Jump to content


Responsibility for the future


19 replies to this topic

#1 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 11:35

Should taxes be increased by governments in order to subsidize forward-looking prospects, or must that be the responsibility of companies and electors?

In the prelude to the October 14th Canadian Election, a party was attacked vigorously for its stance on "Green Taxes" and Carbon Taxes - mostly saying that "Canadians couldn't afford them."

Assuming this phrase means "We can't afford this economically", then the add of course seems to make sense... However, then who will be responsible for making the move to greener energy?

Or, in general, who will foot the bill for when a current project (be it any sort of outdated system) needs to be revamped, updated, sometimes at the last minute and at excessive cost?

Should it be the Government - who have the power of taxation behind them, and the ability shift public research towards the areas as well, and represent the majority of a population?

The corporation - with funds in excess of some small countries, and private researchers as well?

The citizen - who will need the system the most when it eventually fails, and will thus be hurt the most?

Edited by Dauth, 24 October 2008 - 14:38.


#2 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 15:29

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the government is responsible for this. As pointed out, the public suffers the most, and the public is the responsibility of the government so this falls to them IMO. In addition, corporations should not be forced to pay for something like this IMO. I believe in flexible corporate rights because scaring off companies is very detrimental to countries' economies, making the problem only worse.

However, there isn't a very clear separation between the government and the citizens here because they are inseparably linked by the tax system. The government pays, the public pays. And in practice, corporations will pay regardless, because they can obtain profits from innovations as a result of the research.

EDIT: added a bit.

Edited by Chyros, 12 October 2008 - 15:33.

TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#3 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 17:38

Taxing individuals makes little difference in the amount of pollutants produced by a country, the industry is significantly more prominent.

Research should be directed by whoever pays for it, I'd be pretty annoyed if I donated money to Physics Department only to have the Government move it to Biology.

I am opposed to green/carbon taxes and the carbon credits system used in the UK is one of the most amusing things Labour has done. Each hospital has to offset its carbon, so it pays people who have trees, these are traditionally land owners... not people the public should be paying in a Labour Government.

You cannot rely on the public to be far-sighted it never happens you can even see it as the difference between moderators and members. To quote Men in Black,

Quote

The person is smart, people a dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.

If we need to fund something such as better flood defences then telling the public to choose, either £40 off tax/year for 2 years or build this wall. They will take the cash.

#4 Ion Cannon!

    Mountain Maniac

  • Gold Member
  • 5812 posts
  • Projects: European Conflict - Particle FX & Coder

Posted 12 October 2008 - 17:49

I am of the opinion that everyone should do their bit, if we carry on the system will fail and it will effect everyone. If we don't do anything, there won't be an economy, people need to realise this. You either take a sizeable hit now and ensure in general the continuance of the high standard of living we have become accustomed to, yes this involves changing almost everything we do, from our lifestyles, to our mass consumption society to how we power the planet. But if we don't do something the long term consequences will be far worse.

People need to wake up, and smell the ashes. We cannot continue using this planet as we have been. Its in everyones best interests.
Posted Image

Posted Image

#5 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 18:06

View PostChyros, on 12 Oct 2008, 16:29, said:

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the government is responsible for this. As pointed out, the public suffers the most, and the public is the responsibility of the government so this falls to them IMO. In addition, corporations should not be forced to pay for something like this IMO. I believe in flexible corporate rights because scaring off companies is very detrimental to countries' economies, making the problem only worse.

Shouldn't that read that the government is the responsibility of the public?

Anyway, if a corporation is taxed then so should the public. Yes, whilst the corporate sector generates far more pollutants than the collective group of the public we are all responsible and no one should escape it. Offsetting is also nonsense. What is the point of trying to reduce something by continuing the same way only paying someone else to be greener. We won't starve of the end of our planet by paying someone else to do it. We all have to chip together, the public, private and commercial sectors.

#6 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 19:31

View PostWizard, on 12 Oct 2008, 20:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 12 Oct 2008, 16:29, said:

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the government is responsible for this. As pointed out, the public suffers the most, and the public is the responsibility of the government so this falls to them IMO. In addition, corporations should not be forced to pay for something like this IMO. I believe in flexible corporate rights because scaring off companies is very detrimental to countries' economies, making the problem only worse.

Shouldn't that read that the government is the responsibility of the public?
It might in a different context, but here that would make no sense; "the people pay so that the government is protected from environmental effects". The people must be protected from these effects, and the government is to take steps that this happens.

