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
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Our prices have gone up – you may think this is because of Carbon Taxes, we couldn’t possibly comment.”
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.
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.
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.
From my perspective Australian prices are ALREADY rising astronomically in comparison to Europe and the USA. I wonder why that might be!
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.
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.
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 $1,000,000 dollars, and is done under the auspices of a ‘truth in advertising’ regulation. A regulation which we, the management, think is a rather blatant attempt at not allowing our customers access to a good-enough estimate of the real costs of the carbon tax.
– Regards, Management.”
Yep, Lazy Child, we wouldn’t want ANYONE Lying about things would we… ..
like
‘There will be no carbon tax………”
As yet to read full post, but first impressions were that the thinking needs to be reversed.
Ask Price Waterhouse (see Advisors, Audit) of Green Building Council of Australia. how they audit an asset, one of many in the cities, for green-ery. Parameters of sustainability these days.
http://www.gbca.org.au/about/the-board/
Also see ‘Recent News’ So long Stone Age, see carbon price
Probably quite profitable now that Obama has repledged the Asia-Pacific ties.
Actually it is likely it was Australia that took hold of the concept. What else did they have besides raw minerals and wool? And then a monolith in the centre? That is beside the burgeoning bureacracy and leeches therof? And the national 30-40 BILLION Aus$ 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.
[snip. Repeated labeling of others as deniers, denialism, etc. Read the site Policy before commenting. ~dbs, mod.]
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…
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.
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
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!
“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?
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
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.]
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.]
oops, apologies, I meant rabid; not rapid!