[michaelt]

The example I was thinking of is [1] - "Revenue-hungry cities mess with traffic lights to write more tickets [...] cities and towns shortening yellow lights spike the number of tickets, and thereby increase revenue. The profits come at a social cost, as shorter yellow light times have been associated with an increase in car accidents."

In that case, X=car accidents - any public red-light-camera advocacy will say they reduce X.

Of course, you're right to say that a tax on X doesn't prove people dislike X - a tax on income doesn't mean citizens hate income. You could even argue a tax on alcohol means citizens like alcohol too much! But a subset of taxes, such as fines and some sin taxes, are presented in the public discourse as about reducing X rather than making money.

[1] https://www.salon.com/2017/04/05/this-may-have-happened-to-y...

[bobwaycott]

That example isn’t about playing with taxes.

I’d agree that some taxes are presented in public discourse as at least partially being about reducing some X—though fines shouldn’t be lumped in with taxes. Fines are worth considering as a different thing with their own reasoning and goals that often make them distinct from taxes—particularly because fines are punitive and come after known legislated/regulated behavior has occurred.