earlier replies
Replying to @blassey
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
I think that implies that you can't evaluate the effect of a single policy, which I think is untrue
1
Sure, evaluating effects of changes to policy is good. But I'd evaluate them against categories like income/wealth distribution...
1
Replying to @davidbaron @blassey
... and not consider "oil companies" as entities deserving of fundamentals like food & housing in the way people are.

Jan 26, 2017 · 11:10 PM UTC

2
Replying to @davidbaron @blassey
My original objection was that "paying for" seemed to obscure that the effects of the policy were not a simple transfer.
Replying to @davidbaron
oil companies are entities that employ a bunch of people, giving them the ability to acquire food and housing
1
Sure, employees of oil companies are one of many parties affected by environmental policies, and should be considered.