OFR 60-92 - The Minerals Related Implications of a Direct Tax on U.S. Primary Lead Production and Primary Lead Imports. 1992.
Dates
Publication Date
1992
Summary
The EPA and the Congress are considering the use of a tax on primary lead to reduce U.S. lead consumption, to generate revenues for a lead abatement program, and /or to encourage the secondary recovery and recycling of lead. This study assesses the economic impacts of a tax on primary lead and lead imports. The results of this study suggest a primary lead tax policy will be ineffective in achieving these objectives. Increased secondary supplies, largely from imports, are expected to displace domestic primary lead supplies that become uneconomic because of the tax and no substantial increase in lead battery recycling is estimated to result from the tax. A primary lead tax of $.80 per pound would eliminate domestic primary lead production [...]
Summary
The EPA and the Congress are considering the use of a tax on primary lead to reduce U.S. lead consumption, to generate revenues for a lead abatement program, and /or to encourage the secondary recovery and recycling of lead. This study assesses the economic impacts of a tax on primary lead and lead imports. The results of this study suggest a primary lead tax policy will be ineffective in achieving these objectives. Increased secondary supplies, largely from imports, are expected to displace domestic primary lead supplies that become uneconomic because of the tax and no substantial increase in lead battery recycling is estimated to result from the tax. A primary lead tax of $.80 per pound would eliminate domestic primary lead production as well as reduce domestic source production of: zinc by 87 %, silver by 16 %, bismuth by 89 %, cadmium by 85 %, and would eliminate the most significant domestic source of germanium and indium presently available.
