chris (12/16/82)
re: "either way the consumer will pay" hp-pcd.537
While it's true that someone will pay under both taxing schemes, they aren't
the same people. That kind of reasoning in government officials is one of
the reasons that some Libertarians (eg. myself) wander back and forth
between espousing anarchy and minarchy[1]. (No offense intended, it's just
that bureaucrats can implement decisions made on the basis of this kind of
quick reasoning.)
A government has the power (and claims the right) to make decisions about
where a market will be created and which tradeoffs are close enough. When
the decisions are made too easily, some individual(s) lose(s). Any
government will make some decisions too easily (usurping some rights) in
someone's opinions since there aren't any objective standards for how much
to invest in a decision.
My analysis of the gasoline vs. diesel tax argument:
(Assuming the current situation viz. public-use roads
supported via some sort of coercive taxation.)
It is important that the weight of the burden fall on those causing the
damage. The present system of collecting road-use taxes for large
trucks, and attempting to enforce it via weighing stations is in the right
vein. Perhaps enforcement of whatever laws pertain to these should be
stepped up. More trucks use diesel than ordinary gasoline, but there are
still a lot of private automobiles that use diesel. I don't think that
taxing the use of diesel fuel hits close enough to the problem we're
(I'm) considering; It has too many other side effects to be a good
solution. Besides, weighing stations extracting extra payments for heavy
users of the roads is closer to private toll roads which I'd prefer anyway.
[1] Minarchy: from min meaning small and arch having to do with gov't;
similarly Anarchy from an meaning no.)