Taxing is half the story. The other half is returning this tax revenue back to the economy by offsetting other taxes. Where it breaks down is when progressives push to spend this tax revenue on their pet projects.
A failure mode of environmentalism is attaching it to random other progressive ideas. "Let's have a carbon tax and use it to fund universal healthcare!" I want a carbon tax, and I want universal healthcare, AND I want them to be completely disjoint. I will argue for each independently on their merits.
Otherwise both magnify each others' vulnerabilities. For example, say universal health care is funded through a carbon tax, and this tax works really well and emissions plummet. Now universal health care suffers? What a stupid outcome!
Robust government programs are independent with separate funding (see Social Security). Make a big carbon tax, have it fund an equally big carbon dividend, and run it independently from everything else on the progressive or conservative wish list.
This cuts the other way too. No, a carbon tax should not fund conservative pet projects like eliminating capital gains. That has to live or die on its own merits, not tied to environmentalism. The carbon tax must be its own thing to endure.
Here it’s mostly seen when people argue that road taxes (VED) and fuel taxes should be spent on roads.
I’m with Churchill on the one: “Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense…Such contentions are absurd, and constitute…an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense.”
Countries that have to pay for healthcare have a strong incentive to keep its population healthy to reduce healthcare costs. The U.S. doesn't because it doesn't pay for it directly - it's the citizens themselves that have to pay for it.
Ultimately, the U.S. economy is still negatively impacted by an unhealthy population/workers, but since it's not a direct impact for which the government has to pay out of its tax funds, it doesn't care nearly as much about that impact.
It doesn't work that way in practice. It's a weird argument and nobody would ever buy it as there is no obvious cognitive (and politically valid) path from climate change policy to healthcare policy. This is true for America, and Canada and Australia and I suspect every other country.
Also, your underlying assumption, that the American government either has no incentive or is uncaring with respect to keeping the American public health, is just wrong and probably betrays your ideology. Both parties, Dems and GOP, care about people.
About 20% of Americans have Medicaid, and about 20% have Medicare. There is some, but not much, overlap, so the total percentage doesn’t hit 40%. Health care needs to be better in the US, but it’s misleading to suggest that huge amounts (trillions of dollars) of government money aren’t already being spent on it.
Taxes to discourage undesirable behavior.
Investments to encourage desired behavior, outcomes.
Regulation to ensure markets are fair, safe, competitive.
They're just tools. Why all the fuss?
Why do people keep arguing about the tools? eg "Taxes are theft!"
Is it because some don't want to argue about the policy?
Agree, but that doesn't make the tax a free market solution. A free market solution would be a solution from the market, not a government imposed tax.
Then we can avoid disagreement over the definition of "free market solution"
You seem to be the only one in this thread with the clarity of thought to see the obvious.
So if we remove those completely, take away rule of law, abolish property rights and all of that.
Would there then exist a market to speak of at all? Would it be “free”?
I'm not claiming government intervention isn't good; I'm simply arguing you can't call it a free market solution, because it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions.
I actually favor quotas and bans to deal with carbon dioxide emissions.
One asks to what degree do we not know the costs? And these costs aren't ketchup economic prices but actual primary environmental effects. You can't buy your way out of those by having the central bank provide more liquidity.
> A market solution would be based upon true supply and demand and agreement on price in buy / sell transactions.
This is worse because the market not only has no way to price these cost but it is _blind_ to them. That you don't realize this means you think 'free markets' are 'magical'
> A tax representing the "externality" is just a politically made-up number. So it's sort of free market but not really.
FTI: Your free markets don't exist without politics.
Not the guy you're replying to, but you're wrong. This isn't a debate about effectiveness, it's about whether the tax is a free market solution or not. No one is arguing that the market isn't blind to it; this very well could be a case of a market failure and a tax may very well be the correct solution, it is not however a free market solution. A tax is government interference in the market and is by definition not a free market solution.
No, it isn't. Taxes are not free market solutions. End of story. Taxes are government interference in the market; this isn't debatable, it's just a fact.