10

10 log in or sign up to start earning Butterfly Credits today!
learn more »
earn credits for web search

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

Groups > $ Green Tax Shift $ > Discussions > Topic: what is a green tax shift?
Topic: what is a green tax shift?

powered by Care2.com • Care2 Home • E-cards & Fun • Shopping • Healthy Living • News Network • Petitions • Click to Donate


Freediver O.	what is a green tax shift? October 17, 2005 9:30 PM A green tax shift involves reducing the tax burden on environmentally and socially benign industries and increasing the tax burden on damaging industries. The total tax burden on the economy remains the same, as does the income for the government. The increase in tax on damaging industries should reflect the social cost of the pollution. That way the increase in tax is effectively removing a subsidy. That is, the community no longer foots the bill for the problems created by an industry. When this bill is taken into account, a green tax shift will improve the economy as a whole. Rather than taxing the economy, the government is charging for the right to pollute. The immediate pressures on the economy (total tax burden) remain the same, but long term negative effects are reduced. Promoting a green tax shift as being revenue neutral helps to prevent it from being seen as a partisan issue where one political party wants to use it as an opportunity to fatten government coffers and another wants to reduce them. A green tax shift also involves less government interference than many other measures. Rather than the government trying to decide which industries should be cut back to protect the environment, they charge for the right to pollute and let economic forces dictate which industries continue and which are no longer viable. In addition to taxing pollution, a fuel tax is the most direct way to charge people for the amount of damage they do to the roads, as the fuel consumption of a car reflect this damage. It is a much better option than road tolls, and costs far less to collect. The idea of a green tax shift has been lobbied against by the oil industry for a long time. The oil industry is behind a lot of the scare campaigns that claim that it would harm the economy. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	October 17, 2005 9:32 PM Pollution, or other social ills created by industry, are called 'negative externalities.' If the community bears the cost of them, they are an indirect subsidy to the industry. [ send green star]
anonymous	October 17, 2005 9:49 PM Are there any nations that currently practice the green tax shift? [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 17, 2005 9:56 PM All nations do to some extent. Most developed countries tax fuel more than other goods. Europe has high fuel taxes. [ send green star]
anonymous	October 17, 2005 10:55 PM High taxes on fuel, and subsidize the oil companies. How is that green? [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 17, 2005 10:58 PM I mean remove subsidies for oil companies. Obviously the removal of harmful subsidies should come before the green tax shift, otherwise you are taking with one hand and giving with the other. [ send green star]
Poetic W.	The Real Burden October 17, 2005 11:32 PM "Green Tax" or similar attempts to reduce the grip that industry has on the Ecosystem will fail unless "Demand" is less than "Supply". That is simple Economics. We have been told that to "Consume" is our only path to the "American Dream". The struggle to reach a "Rational" method of protest is not going to be easy. "Rational" may in fact be impossible. We are faced with a daunting dilemna. How willing are we to gain the advantage for the cause of "Sanity"? Will we be able to risk what is most precious to us? Will I be willing to risk it all to gain the ground lost by my "Comfort"? Green Tax is pointless if our voice is muted by the "Media". The "Media" is pandering to the "Status Quo" at all costs. Ad dollars are driving the information we are fed on a spoon. So there we are....Keep Shopping? To what end? Image? OK..I`m losing my train of thought...CU soon.. PW [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 17, 2005 11:34 PM A green tax increases the cost of a product. If the price goes up, consumption goes down. If consumption goes down, pollution goes down. [ send green star]
anonymous	October 18, 2005 3:51 AM Don't ask me nuthin'. I've been up all night. It's 5:39 am here and I'm tired. I got this invitation from Lulu, thanks Lulu. Anyway, I get it and figure I better get over there before I go to sleep....let my friends know I support what they have to say and their right to say it. I have absolutely no experience in this area and am totally lost. I'm hoping to wake with knowledge of tax laws 'n stuff. (was that grammatically correct?) Where's Jeffrey when I need him? Tax on...I'll be back. I'll read and be quiet in a corner. Just don't ask me any hard questions. I'd like to retain a little dignity. Peace & Love, Destiny [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
anonymous	October 18, 2005 3:52 AM See how long it took me just to finish that last post? I rest my case. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