Quote

[...]if we carry on the system will fail and it will effect everyone. If we don't do anything, there won't be an economy, people need to realise this. You either take a sizeable hit now and ensure in general the continuance of the high standard of living we have become accustomed to, yes this involves changing almost everything we do, from our lifestyles, to our mass consumption society to how we power the planet. But if we don't do something the long term consequences will be far worse.

People need to wake up, and smell the ashes. We cannot continue using this planet as we have been. Its in everyones best interests.
I agree, but unfortunately people don't tend to be smart enough or are too greedy to realise all that. Even if one country started to tax everyone and started implementing rigorous changes to provide for "a greener energy", that wouldn't accomplish much if the rest of the world wouldn't follow suit. And some countries simply can't or won't do this. In general, people are too greedy to give up money without it providing some sort of tangible reward. But the matter in question isn't really a "reward", more of an absence of misery, and the negative effects are too long-term to be adequately disconcerting to most people to coax them into paying.

That's why I'd personally much rather leave it to the industrial sector to pay. Not forcedly, but by having them conduct the research necessary to implement the changes that will provide greener energy in an economically feasible way, and then have the government (and thus, public) pay for the implementation of it. The industrial sector has the advantage of having the facilities needed to conduct this research, as well as the capital needed to finance it. After the research is done, it is the (IMO) duty of the governments to make the implementation of these innovations compulsory for everyone (i.e. forcing the consumer into consuming cleaner alternatives - I'll stress again that economic feasibility is necessary for this to be implemented). This will force providers of older, less clean energy and products out of the market, further encouraging the industry to do the research, and will pay the industry that has invested in research back its money because everyone now has to buy their products. This method has the added benefit of the public not having to pay for it all while not damaging the industry either (at least, the industry that complies).
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#7 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 21:35

View PostChyros, on 12 Oct 2008, 20:31, said:

That's why I'd personally much rather leave it to the industrial sector to pay. Not forcedly, but by having them conduct the research necessary to implement the changes that will provide greener energy in an economically feasible way, and then have the government (and thus, public) pay for the implementation of it. The industrial sector has the advantage of having the facilities needed to conduct this research, as well as the capital needed to finance it. After the research is done, it is the (IMO) duty of the governments to make the implementation of these innovations compulsory for everyone (i.e. forcing the consumer into consuming cleaner alternatives - I'll stress again that economic feasibility is necessary for this to be implemented). This will force providers of older, less clean energy and products out of the market, further encouraging the industry to do the research, and will pay the industry that has invested in research back its money because everyone now has to buy their products. This method has the added benefit of the public not having to pay for it all while not damaging the industry either (at least, the industry that complies).

Just because the industrial sector arguably has the capital (which it might not do atm) why should they pay for something that will benefit the globe? When has the corporate sector done something for the benefit of the world? This is a global issue and should be borne proportionately by everyone. If the research is going to cost $5trillion then divide that by the cash in the public and private sector and have each one pay that percentile in tax. You can't lay this at the feet of the corporate. They'll uproot to a developing country where they aren't asked to do it.

#8 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 12 October 2008 - 23:27

View PostWizard, on 12 Oct 2008, 23:35, said:

You can't lay this at the feet of the corporate. They'll uproot to a developing country where they aren't asked to do it.
No, it's my very point that they shouldn't be pressed into uprooting. But by providing a global market for the product research could deliver, they can be persuaded to do the research. When a solution is found, the costumers pay them off by paying for the products, and thus the implementation.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#9 Dr. Strangelove

    Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else

  • Member Test
  • 2197 posts
  • Projects: Where parallels meet.

Posted 13 October 2008 - 00:11

All involuntary taxes are bad.
Posted Image
Posted Image19681107

#10 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 09:08

View PostDr. Strangelove, on 13 Oct 2008, 2:11, said:

All involuntary taxes are bad.
Care to elaborate and explain?
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#11 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 10:37

He cannot explain as he has been kicked out for 14 days. Now back to topic please.

#12 NanSolo

    Amateur

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 14:06

I think you can probably draw parallels in this with the compulsory nature of education.
Primary education became compulsory under liberal governments of the 19th century, until then education was for the rich and for the church. The motivation behind this were liberal-democratic principles: in order to vote man must have certain capabilities, a good education being one of them so that they are capable of independant thought, therefore if you desire a universal electorate then everyone must be educated to that basic level.
When first introduced this policy of compulsory primary education was met with much opposition, a lot of it financial. On the parents side a child in class was one that wasn't in the job market: for the poorest families this meant a considerable loss of income. On the side of the government this education had to be free i.e. paid for by the state (how else could it be universal if only the rich could afford to go) and meant a massive undertaking in terms of infrastructure with the need to build thousands of new schools and train thousands of new teachers.
The point I'm making is this: ask your parents why they sent you to school, and the likelihood is they'll say that it is because an education is a good thing to have. I imagine there are very few parents out there that send their children to school just because it's compulsory, and very few people that think that at least primary education shouldn't be enforced by the state.
I believe a similar process will happen with green taxes: states moved by environmental principles will have to take the financial hit of investing heavily in a 'green' infrastructure (power generation, recycling, etc) paid for by taxes on fossil fuels, overuse of water, waste (rubbish/garbage), etc., which will be very unpopular at first, but seen as something as obvious as the need for a basic education in a few decades time.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#13 Warbz

    IRC is just a multiplayer notepad.

  • Project Team
  • 4646 posts

Posted 13 October 2008 - 14:16

No matter what, the general consumer is going to pay.

Posted Image

#14 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 13 October 2008 - 23:59

The problem with the current political system is that governments have the money and the means but not the time. Increasing taxes isn't really going to help a great deal in funding long-term projects because no matter how much money you may or may not have they're still going to have the prospect of a future administration ditching the whole thing in three or four years' time. The current Australian government has this situation; they have a massive budget surplus and they're pouring hundreds of billions into several funds, such as the 'Building Australia Fund' for major infrastructure projects. Many of these projects are within a term but many of them (port upgrades, rail networks etc.) aren't. So they're having to try and set it up as a separate fund which is difficult to close down.
It's natural for a new administration to want to leave its mark on the system, and of course during elections we get many promises, which may or may not end up being 'non-core'. The trouble lies in the fact that a government has to plan around a three or four year election schedule, and it's this, not tax availability, which limits their possibilities. I think the only true way to make a governmental system more friendly to future planning is to increase the length of terms to approximately five years. If a project can't be done, or at least got sufficiently underway that it's difficult to cancel, in five years then there's really nothing you can do to make it attractive to a government that isn't a non-term-limited dictatorship.
The example given, of the 'green tax', is entirely separate to government long-term planning. It doesn't take a term to institute a tax (actually it can take many - the last Australian tax review was initated by one administration, finished by the next and ignored by the one after that - but my point is that such things are down to bureaucratic inefficiencies, not the actual issue of instituting a a working system, which will take probably three or four years at the most, depending on the size and importance of the system/changes to existing systems being instituted), the issue is the percieved economics of climate change, which is of course a totally different topic. Taxes are very much short-term (read: election) planning unless it's something like GST, which as the last Australian government showed, took several terms to consolidate, and starts when the government is in power.
Companies really have no stake in national planning beside their own business ambitions, and already pay whatever taxes they have to, so they're not really relevant here either. If you try and lock them down into these sorts of long-reaching plans (though I can't exactly think of an example) then as Wizard said they'll just go and find another customer, often in a different country.
Summary:
In my opinion:
'Foward-looking prospects' that are the visions of governments are not currently viable because administrations cannot be guaranteed they will have the time it takes to implement them.
Taxes will be be determined by the economic and political climate and will influence such prospects. Not the other way round. No project will be so large you need to raise the entire nation's taxes to cope with it; that's what budgets are for. Reshuffle it from somewhere else that you hope the public won't notice. Anything that is that large will never be attempted thanks to the time limitations, not budgetary ones.
Companies have no stake in national planning. They have nothing to do with national infrastructure/systems/taxes etc., just their business plans, so why should they fund it?

Edited by CommanderJB, 14 October 2008 - 00:45.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#15 Rich19

    I challenge thee!

  • Member
  • 1478 posts
  • Projects: Duelling

Posted 14 October 2008 - 14:41

View PostDauth, on 12 Oct 2008, 12:35, said:

In the prelude to the October 14th Canadian Election, a party was attacked vigorously for its stance on "Green Taxes" and Carbon Taxes - mostly saying that "Canadians couldn't afford them."

Assuming this phrase means "We can't afford this economically", then the add of course seems to make sense... However, then who will be responsible for making the move to greener energy?

Or, in general, who will foot the bill for when a current project (be it any sort of outdated system) needs to be revamped, updated, sometimes at the last minute and at excessive cost?

Should it be the Government - who have the power of taxation behind them, and the ability shift public research towards the areas as well, and represent the majority of a population?

