So Oz has finally announced the details of its carbon tax plan, and actually, compared to the normal dogs' dinners that come out of the political process, it's not all that bad. Must be something to do with the way that the Green Party only gets to influence it rather than actually write it. emissions For those who want the …
Taxation = carbon credits?
Wasn't this what was tried with the carbon trading?
Ask the power stations to fit flue filters and they will tell you it costs $Bn and you can't prove that it doesn't . Tell them they can pay fit filters and then sell their pollution credits and suddenly the filters are all added - and the real market cost is revealed.
Switch to Lithium
I moved from emitting carbon to emitting lithium and I haven't looked back ever since.
You're confusing CO2 with SO2
Flue filters have nothing to do with CO2, they're to prevent/reduce acid rain.
To reduce CO2 emissions from fossil power stations you'd need to install vastly more complex and expensive CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) systems, which nobody has done so far.
OK, he's confused CO2 with SO2...
but the economics is right. Global warming and acid rain are externalities, so use a mechanism to internalise them and people make personal decisions for their own benefit that also benefit society - if the sums are done right.
Economics be damned...
As an OZ geek, I don't mind paying a carbon tax (aka a Pollution tax) in order to help clean up the planet. The principle is solid. However this tax is just a cleverly disguised, discriminatory wealth re-distribution package.
- Low-to-Medium Income earners get other tax breaks to compensate for the Carbon tax.
- High-to-OMG income earners just get the carbon tax, with no compensation or offsets.
This combined with other recent government tax changes against higher income earners means that the government is just spruiking votes from the low-to-mid income masses, and what's particularly embarrassing as an OZ is that the masses are falling for it.
If the government wants to make the carbon tax fair, it should apply to all businesses and all taxable income (even on a sliding scale would be fairer than the current proposal). But leaving out key polluters (including Petrol Companies FFS?!) demonstrates that this isn't actually a Carbon tax. It's just economic slight of hand by a second-rate prestidigitator...
Let me fix that for you.
As an OZ geek, and not a wannabee republican, I don't mind paying a carbon tax (aka a Pollution tax) in order to help clean up the planet. The principle is solid. The tax is also cleverly targeted on those whose consumption causes the greatest emissions.
- Low-to-Medium Income earners get other tax breaks to compensate for the Carbon tax.
- High-to-OMG income earners just get the carbon tax, with no compensation or offsets.
This means that people who have very low incomes will receive an enormous boost to their disposable incomes, a boost that will feed directly into deprived local economies out in the bush where it is most needed. Meanwhile, the high income earners will have a little less cash in their enormous property and share portfolios, helping to allay the enormous asset bubble that threatens to cut Australia's economic boom off at the knees.
If the government wants to make the carbon tax fair, it is quite right to use a sliding scale that assesses the impact of the tax on real household income. After all, if I didn't agree with the principle that people should pay according to their abilities, I'd be better off moving to a country where the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, such as Somalia or the USA.
I'm enjoying the benefits of being rich in an egalitarian society, so I can't really complain when I take a hit of $10-20 a week in my income so that some poor bugger can still pay his electricity bill.
Like I said, I don't mind paying a carbon tax. And if it was only going to be $10-20 per week, sign me up!
A) What massive property and share portfolios? All you need is one dead-average OZ mortgage, two incomes in the house to pay for it, and suddenly you're rich enough to just shut up and bend over? Get bent.
B) Read the proposal. The flow-on effect is going to be a lot more than initial estimates. Every middle man along the way will raise the price by 1-2%, and suddenly ever item made in Australia is 10% dearer. We're already paying 10% GST... now it's magically 20%?Gee, Fun!
C) Targets those making the greatest emissions? Really? So my lifestyle of self-sufficient solar power, public transport and veggie garden is higher than some V8 driving hoon on welfare? Don't think so...
D) What 'boost to disposable incomes'? You mean that extra few hundred per annum? That will disappear with cost of living/inflation faster than you can say 'Where's me smokes?'
