The Carbon Tax - Debate

So after like 10 seconds of googling, I found this article from 1 year ago that should help you out:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...time-as-possible/story-e6freqmx-1226084830708

JULIA Gillard says she wants her carbon tax to apply for as short a time a possible before being replaced by an emissions trading scheme. - This crap is commentary from the reporter.

In a sign Labor wants to distance itself from the carbon tax, the prime minister today said it had always been her intention to introduce an ETS as quickly as possible.

Speaking in Darwin today, Ms Gillard also distanced herself from the term “carbon tax”.

She said the fixed-price period was “what Tony Abbott calls a carbon tax”.

The Government had originally planned for the carbon tax to apply for between three and five years from July 1 next year, before shifting to an emissions trading scheme.

Ms Gillard did not nominate a set period of time for the carbon tax (crap from reporter again) but said it would be “as short as possible”.

“My aim as prime minister has always been to have an emissions trading scheme,” Ms Gillard said.

“What Tony Abbot likes to refer to as a carbon tax … a fixed-price period … should be as short as possible.”

Ms Gillard said her ambition for an emissions trading scheme was the same as the policy goals expressed by former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull and former Coalition prime minister John Howard.

The Government is very close to striking a final deal on the carbon tax (more crap from the reporter) package with the Greens and Independents.

 

Thanks Ziggy for the article.

I still cant see where she has stated that the carbon tax is an ETS, but I do admit that she has alluded to the fact that they are two different vehicles heading to the same destination. let me see if I have this right, from an economics stand point a levee (or tax if it makes you happy ) is a fixed price. A trading scheme is a floating price dictated by the market. To me that is two different models. So what is the purpose of this ? Why not just implement an ETS from the outset ? What is the purpose of imposing a tax for three years and then scrapping it and then creating a trading scheme ?

 

Blind Freddie can see that the impact of the carbon tax won`t wipe us out on 1st July, but it`s effect will have a slow, choking effect on our economy. Australia, more than ever before, can`t afford to stifle it`s own economy. Global competition is becomming more and more cut throat, we are trying to compete on a very rough, and unlevel playing field. To even comprehend this obvious fact, one needs to have an open mind. To be obsessed with the welfare mentality of wanting to take more and more from others, and to be blind to the full range of facts, is to retain and nurture dangerous ignorance.

The ALP Federal Govt. has no one amongst it`s ranks who are experienced in running a business, they are a group of dependants. This is one of the reasons for their failure in all things constructive, and financial. There is more to running a country, or a business, than those who haven`t done it will ever know. Some of the other handicaps of the ALP are, the union ownership of the ALP, and the fact that the ALP is forced to pander to a voter base of blind, naive envy. These negatives put the ALP in a no win position every time.

Working people sorely need representation in this country, the present setup is a miserable failure.

 

She hasn't stated that an ETS with a fixed price is a "carbon tax". Tony Abbott has stated that, and some reporters have stated that. Perhaps she -may- have referred to the fixed price period as a "carbon tax" simply for the sake of simplicity when dealing with people who don't even know what a fixed price ETS is, I don't know.

The purpose of having a fixed price before moving to a floating price is basically to make sure everythings running properly with the system before they float it. It's also to guarantee a certain amount of revenue for stuff that the Greens wanted.

Floating a price isn't "scrapping" it. When we "scrap" the dollar when we floated it.

 

Since my last post I was able to contact a friend I went to school with who is an economics whiz with Price Waterhouse and Coopers. He told me that the reason Abbott and the media are calling it a tax is because it is exactly that - A tax. It is fixed price therefore it is deemed a levy, aka a tax. The trading scheme is a little different because it has a floating price, therefore it can be traded for profit/loss. Hence the word trading. I asked if they were one and the same, he said not really. It is like saying a motorbike is a car. Their purpose is similar but by nature they are not the same. I asked him if it was as simple as just reverting from one to the other after a period of time. His reply was ....NO. He said they are set up differently, even though the envisaged end product, emmission decrease, was the same. He said it is easier to pass on the cost of a tax as it is set, whereas the floating price differs on a daily basis and is rather difficult to plan for a passing on strategy. This is why a lot of economists have been questioning the pertinence of the tax itself. He did state that it is easier to pass on the rebates from a tax than an ETS because of their fixed nature in comparrison to the floating price.

