IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5380.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Have Separate Environmental Taxes?

Author

Listed:
  • Don Fullerton

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Don Fullerton, 1995. "Why Have Separate Environmental Taxes?," NBER Working Papers 5380, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:5380
    Note: PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w5380.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 2002. "Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 2, pages 49-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Michael L. Katz & Harvey S. Rosen, 1985. "Tax Analysis in an Oligopoly Model," Public Finance Review, , vol. 13(1), pages 3-20, January.
    3. Douglas W. McNiel & Andrew W. Foshee, 1988. "Superfund Financing Alternatives," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 751-760, June.
    4. Kotlikoff, Laurence J. & Summers, Lawrence H., 1987. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 16, pages 1043-1092, Elsevier.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249.
    8. 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 1007-1051, September.
    9. James Poterba & Julio Rotemberg, 1995. "Environmental taxes on intermediate and final goods when both can be imported," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 2(2), pages 221-228, August.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Don Fullerton, 2001. "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(2), pages 224-248, October.
    2. Fullerton, Don & Metcalf, Gilbert E., 2002. "Tax incidence," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 26, pages 1787-1872, Elsevier.
    3. Sterner, Thomas & Hoglund, Lena, 2000. "Output-Based Refunding of Emission Payments: Theory, Distribution of Costs, and International Experience," Discussion Papers 10670, Resources for the Future.
    4. James Alm & H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2012. "Designing Economic Instruments For The Environment In A Decentralized Fiscal System," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 177-202, April.
    5. Lehmann, Paul, 2008. "Using a policy mix for pollution control: A review of economic literature," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    6. Sterner, Thomas & Hoglund Isaksson, Lena, 2006. "Refunded emission payments theory, distribution of costs, and Swedish experience of NOx abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 93-106, April.
    7. Thomas Sadler, 2001. "Environmental taxation in an optimal tax framework," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 29(2), pages 215-231, June.
    8. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Don Fullerton & Andrew Leicester & Stephen Smith, 2008. "Environmental Taxes," NBER Working Papers 14197, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Löschel, Andreas & Alexeeva-Talebi, Victoria & Mennel, Tim, 2008. "Climate Policy and the Problem of Competitiveness: Border Tax Adjustments or Integrated Emission Trading?," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-061, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    11. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," Working Paper Series rwp04-051, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Rapanos, Vassilis T., 1995. "The effects of environmental taxes on income distribution," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 487-501, September.
    13. Herman Vollebergh & Jan Vries & Paul Koutstaal, 1997. "Hybrid carbon incentive mechanisms and political acceptability," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 9(1), pages 43-63, January.
    14. Fullerton, Don & Ta, Chi L., 2019. "Environmental policy on the back of an envelope: A Cobb-Douglas model is not just a teaching tool," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    15. Chiroleu-Assouline, Mireille & Fodha, Mouez, 2006. "Double dividend hypothesis, golden rule and welfare distribution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 323-335, May.
    16. Don Fullerton & Ann Wolverton, 2002. "The Case for a Two-Part Instrument: Presumptive Tax and Environmental Subsidy," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 10, pages 175-200, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Hahn, Robert W., 2000. "The Impact of Economics on Environmental Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 375-399, May.
    18. Besley, Timothy J. & Rosen, Harvey S., 1999. "Sales Taxes and Prices: An Empirical Analysis," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(2), pages 157-178, June.
    19. Abler, David G & Shortle, James S, 1992. "Environmental and Farm Commodity Policy Linkages in the U.S. and the EC," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(2), pages 197-217.
    20. Labandeira-Villot, Xavier, 1996. "Market instruments and the control of acid rain damage : Effects of a sulphur tax on the Spanish electricity generating industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(9), pages 841-854, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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 you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.