Climate change – Australian government further entrenches the market myth

I have very little time again today so I will have to type quickly. Yesterday, the Australian government announced it has scrapped its proposed $15 per tonne carbon price floor as part of the new Carbon Tax that it brought into law in July 2012. With the introduction of the carbon price in July 2012, the biggest polluters pay $A23 per tonne for the carbon they emit. The Government plans to allow this system (the Carbon Tax) to evolve into an emissions trading scheme (ETS) on July 1, 2015 so that instead of setting the price for carbon the government will set the quotas and let the market set the price. Yesterday, the Government made one significant change to their proposed 2015 move to an ETS. It announced that from July 1, 2015, Australia will partially link its carbon pricing system to the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). This move only entrenches the mistakes that are evident in the first proposal. Quite apart from the problems of a pure ETS, the schemes that are proposed are so politically compromised that their “market credentials” vanish. The problem of carbon emissions should be approached via rules-based regulation rather than a half-cocked neo-liberal market-based solution which will reward big polluters, lawyers and hedge funds.

Here are the media releases and fact sheets that the Government provided yesterday as part of its announcement.

In this document – What does a partial link between the Australian and European systems mean? – we learn that:

A partial link between the Australian and European systems is an interim step towards a full link no later than July 2018. Under a partial link, Australian businesses will be able to use European allowances to meet up to 50 per cent of their liabilities under the Australian scheme from the commencement of the flexible price period in July 2015. This will ensure that Australian businesses have access to a broader range of credible, low-cost abatement. The Australian emissions trading system will be in its initial stages and this will provide access to credits from a more established market to allow smoother introduction of emissions trading in Australia.

That is our big carbon polluters will be able to purchase half of their permits from within the EU ETS. So an Australian firm can use units bought from the EU ETS to satisfy compliance requirements in the Australian ETS. The Government claims that the principle benefits are that it reduces “the cost of cutting carbon pollution”, increases “market liquidity” (aka as providing more opportunities for hedge funds to manipulate currencies and other financial assets) and supports “global cooperation on climate change”.

The Government also said it:

… will not proceed with the implementation of its price floor and will limit the use of Kyoto Protocol eligible international units under the Australian scheme. In addition, Australia will set its price ceiling with reference to the expected 2015-16 price of European allowances.

The previous plan announced by the Government proposed a floor price of $15 per tonne, which they claimed would stop any price crash when the system was introduced in 2015 (note above: current carbon tax is $A25 per tonne).

Kyoto units relate to offsets which are calibrated in “eligible emission units” representing one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. Here is some information from the Australian government –
Eligible emissions units
– about this issue.

Kyoto removal units (RMUs) are “issued by a Kyoto Protocol country on the basis of land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3.3 or 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol”. There are some restrictions on what activities can be engaged in these nations to earn RMUs (for example, establishing nuclear energy projects in some Kyoto Protocol country will not cut it – at present).

There are three types of “eligible international units”:

  • certified emission reductions (CERs) from Clean Development Mechanism projects under the Kyoto Protocol, other than temporary CERs, long-term CERs, and CERs from nuclear projects, the destruction of trifluoromethane, the destruction of nitrous oxide from adipic acid plants or from large-scale hydro-electric projects not consistent with criteria adopted by the EU (based on the World Commission on Dams guidelines)
  • emission reduction units (ERUs) from Joint Implementation projects under the Kyoto Protocol, other than ERUs from nuclear projects, the destruction of trifluoromethane, the destruction of nitrous oxide from adipic acid plants or from large-scale hydro-electric projects not consistent with criteria adopted by the European Union (EU) (based on the World Commission on Dams guidelines)
  • removal units (RMUs) issued by a Kyoto Protocol country on the basis of land use, land-use change and forestry activities under Article 3.3 or 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, and any other international units that the Government may allow by regulation.

Whereas the original plan allowed up to 50 per cent of the permits to be sourced from these Kyoto units, the new proposal restricts that to 12.5 per cent. I will comment later on what all that means really.

The media reaction today has been focused on two issues:

1. That the European price might remain low (currently at $A9.80 per tonne) and so the market incentives to reduce carbon-intensive emissions will be low.

2. That the move will “blow a hole” in the Federal budget – The Sydney Morning Herald article (August 29, 2012) – Emissions trading easier to sell when it goes global said that:

Reducing or truncating the application of the $23 price would blow a hole in the budget in the immediate term and leave the government unable to pay the compensation and tax cuts that the carbon tax is funding.

The article also argued that:

PUTTING a floor price on carbon pollution when the carbon tax morphed into an emissions trading scheme in 2015 was always a silly idea.

If it were to be a fully-fledged trading scheme, linked to overseas schemes such as that in Europe, then an artificial $15 floor price would have been a major hurdle.

The problem is that the proposed ETS (and the present Carbon Tax) is so compromised with exemptions (from the tax) and subsidies (for those affected by the tax) that it is hardly a market.

The proposed ETS will generously exempt or compensate the heavy polluters and indefinitely exclude agriculture, which is about the largest emitter. The plan also will allow farmers to generate carbon credits (for sale) to other big polluter. The scheme is so politically compromised that its claim to be an “efficient market response” to climate change is a joke.

The end result will be no significant climate change response will be achieved but there will be some very rich companies, lawyers and financial market traders.

Please read my blog – Its all a matter of construction – for more discussion on this point.

The neo-liberals on bikes (The Greens) caved in (“compromised”) by allowing the floor price to be abandoned. They claim that the quid pro quo was the “reduction in the number of cheap permits companies could buy from developing countries”. Sure enough – but no offsets would be better. Please read my blog – Neo-liberals on bikes … – for more discussion relating to The Greens.

This Sydney Morning Op Ed piece (August 28, 2012) – European deal is a carbon PR coup – applauds the announcement but says that:

There are negative aspects to the move. It’s bad news for some hardened climate activists, who support climate action but not emissions trading. It’s also potentially bad news for those who support preserving tropical forests as a means of storing carbon, as the EU does not accept these credits into its scheme.

Count me among the “hardened” ones.

The ABC News report (August 29, 2012) – Scrapping carbon floor raises budget uncertainty reported that a Canberra Think Tank (Australia Institute) claimed that:

… the Federal Government’s decision to scrap the floor price on carbon is likely to lead to a hole in future budgets.

It is true that the Treasury carbon price forecasts, which were underpinning, in part, the Government’s obsessive pursuit of a budget surplus in the coming fiscal year are way to optimistic.

The Government has also said it will not withdraw any of the ridiculous subsidies it has given to households to essentially render the impacts of the carbon tax neutral. Which raises the question – if you believe in market-based solutions – then the price has to discourage quantity (in this case). By insulating consumers of carbon-based products from the tax where is the large substitution away from carbon-intensive products going to come from?

The Australian Institute claims to be progressive. Unfortunately their first statement on the issue merely perpetuates the neo-liberal myths pertaining to budgets. What exactly is a budget black hole?

Every day the government is crediting private bank accounts (directly or via cheque issuance) to pursue its socio-economic program. Each day also, they collect tax revenue by debiting private bank accounts (or writing receipts over counters to payees). The tax revenue is accounted for but “doesn’t go anywhere” in a physical sense.

A deficit arises when the spending exceeds the revenue and the net result is an addition of net financial assets (bank reserves). In achieving this outcome, the government hopes that its spending will boost aggregate demand (“finance” the leakages from the income-expenditure system), and, hence maintain high levels of employment and material prosperity.

The only hole I can see is one that needs to be filled. That is the spending gap – the leakages from the income-expenditure system – that are created when there is a CAD and/or a desire by the private sector to save.

Budget deficits should aim to fill that hole in and not allow aggregate demand to “fall through it”, which would lead to income and employment collapses.

If budget deficits are underwriting income growth, then workers can enjoying secure employment and achieve their saving desires.

Please read my blog – We are in trouble – squirrels are falling down holes – for more discussion on this point.

In 2009, I was one of the presenters on the special ABC Radio National Saturday Extra forum on the future for Australian coal. You can find a short film extract (13 odd minutes) from the Forum HERE and you can listen to the full 35 minute segment that they created from a meeting which lasted around 90 minutes HERE.

The following You Tube videos provide an edited version of the event – it is in two parts (to fit Youtube’s maximum 10 minute restriction at that time). The Federal Minister is featured in the first part with some energy industry players. I appear in the second part.

In general, I favour a rules-based regulation approach rather than a market-based approach to this issue. This is the first fundamental issue that has to be debated.

This distinction – choice – is not central in the public debate because of the dominance of the neo-liberal ideology. Even The Greens are not advancing rules-based regulation in any coherent way.

The important point is that carbon trading schemes (CTS) are neo-liberal constructs which start with the presumption that a free market is the best way to organise allocation. The Australian Government’s ETS fits into this box.

They recognise market-failure – that is negative externalities arising from the fact that the true cost of carbon use is not reflected in the final price we pay in the goods and services that rely on it and hence we over allocate resources to those industries. The ETS aims to reduce emissions through price incentives. But as I argue below they are deeply flawed as a result of their rationalist underpinnings.

The ETS amounts to nothing more than a privatisation of the commons asset which we call the atmosphere. I cannot believe progressive thinkers (including The Greens) would ever contemplate supporting such an approach. The ETS would create private property relations over public space.

In this blog – In this blog – Australia’s response to climate change gets worse … – I outline for non-economists how carbon taxes and trading schemes work.

As noted above, it should be obvious that if the government doesn’t allow the market to fully price the price of carbon – because it provides free permits or exemptions, then even within the logic of the market-based approach you will get market failure.

That is, the market outcome will not properly price the true cost of the carbon emissions and the process by which consumers change their demands away from polluting goods and services will be compromised such that there will be “too many” polluting and “too few” clean goods and services. Market efficiency in the mainstream sense can never be achieved under these circumstances.

The subsidies that the Australian Government is proposing to hand out (which exceed the revenue it expects to gain from permit sales) basically insulates petrol, electricity demand, coal exports, agriculture and more from the cold winds of reform. So while they claim they are using a market-based system that claim is fraudulent. The design of the proposed ETS actually makes a mockery of the logic of the market-based approach.

The European Commission introduced a quantity-based (capped) carbon trading system (CTS) with offsets. This is the scheme we are now proposing to link into.

Phase I of the EU ETS was a disaster when more permits were issued than there was pollution and the market collapsed from the excess supply of permits. Go the European leadership!

Phase II of the scheme was fatally compromised by heavy lobbying from large polluters who were able to gain under priced pollution permits. There was also a noted arrogance of the EU which permitted use of about 35 per cent of the global carbon dump while Europe has only about 12 per cent of World’s population.

The plan also introduced what was known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which was an offset system allowing polluters in Europe to invest in emissions-reduction infrastructure in poor and developing countries and then use the “offsets” to avoid undertaking more costly emission reductions in Europe.

These offsets are the same that I defined above.

There is ample evidence of the projects having disastrous effects in poor countries and regions. There has been very little technology transfer from the rich to poor countries. The projects undertaken have often brought civic leaders in poor countries into conflict with land-holders with the latter enduring significant reductions in their capacity to feed themselves.

The CDM accelerated the exploitation of local subsistence communities in poor countries. In addition, corruption and disregard from culture and community is rife in the creation of these offsets.

Australia is just joining the merry throng of post-colonial oppressors.

As time has passed, it is clear that the big winners in the EU ETS have been the heavy polluters and the hedge funds (at least prior to the crisis) while the losers have been consumers, the environment, and poor communities.

Market-based systems are insensitive to equity issues. The proposed ETS will hand out property rights to big polluters but there is no equity considerations built into this approach which is no surprise because markets are not equitable.

Moreover, markets are insensitive to biological systems. The mainstream economics approach is that you can pay for pollution through more growth. We have to generate wealth before we can clean the place up. Many progressives also believe this line.

Mainstream economic theories about resource efficiency are based on the idea of a production possibilities frontier where maximum output is obtained through some optimal mix of inputs (including pollution). The only thing you need to do is make sure the true costs of all resources are reflected in the mix.

That theory underpins the idea of an ETS. Cap schemes assume there is some known pollution level that is safe. But market systems do not know when a biological system dies – so we need to be more risk averse than economists would recommend. There may be a point – that we certainly cannot predict with any accuracy – beyond which there is no trade-off between pollution and other goods and services. After that point the planet dies.

This recent UK Guardian article (August 27, 2012) by George Monbiot – Along with the Arctic ice, the rich world’s smugness will melt – is apposite here.

He says:

What we are seeing, here and now, is the transformation of the atmospheric physics of this planet. Three weeks before the likely minimum, the melting of Arctic sea ice has already broken the record set in 2007. The daily rate of loss is now 50% higher than it was that year. The daily sense of loss – of the world we loved and knew – cannot be quantified so easily.

So the climate change science appears to be right – which means that major changes are required now. But structural change that are required will require us to leave most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. Systems governing transport, community organisation, agriculture, production and more will need to change – very quickly.

The ETS proposed by the Government – which is so compromised that it will, at best, lead to reductions of a few per cent per year are not consistent with the scale and immediacy of the structural changes required.


I would take a rules-based approach to reducing carbon emissions. I would not provide any further incentives to the coal industry to research clean coal. I would instead impose a sunset condition – industry closure regulation on the industry – say 2030 and if they can come up with a clean coal solution then well and good.

Meanwhile I would be fast-tracking investment in renewable base load generation capacity as a matter of priority.

While issuing the shut-down rule I would also increase the carbon tax in the meantime with no exemptions to force the industry to more realistically price the cost of production and to fast-track the entry of renewables. The funds raised would not “finance” anything – but reflect another important role of taxation in MMT – to alter the allocation of resources away from “bads”.

European Commission major conference – Jobs for Europe

The European Commission is holding its – Jobs for Europe: The Employment Policy Conference – next week in Brussels (September 6-7, 2012).

The Conference site says:

The conference will build on the Employment Package put forward by the Commission on 18 April and on the outcomes of the 2012 European Semester, but also on a series of conferences which the Commission organised during 2011 in order to explore new dimensions of employment policy, notably regarding the functioning of European labour markets, wage developments, flexicurity in a crisis context, and inequalities.

One of the five main topics is “Pathways to full employment: job guarantee, social economy, welfare to work”.

I have been invited to lead a discussion on the Job Guarantee – which as regular readers will know – is a pet topic and something I first started working on in 1978 as an honours student (fourth-year undergraduate).

The EC has prepared this document – Issues paper: Job guarantee – Concept and implementation – to inform the session I am presenting. It is an excellent sign that the EC is now considering core Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) ideas to be of sufficient merit to include as one of the main topics of this major European conference.

The draft program is available HERE.

While attendance at the Conference is “by invitation only” it will “be web streamed live”. When I know more details I will announce them here.

I am looking forward to it although more travel is pending! During this trip I will also go to Maastricht as usual this time of the year and then spend four days in London.

Then I will make a very big announcement!

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

This Post Has 19 Comments

  1. Which raises the question – if you believe in market-based solutions – then the price has to discourage quantity (in this case). By insulating consumers of carbon-based products from the tax where is the large substitution away from carbon-intensive products going to come from?

    Struth, you still don’t know???

    Some of it will come from consumers. The compo they get is unrelated to their consumption, so some will decrease their consumption and pocket the money. The rest will come from producers switching to greener alternatives because of the increased economic incentive to do so.

    The only hole I can see is one that needs to be filled. That is the spending gap – the leakages from the income-expenditure system – that are created when there is a CAD and/or a desire by the private sector to save.

    Budget deficits should aim to fill that hole in and not allow aggregate demand to “fall through it”, which would lead to income and employment collapses.

    No, budget deficits should only aim to fill the hole when other methods to fill it are failing. Right now it would be far better to slash interest rates.

  2. Look, if you’re going to announce the blog is shutting down, don’t bother. The only result will be we end up enrolling at Newcastle and continue pestering you.

  3. Perhaps Bill is going to open up an on-line degree course! (Based around his forthcoming book?).
    I suspect he would be swamped with applications from both the young and old!

  4. A market in goods makes reasonable sense. Homo economicus desires to consume or possess goods. The government does not have to legislate a desire for goods. On the other hand, a market in “bads”, i.e. negative externalities, is a total nonsense. There is no desire by homo economicus to possess or consume negative externalities (if this were possible) nor is there any desire by homo economicus to pay for the negative externalities inflicted on others.

    That being so, a rules based approach to negative externalities is the ONLY possible approach. A simple carbon tax requires a rule based or laws and regulations approach and so does a complex ETS. Either we can have the simple, direct mechanism of a pigovian tax on a negative externality OR we can have a complex indirect method, the ETS, requiring an elaborate set of artifices and devices to create a sham market in a negative externality.

    Why is the simple and direct method shunned? Simple, it is not gameable. It does not have loopholes. It does not faciliate rent seeking. It cannot be played on the market, It is not open to the hundred and one shonky tricks that are possible with an ETS.

