Carbon Tax

[WhoTookMyUsername]

Can't post in ATAR notes for some reason, mods move for me?


http://www.theage.com.au/environment/15-billion-in-tax-cuts-for-low-and-middle-income-earners-under-carbon-deal-20110710-1h8in.html

With the detail of this tax just realised, it seems to me more like an income redistribution scheme than anything else.

According to this article, high - income earners will be paying ~$500 extra a year...
While the tax free threshold is near to $20 k

Australia already has some of the highest taxes on the wealthy, is Australia moving inevitably closer to an almost western 'communist' welfare system?

What are your views?

[taiga]

I think this thread is fine to stay here till we move over to SMF 2.0, can't really blame you guys if that part of the forum is down.

I think the Carbon Tax isn't particularly effective, if you tax a company costs are simply going to be passed on to consumers. If consumers don't wish to pay that price, goods are going to be imported, and more imported goods > less jobs in Australia.

All for what? Saving in a year approximately the amount India/China emit in 5 days.

I do think that it will result, in the long term, companies being more motivated to look at greener/more efficient alternatives, but there is no guarantee with the time frame.

The effects of the carbon tax won't be as devastating as some people are claiming, in my opinion, but I think there are better ways to go about moving to a more environmentally friendly economic landscape. Probably something like subsidizing alternative power sources (solar panel scheme is good, but the benefits weren't made overly clear to that many people). Even an ETRS is better (economics teaches us that a tax and ETRS would be the same thing on a cost basis, but I think it encourages more efficient practice in a more direct manner).

[Russ]

Nobody move the thread, otherwise it will disappear

My objection to the carbon tax is based on the fact that the government can't tell us how effective it will be. They're also a bit hazy on the total cost, although the details released today (I haven't seen them yet) are probably going to explain some of that.

[MJRomeo81]

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." - Julia Gillard

When you are forcing your regime onto an unwilling Australia; a tax you promised not to introduce, that will be all pain for absolutely no gain, this is all she can do to defend her position. Where has our democracy gone? Ask the people JuLIAR.

And what will a price on carbon dioxide do to the climate? Nothing. I'll just write that again (slightly larger so nobody misses it):
NOTHING

[Russ]

I don't like all the negative press about that statement. Australia isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy and the government is not required to get majority approval on this decision (if they were there would be a referendum). Our government system is based on electing people who make decisions for us based on the conditions at the time, which obviously may be different from the election

[fairyfloss94]

With the detail of this tax just realised, it seems to me more like an income redistribution scheme than anything else.

I think you found the crux of the tax right here. Upvoting.

The Carbon Tax has the potential to be quite disastrous. The government was too focused on bribing their voters with that $1.5b compensation that they forgot that the residential consumption only comprises of 38% of electricity usage. The rest goes to the commerce and industrial sectors. As far as I know, no concessions has been made for these sectors which will bump up the cost of living quite significantly (IMO greater than what is being compensated).

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/co2-tax-australia-julia-gillard-absolutely-clueless/
This article explains quite clearly the mechanics of a power plant system. In a nutshell, power plants run a zero sum game, it either emits carbon at full power, or it doesn't. Total carbon emissions would not decrease at all, unless of course, companies begin folding. When firms decide to cut their costs and do something else, living expenses would not decrease but the government's income source certainly will.

[MJRomeo81]

Australia isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy and the government is not required to get majority approval on this decision (if they were there would be a referendum).

Australia is a constitutional monarchy correct. But we have employed a parliamentary democratic system, which makes us a democratic society. The only reason this carbon tax proposal doesn't require a referendum is because it isn't amending the Constitution. Arguing that Australia isn't a democracy is incorrect. What I can complain about however is how Gillard abuses representative democracy to implement her policies.

Our government system is based on electing people who make decisions for us based on the conditions at the time, which obviously may be different from the election

One of the principles of the Australian parliamentary system is representative government. This refers to a government which represents the views of the majority of people. This is essential for a democracy. Is Julia Gillard and her party currently representing the views of Australia? I don't think so by the looks of things. For this reason the carbon tax shouldn't be introduced. Sure, you can argue that the experts know better than average Joe but we should wait until other countries introduce something similar. Australia is a relatively small country. Why are we rushing to get it into action when its benefits are minimal?

[fairyfloss94]

Considering that you can form coalitions and stuff, you don't even need a majority vote

[lexitu]

With the detail of this tax just realised, it seems to me more like an income redistribution scheme than anything else.

I think you found the crux of the tax right here. Upvoting.

The Carbon Tax has the potential to be quite disastrous. The government was too focused on bribing their voters with that $1.5b compensation that they forgot that the residential consumption only comprises of 38% of electricity usage. The rest goes to the commerce and industrial sectors. As far as I know, no concessions has been made for these sectors which will bump up the cost of living quite significantly (IMO greater than what is being compensated).

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/co2-tax-australia-julia-gillard-absolutely-clueless/
This article explains quite clearly the mechanics of a power plant system. In a nutshell, power plants run a zero sum game, it either emits carbon at full power, or it doesn't. Total carbon emissions would not decrease at all, unless of course, companies begin folding. When firms decide to cut their costs and do something else, living expenses would not decrease but the government's income source certainly will.

