Posted by: graemebird | December 4, 2009

Carbon Tax (!@#$%^&*) The Brazen Lie Of Revenue-Neutrality.

Lets have an answer for this most brazen lie of revenue-neutrality. Putting aside the unethical nature of putting forward stealing-neutrality in the first place. Just lets put that aside. It remains obvious that the carbon tax is a tax that destroys its own revenue base.

To suggest otherwise is to claim that the carbon tax will be unsuccessful. I’ve challenged proponents on this but they are dishonest so they run away. The carbon tax systematically destroys the basis for its own revenue. So this idea that the carbon tax is going to replace company tax, and lead to an increased tax free threshold, must be seen for the lie that it is.

If its not a lie, then the carbon tax would be ineffectual. In which case why the hell propose it in the first place? But the fact is that the revenue-neutrality of carbon tax is a most atrocious and transparent lie. And the proponents will have no answer to this fact and never did have.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…

BREAKING NEWS. A CONFESSION FROM ONE OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS CULPRITS.

Graeme — you are making a point that I have made many times before. A carbon tax will shrink over time. Especially if you introduce a McKitrick clause.

So if you reduce other taxes, and replace them with a tax that is going to disappear (or at least, shrink) then you will have reduced the total tax take. If you want to increase or maintain taxes… then that’s a bad thing. But if, like me, you would like to see taxes reduced… then it’s a good thing.

Of course, this benefit doesn’t exist as much with an ETS and it doesn’t exist unless you cut other taxes. That is why it’s important to loudly argue that any climate change policy should include tax cuts. That has been my point from the beginning.

Comment by John Humphreys | December 4, 2009

So you’ve done the damage without the revenues.

How about never insult anyone by calling yourself an economist again. Thats my smoking gun people. Cull this lunatic.

Here’s the smoking gun for Jarrah:

“Jarrah:

Which scientific reasoning is that old fella. Are you using CRU?”

“That’s part of the cacophony, yes. Why do you ask?”

We have to cull these people.

Comment by graemebird | December 4, 2009

Advertisements

Responses

  1. “No. The allotment is not arbitrary, because it has a goal and a measure based on scientific/rational reasoning. You can (and have, and will) argue about that reasoning, but you can’t say the allotment is based on a whim.”

    Somebody ask this lying cunt for the evidence. He doesn’t have it. He’s a liar.

  2. See the nihilism of this. Destroys our coal industry. Destroys our economy. No reason for it. No tax substitution involved. Just destruction.

    All the time right from the start Humphreys claimed in effect: “what is the big deal. You’ll get your tax cut to make up for it”

    But you won’t. So he is full of it.

  3. (site deity sez) OH MY GOD WE HAVE A REAL MORON HERE. I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ASSUME THIS IS JOHN HUMPHREYS. SIMPLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT NO TWO PEOPLE COULD BE THIS FUCKING STUPID.

    You wrote: “I’ve challenged proponents on this but they are dishonest so they run away. The carbon tax systematically destroys the basis for its own revenue.”

    Really?

    YES YOU MORON HUMPHREYS. REALLY.

    Have you not taken Economics 101?

    GOT MY DEGREE WHEN I WAS NINETEEN AND YOU WERE A BABY AND I’VE KNOWN MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT SINCE I WAS ABOUT 16 THEN YOU EVER WILL.

    So long as the price-elasticity of a good or service is smaller than one — which is assuredly the case for fuels and energy — raising the price results in more revenue, not less.

    YOU FUCKWIT. NOTICE HOW YOU HAVE NO TIME FACTOR IN YOUR BRAINLESS ANTI-ECONOMIC THINKING. YOU ARE IMAGINING A STEEP SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURVE. BUT THE CURVES BECOME LESS STEEP THE LONGER IS THE TIME PERIOD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURVES ARE DIDACTIC TOOLS. YOU ARE SUCH A PATHETIC ECONOMIST HUMPHREYS, YOU’VE MIXED UP THE DIDACTIC TOOL WITH THE REAL WORLD. AND YOU’VE FORGOTTEN THAT YOU’VE GOT TO MENTALLY ADD BACK IN

    1. TIME.

    2. CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

    YOU DO NOT HAVE NOR DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY SENSE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT OVER TIME.

    SECONDLY HERE YOU CONFESS THAT THE CARBON TAX WOULD BE EFFECTUAL AT RAISING REVENUE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ITS FAILURE TO DO ITS PRESCRIBED JOB. YOU’VE SAID THIS BEFORE HUMPHREYS. SOMETIMES YOU SAY THAT IT WON’T REDUCE CO2 SO THAT THEREFORE IT WON’T DESTROY THE ECONOMY. OTHER TIMES YOU SAY IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE HENCE THE GOVERNMENT WILL WHITTLE AWAY. YOU GIVE US A DIFFERENT STORY DEPENDING ON WHO YOU THINK IS LISTENING. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. AND A DISHONEST IDIOT AT THAT.

    “That’s because the percentage decrease in usage is more than offset by the percentage increase in price.”

    ITS JUST LIKE A TARIFF. AS I’VE TOLD YOU A DOZEN TIMES AND YOU IGNORE IT. THE TARIFF STARTS OFF BEAUTIFUL IF THEY DON’T RETALIATE. BECAUSE WHEN THE TARIFF FIRST COMES ON YOU’VE GOT THE GOODS AND YOU’VE GOT THE REVENUE AND YOU DON’T HAVE THE MALINVESTMENT. BUT AS TIME GOES ON YOU LOSE THE GOODS, THE REVENUE, AND ALL YOU ARE LEFT WITH IS THE EXPENSIVE LOCAL GOODS AND THE MALINVESTMENT.

    SAME GOES FOR THIS. AS THE MALINVESTMENT CONTINUES IT UNDERMINES ITS REVENUE BASE. SO IT NEGATES ITSELF IN TERMS OF ALLOWING LOWER TAXES ELSEWHERE, AND THE ONLY EFFECT LEFT, MORE AND MORE AS TIME GOES ON, IS THE MALINVESTMENT.

    FUCKING LEARN SOME ECONOMICS HUMPHREYS. YOU WERE SWANNING AROUND SOUTH EAST ASIA FOR YEARS ON THE BLUDGE. YOU OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN READING SOME BOOKS NOW AND AGAIN.

    So now you’ve been answered by a carbon tax proponent. What’s your reply?

    YOU COMPLETE IDIOT.

  4. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “The centrepiece of the policy framework was comprehensive financial deregulation….”
    Getting rid of the reserve asset ratio was an absolute disaster for the english-speaking world. It gave us all a permanent trade deficit through good times and bad. It made the banks and not the government the senior partner in terms of getting the lions share of the direct benefit of new money creation. It turned the bankers into conscious pushers of debt-addiction, since they no longer had to rely on their customers deposits for their business. If the banks have to take in cash deposits before they even so much as have a business, then the last thing they want to do is make debt addicts out of their customers.
    It set in motion a chain of events that looks like it has now destroyed our most important ally, through the daylight scuttling of the treasury and the infiltration of Wall Street jackals into all the important government jobs. We must turn back from this road.
    Since new money creation was now where the bankers got all their profits from rational resource allocation for the purpose of wealth creation simply was not there. So much for the efficient market. The persistence of this notion, insofar as applying it to our own numbers rackets that pass for capital markets is a sick joke.
    “……. along with policies like privatisation that depended on the assumption that private capital markets were the best possible guide to the allocation of scarce capital……”
    Under a functioning system private capital markets ought to have been the best possible guide, but the system was barely functioning in any sensible way. Banks made their profits by creating new money, rather than creating wealth. And what was bizarre about the privatisation, was that the urge was always to privatise things without setting up a proper functioning market. They were obsessive about this. Because that was the best way to get a good sale price. The goal of the high sale price ran directly counter to the goal of setting up a functioning market. One that delivered better value for money each quarter.
    Now all these assets that we had free and clear. Now they had all this debt attached to them. It was like we did everything to encourage private debt. Here I’m thinking more about Australia but New Zealand was pretty much the same.
    This privatisation has been the aspect I was most soundly taken in by. They were all speaking my language. I thought they were acting in good faith. They consultants were almost to a man a bunch of bums.
    “… All this depended on, and reflected, the effiicient markets hypothesis, a theory now abandoned by all but the most dogged and dogmatic of its proponents…….”
    It sure is a rubbish theory. Our markets are not the least bit efficient. But we ought to make them a lot more efficient. One way to do so is to make limited liability imply 100% equity finance. Another is to phase away from fractional reserve. But this is a long story. We need a rebirth of capitalism. A new and better form of it. One that emphasises the small businessman and the family farm. Big business and corporations have a place in our society. I suggest we take them to that place and put them in it.
    “Unsurprisingly, the committee came up with no new ideas, suggesting massive cuts in public spending…….”
    I agree with this recommendation but mostly in terms of culling bureaucracies wherein their elimination won’t get people hurt drastically. A lot of bureaucracies are there as a sort of luxury. A luxury that we cannot afford. We might like them around. But we have to be ruthless. But when it comes to infrastructure we face two decent alternatives. Find a rule-based approach that eliminates all schmoozing and red-tape overhead. Or do it in a totally socialist way, out of surplus budgets. And cut out the banks in their entirety. No public private partnership. No cronyism. I have thought a lot about a rule-based approach. But haven’t managed to get anyone interested.
    “…. of if more deregulation and so on. About their best idea was congestion pricing for road access to major cities, something Ken Livingstone beat them to some time ago….”
    I think we definitely need this. And once we have congestion pricing it will be easier to set up a rules-based approach to a lot of infrastructure investment. Plus I think our city-country layout is basically illogical from a logistics point of view.
    Our big city emphasis is actually dangerous to our survival from a nuclear intimidation point of view. To have these huge cities like this. Foolish. Seamless congestion charging ought to lead to highly built up centres in formerly small towns. Maybe like Gotham city when you are amongst it but you walk two blocks and you are in the country. Two blocks the other way and you are at the beach. A four million person city I see as basically uneconomic and ludicrous from a national security point of view.

  5. How sad — you didn’t even t let my comment stand on its own, and THEN criticize it. You had to chop it up till it was unrecognizable. I guess you prefer shouting at yourself to rational discourse. Goodbye.
    — CK

    IT WASN’T THE LEAST BIT UNRECOGNIZEABLE HUMPHREYS. iT WAS QUITE CLEAR WHAT YOU SAID. YOU WERE RELYING ON THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY CURVES IN YOUR HEAD. WITHOUT REALIZING HOW THE REAL WORLD, TIME, AND CAPITAL FLOWS DIFFER FROM THIS DIAGRAMMATIC OVERSIMPLIFICATION. YOU WERE TRYING TO BE A SMART-ALEC AND NOT THINKING THINGS THROUGH WITH YOUR CRUDE NEOCLASSICAL APPROACH.

    PEOPLE GOT YOUR “ARGUMENT” VERY CLEARLY AND STRAIGHT UP. AND IT WAS BESTED VERY CLEARLY. YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT FAIR AND SQUARE.


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: