Now this was in addition to a post calling everyone who doesn't understand the tax, stupid. Always dangerous ground to find yourself on when you're making a political point (opposed to an inward-facing blog) as people don't like being called stupid. They are, of course. Everyone is stupid. But when you're trying to court favour for an idea, it's best to pretend that at least one other person is smart.
Anyway, I didn't understand the specific need for this tax. The aim is to stop the most polluting companies (I don't know what constitutes the most polluting, (if it's just carbon dioxide footprint, shoot me now) but for the purpose of this interaction I don't care enough to find out) from cruddying (nice) up the ozzie environment. The three benefits can be gained through other more effective means, which is why I came to question my friend on the picture. I genuinely didn't (and still don't) understand why this was the best option.
I wrote this:
I don't understand why charging to pollute makes more sense than other forms of tax? The companies are going to raise prices to cover the cost of polluting, or to cover the cost of reducing their pollution footprint. That price increase will be handed over to the consumer in terms of price increases for goods.
The rich won't care, because it impacts them relatively little, but if the cost of a car (something that creates a lot of pollution in production) goes up, the poor will be most affected. So why is it better to put a crimp on the lifestyles of the poor and not the rich?
A friend of the friend replied.
In hindsight, I made a lot of mistakes. I shouldn't have mentioned the car. Once you give an exacting example of a general concept, they latch onto it and never let go. That minutiae then controls the conversation, making it pointless. It becomes an exercise in who can become the most anal, and by extension who can miss the entire point of the argument. I've never seen a people argument (completely different to an academic argument, where sources and excruciating detail are a necessity) come to anything except anarchy. People are stupid, after all.
Obviously everyone knows that some of the tax will help the poor. IT SAYS RIGHT THERE IN THE PICTURE. But the reply I got assumed the poor would get back the exact increase in costs:
Dear Sam - Those things such as the cost of a car will be subsidised by assistance of living costs - that's the whole idea behind government support to households. As coal and other energies are depleted, their costs rise anyway. Resources sunk into the renewable energies sector create more jobs and opportunities. And as for cars; the fact is that the more we use them, the less we are going to be able to use them!
The goods will increase in cost more than the subsidy will cover. If the government weren't trying to create jobs with the billions put into superfluous work, maybe it could cover the cost of general price increases. I shouldn't have mentioned the car. People become so focussed on unimportant specificities that they fail to grasp anything.
'That's the whole idea behind government support to households,' no fucking shit Sherlock. But as I just said, if you think they will cover the entire increase in cost, you're delusional. The top 500 companies will include pharmaceuticals, heavy industry (cars, plastics creation, any and all factory work) and electronics, to name a few. That means pretty much everything you buy in Australia will become more expensive, but because the numpty latched onto cars, they failed to comprehend that a couple of hundred dollars a year won't overcome the deficit created by the tax. Hell, when was the last time you bought a car for 200 Australian dollars? Then add the odd few cents here, the odd dollar there, for a years worth of supplies, and you'll find that suddenly you're down a chunk of change.
Then, what the holy hell has supply and demand got to do with this tax? 'As coal and other energies are depleted, their costs rise anyway.' Yes. Yes they do. Congratulations. What does this have to do with anything?
'Resources sunk into the renewable energies sector create more jobs and opportunities.' This I agree with. Money sunk into any sector will create 'jobs and opportunities.' That is a safe statement to make. Of course, it's a sector that will never recoup any money, and those jobs are temporary at best - but hey, at least they're trying to make a couple of jobs for a couple of people, right?
'And as for cars; the fact is that the more we use them, the less we are going to be able to use them!' I assume the recipient is referring to the fact that oil will eventually run out. I have genuinely no idea why this was written. A finite resource will not last forever. GIVE ME A NOBEL PRIZE. Adding monetary incentives to a sector will promote growth. I WANT ANOTHER NOBEL PRIZE. Two incisive insights from this person, entirely unrelated to the tax.
Never mention cars.
My point is essentially this. Taken at face value, the three primary concerns for the aussies are these: giving more money to poor people. The solution, tax the rich, give to the poor.
Invest in (industry here) to create more jobs. Tax the rich some more. If you're feeling really English, tax everyone.
Protect the environment - bring in new laws governing the pollution creating industries.
If taxing the crap out of industries worked, the carbon trading scheme would have had an impact. It's been running for a decade and has created a few dozen millionaires, and done exactly nothing to change the way we pollute the planet.
My solution has the same downsides (poor people getting poorer, rich people not giving a crap) but might actually force the industry to change something.
And remember, never mention cars.
#EDIT# I went searching for information on how much more it would cost poor people to eat, but saw that this was a carbon based tax. I immediately ceased giving a flying fuck.
This issue is now as important as the asparagus growing season in Germany.
_(VS_(O5Z9(LM[8U`3]~7A.jpg)