The worst smelling tax of all, the 'Fart' tax!
Veyron
08-29-2003, 07:35 PM
So what are they suppose to do, get the cattle and sheep to fart less, or just reduce the number of them and severely hurt the economy there? This sounds too much like the crazy shit(no pun intended) that goes on in the US. Stupid solutions to make believe problems.
Feds fear fart tax precedent
21 August 2003
by TERRY TACON
Federated Farmers believes the Government is in danger of undermining New Zealand's competitiveness in agriculture for no good purpose by going ahead with its plan to collect a levy for research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
The farming lobby group has forwarded a submission to the New Zealand Climate Change Office and the Ministry of Agriculture outlining the reasons it is opposed to the levy, which farmers are calling a "fart tax".
Farmers throughout New Zealand are united in their opposition to the tax and have been engaging in a variety of protests since it was first announced. A petition opposing the tax has attracted thousands of signatures.
The submission, prepared by policy analyst Jacob Haronga, says the proposed levy, which would be applied at the rate of 72c for each dairy cow farmers own, 54c for beef cattle and 9c for sheep, is a "completely unjustified imposition on the farming community and should not proceed".
"If the Government wishes to undertake research into ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are over and above those that can be justified on sound investment analysis, in order to appear to meet its undertakings under the Kyoto protocol, then such research should be funded from general taxes.
"We believe that the imposition of this tax to fund public-good activities from targeted groups would set a very dangerous constitutional precedent."
However, the submission says that if the Government decides to ignore the "compelling weight of argument against imposing a tax to be used for public-good purposes on one sector of the population", then it should be collected directly from farmers and not through processors and should be based on the number of animals on farms, not on production through dairy companies or freezing works.
Arguing that the tax is not in the national or global interest, the submission says:
"While the Government's thinking has clearly moved well past the point of productively engaging in rational discussions about the extent, significance and cause of climate change, it is nevertheless important to reiterate that the problem as identified is arguable and the solutions proposed in the way the Government contemplates will do little if anything for global climate change."
It says that New Zealand's tiny contribution to the world's greenhouse gas emissions dispels any notion that a problem exists that New Zealand must fix.
"New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions – of which agricultural emissions are considered to be half – are estimated to be only 0.2% of the world's total. The problem that the Government is endeavouring to address through its tax is thus, based on data that the Government itself admits is crude, only 0.1% of the world's total. By any rational judgment this cannot be described as a problem and certainly any solution to it will be no solution on a global scale."
The submissions contends that the Government's policy package adds costs and undermines New Zealand's competitiveness for no demonstrable benefit.
"Given New Zealand's low-energy-input pastoral production system, the Federation considers that it is in the best global interest for the New Zealand livestock production system to be expanded. In this situation it is difficult to see why New Zealand is proposing to inflict economic pain on itself through the proposed tax."
On the issue of investment the submission says that the proposed tax can be seriously challenged in terms of both amelioration of climate change and productivity gains and at $8.4 million per annum would represent a serious misallocation of resources.
Discussing the contention that agricultural emissions are New Zealand's problem because, in the Government's view, "New Zealand is unique among developed nations in its economic reliance on agriculture, while the attention of the industrialised world is focused more on industrial and transport emissions," the submission says:
"New Zealand may well be unique among developed nations in its reliance on agriculture, but this certainly does not justify a misguided investment on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries, while being economically less reliant on agriculture than New Zealand, are nevertheless bigger producers and therefore bigger polluters.
"For example, New Zealand has about 4 million dairy cows, but the US has 9 million and Europe 18 million. And yet no other country is even contemplating inflicting a tax on its agricultural sector."
The submission says there is no guarantee farmers will be able to increase productivity or reduce production costs as a result of the research and by uniquely investing in agricultural greenhouse gas emission research New Zealand may simply incur costs but no benefit and risk misallocating resources.
Federated Farmers says that under the Kyoto protocol New Zealand is expected to have 105 million tonnes of carbon credits, resulting from forests planted since 1990 and half of which are on farmland.
"It is estimated that the value of credits to farmers is about half a billion dollars, but the Government has decided to take these credits in public ownership. So farmers have already been forced to pay a significant amount towards meeting the Government's Kyoto commitments.
"By nationalising the credits and privatising the debits, the Government is a clear winner and the suggestion that farmers should pay again through an emission research tax is insulting
Feds fear fart tax precedent
21 August 2003
by TERRY TACON
Federated Farmers believes the Government is in danger of undermining New Zealand's competitiveness in agriculture for no good purpose by going ahead with its plan to collect a levy for research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
The farming lobby group has forwarded a submission to the New Zealand Climate Change Office and the Ministry of Agriculture outlining the reasons it is opposed to the levy, which farmers are calling a "fart tax".
Farmers throughout New Zealand are united in their opposition to the tax and have been engaging in a variety of protests since it was first announced. A petition opposing the tax has attracted thousands of signatures.
The submission, prepared by policy analyst Jacob Haronga, says the proposed levy, which would be applied at the rate of 72c for each dairy cow farmers own, 54c for beef cattle and 9c for sheep, is a "completely unjustified imposition on the farming community and should not proceed".
"If the Government wishes to undertake research into ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which are over and above those that can be justified on sound investment analysis, in order to appear to meet its undertakings under the Kyoto protocol, then such research should be funded from general taxes.
"We believe that the imposition of this tax to fund public-good activities from targeted groups would set a very dangerous constitutional precedent."
However, the submission says that if the Government decides to ignore the "compelling weight of argument against imposing a tax to be used for public-good purposes on one sector of the population", then it should be collected directly from farmers and not through processors and should be based on the number of animals on farms, not on production through dairy companies or freezing works.
Arguing that the tax is not in the national or global interest, the submission says:
"While the Government's thinking has clearly moved well past the point of productively engaging in rational discussions about the extent, significance and cause of climate change, it is nevertheless important to reiterate that the problem as identified is arguable and the solutions proposed in the way the Government contemplates will do little if anything for global climate change."
It says that New Zealand's tiny contribution to the world's greenhouse gas emissions dispels any notion that a problem exists that New Zealand must fix.
"New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions – of which agricultural emissions are considered to be half – are estimated to be only 0.2% of the world's total. The problem that the Government is endeavouring to address through its tax is thus, based on data that the Government itself admits is crude, only 0.1% of the world's total. By any rational judgment this cannot be described as a problem and certainly any solution to it will be no solution on a global scale."
The submissions contends that the Government's policy package adds costs and undermines New Zealand's competitiveness for no demonstrable benefit.
"Given New Zealand's low-energy-input pastoral production system, the Federation considers that it is in the best global interest for the New Zealand livestock production system to be expanded. In this situation it is difficult to see why New Zealand is proposing to inflict economic pain on itself through the proposed tax."
On the issue of investment the submission says that the proposed tax can be seriously challenged in terms of both amelioration of climate change and productivity gains and at $8.4 million per annum would represent a serious misallocation of resources.
Discussing the contention that agricultural emissions are New Zealand's problem because, in the Government's view, "New Zealand is unique among developed nations in its economic reliance on agriculture, while the attention of the industrialised world is focused more on industrial and transport emissions," the submission says:
"New Zealand may well be unique among developed nations in its reliance on agriculture, but this certainly does not justify a misguided investment on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries, while being economically less reliant on agriculture than New Zealand, are nevertheless bigger producers and therefore bigger polluters.
"For example, New Zealand has about 4 million dairy cows, but the US has 9 million and Europe 18 million. And yet no other country is even contemplating inflicting a tax on its agricultural sector."
The submission says there is no guarantee farmers will be able to increase productivity or reduce production costs as a result of the research and by uniquely investing in agricultural greenhouse gas emission research New Zealand may simply incur costs but no benefit and risk misallocating resources.
Federated Farmers says that under the Kyoto protocol New Zealand is expected to have 105 million tonnes of carbon credits, resulting from forests planted since 1990 and half of which are on farmland.
"It is estimated that the value of credits to farmers is about half a billion dollars, but the Government has decided to take these credits in public ownership. So farmers have already been forced to pay a significant amount towards meeting the Government's Kyoto commitments.
"By nationalising the credits and privatising the debits, the Government is a clear winner and the suggestion that farmers should pay again through an emission research tax is insulting
Toksin
08-29-2003, 09:16 PM
Old news pal...
zebrathree
08-30-2003, 04:49 AM
Very old.
Since when have the Federated Farmers been known as "The Feds"?
Since when have the Federated Farmers been known as "The Feds"?
taranaki
08-31-2003, 04:03 AM
Very old.
Since when have the Federated Farmers been known as "The Feds"?
Common enough term in the 'naki.The concept is simple.Do some research into feedstuffs,with a view to reducing methane production by farm animals.The 'fart tax' is a press invention,since most of the 'greenhouse gases' come out of the opposite end of the livestock.Of course,research costs money,and on this occasion,it has been deemed that the polluters should pay.The fact that livestock are producing environmentally harmful waste should be seen as no different from factory waste.After all,farms are nothing more than factories for food.
Since when have the Federated Farmers been known as "The Feds"?
Common enough term in the 'naki.The concept is simple.Do some research into feedstuffs,with a view to reducing methane production by farm animals.The 'fart tax' is a press invention,since most of the 'greenhouse gases' come out of the opposite end of the livestock.Of course,research costs money,and on this occasion,it has been deemed that the polluters should pay.The fact that livestock are producing environmentally harmful waste should be seen as no different from factory waste.After all,farms are nothing more than factories for food.
zebrathree
09-03-2003, 01:08 AM
Cheers Naki. I didnt realise they were called that up there. Sounds like a Mob thing.
You havent got a cow mafia up there haver you? :eek7:
You havent got a cow mafia up there haver you? :eek7:
taranaki
09-03-2003, 04:04 AM
Cheers Naki. I didnt realise they were called that up there. Sounds like a Mob thing.
You havent got a cow mafia up there haver you? :eek7:
Only the cockies' wives.
http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif
You havent got a cow mafia up there haver you? :eek7:
Only the cockies' wives.
http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif http://www.the-jungle.net/emotes/fun16.gif
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025