posted December 18, 2007 05:01 PM              

With people asking for more restrictions on polluters, and with companies seemingly able to make less and less progress in lowering polluting emissions, Congress may have just come up with the most startling environmental compromise in history: a tax on the air that we breath.

"It's a simple common sense solution, to a complex problem.", beamed Senator Yudu Ayedont, "For years, utilities have charged, and toll roads have charged based on usage. This bill plainly takes that idea one step further. Let the people who breath the most, pay most of the costs associated with maintaining quality air. It's only fair to the people who don't need to breath as much. Since the beginning of the environmental movements of the early 1900s, the federal government had always taken a rather one-sided view of the problems associated with pollution. It was always the polluters that were seen as the sole source of society's dilemma. The insurance companies have shown us that just by BEING in a location, an individual can have some portion of the responsibility. This proves especially true in the case of a person who is breathing in the vicinity of polluters. Yes, the polluters are responsible for polluting the air, but the air wouldn't need to be clean if it weren't for the people breathing nearby."

"Noone seems to mention.", added Representative Betty Udenmee,"That carbon dioxide is toxic to human beings too. Breathers are every bit as responsible for putting toxic chemicals into the environment as other polluters are. It's about time they stood up and took responsibility for their breathing habit instead of just pointing a finger at factories and motor vehicles." A compelling argument indeed.

The Bill flew through both House of Congress, bringing us to this time, when the tax becomes law in January of 2010. Before then, states are to have enacted a fool proof breath intake meter and revenue collection system in order to be in compliance. Several companies are even gearing up to manuafacture the new meters..but that doesn't mean that everyone's excited about the new law.

One of the people who oppose the new breath tax is Seymour Ohtoo, who claims that he shouldn't have to pay the tax since he recieves bottled oxygen. Another is Bart Blacendlung whose town's air quality is so bad, that he feels it's doing more to kill him than to keep him alive. Legislators had answers for all of these hypotheticals, tucked away neatly in the 1,243,233 pages of legalese detailing the new law. From the new Code:

"U.S.C. 123.0111.34e: Credit will be refunded to taxpayers who purchase bottled gases for breathing rather than breathing gasses processed for public use. (Send proof of purchase along with SASE and $13.95 for processing to: IRS REFUND FUN CLUB c/o Postmaster General ) See Form: Gov 312-3 Rev A"

"U.S.C. 123.0111.78z: Taxpayers whose local air quality causes them to expire are entitled to a half refund of taxes metered for their final two breaths. Refund will be disqualified in cases of excessive pre-death consumption such as crying, screaming or gasping for air.( Fill out appropriate form and include a 1"x1" Lung Biopsy Sample to apply for refund. Nonrefundable application and processing fee (payable in gold or land titles only) will be included as part of, then deducted from your refund.) See Form: Gov 312-6 Rev A"

(Excuse me...I'm out of breath.)

Seems like they've covered all of the angles. You can hope that this won't come to pass, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

Then again, maybe I would..

posted December 19, 2007 08:34 PM              

Let's see if this makes a difference:

Wealthy taxpayers on the whole felt that the breath tax was unreasonable as their tax bill was no more nor was it any less than the average joe's. Apparently, they feel they are entitled to some distinguishing amount, be it augmented or discounted. (Preferably the latter.)

posted December 19, 2007 08:54 PM            

he reason why no one might wanna argue is becuase there is no reason in your arguments. You are proposing that somehow, wealthy taxpayers aren't entitled to their money and that a progressive tax system will somehow curb the pollutors one way or another. Well its all about opportunity cost isn't it? Say if a hefty tax system is thrown on some of these corporations; they are just gonna pack their bags and move away leaving a wake of unemployment figures at their backs.

And may I remind you as to how a progressive tax system can quickly turn sour (yes... even John Lennon himself doesn't likes the idea of taxes.)

posted December 20, 2007 11:03 PM              

Oh good lord no! We already have those. And they've gotten progressively worse. So you're for those or against those?

(I'm learning from this..please explain?)

daf

P.S. Don't you think the rich deserve a break from taxes? I do. The largest portion of tax revenues come from the wealthy and the industry they produce. When do they get to enjoy their earnings?

posted December 21, 2007 04:26 AM            

Actually instead of looking this problem through taxation, think interms of insentives instead. Heavy polluters would love to save money on the long run right? Well efficiency wise, they need an insentive to change. How about a tax credit system instead? Like a 15% off on property taxes for installing scrubbers, etc.