Dear freeloader

[IQS.RLOW]

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.

It is an across the board tax. It will result in an across the board reduction in competitiveness, unless of course you pick and choose your economics to suit your narrow viewpoint, which I expect you do. Can't really be helped with such a low level qualification.

It will be an across the board increase, rising year after year at a rate that is even out of step with other economic basket cases that have introduced this useless tax

[freediver]

It is an across the board tax. It will result in an across the board reduction in competitiveness

It is a tax shift - one tax goes up, another goes down. It will benefit society because we will be shifting from arbitrary and broad (accross the board) taxation to targetted taxation that corrects a market failure. There will be no accross the board reduction in competitiveness.

[IQS.RLOW]

Who pays for it and where is this 'market failure' that you speak of?

[IQS.RLOW]

Here's something you should be able to get your little economic grasp around

Widget A is manufactured for company B in Australia for the world market
Widget A has been in competition from Widget B manufactured in another non-carbon taxing country for many years. Over time they have been to-ing and fro ing for market share by price dropping and incentives for customers

Add the carbon tax

Company A decides that Gillard and you useless pustules are fucking the country and moves the manufacturing of Widget A to a non-carbon taxing country, exporting jobs and carbon emissions where the carbon emissions are worse than where they were originally manufactured

You fucking idiot.

[mantra]

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?

Is it necessary to be so brutal in your arguments?

On this one though - I happen to agree. Like many Australians at the moment no-one trusts this government to roll out anything or their motives for doing it.

The fact is this carbon tax isn't going to make one iota of difference to the planet aside from giving the global tax agents more cash. Ten percent for a start goes straight to the UN. On top of that - and aside from FD's asssurace that we won't be buying tax credits from dodgy agencies overseas - we will be. To date these schemes have proven unsuccessful and a scam - yet they are being encouraged and Australia is ripe for their pickings. If the credits are cheaper overseas - of course they'll be bought there.

Most of us have tightened our belts anyway due to the rising cost of electricity and petrol - being very conscious of how we use these carbon emitting products and trying to avoid excesses.

At the moment with industry in such an abysmal state and people not spending the way they used to - it's obvious that the heavily taxed "polluters" will head overseas or shut down altogether.

Nothing about it makes sense. The revenue isn't going into alternative energy industries or being used to increase regulation on heavy industry or for saving our forests by restricting mining and woodchipping - half of it is going straight into the pockets of foreign bureaucrats, foreign tax credit agencies and increasing the staff in the tax office to monitor this tax.

[freediver]

The primary impact of this tax will be that we use less electricity and fuel. This applies by to personal use and business use (exect the fuel of course, which is exempted for personal use). We will not start going overseas to buy fuel or electricity. We will go about our business pretty much the same way as before, just using less, because we are exposed to the true cost rather than letting everyone else bear part of the cost of our individual actions.

Who pays for it

Who pays for what? It is a tax. You know what that means don't you?

and where is this 'market failure' that you speak of?

The market failure takes the form of an externality - a negative impact of a transaction for which those directly involved in the transaction do not have to compensate those affected.

Company A decides that Gillard and you useless pustules are fucking the country and moves

In my experience businesses do not stay in business by responding to political ideology. They respond to the economic situation.

Perhaps you should give a real example, as there are several possibilities depending on what it actually is. For example, the widget could be something that is or is made from products that will be protected on the basis that it is a trade exposed industry. Depending on the details, the company could end up being more competitive. Or it could be an item with a low carbon footprint. Again, there is a good chance it will end up being more competitive. These details are going to escape your attention if you prattle on about widgets and pustules. You were doing OK while you stuck to the economics.

Mantra:

The fact is this carbon tax isn't going to make one iota of difference to the planet aside from giving the global tax agents more cash.

It is a domestic tax. You appear to be confusing it with an international ETS.

and aside from FD's asssurace that we won't be buying tax credits from dodgy agencies overseas - we will be

No we won't. Can you buy tax credits from overseas to avoid paying income tax?

To date these schemes have proven unsuccessful and a scam

Again, it is a tax, not an ETS.

Nothing about it makes sense. The revenue isn't going into alternative energy industries

The point is not to prop up alternative energy industries, but to reduce our GHG emissions. That is not the same thing, by a long shot. A carbon tax targets mechanisms to reduce emissions that are much cheaper than alternative energy sources.

[IQS.RLOW]

In my experience businesses do not stay in business by responding to political ideology. They respond to the economic situation.

I'd say you have very limited experience of the real world but never the less, how is the example not an economic one? I think you might be getting you tax confused with the example. It is you beloved tax that is ideological and politically motivated...to appease a small minority of fucking idiots like you

Perhaps you should give a real example, as there are several possibilities depending on what it actually is. For example, the widget could be something that is or is made from products that will be protected on the basis that it is a trade exposed industry. Depending on the details, the company could end up being more competitive. Or it could be an item with a low carbon footprint. Again, there is a good chance it will end up being more competitive. These details are going to escape your attention if you prattle on about widgets and pustules. You were doing OK while you stuck to the economics.

