Standard any government tactics. Move the goalposts and slap a tax on the bit moved from.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 11 Mar 16 at 09:28
|
If NOx is more harmful why the tax is based on CO2 emissions rather than NOx emission?
|
The former is a direct danger to human health, the latter a cause of global warming. Both are harmful but in a different ways. Unfortunately cars are always a pollutant in one way or other.
|
>>why the tax is based on CO2 emissions rather than NOx emission?
Because at the time the media was full of CO2 and so the public accepted the tax. They would have accepted an NOx tax less willingly since it was relatively unknown.
|
>> Standard any government tactics. Move the goalposts and slap a tax on the bit moved
>> from.
>>
The point of taxes like this is to nudge people into changing their buying patterns. If they do, then it is the public that moves the goal posts, because they stop aiming at the old target and move to the new one.
If the policy were 100% effective no one would hit the old target and the tax take would drop to zero. Therefore there has to be a new set of posts.
It's public behaviour as much as governments that make this happen.
|