From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Taxation (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move in the light of new evidence. —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Move comment[edit]

  • The move request should probably be to "Environmental tax". Notice the lowercase 't'. --Davidstrauss 09:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
If this is about the German tax proposals (Ökosteuer), the entry should probably be moved to Ecotax, as per [1] ~ trialsanderrors 08:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: The article is listed on the list to translations from German to English, so it does pertain to the German tax proposal. The title Ecotax would therefore probably be appropriate, with Environmental tax and Ecology tax redirecting to it.(Patrick 12:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
This is English Wikipedia, and I know that the Green Party of Canada and Green Party of Ontario certainly promotes the Green tax shift, with that wording. What is the most common usage in English? Ardenn 03:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like Ecotax is more common in Europe and GTS in North America. Ecotax wins the googlefight by a mile, although I don't give too much credence to that. Are there official sources in North America that sponsor GTS? I'm kind of wary to accept the Green parties as unbiased sources. ~ trialsanderrors 07:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've only heard it used by the GPC and GPO, so I wouldn't know. Sorry. Ardenn 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm not sure about it myself, but I'll put in a move request. So what responses it triggers. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Ecotax[edit]

  • Green tax shiftEcotaxRationale: Closest approximation to the original German Ökosteuer, it also seems the predominant form in Europe. … trialsanderrors 18:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as the nom. After some more googling this seems to be the prevalent form in Europe, which gives the topic more attention than NA, and is also closest to the German original. ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I got here because I was looking for 'Green Shift' not ecotax. Ecotax is just a tool, 'Green Shift' is an event, or movement. Historians will speak of the 'Green Shift' when they speak of the tendency towards ecotaxes instead of income taxes. User:Tokamax 21:33. 9 decemeber 2008


Add any additional comments
  • To summarize: Ecotax seems to be the preferred form in Europe, and is endorsed by the European Environmental Agency. Green tax shift is endorsed by the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario, although we're still looking for non-partisas sponsors. It is also possible that the terms don't mean the same thing (a shift is a change in taxation rather than a tax), but it is not clear that the terms need separate entries. All opinions and contributions welcome. ~ trialsanderrors 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My article[edit]

Can I add a link to a series of articles I wrote on a green tax shift?

Ozfreediver 07:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Try integrating your points made and references used, into this article (or other wikipedia articles) instead of just linking to your article. Chendy (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the move[edit]

not sure if this is where I am allowed to respond. Anyway, a green tax shift is actually two concepts, a green/eco tax, and a tax shift, which implies that it is revenue neutral. This would indicate that GTS should not be used, but I like to see the terms linked, mainly for political reasons.

Ozfreediver 07:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Taxes affected[edit]

surely article should focus on taxes that will be introduced not "Examples of taxes which could be lowered or eliminated by a green tax shift:" - as every tax will be affected. Chendy (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro paragraph needs some rework[edit]

The last sentence of the current article:

"The Pigovian taxes that are introduced by such a policy - see below"

....has thrown the intro off. The sentence obviously suffers from poor grammar, but more succinctly I believe it doesn't belong in the intro paragraph since its providing an explicit description (elaboration) of the various taxes in the next section.

Can someone bring in some expertise to rework the first two sections? Simply removing the sentence completely may detract from the article and be counterproductive. Tnx --HarryZilber (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Severance Tax[edit]

The line severance tax is wrongly forwarded right back to this "Ecotax" page.

Recommend fixing this with a separate page on Severance tax. e.g. See Instapedia's entry

"What Does It Mean? What Does Severance Tax Mean? A tax imposed on the removal of nonrenewable resources such as crude oil, condensate and natural gas, coalbed methane and carbon dioxide.

Severance tax is charged to producers, or anyone with a working or royalty interest, in oil or gas operations in the imposing states. You may be charged severance tax even if you do not realize a net profit on your investment.

Investopedia Says Investopedia explains Severance Tax Certain wells may be exempt from severance tax based on the amount they produce. Different states have different rules. For example, in Colorado, as of 2008, an oil well that produces less than an average of 15 barrels per producing day, or a gas well that produces less than an average of 90,000 cubic feet per producing day, is exempt from this tax.

It is important to note that severance tax is different from income tax, and you still have to pay all federal and state income taxes on oil and gas income in addition to severance tax."DLH (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ecotax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Start class because needs more references.EECavazos 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because article conveys the tax law has minimal impact because usually just a proposed law with few implemented.EECavazos 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)