Lightbulbs

[Snorri1234]

7. There is at least one study linking the frequency used to light the bulb to increased rates of cancer for those that sit too near them

Yes. Full circle to getting right wing theocrats to adopt the arguments more commonly employed by left-wing environmentalists.

Aside from light obviously not causing cancer, (seriously, how would it?), the irony of using AT LEAST ONE STUDY to give your argument force is delicious. I could tell a doctor that I don't need any iron-supplements because the irony of this will last me a life time.

Good post, but for the sake of honesty, I have to step in here, even though I am partially playing "devil's advocate" (not arguing a point I truly believe).

There are suggestions that exposure to electric light at night, particularly while sleeping, can increase the chance of cancer. Its a tenuous link at best, but the basic idea is twofold. First, we are weakened by exposure to electricity. Second, light can interfere with deep sleep. There might be other reasons -- or brains are of course very complex. However, that much does actually make sense. Its not enough to prove a link.. but enough that we can't simply say light obviously doesn't cause cancer. (not to mention some possibiliites regarding certain parts of the visible light spectrum)

You provide no mechanism for this supposed cancer-cause though. And I'm fine with the idea that the lifestyle change of using electric lights has an effect on cancer-rates, but that's a far cry from saying that the frequency causes cancer.

[Timminz]

Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.

Because then the government would have a vested interest in ensuring that incandescent light bulbs continue to be used (i.e. they get revenue from their taxation). Thus, they would not want to replace them with CFL bulbs.

But the government would not be the ones deciding which bulbs get used more frequently; the consumers would be. So, regardless of any vested interest the government may have, the decision would be left up to the market.

You know (in theory, at least) there are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. The whole "mitigating negative externalities" thing is a pretty significant one.

[PLAYER57832]

You provide no mechanism for this supposed cancer-cause though. And I'm fine with the idea that the lifestyle change of using electric lights has an effect on cancer-rates, but that's a far cry from saying that the frequency causes cancer.

You are correct. I am not really convinced myself, I just meant that there is enough out there that the idea these bulbs could cause canceris not an entirely crazy thought.

If you really are interested, i can see what I can dig up.. however, in honesty, I suspect you are better at finding stuff on the internet than I.

[thegreekdog]

Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.

Because then the government would have a vested interest in ensuring that incandescent light bulbs continue to be used (i.e. they get revenue from their taxation). Thus, they would not want to replace them with CFL bulbs.

But the government would not be the ones deciding which bulbs get used more frequently; the consumers would be. So, regardless of any vested interest the government may have, the decision would be left up to the market.

You know (in theory, at least) there are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. The whole "mitigating negative externalities" thing is a pretty significant one.

There are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. I'm just trying to figure out when those have been put into effect and when they have worked. I honestly can't think of anything.

[Symmetry]

Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.

Because then the government would have a vested interest in ensuring that incandescent light bulbs continue to be used (i.e. they get revenue from their taxation). Thus, they would not want to replace them with CFL bulbs.

But the government would not be the ones deciding which bulbs get used more frequently; the consumers would be. So, regardless of any vested interest the government may have, the decision would be left up to the market.

You know (in theory, at least) there are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. The whole "mitigating negative externalities" thing is a pretty significant one.

There are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. I'm just trying to figure out when those have been put into effect and when they have worked. I honestly can't think of anything.

Can't speak for the US on this, but in the UK raising taxes on cigarettes is a way of reducing smoking in the population.

[thegreekdog]

Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.

Because then the government would have a vested interest in ensuring that incandescent light bulbs continue to be used (i.e. they get revenue from their taxation). Thus, they would not want to replace them with CFL bulbs.

But the government would not be the ones deciding which bulbs get used more frequently; the consumers would be. So, regardless of any vested interest the government may have, the decision would be left up to the market.

You know (in theory, at least) there are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. The whole "mitigating negative externalities" thing is a pretty significant one.

There are reasons beyond revenue-generation for a government to apply taxes. I'm just trying to figure out when those have been put into effect and when they have worked. I honestly can't think of anything.

Can't speak for the US on this, but in the UK raising taxes on cigarettes is a way of reducing smoking in the population.

Has it worked? Have people in the UK stopped smoking cigarettes?

It has not worked in the United States. People still smoke cigarettes.

[Symmetry]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

The last sentence illustrates my point in combination with my other point. Namely this equation:

GENERAL POLICES + SOCIAL CHANGE + TAX INCREASE = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE does not = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE = INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

I can't think of a tax increase alone that changed behavior.

However, I wonder if we tax the shit out of tires... will we get flying cars?

EDIT - Let me posit another conundrum. If the reasoning behind an increased tax on cigarettes is to stop people from smoking, why isn't the tax so onerous as to make a material effect? In other words, why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

[PLAYER57832]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

The last sentence illustrates my point in combination with my other point. Namely this equation:

GENERAL POLICES + SOCIAL CHANGE + TAX INCREASE = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE does not = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE = INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

I can't think of a tax increase alone that changed behavior.

