Julie
Anne Genter is a New Zealand Green MP, and promoting the NZ Green Party policy
this election year of a carbon tax, including on agriculture - dairy, initially, with other livestock to follow presumably. Julie wants to tax
our dairy industry from the peak it is on, and the important place it holds for
sustaining the standard of living of all
of us. I simply copy and paste the below relevant timelines: note I do
Twitter quickly, so mine are full of typos.
Some summary points before starting, though. The Green Party says that households will be better off by $326 per annum via a tax cut (tax free threshold on first $2,000 of income). Two points: I can eat and drink that sum in a single meal out with Mrs H: it will do nothing to allay the additional costs of fuel - thus increasing cost of every product freighted - power, and food. But more importantly, the Green's will only be getting this policy through via a coalition with Labour, who are promising higher personal income tax rates: I expect to see personal rates back to at least 39% from $70,000: therefore, guess what will happen ... there'll be a carbon tax PLUS higher income tax for middle and upper income earners. It is guaranteed the majority of households will be worse off.
Also, as I sum up at end of first timeline below, and deal with in second timeline, the Green Party's economic naiveté is, as ever, jaw dropping. First they believe that very specialised dairy capital - such as $1 million rotary, computerised cow sheds - can be put to other uses on the flick of their tax switch: it can't - that capital is destroyed; no one profits through that. Moreover, the current level of dairy farm land (and rising) is producing milk because there is a world-wide market for it. Green's such as Julie believe if you use a tax to make it uneconomic to produce milk, because the tax is designed to increase the cost of production - and I seriously believe Julie thinks this won't increase the 'price' of the food bill in total (it will) - then 'magically' you can 'more efficiently' grow some other food type - even if that is so, if all this dairy land can produce another food type/s more 'efficiently', that is pointless if there is no market for such crops. The market at this time calls for a supply of milk solids: if the Green Party is to responsibly implement their carbon tax policy, have they identified in their five year Soviet styled plan those other uses this land can be put to with equally profitable markets (or markets, per se), and compensation for those farmers whose dairy capital has been destroyed?
Some summary points before starting, though. The Green Party says that households will be better off by $326 per annum via a tax cut (tax free threshold on first $2,000 of income). Two points: I can eat and drink that sum in a single meal out with Mrs H: it will do nothing to allay the additional costs of fuel - thus increasing cost of every product freighted - power, and food. But more importantly, the Green's will only be getting this policy through via a coalition with Labour, who are promising higher personal income tax rates: I expect to see personal rates back to at least 39% from $70,000: therefore, guess what will happen ... there'll be a carbon tax PLUS higher income tax for middle and upper income earners. It is guaranteed the majority of households will be worse off.
Also, as I sum up at end of first timeline below, and deal with in second timeline, the Green Party's economic naiveté is, as ever, jaw dropping. First they believe that very specialised dairy capital - such as $1 million rotary, computerised cow sheds - can be put to other uses on the flick of their tax switch: it can't - that capital is destroyed; no one profits through that. Moreover, the current level of dairy farm land (and rising) is producing milk because there is a world-wide market for it. Green's such as Julie believe if you use a tax to make it uneconomic to produce milk, because the tax is designed to increase the cost of production - and I seriously believe Julie thinks this won't increase the 'price' of the food bill in total (it will) - then 'magically' you can 'more efficiently' grow some other food type - even if that is so, if all this dairy land can produce another food type/s more 'efficiently', that is pointless if there is no market for such crops. The market at this time calls for a supply of milk solids: if the Green Party is to responsibly implement their carbon tax policy, have they identified in their five year Soviet styled plan those other uses this land can be put to with equally profitable markets (or markets, per se), and compensation for those farmers whose dairy capital has been destroyed?
@TVHE @AndrewRiddell1 in most parts of the world, 4m people create far fewer emissions than we do in NZ.
— Julie Anne Genter (@JulieAnneGenter) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter & how big a standard of living, plus making life harder 4 working poor, is 'morally' warranted? @TVHE @AndrewRiddell1
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@MarkHubbard33 @TVHE no idea what you're talking about, sorry. Will improve standard of living & tax cut is best for those on low incomes
— Julie Anne Genter (@JulieAnneGenter) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter When u tax emitters, incl farms, what do you think happens to cost of producing food, power and fuel? #TaxIsCost @TVHE
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@MarkHubbard33 @TVHE people reduce their pollution and find more efficient ways of producing food. #economics
— Julie Anne Genter (@JulieAnneGenter) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter Really? When NZ is already one of most efficient producers of food, yet you're adding layer of cost? @TVHE
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter You're giving tax free first $2k; ignoring most of those affected don't pay net tax, that is saving of, say $300: 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter How far is that going to go to meet increased food/power/fuel costs. If more efficient ways 2 produce food we'd be doing it
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
Typical conservative view: this the most perfect of possible worlds RT@MarkHubbard33: If more efficient ways 2 produce food we'd be doing it
— Julie Anne Genter (@JulieAnneGenter) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter If there was a more efficient way to produce food x it would be so. By taxing & increasing cost, more expensive food y 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@JulieAnneGenter ... become less costly/expensive, but it is still more costly/expensive than be4 the tax. Tax is a cost ....
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
Note
in that above tweet I obviously mean food
y becomes less pricy, ‘relative’ to the now more expensive food x.
@JulieAnneGenter Look at illogic. U tax, incr cost, coz you know it will mean less of item produced, but u think this as no effect on price.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
Second timeline:
Regarding
this policy, and the obvious Green Party desire regarding dairy to ‘knock the
bugger off’, then responsibly they must issue with that policy advice on the export
market/s they have identified which can replace the worldwide demand for
diary produce, with that analysis considering the capital that has been invested in dairy and destroyed, and so not available to set
up the next ‘more efficient’ - a term which now means nothing - enterprises the Green Party think these dairy farms can
be immediately changed to. As I state below:
@MarkHubbard33 @JulieAnneGenter @TVHE Yes, prices will follow. Did you notice tax reduces to counter this?
— Andrew Riddell (@AndrewRiddell1) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 You lose $300 pa by sneezing. Now @JulieAnneGenter is quite plain, she was to tax dairy out of the market. So, given I 1/x
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 I can't think of other export market with demand of dairy, what r these farms magically switching 2 in 2/x @JulieAnneGenter
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 .. in order our standard of living remains the same? That alternative market better be part of GreenPolicy @JulieAnneGenter
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 Remember much of the capital invested in diary farms is destroyed; cost of diary shed now $1 mil & is 3/x @JulieAnneGenter
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 ... useless of other use. So that capital is destroyed, where does capital come from for 'next crop'? 4/x @JulieAnneGenter
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
@AndrewRiddell1 ... & what compensation for the wealth & incomes (families) destroyed by Green policy? @JulieAnneGenter
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2014
The
above said, and such as my predilections are as evidenced in this blog, one
aspect of our modern factory dairy farms does, too often, horrify me: animal welfare. I think way too many dairy
farms are concentration camps for cows: and any dairy cocky who condones
killing their bobbies by bashing them many times in the head with a hammer, too
tight to afford a goddamned bullet, can go to hell. You are cruel swine.
Otherwise,
I’ll close on some very good points made by economist Matt Nolan on the
problems with the Green Party’s carbon tax (and noting Matt is generally for
taxing externalities); this carbon tax is virtually all pain for New Zealand, while
letting our competitor economies leech off our (enforced) sacrifice, and with
the minuscule size of our economy, that is a national economic suicide: see On Free-Riders and Externalities
No comments:
Post a Comment