This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Carbon Tax. Yes or No?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
LoveStorm
Do you agree with Julia Gillard's carbon tax?
And why?
(For Australians, or anyone else efffected by a Carbon Tax)
Post by
Monday
Links to let us know what the hell it is?
Post by
Jubilee
I don't know anything about Australia, but is the money going directly to environmental agencies to help counteract the effects? If not, then I think it's silly. If so, then that's up to the scientists to figure out if it's actually working. I have no idea if it does.
Post by
LoveStorm
Links to let us know what the hell it is?
Can't post a link due to being a new user, but a 2 second google search of Carbon tax + Australia will reveal all.
Post by
Monday
But... but... I'm lazy D=
(I'll look it up)
Post by
Squishalot
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-explained-20110709-1h7tg.html
I'm generally for it, all things considered.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
pezz
If so, then that's up to the scientists to figure out if it's actually working. I have no idea if it does.
It's up to the economists, surely. The point of taxes like this is to get people to pay for the damage their smog does. This is to counteract the effect of negative externalities.
The interesting thing about these solutions is that, strictly speaking, there isn't even any moral cause for investigating cheaper fuel alternatives. Those affected by increased greenhouse gas emissions in and around Australia (Australians) are basically having what they paid in negative externalities paid back to them through the government's increased tax revenue.* They have, economically, lost their right to complain.
*Assuming Oz isn't on the wrong side of the Laffer curve for various corporate taxes.
Post by
Squishalot
The interesting thing about these solutions is that, strictly speaking, there isn't even any moral cause for investigating cheaper fuel alternatives. Those affected by increased greenhouse gas emissions in and around Australia (Australians) are basically having what they paid in negative externalities paid back to them through the government's increased tax revenue.
A number of people keep putting this argument up, and it's still untrue. The cause to investigate fuel alternatives is that the carbon tax economics makes the 'green' fuel alternatives relatively better value / cheaper compared to polluting ones. As a result, even though the person at home will be no better/worse off (they pay an extra $500 in energy, and receive $500 in cash back from the government), if they find clean energy for cheaper, they're better off.
For example:
Pre-tax energy cost (coal): $2000 per year.
Post-tax energy cost (coal): $2500 per year
Less: Subsidy from Government: ($500) per year
Total post-tax energy cost (coal): $2000 per year
Pre-tax energy cost (solar): $2300 per year
Post-tax energy cost (solar): $2300 per year
Less: Subsidy from Government: ($500) per year
Total post-tax energy cost (solar): $1800 per year
That's the intention - to make it better value to use renewable energy, relative to coal. Numbers, of course, aren't anywhere near accurate, but if you impose a high enough cost, the incentives work.
Post by
pezz
We're all better off if we find a cheaper way to do something. And obviously artificially jacking up the price of dirtier forms of energy makes renewable energy more attractive, a fact which I'm sure those that instated the tax were aware of. I'm just making an observation based on strict classical economics. Strictly speaking, the negative externalities are all paid up now and everyone's even.
Side note: It irks me that my spell check doesn't recognize externality.
Post by
Squishalot
Strictly speaking, the negative externalities are all paid up now and everyone's even.
Actually, still no. That assumes that a) the price put on the externalities reflects the true cost of the externalities (false); and b) we somehow managed to pay off all the external costs of the last several millenia (also false).(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think the point of the tax should be to just pay for damages, like a fine is for. I think the point any tax like this should be to counteract the effect. So if they are hurting the environment (a scientific question) and if there is a solution to fix that hurting (another scientific question), then I think a socially conscious government is well within the realm of proper behavior to make sure those solutions get employed in the fairest manner (by taxing the ones responsible). If there is no scientifically feasible solution, then I don't think the government has much cause to tax. They should either ban it completely. Or if there is a determined need for the industry, then they should regulate it an appropriate amount.
Post by
Interest
Any chance this could be converted to a poll? =D
Post by
Squishalot
I can create one, but I can't modify an existing thread to become a poll, unfortunately.
Post by
pezz
Strictly speaking, the negative externalities are all paid up now and everyone's even.
Actually, still no. That assumes that a) the price put on the externalities reflects the true cost of the externalities (false); and b) we somehow managed to pay off all the external costs of the last several millenia (also false).
a) It's true that that's false, but there's not really a mechanism for doing anything better than government sponsored educated guesswork. and B) I'm talking about contemporary externalities only. Obviously zombie Rockefeller can't easily be held responsible for his actions.
Post by
Squishalot
Strictly speaking, the negative externalities are all paid up now and everyone's even.
Actually, still no. That assumes that a) the price put on the externalities reflects the true cost of the externalities (false); and b) we somehow managed to pay off all the external costs of the last several millenia (also false).
a) It's true that that's false, but there's not really a mechanism for doing anything better than government sponsored educated guesswork. and B) I'm talking about contemporary externalities only. Obviously zombie Rockefeller can't easily be held responsible for his actions.
However, the current price isn't set anywhere near a 'true cost' level, and the government sponsored educated guesswork (and everybody else) knows that.
Post by
donnymurph
Any chance this could be converted to a poll? =D
I've been thinking about making a post about this for a while, but I've been lazy and was beaten by the newbie.
I'm erring slightly on the pro-tax side of indifference. If the costs were higher, I'd be slightly on the anti-tax side of indifference.
The Daily Telegraph (
Sydney's
Australia's top-selling newspaper, a tabloid) has been sensationalising the crap out of the "impact" of the carbon tax with front-page headlines about the
yearly
increases in cost of living. But the fact of the matter is, it's indexed to income, and people on six figure incomes are going to lose out a
massive
$8 a week or so.
Of course, The Daily Telegraph is to be expected to do this. They are so blatantly and infuriatingly politically biased, a 5-year-old could notice it. And since the tax was imposed by the party they love to deride so much, they were always going to slam it.
But as I said, I'm largely indifferent to the tax. I don't see it as being the most effective way to deal with carbon emissions, but it certainly is the cheapest and easiest to implement. Since the cost is so low, I'll go ahead and say I'm fine with it.
Post by
Haxzor
I just hate Julia Gillard
Post by
donnymurph
Pointless PM is pointless, but that's not the point.
And her voice... Spare me, please!
Post by
OverZealous
I'm generally for it.
Post by
Squishalot
Pointless PM is pointless, but that's not the point.
And her voice... Spare me, please!
Hear hear. Pun intended.
Kevin Rudd v Malcolm Turnbull - that'd be a much better
choice
for the nation.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.