Monday, July 27, 2009

ZenTiger 26 dollars - a reasonable offer

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?

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.

13 comment(s):

Andrei said...

In simple terms there is only one way "emissions" can be decreased.

And that is to decrease human economic activity,

And this will result in people getting poorer. But not all people of course - the ruling elite, who have come up with this hare-brained scheme ensure that they are not adversely impacted. On the contrary these people will do very nicely out of it thank you very much.

And who in their right mind thinks for a nano second that these greedy socialist parasites can in anyway alter the way the planets climate will develop.

Gooner said...

Nicely said Zen. It's like the rates bill that goes up by 8% every year, forgetting for a moment that income goes up by less than half that. The spinmeisters tell us from the council that "we've kept it to $2 per week, that's less than a cup of coffee" They then clap and pat themselves on the back before hiring another 10 bureaucrats to administer the increase.

There is only one answer: insulate yourself with money, lots of it, and set up basic estate and tax planning so that you and your family are protected. I'm beginning to think that I have no moral duty to pay any tax such is my contempt for the politicians this country produces year after year.

KG said...

Let's not fall into the trap of having to make a choice between a "reasonable" carbon tax and an unreasonable one.
No carbon taxes, period.

Andrei said...

Let's not fall into the trap of having to make a choice between a "reasonable" carbon tax and an unreasonable one.

Reasonable Carbon Tax is an oxymoron KG - carbon taxes are inherently unreasonable

KG said...

Which is the point I was making Andrei--albeit poorly!
Once the dishonest 'climate change' crowd and greedy politicians manage to edge the debate into "how much" instead of "why?" then we're stuffed.

ZenTiger said...

Agreed.

I wanted to say two things with this post.

1. That the tax amount they are pitching is understated as far as the people that pay the tax are concerned. It will also have more serious ramifications than stated.

2. This tax is actually imposed by external agencies, and we have the fiction that NZ is freely signing up to it. However, we don't really have any meaningful say about how this tax money will be spent and what it will be spent on. "No taxation without representation" lead to a revolution in America. Here, it's "all hail the new world order" and I doubt it is going to turn out as rosy as the brochure.

theatavism said...

You are getting more and more removed from reality on this topic.

There is no tax and the amount is actually a gross over-estimation because it assumes we don't do anything to lower our emissions, no technological changes in the next 10 years, no global agreements on trading allocations, an absurdly high carbon price and a forestry sector which doesn't respond to that price.

KG said...

The people who are removed from reality are those who think any human intervention in an attempt to halt/prevent climate change is either necessary or effective.

ZenTiger said...

You are getting more and more removed from reality on this topic.

Sort of. I've taken a deliberate perspective to encourage better analysis of the situation.

There is no tax

Ah, so no extra money imposed on CO2 then? It's going to cost money or it isn't. Make up your mind, which is it. However, please don't play word games like some who say we have "free education" which requires a mandatory "donation" of $3000 per year in school fees. Aside from the 10 billion or so in taxes that fund the Ministry of Education.


and the amount is actually a gross over-estimation because it assumes we don't do anything to lower our emissions,

The Greens suggested a few years ago their Eco-Tax policy would be "tax neutral" because the $5,000 tax free threshold (about $1000 rebate) would offset a large increase in taxes. They of course assumed that CO2 output went down. It went up in that time.

no technological changes in the next 10 years,

Technological changes tend to be announced quickly and take a long time to roll-out, longer than 10 years. However, I do agree technology improves. This will be because of regular market forces, not Green Policy.

no global agreements on trading allocations,

China and other major polluters were excluded from Kyoto. That's why they support it currently. In 2012 when it comes up again, we will see either widespread rejection of the developing nations, and more pressure on the developed nations (aka socialist idiots) willing to impose a bigger burden.

an absurdly high carbon price

and why do you think that is? How do you think it will be controlled?

and a forestry sector which doesn't respond to that price.

Not to mention a government not interested in passing on forestry sector credits, just the debits.


I might sound crazy taking this line, but there has been absolutely nothing to indicate the actual, effective outcome is going to dampen this view. All of the soothing noises are just hot air.

Like America in 1773, the British thought a tiny wee stamp duty was no big deal. Clearer thinkers saw something far more ominous, and given that those thinkers produced the declaration of independence, I think they had a bloody good point.

ZenTiger said...

PS: We don't have to wait for 2012 though, because Copenhagen December 2009 will yield much more to talk about.

MK said...

The leftist devil is always in the detail, the detail they hope few will look at.

theatavism said...

Finally got back to this but I see people have moved on, still, here goes.

Ah, so no extra money imposed on CO2 then? It's going to cost money or it isn't.

That's what the ETS is mean to do. But that's not what report's computer model's looked at - they where about the knock on effect of the government paying for emissions permits out of taxation (with lots of stupid assumptions like no trade tarrifs on polluter nations, no emissions cuts etc etc)

They of course assumed that CO2 output went down. It went up in that time.

So, I fail to see how the failure of a policy that was never actually implemented as anything to do with, well, anything actually.

I do agree technology improves. This will be because of regular market forces, not Green Policy.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. But I do find it hard to imagine how The Market will respond to deal with carbon emissions unless there is a price on carbon.

Not to mention a government not interested in passing on forestry sector credits, just the debits.

I think you are about 2 years out of date on this one - but even you were right it would only be an argument for letting foresters have their credits.

I honestly don't know how to interpret all this American Revolution stuff in a way that doesn't make you some unhinged Libertarian.

ZenTiger said...

Didn't notice your comment arrive here, but it seems my points are going to be more accurate than yours with today's announcement by National:

Today Climate Change Ministers Nick Smith and Tim Groser announced an emissions reduction “target range” of between 10 and 20 percent below 1990 levels.

Smith said this was based on a “realistic assessment of the economic costs”. The government projects a reduction of 15 percent will cost each New Zealander $30 a week by 2020


And again I ask, with a family of 4, who is actually paying this, and where does the money go.

As for interpreting the American Revolution stuff, are you saying that those people back then were unhinged? You think they were crazy? You think they were all pure Libertarians? You think the constitution they drafted the work of madmen? You don't think they had a point?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.