A few points:
- Industry is being compensated
- Households are not being directly taxed - and what they consume is what others have produced, generally
- If companies do something else then I don't see how the government's income source will remain the same
- Don't know how you can say emissions wouldn't decrease at all :S It's not so black and white.

From a purely political standpoint, I thought it was one of the better coordinated moves by Gillard who seems to have a shoddy gauge of how to convince people of things.

[fairyfloss94]

A few points:
- Industry is being compensated

Which industry and by how much?

- Households are not being directly taxed - and what they consume is what others have produced, generally

I haven't said anything to the contrary, and to your second point, that's usually how supply and demand works.

- If companies do something else then I don't see how the government's income source will remain the same

Precisely

- Don't know how you can say emissions wouldn't decrease at all :S It's not so black and white.

I'll concede this point. I fucked up a bit. In the short run, carbon emissions from coal burning power plants would not decrease but it is quite plausible that emissions from transport will. Since power plants cannot decrease their emissions (turbines cannot run at 75%) the benefits from this will be minimal.

From a purely political standpoint, I thought it was one of the better coordinated moves by Gillard who seems to have a shoddy gauge of how to convince people of things.

Meh, politics bores me a bit

[Russ]

Australia is a constitutional monarchy correct. But we have employed a parliamentary democratic system, which makes us a democratic society. The only reason this carbon tax proposal doesn't require a referendum is because it isn't amending the Constitution. Arguing that Australia isn't a democracy is incorrect.

This isn't entirely relevant, but no, it's entirely correct. Australia has democratic principles but we are not (in the true sense of the word) a democracy. In everyday conversation the difference is meaningless, sure, but in this context it's an important distinction.

Gillard is most likely pushing Bob Brown's agenda, but that's politics. Every parliament ever has done things that have been self-serving and pointing out that Gillard is doing it is kind of obvious. Howard did it as well (although granted he took it to an election) and it's not exactly a surprise that a politician hasn't kept a promise. That said, I am divided on whether or not the carbon tax will be effective and I think that it will probably have some benefit. I can't help that feel that the government should really have a pretty solid body of evidence before they introduce it, which they definitely don't.

On the taxation issue, I've always been against taxation in principle so I guess I'm against any form of increasing taxation. That said, I'm not particularly worried about a "communism" paradigm shift in Australia because the higher tax bracket aren't being unduly affected by this. And on an entirely selfish note, the altered tax cutoff is nice

Sure, you can argue that the experts know better than average Joe but we should wait until other countries introduce something similar.

Should the other countries also wait? (this is rhetorical)

[lexitu]

@JellyDonut - Re compensation it can be found here under permits for industry: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/10/3265732.htm
To your credit you came back with a reasonable response

[lexitu]

Australia is a constitutional monarchy correct. But we have employed a parliamentary democratic system, which makes us a democratic society. The only reason this carbon tax proposal doesn't require a referendum is because it isn't amending the Constitution. Arguing that Australia isn't a democracy is incorrect.

On the taxation issue, I've always been against taxation in principle so I guess I'm against any form of increasing taxation. That said, I'm not particularly worried about a "communism" paradigm shift in Australia because the higher tax bracket aren't being unduly affected by this. And on an entirely selfish note, the altered tax cutoff is nice

Sure, you can argue that the experts know better than average Joe but we should wait until other countries introduce something similar.

Should the other countries also wait? (this is rhetorical)

Fair stance Russ. Just a question which I haven't thought about or investigated too much (so don't judge me on this). If the tax free threshold has increased to $18000 (rounded), doesn't that then lower the amount that can be taxed and effectively decrease the effects of the increase? :S

[waldo777]

One of the principles of the Australian parliamentary system is representative government. This refers to a government which represents the views of the majority of people. This is essential for a democracy. Is Julia Gillard and her party currently representing the views of Australia? I don't think so by the looks of things. For this reason the carbon tax shouldn't be introduced. Sure, you can argue that the experts know better than average Joe but we should wait until other countries introduce something similar. Australia is a relatively small country. Why are we rushing to get it into action when its benefits are minimal?

Yeah, because Tony Abbott is representing the views of Australia? Most people who don't support the tax are so moronic that they don't even believe in climate change. These same people forget that Tony Abbott's policy is to cut Australia's emissions by the same amount, just in a less efficient way.

Sometimes, politicians have to do what's actually right for the country (despite vocal criticism). This structural reform will set Australia's economy up for the future. Despite opinion polls showing strong opposition to the carbon tax, it will be implemented and thanks to the Greens' likely indefinite balance of power in the Senate will not be reversed.

Fair stance Russ. Just a question which I haven't thought about or investigated too much (so don't judge me on this). If the tax free threshold has increased to $18000 (rounded), doesn't that then lower the amount that can be taxed and effectively decrease the effects of the increase? :S

Yes, this is the central element of the compensation package. However, those earning over $150,000 (1 in 10 people) will not be compensated as by this level the benefits of the higher tax bracket has been offset by the higher tax rates for existing brackets. 

[Water]

@MJRomeo81 

I agree with you to some extent about "benefits are minimal."

But ask yourself... What would Bob Brown do if Gillard didn't?