The 'Carbon Tax' is the same as the GST

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The GST is a consumption tax. When you buy something there is an additional cost that the business collects and gives to the government. It effects everyone, so all citizens pay tax for being a part of society unless they are entirely self-sufficient.

Any price on Carbon will make fossil fuel electricity more expensive. As a lot of goods and services use coal-fire electricity, so they're subject to an increase in price and the Coalition will insist on labelling that price on carbon as 'a Carbon tax'. There shouldn't need to be an argument about the semantics, and calling it a 'tax' therefore helps point out that a Carbon price is a consumption tax.

There are some relatively minor differences (below), but the major impact of a price on carbon or a broadened/higher GST is the same - consumers pay more. So can the Coalition and Labor stop promoting one while ruling out the other as the 'worst thing evaaa'?


The differences (which don't effect consumers directly, so are relatively minor):

• Carbon price has an environmental benefit
• GST has a greater bureaucratic burden for most businesses because they have to collect and pass on the tax
  
• Carbon price may mean some or all revenue received will go to businesses that remove carbon from the atmosphere through a trading mechanism or 'direct action' (this happens already with general revenue)
• Carbon price would drop over time as businesses make themselves less carbon-intensive. So it's likely GST would be needed eventually to balance the budget if revenue remains too low
  
• Carbon price would need a corresponding carbon tariff applied to goods produced overseas so that local business weren't unfairly effected. If the price became properly global as is expected, and it linked in with economies where we outsource our production (like China) there would be no need for a tariff. This is the same argument for why business currently wants GST applied to items made overseas that are worth less than $1000 (where the current threshold kicks in).
• GST is regressive (effects poor people more than rich people) but compensation was already put in place by Labor and mostly kept by the Coalition. Further increases to pensions can therefore be argued about as a separate issue to revenue.

 

[Mofra]

Interesting viewpoint - I guess there is also scope to reduce personal exposure to both as well:
- Purchasing more exempt items (fresh food) as opposed to prepared meals subject to GST
- Using lower emissions technology instead of coal generated power (personal bills) and reducing personal energy consumption

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Interesting viewpoint - I guess there is also scope to reduce personal exposure to both as well:
- Purchasing more exempt items (fresh food) as opposed to prepared meals subject to GST

Not if it's broadened, of course. I imagine if we removed all the exemptions in might lessen the bureaucracy, but it'd still be good if we could make fresh veggies cheaper so there's incentive for people to not get diabetes/heart disease/etc.

Might separate subsidies direct to the farmers achieve this and help deal with the Duopoly's poor treatment of our farmers? Could be something the Nationals fight for if they ever get off the Liberal party's teat and represent their constituencies...

 

[madmug]

Not if it's broadened, of course. I imagine if we removed all the exemptions in might lessen the bureaucracy, but it'd still be good if we could make fresh veggies cheaper so there's incentive for people to not get diabetes/heart disease/etc.

Might separate subsidies direct to the farmers achieve this and help deal with the Duopoly's poor treatment of our farmers? Could be something the Nationals fight for if they ever get off the Liberal party's teat and represent their constituencies...

I've said this before, their must be no GST on such things as fresh, unprocessed foods & on medical services. It would be a counter productive move. A stupid move in fact.

Increasing costs on healthy food is dumb for obvious reasons. Despite Aborts attack on medicare last year, our medical system is relatively efficient compared with other nations like the USA, UK etc.

So in saying the above would be a counter productive move, its probably what dumbo will do. If so, it will confirm both his stupidity & his hatred of people from LSE backgrounds.

 

[Todman]

The GST is a consumption tax. .......... Carbon price is a consumption tax.

Wrong!

A carbon tax is an activity tax. It discourages production whereas a GST discourages spending.

 

[Maggie5]

GST discourages spending? News to me!

 

[nylexbandit]

Little bit off topic, but carbon tax should be structured such that every $ raised goes into establishing a world leading renewable energy research and manufacturing industry. Given we need to find areas of competitive advantage and create jobs, this seems to me like the most appropriate way to implement it.

 

[Lebbo73]

Little bit off topic, but carbon tax should be structured such that every $ raised goes into establishing a world leading renewable energy research and manufacturing industry. Given we need to find areas of competitive advantage and create jobs, this seems to me like the most appropriate way to implement it.

If I was for a carbon tax I would agree with this.

 

[Pessimistic]

Watch all the drones who foamed at the mouth over ccarbon taxes come out in huge numbers for the GST when the libs slip it out there.

Accountants dissapoint me the most. They spend their working lives helping people avoid taxes then get this huge collective boner over the GST

 

[Qsaint]

- Using lower emissions technology instead of coal generated power (personal bills) and reducing personal energy consumption

All for using technology but generally the way nemco's buying system works you can buy what ever you want but delivery is in most cases in Victoria at least is 95% coal fired depending on your location. The pricing mechanism won't close them down a carbon tax won't either unless it's about 10 times what the most expensive tax is. The only personal energy reduction that makes any difference is about 2 hours after 6 pm weekdays the rest of the time it's pointless

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Avoiding the Carbon Tax is indeed very difficult, due to the fact electricity is involved in so much production, and so much of our production is fossil-fuel based. Hence why Abbott labelled it a "great big tax on everything" and why the idea of it being a "tax" like the GST took such hold in the population, even though it was only directly applied to the top 500 emitters.

So with the Federal Coalition welcoming the NSW Premier saying he would like to up the GST to 15%, isn't there massive hypocrisy here?

Most analysts agreed that the cutting of $80B from State budgets was done exactly to make Premiers demand an increase in GST.

 

[Pessimistic]

Justo bring it on, Tony, and well take great delight in reminding you what a hippcrit you are

 

[Qsaint]

Avoiding the Carbon Tax is indeed very difficult, due to the fact electricity is involved in so much production, and so much of our production is fossil-fuel based. Hence why Abbott labelled it a "great big tax on everything" and why the idea of it being a "tax" like the GST took such hold in the population, even though it was only directly applied to the top 500 emitters.

So with the Federal Coalition welcoming the NSW Premier saying he would like to up the GST to 15%, isn't there massive hypocrisy here?

Most analysts agreed that the cutting of $80B from State budgets was done exactly to make Premiers demand an increase in GST.

As some rightfully pointed out one is a tax on production the other on consumption. A tax on production will hurt Australian business because most of Europe wouldn't dream of actually taxing businesses and concentrate there global warming taxes on personal consumption, so it will hurt Australian business and jobs whilst a gst won't per se

 

[ralphmalph]

... most of Europe wouldn't dream of actually taxing businesses and concentrate there global warming taxes on personal consumption,

What about the EU ETS?

 

[Qsaint]

What about the EU ETS?

Yes there is a scheme that covers 45 % of emissions in the eu does not cover a lot of businesses and some of those it does cover have decades of free emission certificates a very eu solution and no where as destructive as what was proposed in Australia. As I said catch a plane, buy power for your house you are going to pay make something the eu can export not so much. Combined with a much higher use of hydros and nuclear as well limits the damage.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The Australian Carbon Tax had plenty of credits and didn't cover all business either, Qsaint. Perhaps check out the Wiki article?

As some rightfully pointed out one is a tax on production the other on consumption. A tax on production will hurt Australian business because most of Europe wouldn't dream of actually taxing businesses and concentrate there global warming taxes on personal consumption, so it will hurt Australian business and jobs whilst a gst won't per se

The carbon tax is as much a tax on "activity" or "production" as the GST, for the reasons previously stated. I have also pointed out that a tariff would be necessary, just as GST is charged on products over $1000. But I will repeat the argument.

The carbon tax has a very generalised (i.e. wide) impact. The individual business categories that are effected the most are all in categories that have relatively inelastic demand: Energy, resources (including fuel) and building products (Cement, steel, bricks, clay).

In other words, companies in those arenas aren't going to drop production because demand will only drop as per the amount of cost passed on (just as happens with the additional cost a GST puts on products). To argue that costs won't be passed on, and you're welcome to do that, is to suggest it won't be a "big new tax on everything".

As businesses gradually lower their carbon impact by using different providers/processes, the tax would drop and so in my mythological bipartisan scenario, a GST would replace the lost revenue, should revenue still be a problem in Australia.

 

[Qsaint]

The Australian Carbon Tax had plenty of credits and didn't cover all business either, Qsaint. Perhaps check out the Wiki article?

The carbon tax is as much a tax on "activity" or "production" as the GST, for the reasons previously stated. I have also pointed out that a tariff would be necessary, just as GST is charged on products over $1000. But I will repeat the argument.

The carbon tax has a very generalised (i.e. wide) impact. The individual business categories that are effected the most are all in categories that have relatively inelastic demand: Energy, resources (including fuel) and building products (Cement, steel, bricks, clay).

In other words, companies in those arenas aren't going to drop production because demand will only drop as per the amount of cost passed on (just as happens with the additional cost a GST puts on products). To argue that costs won't be passed on, and you're welcome to do that, is to suggest it won't be a "big new tax on everything".

As businesses gradually lower their carbon impact by using different providers/processes, the tax would drop and so in my mythological bipartisan scenario, a GST would replace the lost revenue, should revenue still be a problem in Australia.

But what's the point? It doesn't close coal powered stations it may in theory save emission but in reality it at best stop growth in emissions whilst making power more expensive. Much more effective to raise gst if you want cash and buy coal power out

In Australia you sell units of energy to nemco or if your a big organisation directly to an organisation the power doesn't even have to be used by them this how Canberra can say it's lowered emission to nil when it buys power from renewables in sa and vic but this power never reaches the act it is powered by the snowy 0ther polluters and hunter valley coal.

In Victoria and nsw coal power station are selling less power but it just becomes more expensive but nowhere near expensive enough to be replaced by anything else. There revenues pretty much stay the same and infact can increase because the market mechanism when peaking is based on coal power costing as much as wind at that time of day. But even if you cut coal power sold by 20% your emissions stay they same as coal power is either on or off and when it's off you can't turn it back on for months

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

But what's the point?

I'm not saying that one is better than the other. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy on both sides in saying one is the 'merchant of doom' and the other is a 'regrettable but reasonable policy option'.

On balance, I think the Carbon Tax could be better because it applies to emitters and so reduces the bureaucratic burden on the vast majority of businesses, while getting an environmental benefit. On the other hand, I don't know how bureaucratic (and legitimate) the whole notion of tracking carbon use in Australia and across the globe is. The other positive would be that the carbon tax should get smaller and smaller as technology gets cleaner. By then the global situation should be rosier as the GFC and its remnant ripples should've dissipated, in which case an overall tax rise may no longer be so necessary.

 

[Lebbo73]

Avoiding the Carbon Tax is indeed very difficult, due to the fact electricity is involved in so much production, and so much of our production is fossil-fuel based. Hence why Abbott labelled it a "great big tax on everything" and why the idea of it being a "tax" like the GST took such hold in the population, even though it was only directly applied to the top 500 emitters.

So with the Federal Coalition welcoming the NSW Premier saying he would like to up the GST to 15%, isn't there massive hypocrisy here?

Most analysts agreed that the cutting of $80B from State budgets was done exactly to make Premiers demand an increase in GST.

To suggest that reducing new spending by $80b is a cut to the budget is pie in the sky stuff Ratts!

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To suggest that reducing new spending by $80b is a cut to the budget is pie in the sky stuff Ratts!

Off-topic, pedantic and incorrect. Go back to where you came from - anti-Islam threads.

 

[Power Raid]

The GST is a consumption tax. When you buy something there is an additional cost that the business collects and gives to the government. It effects everyone, so all citizens pay tax for being a part of society unless they are entirely self-sufficient.

Any price on Carbon will make fossil fuel electricity more expensive. As a lot of goods and services use coal-fire electricity, so they're subject to an increase in price and the Coalition will insist on labelling that price on carbon as 'a Carbon tax'. There shouldn't need to be an argument about the semantics, and calling it a 'tax' therefore helps point out that a Carbon price is a consumption tax.

There are some relatively minor differences (below), but the major impact of a price on carbon or a broadened/higher GST is the same - consumers pay more. So can the Coalition and Labor stop promoting one while ruling out the other as the 'worst thing evaaa'?


The differences (which don't effect consumers directly, so are relatively minor):

• Carbon price has an environmental benefit
• GST has a greater bureaucratic burden for most businesses because they have to collect and pass on the tax
  
• Carbon price may mean some or all revenue received will go to businesses that remove carbon from the atmosphere through a trading mechanism or 'direct action' (this happens already with general revenue)
• Carbon price would drop over time as businesses make themselves less carbon-intensive. So it's likely GST would be needed eventually to balance the budget if revenue remains too low
  
• Carbon price would need a corresponding carbon tariff applied to goods produced overseas so that local business weren't unfairly effected. If the price became properly global as is expected, and it linked in with economies where we outsource our production (like China) there would be no need for a tariff. This is the same argument for why business currently wants GST applied to items made overseas that are worth less than $1000 (where the current threshold kicks in).
• GST is regressive (effects poor people more than rich people) but compensation was already put in place by Labor and mostly kept by the Coalition. Further increases to pensions can therefore be argued about as a separate issue to revenue.

Apples and oranges but I hear where you are coming from:

- carbon tax is a clumsy way promoted as a one size fits all solution but ignores different industries and different jurisdictions require different solutions
- the carbon tax is in fact a GST on domestic production and unfairly benefits overseas production
- the carbon tax does not reduce pollution, it as for the reason above simply shifts it overseas (thus your comment re applying taxes on imports which may trigger all sorts of complications)

- there are far more effective ways to reduce pollution than a tax. that said, I would prefer a tax than a carbon trading scheme that allows merchant banker to cream it through arbitrage.

- GST takes 5 minutes per quarter to complete a BAS (sure it takes longer to do accounts but accounts are a function of life)
- Carbon tax is far more complex and requires a whole different calculation rather than simply be an extension of financials

- the carbon tax fails to recognise the important role of the states

 

[Lebbo73]

Off-topic, pedantic and incorrect. Go back to where you came from - anti-Islam threads.

False and false again Ratts!

 

[The Punter]

I would have to agree regarding the $80 billion - to the best of my understanding this was funding promised by a previous government. One can argue Abbott is breaking a pr0mise of his own in removing that $80 billion, but as funding continues to increase, although at a smaller rate, this is less being pedantic and more seeing things from a different point of view.

Either way, the Federal Government has a spending problem.

 

[Qsaint]

I would have to agree regarding the $80 billion - to the best of my understanding this was funding promised by a previous government. One can argue Abbott is breaking a pr0mise of his own in removing that $80 billion, but as funding continues to increase, although at a smaller rate, this is less being pedantic and more seeing things from a different point of view.

Either way, the Federal Government has a spending problem.

Yup the 80b was promised above forward estimates the previous govt had numerous unfunded initiatives

Agreed on the spending problem

 

[Power Raid]

I would have to agree regarding the $80 billion - to the best of my understanding this was funding promised by a previous government. One can argue Abbott is breaking a pr0mise of his own in removing that $80 billion, but as funding continues to increase, although at a smaller rate, this is less being pedantic and more seeing things from a different point of view.

Either way, the Federal Government has a spending problem.

Yep, they do have a spending problem and that is in part because of no controls and a give me free s**t now society.

It should be the job of the states to spend (and deliver services) and the job of the feds to revenue collect and distribute to the states. this would bring about natural budgeting controls that professional organisations have in place.