Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH
No, that is not the definition of a regressive tax. From Investopedia:
|
What can I say, Investopedia is simply wrong. I'm finding other sources that define regressive taxation as
Quote:
|
A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
|
This is the commonly understood definition.
With Investopiedia's definition, everything is regressive. The price of eggs is regressive by that definition. Assuming they are correct, what would you call a tax rate that decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases? That scenario is then left undefined, and flat tax is defined twice; once as a flat tax, and once as a regressive tax. It's an unuseful definition.
Quote:
Governments around the world want people to buy EVs to reduce CO2 and local urban pollution. They want them to buy EVs now because cars are durable goods so cars built today will still be on the roads decades from now. The problem is that today an EV costs more than a gas car. A logical person looking at dollars and cents will buy a gas car today. So if the government wants to change that calculation they have to make gas cars more expensive or EVs cheaper.
The easiest and most direct way to do that is when the car is purchased. Instead of giving an EV a $7500 credit they could add a surcharge to new car sales based on CO2 emissions.
|
Complete agreement there. Better to tax the thing you want to reduce consumption of than to subsidize your best guess alternative(or the one lobbyists are bribing politicians to pick). We wanted to reduce cigarette smoking, so taxation on it went up. We didn't provide subsidies for bubble gum and sunflower seeds.
Quote:
|
The other option is doing what the EU did. Force automakers to make more efficient cars by make the fines so large that companies can't just pay the fines. See VW's fleet emission for the proof that it works.
|
Local air quality is a separate matter from what the federal government should be concerned with; CO2 emissions. Unilaterally curbing CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy (which hurts the poorest most) is a fool's errand. If we reduce emissions while everyone else doesn't (which actually happened despite withdrawal from Paris Agreement), and the world boils away all life, what point is there? Do we get to go to climate heaven then?
In every respect, there is a climate cult of religious leaders, prophecies of doom, paths to salvation, doctrine of morality, slavery to a higher being (Mother Earth) or purpose (environment)... and I don't intend that as an insult, as every religion has useful and good aspects. Conserving scarce resources and using them efficiently is a good thing.
I point this out because I run every idea through this understanding and determine if it's based in religious dogma, or if it fundamentally addresses a problem in the real world. Sometimes dogma addresses a problem in the real world, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's slow to adapt because the point is to streamline decision making for the masses and not to adapt to a changing problem landscape.