how far whould you agree with this proposition?
2007-07-26 08:42:14 · 7 answers · asked by sikhism4life88 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not very far. As long as the idiots drive their SUVs and complain about the high price of gasoline, I would suggest that the opposite is true. Raising taxes is popular because it generates more money for government, and because the corporate sector whine more effectively than us mere citizens, but emission standards have been proven to work.
We need both. If we don't like it, I suppose we can keep turning out garbage until we drown like yeast in a biosphere full of our own byproducts.
2007-07-26 08:49:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Does a sin tax stop someone from smoking? No.
How does an eco-tax motivate a company to stop polluting? Either the corporation will find a way around said tax or the tax will be less than the profit made by not fixing emission standards.
2007-07-26 08:49:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Emissions standards require retrofitting equipment, which is expensive...and probably more expensive that an "eco-tax" would be. I wouldn't be surprised if Big Business approves of this. They'll find a way around such taxes, most likely.
2007-07-26 08:46:42 · answer #3 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wrong. Taxes are never efficient. Taxes just give governments more money to spend....and waste.
2007-07-26 08:54:18 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are no such thing as eco taxes. wot you on about?
2007-07-26 09:04:49 · answer #5 · answered by naplusultra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need both. 'Standards' establish a maximum amount of pollution. 'Taxes' on emisions encourage polluters to move beyond the minimum effort to stay in compliance.
2007-07-26 08:50:36 · answer #6 · answered by Noah H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
are you proposing to tax me to save the world from global warming ? because if you are forget about it. no way
2007-07-26 08:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by bbq 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