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.
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.
Trade Practice Act and any exemptions?
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
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.
How have Australians allowed this to happen to their country?
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Prices raised because of too much exhaled air
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.
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.
Total truth in Australian advertising? Where is Joe Isuzu when you need him?
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.”
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/
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?”
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.
Freedom needs constant attention, so says old proverb. You can blame neither Moscow, nor Brussel. Deal with it, Aussies!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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