Oh no, now they want to tax natural resources!

[Voievod]

Found this old article today that made a very odd proposal:

To create a policy that supports resource productivity will require a shift away from taxing the social “good” of labor, toward taxing the social “bads” of resource exploitation, pollution, fossil fuels, and waste. This tax shift should be “revenue neutral” – meaning that for every dollar of taxation added to resources or waste, one dollar would be removed from labor taxes. As the cost of waste and resources increases, business would save money by hiring less-expensive labor to save more-expensive resources. The eventual goal would be to achieve zero taxation on labor and income.

The purpose of this tax shift would be to change what is taxed, not who is taxed. But no tax shift is uniform, and without adjustments for lower incomes, a shift toward taxing resources would likely be regressive. Therefore, efforts should be made to keep the tax burden on various income groups more or less where it is now. (There are numerous means to accomplish this.) The important element to change is the purpose of the tax system because, other than generating revenue, the current tax system has no clear goal. The only incentive provided by the Internal Revenue Code, with its 9,000 sections, is to cheat or to hire tax lawyers.

A shift toward taxing resources would require steady implementation, in order to give business a clear horizon in which to make strategic investments.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/03/hawken-2.html

[Jon_Irenicus]

Where is the logic in this? How does taxing resources achieve efficiency? If there is waste to be eliminated, it is to be eliminated by removing the tumour called the State and privatizing the resources. No robbery is necessary. All such taxes do is limit access to smaller firms.

-Jon

[Anonymous_Coward]

@Jon Irenicus

Where is the logic in this? How does taxing resources achieve efficiency? If there is waste to be eliminated, it is to be eliminated by removing the tumour called the State and privatizing the resources. No robbery is necessary. All such taxes do is limit access to smaller firms.

-Jon

Increased efficiency? That’s not their goal;

The important element to change is the purpose of the tax system because, other than generating revenue, the current tax system has no clear goal.

They wish to modify the behavior of people through punitive taxation instead of the socially acceptable method of legislating morality. This of course doesn’t provide enough disincentive against wealth accumulation, “efforts should be made to keep the tax burden on various income groups more or less where it is now,” so they leave open the door for some form of extra taxation against the rich.

Neo-marxist environmentalist agenda… Yeah, I can actually post that here and not get flamed.

As the cost of waste and resources increases, business would save money by hiring less-expensive labor to save more-expensive resources.

But the costs of goods will skyrocket causing the lower paid workers to consume less and help with the ‘overconsumption problem’ that the US faces. Eventually as the standard of living decreases throughout the industrialized nations (as other countries follow our lead) all of the children of the Gaia can live in equally splendid poverty while the political class (who’s wages would have no downward pressure in this model) become the ‘enlightened dictators’ of Plato’s Republic.

Brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it…

[Kakugo]

This is the old “Fair Tax” argument with a different dress on, nothing new here.

[MacFall]

Originally, a “windfall tax” was a tax on natural resources.

[Donny_with_an_A]

Well even speaking on the analyst’s own terms, such a policy might create a movement of resource-intensive processes into less developed countries where environmental regulations are considerably looser. So rather than protecting the environment, such a policy could conceivable result in more environmental destruction.