Thursday, April 26, 2007

How Much Do You Need to Know to Tax Gas

A few people have complained in the comments on Greg's site that we shouldn't increase the gas tax because we don't know the elasticity of gas or how much consumption we should give up in exchange for saving the envrionment. There are two points about this.

First, we do have estimates of the price elasticity of gas.

Secondly, however, the beauty of Pigouvian taxes, unlike cap-and-trade by the way, is that we don't have to know that much. We don't need to know elasticities. We don't need to know the "right" amount of pollution. We don't even need to know whether or not people should be driving less.

We do have to an estimate of the envrionmental damages that gasoline brings. Admittedly that might be hard to pin down exactly. The nice thing about taxes, however, is that if we are off by a bit the economic harm isn't that great.

See the price of gasoline is basically the cost of making it plus some reasonable profit for the refinery. There is the messy issue of OPEC but that has become increasingly less important in recent years.

So when people decide to fill up their tank they are implicitly asking themselves, "Is the benefit to me of taking this drive greater than the cost to the driller of drilling the well, plus the tanking company for transporting the crude oil, plus the refinery for turning it into gasoline plus the retailer for operating this store plus the tax the state charges for building the roads."

If it is then the motorist fills up her tank content in the knowledge that she has maximized social welfare. She imposed a cost on all of those people, but the benefit to her was greater and she proved it by paying the going price for gasoline.

But wait! We forgot someone. We forgot the child who will be born just one day to late ever see a glacier because our motorist added just a little bit more carbon to the atmosphere and speed up the rate of global warming by a teeny-tiny amount.

The little child did not get paid and so our motorist can no longer be confident that she is maximizing social welfare. We can she do!? Should she shun gasoline forever? Feel guilty until the day she dies?

Well, she could just pay him. The one problem is that since our kid isn't born yet we don't know exactly what his asking price will be. We have to take a guess. But, once we make that guess we add it to the price of gasoline and our motorist is once again happy in the knowledge that she has made the world a better place.

In this entire story we didn't say how much gasoline our motorist was buying, where she was going or even what kind of vehicle she's driving. Thats because we don't really need to know. All we need to know is that she was willing to compensate that little boy for the cost she was imposing upon him.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I take your point (and I'm going to change my tune a little bit as a result), but as I mentioned back on Greg's blog, a cap-and-trade system is based on the premise that there is a finite upper limit for the rate of emissions of CO2 and it's equivalents that can sustain a (stochastically) stable system. To put it another way:

The marginal cost of pollution is not constant; it is increasing.

In this case, the only way for a tax system to truly capture the cost of pollution is for it to be highly progressive ($1 on the first gallon, $2 on the second, $5 on the third and so forth).

p.s. I actually suspect that the marginal cost of pollution is increasing non-linearly, so that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd derivatives of the Cost-of-total-pollution are all strictly positive.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand this comment.

First, I'm not even sure that the marginal cost of pollution is increasing. But there might be good reasons why it is. (Maybe this comes down to a question of toxicity)

But second, surely the marginal cost of pollution isn't literally increasing so fast that the millionth gallon purchased and the millionth+1 gallon purchased should have very different prices.

What this would seem to suggest to me is that we should have a floating tax rate that always readjusts to the current best estimate of marginal cost. That best estimate is a function of the currently existing background pollution level, which changes with time.

If you want to get more fancy about it, you probably want to condition the tax rate on local pollution conditions. So you pay more gas tax in smoggy LA than in sunny, clear Arizona.

Michael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel M said...

If contemporary people want to compensate people from the future they can start making deposits in a trust fund.

Taxation is not about what we, humble citizens want. It's about what those in power want. Political Economy 101.

Also, how come offsetting the costs down to 0 is the optimal solution?

If you can give me a number without knowing the optimal level of pollution then why not simply tell us what it is?

Gabriel M said...

P.S. If the motorist cares about "social" cost then she is not self-interested in the standard sense. In which case any inefficiency results of the decentralized equilibrium shouldn't be taken for granted.

Anonymous said...

Your theory seems right, but unfortunately it's got to be 1000 times easier to estimate the price elasticity of gasoline than the externalities involved in consuming it.

I am led to understand that modeling the earth's climate prevents not a few challenges, let alone quantifying the economic impacts (net of benefits) of those changes.

Then, for another thing, you seem to have presupposed a free market for gasoline exists now. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some will note there is a worldwide cartel that conspires to keep prices higher than a market would otherwise produce by restricting supply. (no, not "Big Oil" - it's called "OPEC"). For another, a pretty good chunk of the world's reserves are in the hands of basket-case governments, I assure you Hugo Chavez using his reserves to satisfy goals other than "maximizing profits to the firm".