You refer to individual behavior. Individuals have many motivators, particularly entertainment, pleasure, etc. However, if you concentrate strictly on corporations, then it does work, because corporations are in the business of making money. It takes pretty heavy ideology indeed, (plus direct control) for that to be taken over profit.

However, I wonder if we tax the shit out of tires... will we get flying cars?

Or, at least those jet packs we were promised... lol.

[Symmetry]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

The last sentence illustrates my point in combination with my other point. Namely this equation:

GENERAL POLICES + SOCIAL CHANGE + TAX INCREASE = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE does not = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE = INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

I can't think of a tax increase alone that changed behavior.

However, I wonder if we tax the shit out of tires... will we get flying cars?

That's kind of a strange statement. You accept that taxation can change behaviour, but not by itself, but you seem to be arguing against it as a way of changing behaviour.

It seems a bit like arguing that manufacturing bullets doesn't kill people alone. You need a gun and a guy to fire it, therefore bullets have no effect on killing people.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

The last sentence illustrates my point in combination with my other point. Namely this equation:

GENERAL POLICES + SOCIAL CHANGE + TAX INCREASE = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE does not = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE = INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

I can't think of a tax increase alone that changed behavior.

However, I wonder if we tax the shit out of tires... will we get flying cars?

That's kind of a strange statement. You accept that taxation can change behaviour, but not by itself, but you seem to be arguing against it as a way of changing behaviour.

It seems a bit like arguing that manufacturing bullets doesn't kill people alone. You need a gun and a guy to fire it, therefore bullets have no effect on killing people.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that general policies or changes in behavior (or government laws or regulations) can, by themselves, change behavior. I'm suggesting that taxes, by themselves, can change behavior if they are onerous enough; but the taxes aren't onerous enough so they do not change behavior by themselves.

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

I would argue that none of these are really and truly intended to eliminate people's use of those items. In fact, if they tried, they would likely be brought into court under "interstate commerce" or some such.

[Snorri1234]

why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

what on earth gives you the idea that we don't have that? in most countries at least 60% of the price on your cigarettes is tax.

[Symmetry]

Hmm- kind of an ambiguous question there. Certainly there are people in the UK who have stopped smoking because of the increase in price. There are also plenty of people who still smoke, but I suspect you knew that.

An honest question would have been "Has it worked in reducing smoking?", which was what I suggested.

I think it has, but in combination with a lot of other policies and general social change.

The last sentence illustrates my point in combination with my other point. Namely this equation:

GENERAL POLICES + SOCIAL CHANGE + TAX INCREASE = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE does not = CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR

TAX INCREASE = INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT REVENUES

I can't think of a tax increase alone that changed behavior.

However, I wonder if we tax the shit out of tires... will we get flying cars?

That's kind of a strange statement. You accept that taxation can change behaviour, but not by itself, but you seem to be arguing against it as a way of changing behaviour.

It seems a bit like arguing that manufacturing bullets doesn't kill people alone. You need a gun and a guy to fire it, therefore bullets have no effect on killing people.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that general policies or changes in behavior (or government laws or regulations) can, by themselves, change behavior. I'm suggesting that taxes, by themselves, can change behavior if they are onerous enough; but the taxes aren't onerous enough so they do not change behavior by themselves.

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

Sorry- I disagree. Taxes on tobacco can affect behaviour in a significant way. The way you framed this before was whether or not those taxes eliminate smoking. They do not. The way I phrased it was if they reduced smoking. They do.

Sorry to resort to the level of personal anecdotes, but I simply know too many people who quit smoking due mainly to the expense.

[thegreekdog]

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

I would argue that none of these are really and truly intended to eliminate people's use of those items. In fact, if they tried, they would likely be brought into court under "interstate commerce" or some such.

Exactly! My point here (to Timminz's point) is that the government has never (to my knowledge) imposed a tax with the intent on changing behavior. If the government did enact such a tax, it would have to be at such an onerous rate that no one would buy the product anymore.

I'm not sure it would be brought into court under interstate commerce. I have to think about that some more

[thegreekdog]

why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

what on earth gives you the idea that we don't have that? in most countries at least 60% of the price on your cigarettes is tax.

And it still doesn't work? Holy shit.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

I would argue that none of these are really and truly intended to eliminate people's use of those items. In fact, if they tried, they would likely be brought into court under "interstate commerce" or some such.

Exactly! My point here (to Timminz's point) is that the government has never (to my knowledge) imposed a tax with the intent on changing behavior. If the government did enact such a tax, it would have to be at such an onerous rate that no one would buy the product anymore.

I'm not sure it would be brought into court under interstate commerce. I have to think about that some more

No, you are changing the debate.

Will taxes on consumers make them give up bad habits? The answer is "no", particularly when its something addictive like tobacco.

Will they cause fewer people to keep and develop the bad habits? The answer is "yes". I know plenty of people who have either quit or significantly cut back due primarily to the costs.

