Why Childfree Living May Become the Rational Choice in an Era of Economic Instability, Overpopulation, and AI‑Driven Job Insecurity

The conditions of the world seem to have gotten much worse, and I am talking about e.g. insecure jobs due to e.g. AI and other reasons, housing unaffordability and other cost of living issues, rising aggression and polarisation, etc. So even if we ignore morality, not having children directly addresses all those problems e.g. if you don't have children then you only have one mouth to feed (your own), which is much better if your boss fires you. If you have no kids, you don't need to worry as much about housing unaffordability because you do not need a huge house. You can live in a sharehouse, a small microapartment, live with your parents, live in a car, etc. By not having a child, you can work more, and by not having a baby, your expenses go down so you can save and invest more. 

Looking at it purely from a practical, monetary perspective, having no children wins. And this I think is a strong contributor to the current TFR decline trend we are seeing worldwide e.g. recent news highlights that birth rates are collapsing in India and Phillipines. There seems to be opt-out cultures emerging everywhere eg NGSB/NBSB in Phillipines, solo-maxxing in the West, Tang Ping and Bai Lan in China, Sampo in South Korea, and Herbivore/Satori in Japan. 

These trends should be accelerated. Purely from a biophysical or environmental perspective, we have severe overpopulation. The carrying capacity of the planet is 2.5 billion and the only reason why we have 8 billion now is due to fossil fuel. As fossil fuels quickly deplete and EROI rises due to shale oil depleting as well as peak phosphorus, this will create a huge increase in cost of living which I am sure will price people out of procreation and birth rate will collapse even faster. This is when antinatalism will be more and more important and movements that provide a ideological basis and identity for low-throughput and frugal living will be necessary because the old life script of buying a McMansion, SUV, and having multiple kids will simply be too expensive and risky. The material conditions for 2026 do not support a 1950s lifestyle, so we need to evolve. We need to become frugal and hyperautonomous, flexible, and mobile. We need to do these if we are to survival and thrive in the near future when cost of living rises and jobs become more and more precarious due to AI.

How Being Green can Help you Build Wealth

Being environmentally friendly can help you build wealth. For example, if you live in a smaller property, there is less energy that goes into building the home. Also, the less land you take up with your property, the more land is available for e.g. trees and forests. Living in a smaller property also saves you money on accommodation costs. 

If you drive less or drive a more fuel efficient car (or ride a bike or walk), you save more money and help the environment at the same time. 

If you eat less meat and replace it with e.g. beans then you also help the environment and also save more money. 

If you get solar power, you reduce your electricity bills and also help the environment.

Furthermore, many "green" investments e.g. ESG ETFs seem to be outperforming the broader indexes now. On the Australian Securities Exchange, ETHI and VESG are outperforming IWLD, and FAIR is outperforming A200.

So basically in many areas of life, being green meaing you make more money. Another benefit of being green is the psychological aspect e.g. being green can be a powerful motivator for saving money. Being green shifts your mindset, making frugality something you do not as an act of deprivation but something that you do out of purpose, which means you're more likely to stick with it.

Romantic Love is Superficial

I actually didn’t even know it was Valentine’s Day until someone mentioned it at work in the morning. I hate the day because it makes me feel lonely. People talk about relationships as being very virtuous and profound, but in reality relationships are very superficial. Attraction is based on superficial things like good looks, slenderness, hip-to-waist ratio, income, wealth, what car you drive, whether you own a big house, etc. When you really think about it, relationships celebrate all that is ugly about humanity e.g. greed, superficiality, and domination. Men seek to signal how dominant they are and women seek to attach themselves to dominant men in order to breed and overpopulate the world thereby destroying the environment and contributing to overpopulation. On one hand, I hate relationships, but I am only human, so I do have a hunger for female intimacy just like I have a hunger for food. The challenge is in satiating my desire for female intimacy in both a low-cost manner as well as an ethical manner. There is also a despair that comes from the realisation that love is nothing more than a delusion built by evolutionary forces that drives procreation. However, hope feels better than despair, which is why we cling to the idea that there is someone out there who is perfect and is meant for us and who will love us for who we are.

Garbage in the Sea in Bali

I am currently in Candidasa in Bali where I have noticed that there is a lot of garbage not only on the streets but also in the beaches. Supposedly the garbage here is not only from Bali but also from other Indonesian islands such as Java. The current moves the rubbish to Bali. There was a program set by the Indonesian government to ban single-use plastic, but there was little willingness by people to follow it. This is why it is important for people to stop or reduce single-use plastic. Plastics in the the ocean break down and dissolve into the water forming microplastic particles that can end up in fish and humans.

Human Extinction is the Final Atrocity

Having a child is a vote of confidence in society. If you have optimism in society and think humanity is inherently good, your child will grow up and be raised within a beautiful world.

But if we look at the state of the world today, it is hard to justify optimism in society and humanity. You only need to read the news and talk to work colleagues and family to conclude that humanity is inherently corrupt, vulgar, and utterly depraved. Society is slowly rotting under the weight of racism, sexism, corruption, slavery, torture, and greed. 

If you give birth and bring a child into this world, such an act is tantamount to child abuse. You are exposing an innocent creature to a world that is so vile and evil, and if this child has her own children, that creates more lives exposed to suffering and exploitation.

The best way to reduce suffering is to slow population growth, which means we all have a moral duty to go on a birthstrike.

Not having children not only reduces suffering but is also good for the environment. You help the forests, the mountains, the air, the ocean, the trees, the rivers, and the animals. Mother Nature is an innocent being, and she suffers at the hands of humanity, which grows like a cancer engulfing the world.

Not only is childlessness good for humanity and for the environment, but it is also good for your personal finances. This is the principle of prosperity antinatalism. By refusing to breed, not only are you engaging in a selfless act that helps the animals and the planet but you are also saving yourself hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars. The cost of having a child is immense. By having a child, you are effectively consigning yourself to a lifetime of wage slavery. However, if you are childfree, Mother Nature rewards you financially for your selfless behavior.

When humans have freedom, they use their freedom to commit gross atrocities against the environment and the animals. However, an atrocity against humanity is an attack on the freedom humans have to commit atrocities on Mother Nature.

Human extinction is the final atrocity, the atrocity that ends all atrocity.

How Much Money Will You Save If You Don't Have Children?

Choosing to not have children was not a hard decision for me. It is good for the world and for the planet. Lower population growth fixes many problems in the world, which has now become overpopulated. Here are the wise words of MTGOStark:

The earth has a limited amount of space, limited amount of resources. If we consume more than the earth can regenerate in a given period of time, then we are on a finite timescale. Earth can possibly last for as much as billions more years with sustainable human activity, as little as a few hundred with unsustainable. 

Something like nuclear [power] would help in the medium-term, but it doesn't help the social problems that come with overpopulation, such as dissatisfaction and social strife that we are experiencing now. 

Overpopulation is relevant even if you are a nihilist or a loner, because a) with our current technology growth you might actually live to see the end of fossil fuels, and b) overpopulation affects the world you're already living in, not just the future. 

We are currently on track to use up all our oil and natural gas by the year 2200. Estimates like that are usually off, but even if we are generous and tack on a few hundred more years, it's still not very much. If we want humanity to survive until the next millennium and beyond, we need to consume less, and the easiest way to do that would be to curb population growth.

But I want to talk about the personal benefits of not having children. Not having babies gives you immense wealth and freedom, so it's good for society and good for you personally as well.

I know of a man in his 40s who is in middle management who is single, never married, and childless, and he drives a Lamborghini Huracan and always wears luxury clothes. He has zero debt. Meanwhile, his peers with similar modest incomes are all married but are drowning in debt, always stressed, wear cheap and tattered clothes, and drive old bombs. They talk about how they are frugal and minimalists, but it's obvious they say that because they blew all their money on a wife and kids so they have nothing leftover for themselves, so glorifying poverty makes them feel better that their resources have been plundered.

Is Almond Milk Unhealthy? Sustainability of Milk and Chemophobia

When I googled "almond milk," near the top was a Sydney Morning Herald article titled The Unhealthy Truth about Almond Milk, which would make anyone think that almond milk is bad for you. When I read through the article, I realized that the article mainly focuses on the environmental problems with almond milk production. Growing almonds uses a considerable amount of water. That being said, dairy milk production results in significant water use as well, and all the deforestation issues linked with soy production also apply to dairy milk because dairy cows eat soybeans, and most soy is grown not for human consumption but for the meat and dairy industry:

Another impact of the dairy industry on the Australian environment is by its massive use of water and land area. In 2004-2005 the dairy industry was responsible for 19% of all the water used in Australian agriculture. This is more than 12% of all the water used in Australia. Cows need a lot of land to graze on (if they get the opportunity) and the production of their feed also takes up a lot of land area. The production of cattle feed is a major reason for deforestation and is putting pressure on nature both in Australia and overseas.

In terms of the environment, dairy milk is not ideal not only due to water and land use but also due to methane and manure produced by cows. Cows consume a considerable amount of feed (soybeans). A more sustainable option includes eating insects (e.g. Exo cricket bar) because, unlike cows, insects are cold-blooded and therefore don't require energy to keep their blood warm. Insects can also be stored in trays that can be piled vertically making it more space efficient. Another option is algae (e.g. Thrive algae oil), which is being used considerably now in Soylent. The latest Soylent iterations use algal oil or algal flour. Algae is a very efficient converter of simple sugars into protein and fat. Unlike animal products that convert plant sugar and plant protein into animal protein and animal fat, algae plants are clean and sterile areas where bioreactors convert simple plant sugars into algae protein and algae fat. There is no need to kill animals or wipe away their blood and manure.

Focusing back on the Sydney Morning Herald article, the article mainly discusses the environmental issues facing almond milk. It does, however, briefly mention health issues:

Even the watery carton version can be a good source of vitamin E, which helps with cell regeneration in the body. It's also full of omega 3 fats, which are handy helpers for balanced mental health and cholesterol levels. That's about it, though.

Some brands only contain 2 per cent almonds, while the other 98 per cent of your expensive "milk" is water with some emulsifiers, and sometimes the odd sweetener thrown in, along with nutrients such as vitamin A and D that have been artificially added. Nutritious.

Basically this says nothing. The first paragraph states that almond milk contains vitamin E and omega 3 fats and then says "that's about it, though" suggesting that almond milk has very little nutrition. But this is not a huge problem. For example, pure filtered water contains no vitamins in it. It just contains water. But is this a problem? No, water is important. Furthermore, if we are to eat or drink based on nutrient density, we wouldn't drink milk because all milk has little nutrient density as measures by the aggregate nutrient density index (ANDI). Almond milk's ANDI score is 19 and soy milk is 31. Simply put, green vegetables have the highest nutrient density as measured by the ANDI score. Green vegetables have ANDI scores of around 900 or more whereas all milks have ANDI scores below 50. The bottom line is that if we wanted high nutrient density we'd drink a green smoothie. However, most people who drink coffee do so to get caffeine, and the milk is designed to mask the bitterness of the espresso and to cool the beverage down. Dairy milk, soy milk, almond milk, and coconut milk all achieve this.

The second paragraph about how almond milk contains only 2 per cent almond is, in my opinion, not a big issue. If you put a handful of almonds into a blender and only put in a little bit of water, the resulting mixture will be extremely thick and creamy. It would not mix well with coffee and would be very high in calories. The almond milk content in almond milk varies from 2 to around 15 per cent, but the bottom line is that you cannot put too much almonds in almond milk otherwise it would cease to be an almond milk and would become almond butter.

When the article states that almond milk is mostly water with emulsifiers, sweeteners, and vitamins artificially added it, it is appealing to chemophobia. RationalWiki defines Chemophobia as follows: "Chemophobia is the fear, distrust, or dislike of anything seen as 'chemical.' Like various other 'phobias,' its use is non-clinical as it is not recognised as an actual irrational fear, but rather describes a set of prejudices against chemicals." Basically everything is made up of chemicals, and adding emulsifiers, sweeteners, and vitamins to almond milk doesn't make it unhealthy. To read out the ingredient list of almond milk and announce that it contains many complicated sounding chemicals is completely irrational and appeals to the prejudice that many hold against science and scientists.

The Aeon article aptly titled ‘Chemophobia’ is irrational, harmful – and hard to break describes it best:

[E]ven as much of the world became cleaner, the anti-chemical movement became so polarised that all artificial chemicals are now considered tainted. This false assumption has led to a popular demand for products that are ‘natural’ or even ‘chemical-free’.

In reality, ‘natural’ products are usually more chemically complicated than anything we can create in the lab. To demonstrate, I broke down the components in an ordinary banana. (For brevity’s sake, I omitted the thousands of minority ingredients, including DNA.) Here is the result:

INGREDIENTS:

WATER (75%), SUGARS (12%) (GLUCOSE (48%), FRUCTOSE (40%), SUCROSE (2%), MALTOSE (<1%)), STARCH (5%), FIBRE E460 (3%), AMINO ACIDS (<1%) (GLUTAMIC ACID (19%), ASPARTIC ACID (16%), HISTIDINE (11%), LEUCINE (7%), LYSINE (5%), PHENYLALANINE (4%), ARGININE (4%), VALINE (4%), ALANINE (4%), SERINE (4%), GLYCINE (3%), THREONINE (3%), ISOLEUCINE (3%), PROLINE (3%), TRYPTOPHAN (1%), CYSTINE (1%), TYROSINE (1%), METHIONINE (1%)), FATTY ACIDS (1%) (PALMITIC ACID (30%), OMEGA-6 FATTY ACID: LINOLEIC ACID (14%), OMEGA-3 FATTY ACID: LINOLENIC ACID (8%), OLEIC ACID (7%), PALMITOLEIC ACID (3%), STEARIC ACID (2%), LAURIC ACID (1%), MYRISTIC ACID (1%), CAPRIC ACID (<1%)), ASH (<1%), PHYTOSTEROLS, E515, OXALIC ACID, E300, E306 (TOCOPHEROL), PHYLLOQUINONE, THIAMIN, COLOURS (YELLOW-ORANGE E101 (RIBOFLAVIN), YELLOW-BROWN E160a), FLAVOURS (3-METHYLBUT-1-YL ETHANOATE, 2-METHYLBUTYL ETHANOATE, 2-METHYLPROPAN-1-OL, 3-METHYLBUTYL-1-OL, 2-HYDROXY-3-METHYLETHYL BUTANOATE, 3-METHYLBUTANAL, ETHYL HEXANOATE, ETHYL BUTANOATE, PENTYL ACETATE), 1510, NATURAL RIPENING AGENT (ETHENE GAS).

This exercise illustrates a larger point. The distinction between natural and synthetic chemicals is not merely ambiguous, it is non-existent. The fact that an ingredient is synthetic does not automatically make it dangerous, and the fact that it is natural doesn’t make it safe. Botulinum, produced by bacteria that grow in honey, is more than 1.3 billion times as toxic as lead and is the reason why infants should never eat honey. A cup of apple seeds contains enough natural cyanide to kill an adult human. Natural chemicals can be beneficial, neutral or harmful depending on the dosage and on how they are used, just like synthetic chemicals. Whether a chemical is ‘natural’ should never be a factor when assessing its safety.

Carbon Tax Increases Income Tax Rates?

Something doesn't add up with the carbon tax compensation scheme. Take this except from the West Australian article titled Tax cuts to compensate for higher living costs:

To deliver the tax cuts, the tax-free threshold will triple from $6000 to $18,200 when the carbon tax begins on July 1 next year.

A second round of tax cuts will occur in 2015, when the carbon tax switches to an emissions trading scheme, with the threshold lifted to $19,400.

Most taxpayers will enjoy a tax cut of at least $300.

The first an second points are easy to understand. But the third point about most taxpayers will get a tax cut of at least $300 doesn't make sense. The way the income tax system works currently is that you pay nothing for any income you earn up to $6000. Then from $6000 to $37000 you pay 15 per cent. If the tax-free threshold were to increase from $6000 to $18200 then this means that if you earn at least $18200 per year you will save (18200-6000)*0.15 = $1830, and everyone earning over $18200 per year will get this.

But news article talk about most people getting tax cuts of only $300 and that people earning below $80,000 will not benefit!

This makes no sense. Perhaps the government is trying to obfuscate what looks like a tax rise for people in higher tax brackets. My guess is that although the tax-free threshold will increase, to compensate for this the government will increase income taxes in other areas. For example, for every dollar you earn between $18200 to $37000 you may be required to pay 30 per cent rather than 15 per cent.

I wish the government were clearer on this. It does not look good when the government tries to hide detail. If anything it makes me suspicious.

Update 16 July 2011: I have finally worked it out! It's disappointing that the increase in income tax rates was not clearly highlighted in the mainstream media, but the changes are as follows:

• Tax-free threshold will increase from $6000 to $18200
• The 15% income tax rate will be lifted to 19%
• The 30% income tax rate will be lifted to 32.5% in 2012 and then 33% at 2015.

