 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
All right. Let's try again.
In the UK doctors are suggesting a tax on fatty foods. The NZ government wants to tax cows for producing methane. Are these indicators of a global takeover conspiracy by vegetarians?
Do you care?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
It wasn't me...really...honest...no, no, NO!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Gas burns clean right? Just have to light em up every time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
DP
Last edited by Agathon on 20-06-2003 at 22:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
There's nothing wrong with these sorts of taxes, they are called Pigovian taxes. The whole point of them is to stop overuse based on externalities. The same goes for smoking. |
Externality theory in practice is a crock of ****. Often, it's flatly impossible to valuate a given externality. Even when it is possible, people selectively include or exclude externalities depending on their position wrt the activity in question. If you don't like something, reach as far as you want in coming up with detrimental externalities, and deny that there are any beneficial externalities. If you do like it, do the opposite.
It's more an attempt to breed a cottage industry of "experts" to sponge off of everyone than it is a legitimate practice.
In one example I was involved in, we had to assess the economics of a coal fired power plant with a solar plant of equivalent capacity and hydroelectric of equivalent capacity. Never mind that there was no hydro resource available under any condition, or that no solar plant of that scale had ever been built. Never mind that this wan't to build new coal plants, it was to buy available output of existing plants.
Among externalities required to be assessed against coal were the "social costs" due to a theoretical X number of coal miners getting occupational injuries and respiratory problems, and if you used open pit mines to lower the value of the respiratory and occupational hazard, you had to assess the value of the ugliness factor of a strip mine and the affected acreage. Employment for coal miners or tax revenues for local government agencies at the mining sites need not be included though. 
On the solar side, I pointed out that the basic options were either to have a few thousand acres of ugly mirrors marring the landscape, creating a potential avigation hazard and affecting the site ecosystem with radical temperature changes, or you had to go with photovoltaics, and account for the mining, manufacturing and waste disposal hazards involved with getting the toxic elements (Arsenic, Phosphorus and toxic heavy metals depending on your photovoltaic of choince.)
None of those were allowed to be included, even though they represented the same category of externality as the ones to be applied against the coal alternative.
A year of BS later, my client was able to get the evaluation process thrown out because of inconsistencies and biases in the allocation of externalities. Meantime, the opportunity for the contract disappeared, and the client and their customers ended up sucking up a few tens of millions of additional cost over a twenty year time frame.
quote:
In the case of fatty foods in places like Britain and NZ, we consume too much of them because we don't directly pay for health care, which encourages us to free ride. |
That's a more clearcut situation, but you also have a big mess in fairly and consistently applying the tax. Say someone comes out with "fat free" (and sugar loaded) alternatives not subject to the tax, and one person sits on their ass gorging fat free snacks, while someone else who exercises and overall takes care of their health occasionally indulges in something fatty.
In theory, the point of externality theory is to arrive at a true assessment of costs or comparative costs of an activity. It's not (in theory) just an excuse to rationalize a targeted revenue grab.
quote:
Methane from cows is pollution just as smoke belching out of a chimney is. What's the problem? |
There's no crediting mechanism for acreage of pasture land. CM'd cattle or sheep take up a tiny fraction of the space of pastured sheep or cattle, and consume almost the same amount of food. (Since they can't move, they're a little more efficient at piling calories into body weight.)
A CM farm can have have over a thousand animals per hectare, no grasslands, and the animals are fed grain/hormone feed mixtures that involve all sorts of nastiness.
A free range pastureland would have almost a hundred hectares to feed the same thousand animals, and the grasslands would be happily contributing to CO2 absorption. Meanwhile, all the polluting chemical processes of fertilizing low yield soils to grow fast growing feed grain crops, etc., wouldn't occur.
Despite the differences in business operations, the head tax treats them the same. Meanwhile, ag practices elsewhere in the world aren't taxed, so you (a) favor the more animal and ecologically harmful CM practices, and (b) favor simply moving the methane producers to another location where bovine flatulence methane is untaxed, thus not altering the global methane production in the slightest.
If you want to be all eco-friendly and animal cuddly, you want an externality system that rewards positive behaviors and punishes negative ones, not just a simplistic head tax.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 21-06-2003 at 01:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Externality theory in practice is a crock of ****. Often, it's flatly impossible to valuate a given externality. |
And often it isn't. They exist anyway, no matter what anyone says. Facts are like that.
quote:
Even when it is possible, people selectively include or exclude externalities depending on their position wrt the activity in question. If you don't like something, reach as far as you want in coming up with detrimental externalities, and deny that there are any beneficial externalities. If you do like it, do the opposite. |
This seems to be a recurrring theme of yours. I don't see how people being bad or selfish alters the facts. Of course your solution is to do nothing, which is probably worse.
quote:
It's more an attempt to breed a cottage industry of "experts" to sponge off of everyone than it is a legitimate practice. |
Not really, it's an attempt to correct for market failures.
quote:
None of those were allowed to be included, even though they represented the same category of externality as the ones to be applied against the coal alternative. |
Oh dear, people are arsholes aren't they?
quote:
That's a more clearcut situation, but you also have a big mess in fairly and consistently applying the tax. Say someone comes out with "fat free" (and sugar loaded) alternatives not subject to the tax, and one person sits on their ass gorging fat free snacks, while someone else who exercises and overall takes care of their health occasionally indulges in something fatty. |
So? Wouldn't it be great if everyone "ass-gorged" healthier foods? I mean, they'd be better off, we'd be better off, everyone wins. Presumably foods high in sugar could be taxed as well.
Your example will of course occur. But so what? The point of the tax is to lower the overall consumption of fattening foods by making it more expensive. People who eat a lot of **** will pay more tax, thus offsetting the burden they put on public health care.
Anti-tax nuts always moan about how hard it will be to apply the tax but in practice the wrinkles usually get ironed out. Governments have taxed smokes and alcohol for years - it's not hard.
quote:
In theory, the point of externality theory is to arrive at a true assessment of costs or comparative costs of an activity. It's not (in theory) just an excuse to rationalize a targeted revenue grab. |
So?
quote:
If you want to be all eco-friendly and animal cuddly, you want an externality system that rewards positive behaviors and punishes negative ones, not just a simplistic head tax. |
So don't have a head tax - do it some other way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
And often it isn't. They exist anyway, no matter what anyone says. Facts are like that.
|
My, with the fiery power of the intellect behind that profound statement, we can illuminate the halls oh human knowledge. 
Whether something exists, and whether something can be quantified in a precise, consistent and coherent way to form actual policies for dealing with it, are two different questions. 
quote:
This seems to be a recurrring theme of yours. I don't see how people being bad or selfish alters the facts. Of course your solution is to do nothing, which is probably worse.
|
Some people enjoy ivory tower mental masturbation in a fantasy world of absolutes. The rest of us have to deal with a real world, as things actually occur in practice.
quote:
Not really, it's an attempt to correct for market failures.
|
Which is why failed scientists, lobbyists, lawyers, econometrics types are flocking to consultancy and expert work in this field at exorbitant billing rates - out of a noble and selfless desire to make things right. 
quote:
Oh dear, people are arsholes aren't they?
|
Yes. These were ivory tower leftist types who'd never built a ****ing thing or done anything of significance in their lives.
quote:
So? Wouldn't it be great if everyone "ass-gorged" healthier foods? I mean, they'd be better off, we'd be better off, everyone wins. Presumably foods high in sugar could be taxed as well.
|
Then we **** around with whether corn and orange juice are high in sugar, or is it just added sugar? Then is maltodextrose taxable sugar? Or we just opt for fake sugar and bleached white flour. Then we tax those. Eventually the nonsense will reach a proportion to make most sane people puke, then you'll cure obesity that way.
quote:
Your example will of course occur. But so what? The point of the tax is to lower the overall consumption of fattening foods by making it more expensive. People who eat a lot of **** will pay more tax, thus offsetting the burden they put on public health care.
|
You'll simply have people gaming the taxes by delivering cheap crap food products that don't contain the offending amounts of the offending ingredients. So you'll end up with an absurd, useless one-off tax, or a policy of setting up a zillion different taxes on a zillion different food ingredients and additives.
quote:
Anti-tax nuts always moan about how hard it will be to apply the tax but in practice the wrinkles usually get ironed out. Governments have taxed smokes and alcohol for years - it's not hard.
|
Certainly. They've also taxed income for years. They've also taxed property for years. It's all easy, just set a number and go. Hey boys, it's ALL REALLY ****ING SIMPLE, let's let Mr. Philosopher run the world, he has all the answers. Sure, you can set some arbitrary tax on some arbitrary basis and collect some amount of revenue out of someone. Thank you for admitting that all this huffery and puffery about externalities is just a sham for generating more revenue, with no higher social goal, and no particular intelligence behind it.
In practice, it's just a revenue grab with some attempt to pretend to have some profound social engineering intent behind it.
quote:
So don't have a head tax - do it some other way. |
The dumbassed leftist advocates of the tax are too ignorant about how the real world works to design an intelligent and functional tax system that accomplishes the stated goal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
My, with the fiery power of the intellect behind that profound statement, we can illuminate the halls oh human knowledge. |
Oh, whatever. You are just looking to score points after you got burned for quoting Sokal's book without having read it properly.
quote:
Whether something exists, and whether something can be quantified in a precise, consistent and coherent way to form actual policies for dealing with it, are two different questions. |
How amazing?
Presumably, we should leave it up to the professionals to formulate policy then. It doesn't matter anyway, all I'm claiming is that there is a sound idea behind Pigovian taxes. Ridiculing them qua themselves or relying on unsupported generalisations is just silly.
quote:
Some people enjoy ivory tower mental masturbation in a fantasy world of absolutes. The rest of us have to deal with a real world, as things actually occur in practice. |
And some people know that there is no practice without principle. Even pragmatism has principles (generally utilitarian ones).
quote:
Which is why failed scientists, lobbyists, lawyers, econometrics types are flocking to consultancy and expert work in this field at exorbitant billing rates - out of a noble and selfless desire to make things right. |
I doubt it's that. It's more likely because people pay them to do it. Here we have one of my favourite stereotypes - the waffling consultant who does nothing and takes home a huge cheque. How absurdly ignorant must business owners and governments be to hire these people?
quote:
Yes. These were ivory tower leftist types who'd never built a ****ing thing or done anything of significance in their lives. |
Oh yeah, now the rest of the boring old stereotypes come out. Here we have all the good honest Republican Joes who do everything and would get everything right and lead us to paradise if only it weren't for those meddling lefties. Give me a break -did you get this off the side of a cereal box?
People who complain about ivory towers have obviously never been involved in real academic life or are complaining because they were and didn't like it. Save your sour grapes for someone else.
quote:
Then we **** around with whether corn and orange juice are high in sugar, or is it just added sugar? Then is maltodextrose taxable sugar? Or we just opt for fake sugar and bleached white flour. Then we tax those. Eventually the nonsense will reach a proportion to make most sane people puke, then you'll cure obesity that way. |
You know, every year I have to cure undergraduates of this fallacy which goes along the lines of "If you can't fix everything, do nothing".
quote:
You'll simply have people gaming the taxes by delivering cheap crap food products that don't contain the offending amounts of the offending ingredients. So you'll end up with an absurd, useless one-off tax, or a policy of setting up a zillion different taxes on a zillion different food ingredients and additives. |
Or a pragmatic compromise, which is, of course, the reasonable solution.
quote:
Certainly. They've also taxed income for years. They've also taxed property for years. It's all easy, just set a number and go. Hey boys, it's ALL REALLY ****ING SIMPLE, let's let Mr. Philosopher run the world, he has all the answers. Sure, you can set some arbitrary tax on some arbitrary basis and collect some amount of revenue out of someone. Thank you for admitting that all this huffery and puffery about externalities is just a sham for generating more revenue, with no higher social goal, and no particular intelligence behind it. |
Yawn....
I'm no fan of economists, but I'll give them their due over you.
quote:
In practice, it's just a revenue grab with some attempt to pretend to have some profound social engineering intent behind it. |
What an overloaded bull**** generalisation.
quote:
The dumbassed leftist advocates of the tax are too ignorant about how the real world works to design an intelligent and functional tax system that accomplishes the stated goal. |
One could just as easily say that the dumbass people on the job are too focused on their own projects to appreciate the larger issues.
And if the stated goal is poverty, crime, ignorance and misery we can always trust the Republicans to design an intelligent and functional tax system.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-06-2003 16:27
|