I’m feeling a little bit guilty about watching all these Celtics games on big screen TVs while the oil continues to flow into the gulf, not just for watching the games, but for supporting the whole unnecessary industry that flies entire teams and crews around the globe every day, and the whole advertising industry and the McProducts they produce.
But it occurred to me that lots of people probably are feeling that way, so maybe we’d be willing to pay our fair share of the cost of our selfish and foolish consumption through a surcharge on ticket sales to televised sporting events and television advertising. I think a 10% tax on all those makes sense, and though the ticket tax would come out of people’s pockets for the first few years, eventually it would work its way down into the teams cost, I think salaries would go down to bring the price back down. And a tax on advertising would wind up being paid by corporations cutting the amount they spend on making the ads.
So that’s the proposal: an immediate, permanent 10% tax on tickets for major sporting events, and a 10% tax on television advertising.
<
p>No, no we (as a state or a nation) wouldn’t be willing to even acknowledge that our consumption is selfish nor foolish, no less pay extra for it.
<
p>
<
p>MLB, yes. NFL, NBA, NHL? Nope. The vast majority of the salaries of a pro team organization are paid to the athletes. Turns out that the NFL, NBA, and NHL have salary caps — artificial caps on the wages. Because of this artificial cap, the revenue reduction would be felt by (a) the non-pro employees, and (b) the owners. You may feel that’s good or bad, but the point is that for NFL, NBA, and NHL the total wages of the league wouldn’t change a whit.
<
p>
<
p>More to the point, why tax entertainment when consuming entertainment has a remarkably low carbon footprint and uses remarkably few resources? Think about it: the fans in the stands are spending an awful lot of money and very little is manufactured or consumed relative to the number of people or dollars spent. Folks watching in bars are spending their money on services, not goods — the beer is cheap, and pouring it out of kegs is far more environmentally friendly than out of bottles or cans. You’re supporting local jobs. The folks watching at home: what are we talking about, a little electricity?
<
p>It seems to me that if you’re worried about consumption and resources, then use a price signal related to actual goods, instead of your proposal which focuses on services. Note that we have this already: it’s called a sales tax, and it’s progressive in that it’s not applied to groceries, clothes, or prescription drugs. Want to reduce consumption? Increase the sales tax.
<
p>Oh, wait. We did that.
<
p>Want to reduce the consumption of oil, a major component in climate change and environmental disaster? Raise the gas tax.
<
p>Oh wait. Governor Patrick floated it. Absolutely no traction.
<
p>Want to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels in aggregate? In MA, we’ve got the RPS which requires more renewables and fewer fossils for electricity. We’ve also got RGGI. Cap and trade is floated nationally, and it may or may not get through the Senate.
<
p>
<
p>There’s one key way to reduce consumption of crap products nationwide, but I’m not holding my breath: cap mortgage interest deductions in Schedule A to be a function of the square feet of the home. Schedule A encourages folks to buy more expensive homes — which generally means bigger, and farther away from work. This means that they then buy more crap to fill the house, spend more on oil or natural gas to heat it, more on electricity to cool it, and use more gasoline to drive to and from it. Cap the deduction as a function of square feet to stop subsidizing three car garages, bonus rooms, extra bedrooms, and the like, and stop encouraging the over-consumption at it’s source. Again, don’t hold your breath for this change.
Too many people said that it would like totally disrupt their lives, they were already doing everything they can to bring their consumption down to the absolute possible minimum, and simply couldn’t afford to pay more for gas. Leaving aside how ridiculous that is, and how they’re going to be paying far more far gas in a few years anyway, they still made that argument and it seems to have prevailed, for now.
<
p>So I was looking for places where it seems lots of money is being spent and apparently even more could be spent, and there is no way anyone could complain that they really couldn’t possibly afford to spend more, since they already are spending more. I know you’ve already said that if someone wants to drive 100 miles to work in an H2 everyday you are fine with it, as long as they pay their fair share, but I’m not fine with it, I think that is a bad use of a precious dwindling resource, and that we have to come up with a way to tax bad activities more than necessary ones.
<
p>Some of those ads on TV during the finals must cost millions to make, couldn’t they either be slightly less extravagant, or couldn’t they afford to pay a little surcharge? Movies must cost hundreds of millions, and we spend happily on concessions, why not ask us to pay a little clean-up surcharge, we’d probably happily pay an extra buck.
<
p>And, what’s up with SouthWest plane tickets costing less than a dinner for two? The ads note that there is an additional federal takeoff tax of something like $4, why not make that $10 dollars? Another one: 10% on CD’s and DVD’s and video games.
<
p>People are looking for some kind of real response. When they want Obama to get angry and go off, I really think they mean – at us! Not at BP, though of course also at BP, but mainly at us! We’ll happily start paying these surcharges and say it’s about time.
<
p>I’m glad to know that it’s cool to watch the game in the bar though, thanks, I’ll have a better time knowing that.
The deductions should top out somewhere, and there should be no public incentive to build big houses. Absolutely.
I agree with both of you in spirit. Cutting consumption at our core, not just of fossil fuels, but of natural resources is something that my husband and I try very hard to put into practice. There are ABSOLUTELY policy changes we need to fight for to make this codified law, including the tax law proposed by stomv and several other laws that encourage people to have more, bigger, newer things. I think the gas tax is only palatable in communities like Worcester, where I live, when we have a real long-term and immediate investment in real, practical, accessible public transportation. I think we need both. An SUV tax? I don’t have the perfect answer but I do think we need to find ways to deincentivize owning large gas guzzling cars without inadvertently punishing working families who can’t afford the newest hybrid, and also have no choice but to drive to work. We need more bike friendly cities, and we need to create jobs closer to home. Hopefully, the deal inked with CSX this week in Worcester will also lead to a more commutable Commonwealth for everyone.
<
p>In addition though, there’s a few things we can all do in our day to day lives to be more sustainable. Here’s a few things I do:
<
p>1) Garden. My husband has the green thumb, but we’ve built a compost and grow vegetables. It’s more a hobby then a practical way of feeding ourselves at this point, but we’re helping balance the carbon a little at least. Certainly, joining a CSA or supporting larger community gardens is an even better way to do this.
<
p>2)I am trying (and have been successful so far for many months) to not by new clothes or accessories (with some obvious undergarment exceptions). It’s not an option for everyone, but trying to cut down on how much new merchandise we buy can definitely cut down on our carbon footprint.
<
p>3)Cut out meat. Both my husband and I have been vegetarians for some ten years, which is significantly more sustainable than eating meat. But, cutting out meat one or two days a week is a good way to fit it into your own lifestyle if you aren’t a vegetarian.
<
p>I think it’s important to make policy, and we have to also make changes in the way we live day to day in order to make a large impact in the long run.
<
p>