NZ Cow burp tax

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-ze...urps-1.6612302

New Zealand's government on Tuesday proposed taxing the greenhouse gases that farm animals make from burping and peeing as part of a plan to tackle climate change.

The government said the farm levy would be a world first, and that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

But farmers quickly condemned the plan. Federated Farmers, the industry's main lobby group, said the plan would "rip the guts out of small town New Zealand" and see farms replaced with trees.

Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard said farmers had been trying to work with the government for more than two years on an emissions reduction plan that wouldn't decrease food production.

"Our plan was to keep farmers farming," Hoggard said. Instead, he said farmers would be selling their farms "so fast you won't even hear the dogs barking on the back of the ute (pickup truck) as they drive off."

Opposition lawmakers from the conservative ACT Party said the plan would actually increase worldwide emissions by moving farming to other countries that were less efficient at making food.

[Occam's Banana]

The government said [...] that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

Yeah, sure, because that's how it works - increasing your revenues is just a matter of increasing your prices.

I don't know if these people are just really that profoundly stupid, or if they full-well know better and are expecting others to be that profoundly stupid.

[Occam's Banana]

Federated Farmers president Andrew Hoggard said farmers had been trying to work with the government for more than two years on an emissions reduction plan that wouldn't decrease food production.

Well, there's your problem, right there.

Trying to "work with" thieves and robbers (instead of rejecting and fighting them) can only get you plundered.

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win." -- Ayn Rand

But farmers quickly condemned the plan. Federated Farmers, the industry's main lobby group, said the plan would "rip the guts out of small town New Zealand" and see small farms replaced with trees HyperMegaGloboCorp farms.

Fixed.

The rise of latter-day latifundia mirrors that of the Late Roman Republic (which laid the groundwork for medieval serfdom). The Roman version of the phenomenon resulted in mass civil unrest and involved institution-breaking fights that contributed significantly to the transformation of the Roman republic into the Roman empire.

[Anti Globalist]

Imagine being the person that gets hired to write down every time a cow burps or pees.

[idiom]

Yeah, sure, because that's how it works - increasing your revenues is just a matter of increasing your prices.

I don't know if these people are just really that profoundly stupid, or if they full-well know better and are expecting others to be that profoundly stupid.

We export very top shelf $#@!. If its carbon netural beef or lamb then that sticker is worth paying more for for a lot of people. Like nuclear free. Its dippy but its what our export customers want.

[Occam's Banana]

We export very top shelf $#@!. If its carbon netural beef or lamb then that sticker is worth paying more for for a lot of people. Like nuclear free. Its dippy but its what our export customers want.

It doesn't matter how "top shelf" your "$#@!" is - if you increase your prices, people are going to buy less of your "$#@!" than they did before.

Regardless of whether they are selling "top shelf $#@!" or cheap junk, sellers cannot simply increase their prices in order to increase their revenues.

The Law of Demand is a thing. This is elementary first-week Economics 101.

[idiom]

It doesn't matter how "top shelf" your "$#@!" is - if you increase your prices, people are going to buy less of your "$#@!" than they did before.

Regardless of whether they are selling "top shelf $#@!" or cheap junk, sellers cannot simply increase their prices in order to increase their revenues.

The Law of Demand is a thing. This is elementary first-week Economics 101.

If you are selling commodities.

If one price is for carbon polluting beef and the other is for carbon neutral beef then their demands and supplies and prices are independent except for willingness to substitute down.

Its called marketing 101.

[acptulsa]

If you are selling commodities.

If one price is for carbon polluting beef and the other is for carbon neutral beef then their demands and supplies and prices are independent except for willingness to substitute down.

Its called marketing 101.

You talk about the willingness to substitute down like it's a minor matter, of little consequence. It'll be interesting to see if the market concurs.

[TheTexan]

One could almost come to the conclusion that the goal isn't less emissions... it's less food.

[Occam's Banana]

If you are selling commodities.

If one price is for carbon polluting beef and the other is for carbon neutral beef then their demands and supplies and prices are independent except for willingness to substitute down.

Its called marketing 101.

So increasing sellers' expenses (for example, by the imposition of new farm levies) can be simply and easily offset just by making more-expensive-to-produce goods - and then marketing them under the rubric of "climate friendliness" or "carbon neutrality" or whatnot and demanding higher prices for them (i.e.., "charging more for climate-friendly products") ...

LOL OK

So why weren't those sellers doing that all along, before the imposition of those new levies?

After all, if you are correct, then doing so ought necessarily to have netted them even greater profits (or at least more revenue) than they would otherwise have made.

IOW: If "farmers should be able to recoup the cost [of the levies] by charging more for climate-friendly products" - and if this is merely a matter of "marketing 101" - then why the hell weren't they just doing that to begin with (before the levies) and pocketing the difference?

[TheTexan]

If you are selling commodities.

If one price is for carbon polluting beef and the other is for carbon neutral beef then their demands and supplies and prices are independent except for willingness to substitute down.

Its called marketing 101.

Personally, I'm willing to pay a premium for any beef that was raised with an intention of wrecking the atmosphere as much as possible.

[Dr.3D]

So who benefits from the tax?

[Occam's Banana]

You talk about the willingness to substitute down like it's a minor matter, of little consequence. It'll be interesting to see if the market concurs.

Especially since one of the purposes of this kind of nonsense is to eliminate those down-substitutes in the first place.

If you can't lower expenses or prices for your goods, then force the other guy to increase his.

(HyperMegaGloboCorp will certainly appreciate your assistance in eliminating their marginal competitors.)

[TheTexan]

So who benefits from the tax?

Big cricket, or the cricket industrial complex

[Occam's Banana]

So who benefits from the tax?

(1) the State
(2) (1a) HyperMegaGloboCorp

[acptulsa]

Especially since one of the purposes of this kind of nonsense is to eliminate those down-substitutes in the first place.

If you can't lower expenses or prices for your goods, then force the other guy to increase his.

(HyperMegaGloboCorp will certainly appreciate your assistance in eliminating their marginal competitors.)

Nixon's hyper-regulation regime certainly did for Ford and GM what even bribing the hell out of the MIC and their government stooges (anyone remember Charlie Wilson and Robert McNamara?) couldn't. It killed AMC, damn near killed Chrysler (did marginalize it right out of Australia, Europe, Africa and South America), and forced Fiat, Peugeot, Renault, Citröen, all British Leyland products but their trucks, and several others right out of the U.S. market.

[idiom]

Nixon's hyper-regulation regime certainly did for Ford and GM what even bribing the hell out of the MIC and their government stooges (anyone remember Charlie Wilson and Robert McNamara?) couldn't. It killed AMC, damn near killed Chrysler (did marginalize it right out of Australia, Europe, Africa and South America), and forced Fiat, Peugeot, Renault, Citröen, all British Leyland products but their trucks, and several others right out of the U.S. market.

Farmers in NZ are the least regulated and entirely unsubsidized. The regulations that exist tend to be pretty clean and simple. Its why our farms are so competitive.

Whereas in the American regime importing sugar is illegal so you gotta make all your $#@! out of corn? And pay tax to give to the corn farmers on top of that?

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Do overweight obese humans have more waste than those of normal weight? Do they also require and consume more resources therefore also contributing more than others?

[Pauls' Revere]

Imagine being the person that gets hired to write down every time a cow burps or pees.

Probably use remote monitoring.
https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.co...and%20location.

Get used to it. First its cows, then its humans.

[Occam's Banana]

The government said [...] that farmers should be able to recoup the cost by charging more for climate-friendly products.

No word yet on how consumers "should be able to recoup the cost".

Meanwhile, in completely unrelated news:

https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/...52153483472896

[Dr.3D]

(1) the State
(2) (1a) HyperMegaGloboCorp

Maybe the state should find a better way to rob people.

[TheTexan]

Maybe the state should find a better way to rob people.

What better way to rob people, than in the name of "climate change"?

[Dr.3D]

What better way to rob people, than in the name of "climate change"?

But it's so obvious.