Talk:Pigovian tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Tax related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents

[edit] 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?

[edit] Misc

It'd be helpful if the page explained why

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

[edit] 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 Suggestion withdrawn.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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/g/Talk%7EPigovian_tax_cf96.html"