E) I've been that poor bugger who couldn't pay the bills. So I stopped drinking, gave up smokes, got a job, an education and then a family. Now after slogging through, paying my way and my dues, the government (and judgemental prats on technical forums) think I'm on easy street because the household has a combined family income over $120k? Au Contraire mon frere....
F) And those other buggers I went to school with who are still lazing around getting drunk, stoned and welfare payments every week, can keep their hand out and not care, because the government is making sure this tax won't hurt them ...awww....how nice for them.
So, where's the incentive to work hard, make a living for yourself and family and stop being a burden to society? It's rapidly disappearing because the government keeps applying more and more taxes on the upper margins, while ensuring that the unwashed masses aren't 'further disadvantaged'. It's insulting, it's bad economics, and it's got a mighty PR machine behind it to convince the simple-minded that it's all in the name of the environment.
And you, my friend, are buying it hook, line, sinker rod and copy of Angling Times....
1. This is just Socialist wealth redistribution whereby the middle classes just get fucked over.
2. The pass-through will never be 0.7%, this is just a bullshit marketing ploy.
3. It will not change a thing. Large emitters are not being suitably punished or are getting a free pass and the general public be damned. We do not waste power as a family (use way less than the average household) but we're going to get fucked over by this.
4. Watch out for the tax tweaking regarding raising the tax free rate. That money will be coming back down the line.
5. There is a floor on the market price when it freely trades so you can tell where that's headed. Haven't seen whether the market is open to speculation or not either.
6. It is being brought in very cynically. People believe it's fantastic that the tax free allowance is being lifted. This is not a altruistic endeavour for the Government it is to make it as hard as possible to repeal the tax.
7. Talk of clean power without inclusion of modern nuclear (MSR etc) is just crap. If it is sustainability you desire then let the shite that is solar (never recoup the energy cost of production) and wind (just crap full stop) stand on their own feet without subsidising them from my power bill.
8. Could this be the trigger that gives Australia its own little recession? Nobody else is bothering with this shit - read a piece today stating that China has 800 steel mills and Australia has (had) 2. They must be laughing their arses off.
pull the other one, you great galah
Au contraire mate, I think the whole thing's just one more piece of wasteful bureaucracy, adding yet more inefficiencies to what is already a hopelessly complex tax system in need of serious reform.
The key difference in opinion then:
You think that the tax is a good idea, but everyone should pay an equal share
I think the tax is a monstrosity, but at least has the effect of evening out the growing income disparity in Australia.
Like you, I have the pleasure of paying a lot more tax than the average citizen, but I'm happy to pay it because I believe my prosperity ultimately depends on the health of the society of which I am a part. Having travelled round the States recently, it is clear that a concentration of money in the hands of the few is corrosive, both to the economy and to social fabric.
If you want to call income redistribution bad economics, then you should provide some evidence for that claim. Income disparity is inversely proportional to just about every indicator of economic, health and social well-being.
Never let facts get in the way of a good rant eh?
the "masses" (unwashed or otherwise) have more voting power by definition. Who else would one expect an elected government to pander to?
As for mortgage prices in Aust., the housing prices have been commonly known to be over-inflated by 160% for several years now, yet all the numpties keep on hocking themselves to the armpits and coughing up the dough anyway. I really have no sympathy at all there.
er, yes you bloody well are, you drongo
" think I'm on easy street because the household has a combined family income over $120k?"
*cough* yes, you bloody well are on easy street! *cough*
most of us are trying to do all of that on $80k or less!
I challenge you to cut $40k out of your budget. Oh, no nice shiny new iphone 5 for you!
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
E) I've been that poor bugger who couldn't pay the bills. So I stopped drinking, gave up smokes, got a job, an education and then a family. Now after slogging through, paying my way and my dues, the government (and judgemental prats on technical forums) think I'm on easy street because the household has a combined family income over $120k? Au Contraire mon frere...
My folks live on a combined income somewhere in the 40s. They're still on "easy street" compared to a huge number of people in Australia.
You are absolutely rolling in dough, and it's utterly disgusting that you think a six-figure income is doing it tough. Twerp.
Too right mate
As P.J.O'Rourke once noted (recalled and misquoted from memory), socialism is a system based on the idea that social justice is enhanced by ecopnomically "rewarding failure, and punishing success".
AGW is a crock, this is Labour being "red" and redistributing other people's money.
You are wrong
"High-to-OMG income earners" do get a tax break in that their tax thresh-hold obviously also increases to $18,000+
"This combined with other recent government tax changes against higher income earners means that the government is just spruiking votes from the low-to-mid income masses, and what's particularly embarrassing as an OZ is that the masses are falling for it."
The "masses" aren't "higher income earners". You douche.
We're already paying 10% GST...
Ahh, makes me homesick - I do miss only paying a 10% sales tax...
You knew the guy was a twerp
When he uttered the words:
'Au contraire, mon frere'. These alone would be enough but in combination with the assertion that he's struggling to survive on 120k a year I'd say the guy should be up for some award.
Let me fix that for you properly
Sub Title: Bollocks
Taxes are wealth redistribution, usually away from the powerful lobbyists and onto the backs of some clueless simpleton who believes government propaganda. These so called green taxes are just manifestation of the whole corrupt Rockefeller/ Rothschild/ GATT/ WHO/ Trilateral Commission/ Bilderberg/ IMF/ World Banc, etc. master plan to turn everything into a commodity or service to be exploited and traded.
This is how it works:-
In Ireland, up until about 10 years ago, refuse collection was funded out of general taxation, i.e. bins were free. Then when the corrupt grubberment (just search on Finna Fail scandals) introduced a bin tax, on the principle the “polluter pays”, over the next couple of years the “bin tax”, oops it’s not a tax it’s a “charge”, was subject constant above inflation rate increases, and such patronising announcements as “its only a 50 cent increase, in reality it was a 15% increase and overall there was a 223% increase in bin charges between 1997 and 2003
As wilh all socially equitable charges, the less fortunate members of society e.g. the unemployed, will not have to pay this tax, sorry charge (or so the politicians said)
The county council adopted its own criteria for the tax, sorry charge waiver scheme. Naturally the conditions for a bin tax waiver were a lot more onerous that the general social welfare conditions so that more people on welfare would pay the bin tax. It’s nice to receive €186 in welfare knowing that you are going to have to turf up €118 (110 standing charge +8 for a bin tag) just so you house won’t be filled with bluebottles from the decaying waste in your bin! Mind you €118 isn’t too much to pay if you eaning €50K a year. So that’s a good example of how taxes redistribute wealth…. upwards.
The next step is when the tax, sorry charge, gets to certain threshold, and then it becomes worthwhile for the private operators to enter the market and turn what was a public service into another business at the tax payer’s expense.
What happens then is that as the private companies start to undercut the public service, then faced with falling income from the so called service, now a revenue stream, is that the public service reacts in the only way it knows to when faced with falling revenues, it increases prices, thereby driving the demand for its service even lower. At that point the county manager commissions an “independent” report to suggest that the service be terminated as it costs the council €7M to run it  (what about all that taxpayers money you get you b******s). After all if the county council were to spend this taxpayers money on the tax payer how would they afford their “expenses” and conferences in Bermuda . In the mean time the bin men are sacked, and are replaced by half the number of Polish immigrant workers on half the rate of pay and the county manager gets a bonus for saving money.
The Irish green party also introduced a carbon tax in Ireland, and a ban on incandescent bulbs, that’s why all of them failed to get re-elected in the last general election.
So mount analogue, let me the first to congratulate you, you education  is complete.
 Combat Poverty agency http://www.cpa.ie/publications/ImplementingAWaiverSystem_2005.pdf.
 George Orwell author of “1984” and “Animal Farm”
BB icon for propaganda, not spying
What that in real money? I'm on twelve thousand of your proper English pounds, half of mean household income. Anybody on more than me is by my definition rich.