The low income tax threshold will decrease, which, now that I think about it, makes sense because a change in the income tax rates is much more transparent. All in all, I think these tax rate changes comfort with the general principle of carbon tax compensation, which is to target poor people and not rich people. The increases in the income tax rates at the higher end will help make sure that the benefits of the carbon tax compensation only go to those who need it.

I have complained about the carbon tax because there are many problems with it. It doesn't address the problem of jobs moving overseas and it exempts petrol. Furthermore, carbon tax compensation doesn't all go to poor people. Much of it goes to industries. Nevertheless, I completely understand that the job of politician entails compromise. It is no point letting best get in the way of better, as the Greens would have found out when they opposed the CPRS. With a Parliament made up of independents and the Labor party being heavily influenced by trade unions and voters who struggle with rising petrol costs, it makes sense that Gillard make these compromises to ensure that at least something gets through Parliament. All in all, this is a step in the right direction. Taxing big business for their carbon emissions is a much better idea than paying big business to reduce emissions, which is what Tony Abbott plans to do. If Abbott had his way, the money necessary to pay off big business to reduce emissions would need to come from somewhere, and chances are he would introduce some form of carbon tax e.g. by increasing income taxes. Simply increasing income taxes would not punish people who use more electricity, it only punishes people who earn more. By increasing carbon tax you are punishing those people who commit the sin of emitting more carbon and with the proceeds of the carbon tax you can reduce income tax, which encourages single mothers and students to work.

Carbon Tax Released

Finally the full details of Julia Gillard's carbon tax has been released, but as soon as I checked the Commonwealth Treasury website and was diverted to an Australian government website about the new policy, I became annoyed because it was just not clear how much I was going to get. Like the Budget that Labor introduced that cut little bits of spending on a thousand different things, thereby spreading out the pain, it seems as if the carbon tax follows the same philosophy whereby the compensation is spread out over a large number of people, not just low-income people but also pensioners, people with children, people with certain welfare cards, and so forth. It was really confusing.

One of the main features of the compensation is that the tax-free threshold would increase from $6000 to $18000. For someone earning over $18000 per year this is an extra $1800 per year in your pocket ((18000-6000)*0.15=$1800). In my opinion, this is not ideal because this $1800 would go to everyone earning over $18000 a year, including those who earn millions of dollars per year. I have stated in another blog post that I would have preferred to see an increase in the low income tax offset so that millionaires are not compensated.

In addition to this increase in the tax free threshold, there will also be, according to this Herald Sun article on the carbon tax, additional compensation that presumably will come from tax cuts that will be paid to singles earning below $50000: "Individuals will get all extra costs compensated up to an income of $50,000. The compensation means an individual now on $50,000 a year will get $303 in assistance, to cover a $304 rise in their cost of living."

This carbon tax compensation system is far too complicated. I have no idea how much I will get and when I will get it, and I suspect many other Australians will not bother to figure out what they will get because it seems to be dribs and drabs from all sorts of places. The government seems to have divided the benefits into a million different categories.

Furthermore, as I feared, the tax will be levied on only 500 emitters and will only apply if the material is burned. This I fear will mean that companies can dodge the tax by exporting it to countries that have lax environmental laws. What would have been better is a mining tax based on the energy content of what is dug out of the ground. Given that Labor caved in to the big miners and the mining tax discussion is now dead, we must live with what we have, which is the carbon tax and the future transition into an ETS. The system will also be linked in to the international carbon price, and this will hopefully coordinate carbon emission reduction objectives all around the world and hopefully cut off the loophole whereby companies export resources to other countries to dodge the carbon tax.

How to Structure Carbon Tax Compensation using LITO

The article Carbon Tax Relief to End at $150,000 in the Sydney Morning Herald gives us the following suggestions about what the carbon tax compensation scheme will look like:

• petrol will not be included in the carbon tax
• people earning over $150,000 will get no compensation
• there will be cuts in income tax
• there will be family payment increases
• there will be increases in pensions

An ideal carbon tax compensation structure

Many of these points are very worrying. Firstly, let me tell you how I think carbon tax and carbon tax compensation should be structured. The carbon tax is designed to reduce our carbon emissions. To do this it will increase the price of carbon emissions, thereby punishing people for polluting. However, increasing the cost of living will hit poor people hard. Rich people can survive if cost of living increases but poor people may not be able to. To fix this problem, carbon tax compensation is necessary. The best way to structure carbon tax compensation, in my opinion, is via the low income tax offset (LITO). The LITO actually targets poor people. If you are poor (i.e. you earn less than $30,000 per annum) the government will hand you $1500 as of 2010-11. If you are middle-class (i.e. you earn between $30,000 and $67,500) the government will give you a portion of this $1500. If you are rich (i.e. you earn over $67,000 you get nothing). To target poor people, the government should think about increasing the amount paid to low-income individuals via LITO, i.e. increasing the amount paid from $1500 to, say, $3000 or more. The government can also increase the LITO threshold so that middle-income people who will become poorer because of the carbon tax will have the purchasing power of their money compensated for by getting higher net pay.

Someone on the internet made the argument that compensation for the poor will not work becuase rich people will compensate for a rise in cost of living by demanding higher pay. Companies will then give in to these demands and to compensate they will increase prices, which will further hurt poor people. This argument assumes that everyone has perfect ability to negotiate what they want without compromise to maintain their profits or standards of living. If this were true it would lead to prices increasing ad infinitum. If companies do increase prices of their goods as a result of rich people demanding higher pay, then all workers, seeing that prices are going up, will then demand higher pay, companies will give in and increase prices even more, which will see workers demanding even higher pay, and this continues on and on until prices and wages increase all the time. In the real world, when workers demand higher wages, they may get it but they may not because companies may reject the demand. When companies have a reduction in profit, they may increase the price of goods to compensate, but this might scare away customers to a rival company. When many companies and individuals face lower profits or standards of living, many of them take it because there is no other option.

