Sep 6, 2012 at 9:06 PM |BitBucket

BB, just as I was feeling inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, that we could agree to disagree about differences of opinion sincerely(?) held and show mutual respect on that basis, you are now showing distinct signs of frothing at the mouth. It is not an ideological opposition to a carbon tax but a practical opposition to an unnecessary extra tax, on top of all the others!

A tax that both retards productive economic activity and lowers ordinary people's standard of living is bad, full stop. With VAT people still have the choice whether or not to buy a particular consumer product, or to look for a cheaper alternative. A carbon tax is coercive and oppressive because most people have little choice about the amount of energy they use for their own basic needs, for lighting, heating, bathing and cooking.

As was pointed out in a report from a respected economic expert group last year (forget who they were but no connection with skeptic interests) much more CO2 mitigation could have been achieved in the EU, at much much lower cost, by forgetting about renewables and simply replacing all the old inefficient power stations with new gas-fired ones. No doubt there would have been a bonus in air quality as well. But the CAGW scam was never based on logic or common sense, but rather on blind ideology. An ideology you seem to support, BB.

Btw If you refrain from transgressing the bounds of civility, we are more likely to consider your point of view. Which I assume is what you want, isn't it?

And I agree with you RKS and Mike. No point in continuing if the attitude doesn't improve.

Chris, in this thread you have so far accused me of:

- being a stooge for NGO/Greens/Gillard
- being a troll
- using old data
- frothing at the mouth

And others have accused me of

- possibly being dumb
- being an adolescent
- being an 'it' rather than a person
- taking the p**s with thread clogging nonsense

And yet you that claim I am not civil. Please point out where I transgressed.

And note that VAT is a classic 'regressive tax' - just what Mike claims of energy taxes. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Governments don't impose taxes for fun. They generally cannot even bring themselves to impose enough taxes to pay for all the things electorates demand (hence budget deficits almost everywhere). They may impose an energy tax, but the tax goes into the general kitty and is spent along with the rest. So if there are no energy taxes then the other taxes must be higher or there must be more borrowing (which must be paid back using taxes at some time). Having said that, the tax burden in Oz seems far lower than in Europe and the budget is nearly in balance.

BB, I was reluctant to specify, but it seemed to me that this remark in particular was laden with bovver boyish contempt:

Rhoda, same applies - deal with the reality of the actual tax level, not some longed-for ideal (ps. sounds like you are reading from Mike's copy book).

It offended me, even if Rhoda didn't take it that way herself.

Governments don't impose taxes for fun.

No, but they impose unnecessary and excessive taxes if they are poor fiscal policy managers. The Australian economy is very different from the EU's, as our wealth derives primarily from mineral/fossil fuel and agricultural product exports. We have a high population growth rate (about half natural increase and half immigration) and an infrastructure backlog of many years. We shouldn't be slavishly following misguided EU policy that is even less suitable for our own circumstances.

That being said, I am no economist and frankly find the subject somewhat boring. So I'll leave it there and wish you well in regard to this topic. I contend that while taxes are inevitable, excessive and economically harmful taxes are not.

So I will add "thug" to the list. Nice talking to you Chris.

Imagine a blank slate; no taxes exist. Add an energy tax applied to each barrel of oil, tonne of coal, cubic meter of gas etc. Companies A and B buying energy now face higher commodity prices and raise their prices accordingly. Company C that buys from A and B now faces higher input prices and raises its own prices. And as this propagtes to companies D, E, F etc, we have inflation - the price of everything is affected - and at all levels it is in companies' interests to reduce their energy intensity.

Now imagine that instead of an energy tax we raise the same amount using a tax on labour; let's call it a national insurance scheme. Companies A and B now face higher labour costs instead of higher commodity prices and again pass these costs on in their own prices. Company C (and D, E, F etc) sees higher prices on inputs. It doesn't matter that they are caused by a labour tax instead of an energy tax - either way it must set its own prices accordingly. Of course C, D, E, F etc must also pay more for their own labour. Again we have inflation - the price of everything is affected - but this time at all levels it is in companies' interests to reduce their labour intensity.

