-
Building-in a rough environmental cost at purchase seems to me to be a good way of is being more ‘honest’ about our environmental impact.
It would be a bit like VAT and face much the same criticism I imagine. I don’t buy the argument that VAT is a regressive tax. The argument goes ... we all buy houses, furniture, cars, holidays, fashion items etc and those with twice the means don’t buy two houses, two cars, twice the furniture etc but I’d love to see the data. It sounds like an argument from a previous phase of capitalism to me because that’s exactly what the middle classes do now (and exactly what the 14 million in poverty dream of). Admittedly any eco taxes (again like VAT) are not a progressive, ok, but that’s an aside - we’re not short of mechanisms for wealth redistribution (only the political will to do so). Spend the revenue on eco social housing maybe? Being non-progressive is also helpful in communicating simply and directly why the tax exists (it’s purely to steer consumption, not for ideologically loaded wealth-distribution, not a Marxist plot etc). And unlike income tax ... at least these taxes would get paid by the rich.
miro_o-
regressive tax.
Tax will always be a hot topic.
Broadly I'm in favour of progressive taxation, but this idea that all taxes must be progressive rather than based on use it not necessarily more fair.
Ultimately people do make choices, and charging them for their use of something can be perfectly reasonable.
Also VAT is a massive earner. There's a reason why only the smallest countries with limited options tend to have 0% sales tax.
hugo7
But I'd like to get away from seeing it just as a pricing/markets issue - which effectively makes travel a luxury good (prices go up, poor can no longer afford it...) and in addition change people's attitudes to travel. You can enrich your lives without going to the other side of the world and it would be great to see that view encouraged.