The news you're not supposed to know...

Multimedia

An Introduction to Austrian Economics: Understand Economics, Understand Everything

The Century of the Self: The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

The Disappearing Male: From Virility to Sterility

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off

Operation Gladio: The Hidden History of U.S. Sponsored False Flag Terrorism in Europe

The New American Century: The Untold History of The Project for the New American Century(more)

Analysis posted May 27 2012, 10:43 PM

Category: Economy

Source: InformationLiberation

Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax Causing Price Increases

Chris | InformationLiberation

Australia's new carbon tax is going to cause costs to rise on everything across the board, it's a massive new tax on energy, therefor no industries will be able to escape the rising costs.

That said, the Australian government has declared it's illegal to "wrongly" blame the carbon tax for price increases, and they say those who do will face fines up to $1.1 million dollars.

Via The Daily Telegraph:

SHOPS and restaurants could face fines up to $1.1 million if waiters or sales staff wrongly blame the carbon tax for price rises or exaggerate the impact.

And households are being warned to watch out for telephone scammers offering to deposit carbon tax compensation into their bank accounts.

The prices watchdog, the ACCC, will today launch its countdown to the July 1 carbon tax with a special focus on helping small businesses understand their obligations and consumers to be vigilant for false claims.

It is releasing internet videos to help business, a 16-page guide and has set up a dedicated website www.accc.gov.au/carbon.

ACCC deputy chairman Dr Michael Schaper told the Herald Sun companies were entitled to increase their prices and did not have to justify or explain why.

"It is business as usual,'' Dr Schaper said.

But if they blamed the carbon tax they must be able to prove it and not use it as a cover for other price increases related to wages, rent or stock.

"If a business claims that a price is linked to the carbon price, that claim must be truthful and have a reasonable basis,'' he said.

Dr Schaper said the warning applied to comments made by staff over the phone, on the shop floor or in meetings.

It also covers advertising, product labels, websites, invoices, contracts and contract negotiations.

The ACCC has the power to force a business to substantiate that a price rise has been caused by the carbon tax.

The guide explains what businesses can and cannot do, and provides a checklist to follow.

Dr Schaper said businesses must be sure price rises were "based on your own costs''.

The idea you can somehow defend yourself and "rightly" blame your price increases on the carbon tax is nonsense. The law says your claims must be "truthful" and have a "reasonable basis."

Who determines what is truthful, and who determines what is reasonable? Not the business owner, that's for sure.

The hidden costs of a new tax can spread in entirely unpredictable ways, taxes are frequently passed onto consumers, other times they may ultimately fall on producers, there's no way to know exactly who will be ultimately paying these taxes, so there is no way to ultimately say what the "truthful" cost of these new taxes are on anything.

What we know for certain is costs will rise, but don't dare say it, or you could be fined $1.1 million dollars.

SHARE:

Email This

Latest Economy
- How to Not Attack Capitalism
- How Protectionism Hurts Hawaii: Why It's Time to Repeal the Jones Act
- If It Moves, Tax It
- Taxing Internet Purchases
- Ron Paul on Gold: No One Knows Value; I'm Buying
- Schiff: GDP Propaganda Exposed
- Remember When the Internet Was a Tax-Free Paradise?
- Japan Steps Into the Void

Comments 1 - 20 of 63

Add Comment

Page of 4 >

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 7:10 AM

Link

193200

"Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax Causing Price Increases"

thats not what the article says.

sensasionalist untrue headline much?

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 7:35 AM

Link

That's exactly what it says. The net effect of the law is you are not allowed to blame the carbon tax for your price increases, it's an anti-free speech orwellian attack on stating the obvious. If you do dare to state the truth, you face being brought before an unelected board of bureaucrats who will decide the "truthiness" of your statement and then decide whether or not to fine you $1.1 million for engaging in free speech they personally disagree with. In case you don't realize, that's fucking sensational.

zooropa

Posted: May 28 2012, 7:53 AM

Link

86131

That's outrageous! A fine of $1 for speaking your mind would be so. $1.1M.. what ?
Is Oz turning into 1930's Germany ?

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 8:42 AM

Link

193200

@ Chris...

No it doesnt.

it says.."But if they blamed the carbon tax they must be able to prove it and not use it as a cover for other price increases related to wages, rent or stock.

"If a business claims that a price is linked to the carbon price, that claim must be truthful and have a reasonable basis,'' he said."

If their cost goes up $5 due to the carbon price, they can say that. Ehat they can't do, is say it's gone up $10, and try and profit that way. As far as I can see, it's consumer protection.

Nowhere does it say they are not allowed to say there prices have risen due to the tax, if in fact it has.

It's primary school reading comprehension level. Must try harder.

Stop trying to look clever, it doesn't suit you.

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:01 AM

Link

"Proving it" consists of going in front of an unelected board of bureaucrats who work for the same people implementing the tax and enforcing the law and having them determine whether or not your "cost going up $5 due to the carbon price" is "truthful" or "reasonable."

If they disagree with you, they have the power to fine you $1.1 million dollars.

If you were a businessman, would you be willing to risk that by guesstimating the cost of this tax on your prices?

As I stated in the article, there is no way to pinpoint the exact change in price due to the nature of taxation, I guess you missed that, or more likely it's just over your head.

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:15 AM

Link

"It's primary school reading comprehension level. Must try harder."

What's funny about this comment is The Daily Telegraph's article was written in a way to appeal to idiots like yourself who can only read the words on the page, but can give no thought as to the implication or the deeper meaning of what's being stated.

"Nowhere does it say they are not allowed to say there prices have risen due to the tax, if in fact it has."

First off, it's their, not "there."

Second, while it's technically correct they are allowed to say their prices have risen due to the tax, like I said previous, your brain unfortunately failed to comprehend or process the implications of making such an statement; namely, you'd be placing yourself at the mercy of an unelected board of bureaucrats who work for the state and could potentially fine you $1.1 million dollars.

I would suggest you take your own advice on not trying to look clever, perhaps reading more from this site would suit you well.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:16 AM

Link

193200

Heres another link.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/accc-warns-on-carbon-tax-price-rises-20120418-1x7ly.html

The ACCC ( Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) ..had received more than 230 complaints about carbon tax pricing since it invited consumers to dob in businesses suspected of price gouging late last year.

Complaints from consumers, the public, to stop companies ripping them off. The ACCC, has another role too, to keep pertol retailers honest, they monitor fuel prices , and are suppossed to keep them honest, more often than not though, they dont do a lot, and are perceived as a toothless tiger.

The maximum fine youre getting all sensational about, would be for an extreme case. Theres infringement notices for much much less. Quite frankly, youd have to be a pretty stupid consumer to want to be a victim of price gouging.

Quite frankly, youd have to be a pretty stupid blogger to sensationalise an articles title, to totally misrepresent the article, and then on top of that, when receiving justifiable criticism, instead of re-reading the article, and acknowledging the error, to bluff and bluster about something you know absolutely nothing about, and dig yourself into an even deeper hole, erroding any remnant of credibility that may have remained.

lol - sensational work!

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:21 AM

Link

193200

"Second, while its technically correct they are allowed to say their prices have risen due to the tax,"

"Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax Causing Price Increases"

Idiot. I said the title didnt match the article, you said it did, now youre saying youre "technically" wrong.. lol..

Dick head wanker much.

keep going.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:26 AM

Link

193200

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/finance/warning-on-carbon-tax-rorts-20120527-1zczj.html

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/345882/20120528/firms-mislead-customers-carbon-tax-face-up.htm

You can look all you want you mental midget, but you wont find one article that says

"Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax Causing Price Increases"

No one will be fined 1 million dollars or anything, for saying a price rise is due to the carbon tax, if it legitimately is.

Put up or shut up you sensational moron.

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:33 AM

Link

It's called editorialization, again a concept which is apparently over your head, maybe look it up while you're studying what's the proper usage of "their," "they're," and "there."

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:40 AM

Link

193200

my original comment is %100 correct.

"editorialization"

no its not. its called sensationalisation. Its because you simply copy and paste any garbage without bothering to look into anything. If the only rebuttal you have is a critique of my spelling, well that says a lot more about you than anything I can say.

Just grow a pair fool, and admit you were wrong.

This is not some orwellian boogey man - its called consumer protection fuckwit.

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/142

Welcome to the ACCC

The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, businesses and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.

youve just brought stupid to a whole new level.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:51 AM

Link

193200

Ohh look, I didn't have to go far to find a grammatical error, looks like some utter idiot doesn't even know how to use apostrophes!

"First off, the US has no ownership over that unclaimed land, second I say tear it the hell up, lets see what they find. - Chris"

Can you see where you totally proved what an idiot you are there?

Had enough yet?

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:55 AM

Link

193200

and secondly, I used there when it should have been their, I do know the right usage, but I do get them muddled in my rush sometimes, I admit. As I didn't misuse "they're at all, you don't get to call me out on that.

hope it makes you feel good though.. u know cos typos and other mistakes are rooly important to point out to help make ur case WRITE?

theyre ya go, knock yaself out wanker

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 9:58 AM

Link

Thanks, I'll happily correct that as it's an actual error.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 10:04 AM

Link

193200

Fixed/Editorialised it for ya...

"ACCC will fine business for price gouging, lying to and misleading consumers."

I admit, when you tell the truth and don't sensationalise it, It doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

So, I guess, unless you're going to turn all grammar nazi on me again, or you're going to admit I'm right and apologise, ( I doubt you're man enough ) - then I guess I wont be hearing any more out of you in regard to this extravagant exaggeration of yours.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 10:12 AM

Link

193200

It makes no difference to me if you fix it happilly or begrudgingly or even at all, I didn't point it out for your benifit, It was more to highlight the hubris of someone who thinks he's never made a simple mistake before, enough to believe that he could ridicule a simple spelling mistake and not having it come back to bite him. No thanks required, the pleasure was mine.

Again, my original comment.

The title, DOESNT MATCH THE FUCKING ARTICLE! ITS A CROCK OF SHIT!

It's your blog, but it's an actual error.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 10:25 AM

Link

193200

*benefit - sigh... I know I know..

Chris

Posted: May 28 2012, 10:25 AM

Link

As the headline is what the law implies, I will not be changing it.

Again, you have consistently failed to understand the implication of the law, what the law means in practice vs what the law claims to represent, I've explained it repeatedly but you clearly cannot comprehend it and likely never will.

You must have something personally invested in it, perhaps you work for them or are somehow dependent on them, I do not know, maybe you could tell us, but it's clear you do not understand it and therefor the headline is over your head.

The headline is 100% accurate and I will not change something which is not wrong.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 10:49 AM

Link

193200

Fuck you idiot!
I know what the implication of the law is. It's fucking consumer protection! since 1974 it is what the ACCC was set up to do!

I hate the Australian Government as much as anyone, and I spend a lot of time pointing out their many failures and faults, but I don't have to go around making up bullshit, there's enough real stuff to complain about.

Stop trying to look clever, you are flat out wrong! Something personally invested in it? Well yes.. I'LL be one paying the higher costs, I think thta's a personal investment. Argue against the uselessness of the tax itself if ya want, but again, stop making shit up!

What you fail to understand, is that the ACCC is there to STOP consumers getting RIPPED OFF! COMPRENDE?

"Structure of the ACCC

The ACCC is an independent statutory authority. The ACCC has a chairman, deputy chairs, full-time members, ex officio and associate members. Appointments to the ACCC involve participation by Commonwealth, state and territory governments.

The Canberra and Melbourne offices are the national centres of operations and there are smaller offices in each capital city and Townsville. The Infocentre deals with inquiries and complaints from consumers and business.

To access the ACCC organisation chart, which includes a list of its commissioners, see below."

Did you even look at the website?

You don't have a fucking clue.

"Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax Causing Price Increases"

That headline is straight out wrong.

If I have a business, and I'm selling items that cost an extra $5 due to the carbon tax.

I CAN FUCKING WELL SHOUT THAT FROM THE ROOFTOPS 'TILL THE COWS COME HOME - and I wont be fined a FUCKING CENT!

You have to really be a special sort of drongo if ya can't see that, but, you've established that beyond any doubt already. Again, I dont care what ya do with your headline. But its fucking wrong idiot, as you've already acknowledged..

"it's technically correct they are allowed to say their prices have risen due to the tax, "

Which contradicts the fucking headline.

Anonymous

Posted: May 28 2012, 11:03 AM

Link

193200

Once you get past the typo in the first sentence..( "therefore" has an "e" )- the next sentence contradicts the title itself..

"That said, the Australian government has declared it's illegal to "WRONGLY" blame the carbon tax for price increases, and they say those who do will face fines up to $1.1 million dollars."

The ACCC monitor prices of pertol retailers as well, you going to tell me that is some sort of orwellian clamp down on free speech too? Theyve been doing that for years here, and I tell ya, every motorist has a vested interest in that, and I havnt heard ONE single one say they dont think the ACCC shouldn't be doing MORE in that regard.

Fuck you and your imaginary pseudo-intellect, this simple fact is, that this is a good thing for consumers, is way too much for you to comprehend, ( primary school, ya shoulda stuck it out ) obviously way over your head.

Comments 1 - 20 of 63

Page of 4 >

Add Comment

Name

Comment

* No HTML

Verification *

Please Enter the Verification Code Seen Below

PLEASE NOTE

Please see our About Page, our Disclaimer, and our Comments Policy.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.

About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy