Researchers find a price on carbon could benefit farmers

Mar 30, 2011
image courtesy Michelle Venter

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at UQ, in collaboration with JCU, may have found a way to offset up to 2.5 percent of Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions and secure economic benefits for regional communities.

A recent study found that reducing grazing pressure in Eastern Australia's mulga lands would result in an increase in groundcover and and retention capacity in the , and have the added benefit of reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and storing it in soils and .

“The results of this research could lead to alternative land uses in the outback which can increase the social, economic and environmental resilience in those areas” said Dr Bradd Witt, lead investigator on the project.

“If was to be priced appropriately vast improvements could be made to the management of some agricultural lands, potentially benefiting the environment and regional communities”.

Quantifying the amount of carbon that can be absorbed by a particular environment allows farmers to calculate how much CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere by simply rezoning their land.

If the government were to introduce a price on carbon alongside their carbon tax, the financial incentive for farmers to change the use of their land from grazing to carbon sinks could see Australia reduce its carbon emissions significantly.

Research of this type has been limited in Australia, but with the proposed carbon tax a hot topic of discussion in parliament, its implications are significant for the Australian economy.

The potential to sequester carbon and improve biodiversity outcomes in extensive semi-arid grazing lands will require significant policy shifts to encourage and reward necessary landuse change.

The project came into being after the researchers noticed a lack of knowledge on the carbon sequestration potential of the dry areas of Australia, and the potential for land use change to provide greater economic resilience to communities in these regions with the implementation of a price on carbon.

The group of scientists believes that further research extended across different a variety of environments is needed to ensure an accurate picture is provided for policy makers.

The investigation team includes Dr Bradd Witt and Associate Professor Bob Beeton from the School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, Professor Neal Menzies from the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences from UQ and Professor Michael Bird (JCU) and his PhD student Michelle Venter.

Explore further: TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Carbon measuring system to help mitigate climate change

May 18, 2009

The $9.16m Carbon Benefits Project, which involves the Overseas Development Group at the University of East Anglia (UEA), hopes to encourage sustainable development schemes in developing countries that generate climate adaptation, ...

Forests' long-term potential for carbon offsetting

Apr 15, 2008

As well as cutting our fossil fuel emissions, planting new forests, or managing existing forests or agricultural land more effectively can capitalise on nature’s ability to act as a carbon sink. Research published online ...

Combine carbon consensus with income tax cuts: study

Mar 15, 2011

A carbon pricing proposal can find consensus and would allow income tax cuts, as long as industry handouts can be kept in check, according to a new report from The Australian National University.

Tropical forest sustainability: A climate change boon

Jun 13, 2008

Improved management of the world's tropical forests has major implications for humanity's ability to reduce its contribution to climate change, according to a paper published today in the international journal, Science.

Mitigation measures undersold: study

Feb 17, 2011

The Federal Government should increase its climate change mitigation target to account for cheap land-based carbon offsets, according to the author of a new report from The Australian National University.

Recommended for you

TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

2 hours ago

TransCanada on Thursday filed for regulatory approval of a proposed Can$12 billion (US$10.7 billion) pipeline to carry western Canadian oil to Atlantic coast refineries and terminals, for shipping overseas.

Does it help conservation to put a price on nature?

6 hours ago

Putting a price on the services which a particular ecosystem provides may encourage the adoption of greener policies, but it may come at the price of biodiversity conservation. Writing today in the journal ...

Reef-builders with a sense of harmony

7 hours ago

Cold-water corals of the species Lophelia pertusa are able to fuse skeletons of genetically distinct individuals. On dives with JAGO, a research submersible stationed at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, scientists ...

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GuruShabu
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2011
They will find anything they want but a new tax is more money spent and more money on Al Gore's Useful Idiots (Google it!).
At the end of the day the money on tax will go to the pocket of the same guys that are perpetrating this misguidance to the lay man.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2011
Who owns mulga lands?
apex01
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2011
Here's a request...STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES...P E R I O D!!!
Why not impose a tax on government!?
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2011
Oh boy, where do I even start?

