Taking out the trash

A recent article in Seven Days (the local "indie" paper) reported on the debate over a bill that would add a dollar to the cost of each tire sold in Vermont, which would then go towards the costs of collection and disposal. An opponent of the bill is quoted as complaining about why tires are singled out. “It’s computer stuff, couches, TVs, shopping carts, all kinds of things. Do we now tax a dollar on every TV that’s sold . . . on and on? Or do we try to enforce the current laws?”

Well, actually, putting the costs of collection and disposal up front, when the consumer buys the item, and providing "free" disposal when the consumer wants to throw the item out, makes a whole lot more sense than collecting fees at disposal time and spending money trying to enforce largely unenforceable laws against illegal dumping. Simply take away the "rational" incentive to illegally dump (boy, it's expensive for me to properly dispose of these tires/tvs/etc; I'm just gonna dump 'em in the river/woods and no one will know the difference), and you'll just be left with the vandals (heh-heh, wouldn't it be cool to push a shopping cart down this hill?) to try to catch and prosecute.

The challenge of creating a system in which the costs of collection and disposal are put up front (without creating a more horrible bureaucracy) is left as an exercise to the reader; given the existence of state sales taxes, the collection aspect isn't particularly important. Instead focus on the problems of proper assignment of the cost of disposal for items -- clearly a tire costs more to dispose of than a plastic potato chip bag, but how exactly should you assign costs? (a straight percentage might work; then again, a $40 dvd player probably costs as much to properly dispose of as a $300 one, and a lot more to dispose of than the packaging for $40 worth of organic green tea) -- and the problem of out-of-state and online purchases (solve this latter problem, and you've also solved a similar problem for sales taxes... good luck).