And.. again, consumer behavior differs from company behavior. But, even then, taxing a company to make it give up selling its base product won't work, but taxing companies for particular outputs that result from their production, is doable.

[Snorri1234]

You refer to individual behavior. Individuals have many motivators, particularly entertainment, pleasure, etc. However, if you concentrate strictly on corporations, then it does work, because corporations are in the business of making money. It takes pretty heavy ideology indeed, (plus direct control) for that to be taken over profit.

Which is why a tax on consumers is usually not the best idea.

[PLAYER57832]

You refer to individual behavior. Individuals have many motivators, particularly entertainment, pleasure, etc. However, if you concentrate strictly on corporations, then it does work, because corporations are in the business of making money. It takes pretty heavy ideology indeed, (plus direct control) for that to be taken over profit.

Which is why a tax on consumers is usually not the best idea.

Agreed, which brings us back to my plastic bag argument in another thread (I believe you missed that one.. just as well, I did not word it well).

[Snorri1234]

why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

what on earth gives you the idea that we don't have that? in most countries at least 60% of the price on your cigarettes is tax.

And it still doesn't work? Holy shit.

Well of course it doesn't work. Though coupled with education it does sort of stop people from starting smoking. (but even then the effect is probably minimal)

[Symmetry]

why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

what on earth gives you the idea that we don't have that? in most countries at least 60% of the price on your cigarettes is tax.

And it still doesn't work? Holy shit.

Well of course it doesn't work. Though coupled with education it does sort of stop people from starting smoking. (but even then the effect is probably minimal)

So, roughly, you're arguing that tax on tobacco doesn't work in stopping people from smoking, except that you're also arguing that it does stop people from smoking too.

[Timminz]

Let me posit another conundrum. If the reasoning behind an increased tax on cigarettes is to stop people from smoking, why isn't the tax so onerous as to make a material effect? In other words, why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

note: I'm only speaking about what I know of the local situation. Perhaps other areas don't experience quite the same level of black market activity as we do.

[PLAYER57832]

Let me posit another conundrum. If the reasoning behind an increased tax on cigarettes is to stop people from smoking, why isn't the tax so onerous as to make a material effect? In other words, why have a 2% tax on cigarettes instead of a 90% tax?

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

note: I'm only speaking about what I know of the local situation. Perhaps other areas don't experience quite the same level of black market activity as we do.

yes.. I was going to mention our proximity to the reservations. They are supposed to charge taxes from non-indians, but don't always.

[thegreekdog]

I'm thinking of additional "punishment" type taxes that currently exist - there are taxes on tobacco products; there are taxes on soda; sales taxes are imposed on candy and other "bad for you" food while not being imposed on "good for you" food; there are taxes on oil and gasoline. None of these taxes have, by themselves, affected peoples' behaviors in a significant way.

I would argue that none of these are really and truly intended to eliminate people's use of those items. In fact, if they tried, they would likely be brought into court under "interstate commerce" or some such.

Exactly! My point here (to Timminz's point) is that the government has never (to my knowledge) imposed a tax with the intent on changing behavior. If the government did enact such a tax, it would have to be at such an onerous rate that no one would buy the product anymore.

I'm not sure it would be brought into court under interstate commerce. I have to think about that some more

No, you are changing the debate.

Will taxes on consumers make them give up bad habits? The answer is "no", particularly when its something addictive like tobacco.

Will they cause fewer people to keep and develop the bad habits? The answer is "yes". I know plenty of people who have either quit or significantly cut back due primarily to the costs.

And.. again, consumer behavior differs from company behavior. But, even then, taxing a company to make it give up selling its base product won't work, but taxing companies for particular outputs that result from their production, is doable.

I haven't changed the debate! Here's my position (which has remained consistent):

(1) Taxes on "bad" products are not meant to curb use of the products (although politicians will say they are); they are meant to raise revenue. The evidence I have for this is that if the government wants people to stop using a product, they can outlaw it or tax it so much that people cannot afford it.
(2) Alone, taxes on "bad" products will not curb use of the products. The evidence I have for this is tied to #1 (i.e. the government's goal is not to stop use of the product, but to get revenue from the product) and that I cannot think of anything that was simply taxed out of existence.

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

How does it undermine the reduced consumption goals? I understand how it undermines revenue generation.

Also, the black market will exist if the product is made illegal.

[Timminz]

Because when the tax on cigarettes becomes too onerous, it drives people more heavily into the black market. This undermines both the revenue-generation, and the reduced consumption goals.

How does it undermine the reduced consumption goals? I understand how it undermines revenue generation.

Also, the black market will exist if the product is made illegal.

It undermines the reduced consumption goal, because, by going into the black market for their smokes, the consumers are no longer paying more for the product, and thus are less encouraged to reduce their consumption.

It doesn't take something being illegal for there to be a black market. Overly onerous taxation will do the same thing, when there aren't any reasonable replacement products (such as there would be in the case of taxing light bulbs in the manner I suggested originally).