@ iggy_oi, your questions have been answered lots of times.
There are several postulates in discussion here:
1) Stuff (heating, electricity, food, transportation, property taxes) will cost more for everyone.
2) The effects of the changes to the costs for heavy industry (corporate tax, uncertainty, emissions caps, carbon taxes, property taxes) will be a reduction in activity in that sector, over and above the problems with resource prices.
3) Some employees will cost more for some businesses, leading to:
4) Some marginal businesses will go out of business,
5) And some low-skill employees will be laid off or have hours cut.
...and some potential positives
6) Some low-skill employees will have more spending money.
7) Increasing the public service will help the economy
8) The carbon taxes will lead to growth in the environmental sector
The contention of your detractors is that the positives for 6-8 are much more than outweighed by the negatives of all the other groups. Your detractors include businesspeople like myself who actually make hiring and investment decisions, and who are privy to the activity of heavy industry.
You refuse to acknowledge the other negatives, and/or contend that the positives of the not laid off low-skill group's increased purchasing power (and other positives) will outweigh those negatives. Your detractors disagree on one or more or all points. It's all rather circular.
|