Take Out Tax: Why not?

In my opinion, using taxes to influence behaviors is a mistake. It's inefficient in that it doesn't target the behavior directly. It leads to further complications of an already overly complicated system.

Taxes should be used to raise revenue. Non-revenue laws should target behavior.

The most targeted, efficient solution would be tougher penalties for littering coupled with stricter enforcement.

I vote with Eliza. To see the stupidity of using taxes for reasons other than generating revenue, just read the IRS Code and Regs. Go ahead. I dare you. All 9,000+ pages of them.

In my opinion, using taxes to influence behaviors is a mistake. It's inefficient in that it doesn't target the behavior directly. It leads to further complications of an already overly complicated system.

Taxes should be used to raise revenue. Non-revenue laws should target behavior.

The most targeted, efficient solution would be tougher penalties for littering coupled with stricter enforcement.

Does this mean you are willing to give up mortgage interest deduction? That promotes home purchases.

Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure where the behavioral change concept came from. The original concept was to generate revenue (from Take out) and use this revenue for a very specific purpose (litter control).
I knew this would be unpopular here, but was hoping that there would be a bit more discussion of alternatives. The enforcement alternative was raised as well as convict labor, but I doubt that either of these would/could be funded to the extent necessary to address the problem, but will admit I could be wrong about that.
ASIG.

The enforcement alternative was raised as well as convict labor, but I doubt that either of these would/could be funded to the extent necessary to address the problem, but will admit I could be wrong about that.
ASIG.

I think they could just start with enforcement. Fines for littering could be used to fund litter clean up or the fine could be avoided by picking up garbage for a few days. I just don't think the laws against littering are being enforced.

The reason I mentioned starting with smokers is I think they would be the easiest to catch. I see 6-12 cigarettes thrown from cars every morning on my 12 mile drive to work. I think one $200 fine for littering would put a stop to that persons habits. I have never seen anybody throw actual trash from a vehicle, but assume if you will toss a cigarette why not a soda can.

If they started treating Littering like speeding tickets with quotas, then we'd be a Green Kentucky in months.

There are a number of interesting issues here. I have been appalled returning to Louisville by the level of littering still here. There seems to be some vestigial connection in the city to Kentucky's rural life, where it's fine to just toss your dead refrigerator into the holler. On my morning walk I have to pick up garbage tossed by Trinity boys. Yahoos are yahoos.

Concerning bottle laws. I lived in Rochester NY, where there is a five cent per bottle charge. You take your bottles back to the store and get a refund. It costs the places where they are sold to run a recycling system, but it definitely makes recycling happen. You're less likely to throw a bottle out on someone's lawn - or to just toss it in the garbage - if it's worth money. If you do litter, or put bottles in a public garbage can, there is an odd scavenger system: homeless people collect them and take them in for the money. You often see them pushing grocery carts around with piles of bottles. It's an interesting form of welfare: litterers help the poor.

As for take-out... I am less and less likely to get take-out lately. The waste - often of unrecyclable material like styrofoam - is excessive. There are exceptions. J. Gumbo's containers, among others, can be recycled. If you refuse the paper napkins and the plastic utensils, the harm is minimal. We have our own utensils to keep in the car. I haven't gotten a set of carry-out dishes to take to restaurants. I wonder who has and how that works out.

As for the tax idea itself, well, it's worth thinking about...

The mortgage interest deduction is a case in point for why using the tax code to influence behavior is a bad thing. Because of progressive rates, it's far more valuable to those who least need a deduction in order to afford a house. In addition, it has helped to artificially inflate housing prices.

The most targeted, efficient solution would be tougher penalties for littering coupled with stricter enforcement.

Enforcement of littering penalties is probably one of the least enforced laws in any state. The only people that are ever cited for it probably through an entire bag of garbage out the window of their vehicle and it landed on the windshield of a police cruiser whose officer was bored. Heck they even make you come in to file reports for many crimes these days, they certainly are not going to allocate resources for the enforcement of littering laws.

I applaud Bill P for offering a means to approaching an issue that, over the years, we have been woefully inept at addressing. Nothing's going to change unless people are serious about putting a dent in littering. That might mean putting the cause in front of the cost. We do a lovely job in this country of shooting ourselves in the foot regarding progress because we are so darn scared of putting our (financial) chips on the table. I can't think of a better example than our willingness to drag our feet over healthcare reform.

Everyone wants a more perfect world. Most, though, want it at the discounted cost of a Kmart blue-light special.

Everyone wants a more perfect world. Most, though, want it at the discounted cost of a Kmart blue-light special.

Well said.

I think an unintended consequence would be more litter on the roads. "I paid that tax, the road is not my dumpster."

Does this mean you are willing to give up mortgage interest deduction? That promotes home purchases.

Absolutely. Actually, I think the mortgage interest deduction is one of the most unfair tax breaks there is - - right behind church donations: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

I think an unintended consequence would be more litter on the roads. "I paid that tax, the road is not my dumpster."

Good point. I've seen that mentality manifested quite pervasively in other settings; e.g "For greens fees this high, they can pay somebody to fix my ball mark," etc..

The tax would not necessarily come from margin, but could be a pass thru like sales tax.

Economically, there is no difference between a pass thru tax and other taxes. They all are either paid in part by the consumer and part by the producer, with the split being determined by the slope of the demand curve.

Economically, there is no difference between a pass thru tax and other taxes. They all are either paid in part by the consumer and part by the producer, with the split being determined by the slope of the demand curve.

I can't get over how insightful and well versed the crowd oh LHB is! I am still trying to digest that last one, but I know a well spoken comment when I see one!

The problem with a tax of this type is that some people will rationalize that it's okay to litter since they have already "paid" to have the litter picked up. You may end up with more litter than you have now.

Update: I didn't see Bryan's comment until after I posted.