5 ms·

This reduces the situation down to simple zero sum as if public spending waste and several other factors don't exist. It doesn't force producers to do anything.

This reduces the situation down to simple zero sum as if public spending waste and several other factors don't exist. It doesn't force producers to do anything. Often these types of punitive taxes just feed government coffers and don't affect the problem to the contrary of what idealists told them with simple napkin math when proposed. Encouraging better handling of these things can happen via many awareness and grant initiatives with the vast amounts of monies already taken. You don't have to take more.

zenexer 8y ago
Taxes are pretty good at raising awareness, since they're quite controversial. Of course, that increase in awareness isn't necessarily going to result in better actions--there are likely people who will deliberately sabotage such efforts in protest. If the only solution here is to consume less, taxes could work for the majority of the population. If the cost of consumption goes up, actual consumption goes down. But a significant minority of the population would probably be willing to eat the extra cost, which is unfortunate. Not all waste producers are individuals, either. Industrial processes often produce a lot of waste, and the products at the end of the chain don't always go to individuals; they might go to the military, for example. Big companies are more likely to have the money and lawyers to evade taxes and fines, which impedes regulation and rewards companies that don't play fair. These issues aren't seen by consumers, so we can't vote with our wallets, either. Raising awareness via traditional methods seems like a good long-term strategy, but what about all the people who simply don't care? Ultimately, we're going to need to tackle this problem from multiple angles. It's unlikely that a single tactic will yield satisfactory results. Regulation and taxes are probably going to need to be part of our plan, but they won't be sufficient on their own.

zenexer 8y ago

Taxes are pretty good at raising awareness, since they're quite controversial. Of course, that increase in awareness isn't necessarily going to result in better actions--there are likely people who will deliberately sabotage such efforts in protest. If the only solution here is to consume less, taxes could work for the majority of the population. If the cost of consumption goes up, actual consumption goes down. But a significant minority of the population would probably be willing to eat the extra cost, which is unfortunate. Not all waste producers are individuals, either. Industrial processes often produce a lot of waste, and the products at the end of the chain don't always go to individuals; they might go to the military, for example. Big companies are more likely to have the money and lawyers to evade taxes and fines, which impedes regulation and rewards companies that don't play fair. These issues aren't seen by consumers, so we can't vote with our wallets, either. Raising awareness via traditional methods seems like a good long-term strategy, but what about all the people who simply don't care? Ultimately, we're going to need to tackle this problem from multiple angles. It's unlikely that a single tactic will yield satisfactory results. Regulation and taxes are probably going to need to be part of our plan, but they won't be sufficient on their own.