Thanks. I think I mixed two topics, not really intending to do so at the outset, but I guess that’s how rants go.

1) Higher dump fees will increase illegal dumping, I believe. Econ 101, as you say. I don’t think a relationship exists between the creation of trash/junk and the cost of disposing of it at the dump. Heck, we can’t even get Americans to think of the consequences of drinking, or of over-eating. I doubt a higher dump fee will curtail the purchasing over-packaged goods or unneeded junk to avoid spring cleaning dump runs.

2) As somewhat of a tangent, I pointed out that “fees” are becoming the new way to tax people when more government revenue is needed. This has been know and written about much in recent years, though still somewhat under the radar of the average voter.

I really appreciate your insights.

Steve

And, yes, higher dump fees will result in some decrease in the amount of dumpable stuff. This is econ 101. It will also, guaranteed, result in some increase in the amount of illegal dumping. Sure. The right thing to do is figure out whether the amount of illegal dumping it will encourage is too much to live with compared to the decrease in total dumping seen.

So, if I understand you, you’re saying that higher landfill fees are intended to discourage use of the landfill. That’s basically what I’m saying too.

Where we disagree is that I think the higher fees will result in more illegal dumping, higher costs for services that require disposal, and I’m peeved that this seems to be the newest way to raise taxes.

You think (or think the city thinks) that higher dump fees will result in the production of less garbage by people who don’t want to pay higher dump fees.

I’m trying to understand your point of view. Do I have it right?

Thanks

Steve

Steve, the gas tax is a real good example, although not in the way you think. It subsidizes unhealthy behavior today – basically functions as a large subsidy from urban drivers to suburban drivers (and even, ironically, from non-drivers to suburban drivers). I cover this a lot in my blog; here’s one example:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000313.html

TH outlined where I’m coming from very well.

I think more and more tax increases are being stuffed into “use fees”. This is because politicians are afriad of the knee jerk negative reaction most of us have toward pure tax increases. So instead, we get 1,000 “bee stings”, none of which kill us, but which collectively represent huge increases in the amount of money that flows away from us and to the government.

And the people most allergic to these financial “bee stings”, those least able to absorb them, are the ones who disproportionately pay the most.

Check your utility bills, phone bills, auto renewal, inspection sticker fees, etc. Meanwhile, our 20+ year old state gas tax remains at $0.18, which is woefully inadequate given current needs, but which can’t be raised because it would be deemed a “tax increase” whereas these other costs of living are somehow absorbed as something different than a tax increase.

And, specifically, making it cost $35 minimum, or $55 for an “unsecured load” is nothing more than a pure money grab by the state in lieu of a tax increase.

Steve

I’d be really surprised if the city is thinking about incenting any type of behavior with the fee increase.

The city is thinking purely about increasing revenue, and doing so in ways that raises the ire of the smallest and/or least vocal portions of the population. What portion of Austinites regularly visit the dump? Maybe 5%?

There will be plenty of indirect effects, as Steve outlined, between likely increases in illegal dumping, and increased prices to consumers from a variety of trades-people. But those consumers are not going to associate the fact that their bathroom remodel is $100 more expensive with a fee increase at the dump. Raise the sales, gas, property or a variety of other taxes/fees that are more visible and directly felt by a wider cross-section of the population, and the city would encounter more opposition.

Just my two cents worth…

TH

BOTH illegal dumping AND less dumping, in other words, ARE “cheaper alternatives”. The fact that you only consider the first one to be an alternative is perhaps a problem with the suburban mindset.

Hi M1ek, I just don’t think it’s an effective incentive. In fact, if reduction of illegal dumping is the intent, I wonder what would happen if dump fees were eliminated completely for small loads? The questions would be whether or not subsidizing dump fees for small loads would cost the government less than the current cleanup costs. Or, put another way, would the reduction in cleanup costs of illegal dumping exceed the cost of allowing free dumping?

I don’t know the answer, but like all taxes, the higher they are, the more people say “no thanks” and become willing to cut corners and look for cheaper alternatives. Was it Connecticut that some years ago imposed a huge luxury tax for boats which resulted in putting the boat dealers out of business because people just started going to the next state to buy boats?

And are the high dump fee similarly benefiting cheaper dumps like Hutto? In fact, that is the case as we’ve heard.

Steve