What is wrong with the policies of the major parties?

A major worry is that petrol will not be included in the carbon tax. I assume that this will mean that coal companies and gas companies will be taxed but oil companies will not be taxed. The government may claim that this policy helps low-income people who need petrol to drive to work. However, if the government would just increase LITO, poor people would have more money to be able to take a rise in petrol prices. The problem with exempting petrol is that it doesn't discourage people from driving less and many companies that previously may have used natural gas or coal will simply switch to petrol. We will see petrol being use to power up a barbeque and petrol being used in power plants rather than coal. I am worried that people will see this as a loophole and pollute at the same rate by simply using petrol.

Another worry I have is with the way the tax is collected. The tax will alledgedly be levied on companies as they emit the carbon in Australia. For example, if a company burns coal, it has to pay. But what if this company exports that coal to, say, Indonesia, burns it there under a jurisdiction with no carbon tax? Companies will move overseas and coal, gas, and oil will simply be exported and emitted overseas to avoid the tax. To fix this problem, a carbon tax needs to be levied on the energy content of exports. This will counter the argument many people have that the carbon tax will have no impact because Australia makes up only 2 per cent of the world's economy. If a carbon tax is levied on energy content of exports, this will raise the world price of energy since Australia is a major resource exporter. A higher world price of energy will reduce carbon emissions all over the world, and it will send a signal to other major energy-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Brazil that governments can collect good revenue from a carbon or energy tax. It is within the interests of those in power to have a carbon tax. Some argue that if China and India, the world's most populous countries, do not agree to reductions in emissions, there can be no progress on worldwide emission reduction. I disagree. China and India are not major energy exporters. They are net buyers of energy, and buyers do not set prices. Sellers set prices. What matters is that Russia, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, and Brazil do with the price of energy. If the price of energy is increased with a carbon or energy tax, there is nothing India or China can do but accept it. An agreement to increase the price of energy worldwide does not need the consent of all countries. It only needs the consent of a few major energy exporters, and because these countries have a lot to gain from what is essentially price fixing and anti-competitive behaviour in order to increase government revenue, there is no reason why they wouldn't do it.

Tony Abbott said the following: ''At the next election, the Coalition will deliver tax cuts that are not just compensation. It will be a tax cut without a carbon tax. Our tax cuts will recognise the cost of living pressures that are hitting families and small business hard. Our tax cuts will be designed to restore people's hope, to reward harder work with higher pay.''

Essentially, the carbon tax is starting to look like a tax that takes money from the rich and give it to the poor. The Liberals, on the other hand, will simply cut taxes, and the rhetoric above that the tax will "reward harder work with higher pay" suggests that there will be greater tax cuts for the rich.

The Federal Budget 2011-12

The Federal Budget 2011-12 was released this week. Everyone else is giving opinions on it, so I may as well. All in all, I think it is a positive budget that would hopefully get Australian back into surplus by 2012-13. The growth in revenue seems optimistic and the spending cuts are probably in my opinion not deep enough, as much deeper cuts are needed in middle-class welfare. But all in all, it is a step in the right direction, that is, keeping taxes high and cutting spending. It follows the fundamental rule of personal finance, which is to spend less than you earn.

In the world of FBT, the budget gets rid of the loophole that allows tax benefits to be accrued if you drive your work car more than 25,000 kilometres per year. This horrendous loophool meant that many small businesses actually deliberately drove their company cars more than they needed to in order to get tax concessions.

A number of people complained that there were no increases in family tax benefits for those earning over $150,000, which I thought was incredibly surprising as those on $150,000 are definitely rich given that the average household earns around $70,000. For Australia to get back into surplus, spending cuts need to be made or taxes need to be raised, and cutting spending or increasing taxes on the poor is not only highly immoral but could actually kill them. Therefore, the rich need to be sacrificed. I am surprised that there was so much opposition to this idea, even among religious people and poor people.

The budget contianed no details about the coming carbon tax, which is disappointing. I am happy with the carbon tax as I think it is one of the best ways of cutting carbon emissions in Australia. It gives me great pleasure when I look at those people driving large SUVs and live in large McMansions and know that they will soon be punished for their behaviour. The carbon tax is understandable unpopular with many people believe most people don't like the idea of cost of living increase. This is why I believe that Prime Minister Gillard needs to give very generous compensation to low-income people. It is already disappointing to hear that only half of the revenue raised will actually go to compensating low-income people (it should ideally be 100 per cent). If I were Prime Minister Gillard or if I were her adviser, I would suggest that the way she go about compensating people is to made amendments to the low income tax offset (LITO). Specifically, she should increase the LITO payout and increase the threshold when you are no longer eligible for it. This will put money back into the hands of the poor and give a moderate amount to the middle-class. If the compensation is large enough, I am sure just about every single Labor supporter will be happy and a substantial number of Liberal voters will switch sides and vote Labor to secure for themselves the compensation, and Prime Minister Gillard will win the next election.

We'll see what she does.

Australians Must Pay for Carbon Tax

Current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that there will be a carbon tax established. Treasury documents have speculated that the carbon tax may be in the order of $30 or $40 per tonne of carbon emitted. The estimates show that this will result in the cost of living to increase by around $800 to $1000 per year per household.

However, some claim that this is misleading as the Gillard government will use the revenue raised from the carbon tax to mitigate cost-of-living pressures. Some even say that nobody will be worse off and that all increases in cost of living will be compensated for.

The government taking money away from households via the carbon tax and then giving it back again makes no sense. The whole point of a carbon tax is to increase prices. That is what makes people drive less, buy less, and pollute less. If Australians want a carbon tax, they must pay for it.

