As Summer approaches in Australia Women risk Great Harm so Men find them Sexy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The left say the Republicans have a war on women.  Because they oppose free birth control.  Oppose abortion on demand.  And prefer women to marry instead of exploring and enjoying their sexuality.  Putting their sexuality out there.  Objectifying themselves.  In other words, Republicans have a war on women because they don’t treat women as sexual objects.  Or actively help them to please men.

It is interesting how the left has gotten women to believe that sexualizing themselves equates to liberation and empowerment.  And it’s not just in America.  In advanced economies throughout the world where women can have careers and liberties like men they still want to be pretty and sexually attractive for men (see Crash and burn bikini warning by Sonia Kohlbacher posted 10/26/2013 on Perth Now).

Experts are warning women against going to extremes chasing “unrealistic” body goals ahead of summer.

Punishing exercise regimes and a diet stripped to the bare essentials could trigger long-term health issues, according to Australian Medical Association state president Richard Choong…

He said the “bombardment” of unrealistic body images in shop windows and the media in the lead-up to summer put a lot of pressure on women…

The Pilates Fitness Institute director Frances Cahill said there is always a bump in new female members heading into summer. She put it down to fears about how they will look in a bikini at the beach.

“Even though we all have the best intentions of keeping up our Miranda Kerr healthy living habits all year round, winter tends to make it harder to stay dedicated to our usual exercise routine,” she said.

Ms Cahill said it was important to remember everyone came in different shapes and sizes.

Once upon a time women did this to snag themselves a rich husband.  Some may still do this.  But a lot do this for no other reason than wanting to be sexy.  Call it the hard-wiring of our DNA to attract the opposite sex.  Or societal decay as we become less religious and more hedonistic.  Whatever the reason women are risking great harm to be sexy.  And it’s not the right that’s trying to get them to do this.  Yet it’s the right that has a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Women Doctors suffer Sexual Harassment thanks to the Left’s Sexualization of Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 12th, 2013

Week in Review

Australia was once part of the British Empire.  Like the United States.  And both were very Christian when they were part of the British Empire.  And they remained religious following their independence.  For a while.  But then we both drifted away from our religious teachings.  And began to lose our civility (see Most female doctors suffer sexual harassment, say researchers by Australian Associated Press posted 10/7/2013 on The Guardian).

Most women GPs suffer sexual harassment from patients during their career, according to researchers, who have written a letter to the Medical Journal of Australia.

The most common concerns are requests for inappropriate examinations, inappropriate exposure of body parts and gender-based remarks.

Touching and grabbing are also problems, according to a questionnaire-based survey by Dr Peter Bratuskins of Monash University in Melbourne.

He and his colleagues report that 54.5% of respondents have been harassed by a patient.

Before the Sexual Revolution, birth control and abortion, before we sexualized women, we treated women like ladies.  The left thinks treating a woman like a lady means inferring she’s the weaker sex and should remain barefoot and pregnant.  To forgo a career so her husband can have one.  That’s what the left thinks.  But the right doesn’t.  They believe treating a woman like a lady means we don’t sexualize her.  And we see more than just her lady parts.

The percentage of people in Australia who have no religion jumped from less than 1% to 6.7% following the Sexual Revolution.  Rising to 18.7% in 2006.  The further we move from religion the easier it is to sexualize women.  Because we believe that there is no judgment of our behavior after we die.  Which turns medical examinations into cheap sexual thrills with women doctors.  Because today we live in a sex-dominated world. Where we use sex to sell everything.  Putting sex foremost on the mind of many men.  Who interpret the women’s movement as the nod of approval to look at women as the sum total of their lady parts.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Australia’s Carbon Tax raised the Cost of Living so much that it’s hurting the Left’s Reelection Chances

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 20th, 2013

Week in Review

The political left says we need to stop global warming RIGHT NOW before it’s too late to save the planet.  And the children.  Of course they’ve been saying that we need to do something RIGHT NOW since the Nineties.  When global warming became all the rage.  Leaving poor old global cooling and the coming ice age it foretold behind in the ash heap of fear mongering.

Why the change?  Simple.  What can you do to prevent global cooling?  Force businesses to emit more carbon into the atmosphere?   To remove carbon scrubbing equipment from power plants?  To produce more of our electric power from coal-fired power plants and less from solar, wind and hydro?  Reduce business taxes to lower the cost of electric power?  Thus lowering electric utility costs to encourage people to use more?

As you can see these are all options that benefit taxpayers.  Not the government.  That’s why the 180-degree change from global cooling to global warming.  Because government can combat global warming.  By forcing businesses to emit less carbon into the atmosphere.  To add carbon-scrubbing equipment to power plants.  Produce more of our electric power from solar, wind and hydro (that the government can subsidize) and less from coal-fired power plants.  Raise the cost of electric power generation to encourage people to use less.  These things benefit the government.  Not the taxpayer.  For the whole purpose of fighting global warming is to transfer more wealth to the government.  So they have more money to spend (see Australia to scrap carbon tax for trading scheme by AFP posted 7/14/2013 on Yahoo! 7 News).

Key greenhouse gas emitter Australia on Sunday announced it will scrap its carbon tax in favour of an emissions trading scheme that puts a limit on pollution from 2014, a year earlier than planned.

The move is set to cost the government billions of dollars but Treasurer Chris Bowen said cuts would be made elsewhere to compensate with the Labor Party sticking to its plan to return the budget to surplus in 2015-2016.

Bowen confirmed media reports that the fixed Aus$24.15 ($21.90) per tonne carbon tax would be dumped in favour of a floating price of between Aus$6 and Aus$10 per tonne from July 1, 2014, to ease cost of living pressures for families and help support the non-mining sectors of the economy.

The political left in Australia implemented a carbon tax to save Australia from global warming.  Yet when they’re making changes in that program what is the BIG problem they have to address?  Billions of dollars of lost tax revenue.  As if they’re spending that money elsewhere.  On government pork.  Not just on subsidizing green energy.  Which makes the carbon tax not about saving the planet.  But about giving the government more money to spend.  As governments everywhere have an insatiable appetite to spend money.  So the carbon tax was a lie.  Surprise, surprise.

And how do you get billions of dollars in additional tax revenue in the first place?  By increasing the cost of living and business with more taxes.  People don’t like paying more taxes.  Politicians on the left understand that.  Which is why they lie during political campaigns.

Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard’s popularity sunk after she announced plans for the carbon tax in early 2011 — after pledging before her 2010 election that it would not be introduced by a government she led.

The policy backflip prompted protests around the country and conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott, who opinion polls suggest will narrowly win the 2013 election, has vowed to abolish it.

Abbott on Sunday said the shift to 2014 was “just another Kevin con job”.

“Mr Rudd can change the name but whether it is fixed or floating it is still a carbon tax,” he said, adding that “it’s a bad tax, you’ve just got to get rid of it”.

Wherever you are in the world liberals make up a minority of the population.  So the only way they win elections is by lying.  President Clinton promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class.  But after he won the election he raised taxes on the middle class.  President Obama promised that he wouldn’t nationalize health care.  And within his first 2 years in office he signed the most sweeping health care bill into law.  Obamacare.  Which has put the U.S. onto the path to national health care.  And in Australia Julia Gillard promised she wouldn’t allow a carbon tax happen under her watch.  When she apparently planned to implement a carbon tax all along.  And just lied to the people.  Knowing that they never would have voted for her if she had told the truth.  That she intended to raise the cost of living for everyone.

Politicians lie.  Especially those on the left.  And yet they fool the people time and again.  Getting exactly what they want.  By going out of their way promising that they will never do what they always end up doing.  Clinton.  Obama.  Gillard.  They’re all the same.  They get what they want by saying one thing.  And then doing something completely different.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Near Record Temperatures in Australia Suggest the Earth is not Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 13th, 2013

Week in Review

Al Gore warned us in the Nineties that the earth was warming.  And that if we didn’t take drastic action now within a few years our coastlines would disappear and our lush farmlands would turn into deserts.  He’s still saying that today.  Some 20 years later.  Even though our coastlines haven’t disappeared.  And our farmlands haven’t turned into deserts.  In fact, Al Gore bought a beachside mansion in California despite his warnings.  As well as drastic actions having never been taken.  But every time it gets hot they start up with the same ‘if we don’t take drastic action now’ nonsense.  Even if temperatures don’t reach record highs.  Like they are almost doing in Australia (see Australia’s highest temperature in 15 years – Brisbane Times posted 1/13/2013 on the Brisbane Hub).

Moomba in the far northeast of South Australia yesterday recorded a maximum temperature of 49.6 degrees, which makes it the highest temperature recorded in Australia in 15 years…

Moomba’s 49.6 degrees peak yesterday was also the highest temperature recorded in SA since Oodnadatta reached 50.3 degrees in January 1960…

Yesterday a wide area surrounding Moomba was also very hot, reaching the high 40s. In far western Queensland Birdsville got to 48.6 degrees, its hottest day in 22 years. This is also Queensland’s highest temperature in 22 years, since it reached 48.8 at Birdsville in December 1990.

