6.RESULTADOS
6. RESULTADOS
The Meade Report explains that when the State is going to make some expenditure and it is obvious who will benefit from it, it is “appropriate to tax those particular members of society who will benefit…”4
3 The WTO Secretariat made this distinction in WTO Committee on Trade and Environment ‘Taxes and Charges for Environmental Purposes – Border Tax Adjustment’ (1997), Note by the Secretariat, WT/CTE/W/47, 2/5/1997, para 31.
For example this is implemented in local planning rules, where the UK Department for Communities and Local Government requires developers themselves to fund
4 See chapter 1, n.9 at 12.
142
the assessment and mitigation of the impact of their development plans on the historic environment.5
Expenditure for environmental protection poses a more complex problem since it may be the public at large who are the deemed beneficiaries, for instance by not enduring the disastrous consequences of climate change scenarios. Even though the public may invariably benefit, they may not in such cases be responsible as primary contributors (such as by way of a tax per citizen) since this would not differentiate between those responsible and those not responsible for such environmental damage. Furthermore, it would provide no individual incentive to discourage environmentally damaging activities, as the costs of one party’s negative activities would be borne by the general public. This would fail to assist in the achievement of environmental policy objectives.
35.1.1 CRITICISMS OF BENEFICIARY PAYS DOCTRINE
The following subsections aim to summarise various criticisms of the concept of beneficiary pays from an environmental perspective.
35.1.1.1 GENERAL TAXATION AND VICTIM PAYS
5 DCLG, ‘Consultation paper on a new Planning Policy Statement 15:Planning for the Historic Environment’
(2009) at 40, paragraph 26.
<http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/consultationhistoricpps.pdf> Accessed 2/11/2009.
143
Certain environmental damage might constitute a threat to all citizens, such as climate
change, meaning prevention would benefit all parties. A beneficiary pays policy would mean that everybody would contribute to its prevention which could have considerable negative distributional effects if such a tax was regressive, driving persons into poverty or further poverty.
Other threats are more localised, such as air pollution. Introducing a general tax on all people within a city, for example, on the basis that all citizens would benefit from lower air
pollution, could be unpopular as many may not contribute (such as if the tax was means tested) and some may feel that those responsible for the pollution would be benefiting at the expense of all citizens.
LTAP (Long-range Trans-boundary Air Pollution) can cause environmental problems in a completely different part of the globe to where it begins. It would be extremely difficult to prevent LTAP through a beneficiary pays policy since it could never be determined where the problem would fall. Furthermore, it would seem extremely unjust that the victims of LTAP may have to make payments – such as to subsidise pollution mitigation in a company responsible for causing their harm. Even without victims having to pay taxes to mitigate damage, in many cases the victim already bears the burden of environmental damage through uncompensated losses. For example, the Chernobyl power plant disaster caused a nuclear fall-out in many regions outside of the former USSR. Many years later, sheep farmers in Cumbria suffered damaged lambs due to the fall-out making them unfairly bear the burden of that damage.6
6 Food Standards Agency (UK), Post-Chernobyl Monitoring and Controls Survey Report (2005)
<http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/Chernobyluk05.pdf> Accessed 10/5/2010.
144
HM Treasury regards it a market failure that environmental externalities can lead to those not responsible for causing the externalities bearing the cost.7 It points out that it is frequently those on low incomes who suffer from environmental externalities they are not responsible for, and in particular the most adverse affects, such as climate change, can fall on the poorest countries. 8 Thus general income taxes to raise revenue for environmental purposes may not be favoured by the policymaker. Indeed the rationale is no longer justifiable for NICs. NI (National Insurance) was extended to self-employed despite their exclusion from benefiting from the ‘unemployed’ benefits of the insurance.9
35.1.1.2 UNCERTAIN BENEFICIARIES
In the case of a woodland species endangered by logging, it is not clear who would directly benefit from their protection other than those who work in local tourism, who may then have to contribute to protecting the species. Evidently beneficiary-pays is not a particularly workable solution, which Meade points out in explaining that frequently “…it is difficult or impossible to attribute different amounts of the benefits of the public expenditure to
particular individuals or groups…”10
7 HM Treasury, see chapter 4, n.38 at 15, para.4.14.
In the UK, all taxpayers contribute to the running of the NHS even though some may never use it, but this is justified on the basis that the majority of the population can benefit from it. Further, it is regarded as a lesser evil than a pay-per-use system which could mean some people not being able to afford basic healthcare. One part of its justification is that nobody knows when they will fall ill and there may be nobody to blame for it, whereas in principle if somebody causes harm to another, such as in a road
8 Ibid, para.4.15.
9 Self-employed persons pay ‘Class 2’ NICs entitling them to certain benefits but are excluded from paying
‘Class 1’ NICs entitling them to Job-Seeker’s Allowance. <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni/intro/benefits.htm>
Accessed 10/5/2010.
10 See chapter 1, n.9 at 12.
145
traffic accident, then they are liable in tort to pay the cost of their victim’s healthcare. The distinguishing factor therefore may be, to some extent, the element of blame.