What would the price of oil be in a free market? Very likely less than it is today. If you look at finding and development costs for oil reserves in public western companies they tend to run around $10-15 per barrel.

There are also multiple layers of taxation and regulation already in place. There's not exactly ease of entry into the refining business. It's not likely anyone's going to build a refniery any time soon regardless of how high refining margins get.

A few years back, the government required every retail gasoline station in the country to dig up its underground storage tank and replace it with a newer more leak resistant type. Hundreds of gasoline stations closed their doors instead of spending the money. Sure you can argue a leaky tank may be an externality, but not all the tanks were leaking. What are the odds that the government policy perfectly addressed the externality? About zero at any given location. About zero in the aggregate.

On the flip side, there are things the government does to artificially lower the demand for oil as well. CAFE standards, Ethanol subsidies, etc.

Anyway, gimme the elasticity problem anyday!

Garth A Brazelton said...

Karl,

You said,"we do have estimates of the price elasticity of gas."

Which is true...the problem is they vary from an insignificant amount (-.0X to about -.5 or so. The lateset paper I read, using recent data, has elasticity so miniscule (-.04 in the short run and not much better in the long run) as to make any gas tax policy either farily worthless, or politically ridiculous....

The notion that elasticities aren't important in determining the gas tax is flawed:
You can determine the cost of the externalities beyond the private cost - true. And yes, we may even be able to pinpoint a value. And from that value, we may be able to set a gas tax to compensate the future loser.

And all that would be fine IF the gas tax were to go to the future losers as compensation.
But it doesn't. There are two options to compensate the losers:

-put the revenue from the tax directly into bettering the environment

or

-put the revenue in a trust fund to provide future generations as an outlay

Either way you do the compensation, the current users suffer via higher (regressive) taxation.

The whole notion of :
"But, once we make that guess we add it to the price of gasoline and our motorist is once again happy in the knowledge that she has made the world a better place."

...is wrong. They are not "happy." If they were happy to pay the higher price, you would not have had to tax them in the first place!!!

That leaves us with two problems: how can we compensate both the losers in the present (due to higher taxes) and the losers in the future (environment).

We do this by taking the revenue from the tax hike to repay the current losers, and we ASSUME the elasticities are such that carbon consumption falls by enough to provide the adequate benefit to the future.

So you see, the assumption of elasticity IS important if you intend to compensate the current losers (as Mankiw would want to do)

Michael said...

Well, the current losers from the added tax, they're just paying the price they should pay. If you then reduce their tax burden by the same amount, you didn't actually tax them. So I don't really understand that comment.

Now, maybe you're saying that some of the taxed people should pay the tax, and some are too poor, and we should not ask them to pay.

If that's the proposal, fine. Fix the market by taxing first. Then, after all markets have been fixed with necessary taxes (sin taxes, carbon taxes, anything else), go ahead and give money to people who don't have enough money. Two separate issues.

But don't earmark Pigouvian tax revenues to reimburse people for paying Pigouvian taxes. Is that what you mean? I may be misunderstanding. But that proposal wouldn't make any sense.

Garth A Brazelton said...

Michael,

I'm simply saying that attempting to 'internalize' externalities is basically forcing people to do what they would not do otherwise in the private market. If you did not compensate the losers with the tax hike, what would you do with it? The point of the tax hike is to pay for the environmental costs not accounted for in the private market. The gov't could indeed spend that money on the environment or on the people negatively affected by it (future generations), but it would be at the (large) expense of current taxpayers (likely poor due to regressivity) who really would prefer not to pay the tax.

So yes, from a purely efficient standpoint, one wouldn't need to reimburse the current losers or redistribute the tax.... They are just paying for the social cost that they neglected to internalize.

BUT in reality, such taxes hurt someone who will demand to be compensated (if not just for political reasons - and especially for a good like energy/gas which is a necessity good as opposed to a luxury good). This, and the fact that the tax is regressive, is why Mankiw and others reccomend that the tax hike be revenue neutral such that the revenue flow back out to the current generation in the form of EITC or some other benefit.

And if that is a part of the plan, then the only way to "pay" for the costs of environmental damage is via the (small)consumption drop in carbon due to elasticities.

Garth A Brazelton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Garth A Brazelton said...

.... Let me explain this way. Let's take a Coaseian framework that there are 3 parties: gas consumers, gas producers, and mother Earth (not quite an actual person). The goal of the Pigou pricing is to make sure that the consumers and gas producers all pay for the fact that Mother Earth gets a little more ill each time they make a transaction. The idea is that , consumers and producers each will pay mother Earth until her cost is efficiently paid for. And, they pay for this in terms of the 'wedge' generated from moving from the old to the new Price/Quantity point.

