Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Protectionist threats a lot of hot air

By Geoff Carmody - posted Monday, 5 October 2009


The Luxury Car Tax (LCT) is a special higher tax on expensive cars, applied equally to locally produced cars and imports. The same applies to the Wine Equalisation Tax (WET).

The excises applied to petroleum products, alcohol and tobacco produced in Australia apply equally to imports of these products (“revenue” customs duties).

The principle’s clear. Whatever tax (as a percentage of value, or as a dollar amount per physical quantity) is applied to locally produced goods and services can be applied to imports of those products under current WTO rules.

Advertisement

Any country can set a tax on a given product, determined any way you like, apply it equally to local products and substitute imports, and not breach WTO rules.

Suppose any country sets such taxes based on (i) the carbon emissions price in that country, and (ii) the emissions intensity of locally produced goods and services. Suppose that process also determines the border tax adjustment (BTA) to be applied to imports of the same products, so that percentage or specific tax burdens on imports are the same as on local substitutes.

Such BTAs are WTO-compliant. They are not protectionist. They are competitiveness-neutral.

They are an integral part of a national emissions consumption approach to climate policy.

By eliminating losses of trade competitiveness otherwise incurred by “first movers”, they make an effective (as opposed to pusillanimous) global deal on climate policy more likely.

They remove an obstacle impeding consummation of a global deal in this area since 1992, and, on present trends, likely to continue impeding such a deal in December 2009 and beyond.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

First published in The Australian on September 30, 2009.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy