Talk:Environmental tax

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move in the light of new evidence. —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Move comment

• The move request should probably be to "Environmental tax". Notice the lowercase 't'. --Davidstrauss 09:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Green tax shift is the common used term. See naming conventions. Ardenn 03:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is about the German tax proposals (Ökosteuer), the entry should probably be moved to Ecotax, as per [1] ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Support: The article is listed on the list to translations from German to English, so it does pertain to the German tax proposal. The title Ecotax would therefore probably be appropriate, with Environmental tax and Ecology tax redirecting to it.(Patrick 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

This is English Wikipedia, and I know that the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Ontario certainly promotes the Green tax shift, with that wording. What is the most common usage in English? Ardenn 03:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Ecotax is more common in Europe and GTS in North America. Ecotax wins the googlefight by a mile, although I don't give too much credence to that. Are there official sources in North America that sponsor GTS? I'm kind of wary to accept the Green parties as unbiased sources. ~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've only heard it used by the GPC and GPO, so I wouldn't know. Sorry. Ardenn 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure about it myself, but I'll put in a move request. So what responses it triggers. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Ecotax

• Green tax shift → Ecotax … Rationale: Closest approximation to the original German Ökosteuer, it also seems the predominant form in Europe. … trialsanderrors 18:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as the nom. After some more googling this seems to be the prevalent form in Europe, which gives the topic more attention than NA, and is also closest to the German original. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I got here because I was looking for 'Green Shift' not ecotax. Ecotax is just a tool, 'Green Shift' is an event, or movement. Historians will speak of the 'Green Shift' when they speak of the tendency towards ecotaxes instead of income taxes. User:Tokamax 21:33. 9 decemeber 2008

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• To summarize: Ecotax seems to be the preferred form in Europe, and is endorsed by the European Environmental Agency. Green tax shift is endorsed by the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario, although we're still looking for non-partisas sponsors. It is also possible that the terms don't mean the same thing (a shift is a change in taxation rather than a tax), but it is not clear that the terms need separate entries. All opinions and contributions welcome. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My article

Can I add a link to a series of articles I wrote on a green tax shift?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

Ozfreediver 07:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Try integrating your points made and references used, into this article (or other wikipedia articles) instead of just linking to your article. Chendy (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the move

not sure if this is where I am allowed to respond. Anyway, a green tax shift is actually two concepts, a green/eco tax, and a tax shift, which implies that it is revenue neutral. This would indicate that GTS should not be used, but I like to see the terms linked, mainly for political reasons.

Ozfreediver 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Taxes affected

surely article should focus on taxes that will be introduced not "Examples of taxes which could be lowered or eliminated by a green tax shift:" - as every tax will be affected. Chendy (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph needs some rework

The last sentence of the current article:

"The Pigovian taxes that are introduced by such a policy - see below"

....has thrown the intro off. The sentence obviously suffers from poor grammar, but more succinctly I believe it doesn't belong in the intro paragraph since its providing an explicit description (elaboration) of the various taxes in the next section.

Can someone bring in some expertise to rework the first two sections? Simply removing the sentence completely may detract from the article and be counterproductive. Tnx --HarryZilber (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Severance Tax

The line severance tax is wrongly forwarded right back to this "Ecotax" page.

Recommend fixing this with a separate page on Severance tax. e.g. See Instapedia's entry http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/severance-tax.asp

"What Does It Mean? What Does Severance Tax Mean? A tax imposed on the removal of nonrenewable resources such as crude oil, condensate and natural gas, coalbed methane and carbon dioxide.

Severance tax is charged to producers, or anyone with a working or royalty interest, in oil or gas operations in the imposing states. You may be charged severance tax even if you do not realize a net profit on your investment.

Investopedia Says Investopedia explains Severance Tax Certain wells may be exempt from severance tax based on the amount they produce. Different states have different rules. For example, in Colorado, as of 2008, an oil well that produces less than an average of 15 barrels per producing day, or a gas well that produces less than an average of 90,000 cubic feet per producing day, is exempt from this tax.

