Asensioet al. (2003) with data from the Survey of Family Budgets estimates and modelsthe spending on gasoline in Spain, as well as the elasticities of consumptionand redistributive effects of a tax on gasoline, concluding that for the lowestdeciles the tax is progressive and after a certain level of income and forcertain localities the tax is regressive, meaning that the application of thetax would tend not to be homogeneous throughout this country.On theother hand, Gago et al. (2013) perform a simulation of the resources obtainedby hypothetical taxes and point out that there are positive environmentaleffects at a reduced economic cost when these types of taxes are introducedwithin a fiscal policy.
In addition, Gago and Labandeira, (2010) and Labandeiraand Lopez (2002) declare that environmental taxes have the advantage ofencouraging the adoption of new technologies and production processes thatcorrect environmental deterioration. Likewise, they emphasize transportationtaxation, which they believe should be radical in the next few years as aresult of the new technologies expected to break out in the sector.Sarabiaand Hernandez (2014), made an estimate of an optimal tax for gasoline in Mexicoin which they find that the optimal amount is 1.90 dollars per gallon in 2011,to calculate the tax, it is taken an adjusted Pigouvian tax (1.
62 dll) plus oneRamsey tax (0.28 dll) and another value that is called the Roadway CongestionIndex (RCI). Moreover, within Pigouvian Tax, the accident component is thelargest cost of this, which is what accounts for about 29% of the costs of thistax.An interesting point to comment is that between the literatureand criticisms of environmental taxes are found to be regressive, Sterner andLozada (2011) show that the theorists who defend the ideas that a tax isregressive as Catchesides (2005), Walls and Hanson (1999) and Poterba (1991),conducted their studies under circumstances very different from those ofdeveloping countries, in countries where the average income is higher.
Antón-Sarabia and Hernández Trillo (2014), show that for developing countrieslike Mexico it does not apply, because the majority of people with lower incomedo not own a car and their consumption in gasoline is low, and the income isproportional to the demand in gasoline. 1. HypothesisAs shownthrough the studies mentioned in this research paper, the implementation ofgreen taxes help to reduce negative environmental externalities, due to thefact that these taxes are incentives to polluters to reduce pollution and findout sustainable alternatives.
Pigoumentions the divergences between social and private costs. These imbalances canbe corrected by a proper system of taxes and subsidies. But the practicaldifficulty in determining fair rates is hard to determinate.
The data neededfor a decision is almost completely missing. For example, how to calculate atax corresponding to a manufacturing industry whose emissions increase costs ofpeople in their health?. Or how, on the contrary, do we have to estimate theindirect benefits that the plantation of a forest may have on the environment?.
There is a need to do the precise calculation because some authors fear thatany ill-calculated alteration will cause negative results. This means that thecalculation must be very careful not to charge an excessively high tax due topolluters could be harmed (Zwerver, van Rompaey, Kok & Berk, 1995).If thecontamination is serious enough to be judged that pollution should beprohibited, a sufficiently high tax is equivalent to a prohibition. Green taxis a weapon as effective as the prohibition and has an additional advantage ofbeing more flexible and allowing to graduate the treatment of different casesto lower levels of restriction (Fernald, 2012).