Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (4 Viewers)

[Lentern]

Do you understand basic economics? I would much rather argue on the merits of the tax rather than on something that literally doesn't require any debate.



Enjoy.

It is not a simple tax, companies will be forced to purchase permits for every ton of co2 they commit, the money from which will not go into general revenue streams but into the funding priorities of the clean energy bill 2011. The only difference between this and the conventional ETS is that the value of the permits is not being driven by market demands but kept at a lower, fixed price by the government. Until after the election and the delusory scare campaign by Tony Abbott such mechansims were always referred to as ETS's or Cap and trade systems. A carbon tax was refered to a consumption based surcharge on specific goods. How did you think the CPRS was going to work? I don't recall you crying "carbon tax, carbon tax" back then.

 

[Azure]

It is not a simple tax, companies will be forced to purchase permits for every ton of co2 they commit, the money from which will not go into general revenue streams but into the funding priorities of the clean energy bill 2011. The only difference between this and the conventional ETS is that the value of the permits is not being driven by market demands but kept at a lower, fixed price by the government. Until after the election and the delusory scare campaign by Tony Abbott such mechansims were always referred to as ETS's or Cap and trade systems. A carbon tax was refered to a consumption based surcharge on specific goods. How did you think the CPRS was going to work? I don't recall you crying "carbon tax, carbon tax" back then.

Before I reply, are you affiliated with any political party by any chance? (genuine question)

Yes it'd be pretty hard to recall me saying anything about the CPRS because I was not active in that debate.

 

[abbeyroad]

Do you know what an emmisions trading scheme is? I have written many times clear, cogent explanations as to the difference between this scheme and a "carbon tax" and you have repeatedly ignored them then pop up every now and again with a lazy line like this. Get it together.

are you retarded or just economically illiterate?

fuck it's like arguing with an aspie who insists that sharp knifves can't kill you unlike guns because a knife is a edged weapon while a gun is a ranged weapon

 

[Azure]

I was planning on typing up a response after he replied but that graph (which anyone should be able to understand given it is year 12 level economics) sums it up quite nicely. It's almost akin to arguing about the colour of grass or which political party Julia Gillard is apart of.

 

[Lentern]

Before I reply, are you affiliated with any political party by any chance? (genuine question)

Yes it'd be pretty hard to recall me saying anything about the CPRS because I was not active in that debate.

no

Abbeyroad riddle me this, do you consider an ETS to be a tax?

 

[Blastus]

Well actually the ETS is a set block of emissions permits with a continuously decreasing supply. Emitting is required to perform most everything but the costs will be passed on by those who bear them, correct? Otherwise why bother subsidising people?

 

[Blastus]

no

Abbeyroad riddle me this, do you consider an ETS to be a tax?

"It's not a tax it's a levy"

It's an increased barrier to entry in markets.

 

[Lentern]

Well actually the ETS is a set block of emissions permits with a continuously decreasing supply. Emitting is required to perform most everything but the costs will be passed on by those who bear them, correct? Otherwise why bother subsidising people?

I don't find this incongruous with what I said, that is essentially what the government has introduced but the first reduction in permits won't occur until 2015.

 

[Garygaz]

joe hockey actually sounded half intelligent on breakfast this morning. was a welcome change.

 

[qawe]

How would you know what will impact global warming when you don't believe in reading reported science?

Edit Condense your answers into something loosely coherent and i'll reply to it.

done

 

[scuba_steve2121]

bahahaha fuck is Lentern still trying to defend this, fuck me I thought we had this sorted already

 

[Tennisaddict]

The carbon tax is a first major environmental, ethical and economic step forward.
I say well done, Julia.

 

[Azure]

I can't wait until the carbon tax supporters begin complaining in a few years time about inflation and GLOBAL WARMING.

 

[Lentern]

bahahaha fuck is Lentern still trying to defend this, fuck me I thought we had this sorted already

I deplore the analogy but honestly, you denialists are like pack a day smokers, churning a long ratfucking your health sniggering whenever someone tries to tell you that smoking kills you claiming that there's no point stopping unless you start eating perfectly, exercising regularly and taking all sorts of vitamins, cynically asking if you stop smoking if that means you live forever. You invent these pathetic lines of excuse to avoid fronting up to the uncomfortable fact of the need for some short term sacrifice to avoid long term disaster but that is the fact and of course the key difference here is that your delusory claims aren't merely endangering your own future, but everyone else's.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

ok then you obviously don't understand our arguement (or at least my arguement)

Human induced global warming causing climate change is real, science is all there

the affects that is likely to have we can't predict very accurately however we can all agree, nothing good

The point we are arguing using logic and economic reasoning, is that the policy decisions by our current government and IMO the proposed plans by the opposition are not going to make a rats arse of a difference, to Australia's Co2 output and obviously the worlds either. They only serve to hurt the taxpayer

all the arguments supporting this are from the previous pages by various posters

 

[Trebla]

The point we are arguing using logic and economic reasoning, is that the policy decisions by our current government and IMO the proposed plans by the opposition are not going to make a rats arse of a difference, to Australia's Co2 output and obviously the worlds either. They only serve to hurt the taxpayer

That unravels a very tricky problem though. If you want to make a really aggressive cut which actually makes a difference (which the Greens originally demanded), that comes at a much higher cost to the economy. Having a very low reduction target at first (which makes little difference to emission levels but also makes little difference to the economy) and then gradually increasing that reduction target is the best way to go about it rather than suddenly shocking the economy into an aggressive emissions cut.

My opinion is that the carbon tax is a necessary evil. It will not make a difference to the growth of carbon dioxide emissions in the short term, but it forms an economic incentive to reduce externality problems in the long term by forcing high emission industries to structurally change themselves to produce lower emissions in the long run (which is the key to making real reductions in emissions) so there is a convergence to a low emissions economy. Once the fixed price becomes a floating price, then market mechanisms will be expected to create a more efficient outcome. The key part of this policy is that it aims for long term outcomes rather than short term ones. If a long run view is taken, it would be expected that other high emission countries will eventually develop emission reduction policies and not just sit on their hands. The main opposing argument (non-political) to the policy is that it incurs short run costs in order to achieve a long run outcome.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

but it won't do any of that anyways

A tax on business is a tax passed onto the consumer

if you read over the last 34 pages you'll see why

 

[qawe]

That unravels a very tricky problem though. If you want to make a really aggressive cut which actually makes a difference (which the Greens originally demanded), that comes at a much higher cost to the economy. Having a very low reduction target at first (which makes little difference to emission levels but also makes little difference to the economy) and then gradually increasing that reduction target is the best way to go about it rather than suddenly shocking the economy into an aggressive emissions cut.

My opinion is that the carbon tax is a necessary evil. It will not make a difference to the growth of carbon dioxide emissions in the short term, but it forms an economic incentive to reduce externality problems in the long term by forcing high emission industries to structurally change themselves to produce lower emissions in the long run (which is the key to making real reductions in emissions) so there is a convergence to a low emissions economy. Once the fixed price becomes a floating price, then market mechanisms will be expected to create a more efficient outcome. The key part of this policy is that it aims for long term outcomes rather than short term ones. If a long run view is taken, it would be expected that other high emission countries will eventually develop emission reduction policies and not just sit on their hands. The main opposing argument (non-political) to the policy is that it incurs short run costs in order to achieve a long run outcome.

yes, I'm not arguing against a low starting point and then movement to a high one. i say: there's no point in us doing anything unless it's part of a global agreement (which may encompass the facets you've just spoken about). it's delusionary to think other countries will "follow suit". i mean, the reason australia is getting a carbon tax is not because "we're following the innovative lead of [insert left wing country here]"

 

[Lentern]

ok then you obviously don't understand our arguement (or at least my arguement)

Human induced global warming causing climate change is real, science is all there

the affects that is likely to have we can't predict very accurately however we can all agree, nothing good

The point we are arguing using logic and economic reasoning, is that the policy decisions by our current government and IMO the proposed plans by the opposition are not going to make a rats arse of a difference, to Australia's Co2 output and obviously the worlds either. They only serve to hurt the taxpayer

all the arguments supporting this are from the previous pages by various posters

Exactly, why quite smoking, ya gunna die anyway.

 

[cosmo kramer]