't be doing that, you're going to have to assess the value of your assistance to Trev and pay tax on that, Trev is going to have to do the same."
Next day Fred tells Trev it's no longer worth while to help each other out, "You can just stay on your side of the fence and I'll stay on mine."
Every day the actual price of trading voluntarily is distorted by gummint, everyday untold billions of transactions that would otherwise occur to mutual beneficence simply don't take place because gummint punishes people for doing that.
Originally posted by WajomaObviously, and I'm sure you'll agree, their use of English is abominable. So they, equally obviously, decide to hire a professional to teach their children properly...
Here's an example of how taxation discourages voluntary co-operation.
There are two farmers, Fred and Trev, they have neighbouring properties. They decide to plant different crops that require harvesting at different times so that each can help the other out. It's all going well, a mutual trade that is mutually beneficial. Then one day Fred gets a visit f ...[text shortened]... l beneficence simply don't take place because gummint punishes people for doing that.
And Trev just doesn't understand the necessity of sewers, but Fred thinks a gravel road is more than sufficient. However, the teacher thinks that one of the children actually needs professional medical care and nobody knows how to finance it, without selling one of the farms.
And that's why taxation is needed.