earlier replies
Replying to @davidbaron
As is the case with all taxes. Here, my gut says more of the burden will fall on the Mexican imports due to lots of substitutes.
1
not the case for taxes on negative externalities like pollution: those are net positive.
2
taxing negative externalities makes a lot of sense, especially if you're looking to change practices, but they're still paid
1
and it's interesting in the case of carbon taxes in particular to see who pays (oil companies, retailers, consumers etc)
1
Distributional aspects can be corrected by other policies that change distribution. But don't know what you mean by "still paid".
1
using a carbon tax as an example, you could see the same arguments being made "oil companies will pay for their pollution: cont.
5
on the flip side if demand were perfectly inelastic and there were no suitable substitutes, consumers would bear the entire cost
1
Things about "who bears the cost" of a very specific policy aren't interesting since basically *all* policy effects distribution
1
Distribution needs to be considered globally, not one policy at a time.
3
e.g., having police to protect against theft increases wealth inequality.
1
Replying to @davidbaron @blassey
Rather than using that to argue that police should be paid for only by the rich, we should consider the overall distribution...

Jan 26, 2017 · 11:04 PM UTC

2
Replying to @davidbaron @blassey
... produced by the sum of government policies (which are hopefully good for their own reasons) and adjust appropriately.
1
That is, fix things up at the end with an appropriately graduated (& maybe negative at points) wealth, income, or consumption tax.
Replying to @davidbaron
You seem to be getting into wealth (re)distribution, which I don't really understand. The ? is who bears the burden of the tax
2
But nearly all government policy, including the creation of a government in the first place, involves wealth redistribution.