There has been much made on social media in the last twenty-four hours of a supposed proposal by the Harris administration for a 20% excise tax on all things related to golf. As with so many things on the internet, it appears to have no basis in fact and originates from a parody account on Twitter/X.

However, golf courses carry with them myriad externalities, the cost of which are born by society writ large: from environmental impacts like water consumption, chemical fertilizer runoff, habitat disruption and soil degradation to waste generation and the taking up of valuable real estate.

While the Harris administration may have no plans to implement a golf tax—it may not be a bad idea.

Social Externalities of Golf Courses

The environmental impact of courses is, perhaps, the most pressing concern. Maintaining the landscaping of a golf course requires vast amounts of water—often in regions facing water scarcity. In arid areas this can exacerbate drought conditions and put additional strain on local water reserves. In addition, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides results in runoff that can contaminate the water that does remain, harming aquatic life and the larger ecosystem.

Soil degradation is another issue exacerbated by the presence of courses. The constant mowing and use of heavy machinery, as well as additional foot traffic, can lead to soil compaction. This reduces the soil’s ability to support plant life, increases the risk of erosion and changes water runoff patterns. Courses also generate significant waste, from grass and leaf clippings to packaging and disposable items used by visitors and players.

In addition to direct environmental impacts, golf courses also raise land use concerns. In many urban and suburban areas, courses may occupy valuable real estate that could potentially be used for other purposes that would generate more property tax revenue or benefit a broader segment of the population. The exclusivity of golf as a sport means these large green spaces in the center of town are often reserved for a relatively small and affluent subset of the population, raising social equity and use of public resource concerns.

Those spaces would generate more property tax revenue if used for housing or commercial space and would be of more use to the general community if reserved for public leisure.

Toward a “Golf Tax” Rationale

Given the often-significant externalities inherent to the presence of golf courses, the idea of a golf tax could be an effective way to internalize these costs. Such a policy would ensure that those who benefit from golf pay for the broader social and environmental impacts of their chosen leisure activity.

A 20% federal manufacturers excise tax on golf equipment, coupled with similar taxes at the state level on golf-related goods and services, could be a viable policy solution suite. There are already federal excise taxes on things like fishing and hunting equipment, with revenue from those transactions earmarked for fishery and forest preservation respectively.

Revenue from a golf tax could be earmarked for environmental restoration projects, water conservation programs, or the creation of alternative recreational spaces that are more accessible for the public.

Ultimately, such a policy could be a step towards greater wealth equality—with the purchase of golf related goods being a proxy for higher wealth. By taxing an activity often associated with wealth and privilege, the government could redistribute resources in a way that benefits a wider range of people while placing the tax burden on those shoulders most able to bear the weight.

Caveats, Criticisms and Conclusions

Opponents to a golf tax could argue that golf courses provide green spaces in urban areas and contribute to local economies through tourism, job creation, and the related tax revenue generated thereby. They may also argue that any excise tax on golf equipment would penalize domestic retailers while allowing foreign purveyors of equipment to forego the tax and undercut the competition.

Determining which goods and services would be taxed, by which jurisdictions, and how the revenue would be allocated are all complex issues that would require careful policy considerations and planning. Despite these challenges, and the fact that the idea is born from a parody post, a golf tax is worth considering as part of a broader discussion about how to address the environmental and social costs of luxury activities.