Bag tax would reduce use by 80 percent in 4 years

[Jayhawkk]

Bag tax would reduce use by 80 percent in 4 years
May 18, 2009 - 5:24am


Most members of the D.C. Council support the bill that would tax both plastic and paper bags. (WTOP Photo/Colleen Kelleher) Michael Neibauer
Examiner Staff Writer
Adding a 5-cent tax to the disposable bags used by most D.C. retailers will reduce the use of those river-clogging agents by 80 percent within four years, the District's chief financial officer details in new projections.

In his fiscal impact statement on the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act, CFO Natwar Gandhi estimates the proposed tax would generate $3.6 million in revenue during fiscal 2010, which starts Oct. 1, and $9.5 million total between 2010 and 2013. One cent of the tax would go to retailers and the other 4 cents to the District. That money would be dedicated to Anacostia cleanup.

Year Projected Revenue
2010 $3.55 million
2011 $3 million
2012 $1.98 million
2013 $947,032

But perhaps more importantly, Gandhi projects that the tax would accomplish what its proponents hope it will: slash the number of disposable bags leaving grocery, drug, convenience and liquor stores. The Anacostia is the ultimate depository for 20,000 tons of garbage a year, said Ward 6 D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells, author of the bag tax legislation.

Three-quarters of the estimated 360 million bags consumed in the District annually are used by consumers of the four types retailers targeted in the bill, Gandhi said, using data collected in Seattle, which he described as "similar sized" city.

Within the first year of the tax, Gandhi said, the city would see a 50 percent reduction in the number of disposable bags used, or a 135 million bag cut. By 2011, the reduction jumps to 60 percent, 70 percent by 2012 and 80 percent by 2013. All told, Gandhi wrote, the District would reduce the number of disposable bags used by 270 million over the next four years.

The bag tax bill appears likely to become law, as a pair of council committees Thursday unanimously moved it to the full body for consideration. The measure was amended to exempt paper bags used by restaurants.

(Copyright 2009 by The Examiner. All Rights Reserved.)

Michael Neibauer
Examiner Staff Writer
Adding a 5-cent tax to the disposable bags used by most D.C. retailers will reduce the use of those river-clogging agents by 80 percent within four years, the District's chief financial officer details in new projections.

In his fiscal impact statement on the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Act, CFO Natwar Gandhi estimates the proposed tax would generate $3.6 million in revenue during fiscal 2010, which starts Oct. 1, and $9.5 million total between 2010 and 2013. One cent of the tax would go to retailers and the other 4 cents to the District. That money would be dedicated to Anacostia cleanup.

Year Projected Revenue
2010 $3.55 million
2011 $3 million
2012 $1.98 million
2013 $947,032

But perhaps more importantly, Gandhi projects that the tax would accomplish what its proponents hope it will: slash the number of disposable bags leaving grocery, drug, convenience and liquor stores. The Anacostia is the ultimate depository for 20,000 tons of garbage a year, said Ward 6 D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells, author of the bag tax legislation.

Three-quarters of the estimated 360 million bags consumed in the District annually are used by consumers of the four types retailers targeted in the bill, Gandhi said, using data collected in Seattle, which he described as "similar sized" city.

Within the first year of the tax, Gandhi said, the city would see a 50 percent reduction in the number of disposable bags used, or a 135 million bag cut. By 2011, the reduction jumps to 60 percent, 70 percent by 2012 and 80 percent by 2013. All told, Gandhi wrote, the District would reduce the number of disposable bags used by 270 million over the next four years.

The bag tax bill appears likely to become law, as a pair of council committees Thursday unanimously moved it to the full body for consideration. The measure was amended to exempt paper bags used by restaurants.

No tax is EVER made with the intent of reducing use. that money is wanted and if they were ever to actually fix what they 'intended' to fix with those monies they wouldn't cease taxing people and if people suddenly stopped using all bags they would just move the tax elsewhere to gain those funds back into the system.

Why the hell do you think toll road taxes never stop even after the construction of roads are paid for over and over again?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

No tax is EVER made with the intent of reducing use. that money is wanted and if they were ever to actually fix what they 'intended' to fix with those monies they wouldn't cease taxing people and if people suddenly stopped using all bags they would just move the tax elsewhere to gain those funds back into the system.

