RSS

Fast Talk

September 12, 2008

Q: Would you live in a smaller house if given tax incentives to do so (and to reduce your carbon footprint)? | posted by Fast Company staff

Sign in or register to comment.
or

28 Total

September 12, 2008 at 12:47pm by Brendan Collins

I would live in a plexiglass yurt the size of a high school gym locker if it meant lower energy prices, especially with winter coming. When the cold comes, heating costs are going to be astronomical, so this smart trend definitely makes sense. The New York Times has a cool little story about how people are seriously considering what once were children's sized houses as a real alternative to a McMansion lifestyle (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/garden/11tiny.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1). I absolutely foresee smaller home construction (or, at the very least, a boom in energy-efficient building) as the next step in the evolving environmental revolution we're currently experiencing.

September 12, 2008 at 1:56pm by Brian Flores

I'm not so sure I'd go as far as Brendan, but I do think an aspect of taxation should relate to one's carbon footprint. I think it would be pretty easy to develop a rubric that provides a rough order estimate of a person's carbon footprint via the square footage of their house(s), car(s), and other vehicles (planes, boats, jetskis) where applicable. Create a centralized database to track how many air miles Americans log each year, and you could similarly tax the rock stars and road warriors (or their respective companies) for the air miles they log.

September 12, 2008 at 5:01pm by Sammy Sturkie

No. What's next, tax credits for using less toilet paper?

September 12, 2008 at 5:25pm by milli graeme

I already live in a 900sqft house so why not provide tax credits to those of us with low incomes and can't afford one of these pricey 'mcmansions'? For the semi-committed, my advice is to purchase a like-sized trailer at about 1/10 the price.

September 12, 2008 at 7:24pm by Bailey King

Yes. I think a system of informed lifestyle choices organized and endorsed by public/private enterprise is inevitable. Dangling tax incentives to encourage alternative consumption patterns is not as effective as implementing policies and community development which elevates and obviates "smarter", "greener" living.

September 12, 2008 at 8:56pm by Nathan Wilson

A consumption tax system would solve nearly all of the world's economic problems.

September 12, 2008 at 8:57pm by Nathan Wilson

In general, absolutely. However, this question is relative in nature, therefore, my willingness to do so would depend on the attractiveness of the tax incentives in relation to the current housing market situation in the area(s) I would want to buy or sell.

September 12, 2008 at 9:26pm by Douglas Crets

I'd live in a yurt, if I could be given a stipend that would allow me to have two cats, a horse and some pigs.

September 13, 2008 at 1:22am by Sammy Sturkie

You want to live in a yurt? There's nothing stopping you; but don't expect the majority of people to join you. Most of us want progression, not regression.

September 13, 2008 at 4:33am by Stephennie Low

Is semiconductor outsourcing to lower-cost Asian countries the way out?

September 13, 2008 at 9:46am by Esteban Colberto

Yes.

I just finished designing the first carbon trading portal for the United States. This is how you jump start innovation in this country. India and the rest of the world are years and years ahead of us. It is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

Let me know how it goes, my family and I are moving to either Dubai or Bangalore, the hubs of innovation in the future.

September 13, 2008 at 12:04pm by Robert Commins

This is a ridiculous proposition. We already pay property taxes on our homes, which square footage is a large driver of assessed value. We also pay more for the creature comforts we want (heating/cooling) of larger homes. I am more interested in using technology such as in-line water heating and solar power, geothermal heating, etc to improve efficiency as opposed to shoveling more money into some crappy tax based program that won’t serve the planet one iota.

September 13, 2008 at 3:25pm by Carel Two-Eagle

I already live in a very small house - BECAUSE IT'S THE SMART, LOGICAL THING TO DO. As a result of living this way, I have lots more money to invest in interesting things, rather than in making some banker richer. I think for myself. Who thinks for YOU??

September 13, 2008 at 3:28pm by Carel Two-Eagle

Sophomoric Sammie - Yurts are REALLY comfortable, as are my people's tipis. I lived in my tipi for an entire year, including winter, in the old way, to see what it was like. I learned you NEVER let the fire go out, & if your insulation pile is sufficient, a pocket-size fire keeps you warm enough to live there wearing a sweatshirt & standard pants. It was modest, clean, comfortable, and comforting. It sometimes hits -40F here, so it's doable anywhere..
We who live in small lodges should be given tax credits and other rewards, just as when we opt to not have children & otherwise live responsibly, in the Traditional Way of us ITI, while people who consume ostentatiously should be penalized via more and higher taxes. Any other way promotes disrespect and disaster. So - Where is YOUR respect, anneh?

September 14, 2008 at 12:29pm by Shawn Smith

I make $250k/year and live in a 650 sq foot, 1-bedroom apartment. It's plenty for me. If and when my girlfriend (who makes about 100k/year and lives in a 500 sq foot, 1-bedroom apartment) and I get married, we'll move into something a little bigger, but probably not much.

When you have a big house, you're forced to fill it with lots of crap you don't need, and everyone I know who lives in a big house spends 99% of their time in a small part of it - usually the kitchen and some kind of tv/rec room off the kitchen. No one ever sets foot in the formal living room or dining room for example.

We're heading toward a population of 9 billion, and we all need to live smaller. Anyway, I'd rather spend my money on experiences, not things.

September 14, 2008 at 4:36pm by david wayne osedach

Yes, we certainly would try to do our share. Leaving a better world for future generations is something to aspire to.

September 15, 2008 at 12:01am by jay draiman

Should The US government bail out American corporations?

Does corporate America share its profits with the tax payers? The answer is absolutely not.
Do they share the profits with the tax payers? The executives are paid millions.
The US Government should bail out all corporations large and small is that right? The answer is no. If it is a viable business, they can raise the money from investors, if not, let them close shop.
If the government decides to bail them out if should be at a cost (like shares in the company) where the government will make money and have a say in running the company. Even better have a public referendum where the voters decide.
Carmakers want money from the government; the financial institutions want money - where does it stop.
It is about time corporate America should learn they have to stand on their own feet. Where is corporate America financial responsibility?
They claim the government is abusing its financial responsibility; it seems Corporate America is no better. They also go to their workers to take a pay cut, is that fair? It seems the little guys are the ones that always pay the price for corporate financial abuse and miss-management.
Other corporations in the world are not asking to be bailed out - they go out of business.
Jay Draiman

September 15, 2008 at 12:32am by John Sorensen

Need to totally reconfigure current real-estate industry, because many independent contractor loners are incompetent. Class-action lawsuits against the infidels is not out of the question. Wish I could find one sympathetic legal expert who would consider taking this issue pro-bono since I am an extremely poor senior.

September 15, 2008 at 12:20pm by Stephennie Low

Yes, I support environmental-friendly movements for I feel responsible to keep the ecosystem healthy and fit-to-live for my next generation.

September 15, 2008 at 2:12pm by Kevin Ohannessian

Yes. Changes has to start somewhere. And you can't expect others to change, if you won't.

September 15, 2008 at 3:21pm by Nasonex Bell

how would you fire someone that just starting work for for.
she is just not working out to my standards.

September 15, 2008 at 3:55pm by Reynaldo Constantino

Absolutely. Its a win win situation.

September 15, 2008 at 5:17pm by Rebecca Jones

No. The problem's our country face regarding energy are directly proportionate to the size of our government. The thing that always has and will continue to make this country great is freedom and capitalism. More government, particularly in the form of taxation erodes individuals' freedoms and takes away the incentives to work hard to get ahead

September 15, 2008 at 9:04pm by Tom Pasley

yes

September 15, 2008 at 11:44pm by watchingskywolf

please delete my membership

September 16, 2008 at 8:58am by patrick carraher

1. Yes.
2. What if you live in an large older home where energy use and carbon footprint are already proportionaly minimal? Wouldn't it be beneficial to give an incentive to that household also, rather than send the present home to a landfill just to build a smaller one?

September 16, 2008 at 9:56am by Jason Warnke

This has been a dream of mine for a while...If I could live in a smaller, "sustainable" home that allows me to generate elecricity and contribute my excess capacity back to the grid...all of which would provide me tax benefits...This would be a great way to save money and feel better about my impact to the environment.

September 16, 2008 at 11:10am by katarina Borer

Which companie received 200 Customer Firsdt Awards?