Morning Star Co. v. Board of Equalization (2011), Cal.App.4th

Those items actually contain hazardous materials that get into the soil and ground water, and cause medical problems for thousands of people. I don't think it's unfair for those who create expense for society as a whole to be asked to ameliorate those expenses. ___ Stu

As much of our e-recycling ends up in Africa, we should really be remitting the money to them.

Anyway, you can't be this naive! The tax is just a method to feed the CA pension beast and other spending beasts as everything is gridlocked

-- the legislature, the proposition system, even the CA Supreme Court.

I wasn't talking about recycling - that actually helps prevent pollution. But you do have a point - those who benefit from products that create pollution in other parts of the world should be responsible for helping to remedy those situations as well.

Let's say your next door neighbor starts making batteries in his basement. Chemicals from that seep into the ground and poison your well - the place your family's water comes from. Should he pay for fixing that, or should you? Because that's exactly what we're talking about, but on a larger scale.

So let's say you prove your damages and his insurance company pays you. But since it's been months, you decided you prefer having water trucked in to using a well. You don't have to have your well cleaned out. It's your money because you suffered actual damages. But you can use the money for whatever you want. ___ Stu

Let's say there's a company that wires computer rooms. Because they often have to work under raised floors or behind equipment, they use flashlights, which use batteries. Should they have to pay a "hazardous materials tax"? If they used plug-in worklights with incandescent bulbs, it would arguably be worse for the environment, but the tax wouldn't apply. Was the law intended for that sort of perverse incentive?

Seth

...

IIUC, though, it's not the manufacturers of the items but the end-user being taxed here.

But the manufacturers aren't necessarily in California. Those who are are being taxed for manufacturing, storing, and whatever else can be conjured up. In CA, the prime directive is "Tax Everything."

Dick

Aw, come on. The end user is the one who is most likely to dispose of the hazardous materials, safely or otherwise. Perhaps we can follow this up in alt.flame.taxes.

R's, John

I just read the court decision you are talking about.

First of all, it seems to me they do go to far basically taxing almost every business in the state that has 50 or more employees, because they all use computers, fluorescent lights and other things that use toxic materials.

At the same time, any money raised from this tax is by law directed into a particular fund that is and can only be used for cleanup of toxic waste pollution. So it's not like they are taxing everything they can just to get their hands on the money. ___ Stu

Good idea - follow up to misc.taxes aka alt.flame.taxes

Dick

And when that fund gets large enough, how long before the legislature merges it into the General Fund?

Dick

Good point. If that happens, it should be fixed.

___ Stu