That's great.

The problem is that the government is not Mother Earth.

The government is forced to decide how to spend the revenue. They MAY give it to Mother Earth, but at the expense of taxpayers. This is not a politically good move and perhaps, while efficient, not very equitable since Mother Earth is generally pretty well off now, and she's not a real person. In this scenario though, Mother Earth gets money to pay for her health, and people consume a little less carbon - both of which are good for Mother Earth.

Understanding the political and equity problems, they then may decide to just give the money in some form back to the people to offset the fact that they are forcing them to pay for some unseen being. In this scenario, Mother Earth does NOT get the money. It goes back, basically, to the same people that paid it in the first place. The only benefit mother Earth gets is that now carbon is relatively more expensive - meaning consumers will consume a little less of it.

In order for Mother Earth to get the same benefit in both scenarios, the tax would have to be extremely large in the second scenario.

Anonymous said...

wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow gold@@@@
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
rolex replica
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
replica rolex
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
rolex
wow gold
wow gold
Warcraft Gold
Warcraft Gold

中高年 転職
アルバイト 求人情報
ブライダル
転職
競馬
FX
ダイエット
お見合い
競馬 予想
新築マンション
新築マンション
コンタクトレンズ
婚約指輪
合宿免許
人材派遣
東京都 墓地
派遣会社
人材派遣
パチンコ 攻略
おなら

货架
OCR
OCR
手机词典
高速扫描
机票
灭蟑螂
蜗轮减速机
减速机
齿轮减速机
丝杆升降机
租房
租房
北京租房
北京租房
搬家公司
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
上海机票
上海机票
上海打折机票
上海打折机票
上海特价机票
上海特价机票
搬家公司
搬家公司
北京搬家公司
北京搬家公司

ddfhfgjjf

Anonymous said...

black mold exposure,
black mold symptoms of exposure,

wrought iron garden gates,
your nest iron garden gates, here,

hair styles for fine thin hair,
search hair styles for fine thin hair,

night vision binoculars,
buy, night vision binoculars,

lipitor reactions,
lipitor reactions,


luxury beach resort in the philippines,
beach resort in the philippines,

homeopathy for baby eczema.,
homeopathy for baby eczema.,

save big with great mineral makeup bargains,
companies marketing mineral makeups,

prodam iphone praha,
Apple prodam iphone praha,

Anonymous said...

I have found it on this website called [url=http://tipswift.com]tip swift[/url]. You can find it there.
cheers
edit: wrong post

Anonymous said...

registry easy -
registry genius -
registry smart -
registry winner -
registry winner download -
reverse mobile -
richard mackenzie direct -
rocket japanese -
rotator cuff training -
save my marriage today -
secrets book -
silent sales machine -
silver lotto -
spyware cease -
super affiliate handbook -
the 11 forgotten laws -
thebadbreathreport -
the bad breath report -
thedietsolutionprogram -
the diet solution program -
the power pause -
tmj help -
tonsil stones remedies -
top secret fat loss secret -
turbulence training -
twitter rockstar -
uncle sams money -
underground hypnosis -
vincedelmontefitness -
vince del monte fitness -
warcraft millionaire -
warcraft wealth -
warp speed fat loss -
webcomp analyst -

Anonymous said...

wedding speech 4u -
win back love -
your software website -
zox pro -
zygor guides -
500 love making tips -
acid alkaline diet -
acne no more -
advanced defrag -
adware alert -
adware bot -
affiliate elite -
anti spyware -
anti spyware bot -
article bully -
art of approaching -
auto pilot profits -
bbq book -
blogging in action -
body building revealed -
burnthefat -
burn the fat -
carb rotation diet -
chopper tattoo -
conversationalhypnosis -
conversational hypnosis -
cure for tinnitus -
debt free in three -
driver checker -
duplicate file cleaner -
earth4energy -
earth 4 energy -
easy member pro -
easy tv soft -

Anonymous said...

maternityacupressure -
maternity acupressure -
meet your sweet -
moles warts removal -
money siphon system -
muscle gaining secrets -
my airfare secrets -
my miracle loans -
my out of control teen -
natural cancer treatments -
ovarian cyst cures -
pc optimizer pro -
piano for all -
prevent sweating -
privacy control -
publicrecordspro -
public records pro -
pvp bible -
quick article pro -
quit smoking today -
reg defense -
reg genie -
registry easy -
registry genius -
registry smart -
registry winner -
registry winner download -
reg tool -
relationship headquarters -
reverse mobile -
richard mackenzie direct -
rocket japanese -
rotator cuff training -
satellite tv pc master -