Time For An Incandescent Light Bulb Tax?

mike65

As CFLs are readily availible is it not time for the government to tax all olde worlde incandescent bulbs?

I dunno what Wattage is consumed nationaly by the continued use of this inefficent technology but the cost must run into many extra millions. A tax at say 5 cents per extra Watt might make a difference quite quickly.

http://www.productdose.com/LightBulb_Comparison.xls

Mike.

Archeron

Its a nice idea. Sadly, I dont find energy efficient bulbs to be readily available at all. Certainly in larger shops and larger towns they would be, but not where I live. I needed to get a bulb recently and the most energy efficient I could get was rated "E" on that efficiency scale. (great idea putting that scale on packaging BTW). I'd like to say, ah sure I'll wait til I'm in Dublin and get one then, but light bulbs arent really something most people would be willing to wait for. OK, I can stock up on them when I buy some in Dublin, but at that moment, I had none in the house so just had to go the local store.
I would suggest a much higher tax than 5c (presuming that the tax revenue would go to a good enviro cause, and not just the government coffers) as I do believe that with the store in question, price is what determined his choice of items to stock.

Gurgle

mike65 wrote:

I dunno what Wattage is consumed nationaly by the continued use of this inefficent technology but the cost must run into many extra millions.

iirc a 25W CFL is equivalent to a 100W standard.

So thats an extra 75W, for every hour its turned on it costs about 1c extra in electricity.

Now lets take that logic over to computers.

Your using your computer to access the internet. This could be done as efficiently using a P2 as a P4, with an integrated graphics card, less RAM, smaller hdd etc.

A P2 would run happily on a 100W PSU, the P4 system needs around 400W.
So it would be great if the brought in a tax for people using a computer thats overpowered for their requirements.

Capt'n Midnight

the cynics amongst us would say that energy star was a way for americans to ease their conconciouses over driving 5L suv's

A BIG problem with compact fluorescents is that you can't get decent sizes here. People use 100 and 150W light bulbs, but it's very difficult to get CF in more than 15W sizes which is only 75W. No wonder people complain they aren't bright - it's because you can't get them in the same light output that normal bulbs have.

Lidl and Aldi don't sell CF, neither do may local corner shops, so you would have to make CF more common before you could introduce a fair tax.

Also incadescent bulbs are easier to recycle, glass, metal can, thermister, copper wire, solder, tungsten, cement. easy to separate, easy to reuse without much processing, most are either high value materials or so inert they have few environmental problems. CF bulbs are mostly plastic and different types and small amounts that are hard to separate, the electronics are toxic waste as is the mercury in the tube, thankfully we don't use beryillium coatings any more - they were really nasty, (but can't guarantee that some cheapo far east company hasn't cheated and put some in the semiconductors)

Any one know where you can get brighter CF bulbs ??
B&Q seem to be one of few places that do twist in bulbs for less than twice the price of the equilvant bayonet fitting..

mike65

Surpised at the lack of availibity, I can get them in Centra Kilmeaden (pop 500-ish).

Mike.

Capt'n Midnight

it's the lack of availability of bulbs equilivant to 100W/150W ones, as otherwise you have to replace a single incandescent with a light fitting that can take more than one bulb to get the same amount of light

superquin have some nice bulb shaped ones that don't look like bent pipes 11W/15W so you need several if you want to iluminate a large room enough to be able to read comfortably

Also CF tend to be a lot more forgiving of "dodgy" sockets the upstairs landing light (edison screw up) used to go every few months, the replacement CF has been in for a lot longer

SolMate

I hear a lot of people calling for a doubling (or more) of the tax on plastic bags, also for carbon taxes more generally, and now for light bulbs.

I don't like it!

First we are all taxed to the hilt as it it is...if you take VAT and all the various stealth taxes into account. Instead of constantly harassing the hard pressed ordinary public, IMHO, we would be better served to keep the pressure on the powers that be to:

(a) see to it that decent, price competitive alternatives to inefficient energy usage is made properly and widely available

(b) subsidise good practices first, then perhaps tax bad ones! Because I rather expect (although I admit I have not checked my facts here!) that you'll find VAT on CFLs...when a discount is what's needed.

(c) stamp out price abuse! For example, they give you grants for solar panels, then sit on their hands when some suppliers simply seem to ramp up their prices and, in effect, grab these grants, and then...to add insult to injury, VAT is applied which cancels out the effect of the grant even if you did get the benefit of it... and then they, through Local Authorities, demand full planning permission as well!! For most people, it's neither worth the cost nor the hassle.

So let's look for some joined up thinking here. We need a comprehensive set of integrated policies around encouraging the public to convert as much as possible of their energy usage to efficient and economical renewables. As far as I'm concerned it is only when CFLs are fully available, cheaper and better than the alternative that a tax on the old fashioned light bulb is acceptable.

S.

air

Solmate:
a)If a tax was placed on incandescent bulbs then supply of cfls would rapidly improve over a very short space of time. We live in a market economy and supply and demand will always win out.
b)Why not use the taxes on the bad choices to fund the subsidies on the good choices to further widen the margin between the products at no cost to the government?
The only possible problem I could envisage might be people buying bulbs here at subsidised prices for export

c) Again supply and demand should sort this out, its up to consumers to be savvy enough to spot rip off merchants. A VAT reduction on renewables would certainly be welcome.

If the government is serious about the environment and reducing CO2 emissions etc then a lot more indirect taxation will need to be introduced in order to promote change. It has worked for plastic bags and may be starting to work on refuse, it can work elsewhere.

Another example of where change is needed is in taxation on company cars, we need to move to an emissions based model and away from our ridiculous current system which encourages people to drive more burning more fuel!