Glad to see you're getting as jaded as you should be. Yes, they want the money. Yes, they will get it somewhere else if not from the bags. Now you just have to home in on the reason why the government can't seem get its **** together and you'll be well on your way to becoming an all out anarchist.

 

[DAdams91982]

Glad to see you're getting as jaded as you should be. Yes, they want the money. Yes, they will get it somewhere else if not from the bags. Now you just have to home in on the reason why the government can't seem get its **** together and you'll be well on your way to becoming an all out anarchist.

While you have some points, anarchy is not a viable option for a civil America, not matter how much you think the two farmers will work out their own differences peacefully. A reach back to Federalism is my view of making things work... basically rewind the clock when country and man were the two things on the agenda, not how you will line your pockets. The state has a important role in the humanity of man kind and support for our infrastructures. While I don't believe in the taxes we endure today, a nominal amount is required to facilitate the lives we do live. Taking the Federal fingers out of every pot would be a good start, get rid of the private entity of the federal reserve, reinforce the tenth amendment, maybe then we can see a glimmer of hope. ..... oh wait, our current administration is the gleaming light of HOPE!

Adams

 

[CDB]

While you have some points, anarchy is not a viable option for a civil America, not matter how much you think the two farmers will work out their own differences peacefully.

Anarchism is an ideal from which I prefer to work even though it is practically not going to happen. As such I just use it to evaluate policy ideas; how far from the ideal does this wander?; is it necessary?; is it even workable? Generally speaking for the government to be able to function properly, that is in a way that doesn't tear society down, it has to keep its destructive tendencies under control so that they don't outpace the productive tendencies of the free portion of society.

That's the key point to always keep in mind. No matter what the government does, however necessary, moral, ethical, or just its actions are considered, it is always a destroyer of wealth, not a creator. Now a little wealth destruction seems to be the way people prefer things. They want a central authority for law and what not. But unless people are made to understand government's inherrent nature as a destroyer it will neverbe limited, because it will always be seen as the perfect solution to solve some perceived wrong in the world, or a way to provide something which is lacking.

One of the best ways to drill this point home is to get rid of the Fed and to limit or outright destory the government's role in money control/creation. So long as the government is involved with the money supply, and especially as long as it can print fiat notes, it can masquerade as a creator of wealth even when all it's doing is redistributing it in a clever, hard to follow way. That is in fact why government spending went off the charts when we abandoned what was left of the gold standard. Once individual accountability for all the printed notes was gone, the printing presses kicked into high gear and never stopped.

 

[DAdams91982]

Anarchism is an ideal from which I prefer to work even though it is practically not going to happen. As such I just use it to evaluate policy ideas; how far from the ideal does this wander?; is it necessary?; is it even workable? Generally speaking for the government to be able to function properly, that is in a way that doesn't tear society down, it has to keep its destructive tendencies under control so that they don't outpace the productive tendencies of the free portion of society.

That's the key point to always keep in mind. No matter what the government does, however necessary, moral, ethical, or just its actions are considered, it is always a destroyer of wealth, not a creator. Now a little wealth destruction seems to be the way people prefer things. They want a central authority for law and what not. But unless people are made to understand government's inherrent nature as a destroyer it will neverbe limited, because it will always be seen as the perfect solution to solve some perceived wrong in the world, or a way to provide something which is lacking.

One of the best ways to drill this point home is to get rid of the Fed and to limit or outright destory the government's role in money control/creation. So long as the government is involved with the money supply, and especially as long as it can print fiat notes, it can masquerade as a creator of wealth even when all it's doing is redistributing it in a clever, hard to follow way. That is in fact why government spending went off the charts when we abandoned what was left of the gold standard. Once individual accountability for all the printed notes was gone, the printing presses kicked into high gear and never stopped.

In a Utopian society, anarchy would be ideal, every person of their own freedom. It is the point when they infringe upon others freedoms, or establish their own baseline freedoms that include killing others freedoms. Unfortunately human nature could not endure a society not based on laws, ethical or otherwise. If human conscience guided in a straight line, then we wouldn't be in the place we are. I have wanted to get rid of the Fed. Reserve and the IRS since I have been able to understand those entities. When one organization can control the whole economy, that is when anarchy will inevitably ensue. For the good of THIS person, not the good of the people.

Adams