Thursday, April 27, 2017

     Should the various levels of government increase their pollution taxes on gasoline. Many people believe that the government should because it will result in better benefits from the gas tax. "In fact, the authors estimate that the health benefits of a gasoline tax would increase by 90 percent once the variation in responsiveness of vehicle emissions is taken into account," (Gasoline Taxation and Air Pollution Claire Brunel 2017). The argument with the pollution taxes is that they are putting a proportional tax on gasoline, making everyone pay the same tax, when they should be making the cars that are less fuel friendly pay more. 
This would lead to better benefits for the government and have people paying more. 
     Although the better benefits are a good argument for increasing the pollution tax some people still argue that pollution taxes are unfair for lower income families. They spend the majority of their income on things that will emit pollution, so they are paying more for the tax. "The most common argument against pollution taxes is that they would be unfair. Poorer families spend a bigger share of their income heating their homes and fueling their cars, and would therefore pay a bigger share of their income in pollution taxes," (Believe it! Pollution taxes would help the poor and our environment more than the current system-Arik Levenson 2017). They have to spend their money on gas for their cars, so they can get to work all the time and make more money, and heat to keep their house warm during cold weather just like everyone else. This is why many people argue that raising the tax would be even more unfair than it already is now on families with low income. 
     Although these are both valid arguments for increasing or decreasing the pollution tax on gasoline, I would argue that we should raise the tax for a different reason. I believe that we should increase the pollution tax on gasoline to better help our environment. "Most Democrats agree that we can't tackle our long-term debt issues through spending cuts alone. Some sort of tax reform that raises revenue will have to get thrown into the ring. So why not do that through a tax on carbon pollution or other assorted environmental unpleasantries?" (If we need taxes, why not pollution taxes?-Brad Plumer 2011). If we are already experiencing massive debt issues why not tax things that we want to discourage such as pollution, in this case. Increasing the tax would prevent people from driving as much for unnecessary ordeals, and persuade people to buy more fuel efficient cars. I believe this is the bets reason for raising the pollution tax on gasoline. If we want to live on this beautiful planet, why not back off on the great damage we have already caused?

1 comment:

  1. I disagree there shouldnt be a tax on pollution because we need to be industrialized and we need to be able to produce more good for our own country so we can become a little more independent. Also because we need to further our technology and in order for that to happen there need to be more building and more products coming out of factories

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.