Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print
GREEN TAX SHIFT (Read 144500 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #150 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:11pm
 
Quote:
Utter crap, FD. You cannot talk about GHG emissions without talking about energy. You are not proposing a tax on very exhalation and fart (methane) by every cow and sheep and human and his dog.


Think again.

Quote:
You are proposing a tax on burning coal and oil.


There is much more too it than that. I have even given you some examples right here in this thread.

Quote:
I like that - quoting yourself as an authority in support of your argument. Your own discovery?


I did not do that Soren. Again, please drop the drama queen act.

Quote:
No, I could't tell that the economic consensus was for taxation.


It is for putting a price on GHG emissions. There is nothing in it about energy subsidies. There is a very sound economic reason for that.

Quote:
Was that the consensus of economists employed by Al Gore and the People's Front of Green Browns? (or is it Brown Greens? I forget)


It has been signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. That was a long time ago.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #151 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 10:45pm:
What other sides are there Soren? The ignorant side? The 'I want another handout' side? The 'I have a perpetual motion machine for sale' side?



Haha, so amusing,  thank you. So witty in the usual green way - its' the green way of thinking or the ignorant way! That is so - traditional Brown.

What are you going to do with the tax, Galbraith? You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you?? 

But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.







Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #152 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:16pm
 
Quote:
You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you??


No, of course not.

Quote:
But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.


Even the statement of economic consensus makes suggestions on what to do with the money. Have you read it? If you did, you would know what it says.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #153 - Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 23rd, 2010 at 11:16pm:
Quote:
You are not going to - gulp! - hand it out (another way of saying government exopenditure), are you??


No, of course not.

Quote:
But guess what? You can't keep it either! SO you are disappearing up your own fundament, it seems, with this glib nonsense about 'handouts'.


Even the statement of economic consensus makes suggestions on what to do with the money. Have you read it? If you did, you would know what it says.



I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion to know that the only thing governemnt can do with the money it collects in tax is to spend it - that is, hand it out.
SO please dont get all scary quotey about "oh, you want govenment handouts" because all government spending of tax revenue is handouts. The government, unlike actual people and businesses, does not have economic needs.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #154 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:40am
 
Quote:
I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion


It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.

Quote:
know that the only thing governemnt can do with the money it collects in tax is to spend it - that is, hand it out.


Well you are wrong. There are plenty of good options, like paying off debt (Howard did this when he had more tax revenue than he needed) or reducing other taxes.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #155 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 9:40am
 
Quote:
Soren,
I didn't read it. I don't think I need to read your opinion


Quote:
freediver,
It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.


Which report?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #156 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:22am
 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

The actual text of the statement is the bit in italics.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #157 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:13pm
 
Quote:
freediver,
It is a statement of consensus signed by 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates. Not just my opinion.


Quote:
perceptions_now
Which report?



Quote:
freediver
http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html

The actual text of the statement is the bit in italics.

==================
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2 BRATTLE SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02238-9105

No sooner was it announced that the US would pursue legally binding commitments to reduce heat-trapping gas emissions at the international climate change talks last July, than the Administration's position was attacked by industry and science skeptics who benefit from the status quo. One of the critics' main arguments is that taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is too costly -- our economy will be seriously harmed, they argue; the American standard of living will be lowered; and untold numbers of people will be thrown out of work.

In the face of this unrelenting mantra of a ruined economy, several prominent US economists -- including Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University and Robert M. Solow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- developed a mechanism to counter these negative -- and unfounded -- assertions. Thus, they crafted and circulated the "Economists' Statement on Climate Change" to rally professional economists in support of the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusions and to publicly assert the economic viability of climate change mitigation strategies. The recruitment letter soliciting signers explains: "As the climate debate unfolds, it is imperative that public policy be guided by sound economics rather than misleading claims put forward by special interest groups."

The "Economists' Statement on Climate Change" will be released at a press conference this Thursday, February 13, 1997. 2000 economists have signed on to the statement, including six Nobel Laureates. The statement (text below) champions the conclusions of the IPCC report, asserts the economic feasibility of greenhouse gas reductions without harming the American economy, and recommends market-based policies:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE" -- Feb. 13, 1997
We the undersigned agree that:

I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II. Economics studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.

III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required -- such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes."

*** SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ***

-- The six Nobel Laureates are: Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University; Gerard Debreu, University of California at Berkeley; John C. Harsanyi, University of California at Berkeley; Lawrence R. Klein, Pennsylvania State University; Robert M. Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and James Tobin, Yale University. The project's five organizers are: Arrow and Solow, plus Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University; Paul R. Krugman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William D. Nordhaus, Yale University.

-- The organizational impetus behind the economists' effort comes from Redefining Progress, a non-partisan, non-profit public policy organization based in San Francisco. For information about "Redefining Progress" or how to sign onto the statement, contact: "Redefining Progress" at 1 Kearny Street, 4th floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 (415)781-1191.
=======================
I assume you are referring to the above?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #158 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:23pm
 
yes
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #159 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:23pm:
yes

==========
I. The review conducted by a distinguished international panel of scientists under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social, and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified.

II.
Economics studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions
for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs.
For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.


III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required --
such as an international emissions trading agreement.
The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits.
The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes."

=================
Unsurprisingly, I agree with much of what is said, see black bold highlight.

Also unsurprisingly, there are some areas where I disagree,
see red print


Finally, the
Pink print
, is a complex area, which is not straight forward.

Sorry, gotta go, back soon!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2010 at 2:37pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #160 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:36pm
 
Let’s see if we can get some balance, if not agreement, into these discussions?

To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!

That said, in any discussion there may be some issues on which people will agree (at least is part) and other issues where people may disagree, either on specifics or on overall ideas.

Whilst there were some who agreed with the words in "ECONOMISTS' STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE" (Feb. 13, 1997), there were/are no doubt many who disagreed, either by degree or in entirety.

As I have said previously, I happen to agree fully with some of what you say and agree partially on other things, whilst disagreeing on other issues!

In respect of this relevant 1997 Economists Statement, I agree that
1) There are looming Climate Change problems.
2) We (humans) have had a discernible impact on what is happening.
3) There are significant Risks involved & it is necessary measures to mitigate those risks are required & justified.
4) There are a number potential approaches & policies, to reduce GHG emissions.
5) The benefits of taking mitigating action, will outweigh the costs, particularly if those actions are taken earlier rather than later.
6) In order to achieve Global Climate objectives, a co-operative approach amongst nations is needed.

I disagree that
1) There are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards.
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, that will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, would entail substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.

Notwithstanding my disagreement with the suggestion that measures can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, without seriously impacting local & Global economies, if they proceed, I never-the-less agree that the best collection of measures must proceed, to reduce GHG emissions, which also means reducing our reliance on Fossil fuels in general & Oil & Coal in particular.

In terms of the Consensus of this agreement, regrettably, it has failed, either in the broadest aspects of its aims &/or in the detail of how to achieve those aims!  

In fact, since this agreement some 13 years ago, the Nero’s of this world have continued to fiddle, whilst allowing “the Hordes of Chaos” to continue to destroy the entire eco system & pillage the lives of current generations and those yet to be born!  

Why did this Agreement flounder?


There are no doubt many reasons, but primary amongst those would be self-interest! Both from a national perspective, in counties such as China & India & those interests of major players, such as those in the Energy industry, particularly Oil, Coal & Gas.

So, will this Economists Statement &/or the IPCC recommendations or something similar, finally get converted into action?


Regrettably, I doubt it, for reasons similar to those that have seen the possible solutions delayed this long and WHEN things finally do start to move, which they will, it will be far too late, given the timelines involved!

Finally, it must be clearly understood that GHG emissions are not the only consideration involved here.

The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some.  

There are a number of issues already impacting the system or about to
1) Debt (Global) - Now
2) Energy Decline (Global) - Now
3) Aging Population (Global) - Now
4) Population Decline (Global) – starting in around 20-30 years
5) Climate Change (definitely Global) – already started, but nastier impacts late this century or next.

I am sorry, but I can not see a Hollywood ending here, I just can’t!
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:51pm by perceptions_now »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47064
At my desk.
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #161 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:45pm
 
Quote:
To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!


I said it was a consensus of economists, not hippies. The fact that there is a consensus should indicate to you how fundamental this issue is in economics.

Quote:
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, particularly without substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.


That doesn't make sense. If there is a limited number of emissions permits available, then high disposable income won't make more available. It will just push up the price.

Quote:
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.


Not true. This is fundamental to how the tax works, fundamental to economics, fundamental to capitalism. If it is used to lower other taxes, it may make little difference to overall buying power, but it will make a huge difference to the relative cost of items. Those that use a lot fo GHG emissions will go up in price. Those that use little will go down. People will buy more of the items that become relatively cheaper and less of those that become relatively more expensive. GHG emissions will go down.

Quote:
The general Global Economy is on very shaky ground and will be for quite some time and this is no doubt impacting on the decisions of some. 


Isn't this more of a reason to ge the economics right, not less?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #162 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 7:56pm
 
Quote:
perceptions-now
2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, particularly without substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees.


Quote:
FD
That doesn't make sense. If there is a limited number of emissions permits available, then high disposable income won't make more available. It will just push up the price.


You are correct, I have change it, to what I had intended!
"2) An Emissions Trading Agreement, that will successfully bring about sufficient changes in GHG emissions, would entail substantial reductions in the Publics DISPOSABLE INCOME & bring the economy (Local & Global) to it knees."
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #163 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:06pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
To start with, this is a big world, there are nearly 7 Billion people and almost as many opinions, on almost everything, so it is very unlikely that there will be Consensus on anything!


Quote:
FD
I said it was a consensus of economists, not hippies. The fact that there is a consensus should indicate to you how fundamental this issue is in economics


You really are blind to everything outside your own headspace!

The reason that this Statement hasn't got up and running, has nothing to do with hippies and there is apparently an enormous amount of people who fundamentally disagree with this statement or your assertions, in terms of Economics, Climate &/or Energy!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: GREEN TAX SHIFT
Reply #164 - Jul 24th, 2010 at 8:18pm
 
Quote:
perceptions_now
3) Revenue from an ETS style scheme would be simply used to offset the Publics increased costs. If this were the case, then there would be no deterrent to reduce GHG emssions, which leaves this scheme, as a TAX/ Revenue raiser, to pay of deficits & raise Revenue in general.


Quote:
FD
Not true. This is fundamental to how the tax works, fundamental to economics, fundamental to capitalism. If it is used to lower other taxes, it may make little difference to overall buying power, but it will make a huge difference to the relative cost of items. Those that use a lot fo GHG emissions will go up in price. Those that use little will go down. People will buy more of the items that become relatively cheaper and less of those that become relatively more expensive. GHG emissions will go down.


You say Neither, I say Niether.

We will not know what impact any of this will have, unless it is enacted in Australian or elsewhere and even then, unless something similar is enacted by the up & comers, such as China & India, none of it will be effective!

That said, if the majority of an ETS tax goes back to consumers, there will not be net loss to them and they will continue with what they want to do.

Given items such as Home Energy requirements & Transport are largely regarded as Essentials, most people will stay with them and go without elsewhere, to balance a small gap.

Only if the Gap was large & really hurt consumers, will you find it will change their habits, enough to make A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print