The first faulty assumption is that vegitation (a forest or grassland) is a permanent and perpetual carbon sink. Once an area reaches max biotia per acre, it becomes carbon neutral, emitting just as much carbon as it takes in (a carbon store rather than a sink). The only way to keep an area perpetually taking in carbon is by periodically cutting down all the plants and burrying them in the ground, then let it grow back, and repeat.

The second and probably more agregious error in logic is that a country or region will benefit by paying farmers to NOT GROW FOOD. That's what they are saying in a nut-shell. The farmers get money for carbon credits by letting grazing land sit unused, and that's a good thing? That's an even better idea than using food for motor fuel.

Dear Africa, India and China:
Sorry we don't have any food for you this year, but CO2 went down 0.00001%!!

Thanks,
Al Gore.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2011
Continued:

Dear Australia,
That's okay, don't worry about it. Our troops will have no trouble getting things back in order next Spring. Enjoy the nuclear weapons we are sending you for Christmas.

Yours truely, with love
xoxoxo
China and India.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2011
Oh come on Thras, that was funny. Where's your sense of humor?

If you're going to downrate, at least have the courtesy to express your contrary view, so that we can have some kind of discussion about it. Do you not agree about my carbon sink comment, or is it my food for air comment, or do you just not think my joke was funny?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2011
Here's a request...STAY OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES...P E R I O D!!!
Why not impose a tax on government!?

That'd be like letting the rich corporations and their owners pay off the government to pick their own tax rates... shit.
freethinking
3 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2011
How about imposing a 90% tax on Rich progressive environmentalists world wide. Oh sorry, I forgot rich progressives don't believe in paying taxes. How about making rich environmentalists live the way they want the rest of the world to live. Oh sorry, I forgot rich environmentalists like to live high on the hog.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2011
How about imposing a 90% tax on Rich progressive environmentalists world wide.
Why limit it to environmentalists? Let's impose it on everyone who makes more than a million dollars US equivalent per year. Anything over 1 mil, they pay 90% on. Sound good?
Oh sorry, I forgot rich progressives don't believe in paying taxes.
Name one.
How about making rich environmentalists live the way they want the rest of the world to live.
Sure, why not?
Oh sorry, I forgot rich environmentalists like to live high on the hog.
Some of them also want everyone else to be able to live like that.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2011
My idea of taxing environmentalists would save the planet and mankind. Tax progressive environmentalists because they are such hypocrites. Conservative millionaires create jobs and they give to charity, plus they leave others alone.

Name one Progressive who doest pay taxes, oh please! Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Senate Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle, Obamas head of HHS Katherine Sibelius, Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel (who is a hearty supporter of tax increases for those who actually pay their income taxes, just like SH it seems.)

We could also talk about how little rich progressives give to chartity, but that would be even easier.

My question about making rich environmentalists live they want to make the rest of the world live was rhetorical. Conservatives believe people should be left alone to live how they please without government interference. Its progressives like to force people to do things.

Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2011
Conservative millionaires create jobs and they give to charity, plus they leave others alone.
And you're saying progressive millionaires don't? Last I checked Google, Microsoft, and Facebook were all doing rather well, also all of which are or were run by progressive biollionaires.
Its progressives like to force people to do things.

Like have a baby they can't afford, don't want, was conceived by rape. Or maybe the moratorium on gay rights from some conservatives? Perhaps the prohibition of various natural substances that the conservatives keep pounding on, or maybe the focus on 'Christian Virtue' we see in the conservative parties.

Yep, they leave you alone all right, unless you're born different than they are, smoke weed, or don't have as big a bank account.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2011
SH abortionist killing people who they dont think have rights is very progressive, just ask Hitler, Stalin, etc. Giving people the choice to live not progressive and progressives hate it when people choose life. If you have ever seen a video of a baby being killed in the womb, you actually see it fighting for its life. The baby wants to live.

Google, M/S, Facebook, they at least they leave me alone, their leaders (owners, CEO's) use the government to force their socialist will onto others. BTW what would have happened if you ruled the world and you taxed Bill Gates 90% of his income over a million? Answer, a lot of people would be poorer and governement would have less money now!

Gay rights, you know as well as I do its not about rights. Gays have the same rights straight people do. Gay rights movements is all about taking rights away from parents, conservatives and religious people.