    The Western economic system has become sclerotic and ideologically hidebound in that everything must be rendered as a sacrifice to the market altar (especially the finance setor) and no other values human or environmental are entertained or permitted. The grossly maladaptive nature of this system now looks certain to deliver an ecological catastrophe. The people who really make me laugh (in a black humour sort of way) are those who say the economy is more important than the environment. They don’t understand the very simple fact that if there is no liveable, sustaining environment left then there will be NO economy either.

  5. “and then spend four days in London”

    Please tell me you’re coming here to educate the next Chancellor of the Exchequer!

  6. @Richard1

    Would love that. I’ve just started a free online course run by the University of Pennsylvania on – there are 63,000 students enrolled. Seems a good place to get MMT ideas out to a wide and eager audience.

  7. The technical solution to climate change is nuclear power. For reasons I don’t know, Australia seems to be particularly anti-nuclear. In any case, nuclear power will be the energy technology of this century (2+2 = 4). Maybe that will be generally accepted about the same time as MMT.

  8. “The technical solution to climate change is nuclear power.”

    Yep. I find that amusing as well.

    If climate change is the most serious problem on Earth bar none, then the few issues with nuclear power pale into insignificance in comparison.

    Even more so once we start throwing serious resources behind Thorium reactors and Fusion.

  9. do not hold your breath for fusion .stars are inhospitable places
    one hears in the mainstream about defecit deniers terrible legacy for the next generation
    but denial of defecit investment could be truly catastrophic
    with huge capital outlay asset price volatility and declining disposable incomes restricting revenue stream .
    add on more expensive less net energy mining of fossil fuels(deep in the ocean etc)
    I am not sure private capital can keep the lights on for the rest of this century
    so maybe capitalism can save the planet by failing
    when it comes to securing enough carbon neutral energy generation the need for government net spending
    is perhaps most urgent
    thorium is the safest fission option
    but wave and large scale solar will last till the moon and sun falls (as will national debts if nations survive)
    I think it is possible to argue that govt defecit financing of energy generation is an example
    of defecits being deflationary
    such subsidy fighting against energy inflation
    which has fueled inflation throughout the economy in the past (sorry)
    as well as providing trade defecit stability as fission plants can provide local energy production

  10. Emissions Trading Schemes are a rort and one does not need to be an economist to see that.They are also just another way for the fossil fuel industry and their hirelings in government to kick the can down the road. Anything to avoid tackling the problem of carbon emissions in a meaningful way.

    A Carbon Tax could have some good effects if set at an appropriate level,no exemptions and steeply increasing over time.The proposal by James Hansen of fee and 100% reimbursement to the citizens is a good one.

    However,this sort of financial wangling is not going to remove coal and gas from base load electricity generation which is responsible for well over 50% of our carbon emissions. This needs to be done urgently and the only proven clean technology we have available is nuclear.

    Renewables,aka unreliables,will not cut it now and probably never will.

  11. “Renewables,aka unreliables,will not cut it now and probably never will.”

    Not sure if you noticed, but all that oil we’ve been burning got it’s energy from solar power. Took millions of years, but at ridiculously low efficiency rates. Oil has certainly been reliable enough for me – all it’s done is lock in fusion energy generated by Sol into a nice storage mechanism for us.

    A solar panel hooked up to a battery does the exact same thing. Is there really such a poverty of imagination that you think we won’t be able to figure out how to use solar properly – ever? Not even in a thousand years? Really? We are already orbiting a free, massive fusion reactor. All we have to do is cup our hands and catch the energy.

  12. I have to say I am extremely sceptical of scientists who spend too much time looking at computer models and not working in the field…
    The Earths systems are so complex and well large — its too big to do much about anyway , there are far more pressing medium scale environmental and natural resourse constraints.

    There is such a thing as the Sun – Its a bit warm I gather and it has these solar cycle thingies.
    When its quiet and blank NW Europe gets a bit more dry with cold anticyclonic winters and warm sunny summers , when the sun is active and spotty NW Europe gets wetter , with colder cloudier summers and warmer winters……I imagine other areas of the globe experience different stuff.

    If the weather is somehow modified by man I suspect it could be soot levels blocking the sun or absorbing infra red coming back off the ground.
    If so different economic activities could change the climate much more rapidly , indeed change the daily weather.
    Perhaps the very strong jet stream in Ireland this year is a result of American power plants switching from coal to Gas.
    Who really knows for sure ?
    The religious certainty of this debate amongest most is a western scientific embarrassment.

    Economists have done enough damage withen their chosen field – please don’t do anything remotely scientific- it will result in a catostrophy for sure.

  13. Grigory, I’m not sure solar has the potential ‘grunt’ to satisfy the truly enormous, and growing energy demand from China and India with their huge populations. And there still remains the issue of storage to be resolved. We need cheap, reliable, long lasting batteries made of materials in abundant supply, in order for solar to scale to a level where it can provide a significant part of our energy needs. It might make sense here in Australia with our vast sunny space, and small population, I’m just not convinced it can do the same thing in other more populous countries.

    The advantage I see with nuclear, is it has very high energy density, so you don’t have to cover tens of thousands of hectares with solar cells to provide you with enough electricity. It’s more in line with the historical trend towards denser, more convenient sorces of energy.

    Steve, along with it’s intrisic association with atomic weapons, I think nuclear has a bad rap because the decision was taken decades ago, to adapt the inhehently more complex, less safe reactor technology used in weapons programs, to power generation. So when they go wrong, they can go very, very wrong, as we saw with Chernobyl. Technologies, like the Thorium reactor Neil mentions, are inherently safer, but no good for making bombs, so never really got the funding.

  14. hamish:

    Solar does indeed have the grunt. Here’s a lovely link explaining how much energy is available:
    You would need about 500,000 square kilometers, about the area of Spain, to power the entire world in 2030. That’s about 12 times the land usage of all our golf courses. The beauty of that is that it can be partially distributed – a solar panel on each roof means less transmission cost, and less land area.

    You don’t even necessarily have to store the power either:

    HVDC power lines have transmission losses of about 3% per 1000km. That’s 12% loss from Perth to Sydney, or 60% for the longest distance possible on our sphere. Big loss, but close to that of batteries. We’ve built undersea cables to pipe our internet all over the world – why not power too? It’s always sunny somewhere. You could even cut those losses by having big insulated cooled cables made of superconductors for the long trips, as their transmission loss would be constant (cost of cooling) vs proportional.

    As for cheap reliable batteries, you could build a dam and use the power to pump tons of seawater uphill during the day, and release exactly as much as you needed at night to generate electricity via hydro.

    Plenty of scalable solutions using existing technology that could be built up over time.

  15. Grigory, still seems like a lot of infrastructure to build compared to nuclear, but am happy to be proved wrong.

    Either way, it means there are carbon free solutions to most of our energy requirements, so I’m not nearly as pessimistic about the future as more extreme ‘peak oilers’ are. I don’t think there will be any need to go back to some sort of medieval subsistence lifestyle, but it would be nice if our governments would realise that we don’t have the financial constraints that they think we do, and get on with developing them. They could hire some of those ‘quants’ whose talents are being wasted developing trading algorithms for the financial markets.

  16. nuclear power hopefully safer thorium power is ideal to ween energy generation
    from fossil fuels
    but even nuclear fuel gets spent
    large scale wave generation will not
    and solar power can be used to generate steam processes which continue
    after the sun goes down and clouds roll by
    the problem is the massive capital outlay
    rich people will not risk so much of their stash
    in uk even coal generating plants are passed their use by date
    debate between solar wave fission will be irrelevant
    without governments spending

  17. I wonder what are biggest obstacles to adopting job guarantee

    For euro-area euro itself is a problem, obviously

    Beyond that, there seems to be lack of imagination and unwarranted belief in unaffordability. Lack of imagination is that policy makers cant fathom that public sector could ever organize anything on this size. And belief in unaffordability is plain ridicilous when you look at the numbers, what it would cost to employ people. It’s not much over existing expenditures on unemployment benefits, given that some of the money comes straight back in taxes. But these chemes are traditionally deviced as ‘work-for-the-unemployment-benefit’ because supposedly state can’t afford to pay even the minimun wage. That’s just criminal. Of couse state can afford to pay something like 500 euros a month over benefits it already pays. Thats peanuts!

    So, Bill, these maybe some of the issues you would like to address. Stress affordability, and that when you work you should earn a wage. Increased employability among most vulnerable groups like long term unemployed and the youth would be another good selling point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top