Carbon Tax (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

Instead of demanding polluters to pay for the cost they impose onto society (damages to environment...etc),

Are you seriously suggesting that the carbon tax will actually have some impact upon "the environment"/global warming?

 

[Chemical Ali]

Carbon price will have to increase to about $135/tonne to achieve the 80% target.

Apparently a lot of that 80% will be from buying credits rather than real reductions in Australia

 

[Lentern]

I favour "Direct Action" because it at least does something that wont be a tax. It will be funded by savings that the Coalition has found and will achieve the same target the Government is hoping to. Carbon tax encourages companies to manufacture offshore etc...

Any government funded initiative that doesn't make a profit, is an indirect tax.

 

[chewy123]

Are you seriously suggesting that the carbon tax will actually have some impact upon "the environment"/global warming?

In that case I don't think the DAP would have any effect either.

Anyway, are you suggesting that there is some fundamental economic flaws regarding the carbon tax scheme that would make it unsuccessful, or are you saying the effects of Australia by itself is so minimal that it won't have an effect on the environment?
If you're referring to the former, then I can't answer you as I am not an economist - I can only rely on what mainstream economists says.
If you're referring to the latter point, then I think it's fallacious. Surely you wouldn't discourage people from voting because the impact of one vote is so minimal that it won't have any effect on election results? Even if Australia's effort is minimal, the economic impact would be generally proportionate.

 

[Rafy]

Direct action plan will never be implemented.

 

[Aquawhite]

I'm interested to know someone's short answer as to why they don't support a tax on carbon (apart from the fact that it won't directly and immediately reduce carbon emissions and lower greenhouse gases, or the fact that it will make things cost just a little bit dearer - because quite frankly they are lame excuses for denying a tax like this).

 

[SylviaB]

Surely you wouldn't discourage people from voting because the impact of one vote is so minimal that it won't have any effect on election results?

Well yeah, if someone else has enough votes to make your vote entirely meaningless.

Even if Australia's effort is minimal, the economic impact would be generally proportionate.

The damage to the Australian economy will greatly exceed any benefit to the environment.

 

[Lentern]

Direct action plan will never be implemented.

It's fairly explicit coalition policy.

 

[SylviaB]

(apart from the fact that it won't directly and immediately reduce carbon emissions and lower greenhouse gases,

Oh, no one denies it won't reduce emissions. It's just that Australia's abolute emissions are so small to begin with that any decrease is negligable.

or the fact that it will make things cost just a little bit dearer - because quite frankly they are lame excuses for denying a tax like this).

-It will make Australia less competitive
-It will misallocate resources, including labour, away from productive ventures (as deemed by the market) and towards things arbitrarily decided upon by government which don't increase Australia's wealth (by as much).
-It will cost billions of dollars

 

[Aquawhite]

-It will make Australia less competitive
-It will misallocate resources, including labour, away from productive ventures (as deemed by the market) and towards things arbitrarily decided upon by government which don't increase Australia's wealth (by as much).
-It will cost billions of dollars

- Australia's economy is already strong in numerous areas, I don't think we need to be on top of the world in terms of revenue and capitalism.
- I acknowledge this claim, and agree with you but I don't forsee it having such a large impact as many.
- Fuck it; I think it's a good use of money in my opinion. The environment is important + the tax is going to draw in money too which would hopefully offset that it costs plus more.

 

[SylviaB]

- Australia's economy is already strong in numerous areas, I don't think we need to be on top of the world in terms of revenue and capitalism.

So you don't think the standard of living of Australians is important?

the tax is going to draw in money too which would hopefully offset that it costs plus more.

No, I'm talking about after the tax revenue is factored in.

 

[Rafy]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...others-backyards/story-e6freuzr-1226094190514

POLLUTERS will be spending $1500 per person on foreign carbon credits just so the nation can meet its ambitious target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

But Australia's own domestic carbon emissions will have barely changed from the levels being belched out today.

 

[chewy123]

Well yeah, if someone else has enough votes to make your vote entirely meaningless.

The really obvious problem with your argument is that we will never get anything done.
Think of this scenario - I currently have a $1500 tax liability to the ATO this financial year. I refuse to pay on grounds that me paying my $1500 taxes will have extreme negligible effect on the Australian economy. The government is not going to go bankrupt if I don't pay my taxes, in fact, nothing at all is likely to happen as a result of me not paying my taxes. So is this a good reason for me to not pay any tax??? Surely you can see how absurd this is.

