What is this thing called carbon tax?

[TooFastTim]

Be warned about centralization of power. It leads to inefficiency and corruption. The soviet system is a classic example.

[Mike52]

Not real worried about governments as I am over them.
What is scarey is  when they start charging more for people who use less and less for people who use more.

I am looking from the point of view of saving the planet of course.
If I wanted to destroy it then this new way of charging should work well.

[TooFastTim]

What is scarey is  when they start charging more for people who use less and less for people who use more.

That's socialist politics. Penalize those who CAN pay as opposed to those who should be paying.

[matcho mick]

 
 
The World explained by 2 cows…

 SOCIALISM

You have 2 cows.

You give one to your neighbour.



COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows

The State takes both and gives you some milk.



FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk.



BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.



TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income..



VENTURE CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.



AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.

Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.



A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.



AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.

You decide to have lunch.



A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.

You charge the owners for storing them.



A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.

You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.



AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them.



A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Both are mad.



AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.

You tell them that you have none.

Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.

You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.



AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.



A GREEK CORPORATION

You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.

You eat both of them.

The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.

The IMF loans you two cows.

You eat both of them.

The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.

You are out getting a haircut.
 
 


 

[pancho]

 I have always considered up till nowdays that Aust. has far to many pollies for population and I think that the immediate concern is the state upper houses. They should be turfed out ASAP. Q'land did it years ago.
 On this point I consider now that the increase in population from the 8 or 9 million when I was a kid now to 20m mill. plus means we will soon have about the right amount of representatives.state and federal.
 The Oz constitution has no mention in it anywhere re 'political parties'. and I don't get to concerned about which 'party' is in power as long as they realise that they are elected to manage the country to the benifit of the voters and not to make a big profit (surplus)
 To me a government (talking Feds here) whose budget comes in as a surplus (after allowing for a future fund) is as bad a manager or worse than one producing a deficit.
 Governments exist to provide services for the benifit of the people.
 When a budget runs a deficit because of unexpected events that's fine, as opposed to a budget that still runs a surplus in the face of natural disasters etc. means to me that too much emphasis has been made on profit rather than services.
 Al very interesting and no doubt some here will think I'm nuts.
 cheers pancho.

[TooFastTim]

Al very interesting and no doubt some here will think I'm nuts.
 cheers pancho.

Not at all Pancho. There's a lot of soul searching going on in western democracies presently about politicians and systems of govt. Chief amongst these is the US where over 20 states have petitioned to cede from the union stating that they did not benefit from the humongous deficit the federal govt has acquired and they want sweet FA to do with it. Texas is one of the states that has petitioned to cede from the union.

We really need to sit and think about a local and federal govts resposibilities. I agree that a federal govts should be foreign affairs and defence (aren't they the same thing?).