Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Mar 19, 2011

Climate change wealth redistribution tax.

Cartoon: Bill Leak.

The government’s climate change czar Ross Garnaut wants half of the revenue raised by the Gillard/Brown carbon tax to be redistributed to the poor and middle class. For those of you who consider yourselves to be ‘middle class’ and therefore better off, think again. Whether or not you are in fact middle class will depend on Gillard’s definition, not yours.

He has called for $5.75 billion worth of income tax cuts for low and middle income earners in the first year of a carbon tax. This he said will generate ‘positive effects on income distribution’ as well as national productivity. He pointed out that overall, middle income earners would be better off directly as a result of these arrangements.

He also called for a separate safety net for disadvantaged households, including pensioners and the unemployed, who were unable to improve their energy efficiency without extra help.
There are a grab bag of policies designed to give money to industries the government approves of, marginal seats in disadvantaged areas, (which are referred to as regions likely to have loss of livelihood as a result of the implementation of a carbon price,) and so on. Basically it boils down to total government regulation of production, distribution, and exchange, whereby success or failure will depend on government patronage.

Garnaut is calling for the tax, which he calls market based to be in the order of $26 per ton which will increase average household power bills alone by $300 per year without taking into account other increases that are already a daily reality or those caused by this tax. This figure is not realistic as several major conservation lobbies as well as the Greens already oppose it. All are claiming it is far too low. Gillard will be depending on the Greens to get this passed, so the figure will probably be around double what he is asking.

Food prices are rising worldwide owing to ethanol mandates, which have resulted in around 20% of the world’s corn being diverted to this purpose as well as other grain crops.

To exacerbate this he is proposing, that about 15 per cent of the revenue should be used for carbon farming which he waxes lyrical in claiming it would create the equivalent of a new wool industry for the rural sector in carbon offsets. Carbon farming in the commonest use of the term is the removal of large swathes of productive land from food production into growing trees.

It is widely favored by the same spivs who were the promoters of jojoba, aloe vera, ostrich farming, olives, and tax forests, all of which were given breaks as new generation industries, and all of which have burned most of the investors.

Governments simply do not have the competence to handle such matters as cyclical climate change, especially this one. These are the people who tried to insulate houses and burned them down and killed people plus leaving in their wake a host of other failed schemes.

If in fact they were able to affect the world climate I shudder to think of the result.


  1. I'm no economist but I can't see how a price for anything that has been arbitrarily selected because no market actually exists for it can be described as being market based.

  2. That tends to really get right up my nose, Angry. These imbeciles are so economically illiterate that they equate the market with taxes and compulsory use of "products."

    Either that or they are assuming that we can't tell the bloody difference.

  3. Since when has carbon dioxide been nontoxic.
    Ask the families of dead coal miners, they may tell you something different. After all, we couldn't believe science could we? So no point looking it up.

  4. Hi Lee-ann, I am not sure whether you are a spam bot putting this on every site that you disagree with, but it would pay to check if there is any reference to non toxicity before you post this.

    Perhaps you should campaign for something to be done about all that water out there, it kills people. Ask the families of all those dead swimmers, they may tell you something different.