It is important to note that severance tax is different from income tax, and you still have to pay all federal and state income taxes on oil and gas income in addition to severance tax."DLH (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Environmental tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== Start class because needs more references.EECavazos 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because article conveys the tax law has minimal impact because usually just a proposed law with few implemented.EECavazos 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecotax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402135251/https://lms.manhattan.edu/pluginfile.php/41279/mod_resource/content/1/Pogge%20Global%20Resource%20Dividend.pdf to https://lms.manhattan.edu/pluginfile.php/41279/mod_resource/content/1/Pogge%20Global%20Resource%20Dividend.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3955285.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecotax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=303-99-%EF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111219082339/http://www.dpa.dp.ua/section.phtml?l1=21&l2=126 to http://www.dpa.dp.ua/section.phtml?l1=21&l2=126
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229225950/http://www.sightline.org/research/taxes to http://www.sightline.org/research/taxes
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ntj.tax.org/wwtax/ntjrec.nsf/F57602350346C55985256AFC007F1BF7/$FILE/v52n4655.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per WP:COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Ecotax → Environmental tax – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Rationale: the term "environmental tax" seems to be the winner per Google Ngram Viewer[2]. Furthermore, as a double check, the search for the term finds:

• https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Environmental_tax_statistics
• https://data.oecd.org/envpolicy/environmental-tax.htm
• https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/the-global-tax-program/environmental-taxes
• https://www.gov.uk/green-taxes-and-reliefs "Environmental taxes, reliefs and schemes for businesses"

You can run your own search to double check. In any case, "ecotax" seems to be far from the leader. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC) --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. "Ecotax" sounds like a promotional neologism, and I don't remember encountering it in any formal context. No such user (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose but Support Alternative Move: move but not to Environmental tax per current article revision and Pigouvian tax article. The historical term is Effluent charge per Google Ngram; Environmental tax is itself a neologism as it has only become more common since the 1980s. Pollution tax was also more common before the 1980s than Environmental tax and is the second most common now, and Emissions tax was also historically more common than Environmental tax, Green tax, and Ecotax. The name of the article should reflect that it is a tax on a negative externality. — CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Delogu 1967, Ferrar & Horst 1967, Dorcey 1973, Morse 1973, Rose-Ackerman 1973, Russell 1979, and Lo & Chen 1997 per Google Engine search of "Effluent charge"; see also Free to Choose (1980) (pages 213–218), the Alston Kearl & Vaughan 1992 survey, Fuller & Geide-Stevenson 2003 survey, and the 2014 edition of Greg Mankiw's introductory macroeconomics textbook. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • The term "effluent charge" can be mentioned as a synonym in the article (if it is a perfect synonym), but I do not see why, in 2022, we should not pick the Google Ngram Viewer winner for all years after 2000, which is environmental tax. And it wins easily in Scholar: effluent charge: 2,100 hits; environmental tax: 27,900 hits. The article title should not reflect that it is a tax on negative externality since environmental taxes are only subclass of such a tax. The fact that the term "effluent charge" does not contain the word "tax" is also not ideal: it is neater to have "environmental tax" to be a hyponym of "Pigouvian tax". It is also not clear that environmental tax is the same thing as effluent charge: taxing raw materials would be environmental tax but would have nothing to do with "effluents": it would simply reduce the resource exhaustion rate. I don't think that the links to historic sources provided above should have higher weight than the 4 modern sources I provided: why should the encyclopedia be moving back in time?
    • "a neologism as it has only become more common since the 1980s": a term more common for over 40 years is not "neologism" by any stretch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    • As an aside, German "Umweltsteuer" is an analog of "environmental tax"; the same story for Russian "экологический налог". (That's no conclusive argument, more of a completing the picture.) I don't see why the first word of the term must point to the thing to be diminished, and modern sources I linked to do not think so either. In "Pigouvian tax", "Pigouvian" does not refer to the thing to be diminished either. One should not worry too much about term design and look at frequencies and most common use in mainstream modern sources. The term "environmental tax" makes a good sense anyway: it is a tax designed to ensure protection of the environment. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Politics

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2024 and 20 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loloe312 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Intelmononoke (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)