Wow, a lot of people really aren't paying attention....
Whole bunches of people here think that actually paying attention to the taxes you pay makes me 'a douche' to quote from the posts. Well, let's do the math then on a nice hypothetical family with 2.2 kids and two spouses at work to pay for a mortgage that didn't start in the 90's.
Family income ~AU$120,000
minus Income Tax ~30% averaged between spouses = ~$30,000 on the sliding scale
minus child care = $25,000 p.a. (cheap child care is $50 per day per child, so let's be conservative).
**credit**: Child care rebate (which is on the table to be removed for such a 'high-earning' family) +$10,000
Family Tax benefit A)...nope not applicable
Family Tax benefit B)...nope, not applicable
So, the reward for all the hard work to get to this point is to get to hand over $45,000 in tax. Yup, that hurts...add in 30k in mortgage payments and the family is now on $45,000 a year for food, petrol, rates, after-school-care, electricity, home repairs, insurance and god-forbid a phone bill or a night out...
However, if this family was to work part-time and just live on $60,000 per year, the tax would be around 10k (with tax offsets and government hand-outs also paying off most of the child care as well), plus rent assistance to pay for someone else's mortgage...
So, for the half the effort, the reward is 50k and government assistance, but at full effort, the reward is $75k and the government telling you to bend over.
So, who here thinks that's a fair indication of reward for effort?
Come on, raise your hand if at the end of the day, your boss says:
"You worked 40 hours last week, and 80 hours this week, but I'm not going to double your pay"
and you happily go
"Fair enough boss, I was too rich anyway...."
No? Didn't think so....
Marginal tax rate
Just give the marginal taxation on income. It's a lot easier.
Also, you can't just include child care. Child care is only paid for a small number of years relative to working life. Assume somebody is college-educated and in the workforce at 22 and retires at 65 years old. That's 43 years of work. Child care is going to be paid for at most 1/4 of that time.
Divide the child care costs by 4 and Mr and Mrs Hypothetical now have an additional $12,750 per year, or $244 per week.
"The masses have more voting power"
But what if the elected people don't do what the voters had in mind? Happens all the time but somehow the voters don't get what they have to do to change this. Do you get it?
@Charybdis: The higher tax-free threshold that's coming will also apply to you, and since you are self sufficient with solar power (massively government subsidized no doubt), you'll probably be better off than you are now - it's not just for the v8 driving, welfare collecting hoons that apparently infest your part of the country.
Tax Free huh?
I think you'll find the higher tax-free threshold is completely nullified by the proposed increases in the higher non-tax-free brackets.
End result. More taxes for a $120k household (which, incidentally is dead average for two full-time working adults in Australia http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0 )
So, the 'rich' are actually anyone on an average OZ income or higher. Awesome.....
average income = meaningless
The median income is a lot more useful to estimate what a population earns, or who really is "average".
The average is too skewed by high earners.
Average *is* interesting however when used together with the median: the gap between the 2 shows the inequality (The gini coefficient is a slightly better measure).
Median annual houselhold income is $50k in the US, average is $70k, which is a rather large gap (+40%).
A few ginis:
And to think
I thought the general consensus was that elReg was a denialist publication.
Some of our greener comentards may need to sit down before reading this... smelling salts on hand may be recommended too!
Actually shows good editorial freedom
While /some/ of the Reg's reporterers are certainly traveling that long Egyption river, I never really got the impression the publication itself was either pro- or anti-, just publishing the voices of various staff.
Even if you are less worried about CO2 than I am...
(I don't like that word "denial" -- it's working too hard to smear people with a different opinion by borrowing from another sort of denial.)
... anyway, even if you don't mind about CO2 at all, you still care, presumably, that tax shouldn't reduce economic efficiency. And on that basis, carbon taxes do OK -- not as good as VAT, perhaps, but a lot better than income tax. Carbon atoms are easy to count, hard to hide and handled in bulk -- pretty much the ideal tax base (perhaps it would be better if they could put a "duty paid" sticker on each one, but you can't have everything.) You could regard CO2 reductions as a benign side effect.