I fully understand if low-income people are compensated as an increase in cost of living may result in death for these people, but middle-income and high-income people should not be compensated at all. A rise in cost of living for these people will result in a change of behaviour (e.g. taking the train to work rather than driving to work as a result of rising petrol costs) towards more environmentally friendly activities.

Gillard Announces Carbon Tax in Australia

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that a carbon tax will be implemented by July 2012 in Australia. This carbon tax will be an interim measure that will eventually transition into a cap-and-trade system.

Assuming that humans burning fuels is what is causing climate change, then a carbon tax makes sense. I personally would prefer a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system simply because of the simplicity, although a cap-and-trade system may be better in theory.

Gillard has not released any details of her carbon tax. The details will matter a lot. For example, will the tax be applied on companies that burn fuels with carbon in it or will it apply to the extraction of oil, coal, or natural gas from the ground (like a mining tax)? If it is the former then I worry that if companies will have to pay a tax on burning fossil fuels then they will simply export it to another country, burn it there, and possibly wire the electricity back to Australia. A mining tax based on the carbon content of what is dug from the ground is a much better idea.

Since a carbon tax will increase the cost for miners who dig up or sell energy, the costs will likely be passed on until it reaches the consume. The bottom line is that a carbon tax will increase the price of everything since just about everything involves the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon tax will effectively be similar to an increase in GST, and one of the potential problem is the impact this has on poor people who will face price rises when buying essentials like food and petrol. Gillard has claimed that most of the revenue from this carbon tax will be used to ease cost-of-living pressure. I sure hope that it does otherwise there will be massive public backlash, even from Labor voters. In my opinion the proceeds of the carbon tax should be used to increase the tax-free threshold. Currently anyone earning less than $6000 per year do not have to pay income taxes in Australia. With the revenue from the carbon tax, this can be increased, and this will help poor people buy necessities like groceries and petrol.

Some people believe that given that Australia's economy makes up only 2 per cent of world GDP, this carbon tax will have no impact on global warming. This is true, but it ignores the fact that Australia doing this will give other countries an incentive to start their own carbon tax. If the tax is applied to mining or the export of energy then it will have a much greater impact because Australia is a major energy and resource exporter. If the price of Australian resources is higher then this will increase the world prices of resources, which will have a massive impact on global energy consumption. If we are cynical and assume that governments only want to make as much money as possible, then we should expect to see governments around the world use the carbon tax as an opportunity to increase their own tax revenue. If we are very cynical and assume that the governments of the world are controlled by oil and mining companies, then oil and mining companies will be happy that Australia will apply a tax on its energy exports as this will push up the global price of energy and lead to greater profits for them. This will effectively be price fixing for energy. In the name of saving the environment, an OPEC-style multinational cartel of energy-rich countries can be established to artificially inflate the price of energy to both save the environment and to increase profits for oil and mining companies and to increase taxation revenue for government. Governments colluding among themselves and international oil, coal, and gas companies to artifically inflate the price of energy is not going to win public support. However, if it is done for the sake of the environment and if the poor are massively subsidized for the cost of necessities--e.g. by increasing the progressivity of income taxes--then I am sure that this plan will be popular and it will work.

Benefits of Brumby's Expansion of Melbourne

Today the Victorian parliament voted to extend Melbourne's urban growth boundaries (read Green Land Cut Back as Melbourne Grows Much Bigger). When I read this news, I thought to myseld, "Brilliant! Great idea. Houses are very expensive in Melbourne, and making Melbourne bigger would make it easier for first-home buyers to afford houses."

But reading the comments in the Age news article I linked to above, it would seem as if Premier Brumby had just been caught sexually abusing a child. Why are so many people whinging about an extention to the urban growth boundaries?

I don't pretend to know exactly what the Victorian government intends to do when implementing this policy, but based on what little I have read, everything seems positive.

Wouldn't it increase congestion because more people will have to travel to the city?

According to the news article, suburbs like Footscray, Broadmeadows, Frankston, and Dandenong will be "designated business districts." WIth the expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundaries there will, I hope, be more commercial and industrial zones outside of Melbourne's CBD. Once many residents are established in the outer suburbs, many businesses that are headquartered in the CBD will feel great monetary pressure to relocate from the CBD to new business districts like Frankston and Dandenong where they will be close to many new outer-suburban citizens and where rent would be cheaper. Lower rent means higher profitability.

Suppose very many workers still travel to the city rather than outer-suburban business districts. If that is the case, the cost in terms of congestion, time, and petrol for workers to travel to work is high, and these workers will demand a higher wage from employers to compensate, which means businesses based on the CBD will need to increases wages. If these businesse move to Dandenong or Frankston, congestion would not a big issue.

Basically, work moves with the people. If people move away from the city, so too businesses will move away from the city to follow the source of labor.

A larger Melbourne will create social division because rich people will live near the city while poor people will live in the outer suburbs.

This is already happening. Rich people in Melbourne already live near the city while poor people live far from the city. Even if Melbourne does not grow geographically, it wouldn't fix this problem. In fact, it would make things worse. If Melbourne did not expand, and if we assume demand for housing remains high, house prices would be high everywhere, even in the outer suburbs. At least if we expand Melbourne we increase the number of houses in the market, which pushes house prices down, giving the poor an opportunity to afford to put a roof over their heads.

If the government expands Melbourne and also increases the amount of commercial and industrial zoning in the outer suburbs, this should make living in the outer suburbs more attractive since it those who work there can more easily travel to work.

What about the green wedges?

Most of the green wedges in Melbourne are actually just garbage tips and farms. It makes no sense to have these things in the city. An argument can be mounted that urban sprawl will harm the environment by clearing forest and increase carbon emissions, but both these problems can be fixed with either taxation or cap and trade. To prevent deforestation or carbon emissions, tax it heavily or sell off permits to individuals or companies to allow deforestation or carbon emissions. This way the government can set how much deforestation or carbon emissions it wants. If citizens or government decide that deforestation or carbon emission is a problem it can increase taxes on deforestation or sell off very few carbon pollution permits. This makes urban expansion very costly for property developers or individuals to buy new land, which makes high-rise apartments more economical.

