Rechtub,
Look,
If what you are saying, i.e.that the only way to tax consumers is to tax consumers directly, then how do you explain the GST?
Here is a case where the tax is applied at the supplier level but ultimately impacts on the consumer.
Therefore,based on this, I reject your proposition.
Furthermore, I would argue that if the tax was applied directly on the consumer, and I can't imagine how you would do that, then it create no incentive for suppliers to reduce emmissions.
By applying the carbon tax - correctly- at the supplier level, then an incentive exists at both levels. As suppliers pass it on according to how it impacts on their business.
If the supplier reduces emmissions, he can reduce prices thus gaining a competitive advantage.
Id the consumer reduces emmission waste, then he can reduce his costs.
So both the supplier and the consumer can cut their costs and emmissions if they take action.
Ergo, your essential premise is demonstrably incorrect.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anton, you forget one VERY IMPORTANT fact, that being, all additional costs incurred by suppliers, is passed on, but with an additional margin, as business does not run on a cost recovery basis.

So, applying a margin of say 20% , which will barely cover costs, for ever million dollars in tax, the consumer will actually pay 1.2 million.

How do you charge consumers directly you say.

Simple, take electricity.

Say the going rate is 20c per KW, and your average usage over the past 12 months was 1500 KW per bill cycle.

You would then be charged say 15c per KW for the first 1200 KWs then 30c up to 1800 and 35c thereafter.

So if one were to reduce their usage to 1200, a 33.3% reduction, they would save a whopping $180 per bill cycle. An incentive many would aim for, and we are capable, just look at our water usage, although we all got shafted on that one.

The high users would subsidize the low users, so in theory the government would not be out of pocket and, more importantly, NO TAX.

This could be applied to many forms of carbon omitting energy sources.

It stands to reason that if 33.3% of consumers reduce their emissions by 20%, in theory that should result in an overall reduction of 6%. not sure about the math.

It is always better to reward good behavior, rather than just punish bad.

Either way, businesses producing carbon, would not be doing so if not for the demands of the consumer.

Bob Katter was one of the few who really addressed the truth.It was John Howard who set up the framework for the CO2 tax and the ETS.Bob was denigrated by many there who are blindly following the Coalition.

Tony Abbott is softening his stance on the CO2 tax already and it seems like he wants the ETS.We cannot trust them and that's why we need a new party to replace Labor.

Arjay, it's not so much the tax, rather than the size of the tax and more importantly, the lie with which it was introduced under that most people are concerned about.

Quite simply, Julia and labor can't be trusted.

Most people recognize that climate change is an issue, but, even our government accept it's a global issue.

Now if our HUGE tax were to clean our air, and only our air, I am sure you would see a change of heart.

But it doesnt.

tubbers/quote..""Anton, you forget one VERY IMPORTANT fact,
that being,all additional costs incurred by suppliers,..is passed on,

*..but with an additional margin,
as business does not run on a cost recovery basis.

So, applying a margin of say 20% ,which will barely cover costs,
for every million dollars in tax,..the consumer will actually pay 1.2 million...""

where is pericules when you need him
so quick to say arjay..one thing..HE THEN DONT explain neither..

then the anton guilt thingy
us paying does nuthin..[what dont you get?..you can pay it changes nuthin..but you get nice free govt gifts,,but beware of geeks selling enron like grifts..getting enron-esq bonus..plus doing share deal scams..loading up debt outside the books

its all in the tax mate
inflation chews up the base rate to 3 times the buy back rate
what then

REDUCE
the more you use
THE MORE YOUR MUST PAY

sliding scale..the more you use,...the more you must pay

switch off you booster on your solar water selling machine
the sun heats it..get it?..dont let it be boosted..overnight
yet we subsidise your wastefull ways

enough
sack all lawyers..tax all trust funds double
what the media dont show is the crimes of the dead people..IT SHOULD*

speak ill of the dead
govt is here fr the living

let the dead tend the dead
yiour all immortal spirits..having a life 'experence'..get over materialism..you cant take the object with you/we all die..eventually

but the criminal love of sin/greed/gluttony/averice uncharitablness

that goes where you go..your ar soul
where your heart goes..the soul follows..let your heart seek the light sustaining life into love via logic..

sic*

rehctub & OUG ,the C02 tax is a tax on life.This is what the Agenda 21 fascists and the Greens want.They want to reduce the world's pop by 6 billion.

This is another reason why the BRICS nations were formed.They know the agenda of these lunatics and they with their enormous populations are at the fore front of their madness.

Just recently in Tehran 30 countries met representing almost half the world's pop and they are resolved to stop the march into Syria and the West's imperial drive for a one world Govt.As I've said the lunatics are on our side but they have started something they cannot finish without now having a serious conflict with Russia and China.