anonymous	October 18, 2005 4:18 AM I don't understand green taxes either. But Freediver is going to explain everything in simple terms, so even us simple-minded folks can understand it. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 18, 2005 4:49 AM I'm lost too now. You could try asking questions. Or were you being sarcastic? The idea is to increase the tax on fuel. The price of fuel goes up so people buy more efficient vehicles that pollute less. If you increase the tax on fuel you can decrease the tax on income or groceries, so they cost less. You also get less healthcare costs because there is less pollution. [ send green star]
Ruth H.	What else do you get? October 19, 2005 2:27 PM Products that have not been transported huge distances, have not had huge, heavily taxed transport costs, so cost less. Then you get fair trade, because it is only the good stuff that is brought in from a long way away. Like coffee for instance. Maybe you can grow it in the States. (I doubt if there are many suitable sites in Australia for coffee plantations). So you don't get wealthy corporations exporting rubbish to poor countries at less than the local cost of production. It would no longer benefit them to subsidise it. People buy much more locally, and learn to do without some things they regard as essential. Commuting costs prohibitively, so communities start producing their own stuff and co-operating with each other, so you get a much stronger grass roots community and local politics throw up a better class of politician. I may be wrong, but it ought to be worth a try. [ send green star] [ accepted]
IC G.	October 19, 2005 2:51 PM There are few towns in France started to make people pay for their garbages. In these towns, all garbage collecting Vehicles are equipped with a counter and weight the garbage before throwing in. The residences of these town has to pay at each end of month for the garbage they give away. Starting from that, people try to minimize their garbages. They do a thorough garbage classifications and make sure to thraw them to the right places such like glasses collecting container or paper container... etc. This even change their shopping behavior... [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 19, 2005 4:13 PM Well, that's a great idea I've never heard of before. Is the system very expensive? [ send green star]
IC G.	October 20, 2005 5:31 AM I don't know but I don't think so. I seen it on the TV. They said they didn't spend much, they just did some electronic changes in the existing vehicles... [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 20, 2005 6:44 PM Another thing you don't often hear about is that cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. The only sensible way of trading off between whether to reduce meat consumption or the buring of fossil fuels is to tax each in proportion to their contribution to global warming. [ send green star]
IC G.	October 21, 2005 1:37 AM I am afraid this is not very new... the residus of animal digestions are longterm known being very "gassic". I recall some 20 years ago, during another energy crisis, there are some countries had developped a system to accumulate all animal doos, especially from the pig do to reuse the gas produced in these do for the electricity needed in the farm and then fertilize the field with these non chemical fertiles... (side effect is that it smells like hell during the fertilizing season ) Too bad I don't seem seeing or hearing that arround these days... [ send green star] [ accepted]
Catherine B.	i agree October 21, 2005 7:18 AM a green tax should be initiated for all the waste that is generated, especially with garbage. i do not generate half as much trash as the average mid-westerner, but here in the state of ohio, i get to pay for them to dump trash into the landfill out of my tax dollars. the garbage should be privatized and there should be a cost set for each pound of garbage that is hauled off. it is very unfair for me to pay for my next door neighbor's 100 pounds of garbage every 2 weeks, when i only generate about 10 pounds every two weeks. all the tax money used to haul off trash could be put to good use, such as in the education of the children. [ send green star] [ accepted]
anonymous	October 21, 2005 2:20 PM I wasn't being sarcastic, FD. I was tired and lost. I'm trying to educate myself here. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Sally K.	October 22, 2005 11:32 AM Sorry if this sounds stupid, or ignorant. So, you want to be taxed or charged for everything that you do, pretty much. What about large families? They would be paying out the butt for their garbage. Don't get me wrong, I do think that we all need to recycle more and reuse more. But, somethings just can't be reused. For families with children in diapers, are they supposed to use cloth diapers instead? Gas is expensive the way it is now. Taxing it more would only increase the price. Wouldn't that make people not want to travel to visit family members quite as often? People who need to travel due to their jobs would feel it bad. My husband read an article just the other day on how some bus companies are having to make routes shorter and shutting down some routes because gas is too expensive. Luckily public transportation has increased since the high gas prices, but they still had to reduce their amount of spending. I am not saying that this green tax shift is a bad thing. I think that it is a good idea to tax more polluting companies. It would make them think