So it begins: Zippy hasn’t even started his ‘economic reform roundtable’, and he’s already talking about new taxes. Can anyone say they’re in the least bit surprised?
And just to prove that socialists are addicted to making the same, disastrous, mistakes, over and over, Labor’s union whip-crackers are already demanding to reinstate the Gillard carbon tax.
Because it worked so well, last time.
The ACTU told the Productivity Commission that the Gillard government’s economy-wide carbon price was a success, declaring its implementation saw emissions fall, the economy grow and adversely impacted Australians compensated.
What clown world are these loons living on?
In fact, Australia’s GDP dipped sharply – harder than even during the GFC – immediately the carbon tax was reduced in 20012. It wasn’t until the carbon tax was repealed in 2014 that growth returned. Emissions rose slightly during the carbon tax period.
Behind the statistics, there was a litany of disasters. Businesses large and small, hospitality especially, saw their costs skyrocket. Even worse, the tax precipitated a narrowly averted energy and environmental catastrophe in Tasmania. In a classic case of perverse incentives, the carbon tax led to the state’s hydro-electric corporation exporting massive amounts of ‘renewable’ power to the Mainland. But, in Tasmania, power means water in dams. The sell-off of power dropped water levels dramatically, which was followed by an unseasonably dry winter, which in turn led to dams being almost emptied. Then the BassLink cable connecting the island to the Mainland broke, as it frequently does. Tasmania narrowly averted running out of both water and electricity altogether.
But, hey, like socialism, it’ll work this time.
When asked if this meant the ACTU was pushing for an economy-wide carbon price and carbon tariffs, a spokesman said: “The ACTU has raised a broad range of policy proposals in response to the Productivity Commission’s five pillars inquiry”.
Even the virtue-signalling business lobby has almost wised up.
Australia’s biggest business body is warning an overly ambitious 2035 emissions reduction target will undermine the “productivity, competitiveness and viability” of local industry, as unions call for a Julia Gillard-style price on carbon to be reconsidered to lower the costs of hitting climate goals […]
While ACCI was among business groups that endorsed Labor’s 43 per cent target in 2022, corporate Australia has become increasingly sceptical of the government’s approach amid soaring electricity prices and flatlining emissions.
This is just the beginning of Labor’s gouging of the taxpayer, in any way they can.
Jim Chalmers is open to raising new taxes and cutting more spending after Treasury accidentally released advice saying such actions were critical to making the budget sustainable again.
Who really believes, though, that Labor will cut spending?
Treasury expects that spending as a percentage of GDP, outside of the Covid stimulus, will hit the highest level since 1986 at 27 per cent of GDP in 2025-26, placing further pressures on the budget, which Dr Chalmers admits is “unsustainable”. He said Labor had done a lot to make the budget more sustainable through efforts to reduce the cost of the NDIS, interest costs and aged care.
Note how they carefully exclude the Covid debt. Which is kind of a biggie.
Government spending on social security and welfare increased by over $50 billion from 2018–2019 to 2020–2021. The cost of the ‘economic response to Covid’ alone reached $43.3 billion in 2023–2024. No wonder, then, that Australia’s debt ratio is at its highest since WWII.
As for reducing the cost of the NDIS – another Gillard white elephant – the cost has continued to rise, year on year, and is expected to hit $165 billion in the next decade, making it the single biggest cost to the taxpayer.
Treasury documents emailed to the ABC mistakenly included headings and subheadings from the redacted sections of incoming government briefs that were requested under Freedom of Information laws, showing that cuts to spending or higher taxes were needed to ensure the budget was sustainable.
Hmm, cut spending or raise taxes?
Who wants to take bets on which Labor will opt for?
