There's an argument to be made that trying to tax undesirable behaviors is a form of corruption.
If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
Yes there certainly can. I won't make it though; I like looking at a plastic-free environment myself.
> If you want to change other peoples behavior I have trouble supporting something that unfairly penalizes the poor.
How exactly does a plastic bag ban unfairly penalize the poor?
I could make the argument that by reducing city trash and recycling costs, street sweeping costs and the store's costs in providing the bags, the poor actually benefit overall. Not to mention it's poor neighborhoods, which typically have more littering, that potentially stand to benefit more from less waste. Rich neighborhoods can afford to pay for street cleaning out of pocket if the city doesn't come through; poor ones can't.
EDIT: When you get to the bottom of it, plastic bags impose a negative externality on taxpayers (in the form of higher city trash costs), businesses (more littering makes the city less visually appealing) and animals (which get trapped in plastic bags). People are free to use plastic bags, but there should be a cost associated with all the negative consequences of this behavior to everyone else.
Even most grocery stores sell reusable bags for $1-2 apiece; so in the overwhelming majority of scenarios people would be paying more than 10 cents but less than the punitive $5. And by consciously buying a bag (instead of just saying "Yeah, I'll pay 10 cents for a bag" at the counter), people might be less likely to throw it out.
When that happens to me and you whack me for $5, I grimace a little, but basically don't care and my kids don't go hungry. If you whack someone for $5 who is poor and buying groceries with an EBT card, they're putting a gallon of milk back on the shelf to afford the bag. Or, they could ride the bus home, get their bags, ride the bus back, buy their stuff, and avoid the $4 fine ($1 for the bag and $4 for the convenience fine) at the cost of maybe an hour of their limited free time.
That's how it hurts the poor. That you or I could buy 10 bags for $12 and keep them in the trunk of our car so we always have them doesn't help the carless.
You asked how exactly it hurt the poor and I answered that question. I didn't come here spoiling for a fight over the issue.
The alternatives are not free. In SF, at least, your alternatives are to buy a heavy-duty reusable bag, or spend 10c per paper bag when checking out. 10c is a trivial thing to pay for most people, but when you're poor, it can matter.
Maybe not. It just needs to be high enough to discourage most bag throwing. Maybe that number is $2 instead of $5. Maybe instead of just offering you a bag at the counter and tacking it on to your bill, they make you go to the bag aisle and bring back a bag that you have to consciously buy (it has a barcode and they scan it); so it's a cost in annoyance rather than money.
> taxes and fees for street cleaning and parks aren't anywhere in that ballpark
It's not just street cleaning and parks. You're discounting trash collection, recycling and landfill costs. The costs of the city being less attractive (I don't know if it can be measured, but there certainly is a cost). The cost to wildlife and the oceans. Do all these add up to $5 a bag? I don't know. Would a $<punitive_number>/bag fee eliminate most of these costs? Probably. Could someone more creative than myself come up with even better ideas? Definitely.
I've always wondered if you could avoid the perverse incentive created by such fines by having the levied amount removed from the economy (i.e. literally destroy the money). There's the fine would still discourage the undesirable behavior, but not incentivize the corruptive behavior.
Perhaps; but it'd be more convincing if you actually made it.