Carbon tax is wealth redistribution

Obama in drag

So everyone suffers because of the carbon tax, and the poorest in society are then “compensated” by tax cuts:

LOW income earners will be the biggest winners [“biggest winners”? What is this, a TV game show? – Ed] from a Gillard government compensation scheme to offset cost of living pressures from a tax on big carbon polluters.

Generous tax breaks may be offered to low-income families and pensioners while middle-class income earners would also be compensated to soften the blow of rising household bills and living costs associated with the proposed carbon tax. [So they admit that prices of everything will go up, now? – Ed]

Labor is considering a range of options to ease the pain but is understood to be in favour of slashing tax rates, a measure encouraged by the government’s chief climate change adviser Ross Garnaut.

Professor Garnaut has urged sweeping compensation tax cuts for about half of Australia’s working population to keep household costs down and floated the idea of a one-off cut to the petrol excise to keep bowser prices manageable.

The government rebates could net low income earners about $1500 a year extra in tax breaks, with welfare increases also a likely option [must entrench that culture of dependence on the state – Ed] News Ltd reports today. The report says Prime Minister Julia Gillard is considering raising the tax free threshold to deliver a financial break to a larger number of Australians who will be hit by escalating cost of living pressures under a carbon tax. (source)

Everyone with half a brain (which obviously excludes Gillard and the Labor government) knows that the carbon tax won’t make the slightest bit of difference to “pollution” or the climate. People won’t use less energy or eat less food, they’ll just pay more for it. So it’s nothing more than a socialist experiment in spreading the wealth around, as someone famous once said…


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    Yes yes, I think a round of applause is in order for Comrade Gillard…

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    One of the best summaries I’ve read for a long time on whats going on.

    It’s over at Jo Nova’s blog and is well worth reproducing here and WELL worth the read:-

    Don Wilkie:
    March 20th, 2011 at 9:38 am

    AGW – a Hidden Agenda?

    Until about three years ago I was not particularly interested in the subject of global warming. I tended to accept that a problem probably existed but left it to the experts to sort out what should be done.

    Then I was challenged by a Green friend to state where I stood on the global warming issue. I told him that I didn’t know enough about it , but his challenge determined me to start learning. The more I delved and read books and IPCC reports etc. the more I felt that the demonising of CO2 was illogical and that somehow we were being conned. A bit like being forced to listen to a cracked bell, but I couldn’t work out why so many people should be so apparently dishonest and, if it was in fact a con, who ultimately stood to gain.

    At the risk of being accused of being a conspiracy theorist, I am now rapidly coming to the conclusion that the global warming/climate change argument that has been raging around the world for years now is really just a means to a very different end. Now that the original arguments have largely been discredited, the persistence in the pushing of the warmists’ wheelbarrow looks very much like a diversionary tactic, while the main objective is still being pursued. There is increasing evidence that the real aim has been to scare the world into accepting something that in normal circumstances they would have nothing to do with. That “something” is the proposition that a New World Order or system of World Government should be imposed.

    There have always been people who believe that those with differing views are flawed and need to be told what to do. Whether the changes to be imposed are based on religion or political philosophy or just plain greed is irrelevant – the root cause is always the “we are right and you are wrong” mentality. Such people are themselves flawed, of course, and so far no group has ever succeeded in the imposition of a New World Order although some have come close – the Roman and British Empires and also the Catholic Church come to mind. Now, however, with the vast improvements in communications and technology, these would-be dictators are able to think and act globally, which gives them a greater chance of success. They also have learned that they need to be more subtle than their predecessors..

    The present New World Order movement seems to have coalesced from the demise of the League of Nations and the establishment of the United Nations after the end of World War II. The chosen vehicle for furthering the aims of the movement presently appears to be the U.N.’s IPCC.

    A variety of groups, “think tanks” and organizations exist around the world which share similar views. Examples would be:

    The Bilderberg Group, an association of leading North American and European progressives which was established in Holland in 1954 with the aim of furthering the notion of World Government

    The Trilateral Commission, an offshoot of the Bilderbergers but with the same overall aims, set up in 1973 by David Rockefeller following a difference of opinion over possible expansion of membership to include Japan.

    The Club of Rome, set up in Italy in 1968 but now based in Switzerland, whose aim was “to counter the short-term thinking in the conduct of international affairs”. Presently environmental consultants to the U.N.
    The Fabian Society, which promotes international socialism.

    These are not secret societies – they all have their own websites setting out their aims and ambitions.

    Bilderberg members include many of the leaders of political, commercial and media organizations and even Royalty.

    George Soros (also a Bilderberger) has for many years been a proponent of a “new world order”. He is getting a bit long in the tooth but is very wealthy and influential.

    The Canadian, Sir Maurice Strong, who was instrumental in the setting up of the UN’s IPCC, has always been in favour of some form of world government under the auspices of the UN. He is also ageing but no doubt still influential, despite having been obliged to quit his UN position after being accused of taking bribes in the UN’s Iraqi Oil for Food program.

    Linking them all is the common goal, becoming known within the IPCC as “transnational perma-socialism”.

    One fundamental step in the world government direction would have to be the undermining of the existing free-market systems in the developed countries. What better way to distract people from the main game than to run a global scare campaign, particularly if in the process the economic implosion can be accelerated? The job gets easier if most of the media are on side to ensure that the dissenting voices are kept muted.

    It is interesting to note that it was two American academics, Cloward and Piven, who put forward the theory in the 1960s that the best way to bring about a revolution was not through armed insurrection but by “collapsing the system”, i.e. getting as many people as possible hooked on welfare and entitlements so that the system eventually cannot cope and implodes. Under the present administration the USA seems to be well on the way to achieving this implosion and the countries making up the EU and not faring much better. One would have to be blind not to see the same worries in Australia, bearing in mind that Julia Gillard is not only a Fabian but appears also to be a devotee of Cloward and Piven and has had a leading role in the Government since the ALP took charge..

    The role of many Bilderbergers in the current woes of the American economy – the Clintons, Greenspan, Bernanke, Rumsfeld, Powell, Soros, to name a few – cannot be ignored. Hard to believe that people of this calibre would actively work towards bankrupting their own country, but their eyes are no doubt on a greater prize.

    The following quotes from some leading lights from the world scene are instructive:

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”. Club of Rome.

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony – climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world”. Christine Stewart, fmr. Canadian Minister of the Environment.

    “It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government”. David Rockefeller, Club of Rome, in a speech thanking the main-stream media for their support.

    “The goal is now a socialist, redistributionist society which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope”. David Brower, founder, Friends of the Earth.

    “A total population of 250/300 million, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”. Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor.

    “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it”. Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier.

    “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated”. Ottmar Edenhoffer, German economist and IPCC official.
    “The world’s current economic model is an environmental “global suicide pact” that will result in disaster if it isn’t reformed. We need a revolution”. Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General at World Economic Forum, Davos, 2011.
    “The system we have now has actually broken down, only we haven’t quite recognized it and so you need to create a new one and this is the time to do it”. George Soros 2011.
    When the last two climate change “debates” were held at Copenhagen and Cancun, the draft agreements that the UN hoped delegates would accept were quite open about world government and global wealth redistribution being the ultimate aim. They even went into much detail about the extent of the bureaucracy which would have to be established. These matters were either ignored or glossed over by the main-stream media.
    Fortunately the IPCC did not succeed at either Copenhagen or Cancun but they will be trying again at the next gathering in Durban later this year.
    Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the whole situation has been the ease with which so many people of all political persuasions (other than the Greens, for whom this is manna from heaven) have allowed themselves to be taken in by the main players There might be some excuse for the average man-in-the-street, but not for the politicians, journalists and academics who are supposedly where they are for their critical thinking abilities.
    The challenge for people in all of the democracies of the developed world now is to insist that their elected representatives realize, before it is too late, that the so-called global warming debate is nothing more than a fraudulent distraction to the main objective. Under no circumstances should they be allowed to sign away any more sovereign rights to an unelected and unaccountable body such as the IPCC or the UN itself.

