Indirect Taxes

1. Americans are known for their long-term love affair with their cars. But as gasoline prices soar and concern about the environment mounts, the standard of living by ordinary people on a daily basis also become difficult; the need to conserve gasoline has become increasingly clear. What would it take to reduce the overall demand for gasoline in the United States most especially as we see it now?

There has been some talk about an “oil-extraction tax.” With this tax in place, it would force companies to fork out more of the tax instead of the consumer. If higher taxes are put in place for the producer ultimately they are not the ones paying the higher price the consumer is. Either way producers will receive revenue and in order to do that they will just raise their prices. The demand for fuel is based on necessity forcing consumers to pay outrageous prices because they need it. In addition to the tax, oil companies would have to disclose more information about their supplies and prices. Since the companies have market power, some believe with the tax in place it would reduce the price of the good.

However, these long and short term economic improvements are only what is predicted to happen and there negatives to the reduction in income tax. A factor that the government must take into account is the budget deficit, can the government afford to simply cut income tax that is a large source of revenue for the budget. A worsened budget deficit could have devastating impacts upon the economy, for example less people able to have the benefits they require, (this would also reduce demand in the economy as those on benefits generally spend the money they have as they do not have spare to save, this may damage the economy even further) or a reduction in money towards health care. Also, a reduction in income tax does not necessarily mean

Cutting down individual taxes will generate more employment and will help generate more money, it will create more tax revenue, according to Mike DeBones, from “House Passes 2018 Budget, Taking a Crucial Step toward Tax Overhaul.” He states that “Our budget specifically paves the way for pro-growth tax reform that will reduce taxes for middle-class Americans and free up American businesses to grow and hire,” House Budget Committee Chairman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said during floor debate Wednesday. I agree if the tax is

This question is a casual argument because it speculates the consequences in increasing the gas taxes.

Generally, the income earners pay less income tax and more payroll taxes while the high-end income earners pay more income tax and less payroll taxes. The low income earners however get credit benefits as the government pays for their payroll taxes. Therefore, the high income racket still suffers the burden of individual taxes. In 2014, the bottom 20% had an effective tax rate of -4.5% while the top 1% faced an average of 24.6% a margin of 29% creates a very huge economical gap between the rich and the poor. This only ends up hurting the economy more. As a result, I believe the highest effective tax that should be applied to the top 1% should not be more than 20%. If it goes beyond 20%, they shall start demanding for tax cuts and further design ways to evade the tax payments.

As western society has been aggressively expanding, the consumption of materials has followed suit. This leads to a negative effect on the environment. To curb the decay of the planet, it is important for humans to have a handle on how much we consume. One consequence of consumption is the emissions produced by our vehicles. It is crucial to develop a government policy that most effectively controls and reduces the amount of these emissions we give off. While the government has introduced many subsidization policies, the most efficient policy the government could enact is to raise the taxes on gas.

Drivers realize that the price of gas is tied to the market value of crude oil, and has a direct impact to their daily commutes, errands, and vacations. However the reality is that the price of fuel has implications much grater than most consumers realize. Fuel prices affect nearly everything we purchase. For example, the price of farm commodities and food increase because farmers pay more for the fuel for their farm equipment and trucking firms pay more for fuel to get the commodities to market. These shipping “fuel surcharges” impact all goods

In America we currently have tax placed on our gas. However, with new changes in the automotive industry, there have been ideas of changing the tax to a tax based on miles travelled rather than gas. Mr. Earl Blumenauer and Mr. Phil Byrd both expressed their strong views on the topic in a pro versus con argumentative article. Blumenauer and Byrd both built up their credibility by using strong sources, including facts and statistics, and appealing to the readers’ emotions; however towards the end of the article both sides had a slight flaw which weakened their credibility.

Why is it important to have a vehicle with good gas mileage? Miles Per Gallon (MPG) is the environmental issues. Driving any vehicle pollutes air, however, automobile will decrease the pollution in the air by improving the fuel efficiency. Consider buying cars that are fuel-efficient, it will reduce the destruction of our environment that is being done. Gasoline or diesel burns fossil fuels and it causes few environmental problems, such as smog which is the air pollution, and global climate change. Also, in another complication, spills from refining and transporting oil and petroleum products damage ecosystems and pollute groundwater and streams. Throughout the essay, it will be analyzed the effects, determining and explaining the different political cultures that would consider a personal viewpoint in the traditionalist, individualist, or

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

The supporters of the Flat Tax system are quick to point out this system's attributes but not as quickly as the criticisms by those who oppose it. The filing of taxes each year would be much easier because there would be one set rate to pay. This type of system also discourages, and makes it almost impossible, to find and use any existing schemes that are present to avoid paying taxes. However, because there is a set rate at which everyone needs to pay, this system is quite unfair. Those who earn and have a lot of money should not pay the same amount as someone who has only a fraction of their wealth. The wealthier you are, the more you should pay because you can afford it. If there is a set tax rate it would be too high to some people and pocket change to others. A system like this also takes away many, if not all tax deductions. An event like this would cause irreparable injury to the middle class, who often times rely heavily on money they will get back from tax deductions.

Her point is important to note because she emphasizes that although in some cases there are alternatives to fossil fuels, there are often many limits to their use as often the technology is still in the early stages of development. The president of Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association, Shantel Lipp, has similar concerns. In a recent interview, she also made it known that many industries do not have access to any alternative fuel sources. She goes on to say that the Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association’s machines, as well as their crushing and asphalt plants, are running solely off diesel and propane powers most of the associated workers camps. (Canadian Press, 2017). There are no reasonable alternative fuel sources available for them to replace either diesel or propane as their fuel sources. Because of this fact, implementing a carbon tax will not have the desired effect of reducing the amount of carbon emissions. The only result will be an increase in the cost of doing business. Michael Fox said that we do need to create alternatives to fossil fuels. But until then, he added, we need to use fossil fuels to build our economy until we can afford to develop efficient alternatives. (Fox, 2015). A carbon tax is a tax directed at fossil fuels and until we have easy access to efficient alternatives, consumers will pay the price.

Secondly, it low down the growth in economy as it was just increased to 1.8% from 1% in 2002. In 2003 it increased to just 2.3 percent. By cutting the tax rates effected the government income but in the long run it was effective.

In February 2011, the Australian federal government declared a scheme to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1, 2012. Implementing this scheme has generated a controversial debate between Australians. The term “Carbon tax” refers to an environmental tax forcing polluters to pay per ton of carbon which they release into the atmosphere. This essay will provide the economical, social and political implication of carbon taxes, also with its introduction who will benefit and who would suffer.