It is a perfect example of the majority of small business within Australia and it is why you struggle to comprehend the situation. You are an economic illiterate

Most business will not only have no govt hand out, they will have additional imposts and cost to produce including higher electricity to produce widget A, higher transport costs for the material for widget A, higher administration costs because of the carbon tax.

You are a fucking gumby

Your claim that if widget A has a 'low carbon footprint' then it will end up being more competitive is a fucking joke, isn't it? Please entertain me how adding this tax to Australian business will make it 'more competitive' in a global market

[mantra]

The fact is this carbon tax isn't going to make one iota of difference to the planet aside from giving the global tax agents more cash.

It is a domestic tax. You appear to be confusing it with an international ETS.

and aside from FD's asssurace that we won't be buying tax credits from dodgy agencies overseas - we will be

No we won't. Can you buy tax credits from overseas to avoid paying income tax?

What is this article talking about then? There will be marketeers trading on carbon credits. What is the point of a company reducing their emissions - so a broker can buy up the difference then sell it on at a greater price to a company which is still spewing out the same emissions? As we are the only country embracing this scheme to this extent - obviously the most money will have to come from us. Aside from the tax - within a year analysts estimate that this "market" could be worth up to $150 billion.

To get that sort of cash just for trading on "saved" emissions will mean that Australia alone will be responsible to pay for this new market comprised solely on the speculation of reducing the global temperature by 1% in 50 years. I wonder how many foreign based corporations and individuals will be investing in this "trade"? It is no better than the dodgy schemes created by the "financial experts" prior to the GFC.

Trading in carbon credits will not be restricted to within Australia. We are told that it is a tax - but now we know that it is a commodity only and isn't going to do a darn thing to help us reduce emissions.

Rothschild Australia and E3 International are set to become key players in the international carbon credit trading market, an emerging commodity market that analysts estimate could be worth up to US$150 billion by 2012.

In a move that will re-shape the fledgling emissions trading market, Rothschild Australia and E3 International today announced their intention to launch the Carbon Ring Consortium -- an investment vehicle that will provide companies in the Asia Pacific Region with an innovative way of learning about and understanding their risks in the new carbon market.

The Carbon Ring Consortium is the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific Region, and is the first in a series of private investment vehicles that Carbon Ring Pty Ltd will launch in coming years.

Richard Martin, the chief executive officer of Rothschild Australia said, "With recent developments in international climate change policy, the question is no longer if, but when the global carbon trading market will emerge. Rothschild Australia, through Carbon Ring, intends to be at the forefront of this market, providing private investment vehicles to companies seeking to offset their greenhouse gas emissions liabilities."

The Carbon Ring Consortium allows companies with a future carbon liability to purchase a range of carbon credits and obtain a practical insight into the operation of this new market. Carbon credits will be bought from domestic and international projects that achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. These carbon credits will be distributed pro rata to Consortium investors.

"The Carbon Ring Consortium is an important first step for Rothschild and for our clients," said Mr. Martin.

"The Consortium should appeal to companies that are faced with a greenhouse liability and are significant users or producers of energy, such as electricity generators, heavy industrials, oil companies, major manufacturers or airlines, amongst many others.

"It provides investors with an opportunity to learn about the market through an investment in a low risk, low cost investment vehicle, created specifically to acquire a diverse range of carbon credits. Participants will also share in significant knowledge and intellectual property," Mr. Martin said.

http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/politi ... on-trading

[freediver]

Most business will not only have no govt hand out, they will have additional imposts and cost to produce including higher electricity to produce widget A, higher transport costs for the material for widget A, higher administration costs because of the carbon tax.

You are ignoring the economic consequences of the changes to the taxation system. It is a tax shift, not an increase in the total tax burden. For the increase in costs to a business due to carbon taxation, there will be a decrease in costs to offset it. Just because those decreases go directly to people's take-home salary rather than the businesses that pay the tax does not mean that the businesses will not see the benefit indirectly. For example it will flow through the labor market.

What is this article talking about then?

An ETS.

[IQS.RLOW]

For the increase in costs to a business due to carbon taxation, there will be a decrease in costs to offset it. Just because those decreases go directly to people's take-home salary rather than the businesses that pay the tax does not mean that the businesses will not see the benefit indirectly

Are you completely stupid or just ignorant?

The example given was for export market products which has no bearing on your deflection regarding carbon tax wealth redistribution

Now, address your previous statement on how your shitful tax will make widget A 'more competitive' or just admit that you made it up and you are a clueless economic retard