Posted by: graemebird | February 18, 2009

Justification For A Carbon Tax

So far we havn’t been able to drag one out of Jason or John Humphreys. Rather they have expressions of sentiment that some things are even worse then a carbon tax. Its an argument to put needles through the taxpayers testicles in preference to the eyeballs.

Other than that we have the implication that government spending is sancrosanct and must never be cut, which is of course morally outrageous.  John reiterates this implication by calling for revenue-neutrality. A demand that stays with him always.

But still we have no justification for the carbon tax. We have expressions of sentiment that an increase in the tax free threshold would be a good thing. But with implied demands that this must not be done without a carbon tax. Why not raise the tax free threshold, cut spending, and be quits with it?

We do not have a justification for the Carbon tax. Nothing has changed here. John is unwavering in his support for a carbon tax.  But he will not justify it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. And for his next trick Jason reckons that the communist government owning stuff is free trade in his view. Or that we should infer the benefits of free trade in goods and services as being akin to communist government ownership.

    Jason calls government-to-government collusion “free trade” and expects us to graft the benefits of free trade onto this collusion.

    Apparently the communist party owning stuff is free trade in Jasons view.

  2. “Rio Tinto is saddled with high debt. BHP Billiton last year offered to merge with it and was rejected. Now Rio has sought finance from the Chinese state-owned company Chinalco. Part of the proposal involves Rio divesting an interest in Australian mines to Chinalco, the most significant of which are the iron ore mines in the Pilbara, a bauxite mine at Weipa and the aluminium smelter at Gladstone.”

    Our only strategic threat, the Chinese communist party, them owning stuff is no different than if it were an independent Singaporean businessman in Jasons view.

    This after his brilliant justification(not). Whereas communist party ownership is free trade in Jasons view, increasing carbon tax is actually a tax reduction in Jason’s view.

    This is one crazy Gook gone mad and running amok.

  3. that’s 3 free marketeers vs Graeme Montgomery Bird

    http://business.theage.com.au/business/tax-on-energy-use-is-best-way-to-fight-pollution-20080731-3o0z.html

  4. Treasury needs an enema. In their view we don’t need manufacturing. It ought to be offloaded first to the Chinese and then on to the Africans. They think that good financial management means borrowing, taxing and spending more. They think a carbon tax is a tax cut if Humphreys is anything to go by. And selling strategic resources to the Chinese Communists is free trade.

    We really have a problem in Australian economics. Maybe you’d walk into treasury and everyone would just assume you were upside-down. Not having realised that they had all been walking on their hands for decades now.

  5. None of them are for the free market. Not one of them advocates free trade, private money, or spending cuts in recessions. They don’t understand economics and are not free marketeers by any stretch of the imagination.

  6. Lets face it. Sinclair Davidson is an idiot. There I’ve said it.

    In that article where is his justification for a carbon tax?????

    We are back to the argument from this money-socialist, that a carbon tax is not as bad as destroying the economy utterly via a cap and kill.

    And this idiot reckons he’s against the Pigouvian taxing of negative externalities. But a positive externality and this utterly economically-illiterate fool turns around and supports it.

    He’s not a free market person and never was. He is and will always be an ignorant Keynesian fuckwit from the Mugabe part of the world.

  7. What pollution does this ignorant economically illiterate prick think he’s taxing.

    This fuckwit is so without affinity for science he reckons that CO2 is a pollutant. What next Sinclair? Water a pollutant as well?

  8. SELLING STRATEGIC ASSETS TO THE CHINESE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT IS NOT FREE TRADE IDIOT. OR DIDN’T YOU GET THAT FAR IN SCHOOL. THE GOODS ARE NOT PROPERLY HOMESTEADED AND SO THE RESOURCES OR THEIR BENEFIT IS HARDWIRED TO DEVOLVE TO THE PEOPLE WITH THE DEEPEST POCKETS.

    GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT DEALS ARE NOT FREE TRADE DEALS. COMMMUNIST GOVERNMENTS BUYING UP STRATEGIC RESOURCES IS NOT THE SAME THING AS THE NORMAL OPERATION OF A FREE CAPITAL MARKET.

    YOU ARE CLEARLY AN IMBECILE.

  9. SELLING STRATEGIC ASSETS, NOT CORRECTLY HOMESTEADED TO THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS IS NOT ANY SORT OF OPERATION OF ANY SORT OF FREE TRADE YOU IMBECILE.

    RIO TINTO IS PRETTY MUCH A PRIVATE COMPANY. BUT THE CHINESE COMMUNISTS ARE NOT.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: