Very many thanks to Andrew for the link and the challenge. It is nice to be reminded that there are respectable types with inclinations even less socialistic than my decidedly unsocialistic own. I agree that the goal of redistribution and social engineering through progressive taxation is a misguided one, though I also think that a bit of (sufficiently simple) progressiveness in the tax code is not really that bad, and that the very poor should in any case be given a serious break. But my heart, too, lies with the rEVOLution.
Nevertheless, the substance of Andrew’s challenge seems to me to skirt the issue I was after here, which is that raising taxes specifically on gasoline or other highly carbon-emitting purchases is exactly the sort of tweaking of the tax code that Andrew is claiming here to be against. A gasoline tax is not, in other words, truly “flat”: it singles out a specific kind of expenditure which is an especially inescapable part of the budget of the rural poor and so makes those without the financial means or geographic luck to be able to get away from gasoline shoulder a part of the tax burden that I’m not sure is rightly theirs to bear. And it’s for this reason, rather than my opposition to flat-taxing “heartlessness”, that I’m opposed to raising the tax on gasoline in poorer areas where the infrastructure to get off the stuff isn’t reasonably in place.
This case, in other words, is one where it’s Andrew – not me – who’s going in for tax-driven social engineering; the really big problem, though, is that those who will be doing most of the fueling (as it were) for the tax-driving (as it were) are not very well-equipped for such a responsibility. A truly “simple” tax code that “treat[ed] citizens equally” would be one on which the purchase of solar panels was taxed just the same as a fill-up.
Filed under: energy, environment, government/law, taxation, transportation
[...] See Jim Henley’s comment below, as well as my response to Andrew’s response.] 5 Comments so far Leave a [...]
Andrew wasn’t talking about or advocating a gasoline tax in the original post and says as much in the response. Re-read the original post and the linked posts the reader was referring to. His discussion of gas prices was independent of his support for a flat tax on income. Or at least that is how I understand it.
Patrick:
Fair enough, and I do apologize if I got things at all mixed up, though Andrew did cheer high gasoline prices, and he has been (though is he still?) in favor of carbon taxing. And in any case, there are lots of other people who support higher gas taxes and so to whom this argument obviously applies. But I do appreciate the clarification.
[...] outlined in this blog post, and claims that it shows that the task of overcoming the initial regressiveness of a tax on carbon, and indeed making such a tax progressive, is a cinch. No, it [...]
Yes, he’s been in favor of a carbon tax in the past and as far as I know is still in favor of one, though he seems to have pivoted somewhat after considering Manzi’s arguments about global warming. I agree there are plenty of others who support higher gas taxes and it’s a worthwhile debate.