The government says it is going to tax the large poluters while at the same time offer relief to the householder who is effected.

What they fail to take in to account is the fact that if a business has to find additional funds, be it for tAxes, wages, fees, anything, the business expects to get more than just their money back as they want a return on their additional investment, and who can blame them for that.

The government mean Tim expects these businesses to fund the additional tax and at best pass the costs on, however, they will pass the costs plus funding costs plus a margin on to the consumer.

This tax will have dire effects but I doubt it will get through, however, it is just one more example of how poor policy can rock the confidence of business and for that, we should all be worried.

It's all well and good to feel warm and fuzzy, but is it worth the risk as it is said that AUs contribution to co2 is likened to a single hair on the gateway bridge.

Government may be happy with a cost recovery policy, however, business does not work like that.

As this extra cost gets passed around each effected business will add their margin and the end user will pay big time.

We all know that CO2 is plant food, & that is in low supply in the atmosphere at present, compared to much of the planets history. Be that as it may, the con job has frightened some.

If silly little Julia wanted to do something about emissions, she could switch our power generation to our newly found gas reserves. This would be silly, but viable.

She could stop coal mining, but even this fool is not that brave.

What I can't understand is the attitude of anyone who would bring in this tax, when we all know;

1/ It will have no effect on CO2 emissions, here or world wide.

2/It will destroy jobs for real Ozzies.

3/ It will destroy her party. There are not enough fools in Oz to vote them in again, after this.

4/ The planet, & the sun are in cooling mode. This tax will be seen as more stupid as time goes by.

Why could they not have recruited her to play a wicked witch in the Harry Potter movies? She could have had her fame, without destroying anything.

The call of sleeping in the Lodge must be very strong in her. Could it be like the force in a Jedi? I guess stupidity is something you are born with.

I love the premise the OP's based on, i.e. that businesses are entitled to gouge their customers over and above taxes, while blaming the dreadful government for it. Perhaps I'd be a more successful businessman if I regarded taxes I pay as capital investment, upon which I'm entitled to a return. That explains alot, actually. It's probably legal, but hopefully your customers punish you by shopping at a more ethically-run business.

There's plenty of shortcomings in the Carbon Tax as proposed, but that isn't one of them.

shortcomings in the Carbon Tax as proposed, but that isn't one of them.
morganzola,
I'm sure it was like that on this planet when I last checked.

To suggest that either the Labor party or the Liberal party have the necessary intelligence or integrity to properly handle the “Global Warming” if there is one, is of dubious value. Certainly there is Global warming, there have been volcanoes in Greenland, Cuba, volcanic fissures on the unstable ocean trench, and Japan has apparently seventy active volcanoes on its islands, so to suggest that the “warming” is all human generated, does seem to be more the clutching straws to save their excessive un-deserved salaries. The other Countries are suffering from the same problem, A low top tax allowing excessive incomes and high costs of goods and services, causing a bad economy and forcing wage earners out of their homes and onto the streets, you can check that yourself. The unemployment figure is a manipulated malicious figure, designed to pretend our workers are almost fully employed.

@ individual:

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding your one-line comments increasingly hard to decipher lately. Have you resorted to obscurantism to try and conceal that you've run out of original thoughts?

Well Morgan that's the type of response I expected, so please let me try to explain.

Big business, who, due to true labor form don't even know who they are yet, may be out of pocket by millions. Perhaps even billions.

Now for every million they invest they must consider interest and funding costs. Of cause these costs will be passed on.

Then there is lost opportunity, that being, what could that million or billions have been used for it not tied up in additional taxes.

Then, there is return on investment. Nobody. Wants to invest one million to at best get one million back, so they will at least want 6% return otherwise they may as well not take the risk. Now if they do have to invest millions, withoutnreturn, then their shareholders may well dump their stock, which effects amoung other things, mums and dads super funds.

Now, once you take all these costs into account, then they accumulate down the supply line, the one million that the government is offering as compensation may well be swallowed up as the real increase could be as much as double.

Governments may be content with a costbrecovery basis, but believe me, big business and their shareholders will not be happy with that.

After all, who places a bet where the best odds are to get your money back.

Oh come on, rehctub - it's called gouging. If it's not illegal, it should be - and I'll be very surprised if it's allowed under the legislation.

I think the idea is that if businesses want to minimise the carbon taxes they pay, they spend their money on inputs that are created via less emissions, and therefore attract less tax.

You suggestion is unethical to the point of criminality. Have you run it past your accountant?

Gillard and her Labor traitors will drive this country into abject poverty.

In the USA and here there was no income tax prior 1913.When Woodrow Wilson betrayed the US people by allowing a private group of banks like JP Morgan and Rockefeller to own and create the US currency,that was the beginning of our demise.The following year in 1914 the income tax act was put into law.

Prior 1913 the US Govt under their Constitution used to create all the new money to equal the increases in productivity of US citizens.Now throughout the West private Central Banks own our increases on productivity via creating it from nothing as debt and loaning it back to us.This is the modern way of serfdom.Our own Govts are complicit in our slavery.

For those folks who care about the future and not their immediate pockets the following might clarify things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/11/carbon-tax-we-had-have

Morgan it's not gouging, it's called a return on investment.

What you are suggesting is that a business should invest $1000 and be happy to get their money back.

If you increase the expenses of a business without. Increasing profits then that business is going backwards.

In any case I guess we will just have to watch this space.

Yes of course rehctub, but then the point is to encourage a reduction in expenses by increasing efficiency, is it not?

@ rehctub:

Since when is a tax an investment? The whole idea of the thing is to encourage you to decrease the amount of greenhouse emissions associated with your business, and it's supposed to hurt - how much is up to you. It's a tax, so you can't profit from it, but you can minimise it by increasing carbon efficiency. One day you'll be able to trade in carbon credits, but meanwhile you won't be able to get anything back from your customers more than you can justify in passing on increased costs due to the carbon tax.

Perhaps uncoincidentally, there was discussion on ABC News 24 (The Drum) about this very topic this evening. The commentators, from various political persuasions, agreed that rorting the Carbon Tax would be considered gouging, and apparently Gillard has foreshadowed regulation and monitoring by the ACCC in order to prohibit such unscrupulous acts. Nobody - not even the guy from the IPA - suggested that there's anything legitimate about it.

As you said, watch this space.

Lexi

Regarding the article to which you have referred us…

The author tries to explain why the carbon tax will work, but he misses two rather vital points:

To what extent will it work? If it is only going to reduce emissions by a tiny amount, with little prospect of the scale of reductions progressively increasing up to a significant level in the not too distant future, then it’s not going to work.

Secondly, the author doesn’t even bear a thought about the rapidly increasing number of carbon polluters in this country, which is bound to completely overwhelm even quite moderate per-capita reductions. Gillard should have taken this opportunity to wind back immigration. This should he been a fundamental part of the carbon tax strategy. The author should have pulled her up on this.

I wanted to put these comments up on New Matilda. But I was bamboozled by the registration process. It did not ask for a password as part of initial registration but then wanted a bloomin password in order for me to sign in!! Damn bizarre and infuriating, that was!! I stared at it for ages. Never seen anything like it before. Could you possibly advise me on how to get around this brickwall? Thanks (I’m assuming that you are registered with New Matilda).

Lexi, problem solved. I was sent a password by email. I have now posted on New Matilda:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/11/carbon-tax-we-had-have#comment-31152

Morgan, a tax is an additional cost that requires additional funding, that requires capital which usually involves funding expenses and depletes potential earnings.

In other words, it's a further investment in ones business but in this case it is without consideration for the costs not to mention a return on investment.

As for them cleaning up their acts, just remember, they don't use the power, we do. They are simply supplying our demands yet they are being punnished for it.

It is the end user that should clean up their act, not the providor. If demand dropps, so to do emissions.

I have read the comments and agree there are good and bad points supporting both sides of the carbon tax issues.
Regardless of whether you support or do not support the carbon tax, We have to look at the impact it will have on the future of Australia and the future generations of Australian people.
Businesses operate to make a profit on their investment, they do not operated to break even or run at a loss.
My concern is this;
If any business, especially the big ones who employ a lot of Australian workers find that a carbon tax impacts on their profit margin they might do one of the following;
(a) Increase the cost of their products to absorb the costs.
(b) Downsize their work force to save on expenditure.
(c) Spend the as yet unknown costs it will cost to implament an enviroment freindly system
(d) Relocate off-shore to a country that does not have the carbon tax.
A lot of businesses have already re-located off-shore where the cost to manufacture their products were considerably less than in Australia, and this was before the carbon tax issue.
Any business that moves off-shore is at the cost of Australian workers jobs.
As yet there is no evidence that carbon emission scheme (carbon tax) will create employment, it is only a theory.
Can anyone regardless whether you are pro or anti the carbon tax, and E.T.S. answer the above questions?

Gypsy, Here is the real problem as I see it.

Canon generators are generating carbon simply to feed the demands of the user.

If anyone should be taxed, it's the end user as it is us who use the products and services that the generators generate.

the who thing is arse up if you ask me.

The problem is that 500 big businesses are easier targets than the general population so if the general population was taxed then the government would be crucified at the polls and they know that.

All other forms of taxes are taxed to the end user. Tabacco, grog, fuel, you name it, the end user pay the tax.

Another area of concern is big business moving forward. Most today are public companies and most have several irons in the fire, so, if one area becomes to hard, they may well find something else to invest in.

The trouble is, these wholesale changes may take years, even decades to eventuate, but the ground work for such moves are often planned decades in advance.,

@ rehctub:

Carbon dioxide emissions are created in the production and marketing of consumer items, not typically in their consumption. You'll be taxed, and then you'll pass the tax on (and then some, apparently) to the consumer via the retail price. If you can find more greenhouse-friendly ways to produce or source what you sell, and what utilities etc you use, you then have a price advantage over those who continue to conduct business as usual.

Of course, in the case of a butcher's shop, probably the best thing your customers could do to reduce total greenhouse emissions would be to turn vegetarian. I doubt that many people would do that, but I'm quite sure that meat consumption per capita will decline as price increases relative to other foods.

Dear Ludwig,

Ben Eltham is an intelligent man and I hope that he responds to you
appropriately and answers all your questions. Did you read the
article and get anything from it at all - or were you only on your pet
peeve - population control? It's valid - but remember - this carbon
programme is only the first-step - we've got a long way to go yet -
however we should all be pleased that at least this first step has been taken by a leader with the guts
to do something despite the
well-orchestrated fear campaign
by Tony Abbott and the business lobby.

Lexi, I read the article thoroughly and then picked out the most important points that I thought I needed to comment on.

You say;

<< remember - this carbon programme is only the first-step >>

I hope it proves to be so, but I doubt it. I responded to you about this on another thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4577#118566

I can more or less understand why the carbon tax is as it is, with a compensation package exceeding the actual tax. It has to be sold to the people to the extent that the government survives the next election so that the whole thing doesn’t get stalled, watered down or abolished by the Abbottomdwellingslimemould Liberals.

But I can’t for the life of me understand why the continuous growth factor has just been completely left out, given that it is just so important, and has recently been in the spotlight with Rudd’s Big Australia, Gillard’s denunciation of it and Dick Smith’s high-profile population comments.

Including a reduction in immigration, with a full explanation as to why, would surely have resonated with the Australian populace and helped to increase support for the whole carbon tax strategy.

Hasbeen said;
If silly little Julia wanted to do something about emissions, she
could switch our power generation to our newly found gas reserves.
This would be silly, but viable.

There was recently an article on studies on The Oil Drum about natural gas.
Taking it from discovery to burning it emits more CO2 than oil.
Not sure about coal.

Morganzola;
Your suggestion that businesses just carry the extra tax as
more overhead would be fine if the banks and government reduced their
demands in proportion.
It appears you have never run a business if you think your suggestion
would work. In a no growth economy it is going to be hard enough to
keep a businesses head above water without imposing your suggestion.
It appears from recent reports that Germany is one of the only
countries that will have reasonable growth.
China is plowing on with 9.5% growth but then that is a smoke and
mirrors vision, built on the back of decreasing GDP in other countries.

*You'll be taxed, and then you'll pass the tax on (and then some, apparently) to the consumer via the retail price.*

Morgan, if only things were that simple. As it happens, Australian
farmers compete with American and other farmers, who don't face
these costs. So the money will come out of their pockets, another
reason not to bother producing locally.

Best perhaps we'll just let you eat Chinese food, that should
be good for your health.

Morgan, if the demand wasn't there these goods and services would not be provided.

Another underlying problem may well be the fact that our competitors will not have the same taxes to consider. This could have dire results, don't you think.

At the end of the day most people want something done, but for us to move while others dont is here the problem is.

As I hav said before, this will add to our costs, reduce our competetiveness and achieve nothing in terms of global reductions.

Surely even you can see that.

Ah yes subsidy's free trade & all other other dirty tricks pulled on Australian farmers and Australia itself AND thats why we need a Trade Minister with some balls and stop sucking up and putting up with this unfair playing field.

Thats why the US and others should liberalize their farm policies irrespective of whether developing nations lower their trade barriers.
Not just to help poorer nations, although it would do that in a way that adds to world economic efficiency and trade. Freeing agriculture would also help consumers and even many farmers in Australia.

Whether subsidies to agriculture raise or lower prices to domestic consumers depends on the form the subsidies take.
So we must have the same subs for local plants & we give $ for $ to overseas in our so called assistance.
Subsidies to farm exports also raise domestic prices by artificially diverting production from the domestic to the export market.

Either way the public have had enough of USA screwing our farmers and our government shutting up about it.

So Australian farmers & Abattoirs are now putting their hand out for the SAME subs & $ for $ gifted in many different ways and scams to overseas.

There will be plants here- The world is changing its just the nationals and perhaps USA who are left behind havent got the message yet- but they will.

Kanne, the though of processing plants here, if that's what you refer to is a nice dream, but reallity is, it is simply that, a dream.

We simply can not compete with our wage system and our remoteness to the rest of th world. I doubt that will ever change.

Thebfact of the matter is that we export because we have to while many other countries expot as they choose to.

Our population is to small to sustain our lifestyle.

I've just looked through this discussion so must apologized for a late entry. All thoughtful analysts agree that an inevitable result of the "carbon" tax will be rampant inflation. Most commentators assume this to be a side issue. I believe it to be the sole purpose. Oz enjoys one of the best standards of living in the world, and one of the most benign social environments, both of which are largely irrelevant to the Globalist agenda. However, Oz salaries and wages are probably the highest in the world based on A$ equivalents, and this IS a problem for the Globalists. Even worse are the rights of Oz landowners, given the bother of cheap coal lying under prime agricultural land. The obvious solution is to lower Oz wages and disenfranchise the landowners. How to do it? Inflation, of course.

I'm putting together some material that will eventually address these issues directly. If you don't mind looking at a work in progress, try this:

http://52midnight.com/au

I worked for the Gov for 10 years in computing analysis. If you draw NO benefit of any kind, your deemed to be employed and thus are never counted in the unemployment figures. The REAL unemployment figure is what the government quotes X 3.

Now does anybody with more than half a brain think that anybody is going to promote a moneymaking scheme where the basis of it is the alleged REDUCTION of the commodity that drives the scheme? The idea that is being sold to a gullible public is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme that will eventually eradicate man-caused pollution and thus save the world. So why would anybody invest in something that is going to be wiped out in the medium to long term?

Of course not. The moneymaking aspect of any scheme relies on it continuing and growing, therefore the sponsors of this scam are really relying on two things - that the human-caused carbon dioxide emissions will continue and increase, thus increasing the profits from the scam and secondly, that the value of the carbon credits themselves will rise, just like stocks and shares, reaping huge financial rewards for those who trade in them and especially those who control the trading.

In the longer term don't worry about global trade because there won't
be any except for very high value small volume componentry.

Globalisation is ending. Your world is about to get a lot smaller.