Weed, smoke it all you want it doesnt bother me, however it explains a lot about you.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 30, 2011
SH abortionist killing people who they dont think have rights is very progressive, just ask Hitler, Stalin, etc.
Neither was a progressive.
Google, M/S, Facebook, they at least they leave me alone, their leaders (owners, CEO's) use the government to force their socialist will onto others.
Sounds like one of those Alex Jones/Glenn Beck stories you've picked up.
Gay rights, you know as well as I do its not about rights. Gays have the same rights straight people do. Gay rights movements is all about taking rights away from parents, conservatives and religious people.
Nonsense.
Weed, smoke it all you want it doesnt bother me, however it explains a lot about you
When did I say I smoke it?

For someone with the name 'freethinking' you certainly don't have many opinions of your own.
brianlmerritt
not rated yet Mar 31, 2011
It's really great to have a varied and even controversial discussion, but most of the above appears to be:

1. people digging into their individual trenches
2. spewing the rhetorical equivalent of mustard gas towards the enemy
3. patting themselves on the back for being so witty
4. shouting "you missed me" if the other side fires back

Governments, Corporates, Non-Profits, and Individuals actually need to get off their respective asses and come up with both short term and longer term solutions to over-population and the out of control demand on scarce resources.

Whether you believe in climate change or not really doesn't matter - what does matter is everyone by now should be agreeing we can't all be greedy all-consuming idiots and then we can end the rhetoric and point scoring and work together.

PaulieMac
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2011
The second and probably more agregious error in logic is that a country or region will benefit by paying farmers to NOT GROW FOOD. That's what they are saying in a nut-shell. The farmers get money for carbon credits by letting grazing land sit unused, and that's a good thing?


Actually, in some places, it is a good thing. Like much of Australia inland of the coast, Mulga land makes for quite inneficient grazing/farming. The soil is incredibly poor, and water is very scarce - at its southern and eastern ends the Mulga becomes the Simpson desert.

Now, the farmers graze cattle, mostly, in the Mulga... Imported animals, obviously. Australia has no hoofed natives; the hooves of the cattle tend to destroy the fragile undergrowth, break through the topsoil, and cause erosion. Old, leaking, 'never off' bores bring up water what water there is, for it to largely evaporate away; ruining the water table and leading to salinisation.

More
PaulieMac
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2011
Grazers will often clear away trees - eucalypts especially - to create grassland. Native plants and animals evolved here; they survive very happily in the original conditions. Eucalypts, mulga trees (a kind of acacia), hardy native grasses and shrubs. Obviouslyy the native animals are well suited to teh conditions.

But cattle are very poorly suited - a herd will often roam over truly enormous tracts of land, as the nutritional value of the land is so very low for them.

So, in the Mulga... Perhaps it is more valuable in its natural state - or would be, if the farmers had some revenue source unrelated to trashing it.

It is very rare that anything is black and white. This issue sure isn't.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2011
to Paulie:

Those are good points, but as you say, there are other ways of looking at the situation. In terms of preserving the natural state of the land, there isn't really any argument to be made. Either you zone it as a preserve or not.

If the land is to be used for human benefit, then I hold the belief that you do whatever produces the most valued stuff for the longest amount of time for the benefit of the most people possible. The American Southwest is a good proxy for the Australian Mulga area. Very similar conditions. Cattle are not native there either, and Southern California certainly can't naturally maintain the vast fruit and vegetable farming there now. From what you said, it sounds like there's another option besides paying the farmers not to farm. How about spending that same money to build a better water infrastructure in stead. Then maybe you could actually improve the poor land. Everyone wins except the people who want to build a preserve. There are other ways too
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2011
I am still wondering who owns the land?
PaulieMac
not rated yet Mar 31, 2011
I am still wondering who owns the land?


Some of it is owned by farmers, some is national park...
PaulieMac
not rated yet Mar 31, 2011
To GSwift...

Yes, I do take your point... My point is that just because the farmers are utilising the land - in this case, to graze cattle - it is not necessarily the best 'overall human benefit'. That's the best use the *farmers* can see, because that's the way they can currently extract profit from it. Which is natural, and fair.

But in terms of 'overall human benefit'; I think that's a very difficult question to answer. What's of more valuable to us as a species; the one cow every x acres per x years such land can sustain - or the benefits it may provide in a natural state? If there are such benefits - be it as carbon storage, phycological, or the potential pharmacopoeia undiscovered in such places - then it does not seem unreasonable to imagine a mechanism to motivate the landowner not to engage in destructive activities...

Like the amazon - better standing than razed for very poor pasture, no?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2011
A rancher that over grazes and destroys the land he owns won't be in business long.
Cattle ranching is a long term endeavor so a rancher's profit motive is to maintain the quality of his assets.
Now if he does not own it then he has less interest in any long term conservation.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 31, 2011
A rancher that over grazes and destroys the land he owns won't be in business long. Cattle ranching is a long term endeavor so a rancher's profit motive is to maintain the quality of his assets.
Now if he does not own it then he has less interest in any long term conservation.

Are you even paying attention to what you're saying? Do you understand how far outside of the reality of the business your views are?

I'm starting to hope we see a government shutdown in the US so you can see how fucked up your political views are.

Let's shut down the postal service so you and all the rest of the 'conservatives' can forget to pay their 'mailed' bills and have their assets foreclosed on.
apex01
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
I'm starting to hope we see a government shutdown in the US so you can see how fucked up your political views are.

Let's shut down the postal service so you and all the rest of the 'conservatives' can forget to pay their 'mailed' bills and have their assets foreclosed on.


I guess UPS, and Fedex wouldn't be able to do it better? I'm starting to hope we have a government shutdown in the US so you can see what happens when the population depends too much on government and not on themselves.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 01, 2011
I guess UPS, and Fedex wouldn't be able to do it better?
Neither is equipped to deliver daily post.
I'm starting to hope we have a government shutdown in the US so you can see what happens when the population depends too much on government and not on themselves.

report abuse quote send PM
I'm starting to hope we have a government shutdown in the US so you can see what happens when the population depends too much on government and not on themselves. This is exactly why I want to see a shutdown. Perhaps you'll understand how vital government is to maintaining your ability to function.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
what happens when the population depends too much on government and not on themselves.

You WANT people to be dependent upon the state?
Why?
how vital government is to maintaining your ability to function.

The govt will maintain 'vital' services which means that most of the govt is NOT vital.
]
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
This is what SH prefers:
"We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers "
"President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things."
http://online.wsj..._LEADTop
The sector that plunders is dependent upon those that keep the plundering legal. The people that SH supports.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2011
You are both WAY too extreme for me.

We are all part of a society. Nobody will ever agree on everything. So, we have to compromise. The elections in our country seem to be almost evenly split between the two sides. It shifts a little to either side from year to year, but it's always fairly close. That means that any big policy shift that moves too far to either side will be ignoring the views of nearly half the country. Policy should stay somewhere in the middle in an effort to compromise between the two equal sides. Besides, while you can argue that your side is better, I think it's more likely that a little of each is best. All things in moderation seems to be a good rule of thumb.

Heaven help us if we ever become a one-party government.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
what happens when the population depends too much on government and not on themselves.

You WANT people to be dependent upon the state?
Why?
It was an improperly formatted quote of the above poster. Nice to see your quotemining skills are still functional.
The govt will maintain 'vital' services which means that most of the govt is NOT vital.
Like the position you hold. Completely not vital seeing as Chelmsford doesn't have much in the way of agriculture, Mr Agricultural Board member.
The sector that plunders is dependent upon those that keep the plundering legal. The people that SH supports.
You're a knob.

We are all part of a society. Nobody will ever agree on everything. So, we have to compromise.
The country has demonstrably moved further and further right each year. Very soon there will be a huge rejection of the Republican extremes which will hopefully result in more order and less of this political chaos.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
more order and less of this political chaos.

That's why the Germans elected a fascist. To bring order.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2011
more order and less of this political chaos.
That's why the Germans elected a fascist. To bring order.
If it wasn't obvious to everyone that you're a nutjob prior to that comment, I'm sure it's crystal clear now.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
more order and less of this political chaos.
That's why the Germans elected a fascist. To bring order.
If it wasn't obvious to everyone that you're a nutjob prior to that comment, I'm sure it's crystal clear now.

What political chaos? We have a grass roots rebellion against too much govt spending and control and SH thinks this is chaos?
These are citizens exercising their Constitutional rights! That is messy for statists who like 'order'.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2011
From SH's fellow NHite:

"Steyn said. I always love the way that people say, Oh you know, Americans want the parties to work together to get things done. No, thats actually not want Americans want. The message from November was that youve done too much. Stop doing stuff. You did all this stuff you passed Obamacare and nobody knew what was in it.

Read more: http://dailycalle...IKIMtfxm
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
What political chaos?
The constantly looming threat of government shutdown, 3 unpopular military actions, two of which have been multidecadal wars. The destruction of the infrastructure and educational systems. People wearing guns to political rallies. Multiple incidents of domestic terrorism, yeah, looks really orderly to me.
We have a grass roots rebellion
Funded by billionaires utilizing large marketing and misinformation campaigns.
against too much govt spending and control
Yet it has all been cut and the economy continues to suck and suck and suck due to the actions of the Republican House, who'd rather cut jobs than create them.
and SH thinks this is chaos?
The extremist political rhetoric makes it pretty clear.
These are citizens exercising their Constitutional rights!
Shooting Senators is not a Constitutional Right. Having secret backroom votes to strip people of their right to assemble in the workplace is not Constitutional. You're laughable.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
The constantly looming threat of government shutdown

When govt runs out of money, what is it supposed to do? Print more?

People wearing guns to political rallies

The Second Amendment protects the first. BTW, an armed citizen was prepared to stop the Tucson shooter.
What are you talking about shooting a senator?

Making threats against WI legislators is illegal.
"A 26-year-old woman was charged Thursday with two felony counts and two misdemeanor counts accusing her of making email threats against Wisconsin lawmakers during the height of the battle over Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill."
http://www.jsonli...014.html

If you want to hear extremist rhetoric, listen to those who invaded and occupied the WI state house.
Quantum_Conundrum
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2011
I am in favor of progressive sales tax on all luxury "event" ticket items as well as the sale of certain "irrational" products:

football and other sports tickets and suites
movie tickets

Special Millionaire's taxes for:

sports player and owner (including boxing, UFC, and wrestling)
Actors/actresses
Musicians, singers, and other performers

Income above 1 million should be taxed 90%.

Income for the irrational jobs such as the circus clowns listed above should be taxed 99% for anything above 1 million.

E-mail should be taxed 1 cent per hundred messages (rounded up,) charged to the SENDER, in order to cut down on spam. You wouldn't get an endless line of bot spam messages from un-wanted advertizers and un-wanted porn promotions if it actually cost them money to invade your computer. So for people who are doing honest use of email, it would only effect them by at most a few cents per month...
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
http://www.realcl...ich.html

99% for anything above 1 million.

What will happen is NO one will ever make over a $1m. Then there will be nothing to tax.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2011
QC: Do you live in IL?
"Illinois and other states have recently made headlines for their declining populations. Whether they realize it or not, what states like Illinois are learning the hard way is that over-taxing and over-regulating has consequences. And Illinois is now learning that one painful consequence is job loss.

Read more: http://dailycalle...IQ2f6kmf
"
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2011
http://www.realcl...ich.html

99% for anything above 1 million.

What will happen is NO one will ever make over a $1m.
Then based on the mathematics of the current monetary supply vs the population, everyone would be making over a billion if we all took a fair share. But that point illudes you doesn't it.

You need to look at the size of the money supply and the large disparity in incomes to make sense of our current economic problems.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
Your point makes no sense.
If the govt plans to take ALL income over $1M or whatever amount you choose, NO one with any intelligence will report making more than that amount. They will either stop working or try to hide it from taxes.

"Government policies can influence all of those decisions. Higher marginal tax rates can reduce work effort, discourage saving, and slow the growth of the economy."
"A switch toward consumption-based taxes increases national saving and economic output in both models. " {Amazing! In a govt report no less.}
http://www.cbo.go...p;type=0
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2011
You need to look at the size of the money supply and the large disparity in incomes to make sense of our current economic problems.

You need to look at govt spending as a percentage of GDP to understand the current economic problems.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2011
You need to look at the size of the money supply and the large disparity in incomes to make sense of our current economic problems.

You need to look at govt spending as a percentage of GDP to understand the current economic problems.

Then apply your same metric to the cost of the necessities in life. Who controls those costs?

Right, big business.
If the govt plans to take ALL income over $1M or whatever amount you choose, NO one with any intelligence will report making more than that amount
So you're saying the rich intentionally bear false witness so to speak and lie about their income? You're projecting what you would do upon everyone. Besides, the fix is simple. Hire people (that's right, job creation) to address the illegal activity of the rich. After all, misrepresenting your income is a crime, and breaking the law is against your principles, is it not?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2011
Then apply your same metric to the cost of the necessities in life. Who controls those costs?

Right, big business.

No.
Where is your proof? You made the assertion. Prove it. That's YOUR standard, so you say. (But then you lie.)

So you're saying the rich intentionally bear false witness so to speak and lie about their income?

You don't recall the 70s?
BTW, GE paid no taxes, LEGALLY. Your statism in action.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2011
No.
Where is your proof? You made the assertion. Prove it. That's YOUR standard, so you say. (But then you lie.)
Who controls the cost of your health insurance? Your wage? Your free time? Yes, your employer. No one debates things that are a given unless they've never actually had a job. I'm starting to think you've never had a job.
You don't recall the 70s?
BTW, GE paid no taxes, LEGALLY. Your statism in action.
Because fo tax cuts and incentives passed DURING BUSH Jr.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
SH:

I don't normally agree with you on much of anything, but apparently on this issue we have a lot in common.

ryggsogn2:

1) You mis-represented my statement, 90 to 99% is not 100%. At 90% on income ABOVE the first million, so if they made 2 million, they'd still "net" an extra 100k after taxes, which is admittedly more than I've ever made in my life in a year, as I'm sure is the case for about 60% to 80% of Amerians. So full a multi-millionaire, there IS still incentive for someone to do better, even at 90% taxation of all money above 1 million.

2)
I also am inclined to believe, based on this thread and the Obama jobs creation thread, that you have never had a job. I certainly have never "really" been in any control of my pay rate. It's pretty much take it or starve, and quite literally for everyone I know personally, and as I said, if you're lucky, you might get to haggle for an extra 50 cents or so.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
Also, the sales taxes I suggested were on LUXURY ITEMS which have absolutely nothing to do with "real" jobs or production or "real" businesses. Those suggestions only tax the INSANITY to hopefully curb the American individual and the collective addiction to the parasites in the entertainment industries, while simultaneously providing revenue to pay down the government debt.

Those suggestions aren't taxes even on corporations, and certainly not "producers" who actually make the food, clothes, medicine, and machines we need and use for "real" living.

Those suggestions I gave are FAR more fair than existing sales taxes on food, clothing, and tools which we have now. Existing taxes are on NEEDS and are taxed REGRESSIVELY and ultimately punish the people who need and use them most, which are the working class people and the poor...

Do you know that by the time you pay all taxes and required fees and permits, a mean income person already pays over 25% of their income to government?
Quantum_Conundrum
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
The mean income person already spends almost everything they make every year, just to meet their basic needs in modern America, and a computer and cell phone are also "basic needs" now, since you pretty much can't even get a job any more without them.

Anyway, the lifetime cost of owning and operating a vehicle across it's 10 year warranted lifetime is about 1/3rd of the mean income. Buying a used vehicle does not help, since the reduced gas mileage and increased maintenance costs eat up the savings from the purchase price and insurance costs.

So that's 33% of mean income for an automobile.

Then you have about 25% of mean income for taxes, fees, stamps, and permits. I can show the actual breakdown of this if you like...

So that's 58% of MEAN income to taxes and automobile (purchase, insurance, maintenance, and fuel,) and I have not even gotten to food, clothing, and shelter.

So as a percent of income, the cost of auto plus taxes is actually highest for mean income.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2011
he sales taxes I suggested were on LUXURY ITEMS which have absolutely nothing to do with "real" jobs

"In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it? "
"the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million. "
http://www.jewish...2899.asp
Luxury taxes punish people.
Why do you want to punish people QC?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.