Externalities are the costs that a product gives rise to which are not usually reflected in its sale price because they are borne by society at large and not by the specific consumer of the item made available for sake e.g., the pollution from driving a car is an externality the cost of which the motorist does not directly bear.
No, the costs of an activity which are not included in prices. Driving a car is not a product, it’s an activity.
Excise duties are often used to correct for the cost of externalities.
Sigh. Pigou Taxes are used to correct for the cost of externalities. An excise tax is an indirect tax upon a specific good, service or activity. But when it is used to correct prices for externalities then it is a Pigou Tax.
But when it is used to correct prices for externalities then it is a Pigou Tax.
Keep saying it doesn’t make it true, Tim.
In practise there’s no discernible difference between the two. Just the names being changed to protect the guilty.
Actually, I just realised there is one. The TV License Fee. It’s certainly achieving its object these days.
HM Customs & Pigou just doesn’t sound right.
“made available for sake” – how long has he been drinking the stuff?
Today’s a Twofer… We get him fucking up economics and tax in the same post.
Too bad he couldn’t work banking in there somehow.
Whatever happened to his wiki? Wasn’t that supposed to be a glossary of key economic and tax concepts?
From what I can remember, it was every bit as shit, but why is he reinventing his own wheel here?
aaa: perhaps he could finally smell the stench of that, and is trying again with another turd.
Excise taxes are indirect?
Why not pay ppl to buy electric cars?
Why not simply print money to pay for externalities?
They do in the UK. They subsidise immigrants so they can rape their children.
“Excise taxes are indirect?”
They certainly are. “An indirect tax (such as sales tax, per unit tax, value added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST), excise, consumption tax, tariff) is a tax that is levied upon goods and services before they reach the customer who ultimately pays the indirect tax as a part of market price of the good or service purchased. Alternatively, if the entity who pays taxes to the tax collecting authority does not suffer a corresponding reduction in income, i.e., impact and tax incidence are not on the same entity meaning that tax can be shifted or passed on, then the tax is indirect.”
What is the point of Spud creating a glossary riddled with stupid errors caused by his lack of knowledge, intellect and understanding? Wikipedia already exists and is usually elegant and informative – neither of which applies to Spud’s demented and turgid stylistic mash-ups. Try this definition from Wkpda
“an externality or external cost is an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party’s (or parties’) activity”
“What is the point of Spud creating a glossary”
Primarily to massage his massive ego and to solicit acclaim from his obsequious camp followers. The same warm pleasure a small child gets when it wets the bed.
Also grift and grants.
“What is the point of Spud creating a glossary”
He can self define whatever he wants, then use that definition to prove himself correct.
“Why not simply print money to pay for externalities?”
Because the whole point of an externality is that you want to internalise it, I.e. to make the cost fall on the person causing it, so that they make a proper decision about whether it’s worth it.
《to make the cost fall on the person causing it,》
Why use the inherent threat of violence, when you can just print money to get ppl to do the right thing?
Because magic doesn’t work, rsm.