I'm sure we've all heard that whenever any renewable energy scheme is floated or introduced, the deniers scream "wealth redistribution".

But who is it being distributed to or from ?

Some say the Solar FIT was wealth redistribution from poor (or too stupid to get on it) to middle class (or those with half a brain, as I like to call them).

Some say that no FIT as NSW now has is wealth redistribution from middle class (solar owners) to big business (energy companies) who can now tap cheap sources of power to resell at a higher price.

Some say the carbon tax is a wealth redistribution because poor people get to pocket about $1 a week after cost rises vs compo is calculated.

So who is actually giving, and who is getting (poor, middle class, big business ) ?

Or does it not really matter when youve got a catchy slogan.?

What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax?

Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix?

I remember a couple of catchy slogans

Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time”

Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa”

Moron 3 – No no no

FriYAY wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 4:45pm:

What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no

All morons, but the first two are partly right.
Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly.
Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct.
Moron 3. Nothing I can do here.
;D

It doesn't have to mean wealth distribution, and my preferred model is one that is revenue neutral and where tax cuts are evenly shared according to the likely increase in tax burden.

Obviously the government is going to use the opportunity to fulfill any other agendas, and will also respond to those most likely to respond politically to the change - ie those who are most fearful of change because they have a tight budget.

Income tax thresholds are up for change at every election and do get adjusted every decade or so.

You can take action without impacting citizens financially

How?

Government actions to bring about process change.

Because we are classed as developing by the UN we don't have a reduction obligation but Israel is working with companies to ensure better cleaner air process etc.

The electric car program. The fuel program.

We can not tax our people, it isn't fair to, it will harm our economy.

It must be nice to have other countries pay the price for you.

Here in the first world we have to pay for it ourselves, so we don't have the luxury of pretending it is free or that 'direct action' will be cheaper.

prob

the more i look at it the more it appears the carbon tax is just pissing into the wind

iw sih we were actually doing something serious about climate change and not this trivial token gesture

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 9:14pm:

It must be nice to have other countries pay the price for you. Here in the first world we have to pay for it ourselves, so we don't have the luxury of pretending it is free or that 'direct action' will be cheaper.

But your cost of living is already high and your average wages is about same as Tel Aviv.
You don't see increasing costs of living isi a bad idea?

It is not an actual cost increase if the government income is used to reduce other taxes.

On the other hand, the cost of Israeli style direct action, with all the government inefficiencies, on top of the costs in choosing inherently more expensive real options, is far greater.

It seems to me that you only see the costs that are pointed out to you, not the real costs. That is why you see a carbon tax as an actual cost, even though the money can be used to lower other taxes, but you see government action as free, merely because they have not shown you the price tag. I guarantee you that the real cost of the Israeli option is far greater.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 4:37pm:

I'm sure we've all heard that whenever any renewable energy scheme is floated or introduced, the deniers scream "wealth redistribution". But who is it being distributed to or from ? Some say the Solar FIT was wealth redistribution from poor (or too stupid to get on it) to middle class (or those with half a brain, as I like to call them). Some say that no FIT as NSW now has is wealth redistribution from middle class (solar owners) to big business (energy companies) who can now tap cheap sources of power to resell at a higher price. Some say the carbon tax is a wealth redistribution because poor people get to pocket about $1 a week after cost rises vs compo is calculated. So who is actually giving, and who is getting (poor, middle class, big business ) ? Or does it not really matter when youve got a catchy slogan.?

All taxation is a distribution of wealth and the unmandated carbon tax is no different.

Another word for wealth redistribution is thievery.

State sanctioned thievery.  The majority that pay the minority of tax, steal cash from the minority that pay the majority of tax. :(

Taxation is just state sanctioned thievery like abortion is state sanctioned murder.

The carbon tax being a great big lie and imposed without a mandate it is therefore unsanctioned Government theft which is even worse.

Swagman wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 2:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:37pm: I'm sure we've all heard that whenever any renewable energy scheme is floated or introduced, the deniers scream "wealth redistribution". But who is it being distributed to or from ? Some say the Solar FIT was wealth redistribution from poor (or too stupid to get on it) to middle class (or those with half a brain, as I like to call them). Some say that no FIT as NSW now has is wealth redistribution from middle class (solar owners) to big business (energy companies) who can now tap cheap sources of power to resell at a higher price. Some say the carbon tax is a wealth redistribution because poor people get to pocket about $1 a week after cost rises vs compo is calculated. So who is actually giving, and who is getting (poor, middle class, big business ) ? Or does it not really matter when youve got a catchy slogan.? All taxation is a distribution of wealth and the unmandated carbon tax is no different. Another word for wealth redistribution is thievery. State sanctioned thievery.  The majority that pay the minority of tax, steal cash from the minority that pay the majority of tax. :( Taxation is just state sanctioned thievery like abortion is state sanctioned murder. The carbon tax being a great big lie and imposed without a mandate it is therefore unsanctioned Government theft which is even worse.

