This blog posting represents the views of the author, David Fosberry. Those opinions may change over time. They do not constitute an expert legal or financial opinion.
If you have comments on this blog posting, please email me .
The Opinion Blog is organised by threads, so each post is identified by a thread number ("Major" index) and a post number ("Minor" index). If you want to view the index of blogs, click here to download it as an Excel spreadsheet.
Click here to see the whole Opinion Blog.
To view, save, share or refer to a particular blog post, use the link in that post (below/right, where it says "Show only this post").
Posted on 16th November 2021 |
Show only this post Show all posts in this thread (the environment). |
|
This article on The Times reports that the head of Natural England has said that food and water should be taxed at a higher rate "to account for the costs of tackling climate change, waste, obesity and pollution". This seems to me to be a no-brainer. Yes, all goods and services should be taxed to include the environmental impacts of providing them, and that means pretty much all should cost more. Why should people who do not consume certain things subsidise those who do; why should vegetarians subsidise meat eating; why should people who don't drive or fly subsidise those who do? I say subsidise because all of us suffer the consequences of climate change and pollution, and all of us will end up paying for environmental clean-up through future taxation. | |