🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May12.014610.17589@cypress.com> rqd@cypress.com (Rick Donnelly/VDSP) writes:
>
>rklute@enchanter.tymnet.com (Robert Klute) writes:
>
>> In addition to taxing the amount of actual gas used, I would like to see
>> a tax applied to account for the amount of pollution caused.  It could be
>> assessed when the vehicle registration is due...<stuff deleted>
>
>In principle, this is an excellent idea.  In practice, I suspect it would
>not work so well.  Why?  Because if the pollution tax is significantly
>large, it will encourage non-registration by those whose cars pollute a
>lot.  Indeed, some may be forced into non-registration, because they can't
>afford the fee.  These vehicles will then fail to be smog-tested as well
>(why smog-test it if you don't intend to register it?), and even inexpensive
>means of reducing pollution will not be done (why, when you aren't going to
>smog-test it?).
>
>A car doesn't have to be registered to be driven.  It has to be registered
>to be driven LEGALLY, but that doesn't stop a lot of people.  Every day I
>see cars with expired tags, some of them many months past their expiration
>date.  Add more money and more hassle to vehicle registration, and you'll
>see even more unregistered vehicles.
> <stuf deleted>
>Rick Donnelly                        My opinions, not Cypress's.
>rqd@cypress.com



OK, Then reverse it.  Put a high tax on gasoline (very enforceable) and allow
a credit on state income tax inversely proportional to the pollution.  You want
the credit, you better 1) register your vehicle, 2) file your taxes.
















.