For it to be thievery implies someone is losing money and someone is gaining money.  Who is the wealth being distributed from and to whom ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2012 at 4:54pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D

;D

And the answer to the 2 questions?

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:09pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions?

1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy....

2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:22pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:09pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions? 1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy.... 2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time.

1.      That doesn’t answer the question
2.      Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale.

LOL, sorry, try again.

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:22pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:09pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions? 1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy.... 2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time. 1.      That doesn’t answer the question 2.      Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale. LOL, sorry, try again.

1. I dont know what you are asking. I dont care what you call it.

2. Me stealing $10,000 bucks from the westpac branch means nothing to westpac. Doesnt make it ok.
We can only control ourselves.


And since you are all for answering questions, how about you tell me from who and to who this wealth redistribution is happening to/from.  Or do  you think its a BS term ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:22pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:09pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions? 1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy.... 2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time. 1.      That doesn’t answer the question 2.      Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale. LOL, sorry, try again. 1. I dont know what you are asking. I dont care what you call it. 2. Me stealing $10,000 bucks from the westpac branch means nothing to westpac. Doesnt make it ok. We can only control ourselves.

1. What do you call a tax (levy/scheme) that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax?

FFS  ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:22pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:09pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions? 1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy.... 2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time. 1.      That doesn’t answer the question 2.      Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale. LOL, sorry, try again. 1. I dont know what you are asking. I dont care what you call it. 2. Me stealing $10,000 bucks from the westpac branch means nothing to westpac. Doesnt make it ok. We can only control ourselves. And since you are all for answering questions, how about you tell me from who and to who this wealth redistribution is happening to/from.  Or do  you think its a BS term ?

Missed the edit….

You tell me? The ALP is the one with the plan to distribute this tax to low income earners to help them with the extra cost burden. They talk about it every day.

Or are you denying this is happening?

Quote:

Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale.

They mean far more than just about any other group of 20 million people.


Quote:

1. What do you call a tax (levy/scheme) that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax?

It is not handed out. It is exchanged from income tax to a goods tax.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Quote: Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale. They mean far more than just about any other group of 20 million people. [quote]1. What do you call a tax (levy/scheme) that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax?

It is not handed out. It is exchanged from income tax to a goods tax.

[/quote]

Really? What about the richest 20 million Chinese?

Not handed out? Haven’t there already been one off payments?

FriYAY wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:41pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:32pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:22pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 4:09pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:54pm: FriYAY wrote on Jul 2nd, 2012 at 4:45pm: What do you call a tax that then has to be distributed to poor people so they are not burdened by said tax? Considering, of course, that said tax will not do anything about the problem it is being introduced to fix? I remember a couple of catchy slogans Moron 1 – “the greatest moral dilemma of our time” Moron 2 – “there will be no carbon…blaa blaa blaa” Moron 3 – No no no All morons, but the first two are partly right. Moron 1.  If you define "time" as 2000 to 2100, then yes, most definetly. Moron 2. If you snuck in the words "labor majority" before "government I lead" then as Christine Milne said, she'd be 100% correct. Moron 3. Nothing I can do here. ;D ;D And the answer to the 2 questions? 1. Call it whatever you like. a price, a tax, a levy.... 2. Will do heaps for Australia's co2 emissions over time. 1.      That doesn’t answer the question 2.      Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a world scale. LOL, sorry, try again. 1. I dont know what you are asking. I dont care what you call it. 2. Me stealing $10,000 bucks from the westpac branch means nothing to westpac. Doesnt make it ok. We can only control ourselves. And since you are all for answering questions, how about you tell me from who and to who this wealth redistribution is happening to/from.  Or do  you think its a BS term ? Missed the edit…. You tell me? The ALP is the one with the plan to distribute this tax to low income earners to help them with the extra cost burden. They talk about it every day. Or are you denying this is happening?

So you are saying that the carbon tax is a wealth redistribution from top polluters to poor people. ?

And that the original high solar FIT was a wealth distribution from poor people to middle class people ?

And that the now zero solar FIT is a wealth distribution  from middle class people back to the top polluters. ?

The cycle is complete.

;D