For what it's worth he believes that the tax is in place to not only fund green initiatives, but also fix a short fall in the countries economy. He said he would be surprised if green initiatives got a look in with this years revenue, perhaps down the track.

Again I don't understand the politics in this decision. Why risk your position by implementing an unpopular tax, when you could steer straight towards a relitively popular ETS. Not only would you weaken the oppositions negativity but also split their position within their own party. Turnbull and co would have to vote with the government or risk political suicide as they were onboard initially, and This would split the opposition fatally.

Therefore I am left with my original conclusion that this tax in its short duration is simply designed to raise revenue, and has very little to do with the environment.

 

Your "friend" doesn't have any more clue what he's talking about than you do slipperyfish. This is just exactly the same thing you were saying before.

It is a fixed price ETS, what is so hard to understand? Yes, it behaves much like a tax, in the same way that speeding fines behave "like a tax" on speeding, or a fishing licence behaves "like a tax on fishing", or paying to dump rubbish at the tip is "like a tax on dumping rubbish". But what is it? It's... an ETS with an initial fixed price period. Of course a fixed priced ETS is different to a floating price ETS.

It doesn't matter that the ETS price "changes daily". The government auctions off the permits in batches, and that's the revenue that goes into tax cuts and whatever.

Economists are overwhelming supportive of an ETS over a tax or "direct action". Garnaut's report recommends an initial fixed price period for an ETS.

It has a 3 year fixed period, instead of a 1 year fixed period that looked likely from the Rudd/Turnbull policy, because that's what came out of the negotiations with Greens and Independents.

Your original conclusion is RETARDED because the "tax" COSTS 4 BILLION DOLLARS IN 3 YEARS.

 

Has Ross Garnaut been able to BS his way out of his New Guinea mine`s polution scandal yet?

 

So what you are trying to tell everyone here is that you know much more than someone who has been at the forefront of economics for last 27 years. You must be a genius !

I find it funny that when someone disagrees with your opinion, and lets face it that is all it is, you begin to denigrate them. So very mature of you.

"It is a fixed price ETS, what is so hard to understand? Yes, it behaves much like a tax", This is because it is a tax. This is where you are having trouble understanding.

"Yes, it behaves much like a tax, in the same way that speeding fines behave "like a tax" on speeding, or a fishing licence behaves "like a tax on fishing", or paying to dump rubbish at the tip is "like a tax on dumping rubbish". Yes you are correct, these are all levies. Taxes. Not sure if your reasoning here makes sense !

 

No, you're just "claiming" to speak for someone who has according to you "been at the forefront of economics for last 27 years".

If someone disagrees with me and presents sensible arguments, I'll be quite happy to have a sensible conversation with them. I'm still waiting for this to happen.

You can keep calling it a tax, and I'll keep correctly calling it an ETS with an initial fixed price period.

If at any point you care to actually read the reports, and the legislation, about why an ETS is more efficient than a tax, and why you would have an initial fixed price for an ETS, do let me know.

Or if your "friend" wants to come on and discuss the ETS, let him do it himself. Don't claim some kind of authority based on knowledge that isn't yours.

 

You can word it any way you like. If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, then good chance it is a tax.

" Don't claim some kind of authority based on knowledge that isn't yours". I find this statement a bit rich, isn't this exactly what you are doing. Oh sorry, your a genius I forgot !

If it is what you say how come Julia Gillard, when dealing with the press, doesn't use the term 'fixed price ETS' ? Rather she has coined Abbotts terminology quite easily and refers to it as the Carbon Tax.

