To me, allowing our industries and technology to continue to release potentially harmful emissions into the environment, even with a carbon tax as a deterrent, doesn't seem like a deterrent at all. It almost seems like a government would be saying "Go ahead, continue to pollute. We'll just tax you for doing so." It seems like hush money to the government to keep quiet about things. We need to take a more punitive approach to emissions, and not just let industries and ourselves keep producing waste, especially when that waste can actually be turned into something useful. Think of it like this: Before you got a compost bin, you likely just threw away food scraps into the trash. Now you recycle the food scraps. Why can't we do the same thing with petroleum emissions and other societal "wastes"?
The natural world doesn't throw away anything, never to be used again. We should not do that, either.
Resource taxes: My alternative to
income tax
Everyone hates tax. The rich hate tax because it "takes away my hard earned money".
The working poor hate tax because it
hurts their ability to buy everyday essentials. Those in between these two extremes
hate tax for any number of reasons, from the fact that it cuts into
their ability to achieve the North American dream, to the complex tax
code that goes along with it. But we all have to pay tax.
This is my plan to tackle the concerns
of every socioeconomic group.
Income taxes and consumption taxes are
often called regressive when they appear to more severely impact
lower-income earners. This is a common criticism of the flat tax. I
do agree with it on a basic level. If a person earns $10,000 in one
year, and is required to pay 10% of that earned income to the
government, it will have a much more significant impact on that
person than the person who earns $20, $50, or $100 thousand.
Ontario, and by extension Canada, have a basic personal exemption level of income which is allowed to
be earned without having income tax applied to it. I would like to
model my community of Star Island's income tax model on that, but
only if it proves to be the most favoured solution of the populace. I
do believe that there are other ways that a society can tax its
workforce which will not seem so punitive to those who would suffer
most.
Consumption-based taxes would tax us on
the money we spend, as opposed to the total money we earn. This might sound like it benefits those with higher incomes.
However, I believe that the
worries of a lower-income person can be minimized if the resource
tax approach was handled properly, by channelling those taxes into
programs that lower-income individuals would use. This is the kind of policy that a social democracy espouses, and it is one that I happen to agree with. In addition, supplemental income grants could be provided to low-income families. I detail this in my spreadsheets, under four sections:
1. Program development
These are employment supplements for low-income families. In the event that company X does not provide a family with a sufficient amount of income, programs would be in place to provide supplemental income to these families, in order to meet a sufficient standard of living.
2. Education grants would be provided for post-secondary education to students wishing to study both in Star Island and abroad.
3. Small business grants will enable entrepreneurs to realize their dreams, just as I did with my own small business, which has operated since 2005.
1. Program development
These are employment supplements for low-income families. In the event that company X does not provide a family with a sufficient amount of income, programs would be in place to provide supplemental income to these families, in order to meet a sufficient standard of living.
2. Education grants would be provided for post-secondary education to students wishing to study both in Star Island and abroad.
3. Small business grants will enable entrepreneurs to realize their dreams, just as I did with my own small business, which has operated since 2005.
4. Disability accommodation grants
On the other end of the scale, if a
high-income earner uses up a lot of resources due to an extravagant
lifestyle, they will be taxed accordingly, with that money going to
the public good. It is a principle that I believe people on either end of the political spectrum can agree with: Use more resources, and you pay more for that use.
As far as tax evasion is concerned, it
would be a non-issue in Star Island. All records of earnings would be
filed electronically, with the appropriate levels of tax levied
immediately – ensuring that nobody would be able to illegally dodge
taxes they owe to the government.
Here are the resource taxes that Star
Island would impose on its citizens and corporations:
Resource tax #1: Water
I believe that water is a fundamental
human right, and should not be considered a commodity in its own
right. Local water treatment and distribution networks should be able
to provide at least 99% of a citizen's water supplies, with
for-profit water companies making up any difference. With that in
mind, in Star Island, control over water would belong to the
government at large, which is in turn controlled by its citizens. The
rate you pay for tap water would be in line with municipal water
prices in Canada.
(About $3-4 per 1000 L). Effectively,
this would be a monthly utility bill, rather than a
tax. By making this utility government-owned, it benefits
the entire community, rather than simply the shareholders of a water
provider.
Resource tax #2: Power
An industrialized society demands
access to reliable, renewable, and environmentally friendly electric
power, in sufficient and consistent supply to meet the demands of its
population. Star Island would generate 99%+ of its electric
power via renewable energy resources, in order to
maintain a consistent and affordable rate for residents and
businesses.
Water and power bills would be built into the cost of rent/mortgage payments on Star Island.
Water and power bills would be built into the cost of rent/mortgage payments on Star Island.
Resource tax #3: Fossil fuels
This tax is perhaps the most punitive;
however, I feel that making it the most punitive is the correct thing
to do, as fossil fuel consumption is one of the greatest drivers of
human pollution to the natural environment. Star Islanders would be
encouraged to severely limit their consumption of fossil fuels and
derived products from petroleum, in lieu of more environmentally
friendly alternatives – most of which would be produced locally,
therefore also providing employment opportunities.
The tax would initially be $10/kg of
mass for the fossil fuels. To put this in perspective, for 1 L of
unleaded gasoline, which on average has a mass of .51 kg, the tax
would be $5.10 per litre. This is magnitudes higher than the price
most people pay at the pump in North America, and for good reason. It will discourage us from continuing
to rely on a continuously dwindling resource, which also rapidly
degrades our ecosystem through its use.
Star Island will be a compact
community. Most citizens will have no need to use a car to go about
their daily business, as work, school and home will all be within
walking distance. Even when you need a way to transport
large amounts of goods from one place to another, electric vehicles
of appropriate size, including personal shopping carts, will be preferred over gas-using cars.
Resource tax #4: Algae fuels
Algae fuels are my preferred solution
for the machinery which still requires a liquid-fuel based source of
energy to run them. Algae-fuel is carbon-neutral; Burning it may
release carbon into the atmosphere, but it is this same carbon which
the algae need to grow again. To further reduce the amount of
emissions that may be released into the atmosphere, I would recommend
that a device be attached to the tailpipes of any vehicles which use
liquid fuels. This device would capture the emissions, and allow them
to be converted back into a useful product, such as algae feed.
Algae fuels would be taxed at $1/kg at
the outset.
Resource tax #5: Metals
We extract countless different types of
metals and other minerals from the ground beneath us. Instead of this
being one specific rate, there would likely be many specific rates,
depending on the rarity of the material, its inherent toxicity or
danger to the environment, and/or its demand. For the purpose of
simplicity in my spreadsheets, I have set an average tax rate on
metals at $1/kg for individuals (who are unlikely to be using large
amounts of precious metals), and $10/kg for businesses and industries.
--
Hopefully, these taxes will serve as effective replacements for the spate of taxes currently in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment