Talk:Pigouvian tax/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pigovian versus Pigouvian

Re: Pigovian / Pigouvian. Information.

I didn't bother to check who added this, but it was in the article rather than the discussion. Personally, I'm in favor of "Pigouvian"--it's how my professors refer to the concept, and it does a better job of crediting Pigou. --Knoepfle 10:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone also offer a phonetic pronunciation for each spelling?

Misc

It'd be helpful if the page explained why

Can someone please footnote the study mentioned in the final pollution tax paragraph. (NIKO)

Merge?

This article is like a manual redirect to social cost#Pigovian taxes. Maybe the details of Pigovian taxes should be here instead? --Mrwojo 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I encluded the bulk of P.Tax material in the social costs article is that a reader will need to understand the concepts of social cost, private cost, etc. to understand P.Taxes as any more than a superficial definition. mydogategodshat 19:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense and it points out the problem I have with this article: It's a superficial definition. --Mrwojo 21:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quick assessment suggests that you have four options, which are listed below in order of ascending efficacy:

1. Add the material that is here into Social cost and make P. tax a redirect.
2. Build this article so that it is more complete (and it largely duplicates the social cost article).
3. Move this article to Wikionary seeing as it is essentially a definition.
4. Have another shot of vodka and things will look better.

mydogategodshat 18:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page should not redirect to social cost. A Pigovian tax is a separate concept on which plenty can be written to make a good article. —Lowellian (talk) 06:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems much better now. Suggestion withdrawn. --Mrwojo 14:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

The first paragraph of the 'Pollution Taxes' section reads:

One argument that has been put forward against the levying of Pigovian pollution taxes is that in certain conditions they can lead to a level of pollution that is less than the social optimum. With a Pigovian tax there is always an incentive to reduce pollution. The alternative, regulation, is viewed as having a higher cost to society because Pigovian taxes raise revenue, while regulation does not. On the other hand, once a company has achieved the regulated level of pollution it has no incentive to further reduce it.

In the last sentence above 'On the other hand ...' I am assuming the first 'hand' eluded to is in the second sentence 'With a Pigovian tax there is ...' but the third sentence placed between the two makes this unclear on the first read Doctus 05:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarify Defintion or Example

The first paragraph says:

A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied to correct the negative externalities of a market activity.

but then goes on to say:

For instance, a Pigovian tax may be levied on producers who pollute the environment to encourage them to reduce pollution, and to provide revenue which may be used to counteract the negative effects of the pollution.

It's my understanding that the tax must be used to counter the damage of the externality in order to be Pigovian, not that it may be used to counteract externalities. If the correct word is may, then how does a Pigovian tax differ from any other tax? Is it simply that the intention is to discourage some activity?

Thecabinet 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to say we could NEVER quantify externalities

I have removed the following language as overly broad and unscientific: "Indeed, usually this is knowledge which could never be provided as a "given' by any present or future "method", due to insuperable cognitive limits on knowledge explored by economists like Friedrich Hayek and researchers in the various fields of nonlinear dynamics. So the limits identified by Pigou are limits which theoretically and empirically could never be remedied by any current or yet to be developed modeling technique."

It is highly dubious to claim anything is impossible "by any present or future method." If it is possible to model climates (The Earth Simulator), then it is possible to model economies. It may indeed be difficult to effectively quantify externalities. But it would be such an important breakthrough that it seems ludicrous to assume it can't or shouldn't even be tried.

BlackSun 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A pigouvian tax is not equivalent to a sin tax

a sin tax simply taxes an unwanted behavior and can be (usually is) applied to a purely personal behavoir which has no direct social cost. a pigouvian tax is intended to redress a negative externality.

Sjburden 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. --JHP (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have restored the Sin tax article for now. Further discussion at Talk:Sin tax. William Pietri (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

How to pronounce "Pigovian"?

How do you pronounce "Pigovian"? I've only ever seen it spelled, so I pronounce it as it is spelled: Pi-GO-vian. However, I believe Pigou is pronounced something like Pee-jzoo. --JHP (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have only ever heard it pronounced "Pi-GOO-vee-en," and I have heard it pronounced many times by many people.

Some citations that should not be needed

In the last paragraph in the section titled "Pollution taxes" there are "citation needed" markers for the following sentences:

1. However, it cannot be confirmed that an increase in green tax rates causes higher GDP growth and higher HDI growth rates.[citation needed] 2. It may be a correlative effect as opposed to a causal effect[citation needed].

I don't think these need citations -- the opposite assertions should need citations. No one should need to give a citation for "it cannot be confirmed" and "It may be a correlative effect". fogus (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Replying less to the specifics, and more to the principle... Things like that probably still need citations because there needs to be a restriction on things like, "it has not been disproved that consumption of broccoli turns children evil". You can't require proof of a negative, but it's important that a reliable source raised the negative in the first place. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

regressive/progressive

User:Cretog8: I agree that most pigovian taxes are regressive, but most of the folks who support them (especially in regards to carbon taxes) talk about returning the funds in a progressive way to offset the regressive taxation. I just think it's incredibly important to mention that, since that is a common context in which folks talk about pigovian taxes. Do you really feel that it is not notable? Rosenbluh (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's tricky. I think it's important to be accurate, and so it should be clear that Pigovian taxes (PT) which are regressive, are simply regressive. That's different than an entire program, partly consisting of PT being regressive, of course. I just don't want distinct inaccuracies slipping in order to illustrate wider points.

How about something like, "...corresponding Pigovian tax is regressive, although this may be offset by matching progressive policies."?

Really it needs a source, but so does almost everything in the article. O well. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree about sourcing and like your draft wording. Perhaps there should be a section to explain how the term pigovian taxes relates to sin tax, carbon tax and ecotax (a term I've never seen outside wikipedia)? Rosenbluh (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

new diagram

I created a new diagram to illustrate the concept. I would appreciate feedback on ways to improve the image. Jon513 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture you've drawn assumes a flat per-unit tax (hence a constant cost increase) rather than a percentage tax (which would increase slope instead). That would be an important point to clarify. Obscurans (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The diagram is too small to read the text without clicking to open it on another page. Can it be made bigger? -- Margin1522 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Examples

Can someone add some examples of current pigovian taxes currently being levied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sumptuary Tax

I found this entry as a Redirect from "Sumptuary Tax" however a Pigovian Tax is not a Sumptuary Tax and there is no discussion as to how Sumptuary Taxes may relate to Pigovian taxation of market activities (a Sumptuary tax is more like a Luxury tax). If there is no such discussion then there should be an entry on Sumptuary Tax. LAWinans (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pigouvian tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== Start class. It should be B class until more references added and maybe some expansion into how different countries approach this type of tax. Then it could be Good Article class, or A class at least.EECavazos 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== High priority because this is a type of tax that exists worldwide, likely will have high traffic (particularly for the sin tax aspect), and is important in tax policy.EECavazos 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)