twice about how much pollution they are creating. I was just thinking about some people who might not be able to pay the higher costs or families who couldn't help how much waste they produce. My family is big in recycling. I try not to throw too much out, but sometimes, it is a hard thing to do. So, can you explain this to me, Freediver? You know more about this than I do (duh). [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	October 23, 2005 2:04 AM Catherine I've heard of something like that associated with a hippy commune, but I forget the details. The emissions from the dung are probably carbon neutral when you take the grass growth into account, but cows produce a lot of methane by farting and burping (which is hard to capture), and methane is much worse for global warming than CO2. In Australia the cows produce more greenhouse gasses than the cars. Sally we would only be taxed on certain items. The suggestions that have been made so far are fuel, cow meat and garbage. With garbage, the tax should probably only reflect the cost of collecting and dumping it, so it isn't subsidised. With fuel and cow meat, the tax should reflect the negative value that society places on greenhouse emissions. The idea is to reduce some taxes and increase others, so that for most people, if they change nothing their tax bill will be about the same. Those who have a larger ecological footprint will pay more. Those who have a smaller footprint will pay less. Furthermore, it will make it easier for people to reduce their tax bill by avoiding practices that cause a lot of environmental damage. I'm not sure how far you can take this, or how much revenue it could provide, but I can imagine a society where some people live in ecologically sound ways and pay almost no taxes, while others (probably the wealthy) burn fuel etc and in exchange support most of the government services - with the added benefit of a vast reduction in greenhouse emissions. Whether people still visit family by car will depend on whether they are willing to reimburse society for the damage they do along they way. Or they will find a way of getting there that does no damage. Or people will live closer to family and closer to work. Industries that rely too much on raod transport will shut down and jobs will be lost, but the reduction in other taxes means other industries will pick up. The changes will be a bit hard, but these are changes we have to make, and a green tax shift will ensure that society gets the biggest improvement for the smallest amount of pain. Fuel prices may not go up - maybe fuel is alreay taxed enough to pay for roads and emissions. Maybe only electricity and cow meat will go up in price. As fuel becomes scarcer the impact of a green tax may not make much difference anyway. It will be a fixed price per litre, not a % like most taxes. [ send green star]
SarahJane M.	"Green" shouldn't be "mean". October 23, 2005 3:58 AM You make some very valid points, Sally. Here are a few thoughts: > For families with children in diapers, are they supposed to use cloth diapers instead? This should certainly be an option, and might not be as difficult as you imagine - as long as the state invests some of that green tax in alternatives, such as cloth diapers with removable inserts and mobile laundering services. Also - under the right conditions - human "products" can be composted. (I realise this might look like going to far, but it's worth mentioning!) As for large families: a fair tax system should always take account of these. Perhaps it should be applied per head, with a different rate to reflect a growing family's needs. And I can't stress this enough: tax can only be fair if the state spends it fairly! > Some bus companies are having to make routes shorter and shutting down some routes because gas is too expensive. Again, there should be more state investment. If it were cheaper and more convenient to use public transport, more folk would use it which would yield more profits for the bus companies. Those could be taxed, so the money would go back into the system. > I try not to throw too much out, but sometimes, it is a hard thing to do. Well done for doing what you can! Few of us can afford to be perfect green machines. But if anything, that's an argument in favour of a green tax system - as long as the money is collected fairly and invested effectively. In short: it's not just "why" that matters, but also "how". [ send green star] [ accepted]
Sally K.	October 23, 2005 4:28 PM Thanks you guys! I understand it better now. It is not more of a punishment system, but a "guiding" system. Hybred cars would be more popular than they are now. Speaking of Hybreds, (sorry this is off the topic) how economically safer are they? I have heard mixed reviews on these. [ send green star] [ accepted]
C A K.	Thanks freediver October 27, 2005 11:02 AM I am totally for this concept. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Michael N.	November 20, 2005 8:49 PM I remember when John Anderson ran for U.S. President and advocated a 50-cent per gallon gasoline tax. Perhaps the time has come for such a tax. We might want to take this a step further, and increase taxes on such things as tobacco and alcohol, both of which are major contributors to the high cost of health care. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Francois A.	Garbage June 22, 2006 1:02 AM There is an easyer way to tax private garbage. Here in Switzerland we have to buy expensive garbage bags (colored) which include this tax. Other bags are not collected... It works fine since more than 10 years. And doesn't need much administration... Also the used water recycling is paid by high water prices which includes the tax for cleaning the used waters... - this is easy in fact ... But this is not the real main problem - It is our production of CO2 causing fuels - our over-logging of remainant forests - This is caused by spoiling the resources as oil by riding alone in a car instead of forming ride communities... by organizing all kind of transports instead of seeking local solutions, providers, shops. And by not recycling metal, glass, paper, kitchen garbage, batteries, Pet bottles etc... And by allowing big industries to pollute and destry nature in gigantic measure... [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	June 22, 2006 1:06 AM That garbage bag idea is interesting, although I'm not sure it could be combined with our wheelie bin system. Is your garbage still collected manually? We have large plastic bins that are picked up by a mechanical arm on the dump truck. The garbage collectors don't usually have to leave the vehicle. [ send green star]
Electra C.	July 16, 2006 6:24 AM Interesting thread and idea, but we're already paying too much at the pumps as it is. Energy alternatives should be explored further. Out here we are taxed for waste removal, but they also supply us with a large recycle bin. We only need our trash picked up every 2 or 3 weeks. It's a nice system. I'll read more when I'm awake. Have a great day! Respectfully and sincerely, Darlene [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	July 16, 2006 5:18 PM If people really thought they were paying too much, the fuel efficiency of new vehicles would keep improving. It hasn't. In America the fuel efficiency of new cars has been getting worse. [ send green star]
Steve B.	Priori July 18, 2006 9:29 AM - Shifting is synonymous with 'balancing'. If people are given a choice; then it fits the model of priori where we choose to go where we can, whenever we can, and adapt. This green shift, therefore; makes sense. The understanding of what balancing effects we can potentially cause - is a higher priori. Causality education accomplishes this exercise. Causality education can be modelled within available educational systems. A break goes to those that choose causality education amongst their choices. This has amplified effects throughout all interconnected, flexible (shifting) balance systems (including the problem of overpopulation). Well done Freediver! - [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	July 18, 2006 5:52 PM Thanks Steve, I didn't even know I'd done that. [ send green star]
Ramesh M.	August 16, 2006 4:01 AM i think the concept of a green tax shift is fantastic and something that is really implementable [ send green star] [ accepted]
Carl H.	August 17, 2006 9:37 PM So... would that mean gasoline prioces would go up even higher? Geez... I'm buying a bike. [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	August 17, 2006 9:38 PM Excellent. But you would have more money to spend. It would be up to you whether to waste that extra income on petrol. [ send green star]
Carl H.	August 17, 2006 9:41 PM At some point... they'd really have to do some serious alternative energy research (without being pressured by oil's muscle). [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	August 17, 2006 9:44 PM If this idea goes ahead, the oil companies will do a lot of the research for us. The timeline for dealing with global warming means we can't risk waiting on ideas that are still only in the conceptual stage. We already have the technology to solve global warming. It's just that oil is slightly cheaper and people are letting others clean up their mess for them. Expecially American and Australia. America is emitting 25% of all greenhouse emissions. [ send green star]
Carl H.	August 17, 2006 9:48 PM I have some to do... Thanks for the invite FD!!!! [ send green star] [ accepted]
Katii L.	What I'm thinking..... August 24, 2006 7:14 AM If we really wanted to turn the oil companies away from oil and toward green energies, they would be taxed higher, but they would not be able to pass the tax along to the consumer. They already make too much profit from this deadly venture. "I'm buying a bike." That would work for some people, but really is not feasable for most Americans who commute to work more than a few miles; then there are weather conditions to be considered ... can't ride a bike on ice, and heat exhaustion (or even stroke) would be a risk in many areas for alot of people. I think green cars and mass transit is a much more logical fix to getting more cars off the road. "Diapers" I think yes, use cloth most of the time reserving disposables for when they are needed - like when traveling. "Cow flesh" Stop all factory animal farming. If someone just has to eat dead flesh then let them pay out the butt for it - from a real farm. Dairy products - why can't all cities and communities have local farmer markets? Where does it say that every bit of dirt in a city has to be covered with cement or buildings? Why can't communities be required to plan for and provide for these things? I'm sure someone could figure out