Comment by noqc
17 hours ago
Sure, but my point stands regardless.
All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things. This is a fundamental rule of economics. Using this as an argument against LVT just means that you are opposed to taxation generally as a way to generate revenue. This essay doesn't defend that position though, because it is engaged in magical thinking.
Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
> All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things
I think a majority would agree tobacco is not a good thing and yet we tax it.
taxing tobacco is not to generate revenue. That is, in fact, exactly the point. Taxing tobacco is to discourage tobacco use. The point is to have close to zero tobacco use, which results in close to zero revenue.
Taxing tobacco is for both purposes.
The author is quite clear that they are just pointing out that the LVT has some downsides, and are not trying to make any case about its overall value. It's good for LVT supporters to understand the counterarguments and be able to weigh them and rebut them (or change their mind! but hopefully not in this case because the counterarguments are very weak).
I don't understand your "fundamental rule of economics" claim - carbon taxes are a clear counterexample, I would think.
If the tax equals the externalized costs of burning carbon, and people continue to burn carbon, burning carbon is "good".
The whole point is to tax the bad externality rather than tax the good thing (energy production, or whatever). That doesn't make carbon production good, it just means that you aren't taxing the externality enough to discourage the underlying good activity.
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
It seems like you are equating self-labeling of this sort with claiming to be a paragon of that ideology.
Do you think someone who labels themselves as "Christian" inherently believes they are pure of soul and perfect, and sins less than non-Christians? Certainly there are plenty of self-righteous people out there, but "Christian" does not imply "Christ-like".
The same goes for rationalists - "rationalist" does not imply "rational". I don't know the proportion of self-described rationalists that would consider themselves truly rational, but I think a good portion of them would consider anyone who made that claim to be full of crap. The whole movement is predicated on studying and maintaining awareness of the mountains of cognitive bias humans carry. If you can study that and still think you are ultra-rational, you've got a special kind of hubris.
>Do you think someone who labels themselves as "Christian" inherently believes they are pure of soul and perfect, and sins less than non-Christians?
I have known a lot of Christians. I can answer with an unequivocal yes.
C'mon, that's obviously generalizing and unfair.
Your core stance really just seems to be "people suck and groups of people also suck".
That is an absolutely hilarious argument, made even funnier by accusing other people of magical thinking. I don't even know where to start with it, "All taxes that generate revenue are taxes on good things"? A fundamental rule of economics? Is your argument that LVT generates revenue therefore you can't criticize that it could suppress development in some cases?
>Is your argument that LVT generates revenue therefore you can't criticize that it could suppress development in some cases?
No.
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
This frankly comes across as projection.
>projection
Please elaborate. I do not know what you could possibly mean.
person 1: "i am a rational person."
person 2: "how dare you call me an irrational person!"
What do you imagine the purpose of naming the movement "pro-life" to be?
> Calling yourself a rationalist is just branding. It means that your opponents aren't rationalists. It's dishonest.
Consider, are you exceptional in the sense that you would not place yourself in any camp whatsoever, ascribe to any ideology? You're neither left or right? Actions dictate identity.
Having an interest in something is not the same as having a superiority complex.
If your name for your "ideology" is "better than yours", then yes, I consider this to be a superiority complex.