Garth Brazelton believes that this argument, I find it somewhat convincing:
My issue is that it keeps saying ' Sin taxes ' is not a Pigovian. Have I disagreed on this point, and I disagree. It is a basic definition of Pigovian tax: a tax levied on marketing that produces negative externalities. The idea is the re-aligns the real social cost of the benefits of the activity. This setting distorts Mankiw and implies that externalities can occur only as an action by one group adversely affects another ... The exterior is there-no external self at the time, is external to the self over time. This is correct behavior that, if a person has had full 20/20 vision and clarity of the whole of their life cycle, a likely will do less. ...And it ignores the real argument that many "sins" are real negative external effects at a given point in time-effect on family and relationships, and often non-monetary, cannot be ignored.
Never thought of this before, but hyperbolic discounting and other forms of time-inconsistent preferences can be a form of external. Can the current non-self-self charge tomorrow by drinking beer too? And this weight is an external?
I wonder if such a behavior name ' external ' are beside the point. If the imposition of those taxes sin is improving social welfare, is really important if you use the external signal?
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten