I Blame The Australian Carbon Tax for Price Increases

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

You likely didn’t realize that the First Rule for the Carbon Tax Club is … nobody talks about the Carbon Tax Club.

And not only that … it could cost the poor Aussies big bucks if they say what I just said about the Carbon Tax Club.

Gotta love totalitarianism in the service of national eco-themed suicide …

From Miranda Devine’s blog at the Australian Telegraph (emphasis mine):

THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through federal parliament, the government’s clean-up brigade is getting into the swing by trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.

On cue comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1m if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.

It says it has been “directed by the Australian government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price.”

Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.

“Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are sales pitches that are verboten. Or at least, as the ACCC puts it, “you should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.

There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”.

Instead, the ACCC suggests you tell customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.

So if some Australian business prints up this post, and tapes it to his window … he can be fined up to one megabuck. A million dollar crime.

Eco-terrorism at its finest, where Australia now has criminalized free speech … carbon. A word to conjure with, the name that cannot be spoken.

w.

PS—I think we should have a contest for the best sign within the Aussie law. To open the bidding, I suggest that Australian businesses post a big sign inside their stores that says:

WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT

THE CARBON TAX IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR OUR PRICE INCREASES.

Sincerely,

The Management

Just stating the facts, y’know …
[UPDATE] From the comments:

Bulldust says:
November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm

If one visits the ACCC site one can see that Miranda Devine has grossly misrepresented the position of the organisation. The Chairman was quite clear about the organisations’s position in his presentation, which is no different than it has been in the past about any other misleading advertising:

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017300/fromItemId/142

“Business costs increase all the time, and businesses are free to set their own prices. However, if a business chooses to raise their prices they should not misrepresent this as a result of the carbon price when it is not the case.”

“This is not new – the message is simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to make sure it is right.”

I would suggest that Ms Devine has reading comprehension difficulties, or she is being deliberately misleading. The full guidance brochure can be found here, but the Chairman’s statements sum it up neatly:

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017091

My BS meter went off immediately reading this story… always good to check the source first folks.

Thanks, Bulldust. While you are correct in theory, in reality there’s no way to do what the ACCC suggests. They say that if you want to say that the increase is due to increased carbon costs, you have to get a statement from your supplier that verifies that their increase is due to increased carbon costs.

However, a moment’s thought reveals the problem with that. If a man selling bread wants to make a statement about carbon, he has to get a statement from his baker. For his baker to make that statement, he has to get a statement from his miller, and his electricity supplier, and the man who sells petrol for his bread trucks, and the truck manufacturers where he buys the trucks, and for the increases in phone costs and every other cost.

And each of those, in an endless loop, all have to get statements from the other one. Try this on for size.

If I drive a Ford truck and I sell materials to Ford that they make cars with, they can’t make a statement about carbon without supporting carbon evidence from their suppliers … including me. But I can’t say how much my carbon costs have gone up without the carbon statement from Ford. Cute, huh?

The net results of this chilling regulation will be:

1. The actual costs due to the carbon tax will be underestimated at the business end. Since you can get fined up to a million dollars for exaggeration, every single estimate of the cost will be on the low side. This will no doubt be used to make the claim that the costs are minimal. They are not.

2. Many people will just say “sorry, I don’t have an estimate”, because a) it’s far too much work and hassle to contact every one of their suppliers and ask if they have an estimate, and b) you can get fined if you overestimate. Most folks will wisely say nothing … chilling. Unfortunately, when a supplier says that they have no estimate, what is the retailer to do? He is muzzled, he can’t say anything, because of another man’s inaction.

3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.

So while you are correct in saying this is framed by the Govt as a “truth in advertising” issue, Bulldust, in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is designed specifically to make it very hard to say anything about carbon, with draconian fines. The net result is guaranteed to be a suppression of comment on the carbon issue. I see no reason to conclude that it is accidental that the regulations will have a chilling effect. The regulations have made it a practical impossibility for a businessman to determine the effect of CO2 on the business.

w.

PS—Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims? Why can’t they say what they want about carbon? At the end of the day the market rules, if they jack their prices too far they’ll lose customers. Who is hurt if they say “20% price rise due to carbon” instead of “20% price rise due to our kids going to college” or “20% price rise due to general business conditions” or “20% price rise due astrological influences”?

Me, I think the Australian consumers are smart enough to look at a sign saying “20% price increase due to carbon tax” and say “I’ll shop next door, they raised their prices 3%”.

So truly … what is the harm to the consumer? For me, that’s government gone mad.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

275 Responses to I Blame The Australian Carbon Tax for Price Increases

  1. Steeptown says:

    Freedom of speech rules OK (except in Australia). It’s a good job Obama is over there to sort Julia out.

  2. Jack says:

    Starve our trees Sale.
    Don’t Pull MY Finger SALE.

  3. steve fitzpatrick says:

    Talk about stupid and evil. They will be thrown out of office.. next election cycle.

  4. Scott Covert says:

    How about a positive spin…

    5% of your purchase price will be donated to the government for the purpose of developing alternative eco-friendly energy alternatives, just let the cashier know if you wish to participate in this program. Just kidding, you don’t have a choice.

  5. More Soylent Green! says:

    It’s for their own good. Who are we to question it? Don’t you know the technocrats have their best interests at heart? Next thing you know, you’re going to imply the carbon tax really has nothing to do with stopping climate change, that it’s all about raising revenue or increasing government power.

  6. Mac the Knife says:

    “The Carbon Tax is XX%.
    Our Prices increased by XX%.
    You do the math…..
    The Management”

  7. Peter Whale says:

    We do not blame the carbon tax for the price increase we blame the government that introduced it. You know the ones who promised not to.

  8. Nylo says:

    I would extend Mac’s sign:

    “The Carbon Tax is XX%.
    Our Prices increased by XX%.
    However the government enforces us to say that this is NOT related to the Carbon Tax.
    We will understand if you want to think otherwise, though.
    The Management”

  9. Jesse says:

    I’ve Had to Raise My Prices Because…
    My Cost of Doing Business Just Went UP.
    I’m NOT Allowed to Tell You Why, Because the Government Would Fine Me!!!

  10. Mac the Knife says:

    “There will be 23 carbon cops roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price””

    Instead of the “SS”, they have deployed the “CC”!!!

    Carbon Cop: “Pay zee tax, old man!”
    Old Aussie: “I cannot pay the tax…”
    Carbon Cop: “Vy can’t you pay zee tax, old man?”
    Old Aussie: “Because you have broken both of my hands!”

  11. Jeremy says:

    Frightening, truly.

  12. roger says:

    READ MY LIPS – NO CARBON TAX INCREASES HERE

  13. Bruce Cobb says:

    How about;
    Our customers are smart. Smart enough to know why we are forced to raise our prices at this time.

  14. Beesaman says:

    I’d love to see that law tested in court!

  15. Ian George says:

    Yet many families will receive what the government calls a ‘carbon tax compensation package’ to help families cope financially with the carbon tax. So the government have no trouble labelling the ‘goodies’ but not the ‘baddies’. They have obviously designed this policy so that people can not judge whether the compensation package matches the price increases from the tax.
    In NSW, the Coalition government claimed they would display the carbon tax impost on individual electricity bills but have been warned by the Federal govt they would be in breach of the legislation.

  16. Tamara says:

    Proton-deficient Nitrogen Tax Sale?

  17. Nylo says:

    Or: “The carbon tax increases our costs by X%. We are increasing our prices by X% as well, but this is NOT due to the carbon tax, but because of the general increase in our costs, is it clear?”.

  18. sherlock says:

    A Government by Watermelons, for Watermelons, so that Watermelons can enjoy the taxes of the people, without accountability to the people.

  19. lucien says:

    Dear customer
    I have inreased my price recently
    The carbon tax is not responsible (at all) for my price stability !

    You can then plead a little logic’s mistake

  20. Dr A Burns says:

    Brown has turned Green into Red.
    (Bob Brown is leader of the minority Green party which controls the balance of power in Oz federal politics. Brown has manipulated PM Julia Gillard into forcing the Carbon Tax through. He has stated that he believes in a single global socialist government)

  21. bubbagyro says:

    Holy crap! This is Australia, not North Korea? Holy crap…

  22. bubbagyro says:

    Do you hef a petroleum engineer hiding here in your attic? Liar! (Slap, slap). Let me zee your papers!

  23. Dayday says:

    Due to Global Warming the price of heating your home as gone up.

  24. Johanus says:

    It appears that our carbon flatulence is the new Original Sin. The Good News is that we can be forgiven by merely purchasing indulgences from the Almighty Government. You don’t even have to Believe. Just pay up and your sin is forgiven.
    Hallelujah!

  25. Christopher Hanley says:

    What makes this doubly outrageous is that the tax was specifically ruled out by the leader of the now governing party just prior to the last election:

  26. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Any they keep sending those carbon ships (full of coal) to Asia…
    Less than 1/3 of Australians would re-elect Gillard.
    We had a compensation package here in Ontario after our electricity prices went up 18%. The compensation in the form of a clean energy rebate (they ARE clever aren’t they) was 10% and came in the form of a cheque just before an election.

  27. TimH says:

    Dear Customer, we are not… repeat not… raising our prices due to the new carbon tax.
    We are, unfortunately, raising prices due to the rising cost of everything.
    The Management.

    p.s. Please join us for our “Don’t hold your breath”… “sale”. If you see our staff saying “sale” using the air-quotes gesture… that’s because it’s not really a sale, but in fact a brief period of lower prices

  28. games4us5 says:

    How about:

    My prices have gone up because our government is trying to lower the earth’s temperature by 0.0006 Degrees Celsius.

    No mention of a carbon tax :)

  29. Gary says:

    If every business would simple double it’s prices and say that the “cost of doing business has gone up” without reference to the reason, the public will get the idea soon enough. But everybody has to do it and not undercut each other. It’s a variation on the old union “sick-out” ploy to make management’s shenanigans cost them dearly.

  30. John Levick says:

    I gotta think this could be challenged in court.

  31. mkelly says:

    I would urge all persons to tell the truth. If the tax caused you to raise your price say so. It cannot in any logical trial be illegal to tell the truth. Swearing to tell the truth is the basis of all civil laws.

    By the way I would think Australia has a law the makes it illegal to lie to a law enforcement officer so if you are asked that question by an enforcement officer what should you say?

    Bastiat noted the problem of having do to what is moral and what is legal long ago. Do what is moral.

  32. CodeTech says:

    I thought 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale…
    Not an instruction manual!

  33. Matt in Houston says:

    Dear customers,
    The government says we must raise our prices but we are not allowed to tell you why under threat of severe fines. We suggest you ask them why yourselves.
    Sincerely,
    The management

    Lord Monckton is proving to be more and more correct with his treatment of the greens. Remember that we skeptics are the enemy. I sincerely believe we are approaching WWIII with a threshold of no escape rapidly approaching and criminals, scoundrels & morons are steering the ships into the iceberg after watching the Titanic sink. The glimmer of hope I have for the near future is growing terribly dim.

    Perhaps I need a rum and coke.

  34. lgp says:

    Just post what they suggested

    “raised prices because the overall cost of running the business has increased”

    and promote “clean energy future” sales

  35. Monroe says:

    The real shame will lie in the months and years ahead. In BC we also have an ever increasing “Carbon Tax” and the funds go, like any good slush fund, to promote things “green”. Like a huge chunk of money to send kids to school to study ways of stopping BC from moving forward. It’s worse than shooting ones self in the head. We load the pistol, give it to our kids and have them do it. They have little choice because thats why they went to school !

  36. Dave says:

    Customer: Why is the price higher than last week?
    Business: What price, it isn’t higher.
    Customer: Yes it is look at this add from last week.
    Business: Oh that was a printing error.
    Customer: You mean it has nothing to do with the new Carbon Tax?
    Business: What tax, its just the cost of doing business.
    Customer: Silly me I’ll take it!

  37. WTF says:

    Our prices have recently increased due to Government mandated input costs of a trace gas essential to life on earth. Please direct complaints to…………

    h/t to the dailybayonet.com

  38. Matt in Houston says:

    PS- I almost forgot- my coke supply is pre-WWF (Worthless & Wretched Fund) save the polar bear non-sense. Coke is off my grocery list until they can that garbage.

  39. Dave says:

    The ACCC helpfully suggests you can just tell your customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.

    It’s all very Orwellian. It’s the tax whose name cannot be spoken.

  40. jorgekafkazar says:

    Communo-Fascism. Which is where all of this has always been aimed, as many have noted here and elsewhere. Did anyone seriously doubt that political action based on lies would result in suppression of basic freedoms? Didn’t the 10-10 video reveal the Warmists ultimate agenda? Doesn’t socialism always end in murder?

    “…I must say that I think we owe [Stalin] a debt of gratitude! For the wonderful example he has given the whole world of the axiomatic truth that Communism always leads to dictatorship.” –CG Jung Speaking, pg 131

    Socialist regimes killed over 120 million in the 20th Century–twenty Holocausts. Would any sane person ask for another Socialist experiment?

    reference: http://www.sciforums.com/The-socialist-communist-death-toll-so-far-t-25006.html

  41. Latitude says:

    You voted them in…..

  42. Bill Marsh says:

    You need to add a disclaimer to the bottom of the sign that says

    “So we aren’t saying that our prices are increasing because of the Carbon Tax …. really.”

    If you have that disclaimer they can’t fine you.

  43. More Soylent Green! says:

    Ian George says:
    November 17, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    Yet many families will receive what the government calls a ‘carbon tax compensation package’ to help families cope financially with the carbon tax. So the government have no trouble labelling the ‘goodies’ but not the ‘baddies’. They have obviously designed this policy so that people can not judge whether the compensation package matches the price increases from the tax.
    In NSW, the Coalition government claimed they would display the carbon tax impost on individual electricity bills but have been warned by the Federal govt they would be in breach of the legislation.

    Our government made the same claims with the cap-and-trade proposal. The money collected would be used by the government to provide more services to the people. We should be happy to be taxed!

  44. Malcolm Miller says:

    This is horrifyng stuff. It’s bureaucracy gone mad with power. We are going to have to blame it all on the Greens and make sure they never have such power in our Parliament ever again. Gillard is a dead duck.

  45. Rob Z says:

    Willis says: “……. Australia now has criminalized free speech” Strange to think it wasn’t so many years ago that Australia had criminals with free speech.

  46. common sense says:

    “pre xxxxxx xxx sale”
    “Our prices have increased due to the xxxxxx xxx”

  47. John F. Hultquist says:

    Insofar as there is no shortage of coal in Australia, I suggest those companies involved in that industry from miners to final users package the fine coal dust they have to deal with. Use clear glass containers and label it as sequestered carbon. Every retail sale should come with one of the containers with advice to keep it and pass it on like a family heirloom. Should they not wish to keep it, I’m sure the inventive Aussies can think of other possibilities for its disposal.

    This plan keeps the issue constantly displayed while being supportive about the evil government’s revenue raising non-climate impacting tax that no way no how causes costs to increase. I’m sorry, did I write ‘evil’? I’m probably not allowed to say that either. Where’s my thesaurus? Looking for something better now . . .

  48. Mark says:

    Pricing notice:

    (This page intentionally left blank.)

  49. Rich says:

    Dear Customer,

    Under threat of a $1.1 million dollar fine from the government we are not aloud to say that recent price increases are due to the carbon tax.

    So it is purely coincidence that our price rise occured when the carbon tax came into force. If you are unhappy with the recent price increase please email julia.gillard@pm.gov.au.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Management.

  50. barking toad says:

    I’m already advising clients that the cost of preparing tax returns and financial reports will increase because of the costs imposed by this tax on plant food. Electricity, stationery, software support – everything will have an increase and it will be passed on to every business and then to the end users – the consumers,

    The net 20 cents per week compensation that the idiot government crows about ignores most of the the real cost increases.

    And the impact on the weather – SFA!

  51. Alix James says:

    All too subtle.

    Something like “WE didn’t increase the price”.

    Can you be fined for a single capital? Bold font? Italics?

    Damn, 2011 is starting to feel like 1929 all over again. The Not-a-carbon-tax Tax seems to be Australian for Smoot-Hawley.

  52. Scottie says:

    Carbon has an atomic number of 6. Oxygen has an atomic number of 8.
    C has an atomic mass of 12.0107g/mol. O has an atomic mass of 15.9994g/mol.
    There are 2 atoms of O to each atom of C in CO2.
    So, no matter how you measure it, there is more oxygen than carbon in a molecule of CO2.

    Therefore, rather than being referred to as a carbon tax, surely it would be more accurate to refer to it as an oxygen tax.

    Would Ozzie legislators be OK with that?

  53. 3x2 says:

    “Just stating the facts, y’know …”

    Ahh… you Americans and your rights.

    The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

    Willis, outside the US there are very few formal ‘constitutions’. The Aus bureaucracy can do anything they want, including silencing victims of their robbery. While it may be plain as daylight to those not infected by the green fungus that everyone in the chain simply passes their additional costs on to the next level in the chain (stopping at consumers). Those not Green Fungus Impaired will quickly realise that it is simply another tax, no different from income tax.

    All systems of ‘Government’ eventually degenerate into legitimised theft from your neighbours wood pile and food store. Difference in 2011 is that we then take the stolen wood and sell it to 400,000 suckers as ‘paper wood’ to keep ourselves ‘in employment’. Take a long look at Europe (and soon the US) for the end-game. There was a reason Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and put an end to ‘democracy’.

  54. Berényi Péter says:

    Are customers allowed to blame the carbon tax in public for rising prices?

  55. Titixxxx says:

    Looking at the brochure (I hope the http address goes well):
    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=1017091&nodeId=22195ddaa7b152dc06b9a94b984f9fda&fn=Carbon%20price%20claims%20-%20Guide%20for%20business.pdf

    I would say it is allowed to say that “price increase is due to carbon tax”. The only thing is that you have to be god damn 100% sure and backed up with confirmation from delivery guys and so on that it is indeed due only to carbon tax, and not only 99% due to carbon tax (in that case, if you make the claim, you’re f**d).

    Therefore i would advice (if possible to do it):
    - Make all needed/expected price increases not related to carbon taxes in June
    - get letters from other parties stating how much % they expect from carbon tax
    - 1st of July, do price increase only related to carbon tax, with your claims backed up, and put “This month prices increased by xx% due to carbon tax imposed by our government, please come in to share views about it (coffee offered)”

    Play by their rules and play safe, there are enough room to get an edge and make the point without risking your business and/or lifestyle (in particular for those who are really tight, that is those who unfortunately will be the most concerned by the tax!)

  56. Myrrh says:

    Perhaps they should all put a notice on their front door saying exactly what has happened and they are being threatened with punishment by this neo-fascist/marxist/green eugenic goverment unless they lie. Before those 23 carbon cops become 23,000…

    how many Aussie’s died in WWII so these people wouldn’t take over our lives?

  57. Cadae says:

    Apologies to our valued clients – this price increase is simply a taxing carbon copy of previous increases.

  58. Frederick Michael says:

    The opportunities for parody seem endless. I prefer just saying it straight.

    “Recent price increases are, of course, not due to the carbon tax.”

    The backfire may be overwhelming. Humor is the most powerful force in politics.

  59. Luther Wu says:

    First, they disarmed the Australians and now, this.
    This carbon scheme and attendant repression is not a grand social experiment. This is a clear demonstration to the rest of the world that even the ‘free’ people of a western democracy can be completely dominated by the ruling elites.

    It’s all coming apart and it won’t be long now…

  60. Will Gray says:

    I seldom coment, however when the money from the TAX is used to ‘sweeten’ the people with things like ‘extra social services’ its hoped that the next goverment will keep it going ‘somehow’.

  61. King of Cool says:

    Is this only the start? The Australian Government has instigated a media inquiry purportedly as a result of the shenanigans in the UK with the Murdoch Press but in reality more likely because Bob Brown did not like the “bias” some News Limited outlets were showing against green policies. And he despises the “uninitiated rants” of “radio shock jocks” like Alan Jones and Chris Smith questioning global warming.

    Parts of the terms of reference of the inquiry are to look into “ways of substantially strengthening the independence and effectiveness of the Australian Press Council” and “any related issues pertaining to the ability of the media to operate according to regulations and codes of practice, and in the public interest.”

    We have been told many times by Julia Gillard that a carbon tax “is the right thing to do” and is “in the public interest.”

    So, stand by for another uniformed corps to go with the green carbon cops. Perhaps they could wear brown shirts. And next perhaps some book burnings of denier authors of unacceptable teachings against “the public interest”.

    But do not worry Julia, the “enemies of the people are only in a stubborn, self willed exile from the loving breast. Everything will be alright; the struggle will soon be finished. They will all soon win a victory over themselves and will love Big Brother” for ever and ever, amen. Ignorance is Strength!

  62. chuck nolan says:

    He learned from Rev Wright
    He learned from Bill Ayres
    I have no doubt he can learn from Julia.

  63. Lawrie Ayres says:

    This same government which gave us the “Carbon Tax” is also conducting a witch hunt focussing on the Murdoch papers which have been the only ones questioning the science and the government’s motives albeit rather quietly. Gillard is strongly of the left and her government contains not one who has business experience, all being union officials or party hacks. The Treasury has been totally politicised so it’s advice is already tainted. Government science advisers are in the Holdren mould and simply parrot what the government wants to hear, 100 feet sea level rise, more droughts(we are in a very rainy La Nina as we were last year), more heatwaves (we have just had a very mild spring and our summer growth is about a month late).

    The Government spent the surplus left by John Howard on rubbish schemes in a panic to stimulate the economy. It continues to spend on spurious schemes such as a very expensive National Broadband Network and as such is broke and wants additional revenue. The Carbon scare is a godsend for socialist governments.

    Just make sure that you US type people elect a non believer next November. So far the candidates don’t inspire confidence. I should say Barack Obama in his recent visit here did not give Julia any hope that the US would have a tax or tradiong scheme.

  64. Fred 2 says:

    “I’m sure you agree that our sudden price increases have nothing whatsoever to do with the new carbon tax. However, we do promise to roll back this price rise the instant the carbon tax is repealed.”

  65. Latitude says:

    The recent increase in prices is due to total morons being allowed to vote…………..

  66. J. Felton says:

    I would love to see someone take the Gillard government to court with this.
    Any lawyer would tear this borderline-facist move to shreds!

  67. J Martin says:

    Our prices have gone up because Julia Gillard said “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.

    or

    Our prices have increased because we have been naughty by helping plants to grow faster.

    or

    Our prices have gone up because Julia Gillard broke THAT promise to the Australian people.

  68. Ross Sheehy says:

    I understand the sentiment of the article and the comments above, but they are somewhat wide of the mark. The Australian Consumer Law (formerly the Trade Practices Act) is very strict on misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce (but not in political life).

    If you say that your product is 20% better than your competition, you had better be able to prove it. If you say your prices have gone up 5% because of the Carbon Tax, you had better be able to prove that too.

    If on the other hand you announce that your prices will go up at the same time as the Carbon Tax is introduced, you are perfectly within your rights to say that.

  69. Me says:

    It’s all trivial because she is toast the next election anyway, and they should make her and her party, Green peace, the WWF, and any other Eco wacko group in the land down under pay for this mess that supported this carbon tax.

    [Moderator's Note: WUWT site policy requires a valid e-mail address. Please comply or risk getting snipped. -REP]

  70. J Martin says:

    Our prices have gone up because the government is embarrassed about something Julia said.

  71. Bulldust says:

    If one visits the ACCC site one can see that Miranda Devine has grossly misrepresented the position of the organisation. The Chairman was quite clear about the organisations’s position in his presentation, which is no different than it has been in the past about any other misleading advertising:

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017300/fromItemId/142

    “Business costs increase all the time, and businesses are free to set their own prices. However, if a business chooses to raise their prices they should not misrepresent this as a result of the carbon price when it is not the case.”

    “This is not new – the message is simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to make sure it is right.”

    I would suggest that Ms Devine has reading comprehension difficulties, or she is being deliberately misleading. The full guidance brochure can be found here, but the Chairman’s statements sum it up neatly:

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017091

    My BS meter went off immediately reading this story… always good to check the source first folks.

  72. David, UK says:

    Pure socialism does not exist without totalitarianism. Equally, pure capitalism does not exist without freedom. These are pretty basic facts.

  73. J Martin says:

    Our prices have gone down. No ? OK, we lied. We are just following our government’s example.

  74. 1DandyTroll says:

    The carbon tax did not raise our prices, the ever lying socialist government raised the prices you pay come this date!

  75. John Trigge says:

    “As the products we manufacture have long lead times and we place orders based on predicted future costs, our prices have increased due to the future Emissions Trading Scheme”.

    or

    ‘We apologise for the increase in prices caused by the recently introduced policies of the Green-Labor Coalition Government’ (i placed the Greens first as it is really they that are leading the Labor party along by the nose and driving this drivel).

  76. Greg C says:

    This kind of thing was covered in Atlas Shrugs. They don’t want to enforce the law. They want to use it as a prod to get things they want.

  77. Dave says:

    Dear Customer
    My price increases are not linked to the carbon tax.
    They are a direct result of them.

  78. Me says:

    Then Snip me then, you said this exact phrase to me before and sniped me, only later to let many more of my post be displayed here. And as I said before I support this site and what Mr.Watts is doing, so snip me already, But it’s funny that that will happen with this story here. Can you see the irony with that? But that’s up to you, you are the REPs here, but I will still visit here and support Anthony Watts. Another question, Is there someone else posting here using the screen name Me that is Pro AGW, because it isn’t this Me, and I’m sure you have the common sense to tell that?

    REPLY: We can’t tell who is posting under “me”, and I suspect that the me@xxxxx.com email address is not real. A valid email address is required to post here, fan or not. Thanks – Anhtony

  79. d_abes in Saskatoon says:

    Fred 2 said
    ““I’m sure you agree that our sudden price increases have nothing whatsoever to do with the new carbon tax. However, we do promise to roll back this price rise the instant the carbon tax is repealed.”

    Good one, I’d change the last sentence. “However, when we roll back this price when the tax is repealed, it will have nothing whatsoever to do with it.”

  80. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    If you can’t say “Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now” could you say “Beat the Results of Juila Gillard’s Great Big Fat Lie about Taxing Carbon – Buy Now”

    Just wondering . . .

  81. Wade says:

    “Our prices have not risen because of the carbon tax. (nudge nudge, wink wink)”

  82. John Trigge says:

    Bulldust says:
    November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    If the Government wish to treat the expected increases in the same manner as all other price rises, why do we need ANOTHER group of enforcers just for this particular tax?

    As the ACCC, as you rightly point out, can already investigate incorrect or false reasoning for price rises, let them do the same for the fallout from the carbon (dioxide) tax.

    Ross Sheehy says:
    November 17, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    The Australian Consumer Law (formerly the Trade Practices Act) is very strict on misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce (but not in political life). (my bold)

    I would suggest this is one of the biggest issues we should be addressing – politicians lying in order to further their own agendas with no legal ramifications.

    Our PM would not be in her current position if she were not a (backbiting, bent, bluffing, cheating, corrupt, crafty, crooked, cunning, deceitful, deceiving, deceptive, designing, disreputable, double-crossing, double-dealing, elusive, false, fraudulent, guileful, hoodwinking, mendacious, misleading, perfidious, recreant, shady, shifty, sinister, slippery*, sneaking, sneaky, swindling, traitorous, treacherous, tricky, two-faced, two-timing, unctuous, underhanded, unfair, unprincipled, unscrupulous, untrustworthy, villainous, wily) and, if you miss my meaning, DISHONEST.

  83. Schitzree says:

    It’s ‘The Tax that must not be Named’.

  84. Me says:

    PS, it’s ok to snip my rant above towads you REPs here, but not my first comment on this story, and you can snip this comment too if you like.

  85. Timo Soren says:

    Sale Prices Good through June 30th.
    After July 1st and added PHAiTH Tax (Politicians Hot Air in the Head, pronounced Faith.)
    The Phaith Tax is based on the religion of these politicians who believe in the CAGW Dogma and have made it a State Religion. All persons are required to tithe to their god.

  86. William says:

    Is the Australian news media silent on the $1.1 million dollar fine to suppress free speech?

    Any fine is not acceptable. Free speech is the basis of democracy.

    In the US, the constitution protects free speech, limiting the power of governments to hide and deceive the public. Is the US the only country that has constitutional protection for free speech?

    Fanatics create their own paradigm, an emergency for which they justify propaganda, distortion of the facts, and in this case the science.

  87. manicbeancounter says:

    How about setting up independent voluntary audits of the increase in a businesses cost base? It would be a measure of increases in non-labour input costs and not sales prices.

  88. L Nettles says:

    Why not just post the regulation or statute itself

  89. David Jones says:

    Latitude says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm
    You voted them in…..

    Well actually they didn’t.
    Gillard, Labor called a General Election and LOST. Hers was not the largest party in the new Aussie Parliament and still isn’t.. Gillard however decided that the electorate don’t count and did a deal with the (Marxist) Greens to retain power (or at least what passes for power in Oz!).

    That is what is called Democracy in Oz and also by left wingers! E.G Stalin, Mao, Chevez, etc.

  90. Chuck L says:

    EVERY business in Oz should post signs explaining that recent price increases ARE the result of the carbon tax. Let’s see how the green-shirt eco-fascists would deal with all those 1000′s of businesses.

  91. Konrad says:

    Julia Gillard is seen by many Australians as having chronic problems with venality and mendacity. At the last election she promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led. She broke her promise simply to cling to power. At the next election the Australian voters are going to help this mendacious bovine to keep her promise by -

    A. Ensuring that there is no carbon tax.
    B. Ensuring that she is not leading the government.

  92. How about a “Beat the ‘overall cost of doing business’ increase – buy now.

    Spread the meme – any time anyone mentions the “overall cost of doing business”, perhaps informally OCDB, then it means carbon tax. A protest against the tax and the gagging. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “carrion by any other name would smell as rank”. The term doesn’t matter, as long as people know what it means.

  93. 3x2 says:

    J. Felton says: November 17, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    I would love to see someone take the Gillard government to court with this.
    Any lawyer would tear this borderline-facist move to shreds!

    Never going to happen. Under what legislation would you take her to court? I get really tired of those outside the US talking about ‘freedom of speech’. No such animal in the UK or Australia. You do what you are told or government employed thugs will kick, tear gas and rubber bullet you into submission.

    What is even more hilarious is watching American thugs destroy the first amendment right against [the government] “interfering with the right to peaceably assemble”. Rubber bullets hitting you in the head may well prove beyond all reasonable doubt that fat burger munchin dick heads have no more idea what their constitution is supposed to prevent than the population they are busily killing.

    Go team America.

  94. keith says:

    It’s easy to conform with the requirements:

    “Sorry, we have not been able to decrease our prices due to the Carbon Tax”…

    Love Bureaucrats – they can never think in the negative sense…

  95. RoHa says:

    I don’t know what depresses me most about the carbon tax.
    It is based on junk science.
    It will be bad for Australian industry.
    It will raise prices.
    It will give the Coalition* a better chance of winning the next election.

    (For non-Australian, this is a coalition between the Liberal Party (conservative) and the National Party (conservative). Most of the horrible things that have happened to the world in the last fifty years (including the AGW scare) have been perpetrated by conservatives and the Big Money boys.)

  96. F. Ross says:

    “THE CARBON TAX IS NOT
    RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR
    PRICE INCREASES
    …and PIGS CAN FLY”

  97. Spector says:

    I can almost see it now, the special committee announcing that they are going to solve the US budget crises with an Australian style carbon tax… what is all that smoke?

  98. Mr Lynn says:

    Steeptown says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:57 am
    Freedom of speech rules OK (except in Australia). It’s a good job Obama is over there to sort Julia out.

    chuck nolan says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    He learned from Rev Wright
    He learned from Bill Ayres
    I have no doubt he can learn from Julia.

    Exactly.

    /Mr Lynn

  99. RiHo08 says:

    The Australian Federal coalition government believed it had to include Greens into the mix to form a government. The Greens were elected by the Australian people because of the then state of political discord in the reigning government. This is a case of ….the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Aussies have paved the way: the way to a….a… Fascist state (see Wikipedia a state directed regulated economy for the benefit of the state) is to vote for Greens because one is incensed at the current government.

    Lesson: NEVER vote for Greens under any circumstances as you will pay a heavier price than with the current crowd. Do not express your discontent by voting Green. Lesson learned the hard way. Thank you Australia: fore warned is fore armed.

  100. Jarryd Beck says:

    If I had a business, I would put that sign up.

  101. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    The Julia Gillard/Bob Brown carbon dioxide cops are coming to your neighbourhood. In yet more restrictive legislation from our Socialist/Green totalitarians in Canberra free speech will be further restricted.

    I wonder if “truth” in advertising will apply to this kind of government snake oil we were subjected to a few months back? If so maybe we will see some retrospective prosecutions?

    Also relevant, in UK escalating energy costs associated with Green energy and government red tape will cause closure the closure of a Rio Tinto aluminium smelter (Britain’s Green Suicide Gathering Pace):

    Fears that energy-intensive industry could be hit by government climate-change policies were heightened on Wednesday after Rio Tinto Alcan said it would close its Northumberland aluminium smelter, with the loss of more than 500 jobs.

    The loss of these relatively well-paid industrial jobs is a blow for north-east England, the UK’s highest unemployment region.

    So when Rio CEO Tom Albanese comes to announce the closure or abandonment of projects in Australia as a result of the Gillard/Brown carbon dioxide tax, he will be presented with the unenviable choice between making honest disclosure as required under the rules of both the Australian Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange, or lying about the true reason for the closures in order to stay out of an Australian jail.

  102. kent Blaker says:

    Dear valued customer;
    Due to the threat of being fined over one million dollars by our government we have been forced to increase our insurance coverage. We regret our cost increase but know who is really to blame.

  103. Jon Jewett says:

    At the Texas Republican State Convention in Dallas in 2008, one of our state-wide elected officials gave a speech that included a line something like this:

    “We don’t need Washington to tell us how to run our economy, and we don’t need Washington to tell us how to run our energy. And we don’t need Washington to tell us about the Second Amendment: it’s so we can protect ourselves from them!”

    I later talked to the individual’s campaign manager. He said that kind of remark would have given him “heart burn” and would neither confirm nor deny it.

    But here are a couple of radio ads for the 2010 election by our Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuMvSswPkM

    Jerry won with 61.66%.

    Just imagine living in a place where you are a CITIZEN and not a subject (sort of like a serf).

    I feel the pain of my Auzzie Brothers and Sisters. And they are helpless.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  104. Streetcred says:

    Bulldust says: November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    ——————————————
    2/3′s Of the Australian voting public no longer trust anything that comes out of the federal government and its agencies. The illegitimate Gillard/Brown government has so corrupted the Public Service to the point where any government report simply cannot be believed. We’re still waiting to see the Treasury model for the Gillard’s claim that the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX will have minimal impact on the citizens. Independent modelling suggests a significant impact … why is the government and treasury so afraid to release their documents? Why did the government allocate 2 weeks parliamentary debate on the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX and then gag it after a few days so preventing the Opposition from engaging them in debate? Why did they refuse permission to table scientific evidence not supportive of the CAGW Scare in parliament? … these peer-reviewed papers included the work of Mann!

    We have seen the evil hand of socialism at work in Australia and it is terrifying for the legacy that it will foister on future generations … energy deprived, unemployment, huge national debt, no free speech, etc. Music to the ears of the socialist.

  105. douggie says:

    Does Australia have “Guides for Politicians” that forbid misleading statements?

    One doesn’t have to give a reason, publish a price list with a calendar:
    Jan 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 – $x.xx
    July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 – $y.yy

    OR (in their face)

    I’ve had to raise my prices by double the carbon tax because it’s foolish to believe my volume of business won’t drop as your income drops and I have constant outflow due to bank loans, depreciation, etc.

  106. RexAlan says:

    Dear customer,
    “Our prices have increased because Julia Gillard broke her promise”.

  107. Gail Combs says:

    The world is going mad!

    Why the heck did Australia bother to fight in WWII against Germany? They could have saved themselves a lot of the trouble by surrendering sixty five years ago.

    What is really painful is there are people who will view this muzzling as a “Good Thing”

  108. James of the West says:

    All good fun guys but one of the primary reasons the ACCC is there is to make sure business are not making false claims to consumers about their products. If you can truly show how the carbon tax was responsible for the price change then you would have nothing to fear. Mind you this is where it will get a little grey – because only the 500 largest emitters will actually pay the carbon tax, the rest of us will feel that impact indirectly through costs being passed on down thie line so for 99.5% of businesses it will be very very difficult to actually know/prove that the carbon tax and not some other upstream price change was responsible. The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunisitically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.

  109. Chris F says:

    It’s time for much misfortune to come to anyone who dares to try and be a “carbon cop”! Make it so that no one in their right mind would attempt to go into a shop and look for any sign that might be construed as such.

    [snip. Can't have threats. ~dbs, mod.]

  110. Around here, in the part of the world where I live, the costs of living have “sky-rocketed” these past few years. – And it is all for our own good.

    It has been said, obviously by misguided people, that millions – no billions – or maybe even trillions, have been squandered on windmills, solar panels and other forms of “Sky Pie Renewable Energy Generators” (SPREGs). – But I know that that is not true, because our honest politicians are telling us the truth: – It is all due to naughty bankers who misguided the public in general and our politicians in particular into thinking we were all richer than we really were. – They (the bankers) let us overspend and the “only remedy – or political solution” for stopping overspending is to “raise product prizes” – i.e. tax hikes are for your own good. – It is no need for a misleading name for any tax that has the “dual” purpose of saving the economy as well as the planet.

    You ungrateful Aussies you!

    Well, I don’t want to fall foul of the Law now, do I?

  111. amoorhouse says:

    Meanwhile in Blighty, a Labour shadow minister on the BBC states that climate change if not tackled will raise the temperature of the oceans by 2 degrees C.

  112. Robert of Ottawa says:

    PRICES HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE JULLIA LIED.

  113. Rúnar says:

    Dear customers.

    Our prices have just increased by X.

    We are sure you are wondering why this is but unfortunately, although the answer is indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in legally presenting to you those reasons.

    There have been some rumours that this is due to the precise temporal correlation with those price increases of the entry into force of the CO2 tax introduced by the government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Wheras we are not legally allowed to confirm those rumours, there is also some difficulty in justifiably, and lawfully, denying them, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the those rumours communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, would be such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

    Happy Climate Fools Day
    The Management

  114. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Bulldust says:
    November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    If one visits the ACCC site one can see that Miranda Devine has grossly misrepresented the position of the organisation. The Chairman was quite clear about the organisations’s position in his presentation, which is no different than it has been in the past about any other misleading advertising:

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017300/fromItemId/142

    “Business costs increase all the time, and businesses are free to set their own prices. However, if a business chooses to raise their prices they should not misrepresent this as a result of the carbon price when it is not the case.”

    “This is not new – the message is simple: if you are going to make a claim, you need to make sure it is right.”

    I would suggest that Ms Devine has reading comprehension difficulties, or she is being deliberately misleading. The full guidance brochure can be found here, but the Chairman’s statements sum it up neatly:

    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1017091

    My BS meter went off immediately reading this story… always good to check the source first folks.

    Thanks, Bulldust. While you are correct in theory, in reality there’s no way to do what the ACCC suggests. They say that if you want to say that the increase is due to increased carbon costs, you have to get a statement from your supplier that verifies that their increase is due to increased carbon costs.

    However, a moment’s thought reveals the problem with that. If a man selling bread wants to make a statement about carbon, he has to get a statement from his baker. For his baker to make that statement, he has to get a statement from his miller, and his electricity supplier, and the man who sells petrol for his bread trucks, and the truck manufacturers where he buys the trucks, and for the increases in phone costs and every other cost.

    And each of those, in an endless loop, all have to get statements from the other one. Try this on for size.

    If I drive a Ford truck and I sell materials to Ford that they make cars with, they can’t make a statement about carbon without supporting carbon evidence from their suppliers … including me. But I can’t say how much my carbon costs have gone up without the carbon statement from Ford. Cute, huh?

    The net results of this chilling regulation will be:

    1. The actual costs due to the carbon tax will be underestimated at the business end. Since you can get fined up to a million dollars for exaggeration, every single estimate of the cost will be on the low side. This will no doubt be used to make the claim that the costs are minimal. They are not.

    2. Many people will just say “sorry, I don’t have an estimate”, because a) it’s far too much work and hassle to contact every one of their suppliers and ask if they have an estimate, and b) you can get fined if you overestimate. Most folks will wisely say nothing … chilling. Unfortunately, when a supplier says that they have no estimate, what is the retailer to do? He is muzzled, he can’t say anything, because of another man’s inaction.

    3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.

    So while you are correct in saying this is framed by the Govt as a “truth in advertising” issue, Bulldust, in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is designed specifically to make it very hard to say anything about carbon, with draconian fines. The net result is guaranteed to be a suppression of comment on the carbon issue. I see no reason to conclude that it is accidental that the regulations will have a chilling effect. The regulations have made it a practical impossibility for a businessman to determine the effect of CO2 on the business.

    w.

    PS—Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims? Why can’t they say what they want about carbon? At the end of the day the market rules, if they jack their prices too far they’ll lose customers. Who is hurt if they say “20% price rise due to carbon” instead of “20% price rise due to our kids going to college” or “20% price rise due to general business conditions” or “20% price rise due astrological influences”?

    Me, I think the Australian consumers are smart enough to look at a sign saying “20% price increase due to carbon tax” and say “I’ll shop next door, they raised their prices 3%”.

    So truly … what is the harm to the consumer? For me, that’s government gone mad.

  115. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Latitude, Juliar Gillard did not win a majority; she LOST the last election in Australia.

  116. higley7 says:

    Am I missing something? They have a carbon tax, but it cannot be indicated on the bills the company sends out. They pay a tax that is directly related to the business they do, so it only makes sense to indicate how much of the bill is carbon crap, I mean tax.

    And it appears that the actual tax rate will be a secret so that the consumer will not be able to relate it to their increased costs. But, as one of the comments mentions above, the consumer is perfectly able to do the math and figure out what the tax% is from bill comparison.

    The government believes that if you muzzle the dog, it will forget why it hates you.

  117. Mr Lynn says:

    Jon Jewett says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    . . . here are a couple of radio ads for the 2010 election by our Land Commissioner, Jerry Patterson:

    Good stuff! Tell Jerry to run for President. I’d vote for him!

    /Mr Lynn

  118. Alberta Slim says:

    Dear Customer: Our new higher prices will take your breath away.

  119. Willis Eschenbach says:

    higley7 says:
    November 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Am I missing something? They have a carbon tax, but it cannot be indicated on the bills the company sends out. They pay a tax that is directly related to the business they do, so it only makes sense to indicate how much of the bill is carbon crap, I mean tax.

    They can indicate it on the bill but only to the extent that their supplier of every single material and service used by the company includes it on their bill. Since (AFAIK) there is no law saying you have to include carbon costs at any level of the game, the practical result will be that your estimate will almost assuredly be low.

    However, if you give a more realistic estimate and the Carbon Cops don’t like the paperwork you have to back it up, you can be fined heavily. My prediction? Most businesses will not open themselves to the possibility of ruinous fines by saying anything about carbon at all.

    Which, near as I can tell, is the intent of the regulation.

    w.

  120. kcom says:

    I used to live in what would normally be termed a third-world African country. After the highly suspicious vote counting procedure in the then-recent presidential election called the announced outcome of the election (the president was relected) into serious dispute, guess what the first thing they did was? They made a decree announcing it was illegal to discuss the vote counting procedures, or to dispute the outcome of the election. Huzzah! Problem solved.

    This announcement, whatever the nuance involved happens to be (I’m talking to you, bulldust), stinks too much of that situation. When a government thinks it can solve a problem by making it illegal to talk about it (and using it’s intimidating power in this way is, de facto, the same) then something has gone seriously awry. These are the actions of a Third World dictatorship, not the government of a free and open society in the Anglo tradition. They ought to be ashamed. If they can’t stand the heat of open debate and inquiry they need to resign because their actions are beneath the dignity of a free society. Free speech means you’re free to speak, right or wrong. It’s not the government’s place to determine what is acceptable public discourse.

  121. lenbilen says:

    Gal Julia Gillard, P.M. from Canberra
    Does not like free speech, not on her Firma Terra.
    Don’t mention the prices
    The Carbon tax rises.
    Obama and Julia. Transparency – Ha!

  122. Bulldust says:

    I agree with you Willis, Australia is certainly a nanny state to a degree. We have a bazillion petty regulations, many of which are never enforced. In truth the ACCC is almost completely toothless in any case … it is no threat to business. Our supermarket industry is heavily dominated by two main players in Australia (Woolworths and Coles) and they certainly wield that monopoly power. Yet the ACCC is about as effective at curbing their monopoly power as the UN is at creating world peace. I doubt they will be doing any serious prosecuting of fallacious CO2 tax price hike claims.

    We went through a similar exercise when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced. Wholesales sales taxes (WST) were removed and a 10% GST introduced on final sales. I was running a small business at the time, and in our case the WST equated to approximately 10% of the final price anyway, so I didn’t adjust prices for the transition to the GST. There were similar warnings by the Government agencies at the time, that they would prosecute anyone found guilty of unwarranted price hikes. Not sure if anyone was ever held to account.

    So yeah, is Australia more regulated than some countries? Agreed. But also less than others. We generally find a happy medium for the most part, and we are certainly a lot closer to the libertarian end of the spectrum than developed EU economies. As for the CO2 tax… it (and all the associated ancilliary legislation) needs to go. But I digress…

  123. Streetcred says:

    Willis, worse still … we have a 10% GST at the POS, Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is built in before that so we’re slugged an extra 10% tax on top of it … tax on tax.

  124. AndyG55 says:

    I see a whole heap of BLACK BALLOON SALES !!!

    (Aussies will understand)

  125. Noelene says:

    The government believes it can fool people,the sad fact is,it can.See the true believers defending this government,they are protecting us from dodgy salesmen they cry,They are saving the grandchildren.
    People actually believe it,they actually believe that politicians will be the saviour of mankind(Obama will lower the seas,Gillard will save us from really,really bad floods,droughts and fires,but not really bad floods,droughts and fires.),I have trouble getting my head around that.

  126. AndyG55 says:

    Price rises necessary to pay for Black Balloons.

  127. AndyG55 says:

    or you could have a Black and White Balloon sale.. The Balloon company charges you 2 x normal for the black balloons, but gives you the white ones for free.

    Anyone into Balloon Futures ?

  128. Owen says:

    This is just an extension of a problem that has been going on for a long time. In fact those mop haired prognosticators from the 60′s predicted it:

    Let me tell you how it will be;
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me.
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don’t take it all.
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    (if you drive a car, car;) – I’ll tax the street;
    (if you try to sit, sit;) – I’ll tax your seat;
    (if you get too cold, cold;) – I’ll tax the heat;
    (if you take a walk, walk;) – I’ll tax your feet.

    Taxman!

    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Don’t ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
    If you don’t want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
    Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
    ‘Cause I’m the taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the taxman.

    And you’re working for no one but me.

    Taxman!

  129. Dave N says:

    How about this:

    “I’ve had to raise my prices because my supplier has raised theirs. As to whether my supplier’s price rises are related to the carbon [dioxide] tax, please ask them”.

    Let the ACCC try that on for size.

