(no subject)

Date: 2010-02-11 11:10 pm (UTC)
jducoeur: (0)
From: [personal profile] jducoeur
Yes, that's correct. But put like this, I suspect people are at least a bit less likely to *perceive* it as a tax, due to its indirect nature. I mean, there are lots of implicit taxes in modern society -- but people tend not to notice the ones that aren't coming directly out of their own pockets quite as much. Also, this one is delightfully squishy: due to the auction approach, there is no clear "The government is charging us $3/gallon, which we're passing on to you" to point at -- the price is effectively set *by* the companies in the auction, and the blame gets spread around in messy ways.

But more importantly, the redistribution of the proceeds goes a fair ways towards helping with the negative impact of that tax, and *that* part is terribly clear and obvious. Even if people get pissed off at having to pay extra at the pump, the fact that most people will get back *more* than that extra goes a long ways towards neutralizing the anti-tax messaging.

(In practice, of course, they may not get back more than the extra: they'll get back more than the actual tax, but prices will have risen more than that due to scarcity. But that's getting into real economic subtlety, and shouldn't be a huge issue if the cap is set correctly and ratcheted down gradually...)
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags