cosmo kramer
Banned
museum of scientific racism
opening soon in dubbo, n.s.w
opening soon in dubbo, n.s.w
Herp a derp obviously executives aren't paying out of their own pockets, its coming out of their businessesThere is considerable compensation and protection for lower income earners in this mechanism. Those who will be hit hardest by it, generally speaking, are those who have more than enough to cop the hit. What is so complicated about that?
Things that make them significantly better off and that make negligible differences to 99% of people for whom it could be said genuinely need some sort of difference made.Herp a derp obviously executives aren't paying out of their own pockets, its coming out of their businesses
which means less money for wages and capital investment and other things that make australia better off
socialist alertThere is considerable compensation and protection for lower income earners in this mechanism. Those who will be hit hardest by it, generally speaking, are those who have more than enough to cop the hit. What is so complicated about that?
yeah okay you're a complete economic illiterateThings that make them significantly better off and that make negligible differences to 99% of people for whom it could be said genuinely need some sort of difference made.
No mate you and you're ultra free market nonsense is the scientology of economics, you and your mates sit around feeling so smug and clever because you've got this wonderfully complicated narrative drawn out to explain things and think because nobody can be bothered trawling through the thickets of naivety that they are some pitiful being who could only dream of having your great understanding of the mighty forces of the market, yet unbeknown to you the whole time they speak they are making awkward eyes at each other before bursting out into giggles the minute you leave. Comeback and talk economics when you have an even basic appreciation of Keynesian principles you fucking cultist.yeah okay you're a complete economic illiterate
Firstly, as an ideological issue, the fact that Australia is dependent on a polluting industry for economic growth is an unconvincing argument against carbon tax.Yet Australia is almost solely relying on it's resources sector to push the economy at the moment. Oh sure, Gillard can mention that this scheme 'works' in Europe but really what does that prove? Europe is strong in agriculture, technology and other industries that don't rely as heavily on the emission of carbon.
Australia is in fact amongst the top carbon emitters in the world on a per capita basis, so I don't what you are trying to say regarding the top not paying their share. Nonetheless, any attempt to deflect Australia responsibility by pointing at a greater evil is just a form of ignoratio elenchi. Further, unlike the tax scenario, the status quo here isn't morally neutral. We are currently imposing a social cost onto the world and continue to do so..it's not a scenario well we are currently doing nothing wrong to the world and by introducing carbon tax we're doing something good to the world. Carbon tax involve "reversing an evil" and NOT "doing something good".Sure it's not sound to say because one person doesn't pay tax I won't either. This isn't the point, however, it is that if the top two tax payers don't pay tax, who make up so much of the overall revenue, so much so that if they don't pay then there is no chance of the gov. producing a budget, then why should anyone else bother paying?
lol 10/10Comeback and talk economics when you have an even basic appreciation of Keynesian principles you fucking cultist.
A and B pool their resources and stop person C stealing from them. They are not responsible for C, who is a parasite, and his welfare, which was derived from the theft of their property. Whether they subsequently choose to compensate him for the loss of his livelihood, or incorporate C into their community as a productive unit is their own prerogative.Person A and B makes a living by fishing and farming respectively, person C makes a living by stealing from A and B.
This an incredibly deplorable twist of morality. Instead of placing responsibility on the wrongdoer, you're saying that it is the responsibility of the victim to make sure they are not harmed, at the same time giving liberty to the bad guys to continue to do the wrong thing.A and B pool their resources and stop person C stealing from them. They are not responsible for C, who is a parasite, and his welfare, which was derived from the theft of their property. Whether they subsequently choose to compensate him for the loss of his livelihood, or incorporate C into their community as a productive unit is their own prerogative.
You're entering into the realm of making economic assertions, which is not something either of us can really do. MY guess is that in order for the carbon tax to work effectively the tax have to be placed on the person who actually sets the price for the relevant goods. GST for example is directly taken from the 'seller', not the 'buyer'. So yes, I don't disagree that Australia is a high per capita emitter because of this 'outsourcing' issue, but you then will have to acknowledge that carbon tax is not just paid for by Australians, but also foreigners who will buy the resources at a high price.Australia has high carbon emissions per capita because the world effectively outsources its carbon emissions to Australia by sourcing their minerals and resources through us, not because we are a resources-dependent economy. Consent is a completely nonsensical non-issue. Even if "consent" were an issue, the world consents to the production of pollution, the byproduct of resource extraction, through their insatiable appetite for such resources.
Are you actually seeking a response or are you just going to disappear when someone(me) challenges you're little pepperings of right wing hackery?Tomorrow's Nielsen:
#Nielsen Poll 2 Party Preferred: ALP 39 (-2) L/NP 61 (+2)
Um, so wasn't the announcement meant to be the circuit breaker that would turn everything around?
I'm in your camp, Polls prove nothing.Are you actually seeking a response or are you just going to disappear when someone(me) challenges you're little pepperings of right wing hackery?
I'm not inherently against polls, it was the idea that by releasing the detail of a policy so conservative think tanks could pick it to pieces and highlight it's every dint and every blemish, would somehow deliver Labor a boost. Same thing happened when Hewson released the details for Fightback!, Howard the GST and Beazley "Rollback".I'm in your camp, Polls prove nothing.
I also think this policy is both too little too late and so laden with pork it's an atrocity.
Whatever, expecting government of either party to do anything intelligent or beneficial is the sign of a madman.