If something harmful is actively being subsidized by the government, the first step should be to end the subsidy, not banning it.
I'm deeply suspicious of people who want to jump to step 3, 7, or 10 when step 1 is undone.
-
-
Plenty of cases where the size of the correct tax exceeds the size of the current subsidy. Jumping to it is the correct move on e.g. a coordinated carbon tax (in the world where we could credibly push China to do the same).
-
Given that both subsidies and taxes have compliance costs, I don't actually agree that the correct move is to leave the subsidy there and make the tax larger to compensate. That creates a web of compliance and paperwork that can have substantial deadweight loss, hurting everyone.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.