  130. davidmhoffer says:

    While I’m amused at many of the suggestions for circumventing this law, and have to admit I even thought up a few of my own, this seems to me to be much more serious than a lot of people think. When a government dictates to people what they can and cannot say, they have set foot on a path that leads to totalitarian rule. Finding amusing ways to circumvent this law is insufficient. The law must be rolled back to force that foot from the path. The well known saying comes to mind:

    All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

    Are protests being organized? Court challenges being funded? Will business leaders shutter their doors for a week, or even a day, in protest? If these things do not happen then I can recall another saying from the comic strip Pogo:

    I have seen the enemy. And they are us.

  131. William McClenney says:

    How about this Willis:

    “Truth in Advertising Fund”
    “Contributions are solicited for a $1.1M (AUD) fund so that we may disclose details concerning recent price increases”
    “The Manglement”

  132. Gail Combs says:

    #
    #
    James of the West says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    ……The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunisitically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
    ______________________________________________________
    You have a really weird idea of how pricing actually works.

    The pricing continuum has the following points.
    1. If you price below cost you lose money. (Loss leader)
    2. Break even
    3. Small profit – large volume
    4. Large profit – small volume
    5. Price too high – No sale.

    Your total profit = (profit per item) X (volume) so you are going to find the optimum balance between #3 and #4. Large chains go towards #3 while specialty stores go towards #4.

    Despite what socialists seem to think pricing is very much a two way street especially if you have several suppliers to choose from. That is why monopolies or cartels are bad news, they interfere with the “bargaining” between buyer and seller. You can vote with your feet with big corporations or do as I do, pick small businesses and deal direct with the owner. Prices are not nearly as “carved in rock” as you might think.

  133. AndyG55 says:

    “The law must be rolled back to force that foot from the path.”

    Most Aussies are hoping for something to happen to bring on an election, or just somehow biding time until the next scheduled election. Then its goodbye all this crap that the current Green seduced lot has foisted us with through continued lies and deceit.

  134. Co2is2partsoxygen says:

    There will be no price increase due to the carbon tax under a company I manage!
    or
    Dear customer we have raised our prices significantly due to the carbon tax and the myriad of other useless government policies.Please use the calculator provided if you wish to work out what went where!
    or
    The government has mandated that our product should over time become more expensive , to encourage the development of the yet to be developed green products. We have decided to hasten this process!

  135. Dale Thompson says:

    Just remember that it is not Carbon Tax it is a Carbon Price.

  136. Roger Knights says:

    Big Smother.

  137. kramer says:

    This has got to be one of the most shocking things I have read in regards to freedoms in a modern western nation.

    As to the price increases, I think the idea behind this is to reduce consumption so that there is more natural resources for the rest of the world to use to grow their economies. At the same time, Australia will be shelling out up to 57 Billion dollars a year to foreign nations. This is how they will equalize all the national economies of the world.

    In the process, bankers will probably get filthy richer.

  138. Kevin Hearle says:

    In New Zealand our Gas bill has the CT amount seperately Itemised. But I doubt it includes the other cost incurred by the suppler from his suppliers. This as pointed out is not practicle therefore it underestimates the cost. Interestingly if an electricity supplier with multiple power sources (our own has several) wind, hydro etc, should he show the extra cost of producing power from wind as opposed to hydro, coal etc that goes to make up my power bill. that would be an interesting exercise.
    Solution sign for Ausy industry.
    “This cost increase of $xx.xx is an underestermit of the true cost. I am happy for the Government to prove otherwise.”

  139. Roger Carr says:

    Miranda Devine sounded the first alert I noticed against the AWG scam when she warned, way, way back, of the approach of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” into Australian schools.
         She saw it for what it was. Few others did.
         In this column as quoted I feel she has gone maybe half a bridge too far — or perhaps she just wanted to draw attention to a government which is showing an alarming propensity to try and control us (we Australians) and felt a shock story was the only way to break through the thick fog of boredom or bemusement which is making us all a little punch-drunk.
         I am going to cut her some slack; but I feel Bulldust has made a valid point and thank him for it.

  140. Patrick Davis says:

    “AndyG55 says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:45 pm”

    My wife was involved in the last election (She could not vote then and still cannot vote now. I could have then but KRudd747 brought forward the election before I could secure citizenship). The AEC has just asked my wife to update her details. This is quite a bit early, ~18 months maybe more, which suggests to me the election will be brought forward again, late 2012 or very early in 2013.

    Either way the ALP and The Greens will be consigned to the political wasteland for decades.

  141. u.k.(us) says:

    FWIW,
    Willis says:
    “The regulations have made it a practical impossibility for a businessman to determine the effect of CO2 on the business.”
    =============
    Yep, unless you are writing the rules.
    Then: every lobbyist, business concern, or political ally knows exactly how much money they are going to soak out of the taxpayer.
    It’s guaranteed revenue, and the unwashed masses are (thought to be) too stupid to understand it comes out of their own pocket.
    The worrying part, is that none of the current politicians have noticed the sea change, or the fact that their captain has never sailed in a storm, it is, as if the ship was at the mercy of the winds.

  142. John Trigge says:

    Whilst Julia(r) tries to stop price increases via the ACCC until the tax actually comes into effect, how are companies expected to counter the indirect effects that are occurring NOW? E.g.:

    The Australian July 12, 2011
    Financial markets reacted negatively to the tax yesterday with steel, coal, airline and building material stocks sold by investors concerned about the tax’s implications from July 1 next year. The benchmark S&P/ASX 200 index closed down 72.4 points (1.56 per cent) at 4582.30, while the broader All Ordinaries index was down 69.2 points (1.47 per cent) at 4646.80.
    The Australian dollar lost nearly 0.4 per cent to trade at $US1.0716.
    TD Securities strategist Roland Randall said the potential inflationary impact could prompt the RBA to keep interest rates tighter than had been anticipated.

    If I were to buy shares in a company that had their share price dropped on the announcement of the carbon (dioxide) tax then sold them for a profit, am I going to have the Keystone Cops knocking on my door because I am making a profit from a carbon tax that is not yet in effect?

    If the RBA can control interest rates now, based on people’s perception of what may occur when the tax starts, are they also going to be asked questions by the ACCC?

    It seems that the Government are blind to reality and the markets will ALWAYS find a way around any law in order to make a profit.

    (and we still do not know which are the 500 worst ‘polluters’ that will have to pay the tax and then pass the costs on to the rest of us – http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/500-companies/)

  143. Alcheson says:

    James of the West says: The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunisitically and claim the carbon tax was responsible.

    I say Horse Hockey…. If a seller of a product increases the price of his product more than his competitor he will lose business. As a business owner it makes no sense to drive customers to shop at your competitors. The real reason is just what the vast majority of the people at WUWT think it is. This other phony contrived reason is an outright lie.

  144. SteveSadlov says:

    AUSSOC.

  145. Kohl says:

    It really burns me up that a politician can lie and lie in a naked grab for power just to be in a position to condemn and penalise someone else who might indulge in a little puffery in the course of running a business.

  146. achuara says:

    A similar threatening attitude has been going on in Argentina, though unrelated to climate change. The government statistic agency (INDEC) publishes every month the inflation index with figures normally 50-60% of the real one, that is, the inflation people see in the supermarkets, fuel prices, and shops.

    According to INDEC our inflation is 12%/year while many private consulting firms say the inflation is 30% a year. The government has been applying $150.000 dollar fines to those consulting firms for publishing their reports, so now the reports are given to the chamber of representatives (that cannot be fined) and they publish the reports. Our inflation is the third highest in the world, behind Venezuela’s and an African country…

    Our government does that trick because the interest paid for our debt bonds are tied to the official inflation, that way the state pays only half or less of what is real. That’s the pleasure of living under a socialist ultra left pro Iran-Cuba-Venezuela government…

  147. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    EU SAYS WATER IS NOT HEALTHY

    Friday November 18,2011
    By Giles Sheldrick

    THE EU was ridiculed last night after it took three years to issue a new rule that water cannot be sold as healthy.

    In a scarcely believable ­ruling, a panel of experts threw out a claim that regular water consumption is the best way to rehydrate the body. The bizarre diktat from Brussels has far-reaching implications for member states, including Britain, as no water sold in the EU can now claim to protect against dehydration.

    Any producer breaching the order, signed by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, faces being jailed for up to two years. It took the 21 scientists on the panel three years of analysis into the link between water and dehydration to come to their extraordinary conclusion.

    After a meeting in Italy a delegation of scientists concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration rather than a risk factor that drinking water could control. Now their verdict has been turned into a regulation that will become UK law by December 6 and is bound to send shockwaves through the soft drinks industry.

    The EU has a long history of passing bizarre regulations, the most infamous being 1995 rules setting out dimensions for fruit and vegetables which led to excessively curved bananas and ugly carrots being banned. And last year attempts to regulate the use of root vegetables in Cornish pasties sparked chaos.

    Water is not healthy, drinking water does not protect against dehydration. Carbon dioxide is a toxic pollutant. And fruits and vegetables must conform to largely-aesthetic guidelines.

    Welcome to the rule by fiat of the political elite, aided and abetted by the scientific elite. Comply or face their consequences, which are fair and just as they obviously know what you really need better than you do.

  148. Australian Consumer Law. Start here and follow the trail. http://www.consumerlaw.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=the_acl.htm

    An Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) [PDF 217KB] [RTF 236KB] signed by the Council of Australian Governments underpins the establishment of the ACL. This mechanism avoids Parliamentary debate. Some extraxts from ACXL papers follow:
    …………

    C. The objective of the new national consumer policy framework is to improve consumer wellbeing through consumer empowerment and protection, to foster effective competition and to enable the confident participation of consumers in markets in which both consumers and suppliers trade fairly.
    D. This objective is supported by six operational objectives:
    1) to ensure that consumers are sufficiently well‐informed to benefit from and stimulate effective competition;
    2) to ensure that goods and services are safe and fit for the purposes for which they were sold;
    3) to prevent practices that are unfair;
    4) to meet the needs of those consumers who are most vulnerable or are at the greatest disadvantage;
    5) to provide accessible and timely redress where consumer detriment has occurred; and
    6) to promote proportionate, risk‐based enforcement.

    E. The new national consumer policy framework consists of the following key elements:
    1) a national consumer protection law based on the existing consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act and also including:‐
    provisions regulating unfair contract terms,
    new enforcement and redress powers, and
    new provisions based on best practice in State and Territory consumer protection laws;
    2) a new national product safety regulatory and enforcement regime; and
    3) improved enforcement cooperation and information sharing arrangements between Commonwealth, State and Territory Agencies.
    ………………………….

    On a quick read, the law applies only to businesses, as did the Trade Practices Act.
    The ACCC does not seem to have powers to investigate the conduct of an individual not engaged in a business.
    Seems to me that private people can paste up whatever signs they like, providing a relevant business has no objection.
    ……………………….

    This Law seems to exclude the Government as defendant. The ACCC appears to be unable to receive complaints about a product (“The CarbonTax”), of which the Prime Minister said last year “There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead”. This conduct is tantamount to the premeditated use of misleading words to gain a benefit, which is often an action punishable by law. This broken promise seems to be at odds with D3) ‘to prevent practices that are unfair’. However, this promise seems to have been made before the commencement date of the Australian Consumer Law.
    ………………………..
    Where are you, Sir Humphrey?

  149. Cassandra King says:

    Eco fascism, it does exactly what it says on the tin. Winston Churchill predicted that fascism would return in the guise of anti fascism.

  150. acckkii says:

    No TAX means NEVER GREEN.
    Australians should not forget they are living under no OZONE curtain.
    This TAX increasing the first step towards the reality of OXYGEN that as a must should have a RATE, now its rate is ZERO. There are no more FREE OXYGEN.
    http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/is-atmosphere-above-countries-national-or-global-resource/

  151. Neil Jones says:

    “Our prices have gone up – you may think this is because of Carbon Taxes, we couldn’t possibly comment.”

  152. LazyTeenager says:

    So while you are correct in saying this is framed by the Govt as a “truth in advertising” issue, Bulldust, in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is designed specifically to make it very hard to say anything about carbon, with draconian fines.
    ———-
    Willis has no clue about how the ACCC operates so he makes up this story in which he pretends to know how it operates.

    This is just his favorite political theory trumping the facts.

  153. acckkii says:

    Inflation and tax may happen at the same time, this is not an excuse not to pay TAX.
    I think the Gov. of Australia and any other Govs. are not doing well. I am not saying no more TAX!
    Someday not so far, we have to stop or decrease at least man-made CO2.
    We are paying money for “C” part of CO2. We have never paid any penny for “O2″ by now!
    The Gov. big mistake is getting this money as TAX. The sound is not good.
    Has anybody paid any money for O2?
    This money as TAX or whatever, must be directed to an account/budget to recover the lost O2. Improving global/local climate changes and man-made CO2 outputs is a big issue.

  154. LazyTeenager says:

    However, a moment’s thought reveals the problem with that. If a man selling bread wants to make a statement about carbon, he has to get a statement from his baker.
    ———-
    Sure, sounds plausible. But the ACCC says that you just can’t just make stuff up, aka lie.

    If you have no evidence that the supplier price increase is due to a carbon tax then why say it.

    The whole point of the law is to prevent people lying about the reason for price increases.

  155. Tezza says:

    From my perspective Australian prices are ALREADY rising astronomically in comparison to Europe and the USA. I wonder why that might be!

  156. LazyTeenager says:

    Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims?
    ————
    Well it seems that in the good ole USA it’s ok to lie, cheat and manipulate. Apparently it is a right protected by the constitution, after a big bunch of supreme court reinterpretation.

    I prefer American traditions that appear to have become unfashionable. My favorite is George Washington and the cherry tree.

    I think the ACCC is aligned with that idea. And Miranda Devine is definitely not.

  157. acckkii says:

    Look! Carbon Emission is a truth.
    The Gov. of Australia has decided to increase the rate of a product under TAX formula. This is one issue.
    Another issue is what I think here must happen something, completely separate from what the Gov. is doing.
    Now, it is obvious that the pay toll for “O2″ is not any other place than the “Carbon” shopping centres.
    A bakery is doing well, they are consuming “O2″. And we must pay for this material as well as for the fuel “CARBON” to the bakery.
    “O2″ is adding a value to “C” cause without it there is no “BURNING” no “ENERGY”.
    Same as VAT, here we have “VAO2″.
    Now and again:
    TAX is Gov. product.
    When I want to pay more TAX, to my opinion and as a natural reaction, I cannot agree with that same as you all.
    But as a long term policy, for improving our living styles, there are no ways to decrease CARBON CONSUMPTIONS unless we have an economy solution, that’s TAX, O2 involvements in Fuel rating calculations and or whatever you may name it.

  158. CoronaBunny says:

    A simple example of technocracy in action: if you cannot provide a ‘scientific’ CONSENSUS in support of your case, then you may not speak.

    Also, I think most of you are missing the point here in regards to signage: the idea is to INFORM the public. In other words, say something like:
    “- Our operating costs have gone up by XX%.
    - Since we are unable to meet the requirements of Julia & Green government coalition in regards to determining, and legally proving, EXACTLY how much of this is due to the carbon tax, we may not attribute this price increase that tax.
    - The legal penalty imposed by the government for violation of this regulation is around $1,000,000 dollars, and is done under the auspices of a ‘truth in advertising’ regulation. A regulation which we, the management, think is a rather blatant attempt at not allowing our customers access to a good-enough estimate of the real costs of the carbon tax.
    - Regards, Management.”

  159. AndyG55 says:

    Yep, Lazy Child, we wouldn’t want ANYONE Lying about things would we… ..

    like

    ‘There will be no carbon tax………”

  160. Jessie says:

    As yet to read full post, but first impressions were that the thinking needs to be reversed.
    Ask Price Waterhouse (see Advisors, Audit) of Green Building Council of Australia. how they audit an asset, one of many in the cities, for green-ery. Parameters of sustainability these days.
    http://www.gbca.org.au/about/the-board/
    Also see ‘Recent News’ So long Stone Age, see carbon price
    Probably quite profitable now that Obama has repledged the Asia-Pacific ties.

    Actually it is likely it was Australia that took hold of the concept. What else did they have besides raw minerals and wool? And then a monolith in the centre? That is beside the burgeoning bureacracy and leeches therof? And the national 30-40 BILLION Aus$ broadband rollout, when bushies knew that wireless was on the cards anyway 5 years ago.

    It was the UN Commission on Social Determinants of Health that dabbled in urban fantasies and green five star ratings of city buildings (assets). Used civil servants longitudinal studies and local government agendas to effect a global ‘grass roots’ campaign. See Sir Michael Marmot viz Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (UK); Whitehall Study and Acheson Report. Also http://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/finalreport/about_csdh/en/index.html
    Alexi Marmot has been measuring (civil service) productivity as the result of architecture & space.
    http://aleximarmot.com/about_ama/ http://www.gbca.org.au/about/the-board/
    Be interesting to read the results of this costly experiment in increasing productivity if they were available.

    ‘Public health’ has developed many tentacles beyond giving vaccines, mandating measures in sanitation such as providing clean water, serving of foodstuffs ot the public and waste services to the masses.

  161. Exp says:

    [snip. Repeated labeling of others as deniers, denialism, etc. Read the site Policy before commenting. ~dbs, mod.]

  162. acckkii says:

    It seems that TECHNOLOGY is somehow far behind what we need, and TAX formula is far ahead.
    If Fuel Rate Today x Fuel Consumption Today is equal to or greater than Fuel Rate Tomorrow x Fuel Consumption Tomorrow, this means TECHNOLOGY is not behind Gov. TAX rules.
    In this definition:
    1. Fuel Rate Today is less than Tomorrow;
    2. Fuel Consumption Today is higher than Tomorrow due to Older Technology;
    3.The pressure and stress TODAY should be removed by our TECHNOLOGISTS;
    4- This takes place when we find out NO MORE FREE!
    If you are engineer, manufacturer,inventor, designer and…. why we should sit and ask for what we know it’s going to be wrong.
    OKAY, I’ll ask the Gov. of Australia to stop the TAX!, do you promise to take care of TECHNOLOGY to catch any increasing in TAX/FUEL? When? Please…

  163. Jessie says:

    Further to note

    If the everyday person in the street was to ask ‘hey why has the 250g brand of generic butter increased in price by XXX (30%) since week?’ …..
    they could rest assured that a plethora of experts had investigated their health attitudes and status
    http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/mental-capital/final_project_report_part6.pdf

    And going to p 23/73 on ecould read
    “the scenarios are …..intended to be as ‘policy neutral’ as far as possible ie they should not assume particular policies for mental capacity and wellbeing being substantially changed or introduced….”

    Appendix D may interest to Gail Combs http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/hump-day-hilarity-chris-mooneys-abby-normal-post-modern-science/
    and p72/73 provides the disclaimer of this internationally networked (public health) study.

  164. Jessie says:

    Putting a Price on Pollution: what it means for Australia’s property and construction industry

    http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/203/3787/Carbon%20Paper_LR.pdf

  165. bushbunny says:

    In Australia there is an electricity price increase that is becoming terribly expensive for some. And there has been a movement to cut subsidies per watt for solar by the NSW new government, but was not successful. However in UK solar subsidies and soon wind turbine subsidies are being cut as immoral. I believe on the Tory Aardvark blog, that 14,000 turbines are now rusting in the US and some in Hawaii too. I have advised Tory webmaster to forward this info to you Anthony and also Joanne Nova in Australia. Mr Obama is interested in establishing more American bases in Australia. This has met generally by public approval, (not wholeheartedly but there is an affection for the US because you are strong military wise in comparison to us) but the Chinese are not happy. Nor is our foreign minister Kevin Rudd, the former PM. He wasn’t consulted and he does speak Mandarin. Some have suggested we should give them the governance of Christmas Island too where all our illegal immigrants or rather PC asylum seekers,(boat people) go to from Indonesia. Some don’t arrive because they are drowned, either on purpose once the people get the money (that has happened elsewhere in the world), or by accident. But most of the public don’t know that Christmas Island was used for nuclear testing back in the 50s, and now UK veterans are now able to sue the UK government for compensation. Oh what a strange world we live in. Lies, Lies and more lies. $$$$’s and $$$’s and Al Gores and greedy bankers.

    OH, by the way folks, don’t blame us, the EU, New Zealand and now Australia and I believe California are the only ones who have humped into the scam of carbon taxing and trading (not to be implemented in Aus until July next year, and no international carbon trading until far beyond that). If the coalition government gets in at the next election it will be repealed. By then the carbon tax and permits, so called green energy projects like wind turbines and solar will be shown to be the scam that it is. Hopefully!

  166. Patrick Davis says:

    “LazyTeenager says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:27 am”

    And neither do you.

    “acckkii says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:31 am
    Someday not so far, we have to stop or decrease at least man-made CO2.”

    Why? What is aCO2 doing?

  167. morgo says:

    I live in australia and the fabians are taking us over and I blame the give me generation they walk around all day with i pods, I phones, mobile phones, I pads, blue tooth stuck in their ear .and they have no respect for themselves or anybody so why worry about carbon tax .god help them they will be the generation most effected

  168. acckkii says:

    all replies are awaiting moderation…

    [Reply: It's 3:00 a.m. here. Moderator coverage isn't as good as it is during the daytime. Only my insomnia got the current batch of posts approved.☺ ~dbs, mod.]

  169. acckkii says:

    There are 2 ways to solve the problem:
    1. Technology;
    2. Tax;

    These 2 are acting like EGG and CHICKEN closed circle which one came first.

  170. Mike Borgelt says:

    I used to think Bulldust had his act together but no longer.
    The ACCC is clearly entirely owned by the government and simply doing their bidding.
    There never was much liberty in the Australian makeup. A nation of natural serfs who simply want to be provided for by the masters.

  171. Nylo says:

    If you have no evidence that the supplier price increase is due to a carbon tax then why say it.

    As much as I hate it, I’m with LazyTeenager on this one. Still, there are workarounds if you think that the carbon tax is at least partially responsible:

    “Dear client, our prices have risen because our suppliers’ prices have risen at the same time that the new carbon tax has started to apply. We do not know if this is due to the carbon tax or not”.

    And about the sales:

    “Dear client, our suppliers are increasing their prices next month, for reasons that may or may be not linked to the new carbon tax. As a result, we will be forced to increase our prices as well. Enjoy the reduced prices in the meantime”.

  172. DirkH says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:32 am
    “The whole point of the law is to prevent people lying about the reason for price increases.”

    That sounds reasonable but it’s not. Outlawing lies? Julia Gillard has said “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”. She lied, big time, yet that was completely legal – a government that lies makes laws to stop other people from lying. They could make a law that says “Only we, the government, are allowed to lie.” We could call it Lex Lazyteenager.

    Why do you always defend cheats and liars?

  173. Greg Holmes says:

    This is a cracking opening for business,(big) if it has the “balls” to do it.

    One each invoice have line extra for the C tax, if then like the UK you add VAT tax after the C tax line, the added income for the Government = C Tax + VAT on the C Tax.
    Create uproar, in a legal way.

  174. Jessie says:

    acckkii says: November 18, 2011 at 2:35 am
    all replies are awaiting moderation…

    [Reply: It's 3:00 a.m. here. Moderator coverage isn't as good as it is during the daytime. Only my insomnia got the current batch of posts approved.☺ ~dbs, mod.]

    Crikey, I hate to ask….. but what do you actually do during the day time given this expose of your amazing energy levels AT NIGHT ….. in moderating all the rapid posters! ;)

    [Reply: I'm retired from a career of designing, calibrating and repairing weather related instruments. So I have the time to help Anthony. Now, if I could only get a good night's sleep... ~dbs, mod.]

  175. Jessie says:

    oops, apologies, I meant rabid; not rapid!

  176. Climate Dissident says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 17, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    EU SAYS WATER IS NOT HEALTHY

    ——-
    Many non-Europeans are unaware that in many states in Europe, you cannot adverts products which qualities which are inherent to the product.

    E.g., you can’t sell water as “colesterol free” or claim that a product is “free from additives” when the law has forbidden additives for that specific product. The EU is trying to protect customers against over-hyped qualities. Because one’s water isn’t more healthy than someone else’s water, you can’t sell it as healthy.

  177. Jessie says:

    Trade Practice Act and any exemptions?

  178. Jessie says:

    Australia’s current debate on The Constitution

    And exemption of Local Government in the Trade Practices Act (Australia) Part IV?

    http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2168165097/Jim-Spigelman-tackles-changing-the-constitution

  179. klem says:

    What if they raise their prices and claim that ‘the increases are NOT due to the carbon tax’.
    What would the consequences be then?

    Advertisers regulary use this tactic to increase sales of whatever they are selling, its simply reverse advertising. You don’t see it often but it works. Its just another method to get their point accross. Claiming that it is not due to something is the same as claiming that it is to the target customer.

  180. klem says:

    How have Australians allowed this to happen to their country?

  181. dd16591569 says:

    Yes the government has gone mad.. and all her ways are crooked .. no one can say anything .. and if you do .. the next thing you are gone .. i am not sure if we are living in the middle east or Australia . .. The government will still have to spend 22 Billon to sale the Carbon tax to the public… Money we do not have .. and what is next .. we will get taxed for inhaling oxygen H2O and exhaling CO2

  182. ozspeaksup says:

    Ian George says:
    November 17, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Yet many families will receive what the government calls a ‘carbon tax compensation package’ to help families cope financially with the carbon tax. So the government have no trouble labelling the ‘goodies’ but not the ‘baddies’. They have obviously designed this policy so that people can not judge whether the compensation package matches the price increases from the tax.
    In NSW, the Coalition government claimed they would display the carbon tax impost on individual electricity bills but have been warned by the Federal govt they would be in breach of the legislation.==========
    WELL DONE! if by Law you MUST add GST on every docket and it IS a tax,
    then why?
    is not the precise amount of Carbon Tax treated the same?
    I would think this could be taken to court for a win!

  183. PhilJourdan says:

    Half a world apart, yet the same. The Gillard and Obama administrations are working from the same playbook. Basically Obama tried the same tactic (vindictive reprisals to any company that dared say Obamacare increased the cost of medical insurance). I think they are simply brothers from other mothers.

  184. pete says:

    The Australian govt has just been arrested en masse after claiming the fine would have been lower if it wasnt for the carbon tax and then admitting they didnt have any money to pay the fine.
    A govt spokesman said “the reason they dont have any money is because everything is so expensive these days because of the carbon tax”.
    He was subsequently fined $1.1m which the govt used to pay its own fine and were released from jail.

  185. ozspeaksup says:

    Latitude says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    You voted them in…..
    ===========
    actually NO we did not!
    there was a tie,
    so theLabor/ greens and the 3 independant senators, got all warm and fuzzy and did some deals, to gain a majority by one vote..
    Liar gillard was NOT elected.

  186. Brent says:

    Prices raised because of too much exhaled air

  187. higley7 says:

    Dr A Burns says:
    November 17, 2011 at 12:35 pm
    “Brown has manipulated PM Julia Gillard into forcing the Carbon Tax through. He has stated that he believes in a single global socialist government).”

    Why would they elect someone who want to turn his own country into a province of a global power with would have to be totalitarian and socialist? He is not loyal to his own country! He should be impeached/deposed/defrocked and neutered for good measure. They should do Gillard for good measure.

  188. John-X says:

    Steeptown says:
    November 17, 2011 at 11:57 am
    “Freedom of speech rules OK (except in Australia). It’s a good job Obama is over there to sort Julia out.”

    Ha ha ha!

    Obama is over there to go “green,” with envy this time, over Julia’s power to persuade the anti-science, anti-progress types with the compelling, “STFU!” scientific & economic argument.

  189. juanslayton says:

    Total truth in Australian advertising? Where is Joe Isuzu when you need him?

  190. ShrNfr says:

    Perhaps one could state that “My costs are up and that there is a non-parametric correlation of .xx between these costs and the introduction of the carbon tax. It should be noted that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Both may be due to another source such as the government, for example.”

  191. ACCKKII says:

    Scottie says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Carbon has an atomic number of 6. Oxygen has an atomic number of 8.
    C has an atomic mass of 12.0107g/mol. O has an atomic mass of 15.9994g/mol.
    There are 2 atoms of O to each atom of C in CO2.
    So, no matter how you measure it, there is more oxygen than carbon in a molecule of CO2.
    Therefore, rather than being referred to as a carbon tax, surely it would be more accurate to refer to it as an oxygen tax.

    Would Ozzie legislators be OK with that?
    YES everything is OKAY!
    If any mismatching in calculations, TAX receivers would not get back to receive UNPAID O2s!
    http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/is-atmosphere-above-countries-national-or-global-resource/

  192. More Soylent Green! says:

    How about an ad or sign that says “We can’t say it’s because of the carbon tax, but you can put 2 + 2 together, can’t you?”

  193. Craig Loehle says:

    There were some attempts to intimidate insurance companies in USA who said Obamacare was raising their prices, but it was feeble–but the same thing in principle.

  194. Juraj V. says:

    Freedom needs constant attention, so says old proverb. You can blame neither Moscow, nor Brussel. Deal with it, Aussies!

  195. Shevva says:

    Is that a slippery slope I see, what’s to stop them using this to pass legislation such as you can say what you want about J.Gillard but if your even slightly wrong we’ll fine you 1M dollars. Will this apply to say Andrew Bolt or Jo Nova? (It’s a thought exercise).

    Tropo’s gone to there heads and it will only get worse now they know they can get away with what ever they want. R.I.P democracy in Oz.

  196. ACCKKII says:

    Greg Holmes Quote:
    “This is a cracking opening for business,(big) if it has the “balls” to do it.
    One each invoice have line extra for the C tax, if then like the UK you add VAT tax after the C tax line, the added income for the Government = C Tax + VAT on the C Tax.
    Create uproar, in a legal way.”
    Unquote.
    My Comment:
    VAT may be applied under LAW in a country.
    What Govt. of Australia is doing, is ONLY a TAX INCREASE. I know you don’t like it.
    My view is, what’s that for? The effect of such an increase is applied to prices directly.
    If the Govt. of Australia spends this money for improving ECO-FRIENDLY TECHNOLOGY & RECYCLING, its is okay. And the name of this payment is not TAX. It can be:
    1. O2 price ( now it’s too low, it would be increased certainly in future);
    2. Carbon Emission Fee;
    You may say NAMES are not the issue, increasing living costs is the importance of the subject.
    But I say, naming this payment would result in where and how we are going to spend it. And this needs rules and regulations and should be done under LAW.
    Increasing TAX that makes money for any Govt., is like we say “…..X% increased, that’s all, get back home”.
    It is better The Govt. show the MONEY destination.
    National resources are NATION RESOURCES, no way out.
    Our living Styles needs CHANGE, and this decision needs MONEY.

  197. Bob Kutz says:

    What you do, as a shopkeeper, is get a cat. Name it Carbauntacks.

    Now you have the perfect defense.

    When you blame it for the price increases, you can’t be held responsible for people misunderstanding what you meant.

    Problem solved. Except for all the cats named carbons tax.

  198. Grant says:

    The state won’t be able to hide the fact that a carbon tax will drive up costs across the board, nor will it be able to hide job losses. Hey government, news flash, people don’t like to be told what to.
    The most important thing to many people, and I suspect many Austrailians, is liberty. From the things I see of them on this blog, they ain’t gonna take it!

  199. PeterGeorge says:

    I’m confused. Why does Australia want a military alliance with the US? Shouldn’t they just apply to become a new province of China?

  200. ACCKKII says:

    If you get back and see what is the meaning of 50 to 100 years ago value of $1.00 , you’ll find out the financial system output is inflation, that of course can be controlled but never can be deleted. So we cannot blame anybody. Policies of the Govts. can speedup or retard the inflation rates. Political changes cannot be forgotten. WW2 as an example, no need to explain it.
    I same as you, always blame any price increase, is it enough?
    You want to buy a book, the seller gives you Coca Cola, are you convinced with that? SO your comment “Carbauntacks” is COCA COLA!, it’s not fair, this is playing game with words.
    When I agree with CARBON EMISSION FEE I want this not “Carbauntacks” and I pay for that.
    I follow this money where it is going. Of course you mind clean energy, less fuel consumption technology after such a payment. This is just one result for such payments.
    Don’t worry my friend, do you know how much money do you pay for the roads around you to be asphalted annually, the way you can drive 200km/hr? If you drive this speed by 8 liters/100km instead of 17 liters/100km, what does it mean? And if your jet plane that drops 200 tons of carbon garbage in our atmosphere for a 6 hours flight, and yet nobody is responsible to cleanup your jet way, is this plan name “Carbauntacks” ?
    If Fuel Rate Today x Fuel Consumption Today is equal to or greater than Fuel Rate Tomorrow x Fuel Consumption Tomorrow, this means TECHNOLOGY is not behind Govt. TAX rules or whatever name, if you like “Carbauntacks” .
    Regards

  201. G. Karst says:

    Dictatorships and despots fall with a great crashing heard worldwide. We all hear their great fall!

    NOT so for freedom and democracy!

    Freedom and democracy falls quietly, internally with the passing of laws and restrictions. It happens so subtlety, many are completely unaware of it’s passing. One day you are speaking your mind and the next you are paying huge fines because of what you have said, or worse, sent to a re-education center, where wooden rods are educating your anus. GK

  202. The solution is obvious: Any supplier does as they do as they are required to with the GST; itemises it on the invoice.

    Buy from suppliers who itemise and itemise it on your own invoices. Accept no price increase without an itemised invoice showing the tax component.

    Keep in mind that the cost of the tax is greater than the amount of tax collected. There are administrative overheads; changes in business processes which need to be implemented as of yesterday. So the tax is already costing suppliers. I trust that they’re keeping track of every cent. (/sarc)

  203. ACCKKII says:

    Quote
    Grant says:
    November 18, 2011 at 7:48 am

    The state won’t be able to hide the fact that a carbon tax will drive up costs across the board, nor will it be able to hide job losses. Hey government, news flash, people don’t like to be told what to.
    The most important thing to many people, and I suspect many Australians, is liberty. From the things I see of them on this blog, they ain’t gonna take it!
    Unquote
    Can you please give us a simple example/ model effects by the recently increased tax?

  204. ACCKKII says:

    To: G. Karst,
    No need to be fanatic.
    Find a solution how to make things easier.

  205. Olen says:

    Quote from Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 89)
    “. . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.” (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)
    The above quotes were the cornerstones of Jefferson’s interest in education and the franchise. He placed education as the foundation of democracy and a prerequisite to vote.

    Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist together: the one destroyed the other. A despotic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only while they were ignorant. Again Thomas Jefferson.

    The throttling of free speech is to promote ignorance and the suppression of opposition by government can only be interpreted as an attempt to protect self-interests.

    Jefferson was not Australian but does the principle apply?

  206. G. Karst says:

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:00 am

    To: G. Karst,
    No need to be fanatic.
    Find a solution how to make things easier.

    Sure! Keep a very large jar of Vaseline concealed on your body at all times. That way one will always be ready for re-education. GK

  207. Mike says:

    LazyTeenager says: a pantsload of misleading half truths.

    First they came for the honest business owners…

    If you truly are a lazy teenager, I may be able to forgive your naive ramblings as the product of immaturity and a profound ignorance of history rather than the deliberate obfuscations they appear to be.

  208. Marlow Metcalf says:

    The retail customer pays for everything. The customer pays for something. That money goes to the business and eventually your wages. Any expense is paid for by the retail customer.

  209. Dave Springer says:

    I must now consider Australia to be a banana republic.

    This is both sad and disturbing.

  210. ACCKKII says:

    Thank you Olen,
    We do expect that a government is basically respected and trusted by its own people, and the people get what they deserve as their own rights.
    You said “. . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
    This is hopefully the meaning of VOTE.
    As a whole, I agree with you and your comment is wise.
    Appreciate.

  211. G. Karst says:

    Olen says:
    November 18, 2011 at 9:11 am

    “. . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right. (as cited in Padover, 1939, p. 88)”

    Here is the problem. Propaganda is the most easily accessed information available today, bar none! It starts at the moment of birth and does not end. Much of it is firmly embedded by our trusted education system. It is extremely difficult, for anyone, to rise above this “matrix”. It is a primary cause, when one makes the simplest decisions, such as what shampoo to best purchase.

    Well informed today means well indoctrinated! Truth is virtually invisible! GK

  212. ACCKKII says:

    To: GK,
    I’ll try to do it, I am your follower.

  213. Dave Springer says:

    [SNIP: Dave, a bit premature and over-the-top. -REP]

  214. SteveSadlov says:

    RE: “He placed education as the foundation of democracy and a prerequisite to vote.”

    Universal suffrage put a swift end to that, didn’t it? In principle, universal suffrage was meant to correct the wrongs of sexism and racism vis a vis voting access. But the revolutionaries have exploited it to the hilt, ensuring that millions upon millions of utterly uneducated and barely literate morons vote in each election. This is true throughout the English speaking countries. We are in a world of hurt.

  215. AndyG55 says:

    here’s some wording for a sign..

    “There will be no Carbon Tax increasing prices on the stuff that we sell”

  216. Doctor Gee says:

    We can’t “say” our prices have risen due to the carbon tax.
    (feel free to ask us what we “think”)

  217. ACCKKII says:

    To solve a problem in extra ordinary times, we may need extra ordinary measures, even one makes simplest decisions.
    An economical decision and the Policy behind it, considering many variables, is not easy to make. Trust between People and their Government is the main issue, this makes everything possible.

  218. Jim G says:

    Never could figure out how Australia allowed gun control and now a carbon tax when it looks so much like our western United States and was settled by similarly independent minded folks as well. But then I suspect the big cities rule, just like here. Upstate New York people are much different than NYC people but NYC has more people and more say. Big cities are the bane of democracy, full of people wanting someone to protect them and take care of them. Is that the simple answer?

  219. AndyG55 says:

    or maybe a picture of Gillard with a word bubbles saying

    “Our price rises are not due to the carbon tax”

    (mods , combine with previous post if appropriate.)

  220. Willis Eschenbach says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:42 am (Edit)

    Beyond that, what kind of nanny state is it that tries to keep shopkeepers from making ludicrous claims?
    ————
    Well it seems that in the good ole USA it’s ok to lie, cheat and manipulate. Apparently it is a right protected by the constitution, after a big bunch of supreme court reinterpretation.

    I prefer American traditions that appear to have become unfashionable. My favorite is George Washington and the cherry tree.

    I think the ACCC is aligned with that idea. And Miranda Devine is definitely not.

    You would prefer GW and the cherry tree, LT. Your nose for seeking out and defending lies and incorrect information is dang near infallible. I hate to burst your bubble, but that story about GW and the cherry tree is not true.

    So not only is it OK in the US to lie, cheat and manipulate the truth about George Washington, there’s no million dollar fine if you do so.

    See, in the US we assume that people of normal intelligence will notice that if someone says “Carbon taxes have forced me to raise prices by 200%”, it’s likely to be nonsense.

    For example, we’ve had the RGGI in force here for some time, and gosh … nobody had a problem with what the businesspeople said. Sure, some of them likely exaggerated their costs … so what? When have you ever trusted a businessman who said “All prices 90% of wholesale cost!!”? Well, not you maybe, but I’m sure that the average Aussie can spot a spiv from a few blocks away.

    In the US we also assume that a person with average intelligence would have noticed that the story about GW and the cherry tree was a legend, and not a true tradition … and indeed, your blind acceptance of the legend as being true has just shown that to be a very valid rule of thumb.

    w.

  221. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Climate Dissident on November 18, 2011 at 4:25 am:

    Many non-Europeans are unaware that in many states in Europe, you cannot adverts products which qualities which are inherent to the product.

    To me, this indicates the European citizens are considered educated enough to know those inherent qualities yet too stupid to recognize such “fluff” in advertising. But of course, European governments are smarter than their citizens, as the citizens have accepted. That’s why they elected the EU Council to govern them by directive from Brussels, right?

    E.g., you can’t sell water as “[cholesterol] free” or claim that a product is “free from additives” when the law has forbidden additives for that specific product. The EU is trying to protect customers against over-hyped qualities. Because one’s water isn’t more healthy than someone else’s water, you can’t sell it as healthy.

    This ignores the specious nature of the ruling. To wit:

    After a meeting in Italy a delegation of scientists concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration rather than a risk factor that drinking water could control.

    This is akin to concluding that persistent elevated body temperature is a symptom of a fever. How did the description of a condition become a symptom?

    Plus now they can’t claim that drinking water can prevent dehydration. Which makes it more likely that you’ll suffer from dehydration, drinking water or not drinking water? The grey area is drinking water cannot absolutely prevent dehydration. But this is also true when a vaccine is said to prevent getting a certain disease. Has the EU banned advertising, even public service announcements, that claim a healthy diet and exercise can prevent heart disease?

    As far as one water being healthier than another, which doesn’t apply here, among bottled waters made to enforced high standards, there may well be a difference in healthy-ness, especially as seen with the usual US plethora of offerings ranging from plain distilled to mineral-containing and even vitamin-enhanced. Although with a good varied diet such differences are likely insignificant with regards to overall health. However if we were to compare bottled water like the celebrities drink, to the local water available in third-world countries that the celebrities are visiting…

  222. Wil says:

    Warning to customers – prices will increase. You get what YOU voted for.

  223. Lars P. says:

    Well, that will not be so easy to get rid of the “tax which may not be named”. One needs a Harry Potter to get rid of it.

  224. Lars P. says:

    speaking of it: “you know what tax” may be an appropriate name?

  225. Mike says:

    I agree Lars, it should be dubbed the Voldemort tax. Might even prompt some young people to ask about it and get informed.

  226. Cesca (UK) says:

    I’ve stumbed across this and I’m “gobsmacked”. I thought Oz, NZ and Canada were the last bastions of commonsense. Clearly, I’m wrong. So sorry for you, people: you have succumbed to the insanity afflicting the rest of the “developed world” and I fear there is no way back. Give it a couple of years and your country will be a hellhole like the UK.

  227. Cirrius Man says:

    Wil says:
    November 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    Warning to customers – prices will increase. You get what YOU voted for.

    Except – this is not exactly the case !
    Julia Gillard announced in the week before the 2010 election that there would be “NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD”. And her party only received around 37% of the primary vote in a hung parliament where she did deals with minor parties to form government.

    Aussies who lose their jobs due to the economic impact of the tax, and who are forced to live in dark cold homes (unable to pay the massive energy bills) will ‘NOT BE HAPPY’ !.

    This is the kind of legislation that could force Australians to seriously consider voting at a state level to succeed from the Commonwealth and form separate countries.

  228. ACCKKII says:

    Olen said:
    “. . . whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
    Why everybody’s grumbling!
    See what Olen is saying…
    You are just writing, I…same as you all DON”T LIKE TAX!! Did you get rid of it? No need to ask Harry Potter, it’s OKAY!?
    But………!!!
    If you decided to pay any TAX by chance!, please after taking care of your VOTE, pay it for CARBON EMISSION/O2/Ozone layer above your BLUE SKY, not for your roads around you to be ASPHALTED.
    Who is J.Gillard? one politician among thousands, you don’t like her, kick her off. EASY.
    Now is there anybody to give me one small chance to see calculations how much is this tax increase influence on one small simple SAMPLE.
    Please don’t grumble, just give everybody figures.

  229. ACCKKII says:

    Wil says:
    November 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm
    “Warning to customers – prices will increase. You get what YOU voted for.”
    My Comment:
    How is it possible to know who is thinking ” WHAT”?
    What! here means “about the country and the policies, and/or the subjects almost everybody here is talking about”.
    Is it “OUR VOTES?
    Very YES for WARNING, you must accept your responsibility about your VOTES given to your wanted things not to J.Gillard. Of course you must get what YOU voted for, if not,
    Olen said:”whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.”
    You voted to what you wanted to have, now you cannot get it, kick them off.
    Now I give my vote to you. What is your plan? This is extra ordinary time, before I know anything about your plan I give my vote to you as a gift. Do you think we you need extra ordinary measures?
    I have found you eligible to be the PM. Your plan is no more TAX on whatever you think. My demand is “MIND my O2/Ozone Layer/Carbon Emission/Energy Savings/….”. What do you do, and from where you get the required money make your JOB? Don’t forget you are J.WILLARD!
    What is the difference here to be Gillard or Willard? What is your plan? You are free to tell the customers: WARNING! – Prices will decrease, you get what you voted for.
    Hello my PM, you promised to do it…You are our GOVERNMENT.
    Check your pocket for the money you want to spend…Gillard didn’t do it? You do it.
    You should have a plan for the years you are the PM, all risks must be included in your plan.
    There is one more thing to know:
    When you get your driving license it doesn’t mean you never have any accident. When you VoTe to somebody it doesn’t mean you are FREE and you get what you want, you should always think about what OLEN said, you can ask for your VoTe back , KICK OFF, and give your VOTE to your desired plan.

  230. jaymam says:

    “Our prices have gone up, but not because of a Carbon Tax. Yeah Right!”

  231. ACCKKII says:

    When I entered here in this room, I said my idea about EXTRA TAX FEE on the way how to spend and why we need it.
    At once, I faced with a big RUSH!
    Angry people on board about an increase on TAXATION on something.
    1st of all I found myself involved in HOT issue without any reason!
    Now I would be appreciated to get a permission to say my idea,
    it was “CARBON EMISSION FEE for man-made CO2/O2 FEE for no more FREE OXYGEN/DECREASING FUEL RATE CONSUMPTION/all ECONOMICAL issues for improving our LIVING STYLES).
    Who is not ready to have such healthy stuffs? It would be cheaper than ever!
    If;
    FC.today x FR.today>= FC.tomorrow x FR.tomorrow;
    then;
    “we have decreased the prices”;
    in this formula:
    FC.today is today Fuel Consumption/ unit of work;
    FR.today is today Fuel Rate/unit;
    and
    FC.tomorrow is tomorrow Fuel Consumption/ unit of work;
    FR.tomorrow is tomorrow Fuel Rate/unit;
    independent from any X.XXXlard.

  232. Twobob says:

    The Prime Minister Has said there will be No Carbon Tax.
    Our Price rises are not due to Carbon Tax.

  233. Jessie says:

    ACCKKII @9.20pm

    Here is a sample, weights but not figures so much
    Tim Wilson of the IPA (no not the beer) Institute of Public Affairs had a thing or two to say about carbon accounting in his effort to bake a birthday cake.
    “…..All the ingredients for our birthday cake — 225g of White Wings plain flour, 125ml of Crisco vegetable oil, 85g of Cadbury cocoa powder, 250ml of Pauls milk, 350g of CSR caster sugar — will include the direct cost of a carbon tax because they’re manufactured by a big polluter.
    As will the 220g of Plaistowe cooking chocolate and 200ml of Pura double cream for the icing.
    And assuming the cake is being made in my kitchen in Melbourne’s South Yarra, there’ll be a carbon tax directly on the 250ml of water from big polluter South East Water I need to boil as well….”
    See IPA What Did I Miss? 21 April 2011 (scroll down page)
    http://hey.ipa.org.au/2011/04/

  234. Jessie says:

    Henry Ergas had something to say about need for a Code of Conduct to govern situations (of regulators) where the outgoing Chairman of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) joined a boutique investment banking firm.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/accc-chiefs-new-job-draws-flak-20110729-1i368.html

  235. Jessie says:

    I now note various comments on propaganda (social marketing and communication):-

    bubbagyro@12.36pm; PeterGeorge@8.07pm and the ongoing discussion between ACCKKII & G. Karst + Les of Silverdale commenting on Devine’s article posted by Willis E.

    Even The Weekend Australian begins to smell a rat, for the first time, ??????????
    “THERE has always been something peculiar about the UN climate change process, in which the world’s top scientists investigate an issue but must negotiate the wording of their public findings with governments to ensure they pass the political test.”
    You’ll have to log in or read the hard copy for the rest of the story.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/test-of-climate-politics/story-e6frg6xf-1226199441010

    Here in Australia is it that the southerner’s use of propaganda or omissions in the grand narrative, and in some cases that narrative from the north, they have suddenly decided that there IS something amiss?

    I thought this a reasonable summation of the divide given the consensus developing by bloggers about propaganda.
    3rd June 2010 (13 mins) Defectors throw light on harsh realities of life in North Korea
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8720870.stm

  236. EdH says:

    If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:

    “Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”

    This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.

  237. ACCKKII says:

    quote
    from: twobob
    “The Prime Minister Has said there will be No Carbon Tax.
    Our Price rises are not due to Carbon Tax.”
    unquote.
    I refer you to Olen please see the recent comments and ask to get your VoTe back,

    and NOW to Jessie,
    Your comment was excellent, at least somebody came and gave us some figures, GREAT!
    Now I am sure I never VOTE you at all if you candidate yourself to be the PM. J.Gillard is wiser and much better than you. Maybe I ask Hilton Hotel somewhere in Africa to give you a job and as a door keeper in a kitchen.
    Hey Jessie!
    We are not arguing, do we?
    You don’t have even a simple study about anything around you. How is that? How are you criticizing? I want to be with you but how can you convince me and the others, just because you wish not to pay TAX or whatever without any reason? I said I don’t like any TAX, but how can I be against that? As Olen said (final meaning of the quote: KICK OFF), I don’t need this kind of PM.
    You see how many of the oppositions here are saying the same thing as you (NO more TAX) but nobody tried to extract any figures out of a kitchen.
    Now get back to work, say something powerful because J.Gillard is doing well, although we are not with her.

  238. Gail Combs says:

    acckkii says:
    November 17, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    No TAX means NEVER GREEN.
    Australians should not forget they are living under no OZONE curtain.
    This TAX increasing the first step towards the reality of OXYGEN that as a must should have a RATE, now its rate is ZERO. There are no more FREE OXYGEN.
    http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/is-atmosphere-above-countries-national-or-global-resource/
    __________________________________

    Oh, good grief!

    First there is and never has been “Free Oxygen” “free” Oxygen gloms onto other atoms so we get O2, O3, CO2, H2O… Ever heard of “Oxidation” as in rusting or FIRE?? Free oxygen is VERY reactive.

    Second the more CO2 the more O2 is release it is called the carbon cycle. San José State University: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm

    The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere…. The Report of the European Science and Environment Forum http://www.co2web.info/ESEFVO1.pdf

    Carbon cycle modeling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2… http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

  239. ACCKKII says:

    quote.
    EdH says:
    November 19, 2011 at 6:09 am
    If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:
    “Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”
    This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.
    unquote.

    My Comment:
    Thank you EdH.
    And to be more specific, could you please give us an example. This is very important, because your above helpful quote can be completed exactly the way there may be less problem.
    Your quote is clear of course, but for such official text an example would clarify covered angles of the issue.
    Appreciate.

  240. Gail Combs says:

    Jessie says:
    November 18, 2011 at 1:59 am

    Further to note

    If the everyday person in the street was to ask ‘hey why has the 250g brand of generic butter increased in price by XXX (30%) since week?’ …..
    they could rest assured that a plethora of experts had investigated their health attitudes and status
    http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/mental-capital/final_project_report_part6.pdf…..
    ______________________
    Thanks for the pointer. So that is what is happening to all the DNA taken from babies in the UK. (and elsewhere)…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7756320/DNA-database-created-from-babies-blood-samples.html

    I wonder what the next step will be???

  241. Gail Combs says:

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

    If you get back and see what is the meaning of 50 to 100 years ago value of $1.00 , you’ll find out the financial system output is inflation, that of course can be controlled but never can be deleted….
    ________________________
    That is not correct . I suggest you read Mises on Money: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/mom.html

    And the fight in the USA to keep out the Central Bankers. We lost and they have raped our country just like Canada, Australia and others. Iceland got wise and made an effort to kicked the SOB’s.

    THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 2 (USA) http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

    ICELAND
    Financial collapse: http://useconomy.about.com/od/worldeconomy/p/Iceland_economy.htm

    “The difference is that in Iceland we allowed the banks to fail,” Iceland President Olafur R. Grimsson said in a Nov. 26 interview with Bloomberg Television’s Mark Barton. “These were private banks and we didn’t pump money into them in order to keep them going; the state did not shoulder the responsibility of the failed private banks.” Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-02/iceland-bankruptcy-to-rebound-path-ireland-won-t-take.html

    The IMF did get its claws in Iceland for a short while: http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/08/28/iceland-and-imf-part-company/

  242. ACCKKII says:

    To: Oh, good grief!
    No More Free Oxygen here is the price of O2 not free O that doesn’t have any meaning in the atmosphere.
    Ever heard that we are breathing Oxygen and without that we are not ALIVE?
    Do you know %16, ONLY %16 of the atmosphere is OXYGEN?
    I am sorry, but when you think you are the only one that knows OXIDATION, I should reply to you here just don’t breath for 3 minutes to understand what is O2 and if you go to a hospital ask for OXYGEN, but please know that it’s not Free you should pay for that. Have you ever had McDonald for Free?

    Maybe it has been my fault that I could not clearly specify FREE O2 means Zero rate for O2.
    And for this, please accept my apologies.
    There is a big difference between man-made CO2 and other resources of this gas.
    The history of industries is showing us that efficient fuel consumption has been a big issue. Because economically, the fuel rate is important.
    Regardless CO2 problems, should we have more and more efficient fuel consumption? Would you like to have Chevy Blazer for 30 liters/100 km fuel consumption? That’s the problem. Now in addition to have the economical advantages of new technology, are you happy about not using more O2 for such a disastrous consumption?
    Today $110 a barrel oil, tomorrow, $200 a barrel, and so on…who knows…
    China and India the people there, they want to drive. Have you ever been in a city with dark grey sky? You cannot even breath normally.
    Look around you, the cities like what I said are growing and growing up.
    You, of course, should know solar activities and the reactions are beyond what we are discussing here.
    Man-made CO2 is discussed because it comes with economical aspects and realities. It’s not only CO2.
    The discussion here is not specifically scientific, it has been brought to us because of J.Gillard as an IDEA not as J.Gillard herself.
    Your references and links were perfect. Thank you.

  243. ACCKKII says:

    Gail Combs says:
    “November 19, 2011 at 8:38 am

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

    If you get back and see what is the meaning of 50 to 100 years ago value of $1.00 , you’ll find out the financial system output is inflation, that of course can be controlled but never can be deleted….
    ________________________
    That is not correct . I suggest you read Mises on Money:…..”

    Gail,
    I read all your links. I was briefed in many historical issues. I found lots of useful things. There are values that make you reading the pages several times. I recommend your documents to other persons here in this room to read.

    You said that’s not correct. Pointing out to part of what I wrote earlier, I showed that part above here.
    Finally, should I assume 50- 100 years ago the value of $1.00 has the same value now?
    I fly over 100 years and land at the time being. Neglecting the reasons that are bringing us the changes to $1.00 value, we know these $s are not the same.
    When we want to discuss about history, sometimes we may forget we cannot change it. We have lessons from the history, if we can do so that nothing wrong happens again like what in the history why not. This is our TODAY situation, what do you recommend us to do. Bankers, their history, and many other issues still are present and have their own performance.

    I asked EdH to have more about the following comment of (EdH), what is your idea?:
    “If the legal restriction is based on truth, and if businesses can tell the truth as long as they can prove it, then easy:
    “Portions of our price increase that went into effect with the carbon tax are attributable to that tax. Due to government regulation (cite regulation identifier here), we are not permitted to identify the specific amount of the increase without information that is unavailable from our suppliers. In the event the carbon tax is repealed, we promise to reduce our prices again by the amount our costs decline.”
    This is provably true as long as ANY portion of their cost can be shown to have gone up due to the carbon tax. That should be pretty easy.”
    Do you think it’s J.Gillard idea, and it’s what she she wants to do?
    thanks.

  244. Gail Combs says:

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Can you please give us a simple example/ model effects by the recently increased tax?
    ________________________
    Sure the effect of Green type Idiocy funded by taxes is very apparent here in the USA in the used to be great state of California.

    Has the Golden State gone bust? ~ Leaders raise the question as financial woes deepen.
    http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-22/news/17950763_1_bankruptcy-treasurer-bill-lockyer-golden-state
    Businesses flee California in droves: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/01/27/business-flee-state-in-droves/

    Taxes pay for more bureaucrats and bureaucrats write more and more idiotic regulations egged on by the Green NGOs and NIMBYs. Taxes are bad enough but the regulatory red tape they spawn is the real killer.

    This is the model:
    More Tax => more bureaucracy => more regs => less business (esp small business) => less wealth creation => lower standard of living and eventual bankrupcy/revolts. It is probably the reason most countries crash and burn after about 200 years. The build up of laws and regulations strangles them to death.

    EVIDENCE:

    “…Today, the Institute for Justice released a series of studies documenting government-imposed barriers to entrepreneurship in eight cities. In every city studied, overwhelming regulations destroyed or crippled would-be businesses at a time when they are most needed.

    Time and again, these reports document how local bureaucrats believe they should dictate every aspect of a person’s small business….” http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-21-mellor26_st_N.htm

    As regulations (and taxes) increase businesses flee to other states and/or countries. The World Trade Organization which opened borders and wiped out import taxes facilitated the flight of business in the USA.

    WTO was ratified in the USA in 1995 the US balance of trade chart shows how open borders allowed business to flee the USA.
    US balance of trade CHART: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg/500px-US_Trade_Balance_1980_2010.svg.png

    Australia balance of trade CHART: http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/balance/1109-trade-balance.png

    ….. Rich in natural resources, Australia is a major exporter of agricultural products, particularly wheat and wool, minerals such as iron-ore and gold, and energy in the form of liquefied natural gas and coal. Australia is a major importer of machinery and transport equipment, computers and office machines and telecommunication lasers. Its main trading partners are: Japan, China, The United States and New Zealand…. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/balance-of-trade

    The World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag. and greens are already effecting agriculture.
    In Australia: Farmers fighting for a fair go http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/breaking-thompsons-lose-right-to-sue-dec-but-spencer-gets-a-green-light/

    Elsewhere:
    “EU carbon trading rocked by mass killings …murders of 23 local farmers who tried to recover land, which they say was illegally sold…. (not to mention a journalist and his partner) http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/carbon-trading-may-save-a-coal-deposit-but-farmers-die-rivers-run-dry-and-some-are-left-homeless-and-poor/

    Once the Greens block most mining in Australia as they did in the USA, you can kiss that trade surplus good bye especially as farming becomes “Unsustainable” in the face of massive regulation.. Heck the “Carbon tax” may do it all by its lonesome.

    CO2 is not and never has been a threat. It diverts attention from the real threat we are facing
    Getting Use To A Life Without Food http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1

    Farmland Grab:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/barton-biggs-stock-a-safe-haven-with-food-and-firearms-to-protect-against-pillagers-2010-1
    https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=284894&coid=162&lang=EN
    http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/08/us-universities-africa-land-grab

    Economic Concentration in Agribusiness: Testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry (1999)

    …There is considerable evidence that the economic power of global agribusiness giants has increased dramatically in the decade of the 1990s. If this power grows unchecked, a few closely knit global agribusiness corporations may control the food supply and food prices. It is my considered opinion that market power is getting out of balance…. http://www.competitivemarkets.com/ipowerweb/library/testimony/2002andunder/1-26-99.htm

    BOY was THAT ever an understatement!

  245. William says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    In reply to James of the West.
    James of the West says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    ……The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunisitically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.

    ______________________________________________________
    You have a really weird idea of how pricing actually works.
    The pricing continuum has the following points.
    1. If you price below cost you lose money. (Loss leader)
    2. Break even
    3. Small profit – large volume
    4. Large profit – small volume
    5. Price too high – No sale.

    Hi Gail,
    If appears some people do not understand how capitalism works. Socialism works well until the government runs out of other people’s money to spend.

    The following is an example of the problem.

    There was an interesting article discussing some basic facts related the Greek railway system, in the Canadian Global and Mail newspaper. The average salary for the Greek government run railway system is US $70,000. Revenues are 1/7 of costs. The cost to transport people could be reduced by 2/3 by hiring taxis to transport everyone. That is ridiculous. There is obviously no discussion of facts and any understanding of specific limits as to how much a government can spend as well as the limits of taxation.

    Those advocating spend trillions of dollars on so called “green” projects do not understand deficit spending is not sustainable. The proposed projects are ludicrous if one does even a basic estimate of the costs.

  246. Gail Combs says:

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    To solve a problem in extra ordinary times, we may need extra ordinary measures, even one makes simplest decisions.
    An economical decision and the Policy behind it, considering many variables, is not easy to make. Trust between People and their Government is the main issue, this makes everything possible.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WHAT TRUST?????

    I call my government the District of Criminals because they have earned the title.

    This is just the latest.

    Report: 80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers
    ….President Barack Obama is reported to have told supporters that, in Feller’s words, “everything they worked for and that the country stands for is on the line in his 2012 re-election bid.”

    Well, if what those donors have “worked” for is an inside track to government money, and if what the country stands for is crony capitalism, the President is right….. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/14/scandal-free-update-80-doe-sec-1705-loan-went-obama-backers

    If you want you can go all the way back to 1913 when the [self-snip] in Congress sold the US out to the bankers. Or How about F. D. R who confiscated the very gold in American citizen’s pockets and handed it over to the international bankers???

    Check out what FDR’s own Son-in-Law, Curtis B. Dall has to say: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/FDR_ExploitedFather-In-Law.html

    Or one of the few honest statesmen in the last hundred years. (Shot at twice then poisoned) http://www.bigeye.com/mcfadden.htm

    Very Very few administrations of the USA and the rest of the world have not advanced the elites vision of a World Government run exclusively by them with the rest of us reduced to serfdom.

    Communism was tried and failed so this time they are leaving us with the illusion of a “Democracy” and “Activism” aka NGOs, while stay solidly in control through their great wealth and iron grip on politicians, the media, education and now science.

  247. ACCKKII says:

    Finally I found something here and it’s just as a gentle reminder to others positive views.
    For the kind attention of:
    EdH, Gail Combs, Olen, Wil, Jessie, James of the West and other pointers:

    Quote.
    James of the West says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    All good fun guys but one of the primary reasons the ACCC is there is to make sure business are not making false claims to consumers about their products. If you can truly show how the carbon tax was responsible for the price change then you would have nothing to fear. Mind you this is where it will get a little grey – because only the 500 largest emitters will actually pay the carbon tax, the rest of us will feel that impact indirectly through costs being passed on down the line so for 99.5% of businesses it will be very very difficult to actually know/prove that the carbon tax and not some other upstream price change was responsible. The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunistically and claim the carbon tax was responsible. Of course as we make rules more complicated we will get loopholes and false positives due to the complexity – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
    Unquote.

    Here as we see, people performance and their real situation is very important because “The real core reason the ACCC will have been given this power is to catch people who put up their price opportunistically and claim the carbon tax was responsible.”

    This quote is deeply searching the case when you start reading it, and at the end it stops and don’t let us to go further. Look here please:
    ” the carbon tax is a very bad idea”.
    Execution of an idea is very important as well as the idea itself. There is no success without accountable, applicable and acceptable instrument to access and get any desired results.

    I would like to ask “James of the West” to finish his writing here.
    You have been so wise, very good points.

    1. What are the Govt. purposes and the reasons for this TAX?
    2. What are the possible obstacles in doing this let’s say LAW?
    3. If possible to do it, do you think it’s not a bad idea, or do you say it’s a good idea?

    Appreciate.

  248. Gail Combs says:

    Jim G says:
    November 18, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    ……Big cities are the bane of democracy, full of people wanting someone to protect them and take care of them. Is that the simple answer?
    __________________________________
    Actually yes.

    ‘ The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.’ V. Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution

    The original quote has long since disappeared from the internet (SURPRISE)

    The demise of American farmers was carefully orchestrated by the Committee for Economic Development starting in the 1940s. See http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

    The destruction of the farmers was also the destruction of Traditional American Culture and our self reliance. City dwellers are much more vulnerable because they have neither land nor a tight social network. This promotes reliance on “Big Government”
    “….CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities…..”

    The second method of destruction is immigration with an emphasis not on integration but multi-culturalism. We see it in the USA and Australia. Again this weakens the overall fabric of a society leaving it open to exploitation.

    Eight Steps To Destroy America by Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado

    Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

    “Here is how they do it,” Lamm said: (First) ;”Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.

    “The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion…..
    http://www.rense.com/general62/destroy.htm

    (Let me make it very clear, I think immigration is a great force for good IF the immigrants are willing to embrace their new country. Otherwise why don’t they just stay home.)

  249. ACCKKII says:

    Hello Gail,
    I am working on your comment.

    Gail Combs says:
    “November 19, 2011 at 10:40 am

    ACCKKII says:
    November 18, 2011 at 8:44 am

    Can you please give us a simple example/ model effects by the recently increased tax?
    ________________________
    Sure the effect of Green type Idiocy funded by taxes is very apparent here in the USA in the used to be great state of California….”

    Good Job.

  250. ACCKKII says:

    William says:
    Quote.
    “November 19, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Gail Combs says:
    November 17, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    In reply to James of the West.
    James of the West says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    ……The real core reason the ACCC ………….. – the carbon tax is a very bad idea.
    _____________________________________________________
    You have a really weird idea of how pricing actually works.
    The pricing continuum has the following points.
    1. If you price below cost you lose money. (Loss leader)
    2. Break even
    3. Small profit – large volume
    4. Large profit – small volume
    5. Price too high – No sale.

    Hi Gail,
    If appears some people do not understand how capitalism works. Socialism works well until the government runs out of other people’s money to spend.
    The following is an example of the problem.
    There was an interesting article discussing some basic facts related the Greek railway system, in the Canadian Global and Mail newspaper. ……..
    Those advocating spend trillions of dollars on so called “green” projects do not understand deficit spending is not sustainable. The proposed projects are ludicrous if one does even a basic estimate of the costs.”
    Unquote.

    My Comment.
    It’s going to be HARD TALK! Excellent.
    Thinkers are here.
    I like it very much.
    Now this room is a nice one.
    William seems to be a hard worker. We work together
    Welcome Sir.

  251. ACCKKII says:

    To see what we are discussing on we should get more about OUR RESOURCES of ENERGY:

    World electricity production by fuel type:
    Resource: National Geography
    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/world-electricity-mix/
    Coal 41%
    Natural Gas 21%
    Hydro 16%
    Nuclear 14%
    Oil 6%
    Biomass 1.3%
    Wind 1.1%
    Geothermal 0.3%
    Solar 0.06%
    World Energy Consumption by Source:
    Resource:BP statistical review
    http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481
    Coal 30%
    Hydro 6%
    Nuclear 5%
    Oil 34%
    Renewables 1.3%

  252. ACCKKII says:

    Huh! many interesting subjects…
    After hours reading and trying to understand the meaning of the words written by our friends in this chamber, with many thanks for staying hours and reading my OFF SIDE IDEAS, it is time to extract a result as a general view. Hopefully, the following note can be the closest output from discussions we made here.

    It was worthy to write about some figures regarding world energy ( electricity) production by fuel type and the same issue but the world consumption. The resources of the information were NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and BP Statistical Review. I made it in my last comment.

    Still Coal in production side, is far ahead in comparison with other energy sources, and in consumption is the same as oil, coal has its serious weight and position.
    This show was to have all attentions towards the subject of what huge figures are involved in this regard.

    We had simple words in this chamber that I would like to quote it, thank you Willi Eschenbach.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/weschenbach/

    quote.
    “3. Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/
    unquote.

    With respect to all the friends ideas here, and considering their valued notes:

    This is a truth that energy is like blood in a body. Any blockage in blood circulation means an ATTACK and the result is DEATH.
    TAX on any product is nearly a linear equation. But TAX on energy is not as simple as a linear relation. It is exponential equation, something like blasting. It never complies with a win-win game. There are no winners at all. This is a simple mathematical translation of above quote.
    TAX on energy is acting like ATTACK in a body, it is an impact.

    Energy with wide spread aspects, is an exclusive subject quite far from other products It is the spirit of economy today it is the blood.

    I am “GREEN” and I think “GREEN”.
    I am still insisting on TECHNOLOGY as the right way to get out of this mess.
    The above said World Energy (electricity a major field of energy) production and consumption by fuel/source type is showing, there are sources that technology can play role in the future of economy.

    Man-made CO2 as a matter of fact, due to the latest researches is not an issue, we hope it is true. True or not, we have to take care of the earth. At least, the economy would force us to reduce our fuel consumptions per unit of work. The “TO BE GREEN” side of the matter is “less CO2″.

    If we were in 19th century, there was the fear of never get out of the problem. But in 21st century, we can handle it.

    Now we need the necessary fund/ budget which by means of that, we can improve, enhance, make, find, and expand the existing and new resources of energy ASAP.

    The Govt. should maintain this budget from TAX/whatever except TAX on CARBON that is as the main resource of energy and economy. The new fields of energy should not be built on the ruins of world/local economy.

    And here is one simple thing:
    I am sure that the meaning of GOVERNMENT in any comments by anybody, have been the best definitions for it and including the one defined by PLATO.

    Any shortages of any Government in doing its job or any Person was pointed out here, have not been on any purpose. We tried to have constructive discussions.

    All the best.

  253. eljay says:

    I find it difficult to believe Aussies are wearing this – I’m a New Zealander who has lived in Australia for two spells, (Sydney & Brisbane) & for the character of the people I know from those periods, it’s hard to form a picture of those persons bowing to such Orwellian dictates. Danger, guys, BIG danger – make a noise NOW.

  254. ACCKKII says:

    A DROP in an OCEAN is not a “DANGER”.

  255. ACCKKII says:

    AMENDMENT

    To prevent any misjudgement:
    Please delete the last 2 paragraphs of my comment in “ACCKKII says:November 20, 2011 at 5:26 am ”
    and replace:
    “And here is one simple thing to say:
    Plato, as a philosopher expressed the identity of “Government”.
    We wrote our comments under the title “I Blame the Australian Carbon Tax for Price Increases”, We think that a GOVERNMENT is responsible to do well, so any other issues not related to the subject and beyond the mood of this title should not be considered.
    We just wanted to have constructive discussions.
    Regards

  256. ACCKKII says:

    Carbon, on the uptake
    by Anthony Watts

    From the University of Bristol Carbon cycling was much smaller during last ice age than in today’s climate Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most important greenhouse gases and the increase of its abundance in the atmosphere by …
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/#wpl-likebox

  257. Ben of Houston says:

    Titixxxx, Willis addressed this idea. Who could put forth this effort just for the ability to properly attribute their prise increases? This is the same reason that red light cameras are a small civil penalty instead of the full price of a traffic ticket. Making something almost impossible to comply with and with an easy way out ensures that almost no one will challenge it.

  258. SteveF says:

    There will be no carbon tax increase under the business i lead.
    If you believe that you believe in fairies in the garden.

  259. ACCKKII says:

    To: SteveF,
    Please refer to more than 260 comments.
    Your comment was discussed here. You’ll find as many as you wish.

  260. ACCKKII says:

    A Government is responsible to give the RIGHT answers in the near future about CARBON EMISSIONS.
    What if the GOVERNMENT don’t do the job?

    Quote:
    “Preliminary 2009 and 2010 global and national estimates of carbon emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement manufacture are available at the link below:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx

    These estimates show that 2010 was by far a record year for CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and cement manufacture. Globally 9,139 Teragrams of oxidized carbon (Tg-C) were emitted from these sources. A teragram is a million metric tons. Converted to carbon dioxide, so as to include the mass of the oxygen molecules, this amounts to over 33.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. The increase alone is about 512 Tg-C, or 5.9%, over the 2009 global estimate. The previous record year was 2008, with 8,749 Tg-C emitted; the 2010 estimate is about 104.5% of that, or 391 Tg-C more.

    Preliminary 2009 and 2010 global fossil fuel emissions estimates. Click on this image to see a larger image.

    Much of the 5.9% global increase from 2009 to 2010 is due to increased emissions from the world’s largest fossil-fuel emitter, the People’s Republic of China, where emissions rose 10% to 2.247 Tg-C.

    Emissions from the United States were 1,498 Tg-C, up by almost 60 Tg-C, or 4%, of the 2009 estimates of 1,438 Tg-C. The record year for the United States was 2007, with estimated emissions of 1,589 Tg-C. The 2010 total is about 94% of that value, reflecting economic conditions.

    The general methodology used to produce the 2009 and 2010 estimates is described at:

    image http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/Preliminary_CO2_Emissions_Explaination.doc

    A manuscript report on these latest numbers has been submitted for peer review. A report on last year’s update with some of the methodology involved was published in:

    Friedlingstein P., R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, J. Hacker, T.A. Boden, et al. 2010. Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geoscience. 3 811-812, doi 10-1038/ngeo1022.”
    Unquote.

  261. PhilJourdan says:

    SteveF says:
    November 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Steve, I may believe in fairies in the garden, but as an economist, I do not believe in the “no price increases” due to the carbon tax.

  262. PhilJourdan says:

    I have not read all comments, but would it not be perfectly legal to say “our costs have increased X since the passage of the Carbon tax”? Whether it is due to the carbon tax or not, the statement is just the facts and not blaming anything, just using a point in time as reference.

  263. ACCKKII says:

    The last comment was to remind those who like CARBON EMISSION is not a TABOO.
    http://wp.me/p1P1AQ-37

  264. ACCKKII says:

    So glad to see an economist here.
    1. price are changed it is a true story;
    2. carbon tax is a factor that can increase the prices.
    3.to make it easy for everybody, I once again quote a very important note:
    Willi Eschenbach says:
    quote.
    “Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/”
    unquote.

  265. ACCKKII says:

    So glad to see an economist here.
    1. “price” is changed, it is a true story;
    2. carbon tax is a factor that can increase the prices.
    3.to make it easy for everybody, I once again quote a very important note:
    Willi Eschenbach says:
    quote.
    “Any tax on energy, direct or indirect, is a much larger drag on the economy than a tax on a finished product. Simple economics, taxing the inputs to a manufacturing process is a greater burden on the economy than the same tax on a finished product. See my discussion in “Firing up the economy, literally“.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/firing-up-the-economy-literally/”
    unquote.

  266. David says:

    So what are we going to do about it? Enough with the verbal intercourse. It is plain for anyone of sound mind to see what is going on ….. we are debt slaves to their fiat empire and we have lost many important freedoms already, all the while the pace is quickening. Folding pocket knives were added to the banned list at a quiet session of QLD parliament a few days ago …. so it looks like you will be fighting for your lives and freedom with water pistols.

    You went fishing and got drunk or watched football and got drunk or had a BBQ and got drunk … anything to avoid getting engaged en-masse to stop this tyranny early in its tracks. Yeah go Red … No go Blue No go Red ….

    And still there are a broad majority who proclaim those who speak out are the extremists or just nut cases who are over reacting ….. this is what keeps you still and it has worked a treat.

    We must remove all incumbent politicians at the next election … Liberal, Labour, Green will NOT get you back any of your freedoms and rights , none of them will reduce the size of government, and I bet none of them will roll back the carbon tax – it is a governments dream come true.

  267. ACCKKII says:

    Woooh…
    TOO HOT BOILER no need to COAL..
    Great!
    KICK THEM OFF,
    neither Liberals, Labours, Greens, Berlusconis, Gillards, Browns…

    HELLO!
    anybody’s home?
    nor CAPTAIN KANGAROO!
    All removed.
    OKAY.

    What’s going on?
    Where are others VOTES?
    Is this that freedom we are talking about?!!

    see all at NEXT ELECTION.
    Until then:
    Now let’s see what are the others comments.

    Streetcred says:
    November 17, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Bulldust says: November 17, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    ——————————————
    2/3′s Of the Australian voting public no longer trust anything that comes out of the federal government and its agencies. The illegitimate Gillard/Brown government has so corrupted the Public Service to the point where any government report simply cannot be believed. We’re still waiting to see the Treasury model for the Gillard’s claim that the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX will have minimal impact on the citizens. Independent modelling suggests a significant impact … why is the government and treasury so afraid to release their documents? Why did the government allocate 2 weeks parliamentary debate on the CARBON (DIOXIDE) TAX and then gag it after a few days so preventing the Opposition from engaging them in debate? Why did they refuse permission to table scientific evidence not supportive of the CAGW Scare in parliament? … these peer-reviewed papers included the work of Mann!

    We have seen the evil hand of socialism at work in Australia and it is terrifying for the legacy that it will foister on future generations … energy deprived, unemployment, huge national debt, no free speech, etc. Music to the ears of the socialist.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Bulldust says:
    November 17, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    I agree with you Willis, Australia is certainly a nanny state to a degree. We have a bazillion petty regulations, many of which are never enforced. In truth the ACCC is almost completely toothless in any case … it is no threat to business. Our supermarket industry is heavily dominated by two main players in Australia (Woolworths and Coles) and they certainly wield that monopoly power. Yet the ACCC is about as effective at curbing their monopoly power as the UN is at creating world peace. I doubt they will be doing any serious prosecuting of fallacious CO2 tax price hike claims.

    We went through a similar exercise when the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was introduced. Wholesales sales taxes (WST) were removed and a 10% GST introduced on final sales. I was running a small business at the time, and in our case the WST equated to approximately 10% of the final price anyway, so I didn’t adjust prices for the transition to the GST. There were similar warnings by the Government agencies at the time, that they would prosecute anyone found guilty of unwarranted price hikes. Not sure if anyone was ever held to account.

    So yeah, is Australia more regulated than some countries? Agreed. But also less than others. We generally find a happy medium for the most part, and we are certainly a lot closer to the libertarian end of the spectrum than developed EU economies. As for the CO2 tax… it (and all the associated ancilliary legislation) needs to go. But I digress…
    Streetcred says:
    November 17, 2011 at 4:55 pm

    Willis, worse still … we have a 10% GST at the POS, Carbon (Dioxide) Tax is built in before that so we’re slugged an extra 10% tax on top of it … tax on tax.
    AndyG55 says:
    November 17, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    I see a whole heap of BLACK BALLOON SALES !!!

    (Aussies will understand)
    _____________________________________________________________
    We see all complaining….
    NEXT ELECTION
    THEY ARE FINISHED!
    One MUST think about how can stop no more impacts..

  268. Mark Smith says:

    Apparently the Australian High Court has said there is implied right to freedom of speech in the Australian Federal Constitution. Anyway it been awhile since the legislation has been passed in break neck speed so I waiting for lawyers to point out its many flaws.

  269. Brian H says:

    Rich says:
    November 17, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Dear Customer,

    Under threat of a $1.1 million dollar fine from the government we are not aloud to say
    ….

    Well, I’ll allow that you’re not allowed to say it aloud, but does that allow you to print it without reading it out loud?

  270. Brian H says:

    Jeez, ACCKKII, back off, eh?

    You make some decent points here and there, but your prose is barely coherent, full of grammar and vocabulary errors, and generally a pain in the brain to read. Enough, already!

  271. ACCKKII says:

    I’m learning English Brain, you can teach me to be better, I”ll be thankful for your great help.
    But, this is just a gentle reminder:
    When someone new starts reading the comments here and there, he/she cannot find out everything unless follow up the comments from the beginning. Same as you really I had problem, should I say “…prose, barely coherent….”. The comments here must be too short and this may cause some misunderstandings or whatever you may say.
    For the grammar and vocabulary, you are right. I’ll do my best. Thanks for your paying attentions.
    I’m sorry, I don’t know the meaning of “JEEZ”, “ENOUGH” and “eh” here, but don’t worry, I”ll find it somewhere.

  272. ACCKKII says:

    Get back! to work.
    Brian H says:
    “Well, I’ll allow that you’re not allowed to say it aloud, but does that allow you to print it without reading it out loud?”
    I’m positive!

  273. Carbon price claims Guide for business Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, November 2011

Comments are closed.