It’s become passé to compare government spending with flushing
taxpayer dollars down the porcelain pedestal. This is the age of
porkulus, after all. When lawmakers view a $787 billion stimulus
package as a pared-down compromise, analogies between government
waste and, well, certain flushing functions lose their
originality.
But I’m going to be a prig and do it anyway.
Reports about new taxes in foreign countries always worry me
because I know these ploys will end up in the United States
sooner rather than later.
Case in point: Australia’s proposed
toilet tax. Yes, you read that right. In addition to alliterating
well, the toilet tax is supposed to fight the Outback’s “epic
drought” (as
described by the Independent World).
The move would abolish Australia’s current system of sewage
charges, which is based on property value, and replace it with a
per-flush tax. Think of it as a pay-as-you-go system.
One representative of the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organization
suggested the toilet tax would help prepare the country for
“the potential impact of climate change,” according to the
Sunday Telegraph.
He didn’t explain how conserving toilet flushes would conserve
the polar ice caps. But I can easily picture an environmentalist
ad campaign that encourages homeowners to buy energy-efficient
toilets to prevent the arctic plumbing from overflowing.
Lest you mistake the concept of taxing toilets an invention
peculiar to European nations and that former penal-colony down
under, think again. The toilet Stasi is alive and well in the
land of the free, too. Fighting the giant bogeyman of global
warming seems the underlying rationale for most bathroom-related
initiatives.
Take Cary, North Carolina, as an example. Known for enacting its
share of Soviet-style restrictions, this affluent suburb of
Raleigh has now entered the one room you thought Big Brother
would never touch: the bathroom.
The Cary town council approved a rebate program for
energy-efficient toilets last year. The goal was to get
homeowners to ditch their water-hogging models in favor of
EPA-designated WaterSense toilets that use 1.3 gallons per flush.
Those who make the swap get a $150 rebate.
The EPA claims
that, in many cases, a “WaterSense labeled toilet can pay for
itself in only a few years.” But homeowners in Cary would only
save a couple bucks a month on their utility bill for each
toilet. Some residents are willing to make that tradeoff, but
should the town encourage it through taxpayer-sponsored rebates?
Including extra funds devoted to the program in October, Cary has
spent a total of $89,000 on the retrofit, according to the town’s
budget office. The town carries $27 million in debt service for
fiscal year 2009, up 12 percent from last year, and has $303
million in overall debt. Sounds like a scenario for tightening
the fiscal belt, not embarking on (no doubt well-intentioned)
environmentalist crusades.
Unfortunately, Cary is not alone in its toilet swap. In fact,
many county and municipal governments offer residents incentives
for buying energy-efficient models. Saving water and money is a
laudable goal, but government should let individuals make that
determination. Some value water conservation; others can’t afford
a sleek toilet that has a not-so-sleek price tag. Let the market
decide.
Even though the program doesn’t make sense economically for
consumers, and even though local governments can scarcely afford
environmentalist endeavors in these uncertain times, the toilet
crusade will march on. Few politicians will dare join the loyal
opposition. Doing so would risk being labeled anti-green, a
political death knell in the age of global warming alarmism.
Don’t expect the issue to go away, either. Australia’s toilet
strategy could soon be a reality in the United States, especially
as global warming phobia increases and the Obama administration
takes steps to create a “sustainable” country, however much it
costs. Look for the flushing sound to get louder.
