Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Windhover]

You need a source to back up the claim that Labor and The Greens have always wanted to increase tax on businesses, even before climate change?

Two points pokerspiv. First, that was not your claim, which was much more specific.

Secondly, the claim that Labor and The Greens have always wanted to increase the tax on businesses is a generalisation so sweeping it is meaningless except to understanding your peculiar POV. I mean, surely it didn't escape your steely mind that the Victorian aluminium producer lost money after the repeal of carbon pricing because what they lost in payment of carbon pricing was off-set by the compensation package. So much for Labor always wanting to increase tax on businesses - even with the pay-for-pollution carbon pricing legislation some businesses made money. Go reconfigure your worldview pokerspiv, if it were possible.

 

[pokerspiv]

Two points pokerspiv. First, that was not your claim, which was much more specific.

Secondly, the claim that Labor and The Greens have always wanted to increase the tax on businesses is a generalisation so sweeping it is meaningless except to understanding your peculiar POV.

It's pretty much the definition of progressivism, the ideology which both Labor and The Greens claim to follow.

 

[Windhover]

So why are you ridiculing me for pointing out that the carbon tax did not, in fact, change the temperature?

You're just being argumentative because you don't like people mentioning it, right?

Why do you continue to make up what I am saying? I have explained, at some length, the way pricing carbon went to help reduce AGW. If you disagree with my explanation please respond to what I actually wrote and stop making up what you would like to think I wrote. If. You. Can.

 

[pokerspiv]

Secondly, the claim that Labor and The Greens have always wanted to increase the tax on businesses is a generalisation so sweeping it is meaningless except to understanding your peculiar POV. I mean, surely it didn't escape your steely mind that the Victorian aluminium producer lost money after the repeal of carbon pricing because what they lost in payment of carbon pricing was off-set by the compensation package. So much for Labor always wanting to increase tax on businesses - even with the pay-for-pollution carbon pricing legislation some businesses made money. Go reconfigure your worldview pokerspiv, if it were possible.

Simple question mate: Did the total tax take increase or decrease after the implementation of the Carbon tax, or was it revenue neutral?

Because there are many respected right-wing economists who are in favour of the idea of a revenue-neutral carbon price. It probably is the most efficient way of addressing the tragedy of the commons associated with carbon dioxide emissions. Malcolm Turnbull was in favour when leader of the Liberal Party.

But a revenue-neutral tax was never on the agenda from Labor or The Greens. Only a tax that increased total taxes. There were never any proposals for associated cuts to company tax. And none of the left-wing parties anywhere in the world are proposing revenue-neutral carbon price. All of them want to increase the total size of government, while pretending to care about climate change.

That is what it has always been about for the left. Increasing government revenue and power.

That's all they've ever been about.

 

[Windhover]

It's pretty much the definition of progressivism, the ideology which both Labor and The Greens claim to follow.

I had not, hitherto, been acquainted with the term "progressivism". According to Wicki it means "Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism seems therefore to have nothing to say particularly in relation to taxation of businesses but perhaps you have your own peculiar understanding of the word. That would not surprise, it seems to be the rule with you.

 

[pokerspiv]

I had not, hitherto, been acquainted with the term "progressivism". According to Wicki it means "Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism seems therefore to have nothing to say particularly in relation to taxation of businesses but perhaps you have your own peculiar understanding of the word. That would not surprise, it seems to be the rule with you.

Yeah, great research there chief. Maybe try reading how progressivism is defined in modern times, it's the next paragraph.

Progressivism means, in simple terms: Reducing income inequality, and restraining the power of corporations. I'll give you a couple of guesses as to how this is accomplished in practice.

 

[Windhover]

Simple question mate: Did the total tax take increase or decrease after the implementation of the Carbon tax, or was it revenue neutral?

Nice detour pokerspiv. Instead of giving any sources for any of your previous claims, divert conversation and ask a completely pointless question. Let me respond to your question with a question (which contains the answer to your question implicitly). If we agree to pricing the global warming effects of carbon emissions, why should the price set be revenue neutral? After all it is not as if the AGW damage caused by those emissions are expected to be felt in the year the emissions are made. Instead the damage extends for up to 1,000 years, if consensus science is to be accepted.

 

[pokerspiv]

Nice detour pokerspiv. Instead of giving any sources for any of your previous claims, divert conversation and ask a completely pointless question.

The question is not pointless at all. If the purpose of the carbon tax is to alter behaviour, but not to increase tax, then the carbon tax should have been accompanied by a comparative reduction in company tax to be revenue neutral. As recommended by every economist ever.

Are you saying that the Labor party just "forgot"?

 

[Windhover]

Yeah, great research there chief.

Thanks, it is a habit you might benefit from. Then again, . . .

Maybe try reading how progressivism is defined in modern times, it's the next paragraph.

Ok, since we are on this happy detour of yours perhaps you could actually quote the bits in the next paragraph you are referring to that supports your assertion, previously made, and insinuated in your post which I quote below, that progressivism means increased business taxation.

Progressivism means, in simple terms: Reducing income inequality, and restraining the power of corporations. I'll give you a couple of guesses as to how this is accomplished in practice.

Who knows, if you actually start supporting your blind assertions with a bit of hard fact or source material you might even get somewhere. . . . nah.

 

[pokerspiv]

Who knows, if you actually start supporting your blind assertions with a bit of hard fact or source material you might even get somewhere. . . . nah.

It's not my fault that you don't know the definition of commonly used political terms.

It's not my job to give you remedial lessons in the things you pretend to understand.

The fact that you even had to look it up is embarrassing enough. It's like trying to tell people in a car maintenance forum how to fix cars while not knowing what an alternator is.

 

[Windhover]

The question is not pointless at all. If the purpose of the carbon tax is to alter behaviour, but not to increase tax, then the carbon tax should have been accompanied by a comparative reduction in company tax to be revenue neutral. As recommended by every economist ever.

The purpose of pricing carbon is to make carbon emission polluters pay something for the not so hidden cost of the polluter doing business. Making polluters pay for the cost of their pollution does usually lead to behavioural change as the polluter finds less polluting ways to continue their business. But hey, if A co is massively polluting in order to make widgets which everyone is happy to buy at a price that enables the full cost of the pollution to be mitigated then who am I to care?

And your suggestion that every economist ever recommended that money raised by carbon pricing should have been used to reduce company tax is, like almost everything you assert, silly and unsupported by any source.

For starters, poor companies burdened by paying a price on carbon can just pass the price on to consumers, which of course they did. Giving compensation to those poor companies by way of reduced taxation makes no sense at all when it is the consumers who buy the polluting companies profits that are paying for the pollution (as they should do).

 

[pokerspiv]

And your suggestion that every economist ever recommended that money raised by carbon pricing should have been used to reduce company tax is, like almost everything you assert, silly and unsupported by any source.

You don't even understand what revenue-neutral means. Why are you even arguing here? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of resources on google about this subject, some of them even meant for high school age children, which is about the level of your understanding of this issue at present.

If you can't even admit at a basic level that the Australian Carbon tax raised taxes, and that it was intended to raise taxes, then why should I bother engaging with you? You are being dishonest from the get go.

 

[Windhover]

It's not my fault that you don't know the definition of commonly used political terms.

It's not my job to give you remedial lessons in the things you pretend to understand.

The fact that you even had to look it up is embarrassing enough. It's like trying to tell people in a car maintenance forum how to fix cars while not knowing what an alternator is.

Pokerspiv, I do not blame you for my ignorance. What I blame you for is making up your own definition of the meaning of "progressivism", claiming it is contained in the definition I have sourced, and refusing to explain how your peculiar understanding of the word is supported by direct reference to the definition you seem to accept.

If you were actually interested in debating you would happily explain how your meaning of the word can be derived from the second paragraph. You can't explain so you deflect. Is that what trolls do?

 

[pokerspiv]

Pokerspiv, I do not blame you for my ignorance. What I blame you for is making up your own definition of the meaning of "progressivism", claiming it is contained in the definition I have sourced, and refusing to explain how your peculiar understanding of the word is supported by direct reference to the definition you seem to accept.

This is not my defintion. This is the definition used by people who call themselves progressives. What the term meant in 1850 is about as relevant as what the term "gay" meant in 1850. Meanings change.

Progressives favour high taxes on the rich, high regulation of business, generous social welfare, universal health care, and reduction of income inequality. This is not a controversial definition. Again, it's not my fault you aren't really up to speed with things, and I am not going to link to a dictionary for every commonly-used political word in my posts. And demanding that I do is childish.

 

[Windhover]

You don't even understand what revenue-neutral means.

. . . because? [i.e. please refer to my post(s) that you rely on to make your claim].

Why are you even arguing here?

Good question. I am arguing here because I am interested in knowing how posters like you run around making wild assertions and, when asked to justify them never do but go galloping off to make still more wild assertions on some other vaguely related topic where, they hope, they will not be pursued. And then I like chasing them down.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

. . . because? [i.e. please refer to my post(s) that you rely on to make your claim].

If you can't even admit at a basic level that the Australian Carbon tax raised taxes, and that it was intended to raise taxes, then why should I bother engaging with you? You are being dishonest from the get go.

Rather than have me "admit" things why don't you repeat to me what I have posted (as I do with you) and explain what "at a basic level" you disagree with. Otherwise, how can I begin to understand where our differences lie and thus correct you? . . . . oh, I see, that's your point.

 

[pokerspiv]

Secondly, the claim that Labor and The Greens have always wanted to increase the tax on businesses is a generalisation so sweeping it is meaningless

Still sticking by this then?

You think there was a time when Labor and The Greens were in favour of reducing corporate tax rates?

 

[Windhover]

This is not my defintion. This is the definition used by people who call themselves progressives. What the term meant in 1850 is about as relevant as what the term "gay" meant in 1850. Meanings change.

Let me get this straight. Your definition of "progressivism" is not your definition of p. It is the definition of people who call themselves progressives. Huh? Then what is your definition of p and why should anyone accept your definition (hint- what is your source for your unusual meaning)?

