@ 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.,