In her letter to the editor, Elaine Sharp identified two of her dislikes – subsidies, and oil and gas production industries.
She suggests solutions directed at both of these issues, but her ‘solutions’ are ill-conceived. Her first suggestion is nothing short of tax revolt, namely, if you don’t like, or don’t need something, withhold your tax. Elaine claims to have done this.
My wife and I are 84 years old. I doubt that we will have any need for daycare in the future.
Should I then withhold that portion of my tax which subsidizes $10 daycare in an attempt to discourage people from having kids, since adding more people will also add to energy consumption and global warming? Would that not be silly?
Further, oil companies are not the enemy; polluters are. Maybe that’s yourself, or perhaps your neighbours who are driving huge diesel pickup trucks to get a cup of coffee, or maybe driving huge motorhomes, because they can afford them.
What about the trucks bringing you out-of-season fruits and vegetables from Mexico, or florists flying in tulips from Denmark? Do you really need all that self-indulgence?
Our lifestyle and our consumption are at the root of our demise.
Oil-producing companies are just meeting the demand that our society creates.
We need to reduce our demand, not withhold our tax dollars. Such ‘tax revolt’ sounds appealing, but it is not effective or even sensible.
Remember, we are all kind of ‘green’ until it interferes with our lifestyle. The oil industry is a popular target for the ‘green wannabes.’
It’s just the wrong target.
Withholding tax is the wrong approach. Consumer demand is the driving force in global warming, and that is what needs to be addressed.