Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Neo

Should the US impose an environmental tax on large homes?

12 posts in this topic

Now may not be the best climate to impose a new tax, but I'm not sure our planet can indure decades more of out of control housing, particularly from the United States. The American dream has always been to have a great job, a beautiful family and a large house out in the suburbs with a white picket fence, but we're finally figuring out that this simply isn't sustainable for all Americans or even a portion of Americans.

I may be in the minority on this idea, but I would like to see a new tax imposed on homes over a certain size. We could start out at something like 2500 sq. ft. and see how it works. A home over 2500 sq. ft. (and many could argue over 1000 sq. ft.) is simply overkill and it hurts our environment in several different ways. We could use this new tax to fund R&D for renewable energies for example, something that this country has been against (regardless of how many puff pieces the government writes on this).

I would also like to see a similar tax imposed for automobiles in this country. We could impose a tax on private autos that get less than 30mpg and use that tax to research ways to improve efficiency in engines, etc.

">
" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="295">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bigger houses already have higher property taxes and taxes paid through higher consuption of energy. I really hate to see extra taxes especially taxes designed to force people to certain behaviors. Personally, I don't like big houses, but if you can afford it, go ahead.

I think the gov is already too far into our lives and pockets and think we shouldn't be adding more tax burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigger houses already have higher property taxes and taxes paid through higher consuption of energy. I really hate to see extra taxes especially taxes designed to force people to certain behaviors. Personally, I don't like big houses, but if you can afford it, go ahead.

I think the gov is already too far into our lives and pockets and think we shouldn't be adding more tax burden.

...except that for too long we have been able to do as we please with the environment without much say so from a higher authority and now it is backfiring on us. We have damaged this great planet and unless we make some very drastic changes, we will have a very different world in the not too distant future.

Taxing those more who do the most damage to our environment is the obvious choice to get people to change their habits. My city has on ongoing drought issue and has very high prices for water usage and that usage is tiered. If you use over a certain amount then you are charged considerably more to use any water over that amount, why should we not apply the same principal to our homes which are similarly damaging to the environment?

While trees are renewable, they are also limited at our current rate of consumption. The bigger the home the more lumber and other raw materials that are being robbed from this great planet. At some point we will run out of resources because the government didn't step in which is why I disagree with your opinion that the government shouldn't get involve.

It is obvious that Americans aren't going to make the change on their own and the only entity that can force Americans to change is the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any additional tax should be placed on large home, as mentioned before, they have higher tax bills already. But to play devil's advocate, if we did pass an 'environmental tax', what if we worked to where the tax was levied at time the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Then the tax could be adjusted up or down depending on how many green initiatives were incorporated into the design. Just because a house is larger than say, 2500 sf, doesn't mean we can't minimize it's footprint...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is obvious that Americans aren't going to make the change on their own and the only entity that can force Americans to change is the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is going to self correct itself as many are finding they own albatrosses that nobody wants and which represent a very expensive lifestyle that falling out of favor. I also think there isn't going to be a lot of these built in the future because the money that made them possible has disappeared from the US economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the problem is going to self correct itself as many are finding they own albatrosses that nobody wants and which represent a very expensive lifestyle that falling out of favor. I also think there isn't going to be a lot of these built in the future because the money that made them possible has disappeared from the US economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting question is who's going to buy the unwanted McMansions and at what price? You may be able to pick them up cheap, but the upkeep and taxes would kill you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Taxing those more who do the most damage to our environment is the obvious choice to get people to change their habits. My city has on ongoing drought issue and has very high prices for water usage and that usage is tiered. If you use over a certain amount then you are charged considerably more to use any water over that amount, why should we not apply the same principal to our homes which are similarly damaging to the environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am charged a higher rate if I use more than a certain amount of water, so why can't we be charged for building a house over a certain size? I'm not saying we should tax those with average sized homes (~2000 sq. ft.). I assume you're also in the crowd that believes gas guzzling SUV's are perfectly fine for the world and that the use of smaller automobiles should not be incentivized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sort of echo monsoon's thoughts here in that ultimately the problem will correct itself; large, energy-hogging homes are unsustainable. i think we are witnessing an era where its becoming increasingly apparent that money/capital is being pegged to energy consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am charged a higher rate if I use more than a certain amount of water, so why can't we be charged for building a house over a certain size? I'm not saying we should tax those with average sized homes (~2000 sq. ft.). I assume you're also in the crowd that believes gas guzzling SUV's are perfectly fine for the world and that the use of smaller automobiles should not be incentivized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.