Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the year after Australia’s carbon tax was introduced, household electricity prices rose 15%, including the biggest quarterly increase on record.
Currently 19% of the typical household’s electricity bill is due to Australia’s carbon tax and other “green” programs such as a renewable energy mandate.
The job market had previously been stable, but after Australia’s carbon tax, the number of unemployed workers has risen by more than 10%.
Because Australia’s exports are relatively emissions intensive, the practical result of the Australian carbon tax serves as a tax on exports and import-competing industries.
Australia’s carbon tax was accompanied by income tax hikes on 2.2 million people.
Due to fiscal gaps that exist between carbon tax revenues and increased government spending that accompanied the scheme, Australia’s budget bottom line will worsen as higher deficits and greater public debt increase.
Carbon dioxide emissions have actually increased, and will continue to increase until 2043, according to the Australian government.
Your forget... where did all that money go? Into someone's pocket... the real goal of the carbon tax... who advocates for it? The liberals... sounds like the it went into the liberal's pockets....
The idea is that if you tax it, then the free market will be forced to an alternative, or someone will develop a better form of carbon emission collection.
This isn't some half baked idea, it has worked before.
I'm for small government though, so I oppose a carbon tax. I think that, as a point of national security, we expand the energy laws passed under tge carter administration that mandated 70% of our energy needs must come from domestic sources. The transportation industry weaseled out of that mandate. Its time to incl7de them. That is a imperative for national defense
The idea is that if you tax it, then the free market will be forced to an alternative, or someone will develop a better form of carbon emission collection.
This isn't some half baked idea, it has worked before.
I'm for small government though, so I oppose a carbon tax. I think that, as a point of national security, we expand the energy laws passed under tge carter administration that mandated 70% of our energy needs must come from domestic sources. The transportation industry weaseled out of that mandate. Its time to incl7de them. That is a imperative for national defense
Its not a free market if you penalize consumers and producers with taxes. And no you are not for small government if you advocate for such taxes and mandates.
The idea is that if you tax it, then the free market will be forced to an alternative, or someone will develop a better form of carbon emission collection.
This isn't some half baked idea, it has worked before.
I'm for small government though, so I oppose a carbon tax. I think that, as a point of national security, we expand the energy laws passed under tge carter administration that mandated 70% of our energy needs must come from domestic sources. The transportation industry weaseled out of that mandate. Its time to incl7de them. That is a imperative for national defense
yes i understand the idea behind the carbon tax, however all it will do is force higher energy prices on everyone, and it wont change the fact that as yet there are no real alternatives on the market today for one simple reason, there is no infrastructure to handle alternative forms of energy, and the cost of building such an infrastructure quickly would be more harmful to the economy than higher energy prices. remember that we have been building an oil based infrastructure for nearly 200 years now, and turning the ship around is going to be slow going at best. force it around too quickly, and you can cause all sorts of problems.
Its not a free market if you penalize consumers and producers with taxes. And no you are not for small government if you advocate for such taxes and mandates.
Mandating 70% of energy supplies c9me from domestic sources is well within the bounds of the federal government, because they have had the power to regulate imports since the founding fathers were in charge.
I don't support the carbon tax, simply arguing why it is supposed to work and that similar taxation has had benefits.
Mandating 70% of energy supplies c9me from domestic sources is well within the bounds of the federal government, because they have had the power to regulate imports since the founding fathers were in charge.
I don't support the carbon tax, simply arguing why it is supposed to work and that similar taxation has had benefits.
Raising prices on consumers through taxation and mandates is the issue, not whether the founding fathers did it.
Tell us again how you are small gubbermint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