No editorial policy
The Reg is clearly ahead of the game. By maintaining no editorial policy, the editor maintains plausible deniability when it turns out one of the hacks has been reading Richard Stallman's email(*).
El Reg seems to be mostly fair, actually
As far as I can see, The Register is fair and even-handed in its treatment of the various climate change stories. It seems skeptical simply because the pro-Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) lot are so biased towards their viewpoint, and so strident in opposition to dissenting viewpoints.
As a scientist myself, I tend to believe in letting the evidence and a good strong intellectual argument based on that evidence do all the talking for me. If a point of view is so shaky and so unproven as to require me to stoop to emotional arguments, mud-slinging and the assorted straw-man arguments so beloved of the AGW supporters, then that argument is quite clearly not going to stand on the intellectual, evidence-based argument alone. It may not be actually wrong, but the science certainly isn't settled in its favour.
The pro-AGW crowds also do themselves absolutely no favours with intellectual sloppiness, poor arguments and the pathetic shambles that was the East Anglia "University"'s Climate Research Unit. The Harry-Readme file was truly damning, as were the collections of Fortran code included in the leak. Truly this was Amateur Night for programmers; I haven't seen such bloody abysmal spaghetti code in years (since I was working for an ISP, in fact) and the stuff I encountered differed from this in that it actually worked, predictably, and was vaguely documented too.
Relying on such utter garbage to provide meaningful results is insanity. No wonder the climate scientists are so very reluctant to participate in code reviews and methods-checking if this is the best they can do; quite frankly anyone standing up and demanding to be taken seriously after demonstrating such gibbering ineptitude deserves nothing but ridicule.
El Reg is also fairly vocal in documenting the shysterism, fraud and sharp practices of the wind turbine operators. Once again, they are simply doing their job; if the turbine operators truly are operating to these shockingly low standards, then the public deserves to know what the money extorted from them is going to fund. This is what an unbiased press does; it reports things. You might not like what it says, but as long as the press isn't doing anything illegal and isn't making things up, then it is acting as it should.
"As a scientist myself"
You're not a scientist. If you even have an undergraduate degree in a scientific discipline then the education system in this country is knackered.
"the pathetic shambles that was the East Anglia "University"'s Climate Research Unit."
The CRU still exists:
* "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
* "we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
* "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)
* "careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science" (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Don't call me a denialist you evangelist! I'm just well aware of the vested interests nestled deep within both sides of the climate change arguement and equally aware of once-beyond-reproach institutions being uncovered as liars and conmen marking their own work (can you say policy based evidence making?)
Only a fule would be so naive to think we don't have ANY effect on the planet it's a just a question of what effect and to what extent, but with people like you getting hysterical and branding every nay-sayer (or even the undecided) a backwards denialist simply implies you're not sufficently confident in your own beliefs.
You may as well be a scientologist or a politician with an attitude like that, and we all know how much we trust those guys don't we...
The font of all knowledge...
Hi Dr Dan,
I assume as a bio-science type doctory person that you realise that the "media" isn't really qualified to discuss topics that have been so disqualified by unqualified opinion so as to re-qualify them as polluted topics (OOH! GM = EVIL!!!!!) I also assume that you have the standard academic love / hate relationship with that "Font of all knowledge", Wikipedia. (Do they deserve the capital 'W'? Not sure...).
Feel free to edit, and forward for further editing, these pages:
Feel free to add your own name to this last list to support the cause.
I read them
Firstly, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have an intellectual and professional interest.
I read a shit load of these CRU emails. Fuck it was hard to digest it all without spending many, many days boning up on the science, learning who the players were, reading the scientific papers referenced etc. etc.
My opinion, based on a several weeks of my life doing the research, is that
a) CRU = CRUD (That's an opinion folks, based on some pretty extensive research)
b) The "careful examination ..." wasn't, and any interested and objective observer (like myself) would reach the opposite conclusion - as many have indeed done.
c) IMHO, the crux of the problem (aside from the personalities involved, the politics and just plain poor science) is data quality, and lack of respect for it. From poor data come poor results and invalid conclusions. The data has clearly been manipulated to reach desired results, the resulting conclusions are invalid (even were they to be correct by fluke alone). I spend my work life overseeing and manipulating a database with billions of online datapoints, teasing information and new insights from it. As someone whose profession it is to understand and deal with data - as an abstract concept - I can assure you that after reading the climategate emails - I conclude the people involved are absolutely and positively clueless about what this means.
d) Whatver they do at CRU, it's not "science" - it is some travesty masquerading as such.
YMMV, as might your opinion, but I at least spent over 100 hours of my life bringing myself up to speed on the science and the details of this matter, and the details leave a very bitter taste, and the science isn't.
You can thump the "downvote" button on those quotes as angrily as you like
it won't change the fact that the CRU has been examined and vindicated and the last crooked arrow in the denialist quiver has clattered feebly to the floor barely a few feet in front of their lazily strung bow.
Get over it. Find a new angle to frantically frot yourselves over.
"My opinion ..."
... is essentially worthless.
Three separate independent enquiries spent considerably more effort and came to precisely the opposite conclusion.
And you'll never get those 100 hours of your life back. That's got to sting.
Nor the 90 seconds this took to post
No, but I can at least talk intelligently on the subject, something few can and even fewer do - you included I should think. Intellectual pursuits are by their nature time consuming and of choice. How I choose to educate my mind is my own choice, therefore it is painless.
The AGW debate is interesting and topical - few people have any insight. I now have more than I did previously.
Really? Petty namecalling like "CRU=CRUD" is your idea of "talking intelligently"?
Claiming that somebody else's research is not science and accusing an academic institution of manipulation of data despite the fact that three independent inquiries found no such thing ... that's your idea of "talking intelligently"?
Couching what are basically slanderous accusations in woolly terms like "YMMV" and "That's an opinion folks" ... that's "talking intelligently"?
No, pal. That's not intelligent. That's childish, cowardly and (assuming you are the Philip Lewis I think you are) seriously unprofessional.
Bravo. Your intelligence has made me feel slightly sick.
"* "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)"
It was not investigated by the committee and the one person on it who could give an opinion thought it rubbish.
"* "we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)"
Stated by a chairman with a vested interest in global warming existing.
"* "their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)"
Funny I rather got the impression the question was not weather their science was in doubt but weather they tried to game the peer review process to suppress papers by people who disagreed with their PoV.
You take this subject quite personally. I'd suspect your name is either on some of those emails or that of your SO.
But what really damms the CRU is the *amateur* hour data management and software development revealed in the Harryreadme file.
I'd be *ashamed* to turn in work of that quality and I'd have been fired within a week of the companies I've worked for if it was found I'd produced it.
I believe that AGW is real and is a serious problem. The history of CFC's *prove* that human made chemicals can make global climate changes on a human timescale.
But the shambolic nature of their underlying data and software makes *any* CRU conclusion *highly* suspect.
There is a way for CRU to silence its real critics.
Provided a *detailed* map from data files -> conclusions, showing *all* programs used, all fudge factors (and I'm pretty sure there were *plenty* of those) entered and the data flow between the programs (together with any "polishing" procedures used between programs from the output of one to the input of another).
If the CRU is an *important* research institution and the work it does is *important* that information should be filed as a matter of course, as record for posterity. It's the equivalent of the Shuttle software development team showing you a listing of the final program and all *previous* versions, along with *why* parts are as they are, constants are what they are etc. And yes the team *can* provide that level of detail.
If it's not the implication is that what they do is simply *irrelevant* to the outside world and hence recording how they got the result was simply a waste of time.
I believe in AGW, I really do. But their behavior (your behavior?) is nothing like the process of science I am aware of.
