I scored a glimpse of the DomPost today - a few bits and pieces on the train trip into work. The article I saw suggested a modest cut in CO2 is going to cost $26 per person per week, or around $1350 per person per year. Going for a reduction along the lines of what the Greens and related tax-the-weather groups bring the figure up to about double that number.
Except what do they really mean by "per person"?
I haven't seen the details of where and how the tax is levied. They certainly don't mean every New Zealander will pay their fair share. There will be fine print. Beneficiaries don't actually pay any tax in real terms, and wouldn't have the money to do so. It's a lot of money. Expect to see benefits increase to match the surcharge, and the tax burden fall on middle class New Zealanders. So it's more than $26 per week per person for middle NZ.
Can we also expect to see these figures quoted "per family"? For a family of four, this is $102 per week. Coming out of after tax income. Do the math.
This is going to be more than just a "ripple effect" on the economy, and small business will be hit hardest. Big business will prune severely, some will consolidate services overseas and leave skeleton staff behind.
Will these kinds of punitive costs cause further unemployment, further business failures, and further pressure on tax increases? It's hard not to see how.
Who actually levies these taxes and where does the money go?
"No taxation without representation" was a cry made in Boston in 1773, and the declaration of independence July 4, 1776 mad it clear the people still have the "right of revolution". Agreeing to this tax is a seriously dangerous move.
On the other hand, not agreeing to it may well be a revolutionary move, with all that revolutions bring. Do Americans curse the revolution and declaration of independence though? In hindsight, theirs was a bold move based on principles we merely pay lip service to today.
We are in the thick of things, and have little perspective. History is something that happens to other people, in other places, and in other times.
There's some serious history happening around us right now though. The newspapers can only report it as $26 per person per week. They see a couple of bucks off the grocery bill.
You'd think that kind of money would fund the cost of a decent tea party, but everyone is too busy listening to Al Gore's speeches, on how he's tried hard to clear up the situation. Well, he does have a Nobel peace prize.
Al Gore reminded me the other day that he sees AGW today like Hitler saw the Danzig problem in 1939. Although, I suspect Al Gore is actually the one who wants to annex CO2. Anyway, to understand Hitler and the Nazis by 1940, you need to acknowledge he was a charismatic, popular and competent politician prior to 1939.
Hitler saw the way forward for Germany, if only her enemies listened and obeyed his most reasonable offers. Chamberlain thought he was listening and obeying. Chamberlain paid the $26 bucks.
Even today, we have our appeasers suggesting we simply say yes to $26 per person per week to ensure the temperature moves no more than 2 degrees.
Does the offer sound reasonable to you?
Except what do they really mean by "per person"?
I haven't seen the details of where and how the tax is levied. They certainly don't mean every New Zealander will pay their fair share. There will be fine print. Beneficiaries don't actually pay any tax in real terms, and wouldn't have the money to do so. It's a lot of money. Expect to see benefits increase to match the surcharge, and the tax burden fall on middle class New Zealanders. So it's more than $26 per week per person for middle NZ.
Can we also expect to see these figures quoted "per family"? For a family of four, this is $102 per week. Coming out of after tax income. Do the math.
This is going to be more than just a "ripple effect" on the economy, and small business will be hit hardest. Big business will prune severely, some will consolidate services overseas and leave skeleton staff behind.
Will these kinds of punitive costs cause further unemployment, further business failures, and further pressure on tax increases? It's hard not to see how.
Who actually levies these taxes and where does the money go?
"No taxation without representation" was a cry made in Boston in 1773, and the declaration of independence July 4, 1776 mad it clear the people still have the "right of revolution". Agreeing to this tax is a seriously dangerous move.
On the other hand, not agreeing to it may well be a revolutionary move, with all that revolutions bring. Do Americans curse the revolution and declaration of independence though? In hindsight, theirs was a bold move based on principles we merely pay lip service to today.
We are in the thick of things, and have little perspective. History is something that happens to other people, in other places, and in other times.
There's some serious history happening around us right now though. The newspapers can only report it as $26 per person per week. They see a couple of bucks off the grocery bill.
You'd think that kind of money would fund the cost of a decent tea party, but everyone is too busy listening to Al Gore's speeches, on how he's tried hard to clear up the situation. Well, he does have a Nobel peace prize.
Al Gore reminded me the other day that he sees AGW today like Hitler saw the Danzig problem in 1939. Although, I suspect Al Gore is actually the one who wants to annex CO2. Anyway, to understand Hitler and the Nazis by 1940, you need to acknowledge he was a charismatic, popular and competent politician prior to 1939.
Hitler saw the way forward for Germany, if only her enemies listened and obeyed his most reasonable offers. Chamberlain thought he was listening and obeying. Chamberlain paid the $26 bucks.
Even today, we have our appeasers suggesting we simply say yes to $26 per person per week to ensure the temperature moves no more than 2 degrees.
Does the offer sound reasonable to you?
As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry through our revisions by pressure. Fifteen years before the National Socialist Party came to power there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On my own initiative I have, not once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals for limitation of armaments and even, if necessary, disarmament, proposals for limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern warfare. You know the proposals that I have made to fulfill the necessity of restoring German sovereignty over German territories. You know the endless attempts I made for a peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and later of the problem of the Sudetenland, Bohemia, and Moravia. It was all in vain.--Adolf Hitler, 1 September 1939, a popular and competent leader.