What about the extra traffic?

Extending the urban growth boundary will allow for the construction not only of houses but also roads and train tracks. Because more roads are built, congestion should not really increase. If very many roads are built relative to houses and businesses, we should actually see a net reduction in traffic congestion.

Carbon Offset with Land Banks

In life one can be selfish, but most people recommend that a person tries to be altruistic and help others. An individual can help other people monetarily e.g. by giving money to a poor person. Another form of altruism is improving the environment because it prevents or mitigates an environmental disaster, which benefits other people (e.g. future generations).

Many people accuse me of be environmentally unfriendly because I tend to use the printer a lot (instead of reading documents on the screen) and I tend to have long showers. One way I can show to others and to myself that I am environmentally friendly is to buy carbon offsets. There are many companies that allow you to purchase carbon offsets, but I believe that many people view this with skepticism. After all, if you pay $100 to some company and they promise to offset a certain amount of carbon, it may be difficult to know if they actually did it or not.

It would be good if a company existed that allowed me to land bank and carbon offset at the same time. When I register with this company, they open up an account, and I transfer money to this company often, e.g. $100 per fortnight. Whenever I send money to this company, they allocate a certain portion of land in the country for me and for a low cost (e.g. $1) they plant a tree there. What is important for this idea to really work is that the customer must actually legally own the land, that is have legal title to the land and the tree. This allows the customer to use this scheme as if it were a mutual fund or a bank account. Therefore, as the customer offsets carbon, he or she will also be holding assets that may appreciate in value. This I think will increase demand for the these services.

One potential problem is that when a customer is young he or she may be enthusiastic about improving the environment and plow money into his own land bank, which results in him buying up many acres of land in the country. However, when he is older, the monetary reality of retirement may force him to sell the land because he desperately needs more money to fund his retirement. He may sell his land to a developer who may cut down the trees and put accomodation (or something else) there. But this may indeed happen, I think that the net effect of this scheme is good because if you plant 100 trees and, say, 30 of them are destroyed for private development, you still have 70 trees that absorb carbon emissions, so 70 trees planted is better than zero trees planted. What a person does with his own property is his own business.

The value of the land that a person buys will depend on many factors, the most important factor of which is whehter the council or local government gives approval for owners to build profitable businesses on that land, e.g. a restaurant, a hotel, an investment home, etc. If the local government only allows the land owner to use the land for e.g. planting crops, its value may not be as high than if e.g. the local government allowed the owner to build a hotel there. There is then a tradeoff between the value of the land and how environmentally friendly the whole scheme will be because the higher the value of the land, the more tempting it is for land owners who buy land for the purpose of offset carbon to cash in once the total value of their assets grows significantly.

If land is sold to customers in small one-meter-by-one-meter blocks, it would be very difficult for private developers to use that use to build profitable enterprise because usually something profitable like a hotel needs a lot of land. The private developer may need to buy land off hundreds of land owners before it has enough surface area to be able to build a hotel, and gaining consent from all of these hundreds of land owners may be difficult because, even if many of them may be tempted by the developer's offer of cash, some may refuse not only for environmental reasons but also because they may think that if they refuse they will get a higher offer in the future. Hence a good way to prevent land from being developed is to divide it into small parts and to sell them off randomly to multiple buyers. Subdivision of land will be subject to government approval.

Overpopulation and Environmental Degredation

While on my exercise bike, I listed to a Counterpoint podcast called Population and Environment. In this podcast, Mark O'Connor claims that Australia is overpopulated and action needs to be taken to reduce population in Australia by reducing immigration and birth rate. I think there are problems with reducing immigration and birth rate.

If we look at carbon dioxide emissions, reducing immigration, I doubt, will have much effect on global carbon emissions. Suppose an American comes to Australia, purchases a car, and drives it. By driving he is producing pollution in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. However, had this individual stayed in America instead of coming to Australia, who is to say that this individual wouldn't have driven around in a car in America and caused the same problem? Some people, e.g. Ross Gittens, argues that people move from one place to another to better their lives, and by doing so they must increase the degree to which they pollute. For example, the individual in my example may be unemployed in America and hence he stays home and does nothing, which means he is environmentally friendly. However, once he gets a job offer in Australia, he travels here, spews jet emissions, and then spews even more carbon emissions once he drives to and from work in his car. This is a fair argument. Free immigration increases the potential for economic growth, which in turn increases pollution because trade usually involves energy consumption of some kind. However, we have now a tricky trade-off between environment and economy. Suppose that environment is more important than economy. We could achieve the same economic inefficiency simply by increasing taxes or by implementing an emissions trading scheme. Blocking immigration may even be both economically and environmentally inefficient if it blocks the transfer of knowledge and skills related to environmental productivity. For example, suppose that BHP Billiton in Australia wants to reduce emissions from its mining operations. Suppose also that in a Japanese university there is an scientist there who knows how to reduce emissions using some technology. BHP wants to hire this scientist but because immigration is banned, the scientist cannot come to Australia and BHP cannot implement green technology into its business. This means that BHP is not able to be as green as it wants to be.

O'Connor also claims that Australia ought to reduce natural population growth by getting rid of the Baby Bonus. An idea would be to introduce a tax on childbirth. I believe that lower birth rate can be achieved simply by taxing energy or by establishing an emissions trading scheme. A child costs approximately $250,000 to raise from birth till 18. When a couple wants to have a baby and believes that it has the ability to produce $250,000 over the next 18 years, the couple will have a baby. However, suppose a cap-and-trade scheme is implemented. This should raise the price of energy, which means the cost of having a baby should also increase, say, from $250,000 to $300,000. An increase in the cost of having a baby should decrease birth rate.