The smell of stooge is thick in the air !

 

Seriously, I can't be bothered with these semantics. This is like the hundredth time I've been through this on this forum. There's literally no point responding to you, I can just use the search function and read through the exact same progression of arguments that has happened the last 20 times this crap has come up.

If you're gonna use a broad definition of tax(from say the dictionary), you can loosely fit an ETS, fixed price or floating price, into that definition. Using semantics like this, is what as known as "Political Spin" or "BSing".

I simply use the correct and most accurate term: ETS with an initial fixed price period. A Permit system is obviously different from what was conventionally known as a "Carbon Tax", before Tony Abbott started his ridiculous campaign of BS.

I am not a "stooge". I supported an ETS under Howard, under Rudd, under Nelson, under Turnbull and under Gillard.

The "stooges" are the retards like Tony Abbott, who supported 3 versions of an ETS, ones which had fixed price periods, and now claim that a fixed price ETS is a "tax", while his "direct action" policy, which puts a "price" on carbon that the government (aka tax payers) pays, is not a "tax".

If anyone here has anything sensible to say about Carbon Pricing, Carbon Tax, ETS, or direct action, I would be over the moon.

 

Typically, Labor goons like to proclaim something as being evidence of something when they proclaim it is not previously

So according to you 'effectively being and ETS is not an ETS'

 

Yep, Abbott's plan is to take billions out of the national budget and hand to these big corporations to innovate, this is without a carbon price remember. So who will pay? Maybe an increase to the GST will do the trick, it won't impact on the Australian people! Or possibly reducing the health, education and infrastructure budgets, seeing that they're not a major priority for us. This won't hurt Australia will it??These corporations can be trusted to do this, without any long term consequences on top of it. This makes a whole lot of sense to me! I suppose when you come to think of it, these big corporations are only too happy to absorb the cost of the carbon price, which is around a massive 1-2% of their profits! Shame on Gillard for ever thinking up this silly concept of a carbon price!!!!

 

July 1st will come around and nothing will change.

 

Meaning of taxation once again for the unlearned: A means by which governments finance their expenditure by imposing charges on citizens and corporate entities. A bit of food for thought and discussion.

 

stop trying to change the truth. She admits she lied and she does say exactly what you claim others are saying, even what both the TAX and the ETS

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8217002/yes-i-vowed-no-carbon-tax-gillard
notice the quotation marks?

Flat out lie again, they are both completely different systems as stated above in Gillards own words.

 

20% increase in power and natural gas? no that is nothing isn't it?

 

Geez dude when are you going to get it through your head, the price will be passed on to the consumer through your energy bill.

I hate to burst you bubble but all the small businesses that have their energy bills go up because of the carbon tax will also put their prices up again making the consumer absorb the cost.

The big polluters will not be paying, get it through your head.



.

 

It will not be as bad as people are thinking.

 

Could be anywhere between $300 - $500 a year on average depending upon the type of house you live in and how you choose to use energy.

But Mak dont forget your hairdresser's energy bill is going to go up too so will the place where you get your nails done and the place you eat at lunch time and the place you train at in the evenings.

Lets not forget shoes and clothes too, all going up, they all use energy.

So all goods and services will be going up too.

Do you still think its not much?


.

 

I don't care much for hairdressers and I don't get my nails done. I haven't heard anything about a price rise at work.

 

yes $204 in increased power cost for the average and 200 in gas, is nothing isn't it? and guess what, it is not the 1st yet is it? I am so glad you think people have all that money at their disposal.

 

...........................

 

Shoes & clothes are imported & only have the carbon tax applied on transport from the port & small percent of retail shop's energy use, imported items get advantaged.

 

Did anyone vote for Gillard because she "promised" no carbon tax under a government she leads..?
That's why I voted Green...

The only people who didn't want a carbon tax wouldn't have voted Labor anywayz...