Personal Explanation
I made a personal explanation today about a deliberately deceptive advertisement posted online by the Liberal Party this week.
Personal Explanation
28 June 2012In a Liberal Party ad posted online yesterday, I’m quoted as saying ‘I think my colleagues, like me, are looking forward to the tax which is coming on the 1st of July’.
This is an incorrect transcript of my statement. In fact, I said that ‘my colleagues, like me, are looking forward to the tax switch that’s coming on the 1st of July’.
The incorrect transcribing in the Liberal Party ad isn’t an accident. The ad is clearly aimed at deceiving the viewer. The Liberal Party operative who transcribed my words would also have heard my next sentence: ‘taxes on big polluters going up, taxes on workers going down’.
Not only are we pricing pollution, we are also cutting income taxes for many Australian workers. This tax switch will help our economy and improve our environment.
It’s about time the Liberal Party focused on the facts rather than peddling untruths.
Understood. Clear as Crystal.
Oh I get it! You are looking forward to the tax SWITCH, which is the introduction of the Carbon Tax. You are looking forward to the Carbon Tax. Glad you pointed that out.
Spare us the explanation Mr Leigh.
We didn’t vote for this Carbon Tax, but we’ll all pay for it.
You as out of touch as they come.
As the announced policy intent was for this tax SWITCH to be neutral – increase tax revenue from polluting companies and decrease tax revenue from individuals – then the inaccurate comment is that this will “…help our economy…” !
For most of your colleagues this could be overlooked as quoting policy line without truly understanding the reality. However, Andrew, as an esteemed economics professor and recognised expert, for you to make a public statement of this nature is pure dishonesty.
Goodness gracious, only four Liberal trolls. They must be out celebrating the disappearance of Whyalla!
Isn’t the idea of the carbon tax to change behaviour rather than provide a stable revenue base? In the first case, a large substitution effect would be seen as desirable and thus raising zero revenue would be considered the perfect outcome. In the second case, a large substitution effect would be seen as completely undesirable as it would imply a large deadweight loss for each dollar of tax revenue raised and therefore would possibly make the tax system more inefficient. Which is it Dr Leigh? To change behaviour or to change the tax mix?
As for the comment: ‘taxes on big polluters going up, taxes on workers going down’, surely as a former professor of economics at one of Australia’s finest universities you would understand the concept of the economic incidence of a tax or price rise? Hence, you would understand that your comment is somewhat meaningless?
These are serious questions and I would appreciate a response.