    • Peter A. says:

      D. Wilkie states:

      ‘At the risk of being accused of being a conspiracy theorist…’

      and then proceeds, in quite some detail, to convince us that he is, after all, a conspiracy theorist. ‘Club of Rome’, ‘Bilderbergers’, ‘New World Order’, ‘The Fabian Society’ – almost all are there. I’m surprised he didn’t mention ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ or ‘The DaVinci Code’. How can anyone take such rubbish seriously?

  3. It just goes to show how delusional the Labor Party is. It’s being led by the new Communist Party of the 21st century – the Greens. The new red is green!

    Juliar Stalin, Moa Tse Rudd, Kim Jong Swan, Karl Combet from Labor and Bob Castro from the Greens should be very pleased with themselves.

    • Peter A. says:

      This post is just ridiculous. The Greens may be many things (like misinformed, misguided, ideologically-driven, naive), but their policies can hardly be called communistic. I didn’t know that Joe Stalin was an environmentalist. Didn’t he push for a massive increase in industrial output during the 1930’s? Yes, he did, with belching CO2 smokestacks from newly-built factories, expansion of (coal-powered) railway networks, new steel, coal, and oil production, collectivisation of agriculture… etc, etc, etc.

      Do you hear either Julia or Bob endorsing any of these? No.

      • Peter, you clearly disagree with the majority of what is written on this blog, which is your prerogative of course, but the question I must ask is: why are you here? Just to teach us all the error of our ways? If so, you are wasting your time.

        • Peter A. says:

          Not so. I don’t disagree with the notion that ‘global warming’ (or ‘climate change’) is NOT caused by industrial CO2, or that CO2 is even a major greenhouse gas (it isn’t), and I do believe that we are being lied to by various groups that have a vested interest in promoting lies about ‘climate change’.

          However, having said this, I also don’t believe in conspiracy theories, that all of this is part of some plot to introduce a New World Order. The fact that many people are seriously misinformed about the actual science surrounding ‘climate change’ only demonstrates that there are far too many people who have not given this issue the proper thought that it deserves. Nothing more. It doesn’t require a conspiracy to account for what can just as easily be attributed to plain old ignorance.

        • Peter A. says:

          PS. Do you agree that the comment by ‘Baldrick’ is, at best, not very enlightening? I was simply pointing out the – yes, ‘error of his ways’, because not every ‘left-winger’ is by definition also an environmentalist, and vice versa. It just isn’t true.

        • It’s hyperbole, Peter. Satire. This isn’t supposed to be a deadly serious, heavy, political blog, it’s satirical – or at least that’s the intention.

        • Peter A. says:

          Okay, my mistake, but I was under the impression that it WAS a ‘deadly serious, political blog’. The issues dealt with are certainly serious, when one thinks of (for example) the consequences of the introduction of a CO2 tax, and to compare Julia Gillard to J. Stalin is misguided, if only because it gives further ammunition to the Green movement’s assertions that ‘climate-change deniers’ are nothing more than a fringe right-wing movement that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

  4. To maintain the Obama metaphor, shouldn’t the caption on the image be “DOPE”?

  5. rukidding says:

    I think Gaunaut let the cat out of the bag the other day when he linked the CO2 tax to the Henry review.
    So the “Carbon Tax” is just a big Trojan horse for a GREAT BIG NEW TAX ON EVERYTHING.

  6. Who in their right mind ever thought that this would be a good idea?

    As at 2008, 42.2% of families receive more in handouts from the federal Government than they pay in income tax.

    The lunatics are well and truly in charge of the asylum.

