The carbon tax explained

I saw our Dr Karl talk about this at a science conference last year - are you aware of it and what are your thoughts?

http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

Thanks

 

What makes me laugh is you have all these loops standing up saying “we told you so” all based on a report by hand picked people that were going to come up with exactly what the Labor Gov’t needed.

They needed a report to start on the biggest transformation of the economy ever.

They all agree that our impact is minimal, but that is not what this is about.

This tax is there to take money from people and give it to other people less well off. Why else would a selling point be that people will actually be “better off”? What has pollution reduction got to do with making people better off?

And the killer….Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) wants these inept morons over seeing such a change? Not me. A rag tag of Labor/Greens and sell-outs.

“My Tinny has sunk due to all the RAIN” Tim is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Read up on yesterday's report so you have the current information.

You might also note it is not a "carbon tax" at all. Have you read anywhere that the govt will be directly taxing YOU? No, Abbott will if he gets in but Gillard, no. It's a carbon price which polluters pay to buy the freedom to pollute.

There is no tax involved in the Labor process at all. Think about it. If you take a taxi and the driver gets a speeding ticket, do you pay it? No, you don't. He or she does. It is a form of taxation but you don't pay it. Same idea.

 

LOL

Every one will pay, it is enevitalbe that costs will be passed on, hence why the Gillard gov't is so keen to tell people they will be compensated and even better off.

Call it a price/levy/tax who cares, the result is the same.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an 'earth scientist'?

For what reasons?

We hit high polluters with a tax. The companies are required to protect the profit. Nothing wrong in this, simple economics. So they pass on the increase to the consumer. This will do nothing to force the company to alter is energy use unless it is a organisation that can not pass costs on such as non ferrous miners as there product is sold on a world metals market whose price does not necessarily reflect the cost of mining.[/quote]

Of course it (the corproation) passes on costs, and can pass on costs. The problem with many types of pollution is that those costs are not passed on, those costs are externalised, often to the detriment of future generations, the environment, health and 'others' (people we don't see and don't care about). The toxic output generated from a various industries have regulations and costs associated with safe and effective disposal of that waste. Those costs are passed on to whoever purchases the product mined/made/developed there.

I agree, though, that the price of materials often has a stronger relationship with speculation and the finance sector than it does the basics of supply and demand. Speculation does, however, also stem from a company's 'bottom lines' though i grant certainly not always and is highly prone to bubbles (e.g. dot com).

Are you suggesting that a corporation will exploit weaker environmental and human outcomes if it can - in order to maximise profit irrespective (PR firm on standby) of harm to others?

Is the answer to weaken protections here, or improve them elsewhere? Your suggestion/argument is morally repugnant, and correct. However, there are benefits to dealing with Australia, despite increased costs: It's much safer to work with Australia's laws and stability; Australia is a reliable world supplier, with few PR nightmares due to a perception (only?) of strong environmental, safety etc regulation. Ironic really that corporations will kill to avoid regulation - but market the very same regulation as proof positive of a 'progressive' corporation.

Doesn't this comment pertain to carbon trading, rather than a carbon tax?

 

Trickle down poverty.

 

Yes, i don't understand the distinction either.

Paying to pollute is paying to pollute.

 

If you're too poor to pay the "polluters" to heat your home because they have to pay to pollute, then what happens?

 

Never mind, i looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_science

 

They are calling it the "biggest change to our economy ever"

Lower income families will be "better off" after the tax is imposed.

Spread the wealth comrade.

 

Depending on where you live, You may die. simple isn't it. Who cares, though, they where obviously climate change deniers.

The world is better off without the poor, aren't we?

Everybody tells us that they will be compensated for this, however, many slip between the cracks of this great compensation and just get poorer. That is ok, for all those people who wish for this re-distribution of wealth, as they think it will come their way.

 

Does anyone know which CARBON will be taxed?

The word CARBON could mean a great many things!

CARBON comes in many states liquid, gas and solid.

Which CARBON is going to be taxed?

I'm still having problems putting my finger on what they are going to tax.

 

Do our households produce any form of CARBON? Well since we dont keep our selves warm with coal fired heaters I dont think so, there is no CARBON soot.

Do our persons produce CARBON well we produce carbon dioxide every time we breath out a natural gas found in nature and produced by nature.

Do our vechiles produce CARBON well they produce carbon monoxide a deadly gas.

Do our power stations produce CARBON well yes they produce carbon dioxide a natural gas found in our atmosphere but mainly they produce steam

Power station chimney stacks produce mainly steam, thats steam coming out there not CARBON


Maybe they'll put a meter in our nostrils to tax the CARBON dioxide we breath out and one up the backside to tax the methane the comes out of our arses, its too bad we cant tax the sh!t that comes out of politicians mouths, we wouldn't need any other taxes there would be enough there to go all the way around.

Then again they might give us a hydrogen tax as well, so every time it rains we will have to pay.

How can these clowns be stopped? I better go i'm getting too hot under the collar.

 

Your wood or gas fireplace produces carbon dioxide - the actual carbon they are talking about. Your natural gas heat produces carbon, as does your gas water heater and stove. Your car, lawnmower and other gas-powered equipment does too.

Most of the electricity you use comes from burning coal, which produces plenty of carbon dioxide.

In the end, if it has anything to do with burning, it produces carbon.

 

LOL, in what country?

Here's a simple concept:

1. Create/increase a tax that adds, say, $2000 to your yearly expenses. That tax is directly related to pollution.
2. Dismiss/reduce a tax that removes, say, $2000 from your yearly expenses. That tax could be, say, income tax, or business taxes.

Australia is not Haiti.

That promotes business/employment and discourages spending on products that produce pollution. It's actually more equitable because peoples spending is taxed, not their income.

Now, if a government does NOT decrease/dismiss other taxes to compensate then it's a TOTALLY separate argument. That has NOTHING to do with a carbon tax - it's just an issue about taxation in general.

This "too poor" argument is just a disguise, a distraction. There's a thousand mechanisms to improve outcomes for the poor and those most vocal about it now are the least interested in outcomes for the poor. Witness the numerous programs for the poor that are discarded or minimised to redirect funding to, say, the military: We're about to spend some $40billion on some new submarines and there's no controversy there in the media. What controversy there is relates to "will it be better run than the last multi-billion dollar fiasco?" - not about whether we should buy them at all.

 

What are you saying? First there is an economic apocalypse that will inevitably result from a carbon tax, now you're associating outcomes for the poor with communism in a bizarre post that says "the poor will be ok - BUT THAT'S COMMUNISM!!!"

 

Well what do you call it when the biggest change to our economy is being forced upon us, to curtail emissions that will do nothing to lesson global temperatures, so that the poor will be better off?

 

The carbon emmissions tax is the sister of the GST.

A global tax that will enslave all the peoples of the Earth through the economy it has nothing to do with cleaning up our act and green house gases.

It will alo provide a new game for the rich on the stock exchange.

 

Don't you love it when they show these photos of the "smoke".

What they are is cooling towers. But hey they used an image of a defunct power plant in the UK for their adds.

These people have an agenda and are prepared to be as deceitful as possible to pass it. All the while telling the gullible dupes that "big oil" lies.

Reminds me years ago some greeny out fit had a calander out, one of the photos was of the bird life on a dam created at a mine sight....LOLZ

Greenies make me LOL

 

I 'force' my children to eat vegetables. It does nothing to stop others getting fat and me having to pay for it. My kids will be better off.

I call that a good thing.

But i was asking what you were saying.

 

Taxing consumption is a good thing, done well.

That's a wild leap.

Even if it doesn't, it will help.

I agree.

 

They've trotted out Bob Hawke....

OMFG....

 

To do what? Sell the tax?

if so.. *ugh*

 

He likened the carbon tax to how he made the big decision to make kakadu a NP....among other things.

Lame...

 

He labelled Liberal leader Tony Abbott "as mad as a cut snake".

Spot on.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/02/3233669.htm