Balance sheet accounting vs total cost to society when extenalities are included is a huge source of problems.
A good to know is California has some programs where they will buy back your older vehicle and pay you a grant of you replace it with a new or used low emissions vehicle. You can also get public transit vouchers instead I think.
Note. Low emissions includes hybrids. And some used EV's are really affordable.
How far does this go? Should we charge taxes on sugar due to health care costs? What about taxes on fiber due to increase wear on sewers?
Go to electric. What about the environmental impact on battery creation/recycling/maintenance? Or the electricity to power them (until nuclear comes online)?
This line of argumentation can go on endlessly. How about instead let’s reduce taxes and try focusing on lowering the cost of living for middle and lower income brackets.
Many countries introduce taxes on sugary drinks and snacks with varying outcomes[0]. These type of things only go endlessly if you have all or nothing thinking and taxes like this are meant to shape behavior so unless you want people shitting less then no you don't need to tax fiber.
My concern is the behavior shaping is not a simple, single variable equation. Many times these policies have knock on effects that produce a worse outcome for those struggling.
We have data on this in the form of cigarette taxes that show good outcomes in preventing people from starting smoking and bad outcomes for existing smokers since they don't quit due to increased prices and just keep smoking while paying more so that this could go either way. So I understand your concern. I just take issue with the reasoning "this can go on endlessly!"
Sounds like utopic thinking seeking an unattainable perfection.
What happens when taxes are so high, we have an egress of businesses from regions within the US causing collapse of local communities like saw with Detroit?
I'm in general against using the reductio ad absurdism to suggest we can't do something positive because there is an absurd inevitable point at which it stops being positive.
The point is, when navigating a highly dimensional design space it's ok to use a gradient descent / greedy optimization approach. If step 1 works then proceed to step 2, if step 1 did not work then we learned something and can pick a different step. Fix whatever went wrong in making the mistake with picking step 1 as the current top priority. It makes no sense to say that we can't make step 1 because step 1001 might be bad.
On the point of taxation, I personally dislike tax precisely because I think the money is not allocated in anything close to priority order. If it was we would be living in a vastly different world.
>Sounds like utopic thinking seeking an unattainable perfection.
Like you just magically saying "let's cut taxes and reduce cost of living"?
>we have an egress of businesses from regions within the US causing collapse of local communities like saw with Detroit?
If all you're worried about is big business, don't worry. They already leaving. Communities are already collapsing. And we voted for it, so hey. Democracy works right?
Reducing taxes should push for local and federal governments to become more efficient and waste less.
We’re at an incredible deficit as a nation, interest alone on that deficit outpacing defense spending.
Creating additional taxes, which will potentially slow growth/gdp, will only harm our efforts to resolve our woeful financial situation as a nation. Additional taxes further pushes business out of the country, leading to a spiral to insolvency.
Californian’s should be asking, where do these taxes go? Not to solving homelessness or violent crime. Not to resolving catastrophic water issues (reservoirs drying up), or fixing brownouts across the region.
Felonies are down in California, year over year, for the past decade. Reservioirs are above historical averages. Homelessness is a problem, but people freak out when you address real solutions, like minimum wage changes. Brownouts and blackouts are far less likely than they were a decade or two ago. Thanks to green tech like solar panels and batteries.
Thanks to Enron being stopped from causing artificial blackouts by creating electrical supply constraints through shutting off power plants. And they could profit from it by purchasing contracts that made money if electricity costs went higher. Then sold those off before they then told them to turn the power plants back on. Cost California billions. See “Enron, the smartest guys in the room”
Sugar tax doesn't work well. The fiber thing sounds like a joke? Pollution from producing electricity sounds like a great thing to tax. What makes you treat that as an idea so obviously bad you don't need to say why? And the impact of manufacturing already is addressed in a lot of ways, even if it could be better.
A good to know is California has some programs where they will buy back your older vehicle and pay you a grant of you replace it with a new or used low emissions vehicle. You can also get public transit vouchers instead I think.
Note. Low emissions includes hybrids. And some used EV's are really affordable.