3 ms·

Taxing material use and refunding at material recovery is not totally unreasonable, but it ignores the energy that goes into both processing steps and the peopl

by nrp 7y ago

Taxing material use and refunding at material recovery is not totally unreasonable, but it ignores the energy that goes into both processing steps and the people required to do labor. Repair is totally compatible with this, since it reduces waste of all of material, energy, and labor. It’s also something consumers can readily participate in and influence, unlike tax policy.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Taxing energy also works as a proxy for taxing material - you need energy (lots of it) to mine and process raw materials, so I'd expect taxing energy use to shift the market activity towards services and reuse of already processed materials and manufactured goods.
tda 7y ago
There is plenty of energy available from the sun in one way or the other, and there is no inherent harm in utilising that. So in my ideal tax system only finite resources should be taxed, primarily land usage (including use for agriculture, and somehow based on demand) and raw materials (including oil, coal etc). Things like labour, "value added", energy use and co2 emissions would be exempt. Imagine hiring an expert to do repairs would cost about the same per hour as you can make after taxes. In North West Europe a plumber or painter typically costs you about twice what a programmer makes after taxes in the same time. Because of 50% tax on income + 20%VAT. So even if you are not so great at DIY it is (or seems) very often much cheaper to kludge it yourself that to hire an expert expert to do it for you. What a waste
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
> reduces waste of all of material, energy, and labor Not necessarily. How much labor goes into one smartphone or other mass-produced thing? I suspect in many cases the incremental labor required to make another one is minimal compared to the significant effort required for one-off repairs.

3 ms·

Taxing material use and refunding at material recovery is not totally unreasonable, but it ignores the energy that goes into both processing steps and the peopl

by nrp 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Taxing energy also works as a proxy for taxing material - you need energy (lots of it) to mine and process raw materials, so I'd expect taxing energy use to shift the market activity towards services and reuse of already processed materials and manufactured goods.
tda 7y ago
There is plenty of energy available from the sun in one way or the other, and there is no inherent harm in utilising that. So in my ideal tax system only finite resources should be taxed, primarily land usage (including use for agriculture, and somehow based on demand) and raw materials (including oil, coal etc). Things like labour, "value added", energy use and co2 emissions would be exempt. Imagine hiring an expert to do repairs would cost about the same per hour as you can make after taxes. In North West Europe a plumber or painter typically costs you about twice what a programmer makes after taxes in the same time. Because of 50% tax on income + 20%VAT. So even if you are not so great at DIY it is (or seems) very often much cheaper to kludge it yourself that to hire an expert expert to do it for you. What a waste
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
> reduces waste of all of material, energy, and labor Not necessarily. How much labor goes into one smartphone or other mass-produced thing? I suspect in many cases the incremental labor required to make another one is minimal compared to the significant effort required for one-off repairs.