Dear freeloader

[IQS.RLOW]

If you believe even half of the bullshit you spruik on your carbon tax you are even dumber than I gave you credit for...and that wouldn't get you half a bag of 10c lollies

Why are you against Australian industry? Does your leftist mantra compel you to think like a fucking moron or are you naturally a fucking moron?

[IQS.RLOW]

I'd like you to explain how a carbon price is beneficial for Australia. You don't need to worry about the environment because we all know it is completely useless...just explain what possible economic benefits you can manage to twist out of this debacle. It may tax your Tafe qualifications but I am sure you can try.

Try to answer without using inane questions as your answers to deflect from your lack of economics

[freediver]

I got lots of economics. I'll share with you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shif ... shift.html

[IQS.RLOW]

No links to your bullshit site. Just explain the benefits here..or is that too hard for you without a script?

A carbon tax tends to be favoured by people who understand the economics, even if they have a lot more to lose. People with a high carbon footprint will end up taking on a lot more of the tax burden. This is not necessarily hypocrisy, just market forces at work where they could not normally function. People like Cate would effectively be paying the rest of us for her right to pollute.

Like this little snippet of absolute shit. Please explain how carbine cate would be 'paying the rest of us' to pollute

[freediver]

She would be paying a lot of carbon tax - the revenue from which would contribute to other tax cuts, such as the increase in the tax free threshold.

Either that, or she would cut back on her emissions.

Obviously the reality will be a mixture of the two, but both of them are good, and Cate gets to choose her own path.

[IQS.RLOW]

She would be paying a lot of carbon tax - the revenue from which would contribute to other tax cuts, such as the increase in the tax free threshold.

Either that, or she would cut back on her emissions.

Obviously the reality will be a mixture of the two, but both of them are good, and Cate gets to choose her own path.

Your economics says that market forces will have her choosing products that are manufactured from non-carbon taxing nations as they would be cheaper, because the path she will choose will be the cheapest. The only one to suffer will be the local supplier/manufacturer.

Obviously she will reduce her carbon tax by increasing her purchasing from non-carbon taxing countries.

You haven't thought this through, have you...which is obvious

[freediver]

Your economics says that market forces will have her choosing products that are manufactured from non-carbon taxing nations as they would be cheaper

You mean like her petrol? Or her electricity?

There is a rational argument for protecting trade exposed industries, which is why the government is doing exactly that.

It is also a good argument to link domestic cuts to international agreements, which is why both major parties are doing exaclty that.

[IQS.RLOW]

Either that, or she would cut back on her emissions.

So she purchases overseas with non-carbon taxed items and installs an automatic light switcher offer that has been developed in Germany and built in China and shipped here.

How exactly is this benefitting Australia again? You still havent got to that...

[IQS.RLOW]

There is a rational argument for protecting trade exposed industries, which is why the government is doing exactly that.

All export industries are now "trade exposed"

Don't tell me you are so economically clueless that you fail to recognize this...or do you just expect those that aren't 'recognized' to eat the impost and suck it up?

[freediver]

To make a sound argument for compensation, an industry needs to be trade exposed and have a high carbon footprint relative to turnover.

As the total tax burden on the Australian people will not increase significantly, there will not be an accross-the-board reduction in international competitiveness.