Why not? I don't see why we can't even litter but huge companies can pretty much do whatever they want. But, I think they would still get out of it by exporting their pollution to China.
How about taxing breeders who reproduce at more than replacement levels for the pollution that their excess spawn cause?
The tax would only be passed to the workers, as are other taxes.
Yes, they should. But that alone will not solve the problem in the long run. They will just pass the added expense on to the end user one way or another. There must be a way to encourage companies to find other ways to produce their goods in the cleanest way they can. To be fair to them this won't happen over night. Technologies may not be available or expensive. The tax money could be used to support that development. So a plan for getting rid of the polluting technologies must be in place.
"Polluter pays" has become a pretty accepted regulatory principle in many countries, and, I think, rightfully so. The payments can be taxes, fines, or emission permit fees, but if some organization is going to profit by degrading a public good, they need to pay. Otherwise, what incentive is there for them to do the right thing?
Oh YES!!! They have loopholes and huge tax breaks and ways of getting around EVERY damn thing. It would be about time these big companies paid their fair share!! I am sick to death of everything falling on the middle class and small businesses.
Rather than considering it a Tax consider it a penalty or fine for polluting the atmosphere. Companies should then seek to immediately implement reforms to reduce their toxic emissions by turning to alernatives...
They should. Big companies will always try to make the argument that they cannot survive under excessive taxation but health is more important than wealth. People do not like change and neither does big business. The aim in not to put companies out of business. The aim is to encourage them to clean up their act. There is always a better way and eventually that way will become cheaper to implement.
Just because we cannot immediately see the effects of most pollution does not mean it does not exist. There are many among us who believe that nature is invincible. Acid Rain disproved that. Valuable Lessons were learned during the Industrial Revolution of the late18th and early 19th centuries when smog almost choked most of Europe to death and caused numerous health problems.
Big polluting companies and entire industries should be dismantled and up-cycled - example: instead of coal we should use EPA certified pellet stoves, with the pellets being 2nd use food safe paper & plant wax tubs (like juice & milk cartons or chinese food take out boxes ) - the tubs being the result of up-cycling the entire plastic food container industry etc.. infinity until all carbon heavy users on non-renewable resources have been replaces with smarter less polluting renewable alternatives. Fines + taxes do not cut it. Dismantle and up-cycle all of the worst polluting industries.
Imposing tax to violators is just like legalizing their wrong practices.We can't correct a wrong doing another wrong. They have money to pay any amount. They won't budge in, anyway they are made to pay the government. What is needed for them to behave is to impose strictest possible laws and if they fail, the government arm in charge must tell these big companies to pack up and their license to operate be recalled.
To be able to do this with success, the government arm must be in itself a high-profile group of law-abiding individuals themselves who can't be intimidated nor "sweet-talked" under the table.
It depends on the pollutant. Actually, big companies are not allowed to pollute very much any more. The sulfer, CO and NOX along with many hydro-carbons, and most of the pollutant has been decreased. Now Mercury and Lead are being looked and it will be controlled.
If you are talking CO2 emission, I firmly believe it is not a pollutant because it is a cycle of life itself. Therefore it does not fall into the pollutant category.
First of all they should be given awareness regarding the topic. They should also be given help and alternatives regarding how to do their activities without polluting the environment. If this is not successful, they are to be taxed.
by GA Anderson 5 years ago
Political pundits are saying the Obama admin is floating the typical "trial balloons", (ie. rumors to pundits to get it in the public conversation/news), of a wealth tax - to see if it would have a chance of acceptance.The "rumors" floating around are talking about a 1%...
by GA Anderson 2 years ago
You work hard to build a fortune that you can pass on to your kids, or otherwise distribute however you desire on your passing. It is your money. Shouldn't you be able to do whatever you want with it, within our legal boundaries of course?What business does the government have taxing your estate...
by aiyana01 8 years ago
Effects of Pollution on Animals - Air Pollution • Acid rain destroys fish life in lakes and streams • Excessive ultraviolet radiation may cause skin cancer in wildlife • Ozone in the lower atmosphere may damage lung tissues of animals Effects of...
by LAURENS WRIGHT 5 years ago
Do you think that churches should be taxed or government regulated?Some of the churches have become almost like cities, having apartment complexes, kitchens, schools, child care, stores, houses and much more. Some churches help with welfare, the care of children and adults, medical expenses...
by maria.rose 6 years ago
How we can reduce global warming?
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|