In early January 2011, the State of Illinois enacted legislation to raise the personal income tax rate from 3% to 5% and to increase the corporate income rate from 4.8% to 7%. Along with a cap on spending growth, these tax increases reduce the state’s projected budget deficit in 2011 by $3.8 billion (from $10.9 to $7.1 billion), according to the University of Illinois and their Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA Fiscal Fallout #5). The governor justified the tax increases on the grounds that the State’s “fiscal house was burning” (Chicago Tribune, January 12, 2011). Dan Karney and I wrote a recent piece for the IGPA Forum, but we don’t debate the reasons for the underlying fiscal crisis in the State of Illinois, nor argue the merits of cutting spending versus raising revenue to balance the budget. Instead, we just stipulate that politicians decided to raise revenue as part of the solution to the State’s deficit. Then we analyze the use of “green taxes” as an alternate means of raising revenue that could mitigate or eliminate the need for increasing income taxes.
In general, green taxes are taxes either directly on pollution emissions or on goods whose use causes pollution. In the revenue-raising context however, the basic argument for green taxes can be summarized by the adage: “tax waste, not work”. That is, taxes on labor income discourages workers from engaging in productive activities and thus hurts society, while taxing waste discourages harmful pollution and thus benefits society. In addition, the revenue raised from these green taxes can help the State’s fiscal crisis.
While many green taxes could be implemented, we focus on four specific examples that have the potential to raise large amounts of revenue: carbon pricing, gasoline taxes, trucking tolls, and garbage fees. Indeed, as we show, a reasonable set of tax rates on these four items can generate as much revenue as the income tax increase. That is, imposing green taxes can completely fill the $3.8 billion difference between the projected baseline deficit ($10.9 billion) and the post-tax deficit ($7.1 billion).
Yet we omit many other potentially high-revenue green taxes. For example, the State could tax nitrogen-based fertilizers that contribute to nitrogen run-off pollution in streams, rivers, and lakes. These omissions do not imply that other green taxes could not be implemented. Also, the simple analysis does not include behavioral responses by consumers and businesses. Rather, we apply hypothetical green taxes directly to historical quantities of emissions (or polluting products) in order to obtain an approximate level of potential revenue generation.
In a short series of blogs, one per week, we now discuss each of the four green taxes and their potential for revenue generation. This week: Carbon Pricing.
In 2008, electricity generators in the State of Illinois emitted almost 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA). See the State Historical Tables of their Estimated Emissions by State (EIA-767 and EIA-906). While the United States has no nationwide price on carbon – neither a tax nor a cap-and-trade (permit) policy – some jurisdictions within the United States have imposed their own carbon policies. For instance, a coalition of Northeastern states implemented the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to limit CO2 emissions using a permit policy. To date, RGGI’s modest effort has already generated close to $1 billion in revenue for the coalition states.
If Illinois were to adopt its own carbon pricing policy, then even a modest tax rate or permit price could raise significant revenue. For instance, a $5 per metric ton CO2 price on emissions from electricity producers generates about $500 million in revenue (or 14.4% of the $3.8 billion raised from the state’s income tax hike). By way of comparison, if the extra $500 million in emission taxes were entirely passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills, then the average consumer’s bill would increase by 3.75% (where $13.3 billion is spent annually on electricity in Illinois).
Table 1 reports the possible “revenue enhancement” from the $5 per metric ton tax, along with three other pricing scenarios. Both the $5 and $10 rates are hypothetical prices created by the authors for expositional purposes. In contrast, the $20 per metric ton price is approximately the carbon price faced by electricity producers in Europe’s Emission Trading System (ETS). At the $20 rate, a carbon tax in Illinois generates almost $2 billion – over half of the tax revenue from the income tax increases. Finally, the $40 tax rate (or carbon price) is from Richard S. J. Tol (2009), “The Economic Effects of Climate Change,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2): 29-51. It is an estimate of the optimal carbon price that accounts for all of the negative effects from carbon emissions. At this “optimal” price, the revenue from pricing carbon in Illinois by itself could replace the needed tax revenue from the State’s income tax increase.