Home | Business | Financing

Can not afford a tax saving and environmental protection functions

By: frbiz


Read More About Financing

With the release of the fuel tax rules surrounding the fuel tax has been a lot of debate to determine the basic answer. Despite a reply, but does not mean the debate has stopped. Recently, a number of scholars in the form of recommendations to the Prime Minister issued a fuel tax on the view. In this proposal, the current one dollar per liter set of programs is seen as a lack of rationality, they also need to raise the standard fuel tax be set at 3 per liter to achieve its policy-oriented.
Undeniably, the scholars on the energy situation, environmental crises, etc. have a good reason to worry about, but if we need to fuel tax itself as a carrier of these big issues, it becomes a bit less "match."
Taxation as a means of state funding, it is first necessary to ensure financial expenditures, based on this policy should take into account external influences and policies to achieve the degree of difficulty. First of all, the role of fuel tax reform is that it "charges" that the form of poor compliance, lower levels of government funding of legal sources into the national legal forms of tax, the revenue side of this is undoubtedly progress. Second, it can also serve to rationalize, fair of energy consumption, reduce environmental pollution effects. But it is also easy access into the error of the fuel tax, we try to refute one by one:
First, high tax rates help solve the energy crisis, improve the ecological environment. Raise prices to reduce consumption of natural, but lower consumption and does not equate to resolve the energy crisis. Fossil fuels are millions of years after the accumulated, it determines the formation of the nature of its non-renewable, and fuel the breadth and depth of the increasing use of demand up to a certain extent, rigid, long-term reduction of fossil energy. If the reduction of fossil energy to define the crisis, the level of taxation is not about this trend.
Second, the increasing tax rates help to resolve our common problems of urban traffic. Our infrastructure has long been the economic growth rate of more than development, the development of Chinese cities the speed of vehicles able to exceed the speed up infrastructure construction, road traffic congestion and poor heart into many large cities. As noted earlier, prices have some role in this, but it exaggerated its function is not appropriate. For the traffic jam, we have many more effective ways to use, and non-compatibility constraints driving policy, but also the compatibility of the road improvement works.
Third, the fuel tax should be abolished the same revenue. This view that the abolition of fees resulted in a reduction of government revenue, while the corresponding increase in the total on the fuel tax should be equal with them. This is a narrow view of financial balance, it will government revenue used wrong macro fuel tax in specific areas. Government revenue and expenditure to ensure overall balance can be, without a corresponding revenue and expenditure of a reciprocal. This corresponds to the same as in the cocoon, it will all cost before the fuel tax levied on income as a fixed standard, but will be limited to standards for future adjustments within the space, but limits the tax to play a regulatory role.
We believe that the current situation, the lower the fuel tax rate to promote a major category of consumer, can inhibit the potential risk of stagflation, the policy alternative to reduce social unrest, it should be seen as a more appropriate policy mix .

Article Source: http://depositarticles.com/

I am a professional editor from China Suppliers, and my work is to promote a free online trade platform. www.frbiz.com/ contain a great deal of information about natural rubber mattress , organic latex mattresses welcome to visit!

Please Rate this Article

 

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Financing Articles Via RSS!

counter easy hit

Powered by Article Dashboard