And this is why you are economically illiterate and as a consequence leftist.
You seem to be forgetting that if something doesn’t make sense to you, that’s most likely your own failure. Fallacies make sense, errors make sense, mistakes make sense in case you are literate in the field you are examining.
Since you don’t know what a pigouvian tax is, it’s a tax designed to disincentives certain behaviors. “Sin” taxes are pigouvian. They’re designed to address externalities not borne by the initial transaction.
I’m not surprised you have little understanding of terms, but perhaps instead of doing this limp-wristed slap fighting you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above.
I know what a pigouvian tax is. Those externalities are affected by market activity too, unless you mean a medieval-style fixed tribute.
I’d like you to explain why’d you think it’s not affected by an increase\decrease in market activity.
I’m not surprised you have little understanding of terms
Terms can be found in Google in 5 minutes, which is usually sufficient. That’s for those I don’t understand.
Also you don’t need those terms at all to support your position.
you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above
If activity by group A is a much bigger input into budget than that of group B, then in case of a crisis you may try to save the stability of A at the expense of that of group B. It’s less likely if these are more balanced.
The point of a pigouvian tax is not to fund the government, but to shape behavior and address externalities. Revenue is not the intent.
Again you’re not saying anything meaningful or specific. You can just say “I was talking out of my ass and barely remember the conversation.” It’s fine.
And this is why you are economically illiterate and as a consequence leftist.
You seem to be forgetting that if something doesn’t make sense to you, that’s most likely your own failure. Fallacies make sense, errors make sense, mistakes make sense in case you are literate in the field you are examining.
I am not leftist, and I know more about economics than you do, clearly.
Removed by mod
I didn’t say I didn’t understand you. I said what you said doesn’t make sense. It’s a nonsensical argument.
Pigouvian, taxes for example, do not depend on you having any income whatsoever.
Moreover the idea that “too big to fail” has anything to do with taxation is beyond absurd.
If you want to be taken seriously, know what you’re talking about, and speak with specificity.
I am a proud neoliberal, and focused on evidenced-based policy, not a leftist.
Removed by mod
Since you don’t know what a pigouvian tax is, it’s a tax designed to disincentives certain behaviors. “Sin” taxes are pigouvian. They’re designed to address externalities not borne by the initial transaction.
I’m not surprised you have little understanding of terms, but perhaps instead of doing this limp-wristed slap fighting you could actually stay on topic and describe what the fuck you meant above.
I know what a pigouvian tax is. Those externalities are affected by market activity too, unless you mean a medieval-style fixed tribute.
I’d like you to explain why’d you think it’s not affected by an increase\decrease in market activity.
Terms can be found in Google in 5 minutes, which is usually sufficient. That’s for those I don’t understand.
Also you don’t need those terms at all to support your position.
If activity by group A is a much bigger input into budget than that of group B, then in case of a crisis you may try to save the stability of A at the expense of that of group B. It’s less likely if these are more balanced.
That’s another attempt.
The point of a pigouvian tax is not to fund the government, but to shape behavior and address externalities. Revenue is not the intent.
Again you’re not saying anything meaningful or specific. You can just say “I was talking out of my ass and barely remember the conversation.” It’s fine.