The corporation - with funds in excess of some small countries, and private researchers as well?

The citizen - who will need the system the most when it eventually fails, and will thus be hurt the most?



I can't really see the difference between "the government" and "the citizen" - the source of money is essentially the same. So I vote for both of those footing the bill.

The problem I see with leaving it to the companies is that they end up with a rather large stake in the final system, so it has almost been privatised. I would rather have public systems (e.g. public transport, road networks, the health service) in public/government hands. This way the system can be run for the good of the user rather than for the profit of the executives. And if the private company gets into financial trouble (not inconceivable in the current economic conditions), the users of the system get problems of their own.

That's not to say that the companies should be left out of the loop altogether, however. The original example given was "green taxes". As well as using taxes to help reduce emissions, giving the companies an incentive to work with the government on green technology is, in my view, the way to go.

#16 NanSolo

    Amateur

  • Member
  • 100 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 16:01

View PostCommanderJB, on 14 Oct 2008, 0:59, said:

The problem with the current political system is that governments have the money and the means but not the time.


I'm not sure about that: the Attlee government created the National Health Service in 1948, three years after coming to power. A lot of these projects fail because current governments are slow because of inefficiency and lack of ambition. How long do you think it would take a private company to build a new railtrack or a new port?

Posted Image
Posted Image

#17 CommanderJB

    Grand Admiral, Deimos Fleet, Red Banner

  • Fallen Brother
  • 3736 posts
  • Projects: Rise of the Reds beta testing & publicity officer; military technology consultancy; New World Order

Posted 16 October 2008 - 02:40

View PostNanSolo, on 16 Oct 2008, 3:01, said:

A lot of these projects fail because current governments are slow because of inefficiency and lack of ambition.

This is sort of what I was getting at, but it wasn't the aim of my push. A three year term is enough to build your average infrastructure project if the planning and permits already exist. Undertaking feasibility studies, coordinating with councils, community consultations, inevitable head-kicking, laying the groundwork, recruiting project teams etc. for the most major 'nation-building' works can take many years. While much of this is down to inefficiencies, the lack of ambition comes from the fact that if you bring a vision to government that's brand-new, you have no guarantee that you'll be able to get that project through in the time you have available, plus there'll always be public opposition from some source or another, so it's a lot easier not to bother and plan your politics around what will get you re-elected just like everyone always does.
Put simply, yes, a lot of it is the fault of governments for not having the willpower to push things through, but a lot of that lack of willpower is I think a result of the fact that they can't be guaranteed it will ever happen.

Quote

"Working together, we can build a world in which the rule of law — not the rule of force — governs relations between states. A world in which leaders respect the rights of their people, and nations seek peace, not destruction or domination. And neither we nor anyone else should live in fear ever again." - Wesley Clark

Posted Image
Posted Image

#18 Dauth

    <Custom title available>

  • Gold Member
  • 11193 posts

Posted 24 October 2008 - 14:46

Updated title for more sense.

Governments often baulk at the ideas because they are afraid of losing the next election, for any projects to be done properly you need an independent body funded by the taxpayer who's job it is to make these investments.

This however fails epically because it becomes another part of the civil service, or worse a quango.

#19 The Wandering Jew

    Veteran

  • Member
  • 464 posts
  • Projects: No current project, just to ask inane questions :p

Posted 25 October 2008 - 05:03

I don't see any problem on regulating the value or amount of taxes. I do not usually mind if they raised taxes by 13% or something as long as my taxes should go appropriately where it should go.

What should be strictly regulated is to where those taxes shall go. Would it go to fund a mega-hydroelectric dam? Would it go to support free education? Would it fund employment generation?

Or would it go to my pockets?:pimp:

Edit: spelling

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 25 October 2008 - 05:04.

Posted Image
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."

#20 Shirou

    Humble darkspawn

  • Member
  • 3328 posts

Posted 25 October 2008 - 18:59

I think the government is responsible for it, but they are unable to do it by themselves. They need the corporation, the economic world, behind them. Rather, they need to move the corporation into doing something themselves.

That may be just logic, as they are the ones that are mostly energy users, and creating pollution. But moving the market into a new era is proven to be extremely difficult.

Problem is as well that the economy is what matters most to the citizens, it is what drives their lifestyle. If a government moves the taxes high to afford green efforts, and the economy suffers, the citizens will blame the government and the leading party will be hurt in the elections.

Maybe it's a plan to lengthen the time governments sit, maybe double it to 8 year. So they can actually make something happen.
Posted Image



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users