Posted by Don Fullerton on Jul 15, 2011
Filed Under (Environmental Policy, U.S. Fiscal Policy)
In my last two blogs, I wrote about ways to meet the Illinois state revenue needs, ways that might work better than the increase in the income tax. This blog continues the list of possible “green taxes”. In general, a green tax applies either directly on pollution emissions or on goods whose use causes pollution. For raising a given amount of revenue, the basic argument for green taxes can be summarized by the adage: “tax waste, not work”. That is, a tax on pollution might have good effects on the environment, because it discourages pollution. In contrast, an income tax discourages earning income.
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). The governor justified the tax increases on the grounds that the State’s “fiscal house was burning” (Chicago Tribune, January 12, 2011). In my piece with Dan Karney for a recent IGPA Forum, we don’t debate what caused the fiscal crisis in Illinois, nor argue the merits of cutting spending versus raising revenue. Instead, we just take it as given that politicians decided to raise revenue as part of the solution to the State’s deficit. Then we analyze the use of a few green taxes as alternative ways to raise revenue.
While many green taxes are possible, we focus on four 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. We apply each hypothetical green tax 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. In past weeks we covered Carbon Pricing and Gasoline Taxes. This week we cover Trucking Toll and Garbage Fees.
Every day hundreds of thousands of vehicles crowd Illinois’s roads and highways. Data from the Federal Highway Administration indicates that over 50,000 trucks (six tires and over) cross into Illinois from neighboring states along the interstate highway system. While these trucks bring needed goods to Illinois, they also congest the roads, degrade the road surfaces, and fill the air with soot. They also become involved in vehicle accidents that cost the lives of many in Illinois. To compensate the state, Illinois can impose a toll for long-haul trucks using Illinois’s highways. For example, a $5 per truck toll on 50,000 trucks daily would raise almost $100 million annually. (In comparison, the existing Illinois toll road system generates approximately $600 million annually.) The truck toll can be implemented using existing transponder technology deployed at weigh stations along the interstate highways. (As an aside, we note, the constitutionality of state trucking tolls is not clear, because the federal government determines the rules of interstate commerce; however, major portions of the existing interstate highway system are subject to tolls, including the heavily travelled I-95 corridor in Delaware. )
Next, residents of Illinois generate approximately 19 million tons of garbage per year (or more than one ton per person per year), and 60 percent of that waste ends up in landfills. Currently, large municipal waste landfill operators currently pay state fees that total $2.22 per ton of solid waste dumped. But few municipalities in Illinois charge fees designed to discourage the creation of waste by residents (Don Fullerton and Sarah M. Miller, 2010, “Waste and Recycling in Illinois,” Illinois Report 2010, pp.70-80).
However, empirical evidence shows that taxing garbage at the residential level does reduce garbage production (Don Fullerton and Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1996, “Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag,” American Economic Review, 86, pp. 971-84). Yet the exact garbage taxation mechanism varies by program. For instance, a fee can be levied on garbage bags themselves or on the containers that hold the garbage bags. Regardless, a tax rate equivalent to one penny per pound of garbage would generate almost $240 million in revenue per year, or 6.3% of the expected revenue from the income tax increase.
Finally, consider a Portfolio Approach. Remember, at issue here is not whether to raise taxes. We presume the State has decided to raise taxes by $3.8 billion (as done already through the income tax increase). Here, we merely explore alternative ways to raise revenue other than through the income tax.
Anyway, instead of implementing only one of the green taxes describe above, Illinois could choose to implement several green taxes simultaneously. This portfolio approach would keep rates low for each individual green tax, but still generate large amounts of total revenue that can add up to a large share of the total expected revenue from the recent income tax hike. According to the numbers in all three blogs, one simple and moderate plan would combine the following green taxes and pay for more than half of the needed revenue: A carbon tax of $10/ton would collect $1 billion (raising electricity prices by about 7.5%), a gas tax increase of 14 cents per gallon would collect $0.7 billion (raising gas prices by about 4.4%), a trucking toll of $5 would collect $100 million, and a garbage fee of one penny per pound would collect $240 million. Then the recent income tax increase could be cut by more than half.
Moreover, green taxes have the added benefit that they provide incentives to reduce the polluting effects of carbon emissions, gasoline use, truck exhaust, and household garbage generation.