Gurgle

air wrote:

b)Why not use the taxes on the bad choices to fund the subsidies on the good choices to further widen the margin between the products at no cost to the government?

Because zis is not ze vay ve operate.
We tax good choices, then we tax bad choices more. Then we spend all that tax on a report into whether people are taking the good choice.
Take bio-diesel. Carbon-neutral. Subsidised? Hell no.
Take solar panels - At last they're providing a grant, but then they go and pin a requirement that it has to be installed by a registered installer. An inspection & sign-off is not allowed.
And the grant barely covers the VAT.

air wrote:

If the government is serious about the environment and reducing CO2 emissions etc then a lot more indirect taxation will need to be introduced in order to promote change.

All taxes for motoring should be at the pump. Simple, direct and fair. 80yo Granny who drives 2 miles a week for the shopping and mass shouldn't be paying the same road tax as someone commuting 50 miles a day.

air wrote:

we need to move to an emissions based model

Theres a wee bit of a problem on the emissions based model - testing.
How many people do you know who got their big diesel smoke-machine through the NCT with kerosene?

Nukem

Heard nothing but good things about this crowd
http://www.megamanuk.com/products/series.php?catid=1

Havent got anything from them yet but i know a few people that have.They dont have the exact size of GU10 spots :mad:,too long

Tried getting LED spots but not the best for a direct replcement for 50w Spots
http://www.ultraleds.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=765

Anyone know a handy replacement that gives off a good amount of light for a GU10 spot 56mm long?

air

Gurgle wrote:

Take bio-diesel. Carbon-neutral. Subsidised? Hell no.

A disgrace I agree, but PPO would be an even better option IMO, no nasty chemicals at all.

Gurgle wrote:

All taxes for motoring should be at the pump. Simple, direct and fair. 80yo Granny who drives 2 miles a week for the shopping and mass shouldn't be paying the same road tax as someone commuting 50 miles a day.

Makes sense but I think company vehicles will always need a BIK element or something similar.

Gurgle wrote:

Theres a wee bit of a problem on the emissions based model - testing.
How many people do you know who got their big diesel smoke-machine through the NCT with kerosene?

I was referring to systems like those used in the UK where the taxation is based on the manufacturers quoted CO2/km figures.

SolMate

Air

I do see the point in the arguments you make above, and they're pretty reasonable, but I think there is an assumption that taxes will be applied wisely and well. Usually they are not. Taxation is an easy and usually ineffective solution...it may seem to work to an extent by, for example, forcing the less well off out of their cars and into buses while the better off continue to enjoy driving their cars....and so on across the board.

Taxes of all sorts hit poorer people quicker and harder.

What is needed are positive, well directed policies rather than punitive easy answers like slapping tax on things to make it look as if our politicians are doing something meaningful. The plastic bag tax is a perfect example of that sort of nonsensical tinkering around the edges of the real issues...almost a diversionary tactic. It's easier than taking on the interests who block wind farms...easier than making the ESB efficient....easier than taking on the auto industry and demanding efficient cars...easier than building some level of policing and monitoring into the SEI's brief.

As for supply and demand - the more perfect the market i.e. the more transparent the information and the greater the number of competitors, the more likely it is that supply and demand will work as you suggest it should. But supply and demand *isn't* taking care of things as we can plainly see. The conditions for it to work well are not there.

By the way, sorry for seeming to move a bit from the original intent of this thread...but my comments do also apply to the taxation of light bulbs

S

Gurgle

air wrote:

Makes sense but I think company vehicles will always need a BIK element or something similar.

Don't follow - BIK is in place where the car is supplied as part of salary/position and allowances are made for mileage directly related to business.

air wrote:

I was referring to systems like those used in the UK where the taxation is based on the manufacturers quoted CO2/km figures.

Hmmm, but its still taxation based on what you own rather than how much you use it.

air

The first excerpt above was my response to a statement saying that all taxes should be at the pump, I was simply saying that you'd still need BIK. i.e. not ALL motoring taxes could be implemented at the pump.

On the second point, yes thats why I agreed with the poster that said that the majority of taxes should be at the pump - to discourage usage.
My point regarding the Irish BIK setup was that here your BIK exposure reduces the more mileage you do. IMO this is wrong, as it encourages people to do needless mileage purely to reduce their tax exposure.

Gurgle

air wrote:

My point regarding the Irish BIK setup was that here your BIK exposure reduces the more mileage you do. IMO this is wrong, as it encourages people to do needless mileage purely to reduce their tax exposure.

AFAIK, the purpose of that is to differentiate between cases where someone has a company car as part of their salary package and where someone drives the company car as part of their job.

air

Its hardly as cut and dried as that IMO. If someone has a company car - be it purely as a perk or primarily for their job, they are inevitably (in the vast majority of cases) going to use the vehicle for both business and pleasure purposes.
The way most people work out their tax liability is by estimating their percentage of personal mileage and then working out their total business miles as a percentage of the total.
If someone's BIK is going to reduce in this way by virtue of the total mileage they rack up, then they obviously arent going to think twice about driving from Cork to Donegal for an ice cream on a Sunday! Not only is the journey not costing them money (personally), it is in fact to their benefit.

Gurgle

air wrote:

Its hardly as cut and dried as that IMO.

Oh I absolutely agree, everyone with a company car gets personal use out of it. Very difficult to separate private from business mileage.

It would be typically Irish for the revenue commisioners to hire a thousand people to follow tax-payers around and see what they're doing with their company cars.

Spend a billion a year to prevent tax avoidance of a million:rolleyes: