Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • jquinones8812_854

    Member
    June 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    [b]Would you agree that a pollution tax, if coupled with a counterbalancing grant, would efficiently achieve the aims of reduced pollution, energy conservation, and a shift to renewable energy without significantly economically adversely affecting the poor?
    [/b]
    No, i don’t agree with that.

    People have not judged the full repercussions of a pollution tax. 

    First off, the tax on pollution will increase the cost of EVERYTHING.  Food, clothes, etc.  Everything has a hand in the pollution tax.  So, inflationary pressures would be huge.  There are not enough federal grants to match that at any level.

    Second, there will be loss of a lot of jobs, generally lower paying jobs.  I think, in turn, there may be increase in number of higher paying jobs in technology fields.  But again, this will leave the lower classes behind.

    I would prefer no pollution tax, and the following:

    1.  Tax credits for buying high mpg vehicles.
    2.  Like car registration costs to the weight and efficiency of vehicles.  That will promote smaller, and more efficient vehicles.
    3.  Remove all taxes on fuels like ethanol.  That will even further increase their economic benefits.
    4.  Remove all federal taxes for 20 years on companies that produce new fuels, fuel cells, etc.

    By increasing the costs of using a traditional gas vehicle, and decreasing the costs of alternative fueled vehicles, you let the market do its natural thing.  The market, instead of the government, will decide what is in its best interest.  You won’t have global inflationary pressures because of pollution tax, because corporations are the first to jump on money saving ventures.