one example - find me another big example of tax policy designed to restructure the way we spend that the aussie people didn't vote for.
The Biggest Tax EVER in Australia
- Thread starter josko
- Start date
one example - find me another big example of tax policy designed to restructure the way we spend that the aussie people didn't vote for.
i said $400/t - and yes, the point you bring up is quite funny, that.
Ha, ignorant, that's hilarious.
If the ignorant people of this country bothered to do some homework instead of feeling all "warm and fuzzy" about doing "something" about "Global Warming"....then perhaps we wouldn't have the world class idiot Bob Brown forcing the Prime Minister to introduce a tax that will:
INCREASE EVERY YEAR FROM JULY 1ST 2012.
or didn't you know that....
Seriously.
Regards JO
ummm, talking about bothering to do some homework please read this post: http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=840762&postcount=79
Can I ask why you are so emotional and distressed about the carbon Tax, how does it personally affect you so bad that you constantly whinge about it more than Tony Abbott himself? Do you have children, if you do; what do you say to them about your passion for being AGAINST keeping our world clean? Even for those without children, why not look after this amazing planet? We can always make MONEY, but we can not make another planet! I know that MONEY is behind a lot of this passion especially here since a lot of investors are worried about losing 1c in a dollar or whatever
Australia is a huge booming economy and we are in a position to lead on climate change. There will be many benefits that most people will not realize until they see them further down the track. One thing is that many Europeans and like minded citizens around the world will see Aussies in a whole new light. Instead of being the sloppy thong wearing, drunk flag waving bogans many are known for, maybe now we will be seen as people that actually care about the planet. We should see huge tourism benefits for a start. I hope the next step is to make our cities and towns more cycle friendly like Europe, instead of traffic, noise & pollution hell like Sydney.
Maybe there is some things that are debatable but I know I would rather take a risk on doing something for our world than stand against keeping our world clean and green. In my opinion, those who are so passionately against caring for our world must find it hard to look in the mirror and sleep at night! Before you go to bed tonight, have a good look in the mirror ask yourself, DO I REALLY CARE ABOUT LIFE, THE WORLD, THE AIR I BREATH, MY CHILDREN, MY FAMILY and this universe? It's not about being warm and fuzzy, this is real, this is life!!!
So when do we get the "hole in the ozone layer tax"? That was the big environmental scare of the '90s.
Which is well on the way to being fixed due to government intervention and regulation banning the use of CFCs. Without govt action, the hole would have just kept getting bigger. Remember how the cost of aerosols was going to go through the roof because we would now have to use hydrocarbons rather than CFCs? And the cost of refrigeration was going to skyrocket due to the mandating of different refrigerants? Like that happened!
Was that the point you were trying to make?
John Howard announces support of an ETS.
Scroll to 1:17 to hear it straight from John Howard himself.
Scroll to 1:17 to hear it straight from John Howard himself.
Look, no one's going to admit that you could be right and that some of the very vocal criticisers might not know exactly know what they're talking about...
so stop using embarassingly good examples that prove your point !
thank you
Your a banker in Zurich, Switzerland.
You forgot to put some LOL and
I´m not a banker, just work for them, & have no involvment in carbon trading so there is no vested interest there.
Perhaps living in Switzerland I´ve seen close up the effects of global warming. The glaciers are shrinking at an amazing rate. Banks here will no longer lend on properties at resorts under 1500m as their future is limited. I suspect the same will happen to Australian beachfront and sea level properties at some stage, increased storm activity and erosion being a more immediate threat than sea level rise.
If people want to sell their Golden Mile properties at Brighton for 60% under value because of global warming - I call dibs.
I don't even know what they will use as compensation if it is a global scheme?
Won't we just be paying compo to developing countries and developed countries that already use little CO2 per person like european countries ex russia?
It seems to me they are handing out tax breaks now that if the scheme actually goes global they will say; success, ummmm but how do we now plug the massive hole left in our budget... I am sure we can think of some other tax...
This is when Australia will be hurt; when it goes global. Before that we are just mucking around with our internal economy. The profound effects only occur down the line if we are "successfull" in convincing the world that a global ETS is a good idea.
Same way they are now - tax cuts in other areas. In an ETS, local or global (this one or another one), govts still makes money from issuing the permits. They can then use this income to decrease the tax burden on the community in other areas, like income tax and pensions in this case.
In a global scheme the Australian govt will get permit income in proportion to Australia's share of global emissions - as would all govts. Each govt can then use this income to provide "compensation" to its citizens as it sees fit. The net tax burden doesn't change - just the areas of the economy from which it comes.
How come we tax income anyway? That's an inefficient disincentive to earn income and misallocates resources from their most productive purpose. You could argue that point about any "tax" on anything - not just an ETS. Stamp duty misallocates resources away from property transactions, company tax from building businesses and so on forever. All "taxes" reduce productivity due to misallocation of resources - the only question for society is which parts of the economy do you want to take it from? Disincentives that you want (emitting carbon) or ones that you don't want (earning income).
So we would get an amount of permits equal to our current output of carbon and then this would decrease each year from their?
Sounds good.
I don't believe any developing economy would accept this however. They need to be compensated as they have not yet developed using cheap coal power as we had the benifit of doing.
I don't believe economies that have already transitioned mostly due to a lack of endowment around coal to low carbon economies would accept this either.
This system would give Australia a huge amount of permits vs other economies due to our high current use.
Indeed we should be transitioning now before such a scheme to a high carbon economy to get more permits.
I think sure this is what australia should put forward a cap at present use and trade system but I don't believe this will fly with other countries.
Worst case they will settle on a per person quota (we would be stuffed) or they will settle on a cap and trade with developing countries recieving compensation from developed.
All countries will push their own agenda but it seems naive to expect that when we push for a global emmissions scheme it will suit Australias interests.
There are many ways to skin this cat and it's impossible to predict the outcome of such a global scheme. It could be as simple as an agreement that every govt sources 20% of its income by taxing carbon in whatever form they like. This would see high carbon prices in countries with low emissions and low prices in countries like Australia. As emissions fall, carbon prices would rise, which would reduce emissions in a nice feedback loop. And countries would be free to implement their own compensation as long as it didn't interfere with the carbon price signal. If one country doesn't have options to reduce emissions the price signal just acts as a tax with an offsetting tax deduction elsewhere. If another country does have options then the price signal will see the virtuous feedback loop put into play until it runs out of options at a certain price. The % of income figure can be regularly adjusted to reflect global progress and there is no net tax burden on anyone or loss of productivity - just a movement of productivity from some sectors to others.
Lots of ways to skin this cat...
Lots of ways to skin this cat...
Hmm. Suprisingly intuitive post...
yes it does and this is what the middle class doesnt understand.
You will be effected in two ways that quickly come to mind:
(a) the beurocratic cost of administering everything, this is a productive cost hence it represents a productivity 'black hole'
(b) the most efficient use of resources are not being used. Therefore the 'next best alternative' is being adopted through pricing distortion. Therefore the 'tax' received wont equal the loss of productivity caused through pricing distortions.
This is a NET LOSS, and the only way it can be recovered is through productivity measures in other ways.
yes but some taxes are required in oder for the government to exist (they have to get their money from somewhere).
Never the less its good it was enlightening to see your last repeated comment, i missed it amongst all the chatter.
Cost-benefit, thats all i ask for, rather than all the wishy washy touchy feely stuff that tends to come out of these discusions.
They could always print it. It costs nothing and doesn't decrease productivity.
Doesnt decrease productivity but it does reduce living standards through a reduction in the currency exchange rate, of course ceteris paribus
Similar threads
