luke warm, on Jun 23 2006, 09:27 PM, said:
helene said:
If "higher taxes on poluting activities" make you nervous, we can call it "lower taxes on non-poluting activities" instead. Same thing.
i don't think so... for example, tax breaks could (and probably should) be given to a company that designed or invented a process by which we can power an automobile without relying on refined oil... that isn't the same as raising taxes on refineries
You're right that the two measures you mention are different. The important difference is between stimulating non-usage of gasoline (which can be achieved in many ways) versus stimulating only one particular way to non-usage of gasoline.
Another issue is whether taxes should be used as an instrument and, if so, it should be tax rebates for non-polution or extra taxes for poluition. My point is that there is, in principle, no difference between the two latter. Consider this scenario:
Taxpayer A and B are identical except that A does something in a poluting way, which B does in a less poluting way. Both pay $100 in taxes. In order to encourage A to decrease his poluting activity, you could opt for either:
1) Let A pay an additional tax,of $10, on the basis of his poluting activity.
2) Give B a tax rebate of $10, as a premium for his non-poluting.
If we opt for 1) we will have to decrease the baseline tax to $95 in order to keep the total revenue constant, so A will end up paying $105 and B $95.
If we opt for 2) we will have to increase the baseline tax to $105. Again, A will pay $105 and B $95.
The reason I prefer to talk about extra taxes instead of tax rebates is that there are more activities that don't polute than there are activies that do polute. Suppose we want to encourage people to use less gasoline by means of tax rebates. You say we should give rebates to those who develop more efficient engines. But that's only one way of reducing gas use, and I see no reason to prefer that one to other alternatives. Here in the Netherlands, you can get tax rebates for using public transit, and you can get tax rebates for using a bicycle. In times there were tax rebates or other subsidies for companies who moved to areas with workforce surplus, thereby reducing the need to comute. There are also subsidies for winmills, and maybe nuclear power.
This jungle of tax rebates and other subsidies gets very bureacratic. It's much easier just to impose a single tax on carbon emmisons, instead of subsidising hundreds of different projects that may contribute to emmision reductions.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket