Carbon Tax (1 Viewer)

[Chemical Ali]

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.

oh boy here we go

 

[Blastus]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

stop posting you cunt stop posting fuck off writers block you stupid cunt

 

[zombie omie jay]

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.

um whats wrong with this

 

[Chemical Ali]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

reported for viral advertising

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.

on Friedman: so?

Greenspan is not in the league of Friedman I don't know why you brought him up, but the reserve banking system is the major cause for business cycle, doesn't matter how artificially low you put interest rates you will still have a business cycle (if your trying to imply Friedman supported this, right before he sadly died, he rejected the reserve bank system.)

And your proving my point with Reagan, tax cuts in any circumstance are wonderful however if the intention of them was to help the poor and if in this case they didn't. Well then I think that just proves Friedman right that the intentions of government policy are almost always never the outcome.

 

[Blastus]

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.

hahahahahahahahha you stupid cunt

 

[Blastus]

Greenspan

Friedman

Reagan

those great free market ideologues right

hahahahahahahha *FUCK*

 

[SylviaB]

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.

lol enjoy your red square

 

[LonelyWolf]

how about we all just post 5 points for and against.

 

[iRuler]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

Any of you guys going to watch Abbott on the 7pm project show thingo?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

how about we all just post 5 points for and against.

Let me just sum up the winning argument in this thread. Taxes are bad for the economy and society, doesn't matter what the intentions are or what hippie/green spin you put on them./thread

 

[Graney]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

I'd bet good money this tax would never have gotten this far if the greens didn't have such power.

Their proportional, representative level of power.

 

[iRuler]

Let me just sum up the winning argument in this thread. Taxes are bad for the economy and society, doesn't matter what the intentions are or what hippie/green spin you put on them./thread

You need taxes to keep things running, however this tax is useless.

 

[Azure]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

Their proportional, representative level of power.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never made the point that their level of power isn't proportional or representative.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

You need taxes to keep things running, however this tax is useless.

Why not just remove the institution that relies on taxes for funding and privatise everything, hey wait there's a new idea!

 

[SylviaB]

You need taxes to keep things running, however this tax is useless.

You're an idiot.

 

[abbeyroad]

nah just make taxes completely voluntary boom free society

oh and abolish eminent domain

 

[Rafy]

Carbon price will have to increase to about $135/tonne to achieve the 80% target.

 

[tycoon_07]

I favour "Direct Action" because it at least does something that wont be a tax. It will be funded by savings that the Coalition has found and will achieve the same target the Government is hoping to. Carbon tax encourages companies to manufacture offshore etc...

 

[chewy123]

I support it.

There isn't really anything much I can do. Mainstream experts has said this problem ought to be addressed, and mainstream economists have approved the carbon tax. There is nothing ideologically wrong with the tax (as far as I can see). So what can one do?

I favour "Direct Action" because it at least does something that wont be a tax. It will be funded by savings that the Coalition has found and will achieve the same target the Government is hoping to. Carbon tax encourages companies to manufacture offshore etc...

I am no economist so the qualification of my comment is contingent upon their approval.

Ideologically I do not support the direct action plan. Instead of demanding polluters to pay for the cost they impose onto society (damages to environment...etc), we give them money and beg them to not pollute. Which is like saying to a murderer "don't murder as much and I will pay you for it" - which I think is quite silly.