[anonym29]

>Do you really believe that everyone gets the same amount of usage from, and contributes to the same amount of wear and tear on, municipal and infrastructural resources?

No, I do not believe that, but it's worth noting that taxing income has no direct relationship to usage-based taxation of public resources. There are people who pay millions in income taxes while making negligible use of roads, and there are net tax recipients who contribute no net taxes at all driving 40-ton 18-wheelers inflicting vastly more damage to roadways than 99% of people. If we want to tax externality costs, we should tax externality costs, not income.

>Do you believe that industrialists do not ravage the earth and society while chasing profits?

Regarding externality costs: see above. Income and externality costs are not the same, nor are they necessarily closely correlated.

[Paracompact]

Of course! I think carbon taxes and the like are a great idea. If we had the social technology and the social consensus to enact pay-what-you-use schemes for everything, we might be close to a utilitarian utopia already. (For example, I have no idea how to compute the marginal benefit to an individual derived from living in a society that values egalitarian access to higher education, even if that individual does not choose to access those resources directly; but such would be necessary to pursue a rigorous calculation of that individual's fair share.)

Lacking that utopia, we have to estimate. You say income taxes are an unfair mechanism; what do you think is fairer?

[anonym29]

Consumption taxes, rather than production taxes.

Taxes are a disincentive - this is why we tax vices.

We want to disincentivize rampant, mindless consumerism that fuels the externality costs, right?

Tax buying things - any things - all things - much heavier, tax the act of working to earn an income to survive much less.

Want to buy a car? Pay a big tax. Want to work hard to earn money to pay your bills and feed your family? Shouldn't be taxed for that.