Two Tax Total : Pollution and Property (Land Use)

[better2know]

Two Tax Total : Pollution and Property (Land Use)

Get rid of all other taxes.
It won't be perfect, or easy, but perhaps better.

The more toxins, the more taxes.
The more, and further, land is diverted from its natural state, the more taxes we would pay.

There would be a tremendous incentive to make toxins and land use more efficient.
Huge inefficiencies, promoted by current tax policies would disappear.

This is not a new idea Henry George had a lot of support with this type of idea, around the
turn of the century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_george

But this approach may be more earth-friendly.

These two taxes could also be more equitable, biz-friendly, and liberty-friendly than our current system.

What do you'all think?


-DUers ARE definitely making a difference!

[cornermouse]

1. I think a lot of the mining companies would like this.

Because if they stay underground, they aren't disturbing the surface. Example: Coal mining companies don't directly use the coal so they would make the argument that they aren't the people who are doing the polluting. And off we go again.

[better2know]

2. thanks for the reply- what I'm thinking is

this wouldn't be overly mine friendly if:
this covered underground use (why not), mine tailings, and most importantly the actual product they are digging i.e. polluting coal.
As most of our toxins are produced in major batches(mines, refineries, chem plants), it would make sense to tax at the production source and not further down the line.

This whole thing would not be easy, but neither are city, state, and national taxes.

cheers

[better2know]

3. Hi - I've got to go but I hope you'all will take a look -n/t

[MadHound]

4. I see one huge problem with this

Such a tax on land would really hit the small farmer hard. Corporate farms could easily pass this tax on their customers, while small and organic farmers would have a much harder time doing so, and would be unfairly affected by such taxes.

Also, would these taxes be applied to those in urban areas? They should be, for the residents of cities and suburbs pollute and misuse the earth as much, if not more farmers out in the rural areas. I own twenty acres that I raising organic crops on. And yet there are many, many suburban families in the city closest to me who dump pounds and pounds of fertilizers and pesticides on their little quarter acre plot. Who is misusing the land more, the 'burbanites or myself? Another huge polluter are golf courses. Most golf courses apply major quantities of chemicals on a weekly basis, how badly would they be taxed?

And frankly, I think that unless you put onerously heavy taxes on property and pollution, you wouldn't be able to raise the revenue needed to keep things going. And if you did tax property at the rates needed, you would be unfairly burdening land owners.

I don't think that this is a good idea. I sympathize with the sentiments behind such proposals, but I think that there are other ways to penalize the groups that you wish to target.

[better2know]

5. actually haven't quite left yet- madhound

I think this proposal is right up your alley
corporate farms use toxics to make their money
smaller organic farmers would have an advantage not a disadvantage

heck yeah this would apply to cities, suburbs, lawncare, etc.

yes this would have to be a heavy tax
The poisoners, and the land owners who destroys their land the most, would pay the heaviest.

Not just punishing the offenders, this would have the effect of lightening the burdens of the people doing the best and healthiest practices.

There would have to be a long transition period, but tax breaks for huge SUVs has got to go.