If something harmful is actively being subsidized by the government, the first step should be to end the subsidy, not banning it.
-
-
Replying to @oscredwin
You won't agree with this, but a good intermediate step is to tax the negative externalities.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @renormalized
I'm deeply suspicious of people who want to jump to step 3, 7, or 10 when step 1 is undone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oscredwin
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).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.