Global warming alarmists would point to these temperatures and say it’s proof of global warming.  But a rational person would disagree.  For there have been hotter temperatures going back as far as 1960.  Thirty years before Al Gore started warning us that if we don’t take drastic action now our coastlines would disappear and our lush farmlands would turn into deserts.  That was even before climate scientists were warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age.  Before global cooling became so yesterday’s news.  Now global warming is where it’s at.  Until something better comes along for the alarmists.  Again.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Cancer Survival Rates differ in Britain based on Locality and trail European Survival Rates

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2012

Week in Review

Despite Britain’s national health care British patients don’t receive equal health care.  Or equal chances of survival.  For all hospitals in the NHS are not the same.  Despite that being one of the driving arguments for national health care.  So everyone has access to quality care.  Not just the rich.  Or the otherwise located (see Jeremy Hunt: cancer postcode lottery ‘cannot be right’ by Rowena Mason posted 12/10/2012 on The Telegraph).

Jeremy Hunt, who took over the role in September, said it “cannot be right” that some patients have a worse chance of surviving because they do not live near the best hospitals…

Last night, he expressed disbelief at the huge variation in survival rates for bowel cancer patients within five years of diagnosis based on their location.

“It cannot be right that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer varies between areas – 68 per cent in the highest and 40 per cent in the lowest,” Mr Hunt said last night…

Five-year survival rates for bowel cancer have more than doubled over the last 40 years, but British patients still have a higher chance of dying from the disease than in many parts of Europe…

For some cancer types, survival rates are 10 to 15 per cent lower in England than in comparable countries like Australia, Canada and Sweden.

Here’s why your chances are better of dying from colorectal cancer in the UK than in Australia, Canada and Sweden.  Costs.  National health care is very, very expensive.  And the more patients you have the greater these costs are.  But if the costs grow so great for, say, an aging population, nations with more patients may have to make budget cuts, increase wait times and ration services more than nations with fewer patients.  As the NHS is doing.

The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Sweden because the UK has over 6 times (6.52) the population Sweden has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Australia because the UK has almost 3 times (2.73) the population Australia has.  The UK can’t fight cancer as well as Canada because the UK has almost twice (1.78) the population Canada has.  And the United States under Obamacare will not be able to fight cancer as well as the UK because the United States has 5 times (5.06) the population the UK has.

The smaller the population the easier national health care is.  Because fewer patients means less cost.  No one has ever tried national health care on the scale the United States is about to try under Obamacare.  Or what Obamacare will morph into once it drives the private health insurance companies out of the market.  And the worst thing is that unlike patients in the UK, Canada, Australia and Sweden who had the option of traveling to the United States for better health care, there will be no place for Americans to travel to once Obamacare reduces the quality of American health care.  Just a pill to take to manage our pain until we feel pain no more.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia turns away from Nuclear Power because of Fukushima and Irrational Fear and Scaremongering

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2012

Week in Review

In the war to save the world from global warming one of the first campaigns was the battle against coal.  The backbone of baseload power.  One of the most reliable means to generate electric power.  Fed by a large domestic supply of coal.  You could always count on power being there in your homes with our coal-fired power plants feeding the electric grid.  But coal had to go.  Because they were melting the Arctic ice cap.  And raising ocean levels.  Not quite like they did during the Ice Ages when glaciers covered most of the Northern Hemisphere.  Until global warming pushed them back a couple of thousand miles or so.  At a time when only Mother Nature released the carbon boogeyman into the atmosphere.  But we ignore this historical climate record.  And only pay attention to temperature changes that suit the global warming agenda.  Because the real goal of the war to save the world from global warming is to expand government control into the private sector economy.

Australia wants to show the world that they take global warming serious.  They enacted a carbon tax.  To help fund their investment into renewable energy sources.  Which has increased the cost of electric power.  And if the carbon tax and higher utility prices weren’t enough they also are talking about raising their GST.  Of course the GST has nothing to do with climate change.  But it just goes to show that Australia is trying hard to raise tax revenue.  Which is perhaps the driving force behind their carbon tax.  Revenue.  On top of this there is a growing opposition to the only source of power generation that can duplicate what coal-fired power plants can do but without the pollution (see Meltdown fears crush case for nuclear power – Brisbane Times posted 11/11/2012 on Canberra Hub).

THE Fukushima nuclear accident has quashed consideration of nuclear power in Australia, with the government’s energy white paper arguing there is no compelling economic case for it and insufficient community acceptance…

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has said it should remain ”a live debate”. Foreign Minister Bob Carr said before he re-entered politics: ”I support nuclear power because I take global warming so very seriously … [it] should certainly play a role in Australia’s future mix of energy sources.”

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has said it should be considered ”in the mix” and Senator Barnaby Joyce has said: ”If we are fair dinkum [i.e., truthful] about reducing carbon emissions … then uranium is where it’s going to be…”

Labor argues nuclear power is not economically necessary in Australia, since the carbon tax and the renewable energy target are already shifting power generation to renewables.

There are some fundamental truths about power generation.  Coal, natural gas, and petroleum provide reliable and abundant electric power while being safe but they pollute.  Nuclear power provides reliable electric power without any pollution but can be dangerous.  Though for the half century or so we’ve been using nuclear power the number of accidents that have claimed human lives is statistically insignificant.

There have been about 68 people killed in nuclear power accidents   If you count the future cancer deaths from the  Chernobyl accident you can raise that to about 4,000.  Fukushima in Japan claimed no lives other than one apparent heart attack someone had carrying heavy things in the aftermath of the accident.  It was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl.  But if it, too, claimed 4,000 lives in future cancer deaths that brings the total death toll from nuclear power to approximately 8,000 deaths for the half century or so we’ve been using it.  Sounds like a lot.  But you know what nuclear power is safer than?  Driving your car.  In 2010 the number of motor vehicle deaths was just over 32,000.  Again, that’s for one year.  Making nuclear power far safer than getting into your car.

The opposition to nuclear power is based on fear.  And politics.  Not the facts.  Yes, nuclear power accidents are scary.  But there are very few nuclear power accidents.  For a statistically insignificant risk of a nuclear catastrophe we’re giving up the only baseload power source than can do what coal can do.  Give us abundant and reliable electric power.  But without the pollution.  However, they oppose nuclear power.  Not because of facts but because of irrational fear and scaremongering.  And if we know they’re doing this for nuclear power can we not conclude that they’re doing the same thing in the war to save the world from global warming?  Especially considering how many thousands of miles glaciers moved long before man released any carbon into the atmosphere?  Yes.  We can believe they base their war to save the world from global warming on nothing but irrational fear and scaremongering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Australia taxes their Rich People far more than the US but it’s still Not Enough to Pay for their Welfare State

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2012

Week in Review

With President Obama’s reelection some are saying it is a mandate to raise taxes on the rich.  Because he said all along that he wanted to tax the rich more.  And he won reelection.  Ergo, ipso facto, mandate.  But we should be careful about raising taxes.  For it seems our government is always raising taxes.  Or demanding that we need to raise taxes.  So the question is where does all this tax-raising end?  A new carbon tax?  A GST?  Well, Australia has both.  Yet they’re still talking about raising taxes (see States to eye online shopping for GST boost – Sydney Morning Herald posted 11/10/2012 on Canberra Hub).

State treasurers will this week consider calls to cut the GST-free threshold for goods bought from overseas online stores, in an attempt to bolster flagging revenues from the tax.

Under current rules, products costing less than $1000 that are privately purchased from overseas are not subject to GST, sparking complaints domestic retailers face an uneven playing field.

State governments – which receive the revenue raised by the GST – also miss out on about $600 million a year due to the threshold, and this foregone revenue is projected to rise as online shopping takes off…

NSW Treasurer Mike Baird, who wants the GST-free threshold to $30, will raise the issue as a “key consideration” at the meeting, a spokeswoman for Mr Baird said…

The simplest way to resolve the situation was to require foreign retailers selling into Australia to charge GST, he said.

Mr Greiner has also called for a debate on raising the GST’s rate from 10 per cent or broadening its base, but this was ruled out on Monday by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan.

Australia’s top marginal tax rate is 45% on incomes over $180,001 ($187,021 US).  They tax companies at 30%.  And capital gains, after some discounting and adjustments, they tax as income.  Whereas in the US the top marginal tax rate is 35% on incomes over $388,350.  The corporate tax rate is 35%.  And a capital gains tax of 15%.  Apart from the higher corporate tax rate, the Australians tax individuals far higher in Australia than the US taxes their individuals.  And yet it’s still not enough.

On top of these higher tax rates are additional taxes.  Like the carbon tax.  And the goods and service tax (GST).  Which they are currently discussing ways of increasing to generate more tax revenue.  There’s an important lesson to learn here.  No matter how much government taxes their people it will never be enough.  For the unsustainable rising costs of a welfare state for an aging population will always exceed the tax revenue from an aging population.  Higher tax rates and new taxes are inevitable.  And for those states with national health care, cost cutting, longer wait times and service rationing are also inevitable.  Because however much they tax it will never be enough.

This is the future in America.  Because we’ve just added Obamacare even though we’re already suffering record budget deficits under the Obama administration.  And 4 years of anemic economic growth.  Which will only become more anemic with higher tax rates.  And new taxes.

The only way a state will ever pay for its welfare state is if they have a population that is getting younger such that there are always more people entering the workforce than leaving it.  Or by reducing the size of the welfare state to a size the current population growth rate can fund.  So the United States has two paths to solvency.  Start having a heck of a lot babies.  Or start slashing state benefits.  Or both.  Which would be a third option.  But the current option, increasing state spending with a declining birthrate, will not work.  No matter how much you tax rich people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Due to Revenue Shortfall Australia will have Businesses Estimate their Taxes Monthly Instead of Quarterly

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2012

Week in Review

Commodity prices have fallen.  Cooling the great mining boom in Australia.  So how does the government address this falling tax revenue?  Do they cut their spending?  No.  They make businesses gamble with their cash-flows (see Monthly tax bill to help plug budget hole – Sydney Morning Herald by Peter Martin posted 5/22/2012 on Canberra Hub).

The budget will receive a $8.3 billion boost in the three years from 2014 as the government moves to collecting company taxes every month, rather than quarterly…

In its first year the measure is expected to give the budget a $5.5 billion boost because it will collect revenue that would have been paid in future months.

Accountants say it will not result in business paying significantly more tax overall, but will increase the compliance burden and require companies to pay their tax earlier.

With businesses likely to oppose any moves to extract more revenue, Treasurer Wayne Swan said the change would provide a more timely and accurate reading of the corporate tax take, but was not a tax rise.

‘‘We think this is only fair and it’s only logical,’’ Mr Swan said in Canberra. ‘‘We don’t see why companies cannot be in the same boat as companies that pay their GST monthly.’’

Revenue raised by the mining tax has also been downgraded by more than $3 billion, to $6.5 billion from $9.7 billion.

This tax collection policy will increase tax revenues by $8.3 billion (Australian dollars) in three years but this is not a tax rise.  They’re doing this to relieve the pressures from the lost mining tax revenues but this is not a tax rise.  You can do some accounting tricks to pull revenue into earlier accounting periods and push out cost to later accounting periods.  This will help the earlier accounting periods.  But it will hurt the later ones.  When a company, or a government, plays these games they either have a revenue problem.  Or a spending problem.  Apparently Australia has both.

Corporate income taxes are estimates.  GST taxes are not.  The corporations calculate their final income taxes due after the close of the year.  When they know their final earnings on the year.  Whereas anytime someone buys something the seller knows the exact GST due.  So the GST they pay at the end of the month is the exact amount of GST due.  Even if they have no sales for the last three months of the year.  Not the same with corporate income taxes.  Should something happen, say, like a fall in mining revenue due to a fall in commodity prices, a corporation could lose money in the latter months of their earnings year.  Even suffer a loss on the year.  If they do the government will have to refund those previous estimated tax payments.  Possibly causing the corporation to borrow money in those later months because they’re short on cash.  Because they overpaid their taxes.

This will increase the cost of doing business.  It will strain cash-flows.  And just make running a business harder.  As cash is the lifeblood of a business.  It’s the only thing you can use to pay your employees.  Your vendors.  Your insurance companies.  Your payroll taxes.  This new policy could force businesses to overpay their income taxes leaving them starving for cash later in the year.  And if they can’t find money to borrow they could put their businesses in jeopardy.  Possibly in bankruptcy.  And if they do there will be even less tax revenue for the government to collect.  Monthly.  Or quarterly.

This is bad policy.  Brought on by excessive government spending.  A common problem in advanced economies.  Especially during good economic times.  When they make spending commitments as if those good times will last forever.  Something a business can’t do.  Because when the economy changes a business has to change to survive in the reality of the economic times.  Unlike government.  Who does everything within their power to pass their poor policy decisions onto the private sector.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Battle is Building in Australia over their Carbon Tax

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 27th, 2012

Week in Review

Nations with high tax rates tend to have less foreign investment than nations with low tax rates.  Because lower tax rates allow companies to earn more profits.  More profitable companies have higher stock prices.  And higher earnings per share of stock.  Which means higher returns on foreign investments.  The whole argument about raising taxes on the big corporations is that they’re rich enough and can afford to pay more of their earnings in taxes.  So we know that higher taxes mean lower earnings.  Unless, apparently, it’s a carbon tax (see Abbott won’t axe carbon tax, Combet says posted 10/24/2012 on Sky News).

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has attacked Tony Abbott’s plan to repeal Labor’s carbon tax as a sovereign risk…

Mr Combet believes abolishing the carbon price – which Mr Abbott says would be the coalition’s first order of government – would diminish Australia’s standing with the international investment community…

“Repealing the carbon price would be damaging to investment confidence and undermine the business decisions which have already been taken.

“This would see financial markets increasing the risk premiums for investments in Australia.”

Mr Combet said people would still pay more for power but without any environmental benefit.

So carbon taxes make consumers pay more for power.  According to the people that gave Australia the carbon tax.  This is the price of fighting global warming.  Higher consumer costs.  And a lower quality of life.  As people have less money to spend on themselves because the government is taking more of their money.

And yet repealing the carbon tax won’t lower the cost of power.  Interesting.  If you increased the cost of power with a carbon tax you’d think you’d reduce the cost of power by eliminating the carbon tax.  So why won’t the price of power come down?  The power companies would have a vested interest to show the people how bad a carbon tax is.  So they will never vote another carbon tax in.  And if the people are going to pay the same for power whether they have a carbon tax or not they’ll probably say,  “Well, if it doesn’t cost any more we might as well as save the planet.”  And vote to restore that carbon tax.  So the power companies would be wise to lower their rates once they repeal the carbon tax.  And most likely will.  As it is in their best long-term interests.

When a country starts using words like ‘nationalizing’ and ‘socialism’ investors will require a higher risk premium.  There’s nothing that will wipe out an investment like a 100% tax on their investments after the state takes it over.  When a country adopts a highly inflationary monetary policy investors will require a higher risk premium.  But one thing investors don’t ask for a higher risk premium is for low taxes.  As low taxes typically stimulate economic activity.  Which creates higher corporate profits.  And higher returns on investment.

Of course, a carbon tax provides a windfall of revenue for governments.  Especially those governments that like to spend the money.  So if this will have an effect on their sovereign debt this means the carbon tax has more to do with funding government spending that saving the planet.  And the risk premium is the higher interest rates they will have to pay on their government bonds if they repeal the carbon tax.  As they will have to borrow even more money to fund their out of control spending.

Remember this lesson well.  This is what a carbon tax is for.  Government spending.  Not to fight global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Australia to buy TV Ads to Explain how they increased the Cost of Electricity with their Carbon Tax

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2012

Week in Review

That carbon tax is so popular in Australia that they are buying television ads to explain how good it is.  Good for the environment.  And good for the consumer.  As they get a cleaner environment.  Not a bad deal considering the only people paying these carbon taxes are those filthy, polluting electricity producers.  And they deserve to pay this tax as a penalty for polluting the environment (see More costly carbon tax ads set for TV by Andrew Tillett Canberra posted 10/18/2012 on The West Australian).

A fresh round of carbon tax compensation TV advertisements could hit the airwaves, a Senate Estimates committee has heard.

Bureaucrats from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs told the hearing this morning a third phase of the campaign was being considered.

The first series of ads began in May and controversially failed to mention that extra payments going to households were to compensate them for higher living costs caused by the carbon tax.

Then again, it is the consumers that have to pay the higher electric rates those carbon taxes cause by increasing the cost to the electricity producers.  So they take a lot of wealth from the electric utilities.  Throw a little to the consumer stuck paying the higher electric rates to shut them up.  Sort of forget to tell them that it was their fault for those higher rates in the first place.  And use the rest to pay for their out of control government spending.  Which is what a carbon tax is for.  Because in this day and age with developed economies and welfare states it costs a whole lot more than it once did to buy votes.

Governments love taxing energy because people simply cannot live without consuming energy.  Which is why the US had their cap and trade (though they failed to implement it.  So far).  The Europeans have their emissions trading scheme.  And the Australians have their carbon tax.  Which are all just more elaborate ways to transfer wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  And has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

« Previous Entries