Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Our cookies policy has changed. Review our cookies information for more details. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Revenue from carbon pricing will be recycled back into tax cuts, reducing effective marginal tax rates and increasing incentives to work. Clearly it will not reduce competitiveness nor cost jobs.
Jintelo, Greece and Italy are in trouble because they have not raised ENOUGH taxes to cover their spending, not because they've raised too much. Please pay attention.
I do not understand why the Economist should think that a carbon tax will not reduce Australia's competitiveness and cost jobs. Clearly it will do both.
A stupid tax levied on the basis of the IPCC theory "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" which is not proven. All that has been proven is that many lead IPCC researchers are liars, cheats and fraudsters. The Economissed should stop supporting this IPCC theory with their lying articles.
Using the term 'carbon pricing' is misleading. Please correct this.
What is being taxed is Carbon DIOXIDE. Further, a 'price' or 'pricing scheme' is an amount voluntarily offered, paid or received for real goods or services. A TAX is a COMPULSORY Levy on production, consumption, income or expenditure.
Readers' comments
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Sort:
There is always a risk in doing the right thing, but to vote for the opposition is the bigger risk.
Of caorse in the absence of an interanional agreement a carbon tax is functionally useless and nothing more than sadism,
Revenue from carbon pricing will be recycled back into tax cuts, reducing effective marginal tax rates and increasing incentives to work. Clearly it will not reduce competitiveness nor cost jobs.
Jintelo, Greece and Italy are in trouble because they have not raised ENOUGH taxes to cover their spending, not because they've raised too much. Please pay attention.
I do not understand why the Economist should think that a carbon tax will not reduce Australia's competitiveness and cost jobs. Clearly it will do both.
Taxes in Greece and Italy increased to there preasent levels by a seiries of small raises,
A stupid tax levied on the basis of the IPCC theory "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" which is not proven. All that has been proven is that many lead IPCC researchers are liars, cheats and fraudsters. The Economissed should stop supporting this IPCC theory with their lying articles.
Using the term 'carbon pricing' is misleading. Please correct this.
What is being taxed is Carbon DIOXIDE. Further, a 'price' or 'pricing scheme' is an amount voluntarily offered, paid or received for real goods or services. A TAX is a COMPULSORY Levy on production, consumption, income or expenditure.