@John Smith 19
Disingenuous windbaggery. All the reports are available online. Here's a link to the various government reports and responses:
"I'd suspect your name is either on some of those emails or that of your SO"
Dreary concern troll tactic number three: accuse the person you are addressing of having some personal involvement that clouds his or her judgement. I have no professional connection with CRU and no personal relationship with anybody involved in the (entirely contrived) controversy. Anybody who continues to bang that drum after the complaints have been repeatedly shown to be fatuous and belligerent is an ignorant and obnoxious bore.
"I believe in AGW, I really do."
I couldn't give a toss. I really couldn't.
you trust pollies and committees ???
really old chap, try watching "Yes Minister" sometime. Oldie but goodie. As Will or someone like him said "many a truth is spoken in jest".
wow, a little hot today are we?
If you had actually READ my post rather then one word, you'd have noticed that while I said "denialist" (a derogatory term for anyone who thinks it doesn't happen or (apparently) thinks the jury is still out on the long term effects), I was predominately poking fun of the greenies for getting all frothy-mouthed whenever a not-supporting-AGW article comes up.
I must say though, you did do a FANTASTIC job of countering my intended message.
Makes sense ? I call BS !
Let me count the ways this makes no sense;
1. source of carbon accounting for 17% NOT taxed - ie petrol for the familiy car, but if you cleaner diesel in the family car is !
2. it will actually cost the govt 4.3 Bn AUD
3. sure the tax free threshold has trebled - but the lower 2 rates will increase by 3% negating much of the threshold rise
4. A family earning less than average wage will be worse off and that is before accounting for the Treasury modelling at $20 a tonne NOT the announced $23 a tonne (and this is the treasury that can't even get the deficit/surplus correct within +- 10% with 6 months of the year already gone!)
5. Even if Australia were to go completely carbon neutral tomorrow - the INCREASE alone in chinese emissions would make up for our loss in 5 days !!!!!!
Icon - what I'd like to do to Juliar
...won't we need all that CO2 when the Maunder Minimum kicks in?
Them there Aussie Politicians must have been licking cane toads, how else do we explain them passing sensible laws for once?
Beer, because they deserve some Amber Nectar and anyway it will hopefully take the edge off all that cane toad venom.
oh so trusting aren't we
and when the brown coal power stations in Vic and SA close, the electricity comes from what ? the wind fairies ? So far, another $3,000,000,000 has to be found in the budget to pay off the private owners of those assets. Since they are owned by non-Australians, taxpayers have to pay again, literally for nothing. so 13 billion down the toilet so far.
Severely broken more like!
The whole idea of carbon taxing is to encourage industry/society to move towards other energy sources or be more efficient. The Oz policy just makes carbon into a general taxing mechanism that defeats any hope of changing carbon usage.
So if I know the government is going to want to tax me $x, through either carbon or income tax, what's to motivate me to shift off carbon? Might as well just keep polluting.
Carbon tax should not just be another tax stream. Carvbon taxes should be ring-fenced to support research etc into a carbon light future.
And then of course CO2 from poor people is special. It is only rich buggers' CO2 that actually creates environmental problems.
#disclaimer. I think the whole idea of carbon taxing is bollocks. But if they really **must** do it, then do it in a way that is actually is going to put pressure on people to change their behaviour.
Inhale, exhale ... Inhale ...exhale
Air in ... Air (-O2+CO2) out
So, when will there be a tax on breathing? I do not understand why no greenturd, sorry greentard, has suggested this. I mean humans create CO2 constantly, and it can pretty easily be measured and it sure as hell cannot be avoided - except of course by expiring.
What's the problem? Tax breathing and be done with it.
Bootnote: I believe the IRS now has a mandate to investigate (or was it implement) this idea.
ps: AGW is a bad science waiting for the dustbin of history
CO2 from breath
Go back and read the chapter of your old O-level chemistry textbook titled "The Carbon Cycle".
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64
- Apple 'fesses up: Rejected from the App Store, dev? THIS is why