Carbon tax: Dullard puppet fisted by the Bob and the Greens

[mellie]

Carbon taxes are supported by most economists because they are the most economically rational way of reducing greenhouse emissions. They will do less harm to the economy than any of the other proposals put forward. If you are going to accuse someone of economic vandalism, at least make an effort to understand the economics.

By most economists?

Such as? Have a link?

75% of business owners oppose it, 75% of Australians oppose it...Gillard should seek a mandate from the people before introducing her carbon tax, which is set to destroy jobs, damage our economy and hurt families at a time when there is no global low-emissions agreement.

Recall what Wayne Swan said when questioned over his governments secret plans to introduce a carbon-tax after the 2010 election?

In August 2010, just prior to the election, Prime Minister Gillard stated to Channel 10 news "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,". and these sentiments were echoed prior to the election by Wayne Swan, the treasurer and deputy Prime Minister, when in August 2010 he said, "Well, certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals in their advertising. We reject that."

So were they hysterical allegations resounding from the Liberal party afterall?

Freediver, 75% of Australians don't even believe carbon is the cause of global warming.

Get with the program!

It's a grubby big tax being imposed by a self-serving grubby rainbow government backed by no other than corporate beneficiaries such as BHP in exchange for mining expansion rights down at Olympic Dam.

What have the Greens said about this?

[IQS.RLOW]

By most economists, he means a couple of his mates who did the same tafe course as he did.

Most economists couldn't predict their own bank balance. They are notoriously incorrect and inconsistent

[mellie]

freediver wrote:
Carbon taxes are supported by most economists because they are the most economically rational way of reducing greenhouse emissions. They will do less harm to the economy than any of the other proposals put forward. If you are going to accuse someone of economic vandalism, at least make an effort to understand the economics.

Whilst you claim "most economists" (link please) support a carbon-tax, then tell me, why is it our worlds most advanced economies governments are reluctant to impose a carbon-tax... and those who toy with it, in most cases pull-out at the last minute.

An experimental tax being delivered by what?

An experimental minority GALP government who's leader cant even be trusted with a school-building project?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

I think we need to think things through again, even old Bob Hawkes nervous, if this is any indication...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6013129958

[mellie]

By most economists, he means a couple of his mates who did the same tafe course as he did.

Most economists couldn't predict their own bank balance. They are notoriously incorrect and inconsistent

certIIIV OH&S trainer, get it right, lol advanced diploma in safe-floor moppery.

Muso ozpolitics global mod offered me free tuition (in between him assisting 3 others with their PHD's) to assist me with my media communications diploma, (not required, as courses often come with complementary teachers ), and when I knocked him back, he was rather put-out, accused me of having mocked his extension of an olive branch.

Oh, so that was what that slippery little twig was up against my leg?

[Outlaw Yogi]

Carbon taxes are supported by most economists because they are the most economically rational way of reducing greenhouse emissions. They will do less harm to the economy than any of the other proposals put forward. If you are going to accuse someone of economic vandalism, at least make an effort to understand the economics.

By most economists?

Such as? Have a link?

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/carb ... netimes_ft

Economist Ross Garnaut, an adviser to the climate committee, said it was a ''sensible'' step forward, based on his 2008 recommendation to start with a fixed price if there was not a comprehensive global deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#Support

A number of businesses and business leaders also support a carbon tax. These include:

* FedEx CEO Fred Smith;[162]
* James Owens, CEO of Caterpillar;[163]
* and Paul Anderson, CEO and Chairman of Duke Energy.[164]

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/clim ... bontax.htm

Pros and Cons

Carbon taxes have been said to have the following advantages:

*
They put a limit on the costs of emissions reduction.
*
They can be implemented quickly.
*
They are predictable in their costs. Relatively stable price signals can help business and consumers plan energy spending and provide greater certainty for investments in energy efficiency that have large initial costs.
*
They are a permanent incentive to reduce emissions. The price of pollutants does not change, as with the operation of a market-based emission trading system.
*
They are not susceptible to 'strategic behaviour' by firms and non-government organisations that distort any market for trading emissions—such as purchasing a large number of permits and reselling them later at a profit or viewing auction permits in a cap-and-trade system as a right to pollute.
*
They are economically efficient in that they are transparent, simple and can have a wide coverage.
*
They can be implemented across a wide variety of economies and therefore are a suitable instrument for coordinated international action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
*
They are a revenue source. They could result in other taxes being reduced, or the proceeds of the carbon tax could be redirected to those most affected to ensure that the introduction of a carbon tax remains revenue neutral.

For these reasons a number of prominent economists support the introduction of such taxes. However, carbon taxes as a means of controlling greenhouse gas emissions also have some disadvantages:

* There are no guarantees that emissions will decline if consumption of the goods and services that produce carbon emissions remains unresponsive to price increases.
* The level at which the tax is set to produce the best outcomes cannot be known in advance. Thus the tax may have to go through several changes before having the desired effect. This makes it politically vulnerable.
* Where such taxes have been implemented (mainly in Europe) lobby groups have been successful in gaining exemptions for highly affected industries. This reduces the effectiveness of these taxes.
* If the tax is set at too high a level, activities that are particularly vulnerable to it may relocate to a location that does not have such imposts.
* To date it has not received much support as the internationally preferred method of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. To date the international community appears to prefer the cap-and-trade approach.
* They are potentially regressive, with the impact of a flat carbon tax potentially highest on the lowest income households. This effect is offset by the higher consumption of wealthier households, that is, as they consume relatively more energy than low income households they may be paying a higher rate of tax.
* It is a tax, and therefore politically unpopular by its very nature.

What have the Greens said about this?

http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/categ ... carbon-tax

[mellie]

Like me, do you find it ironic that the Greens were protesting along side Tony Windsor against coal mines (gentleman hobby farmer for all of 12 months) the same con-artist Independent who flogged his families farm for $4.6 million to a coal mining company?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Windsor

Was rather interesting how the Greens distanced themselves from Tony Windsor the corrupt, drunkard fraud after this made headlines.

Tell me, if Greens are so opposed to mining, especially uranium mining, why is it that they have turned a blind eye to Gillard having made a deal with BHP Billiton to permit them to expand their non-carbon taxable mining operation's down at Olympic Dam in exchange for their support for a carbon-tax?

Why isn't Bob protesting against this?

Gillards corporate gifting doesn't stop there...

[skippy.]

FUCK OFF MELLIE .EVERYONE HERE WILL HATE YOUR GUTS JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.

[mellie]

You have honestly mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck Skip, I come here to write, learn and share information, discuss politics, yada yada yada

I thought you would have already known this, given I didn't care when most of your aliases on ozpolitic hated my guts over there also.

It's the discussion, debate I'm after, not your seal of approval you presumptuous socially impaired baked potato.

[IQS.RLOW]

FUCK OFF MELLIE .EVERYONE HERE WILL HATE YOUR GUTS JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Awww look. Skip thinks mellie is trying to take his place.

Don't worry skip. You are a very special kind of fuckwit who holds a place deep in a conservatives heart as a prime example of a Leftwing fucking moron

[skippy.]

FUCK OFF MELLIE .EVERYONE HERE WILL HATE YOUR GUTS JUST LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE.

Awww look. Skip thinks mellie is trying to take his place.

Don't worry skip. You are a very special kind of fuckwit who holds a place deep in a conservatives heart as a prime example of a Leftwing fucking moron

OH look, how sweet, IQ standing up for his bitch.