Jock's Place - green taxes - Comments

Agreed, only I think it's

Mark Wadsworth — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:09:18 +0000

Agreed, only I think it's 480,000 aircraft movement and hence 240,000 'pairs'. It's airborne LVT!

I didn't blog on this one

Auberius — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:22:17 +0000

I didn't blog on this one (because let's face it, in matters of Lib Dem energy policy I'm something of a heathen) but I quite agree, it's an terrible verdict and one that will invite even more dangerous acts.

Oh - for Bournemouth? On

Jock — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:35:28 +0000

Oh - for Bournemouth? On the basis of the Competition Commission ruling happening today? Of course I'm not going to be at Bournemouth, but I will be at Reading and a motion by Gareth has been submitted (and if not selected - unlikely as I think we only have six on the list - would make a good topical one). The runway three debate has specific regional implications for South East and South Central so makes a good regional conference issue.

But go for it for Bournemouth too if you like!

Worth...

Andrew Duffield — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:31:36 +0000

considering for an urgent/emergency motion?

ALTER did try to get an

Jock — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:06:17 +0000

ALTER did try to get an amendment in to look at auctioning landing slots/airspace at Harrogate 2006(?) when the aviation policy paper was debated. I think it would be a significant lever for regional economic change too as airlines would look to put specialist international flights into more regional airports where they could get slots more cost effectively.

The fuel issue I wasn't so concerned about. That should still happen anyway.

Somehow I knew LVT would get

Tristan Mills — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 07:58:25 +0000

Somehow I knew LVT would get in there ;)

Good points though.
The Tories like to paint themselves as pro-free market, but they are Conservatives, and they're generally well named. Despite a period of radicalism (perhaps driven by an ultra-conservative desire to reverse changes?) under Thatcher they are still essentially conservative and don't like to change the status quo much.

Taxing per-flight is a good idea, although surely its best to tax the fuel this throws up problems due to the mainly international nature of the business.

The landing slot anomaly is bizarre and needs sorting. Your solution works well (especially given landing slots appear to be determined by historical legacy rather than anything else).

comment

Jock Coats — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:56:13 +0000

Absolutely, I don't mind at all.

comment

Praguetory — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 06:24:26 +0000

As you know I am instinctively in favour of land tax. I'm thinking of doing a few (fairly detailed, why, how etc)posts on the subject. Would you care to review before they go up?

comment

Jock Coats — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:16:54 +0000

Those are two commonly heard assumptions. I'm not necessarily sure they're true though.

For example, if the required change is urgent enough, as some would argue of things that are affecting global climate, one could take a big bang approach and compensate the biggest losers in cash terms. The expenditure might, for example, be worth it to ensure we have another century on the planet!

I have this discussion a fair bit with LVT. Many people would like to see some LVT, introduced slowly and with no particular end point" - sort of suck it and see.

I often argue that the case for a Georgist single tax is so strong, the potential benefits so great, that you could instantly go to the full whack and simply hand cash over to people left in negative equity. The long term sustainability of an economy not propped up with perpetual debt might make that worth it.

As to whether they are self-cancelling, that depends what the resource is again. Some things people absolutely need to survive - land, clean air, clean water and so on. If we all decide to minimise our use of all of them, even though we cannot eliminate their use altogether, the relative (market) value of using more than your share will increase anyway.

But I take your point. It's one reason why I would not necessarily tax fuel, but tax pollution (the latter being a land value tax, while the former is a consumption tax)

Does that make sense? I'm not sure it does, but I'm tired!"

comment

Praguetory — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:54:06 +0000

I welcome these ideas with two caveats. One - Taxes to change behaviour" should be well trailed and brought in incrementally to allow people to make long-term lifestyle changes. Otherwise, they just appear money-grabbing. Two - If the tax works you can not necessarily offer a correpsonding cut elsewhere as is the new tax is effective in changing behaviour revenues accruing from it will decline over time."

comment

Paul — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:49:00 +0000

I've just heard Osborne on Five Live. I'd swear he actually used the phrase Green Tax Switch". Well, they do say it's the sincerest form of flattery..."

comment

Joe Otten — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:15:32 +0000

Not sure I appreciate the distinction between travel and transport. Nor do I see how LVT will have much impact on the demand for transport.

But you are right to scare-quote eco-tax". We are talking resource taxes, of which land tax is an obvious example.

My argument in http://joeotten.blogspot.com/2006/01/environment-environment-environment.html
does perhaps see fuel tax as more of a resource tax than a sin tax."