Swiss to vote on a fossil fuel tax to replace VAT

[Jean]

As said in the title, the point is to completly remove value aded tax in switzerland (which is at 2% for food and 8% for everything else), and to add a new tax on fossil fuels (basicaly petrol products and uranium).
Well, it's probably going to be rejected (VAT represents one third of the federal budget and gasoline should end up costing 20$ a gallon in 2050), and people are usually not so open to radical changes.
But I personally voted Yes with no hesitation, as I see it as a much righter way to fund a government than Value-added tax.
It is for me the best alternative we have to completly forbiding air pollution (which is alteration of someones else property) and classical nuclear plants (which are putting everyones property at a risk which cannot be insured).

Most of the opposition is because it's going to be a huge burden on mountaineous regions, where you need to heat much more because it gets colder, and drive much more because things are further away.
I personally live higher than 90% of the population, and I would personnaly apreciate to have less car driving around when biking to somewhere.
I heat with wood, and now, it's about 5 time cheaper to buy enough forest to heat a poorly insulated house, than it is to buy the materials to insulate it properly.
But most people heat with fuel anyway. (It's quite a lot of work to get from a tree in a forest 2km away to a small pieces of wood in a stove).
But I don't see any of these as a good reason to reject this vote.

In addition, and that's maybe the strongest argument for this initiative, fossil fuel prices are very likely to get much more expensive anyway. If everyone is incitated to anticipate this change, those benefits are going to be shared by everyone in the country. It will give us a few decades advantages in the technologies needed to run a high fuel cost economy, and, this could ensure our prosperity for the next century.

Any other swiss here? What do you think?
Any good reason to vote no?
Are you jealous abroad that we get to vote on this?
I just tought that this could potentially interess a lot of people around here.

[henrik]

Switzerland is a small country. If the price of fuel will rise significantly ahead of neighbouring countries, consumption might just be shifted across the border. The government will not get the tax revenue and the consumption from an environmental standpoint will not be affected.

[sterlingarcher]

I'm jealous that you get to vote on this. VAT in Norway is 8% on transport, 15% on food and 25% on everything else.

I would have voted the same as you, for the same reasons.

[Jean]

Importing fuel without declaring it would effectively be smuggling.
Besides this, I don't think that anyone would drive 30 minutes and back to fill his tank and save 50 CHF. Even if the country is small, there are not so much peoples living at a short drive reach of a neighbouring country. In addition, Gas station near the border will be able to increase their price.
And if we end up with pepole driving across the border to fill, well, just control tank when crossing border, random check with a hefty fine should be enough.
It may be complicated to install a system were you get taxed when crossing the border with fuel but VAT requires a lot of administrative work to be done properly, so I'm not so sure it would be much of a trouble.

[George the original one]

> Importing fuel without declaring it would effectively be smuggling.

Are they going to measure everyone's fuel tank and record their odometers when coming into the country? It would be an easy coup to drive a large truck with its 50-100 gal tank across the border and then sell off the excess before driving back.

[tonyedgecombe]

VAT rates are different across Europe but it still seems to work, I'm not sure smuggling would be that much of an issue.

[GandK]

The small business advocate in me is thinking this will hit certain industries extremely hard. Shipping, mail, and emergency services come to mind. Those are businesses that won't be able to compensate for increased fuel costs by the drop in supply costs from losing the VAT (the way construction probably would). Their costs will therefore skyrocket. You'll be paying huge amounts in shipping to receive a package... probably more than most of the items you're ordering cost (I suppose that may be a boon to local shopkeepers). And public costs will increase as ambulance and police fuel costs go up. I don't know enough about your government to know upon whom those costs would ultimately fall.

[jacob]

There are a few different ways to pay consumption based taxes and they all have different dis/advantages:

1) End-point sales tax - easy to administrate. Easy to cheat on. It puts the entire tax at the end-point consumer.
2) VAT - right in the middle - more hassle since each step in the supply chain must account for the different in cost of input and cost of output and subtract the two to get "value added" and then tax that. Here tax is collected all along the chain.
3) Well-head production tax - easy to administrate. It puts the entire tax at the resource providers.

It should go without saying ... but I'll say it anyway, that whoever benefits under a given tax regime will be
1) People who don't consume a lot of "value" (people like us, ERE).
2) People who don't add a lot of "value" in the production chain, i.e. useless/superfluous activities. (inefficient businesses)
3) People who don't DIRECTLY use a lot of natural resources (tech and administrative).

In all cases, any one group will try hard to pass any cost increase along so effectively it should amount to the same thing and thus the same price. Ultimately, it's just a question of narrative. What makes you feel better? That consumers pay the tax to regulate their consumption? That producers pay it to regulate the un-environmental production? That both pay it?

[Jean]

Well agree that in the end everyone ends up paying.
But, until solutions that avoid that reduce fossil fuels and uranium consumptions get developed and spread, it will provide such a huge advantage to people who adapt faster, that it could accelerate the transition to a less fuel consumng economy.
I am personnaly convinced that the most efficient solutions won't be new technologies, but adaptation in lifestyle (just like if you wan't to ERE, moving is virtually always better than getting a more efficient car).
I fantasize about a society where most people go around by bike, found companies in villages and wear hats and sweaters inside.

[Riggerjack]

25% fuel price increase is not enough to alter consumer behavior. So long as that isn't accompanied by a recession, that is. We saw that in the early 2000's. Gas prices doubled, and folks just complained about how much gas cost in their SUV's.

Today, I see more Prii in the parking lot than Hummer's, but more trucks than both, combined.

[Riggerjack]

As to secondary effects, airlines will reschedule their flights to avoid filling in Switzerland. So you won't have nonstop flights to distant places, but you will get more short hops to other countries with cheaper fuel.
Delivery companies will use the same techniques, but still have a local delivery cost. By removing the labor and international transportation costs from the equation, I can't see postal deliveries going up by more than 10%. Even local couriers would only go up by less than 25%.
I started a thread for something like this from an American perspective, breaking out the entire Washington state budget and federal budget into a fuel tax. There wasn't much interest. I was just surprised at how cheaply it could be done.

[IlliniDave]

Is burning wood for fuel/heat truly better for emissions than burning fossil fuel? I have been fussed at for using wood/charcoal in my grill rather rather than gas because allegedly I'm emitting more CO2 by burning the wood.

[George the original one]

> Is burning wood for fuel/heat truly better for emissions than burning fossil fuel?

Fossil fuel (propane, natural gas, white gas, & unleaded gas) should be cleaner burning, but wood is renewable in a reasonable timeframe.

[jacob]

Is burning wood for fuel/heat truly better for emissions than burning fossil fuel? I have been fussed at for using wood/charcoal in my grill rather rather than gas because allegedly I'm emitting more CO2 by burning the wood.

As long as a replacement tree is planted, burning wood has zero net emissions. CO2 from the atmosphere was used to grow that wood. Burning it will release that amount back to the atmosphere. Planting another tree will absorb that atmospheric CO2 again, etc.

Conversely, burning gas, oil, or coal is a net emission to the atmosphere. This CO2 stays in the atmosphere because there's no mechanism (unless you're willing to wait millions of years) for putting it back underground.

[George the original one]

Ah, the feedback!

[IlliniDave]

Is burning wood for fuel/heat truly better for emissions than burning fossil fuel? I have been fussed at for using wood/charcoal in my grill rather rather than gas because allegedly I'm emitting more CO2 by burning the wood.

As long as a replacement tree is planted, burning wood has zero net emissions. CO2 from the atmosphere was used to grow that wood. Burning it will release that amount back to the atmosphere. Planting another tree will absorb that atmospheric CO2 again, etc.

Conversely, burning gas, oil, or coal is a net emission to the atmosphere. This CO2 stays in the atmosphere because there's no mechanism (unless you're willing to wait millions of years) for putting it back underground.

Good, because cooking with wood makes the meat taste better! Of course, then there are the C02 implications of eating meat versus algae or something awful like that.

[Chad]

How often is another tree planted after one is used for firewood? If only a couple people abuse this, it's not a big deal. If it's more you end up with the stark difference between Haiti that overuses firewood (mostly just for cooking) and the Dominican Republic.

http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s48 ... tation.jpg

[Riggerjack]

Here in the PNW, firewood comes mainly from logging operations. There are always logs not worth the transportation costs to the mill. Part of every logging permit is the reforestation plan. If landowners didn't plant, they would get whatever weed trees grew. Around here,that is alder.
Alder is a prolific self seeder, but takes a lot of work to make a stand commercially viable. Otherwise, it is just more firewood...

[Jean]

I got rejected by 92% of the voters.....