Sid Maher “Labor to ease the carbon squeeze with $6 billion for households”, 13/04/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-to-ease-the-carbon-squeeze-with-6-billion-for-households/story-fn59niix-1226038147201
It is so obvious and just that the bulk of the revenue from the carbon tax or sale of emission permits in the future needs to go to households as they will bear the bulk of the costs and have no means to pass on any of the higher energy costs under carbon pricing, and the fact that it is people who are the owners of the environment and are entitled to good climate.
Businesses, on the other hand, can mostly include the the carbon price in the price of its goods and services and pass on to consumers.
That difference is abundantly clearly.
The argument for 45% of the revenue to go to trade exposed businesses is ludicrous. Whoever argues it should tell us how much share of our exports in the GDP, should that be considered as a benchmark of the upper limit for possible compensation.
Further, many of our trade partners have one sort or another of direct or indirect carbon pricing may match or even more than match ours and that already levels the play fields for our exporters.
More importantly, the compensation to households must increase over time and the compensation for businesses should decrease over time.
Eventually all compensation should go to households with equal amount for each and every Australian resident living in Australia.