Applying a global tax on energy or a global emissions trading scheme will reduce carbon emissions. However, many poor people will not be able to cope with the higher costs of energy, and that is why I suggest a global redistribution system.

According to someone at Sustainable Population Australia, there are more problems that high population creates behind carbon emissions (see "Overloading Australia" Author Gets Opinion Piece in The Advertiser): "Mark pointed out that many of the environmental problems we face in Australia today - including water shortages, unaffordable housing, excessive greenhouse gas emission - are all linked to excess population."

Water shortage is not a problem. If there is a lack of water in Australia, we can simply import water (see Australia Could Import Water from Japan). Currently Australia has more than enough coal, oil, and food to feed its population, but currently about 54 per cent of Australia's exports are food, minerals, or energy. Because of global trade, shortage of food, energy, or minerals is not really an Australian problem. Rather, it is a global problem. When there is a scarcity of some good, there is a tendency for technology to improve to take advantage of the high prices from scarcity. If oil prices climb very high because of increasing scarcity, technology may improve to find alternative sources of energy. Of course, it is possible for humans to find no technology to fix problems of water and oil scarcity. It is possible, I think, for humans to live without oil, but it is not possible for humans to live without water. If there is finite water then we will have no choice but to all die. The human race will be wiped out eventually. In reality, clean water comes from rivers and streams after it has been filtered through rock, etc. Water can even be filtered using machines.

Another problem mentioned at SPA is unaffordable housing. This problem I believe is easily fixed. Suppose we have a fixed number of house and all of a sudden we have a surge in population. We have more people bidding for the same amount of houses, so obviously the price of houses goes up. This problem can easily be fixed simply by increasing the number of houses available. This can be achieved by reducing barriers that are imposed currently on property developers, including complex zoning laws, urban limits, etc. One of the reason why American property is so cheap at the moment is because there are so many houses there that have been abandoned after the 2007 residential real estate crash.

China and India Cooperation Needed?

Many claim that without cooperation from China and India, global coordinated reduction in carbon dioxide emission is doomed.

It is true that China and India are large economies but the economy outside these two countries is large as well.

Suppose, say, 20% of the world's coal, petrol, and gas is in India and China. If the other 80% is subject to taxation or emissions trading then this will increase the price of energy even in China and India.

OPEC controls less than 50% of the world's oil and they have considerable influence on the price. If the rest of the world controls about 80% of the world's raw material then together they will have a lot of influence on the price, and high price is what reduces consumption and emissions.

If China and India do not cooperate, raw materials may be cheap in China and India but expensive around the rest of the world. Companies may move to China and India. However, this cannot continue forever. If the whole world depends on China and India for energy then the heavy consumption will eventually deplete resources in the two countries and then China and India will be reliant on importing energy at higher prices.

Currently China and India already have to import oil, natural gas, and coal.

Hedonism for Hunger

In feminist B--ch Magazine there is an article called Tree So Horny about a group called F--- For Forests, which explicitly uses pornography and sex to raise money to save forests.

I wonder why the same concept cannot be applied not to fighting against deforestation but to beat world hunger. I have already thought of a name for the group, Hedonism for Hunger where participants engage in hedonistic acts for the sake of raising money to fight world hunger. The money raised can go to the World Food Programme just the profits from Free Rice does.

Many people feel guilty engaging in acts of hedonism. However, if the hedonism is for hunger then that gives people a good excuse.

One of the main problems of the sex industry I believe is the fact that it doesn't cater to shy virgins. I suspect a large number of young virgin males and females would like to go to a brothel but are bothered by the high costs, the embarrassment, and the fear of being ridiculed for their inexperience.

High costs can be fixed through economies of scale. Thousands of clients can be lined up on a conveyor belt and a handful of sex providers can give the service to each quickly.

The problem of embarrassment can be fixed with guarantees of anonymity. A brothel may encourage all its customers to wear rabbit masks upon entry. In public someone wearing a rabbit mask will look like he is going to a fancy dress party, so the individual wearing the mask will not be too embarrassed.

Homicidal Environmentalists

I am worried about environmentalists talking about overpopulation. What I am particularly worried about is the solution some give that in order to save the environment, people must be killed.

The problem with this mass murder idea is the purpose. Many environmentalists agree that it is essential to save nature to improve human life. Killing humans then would oppose that goal of improving human life.

Another problem is the tricky question of who dies. Those who advocate mass slaughter for the sake of the environment always have a convenient excuse as to why they themselves should not be killed.

The people at Dieoff.org believe those already starving in poor countries around the world should be left to die. The problem with this idea is that those in poor countries have mild effect on the environment. If they are too poor to eat then they will be too poor to drive, to fly, to consume electricity, and so on. Australians are the highest per capita consumers of fossil fuels, so environmental destruction can most effectively be mitigated by killing Australians. But even among Australians there is variation. Poor people within Australia consume less than the rich.

Plant Your Own Trees Online

If you feel bad about polluting the world with your car you can buy carbon offsets, which reduce carbon dioxide emissions by investing in technology or by planting trees.

Some people believe that there are many companies out there that take your money but don't actually do anything.

This is why I believe that there needs to be some accountability. What would be a great idea is a firm that carbon offsets by planting trees but, to allow customers to verify that everything is legit, the customers can walk into the plantation themselves to look at their own trees. Each tree will have on its trunk a label with the customer's name written on it.

I have been searching on the Internet and there does seem to be some sites that allow you to do this. E.g. at Rainforest Rescue.

Giving customers an opportunity to inspect for themselves in person I believe will wipe away any doubts about legitimacy.