Another levy can be taken for rape convicts as well. The convicts will not be imposed jail terms but heavy fines. we think that these two new income generating models are enough to run our ministry and we will even think of building comfortable “joints” to brothels and rape activities to take place.

Doesn’t it breach the ‘polluter pays’ principle?

Environment levy is aimed only at three groups:

1. Mobile users (not necessarily owners)
2. Vehicle owners
3. non-CFL bulb users

Should these three groups be taxed to address all the environmental issues? Are these the inly polluters in the country?

Good story but she missed a key point that I made: if the tax is designed according to the polluter pays principle, it should be linked to the mobile handset as a fixed amount, and not as a variable levy on usage. Gammanpila claims that pollution is caused by handsets, so that’s what should be subject to the tax, not usage, which reduces pollution by reducing the need for travel.

“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

- Ronald Reagan

This book is the result of a research and consultation based process for developing effective eco taxes that reflect the Rio Declaration’s and Agenda 21’s endorsement of the polluter pays and precautionary principles. This is how things should be done (though I personally think 5 years is way too long).

I am sure economists and people like Niroshani will assist Ven Sobitha thero in overturning this unsound and dishonest law and resultant levies.

Monks challenge new taxes in Court
by Chitra Weerarathne

Two leading Buddhist Monks have filed a fundamental rights application in the Supreme Court against three new taxes gazetted recently.

The Ven. Thiniyawala Palitha Thera and the Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera are challenging the new taxes on motor vehicles, on the use of bulbs exceeding 40 watts and the cellular phones.

The tax on the use of bulbs with excess wattage is Rs. 3 per bulbs except the compact fluorescent bulbs.

A new tax of two per cent on the calculated environment conservation levy is to be imposed on the use of mobile phones.

The petitioners said that in keeping with the current cost of living, the people were unable to bear this burden and the Court should quash this regulation imposed by the finance ministry.

The first respondent is Dr. P. B. Jayasundara. Among other respondents are Finance Minister President Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Central Environment Authority, Environment and Natural Resources Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka and the Attorney General.

http://www.island.lk/2008/08/22/news20.html

Thanks Chanuka and Donald for reminding me of non-taxed item list. I will not disappoint you two. I will impose taxes on the stuff in the two lists and will tell the public that u two asked for it.

Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)are the *end products* of a chemical reaction of burning fuel and releasing energy.

The (unbalanced) equation is:

CnHm + O2 = CO2 + H2O + energy

(Where, CnHm is the fuel)

H2O is not a fuel. It does not have any energy to release. (if not in a nuclear reaction) So strictly speaking no car can run on using ‘water’ as fuel. (Unless it is powered by a nuclear reactor like Marty McFly’s car in ‘Back to Future’ series)

Of course, it is a child’s play making cars running on Hydrogen – released from water through electrolysis. Any Grade 9 student should know this.

However, the amount of energy required for electrolysis more than the amount of energy produced by the so produced Hydrogen!

So, if there are such cars they pollute the environment more!

If I take an analogy saying we can run cars by water is equivalent to saying world food crisis can be solved by making people to eat their own excrement!

So Gammanpila will tax those who eat rice, bread, vegetables etc., and spare those who consume excrement.

Wikipediac definition of ‘Environmental tax’: A policy that introduces taxes intended to promote ecologically sustainable activities via economic incentives. Such a policy can complement or avert the need for regulatory approaches. Often, such a policy intends to maintain overall tax revenue by proportionately reducing other taxes, e.g. on human labor and renewable resources, in which case it is known as the green tax shift towards ecological taxation.

Will the proposed tax work as incentives for ecologically sustainable activities?

Gammanpila readily agrees the only tax component that might change the behaviour of the ‘polluter’ is the one on towers. (I do not agree; but let us assume so for arguments sake) 2% tax on mobile usage, according to Gammanpila, is less than Rs. 10 for most users. Tax on vehicles will not make any motorist change to electric cars. Rs.3 increase in non-CFL bulbs is hardly adequate to make the use of CFL bulbs cheaper.

So by saying the new tax has little impact on CoL Gammanpila indirectly agrees ate least three components are not ‘Environmental tax’ – which by definition is meant to make an impact.

There are also questions whether it is the ‘polluter’ who is taxed?

1. In case of motor tax, bigger polluters like buses and lorries go tax-free while ‘hal messas’ are taxed.

2. Same in case of electronic goods. Mobiles are not the only items contribute to e-waste. TVs, radios, PCs, air conditioners, washing machines, refrigerators, car radio and air conditioners are bigger culprits. But none of them are taxed.

3. CFL bulbs are the pollutants, but tax is on non-CFL bulbs. (Now what logic is that?)

4. A telecom tower is not a pollutant; it affects aesthetics, but that can be addressed by use of fake towers that appear as trees etc.

So it is clear Gammanpila only plays the role of ‘tax collector’ by taxing easy targets – that draws least criticism. The adjective ‘Environmental’ is only to fool the gullible.

We also understand how politics work in Sri Lanka.

Any political party needs money and supporters – mostly the three-wheeler types with least resources. Money can come from new investors. Supporters can be retained only if they are given jobs. Setting up factories is god given answer to both. Now we know why Gammanpila is so eager to setup recycling plants. Period.

I have addressed some of the specific points of Gammanpila already in following posts, so will not touch them here.

http://lirneasia.net/2008/08/sri-lanka-taxing-poor-to-clear-the-e-waste-of-rich
http://lirneasia.net/2008/08/sri-lanka-road-to-%e2%80%98dharma-rajya%e2%80%99-does-not-look-toll-free
http://lirneasia.net/2008/04/is-mobile-phone-a-polluter

CFL bulbs do have inorganic components. TAX the CFL why do we have to tax the normal blubs? Pollutions occur with inorganic matter. Organic matter will decompose into C,H,O.

Tower TAX? Does SLT permits to give gateway in Apura for Mobile users? All mobile users will have to direct their traffic to single gate way via towers. If SLT permits gate ways in many locations some of the problems may get solved. I was told that one need 5 types of permits to erect a tower!!!!

Mobile guys are scared to expose all this.

Three wheers pollute more than Cars! Why cant the register of motor vehicle give statistic expose who owns motor cars in Lanka.
A Govt registered petrol / Deisel /
B Company registered petrol / Deisel
C Private ownership petrol / Deisel

Three wheelers 2 strokes , four Strokes

Ownership
Private
Govt

If private whether the owners are tax payers?

Donald Gaminitillake
I set the Standard