ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
That's often the case, Phil. But when there are alternatives, taxing the damaging behavior that taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for from other funds can sometimes be helpful. For example, some companies might ship their stuff by truck rather than train because it's slightly cheaper. But if the trucks were taxed more for the damage they do, then some of the companies sending stuff by truck might switch to rail - and end up reducing damage done to the roads and therefore reducing overall costs. Or perhaps more people would buy local stuff if the price is now closer to the remote stuff that was shipped in - reducing the hit to the roads again.
Of course there has to be an alternative and the prices have to be relatively close, so it doesn't always matter. But in general putting the costs where the damages are is the best way to have a chance at eliminating the damage and enabling a switch to the overall-lowest-cost alternatives.
Of course there has to be an alternative and the prices have to be relatively close, so it doesn't always matter. But in general putting the costs where the damages are is the best way to have a chance at eliminating the damage and enabling a switch to the overall-lowest-cost alternatives.