  7. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    Honestly… the Gillard government is simply making it all up as they go along!

    Just because Ross Garnaut has introduced the idea of using the carbon tax for wealth distribution, Labor is jumping with excitement. Now suddenly Gillard says one thing, Swan says another, and as for Craig Emerson, he seems totally confused about what really will be the likely situation but clearly believes tax breaks is definitely enshrined in the carbon tax.

    Was there any mention of tax cuts originally? No! It’s all a con in the hope that lower income earners will support this great big new tax.

  8. I really love the whole convoluted arguments that Juliar is throwing up:

    The first is uncertainty:
    – Tony Abbott is causing uncertainty about the price of electricty generation by opposing the GBNTOE (Great Big New Tax on Everything) … which only comes about because … the Numb-nuts in Canberra want to introduce a tax on carbon. If they had left everything alone in the first place, there would be NO uncertainty.

    The second is anti-tax-cuts:
    – Tony Abbott is AGAINST tax cuts … because he opposes the current wealth redistribution plan … which only arises because .. the Numb-nuts in Canberra want to introduce the GBNTOE … and they need a sweetener to bribe the wood ducks. If they had left everything alone in the first place, there would be NO NEED for the tax cuts/bribes.

    It’s like being cornered for something and pointing and yelling “Stop! Thief!” I’m truly staggered that there is still a significant percent of the population that intends to vote for these Numb-nuts. Clever country, huh??

  9. The carbon tax in it’s current form would be useless and last forever. The tax needs to be capable of killing itself, therefore all money from the tax needs to be used to subsidise ecological products or renewable energy sources. This would essentially force us to go green or we would lose the money. Then, when we are self-sufficient and carbon neutral, the tax will no longer have any effect. A bit idealised, but the concept makes sense and would stop the tax from being “just another tax”

    • then, when we are self-sufficient and carbon neutral..
      That’s probably the best definition of “forever” that I’ve ever heard.

    • Laurie Williams says:

      How many taxes have killed themselves? No need to push new energy technologies anyway, just let them develop and let market forces drive substitution in its own time. Far more important things to fix, which unlike the climate need fixing – the scam of labour market regulation is one.

  10. ‘So it’s nothing more than a socialist experiment in spreading the wealth around, as someone famous once said…’ – Simon

    Not true, if only because any reduction in the amount of tax, or increase in the amount of ‘compensation’ offered, will, in the medium to long-term, be more than offset by the ever-rising cost of living due to the CO2 tax.

    In any case, generous tax concessions should be offered to low-income families and pensioners anyway, regardless of how the new taxation system is actually structured, or whether or not it makes any difference to the impact that it will have on the all-important ‘environment’. We could make a start by getting rid of the despised GST.

    Ever since the days of ‘economic reform’ that were inflicted on us by the so-called Labor government of Bob Hawke, an ever larger proportion of Australians have seen their standard of living decline, their job security disappear, and all along we were told by so-called economic rationalists that the pain inflicted upon us by their warped ideology was actually ‘good for us’. Well, no, it isn’t. Good for them maybe, but not the majority.

    The truth is that we haven’t had an, even remotely, ‘socialist’ government in this country since Gough Whitlam, and I really miss those times of peace and prosperity. Julia Gillard and her gang are not socialists, they are lackeys of the imperialist regime in Washington.

  11. a Carbon Tax leading to Cap and trade is the way to go,,,it has already been a spectacular success in reducing waste to landfill in the Uk and in reducing Acid Rain in the US , where electricty prices actually came down after the scheme was implemented. The caption should read..”Julia. You F*cking Rock”.BTW, great rally today guys…i played Division 3 Football in a Minor League in Victoria in the 1980s and saw bigger crowds there…and most of them were under 70!…a pitiful joke of a demo

    • Don’t know what planet you’re living on, but it sure ain’t this one. Happy travels.

%d bloggers like this: