Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:59:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2506 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:54:00 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at
> the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking.
Uh, Larry? I _was_ kidding.
>
> Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear
> cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of waste, and all the other
> actual costs at every step of the way instead.
So how do you figure the costs of erosion? TIhe lumber companies own
their land, usually, after all. Or they have permission from the
owners. And if the use that land to deposit the waste on, why
shouldn't they do that?
>
> A 2.50 a page tax is distorting because it's too simplistic. What if I
> invent a paper that is produced from used household paper scraps. Should
You mean, like recycled paper? The stuff nobody will even touch with a
tenfoot pole, let alone use for toiletpaper or better?
> I have to pay the same tax even though I have less impact on the
> ecology? Or do we need some complex formula deciding that my paper is
> partly exempt and partly not because it still takes electricity?
You can pay $2 a page.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Ah yes... slap a tax on it instead of trying to set things up to get at the root costs, eh? Typical tax and spend thinking. Why not go after lumber companies for causing erosion when they clear cut, and charge the proper amount to dispose of (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