So companies minimize their energy use in one scenario and their labour use in the other. In one, high energy use is penalised and in the other high labour use. But the way the different taxes affect the economy, how they percolate down through the layers, is much the same. Can one really say that an energy tax is fundamentally different and hence to be renounced as economic heresy?

I demonstrated the equivalence of energy taxes and other taxes; I did not model the whole economy. Even though you cannot see it, I'm sure other readers will recognize that energy taxes are not fundamentally different.

'Downstream' issues, such as fuel poverty, exist and have always existed both with and without carbon taxes.

One of the things that makes BH interesting is the insults. It is clear that blog denizens are unlikely to say, "you know, you have convinced me of your case...". So insults are like backhanded compliments. When readers realize that their opinion is built upon sand, they sometimes lash out in impotent rage.

Today I collected a "blinkered zealot" badge, which has given me quite a boost :-)

My opinion is that both CAGW skeptics and large government skeptics fail to attract more to their point of view because they attribute implausible motivations to their opponents. Or rather, they don’t make clear that these motivations may not be *conscious* motivations of their opponents.

Two of the most commonly attributed motivations are given in Rhoda’s head post, namely “any politician may see a chance to tax [as?] a way to more influence or advancement” and “scientists who use [CAGW] as a lever to get funding”.

Before you think me naive, I am not saying such motivations don’t exist anywhere, I am saying that:
(a) they aren’t as common as another motivation, which I think too often goes unrecognised;
(a) they aren’t as plausible to the average disinterested citizen, as people who follow climate and politics think they are. Attributing such motivations invites retorts such as BitBucket’s “governments don't impose taxes for fun” (which I agree with).

I think the common motivation that goes unrecognised is a desire to feel important or virtuous. It’s emotional immaturity. You could call it “hidden” or “crypto” narcissism, as I think it is often unrecognised even by those whom it affects. I think this is the motivation behind a lot of public spending, and also behind some climate ‘science’ (you know who I mean). On a conscious level, people are able to bring themselves to believe that they really are *doing* something important or virtuous. But there’s a subtle difference. This is because the true (selfish) motivation stops them from carefully and dispassionately considering all of the evidence. For example, in the case of many CAGW acolytes, the true motivation stops them from properly reading and considering skeptical evidence, such as Steve McIntyre’s posts, or our host’s book. In the case of politicians, the emotion stops them from considering that raising taxes to pay for something ‘useful’ takes the freedom away from taxpayers to spend it in even more useful ways.

So next time you’re trying to convince somebody that climate scientists have misbehaved, or that taxes are too high, you might do better to talk about “crypto-narcissism” (maybe people can think of a better term), and how it stops people from properly considering all of the evidence, rather than talking about the conscious seeking of more funding or power.

Just my two cents!

Rhoda, (composed before seeing you 1:42 post, but I'll go ahead and post...) in my mind you have conflated two separate ideas.

The idea of a carbon tax is to put a price on the GHG, CO2. Imposing a tax monetizes the hidden 'subsidy' (for want of a better word) of not paying for the warming effects of CO2 emissions. It does indeed have the effect of supporting less efficient means of generation. Such a tax is clearly nonsensical if you take the view that there are no such warming effects of that they do not need controlling. You and others here take that view. My little model doesn't touch on that because it is incontrovertible (if you think there is no warming etc).

The other ideas is your (collective, nothing personal) introduction of pseudo-economic arguments on the morality or efficiency of energy taxes, as taxes. I think I have shown that, as taxes, they are broadly equivalent.

Rhoda:

Now, you don't have to believe that taxes are best at the end of the chain but if you take up that argument you should not get to pick what comparisons to make out of thin air.

Can you suggest a more suitable comparison instead?

We are not going to agree.

Thank goodness for that! Where would be the fun?

Should have added, I think my theory explains the behaviour of a lot of journalists too. Too many of them are so fond of the the idea that they are performing a worthwhile public service, for example 'championing science', or fingering the bankers as the source of all our economic woes, that they are reluctant to properly consider evidence that things aren't quite so simple. I think media bias can be explained more convincingly in these terms than as a left-wing / liberal bias, although it has that outcome.