Malus ecological tax on the sale of energy-consuming housing?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Former Oceano
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1571
Registration: 04/06/05, 23:10
Location: Lorraine - France
x 1




by Former Oceano » 19/06/09, 13:45

Basically the penalty will discard the seller who may have a payment problem (estates, debts, etc ...)
In short after a while we may prefer not to sell than to be punctured again, with the fall in prices again.

Then, this does not mean that the buyer will do the work to bring the housing up to ecological standards.

I would rather be for another solution:

Nothing changed for the seller. He collects the sale price.

For the buyer, we work on the transfer rights, which in general are provided for in its financial arrangement (contribution or in certain loans):

Class A housing: they are exempt.
Other accommodation: The rights are collected. However if within 2 years the buyer passes his home in class A (with invoices for materials or works AND a new energy balance) the rights are transferred in proportion to the work carried out.

For example, passage to class A: all donated.
Class A not reached but X% improvement in performance, X% will be donated.

I think we should avoid the penalty because housing does not work like the automobile. A house for decades (or more, my parents' house at 200). If some people change cars every 2 years to take a more powerful model, the penalty is imposed.
A home is not an object of consumption. We therefore need to work more on incentives for improvement. As when you buy a home, you are doing work to make it your own, to make it your home, you must also encourage energy and ecological improvements. And it is the buyer who is therefore the one to be leveraged, because he invests money and energy, dreams etc ..., and not the seller who separates him from the property.

In addition it would allow the launch of the ecological sector ...

Mr Borloo or someone close to you, are you coming to read econology? Let's think positive and stop lowering purchasing power.
0 x
[MODO Mode = ON]
Zieuter but do not think less ...
Peugeot Ion (VE), KIA Optime PHEV, VAE, no electric motorcycle yet...
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 28/06/09, 12:53

Christophe wrote:... the bonus of the cars (400 M € deficit) I do not think that we review such a system anytime soon.

It is therefore the taxpayer who will pay the bill for the renewal of the car fleet, super ecology will still be expensive!


I'm a little late, I had "lost track" ...

1) When the bonus / penalty system was launched, there was a debate on this site that the "government would line its pockets" and "that we were still going to be the gogos" with this system ... I quote from memory, the state of mind was that, not the texts. We should do a little history!

I remember then being one of the few to argue "for" the system!

Today, the observation is that the system works "too well", hence the deficit.

To be honest, it would be good to point out that the rise in fuel prices in 2008 (with diesel at nearly € 1,5 in France) has gone through this. And the crisis, with the "proliferation" of small toilets in place of mid-range "family sedans" ...

2) We can regret that a measure is ineffective, but not that it costs! A system of subsidizing to "induce" behavior change is by definition costly! We can even underline that compared to the "tax package" (exemption of certain rich from the wealth tax, cap on taxation), the 400 M € is peanuts !!!

So, I would whistle an "off topic" see a "bad task" !!!

3) What do you want our taxes to be used for? That the repayment of the debt, the army, the police, justice ???? I am not against public action in the face of risk. And that it "costs" seems obvious to me - or the government would just "talk" !!! It would be even more ridiculous ...

Sometimes I don't understand you guys. Finally, Christophe, in this case ... Sometimes I wonder if you're not more liberal than Sarko !!! We let it happen, that's it ...
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 28/06/09, 15:21

Gently, there. Liberalism is not laxity.

Liberalism fully admits that the economy is guided by a judicious distribution of tax.
Here we have the opposite effect:
Indeed, liberalism would rather advocate an identical taxation of energy products regardless of their use. For example, a liter of fuel oil would cost the same, whether it ends up in a boiler or in a car.
in the same vein, the concept of polluter pays is perfectly in the liberal logic, which implies a pollution tax collected at the source. In practice, this would mean that manufacturers pay for the entire waste recovery system, which would then be free for the user.

In conclusion, a little more liberalism (not laxity!) Would seem largely positive to me.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 04/07/09, 18:25

Good, deserves to be dug! I have a doubt.

There is indeed a liberal movement which advocates the absence of regulation of markets, which are supposed to regulate themselves! (called "Chicago school" it seems to me).

For me, what you describe is more "the regulated market economy" ...

I don't want to waste time researching this. It's irrelevant from my point of view. It suffices to specify whether we are for "ultra-liberalism" in cowboy style or for a "regulated market" ... In general, it becomes a little clearer very quickly ...


In general, we are very, very liberal when it comes to paying and very very "regulated market" when it comes to benefit (schools, roads, police, hospitals, research, etc ... "). I am often amazed to see how those who moan against taxes are also the first who moan against the failures of the State. Complainers, no doubt ??? But, well, I often doubt the quality of the men ... I thinks the good Gods would have done better to put in a few more months rather than wanting to do it all in 7 days, he might have managed to do something right!

For me, Wikipedia is not a reference, I went to see all the same:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%C3%A9r ... 9conomique

Everything is in the "... as limited as possible". So there, bravo! It is obvious that the limits will not be the same for everyone! So it can be zero ("ultra-liberalism" ???) or ..... With definitions like that, we won't get along !!!
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 04/07/09, 20:49

For me, what you describe is more "the regulated market economy" ...

I would prefer "influenced" :D
it's a question of methods. as for the bonsai, to give them a form one can put stakes to force the branches, or mirrors to create conditions such that the branch will tend to go in the desired direction.
0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 136 guests