system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
What are the main arguments against Pigovian Taxes?

I have a general understanding of Pigouvian Taxes. They are taxes used to influence behaviour, such as carbon taxes influencing someone's burning of fossil fuels.

I can think of a few arguments against Pigovian Taxes, but they don't seem economic and are more ideological. For example, generally being against government intervention in markets or affecting people's freedom of choice.

What other arguments are there against Pigouvian Taxes? (assuming I understood the concept correctly).

Edit: I realized I misspelled the term in the title.
gpt
One issue might be government failures. When there is an externality, the competitive equilibrium allocation is not optimal. This is a market failure. Theoretically, a social planner can set a Pigouvian tax/subsidy to restore the social optimum. However, this is probably not feasible in practice. First, in order to calculate the optimum, the social planner has to know a lot of information regarding the cost structure of firms and people’s preferences. Second, implementing the tax might be difficult, especially in countries with poor state capacity, since people will try to evade the tax. Third, the government agencies are in practice run by self-interested bureaucrats and politicians, not by benevolent planners. So, their decisions might be different from the optimum.