the logistics so that enough farms produce enough product to serve however many people. Why do we have to have one huge polluting fatory to serve the whole nation? LOTS of little ones would be better and much more healthy for humans, animals, and the environment. Green roofs In my fantasy world, all building codes would demand that all structures be built to withstand and support being planted - like the program Toronto (I think it is) is offering. "Skycrapers" would become a thing of the past, and many more people would work at home instead of an office that unnecessarily uses up nonrenewable resources to build, light, heat and cool. Those are just some of the things I see in my dream world. Carl, Thank you for the invite [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	August 24, 2006 5:02 PM That would work for some people, but really is not feasable for most Americans who commute to work more than a few miles There would be some immediate changes, but there would also be a lot of gradual changes, as people and companies shifted so that they could be closer together. Also, moving to palces with a better climate. [ send green star]
Freediver O.	August 24, 2006 5:05 PM Thanks Carl for sending out the group invites, and welcome to all the new members. Feel free to cross post anything you see here. We need to spread the word. [ send green star]
Debra H.	September 01, 2006 3:15 PM Hi IC, et al! I'm new to the group so apologize for the late response on the weighing garbage in France post. I think this is an excellent system. We pay the same for our garbage as the neighbor who has twice as much -- we recycle! They do not. I'm very interested in writing up an article for our website and newsletter on this subject. Can you direct me to some factual information and sources? Thanks so much, Debra www.sustainablelife.info [ send green star] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	September 01, 2006 3:46 PM Wikipedia is probably a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tax_shift There aren't so many 'facts' because as with any policy, it's hard to prove what caused what. But the economic theory definitely supports it as the most rational (ie cheapest) way to reduce emissions and other negative externalities, where it can be applied easily. You might want to check out my share also: http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=6314&pst=547420 [ send green star]
Paula X.	I'm All For It! February 17, 2007 7:30 AM The green tax shift would be a great incentive to get companies to engage in environmentally friendly practices. You know companies want to make as much money as possible & that includes SPENDING AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE to do it. paula [ send green star] [ accepted]
anonymous	February 22, 2007 11:00 PM The refusal of people to accept the higher taxes would indicate that they don't view what you call externalities with same importance you do. In effect, the market has excluded these "externalities" as irrelevant. That is why your scheme will never be adopted. Nor should it. It is nothing but empty weight on an economy. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	February 25, 2007 6:33 PM In effect, the market has excluded these "externalities" as irrelevant. How so? Externalities are by definition something which the market cannot include. The people have not rejected a green tax shift. [ send green star]
anonymous	March 11, 2007 3:08 PM Of course it's been rejected - that's why it doesn't exist. What you call exteralities are no more than very tenuous and unmeasurable relationships. What you really are trying to do is derail economic growth and coerce people to do what they wouldn't want to do on their own. So, yes, we have already rejected your idea - you are in a minority that wishes to coerce us in the majority. In the US, anyway, you have no chance of success. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	March 12, 2007 6:09 PM Yes I do. There is an economic consensus in support of this action, and people tend to rpefer the cheaper options to solve problems. Is the only criticism you can come up with that 'people won't accept it'? If that is the only valid criticism you have, then it is inevitable that people will accept it. [ send green star]
anonymous	March 12, 2007 9:45 PM fish guy, there is no concensus at all among economists for a green tax. In fact very few respected economists consider it anything other than foolishness. It will never happen. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	March 12, 2007 10:14 PM http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html [ send green star]
anonymous	March 12, 2007 10:16 PM Has anybody ever actually visiited that site? I wouldn't bother. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	March 12, 2007 10:17 PM Yes, a lot. [ send green star]
anonymous	March 12, 2007 10:23 PM I doubt it. I bet it's as dead as your groups here. [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
anonymous	March 12, 2007 10:26 PM So, why are you so afraid to let people speak in opposition to you? Don't you think it betrays a certain insecurity? [report anonymous abuse] [ accepted]
Freediver O.	March 12, 2007 10:50 PM I'm not. I just expect higher standards when people post anonymously. This post was modified from its original form on 12 Mar, 22:50 [ send green star]