Why Have Separate Environmental Taxes?
Each environmental tax in the U.S. is designed to collect revenue for a trust fund used to clean up a particular pollution problem. Each might be intended to collect from a particular industry thought to be responsible for that pollution problem, but none represents a good example of an incentive-based tax designed to discourage the polluting activity itself. A different tax for each trust fund means that each tax rate is typically less than one percent. But each separate tax has an extra cost of administration and compliance, since taxpayers must read another set of rules and fill out another set of forms. This paper provides evidence on compliance costs that are high relative to the small revenue from each separate tax. In addition, an input-output model is used to show how current U.S. environmental tax burdens are passed from taxed industries to all other industries. Thus the extra cost incurred to administer each separate tax achieves neither targeted incentives not targeted burdens.
|Date of creation:||Dec 1995|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as Why Have Separate Environmental Taxes? , Don Fullerton. in Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 10 , Poterba. 1996|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Fullerton Don & Kinnaman Thomas C., 1995.
"Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 78-91, July.
- Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1993. "Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping," NBER Working Papers 4374, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Laurence J. Kotlikoff & Lawrence H. Summers, 1986.
NBER Working Papers
1864, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Douglas W. McNiel & Andrew W. Foshee, 1988. "Superfund Financing Alternatives," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 751-760, 06.
- Don Fullerton & Seng-Su Tsang, 1993. "Environmental Costs Paid by the Polluter or the Beneficiary? The Case of CERCLA and Superfund," NBER Working Papers 4418, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Michael L. Katz & Harvey S. Rosen, 1983. "Tax Analysis in an Oligopoly Model," NBER Working Papers 1088, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Joel Slemrod & Nikki Sorum, 1984. "The Compliance Cost of the U.S. Individual Income Tax System," NBER Working Papers 1401, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bohm, Peter & Russell, Clifford S., 1985. "Comparative analysis of alternative policy instruments," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 10, pages 395-460 Elsevier.
- Thomas A. Barthold, 1994. "Issues in the Design of Environmental Excise Taxes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 133-151, Winter.
- James Poterba & Julio Rotemberg, 1995. "Environmental taxes on intermediate and final goods when both can be imported," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 221-228, August.
- Shoven, John B & Whalley, John, 1984. "Applied General-Equilibrium Models of Taxation and International Trade: An Introduction and Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(3), pages 1007-51, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.