Progressives favour high taxes on the rich, high regulation of business, generous social welfare, universal health care, and reduction of income inequality. This is not a controversial definition. Again, it's not my fault you aren't really up to speed with things, and I am not going to link to a dictionary for every commonly-used political word in my posts. And demanding that I do is childish.

Well thank you for tacitly admitting that the second paragraph of my link to the meaning of the word does not support your definition. You may well be right that people who self-describe as "progressives" in general favour high(er) taxes on the rich than the poor. I think many conservatives also support high(er) taxes on the rich than the poor. Indeed, except for a few flat-taxers floating about it is not controversial. But just because self-described ps favour high(er) taxes on the rich than the poor does not make them "progressivists". Under the Wicki definition "progressivism" is a philosophy. True it is that taxing the rich is consistent with the philosophy as defined but it does not seem to be an essential component of it. There are other ways of obtaining income equality after all.

 

[pokerspiv]

Let me get this straight. Your definition of "progressivism" is not your definition of p. It is the definition of people who call themselves progressives. Huh? Then what is your definition of p and why should anyone accept your definition (hint- what is your source for your unusual meaning)?.

Again, this is not an unusual meaning. This is what people who call themselves progressives mean when they say they are "progressives".

e.g. https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/definition-progressive-are-you-progressive

Again, it's not my fault that you aren't aware how the term is commonly used. It's just that you don't really know much about politics. Which is fine, until you come into a political forum and then get mad at people for using political terminology you aren't familiar with. An hour ago you'd never heard the term, now you're telling me what it means.

And, i should also point out that you are doing precisely what you accused me of doing (when I wasn't) - rabbitting on about an unrelated topic because you have nothing to say about the actual topic.

 

[Windhover]

Still sticking by this then?

You think there was a time when Labor and The Greens were in favour of reducing corporate tax rates?

Yes and yes. Sorry to shatter your fragile illusions but Labor reduced the corporate tax rate to 39% and then later to 33% from a pre-existing 46% under the Fraser Libs: http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2012/btwg-consult-guide/HTML/history

Again, this is not an unusual meaning. This is what people who call themselves progressives mean when they say they are "progressives".

e.g. https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/definition-progressive-are-you-progressive

Again, it's not my fault that you aren't aware how the term is commonly used. It's just that you don't really know much about politics. Which is fine, until you come into a political forum and then get mad at people for using political terminology you aren't familiar with. An hour ago you'd never heard the term, now you're telling me what it means.

The term you originally used was "progressivism". This is a philosophy. What Americans in 2008 mean when they call themselves "progressives" is no doubt fascinating for some (you) but, except anecdotally, it tells us nothing about the tenets of the philosophy. Indeed, the author of the lists you linked acknowledged as much at the end of the article with this:

"No doubt some readers will say this list is incomplete. It is. Many policy issues of importance to progressives go unmentioned. Others might say that the list leans too far to the left, or not far enough."

And, i should also point out that you are doing precisely what you accused me of doing (when I wasn't) - rabbitting on about an unrelated topic because you have nothing to say about the actual topic.

Thanks for that feedback, for a while there I thought you couldn't read to add to your other, ahem, cognitive difficulties. Now, if only you could actually quote an instance that might support your unusual opinion, your opinion might be tested. Yet again you fail to do so.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Carbon emissions are global. The carbon tax was local. It therefore became an additional burdon to producing anything in Australia.

 

[Todman]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/...swiss-voters-reject-carbon-tax-in-referendum/

Green Fiasco: 92% Of Swiss Voters Reject Carbon Tax In Referendum
Anthony Watts / 2 days ago March 9, 2015
Second worst results in modern Swiss history
Swiss voters Sunday overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have scrapped the Alpine country’s value-added-tax system and replaced it with a carbon tax. Roughly 92% of voters opposed the initiative while 8% supported the measure.
The initiative would have encouraged Swiss households to use renewable energy sources, including solar and wind, which would have been exempt from taxes. The initiative, which was introduced by the Green Liberal Party of Switzerland, was designed to help lower carbon emissions and reduce global warming. –Neil Maclucas, The Wall Street Journal, 8 March 2015

A proposal replacing the main consumer tax with a new levy on non-renewable energy has suffered a blistering defeat in Sunday’s nationwide ballot. The proposal by the Liberal Green Party won only 8% of the vote, according to final official results. Sunday’s result was the second worst in modern Swiss history. –Swiss Info, 8 March 2015

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

I remember 157 pages ago when Upton Sinclair was the man...where's he at?

 

[Docker Clint]

http://earthsky.org/earth/surprise-arctic-sea-ice-sets-new-record-winter-low

Is it still a lie?

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

http://earthsky.org/earth/surprise-arctic-sea-ice-sets-new-record-winter-low

Is it still a lie?

Nothing has changed Clint the climate fluctuates.

#leaveCO2alone

 

[Long Live HFC]

lol, are we still at a point where we don't understand that certain atmospheric gases help trap solar radiation? wtf?

Nothing has changed Clint the climate fluctuates.

#leaveCO2alone