2 ms·

Tax on products sucks because it's a cheap bandaid. It is passed onto consumer with no incentive for corporations to make environmentally friendly products. In

by Joakal 8y ago

Tax on products sucks because it's a cheap bandaid. It is passed onto consumer with no incentive for corporations to make environmentally friendly products. In fact, theres two things that happens with a tax: 1) as the tax will be broad. What if I invented a biodegradable capsule that decomposes after 6 months? No company will buy this invention. Because it will still be taxed. 2) company can make their process even cheaper than the tax imposed. Ie contents of two capsules is now one big capsule. Or use cheaper unhealither material. What you need is for companies to take back their own waste. Then increase cost of disposing of waste with more funds towards environment agencies. It would be amazing to see landfill bins on streets to be a relic of the past.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Tax is not a "cheap bandaid", it's literally the most direct solution you could impose on a market economy. > with no incentive for corporations to make environmentally friendly products. Competition is the incentive. As is profitability. A tax on bad business practice makes good business practices a better option. > 1) as the tax will be broad. What if I invented a biodegradable capsule that decomposes after 6 months? No company will buy this invention. Because it will still be taxed. Tax as defined by GP will not cover your invention. > 2) company can make their process even cheaper than the tax imposed. Ie contents of two capsules is now one big capsule. Or use cheaper unhealither material. If they could do that easily, they'd already have made it so. It is possible that a company would have no other option than doubling down on the bad practice, but they'd still be paying full cost for negative externalities - money the society could use to mitigate them. But the more likely outcome is that a company will switch to a method that's suddenly more profitable because of being untaxed. At the very least, the tax would give companies a reason to look for a better way.
- Joakal 8y ago
  I do agree that the tax is useful but it needs to go further. Re: Gp point. How do you think the government can determine wasteful disposables? There's cars that only last 5 years instead of 40+. (Apparently replacing metal with plastic cut costs but increases maintenance costs). Is a car lasting 5 years, a wasteful disposable? What if it's still functional but needs replacing with more plastic? At 10 cent a car, why would this discourage car companies from 1 year car use? What i see is that the gov will need a big agency to determine which disposable is wasteful (non biodegradable/recycable?) vs those that are not. Either that or the agency approve exceptions which may not be cheap either? My proposal means the costs of environmentally friendly products are reflected in the price instead of a tax. By making companies take back waste. A car with plastic will cost a lot to dispose of, just like a lot of plastic products. Now imagine if all products were replaced with aluminium and glass. Less disposable costs. Edit: in economic terms. The waste is an externalised cost by companies. My proposal privatises it.

by Joakal 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Tax is not a "cheap bandaid", it's literally the most direct solution you could impose on a market economy. > with no incentive for corporations to make environmentally friendly products. Competition is the incentive. As is profitability. A tax on bad business practice makes good business practices a better option. > 1) as the tax will be broad. What if I invented a biodegradable capsule that decomposes after 6 months? No company will buy this invention. Because it will still be taxed. Tax as defined by GP will not cover your invention. > 2) company can make their process even cheaper than the tax imposed. Ie contents of two capsules is now one big capsule. Or use cheaper unhealither material. If they could do that easily, they'd already have made it so. It is possible that a company would have no other option than doubling down on the bad practice, but they'd still be paying full cost for negative externalities - money the society could use to mitigate them. But the more likely outcome is that a company will switch to a method that's suddenly more profitable because of being untaxed. At the very least, the tax would give companies a reason to look for a better way.

Joakal 8y ago
I do agree that the tax is useful but it needs to go further. Re: Gp point. How do you think the government can determine wasteful disposables? There's cars that only last 5 years instead of 40+. (Apparently replacing metal with plastic cut costs but increases maintenance costs). Is a car lasting 5 years, a wasteful disposable? What if it's still functional but needs replacing with more plastic? At 10 cent a car, why would this discourage car companies from 1 year car use? What i see is that the gov will need a big agency to determine which disposable is wasteful (non biodegradable/recycable?) vs those that are not. Either that or the agency approve exceptions which may not be cheap either? My proposal means the costs of environmentally friendly products are reflected in the price instead of a tax. By making companies take back waste. A car with plastic will cost a lot to dispose of, just like a lot of plastic products. Now imagine if all products were replaced with aluminium and glass. Less disposable costs. Edit: in economic terms. The waste is an externalised cost by companies. My proposal privatises it.