The carbon tax turns its back on this doctrine

Even if they deem insufficient level, even if the most politicized of them would have liked that the product is to be redistributed that modest households, environmentalists have every reason to commend what one of their best experts, Jean-Marc Jancovici, called "the emergence of ecology in the ordinary taxation" (1). The formula ready to attack. With the carbon tax, ecology, invites and loudly, in the tax landscape. But to condition, first, to forget that the internal tax on petroleum products (TIPP), sitting on the volumes of fuel consumed, reported while some 15 billion euros, is three times more that the carbon tax will be in 2010.

Then, and especially, the new carbon tax is no ordinary collection. It is in opposition with three major principles that guide our tax practice: economic neutrality of the tax, the posting a fortiori the Renminbi of its product. The terms and conditions detailed Thursday by the head of State, Nicolas Sarkozy, make this new tax - the term "tax" is here to take the political and non-legal - meaning an instrument of punishment, which the revenues, a unique and specific political objective must be fully returned. Thus conceived, this unidentified tax object opens a potentially dangerous gap for the strength of the complex building is our taxation.

Claimed as ethical under mandatory backup of the planet, the penalisation of polluting behaviour led to a new conception of taxation. It becomes a repressive arsenal and cease to be seen as a contributory of the public service or as a tool of social redistribution, which is the case with almost all of our taxes, contributions and taxes, they are sitting on income, capital or expenditures. This shift to a "positive" attitude to a "negative" attitude is claimed by the Minister of ecology, Jean-Louis Borloo, as a major change in the philosophy of the tax.

Furthermore, in a country where the rate of taxation has long one of the highest in the OECD, most of the recent reforms have sought to make tax less detrimental to the players economic and less distordante markets. Large plate, low: this modern tax model is the generalized social contribution. The carbon tax turns its back on this doctrine. "This time, it is the reverse one wants" with taxation in which "the first purpose is good deterrent, in the sense that it is intended to discourage the use of fossil fuels", are economists Eloi Laurent and Jacques Cacheux in a note to the OFCE (2). High rates, close trim (oil, gas, coal): the carbon tax rehabilitates former tax.

Vested in the only environmental cause, ecological tax breaks also with tax revenue posting rule to specific expenses, to prevent the State budget may be more than the addition of sections budget each with its own resource. Guarantee a centralised steering of public policies, this rule of law has been strengthened by the new budgetary procedure, the LOLF. Long, she recognizes, of course, many exceptions that illustrate the special Treasury accounts. The most exemplary derogation is the audio-visual royalty, which the product is assigned to the financing of public broadcasting.

Sanctuarisant as it does the revenue of a carbon tax to rise in power, the Executive takes the substantial risk of depriving margins for budgetary manoeuvre, this as much more the levies on the income, not affected are, called to give ground. The risk is economic, it is also political because by linking to the environmental cause, the Government may lead to assimilate carbon tax to a charge, which is the consideration for a service rendered. However, as noted the Professor Michel Bouvier (Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne), "the tax is not the price of a service" (3). This exposes people's challenge.

The logic of restitutio in integrum that will apply to the carbon tax is no less alarming for the future of our public finances, because it undermines the legitimacy of the State tax as natural recipe. If the principle of the unemployed, in the case of the bonus-malus, has own rationality from the perspective of eco-efficiency, insofar as it adds a positive incentive to a negative disincentive, the idea that the State would only be a laundering is less unusual under budgetary logic. She became extravagant in the particular situation of the public accounts today. Good year wrong year for a quarter of a century, the State was spending 25 more than what he enjoyed margins. Consequence of the crisis and the stimulus measures, it has spent since the beginning of the year 2009, 61 more than what he has cashed in tax and non-tax revenues. If massive cuts in operating appropriations, the return of the proceeds of the carbon tax is not facilitate awareness of the magnitude of the fiscal imbalance. This new principle may, in addition, create an unfortunate addiction.