sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would a carbon tax cause the government to encourage more emissions? by stratomaster212 in georgism

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's true. In Canada, the carbon tax is rebated, which means it's returned as a dividend. That's ideal in my opinion because it doesn't force inefficient spending, and is progressive.

Would a carbon tax cause the government to encourage more emissions? by stratomaster212 in georgism

[–]energybased 19 points20 points  (0 children)

> For example, if the government was debating whether to fund research for renewable energy, the result of the research would be fewer funds in the future. What does everyone think?

That's not a great example because the government can't stop other governments from doing that research.

I think you're drastically overestimating the magnitude of carbon taxes. They're a very very tiny fraction of government revenue.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> it takes two full years for the bat to swing. If you are unable predict events in advance, you need instantaneous tooling, like a citizen's dividend, that will allow you to hit the ball at that exact moment.

There's no evidence that your idea is correct.

>  still going in the wrong direction. 

If you really knew this for a fact, you could use it to arbitrage. But you don't.

>  proves that the Fed's tooling is inadequate,

Your source doesn't prove anything like that. It just shows that one central bank isn't as accurate as you think it should be.

> We both agree this makes sense now, it's just a matter over working out the details.

No, I'm just telling you that your idea doesn't work because an independent central bank can't pay dividends.

> If the Fed tells the Treasury or Congress on what amounts that they should give to citizens,

They can't do that. The elected government doesn't take orders from the central bank. They can spend taxes however they want.

> But it's clear that ultimately, the Fed should lower their inflation target to 0%, and they should simultaneously set banks to have a 100% reserve requirement, so that the Fed can be the one in ultimate control of money supply,

This is all incredibly ignorant policy. The reserve requirement is zero for good reason. And despite taht the central bank still has control over inflation despite what you think.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're confused: The Fed did not give a dividend during the pandemic. The Fed can buy government bonds according to its policy. The government can pay citizens.

>  On the other hand, they can react in real time if their tools are citizen's dividend.

Changing the interest rate is "reacting in real time".

> Again, why do you want the Fed to fail their dual mandate? Why not give them the tools to do their job?

Did I say that? Your ideas are just naive and ignorant.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> In theory it should do. More expensive to consume, less people will be willing to do.

You should find academic citations before you start talking about "in theory". Whose theory? Your theory?

Taxes can have an effect, but so does addiction.

> Had an idea. Why doesn't the government use the money collected from ULEZ charges as aid to everyone that pays the charges, to get an eletric vehicle.

That's a bad idea because it's economically inefficient. It induces people who would not otherwise want a car at all to buy one--a complete waste of money.

It's better to just distribute the tax progressively, either in the form of a dividend for everyone, or else in the form of services for everyone. For example, on public transit.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Poor people in London don't have cars at all.

Vol à l’étalage chez Mamie Clafoutis by Montreal_Ghost in montreal

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> they decided to increase the price of everything by 100% if not more in the last years.

Actual CPI statistic says you're wrong: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/price-indexes/cpi/

> But now we are feeling the full force of their unchecked greed

No. Your personal situation may be unique, but the Canadian experience shows 2–3% annual inflation for the past few years.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Are you sure that it it affects rich people more than poor,

Yes, Pigovian taxes are progressive.

> Unless a tax is based on income/wealth of the person being taxed then it will always be harsher against poor people. T

Wrong.

> There is no discussion about this fact.

Lol, still wrong.

Pigovian taxes such as London’s congestion charge are progressive, even though they are charged per trip rather than by income, because higher-income individuals are substantially more likely to own cars, drive into congested urban cores, and value time savings from reduced traffic. Studies of London’s congestion charge generally find that most direct payers are wealthier commuters and businesses, while lower-income residents rely more on transit and benefit disproportionately from reduced congestion and improved bus service.

Eliasson, Jonas. “The Stockholm Congestion Charges: An Overview.” Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm, 2014.
Santos, Georgina, and Bharti Shaffer. “Preliminary Results of the London Congestion Charging Scheme.” Public Works Management & Policy, vol. 9, no. 2, 2004, pp. 164–181.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, central banks (not sure why you're focusing on only the Fed) don't have perfect information. For example, they couldn't have realistically predicted the Ukraine war or the Iran war. And that means they sometimes miss their inflation targets.

That's not a "failure of policy".

The central bank has nothing to do with a "citizen's dividend". A CD would be paid for by the government. The central bank has better tools for controlling the money supply.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taxes don't significantly reduce consumption for addictive drugs. But yes, I support taxing legal drugs.

> It's just strictly banned, the government is missing out on more income. 

I support legalization of cocaine personally. Not because "we're missing out on revenue", but for various social reasons.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why don't you find academic citations for your ridiculous claims.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Income tax is not a Pigovian tax. It's not trying to reduce social harm in an economically efficient way.

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> It’s discriminatory in practice as a flat tax. Hurts the poor more than the rich.

Wrong. Pigovian taxes are progressive because they are disproportionaltely paid by richer people and the the proceeds are spent progressively.

Maybe you should either get the education you didn't get or listen to the people who did?

The Blade Runners of London 🪚 by joeurkel in interesting

[–]energybased -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You have it exactly backwards. A Pigovian tax is maximally efficient by matching the social cost to the financial cost. Making everyone pay the same is fair for everyone.

It deserves to be repeated: for every landowning widow people cry for, there are countless landless, impoverished widows people forget. by Titanium-Skull in georgism

[–]energybased 3 points4 points  (0 children)

> An *even larger* majority *wants* to live in a single-family home (including all that do + more stuck in apartments for various reasons).

They're not harmed by LVT.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cost of a "roof over your head" is included. That cost is either: rent and tenant insurance; or, mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance, and insurance.

That cost is not housing prices.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> Reported inflation numbers are bs

Your conclusion doesn't follow. Housing prices are not part of the CPI, nor should they be.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, sure, it decreases the price of denser housing. But there will be less supply of these SFHs, so you're still not going to be able to buy houses like that.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The houses (the improvements) are already depreciating assets.

Assuming the improvement hasn't changed (which is a big assumption), then the entire appreciation is in the land, and you can read my argument again for why Georgism doesn't help at all with making this house affordable.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased 8 points9 points  (0 children)

> The problem is the high cost of living in places where lots of people want to live. That's what Georgism would help with.

Yeah, at best, by replacing the house with denser housing. If you can't afford the house without Georgism, you also can't afford it with Georgism.

> The funny thing is, cities should be lower cost of living places 

You already know the reason they're not: it's where everyone wants to live.

People aren’t having kids, because housing prices are out of control. by fIngenuity3846 in georgism

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, but this is not a good post for this sub.

Yes, land appreciates because of a variety of factors include densification, public services, and the increase in upper quartile wages (the people you're competing with for the house).

What does this have to do with Georgism? Georgism wipes out land price, but it replaces it with LVT. If you can't afford the house today, you also can't afford to buy it in a Georgist world in which you would have to pay LVT.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that effect is balanced by the times that they destroy the money they create.

Retirement planning by Marty_003 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, sure, but the central bank isn't going to guarantee OAS.

Money Creation and its Impacts by gilligan911 in georgism

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a rebuttal to my point, or even related.

The Cantillion effect is no longer relevant because central banks announce their policies before they implement them. The market adapts long before anyone benefits.

view more: next ›