Likewise, if we allow one nation to not contribute to the reduction of carbon emission on the grounds that it will have no effect on the environment when they do it alone, then everyone can use that line of argument and we will never get anywhere. It's completely fallacious.

The damage to the Australian economy will greatly exceed any benefit to the environment.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...conomists-survey/story-e6frg9if-1226094172989
According to this article the majority of surveyed economists supports the carbon tax.

I am not an economist, I am unable to make economic assertions. All I can do here is 'rely on the experts'. You say damage>benefit, I say benefit>damage - so this won't get us anywhere. All that we can expect our politicians to do is follow the experts' opinion.

 

[Garygaz]

The really obvious problem with your argument is that we will never get anything done.
Think of this scenario - I currently have a $1500 tax liability to the ATO this financial year. I refuse to pay on grounds that me paying my $1500 taxes will have extreme negligible effect on the Australian economy. The government is not going to go bankrupt if I don't pay my taxes, in fact, nothing at all is likely to happen as a result of me not paying my taxes. So is this a good reason for me to not pay any tax??? Surely you can see how absurd this is.

Likewise, if we allow one nation to not contribute to the reduction of carbon emission on the grounds that it will have no effect on the environment when they do it alone, then everyone can use that line of argument and we will never get anywhere. It's completely fallacious.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...conomists-survey/story-e6frg9if-1226094172989
According to this article the majority of surveyed economists supports the carbon tax.

I am not an economist, I am unable to make economic assertions. All I can do here is 'rely on the experts'. You say damage>benefit, I say benefit>damage - so this won't get us anywhere. All that we can expect our politicians to do is follow the experts' opinion.

Yet Australia is almost solely relying on it's resources sector to push the economy at the moment. Oh sure, Gillard can mention that this scheme 'works' in Europe but really what does that prove? Europe is strong in agriculture, technology and other industries that don't rely as heavily on the emission of carbon.

Sure it's not sound to say because one person doesn't pay tax I won't either. This isn't the point, however, it is that if the top two tax payers don't pay tax, who make up so much of the overall revenue, so much so that if they don't pay then there is no chance of the gov. producing a budget, then why should anyone else bother paying?

 

[zombie omie jay]

- Australia's economy is already strong in numerous areas, I don't think we need to be on top of the world in terms of revenue and capitalism.
- I acknowledge this claim, and agree with you but I don't forsee it having such a large impact as many.
- Fuck it; I think it's a good use of money in my opinion. The environment is important + the tax is going to draw in money too which would hopefully offset that it costs plus more.

hahahahahhahahahahha

 

[Lentern]

So you don't think the standard of living of Australians is important?

Yeah man they positively need their swimming pools and Iphone 4's.

 

[Aquawhite]

So you don't think the standard of living of Australians is important?

Of course I think the standard of living is important. I just don't see how a few price increases would affect myself, really (as a pretty much poor university student - or my family back home for that matter). Perhaps I'm less frugal than some.

The one problem I do have with this tax (as I recognised before that it won't actually reduce emissions) is that it's going to simply shift Australia's emissions to overseas production. Basically, I think Gillard is only concerned with lowering Australia's emissions at the cost of other larger polluters (China, USA etc), rather than contributing to a lower global emissions.

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah man they positively need their swimming pools and Iphone 4's.

hahahahahahahah fuck you're the shittiest most unprinipled cunt ever

when you're arguing for taxes and against corporations, you're for the "battlers" and the working classes

when they're overwhelmingly against your retarded nonsense policies, they're suddenly middle-class, lazy, cushy idiots

 

[Lentern]

hahahahahahahah fuck you're the shittiest most unprinipled cunt ever

when you're arguing for taxes and against corporations, you're for the "battlers" and the working classes

when they're overwhelmingly against your retarded nonsense policies, they're suddenly middle-class, lazy, cushy idiots

There is considerable compensation and protection for lower income earners in this mechanism. Those who will be hit hardest by it, generally speaking, are those who have more than enough to cop the hit. What is so complicated about that?

 

[zombie omie jay]

why bother putting the strain on the economy when you know it will not actually reduce emissions?