Carbon tax

[bluestorm]

ewwww....$2000!!.....you magnate you.

Mate, you guys get all excited about making 40K on a property in a year. Wow, my property moved from $360K to $400K this year.

$2K in 1.5hrs. Annualise that.

 

[evand]

Who gets all excited about $40k in a year? T

Do you actually post anything that is based on fact?

Mate, you guys get all excited about making 40K on a property in a year. Wow, my property moved from $360K to $400K this year.

$2K in 1.5hrs. Annualise that.

And if you made $2000 every 1.5 hours for a year i'd annualise it . Beside that, i think you're telling porkies.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

It is complex because it needs to be. And it needs to be because corporations will put up prices to compensate for the carbon tax, you and me will need to pay these higher prices and the government is trying to compensate us for these increased prices.

Can i ask why are you debating this if you dont get this fundamental issue?

I understand how it works. My point is that it doesn't need to be so complex, because the whole point of the tax should be to impose an economic imperative to implement cleaner and more efficient energy creation. By compensating most of the community, much of the economic imperative is diluted.

Perhaps you could focus on the issue instead of making assumptions about other posters.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

And you borrowed this gem from evand, with no acknowledgement. You plagiariser of the left wing you.



As for the 2nd part of your post, exactly what Liberal does, in fact every party does it. But its not relevant in this debate.

If you hate the Liberal party, that's fine, we get it. Is there a reason why you need to blame every post that you disagree with on the Libs? How about actually debating the issue?

 

[evand]

Well the only alternative is to legislate law that companies cannot raise prices based on the carbon tax. And that's not going to happen.

I understand how it works. My point is that it doesn't need to be so complex, because the whole point of the tax should be to impose an economic imperative to implement cleaner and more efficient energy creation. By compensating most of the community, much of the economic imperative is diluted.

Perhaps you could focus on the issue instead of making assumptions about other posters.

 

[evand]

What are you on about? It was obviously a joke.

If you hate the Liberal party, that's fine, we get it. Is there a reason why you need to blame every post that you disagree with on the Libs? How about actually debating the issue?

 

[HiEquity]

Such negativity in this thread. Coupled with ignorance it becomes a powerful cocktail and causes a big froth about nothing. If this package does pass parliament it will be a great day in the history of this nation. There isn't a country in the world who has yet proposed a better way of dealing with this issue. Most of the international schemes by comparison look wasteful, expensive and inefficient. The Productivity Commission has to take some of the credit for that, following their excellent report on pricing carbon (as far as it went) - we were able to learn from a lot of mistakes, including the CPRS.

- We are moving from taxing "goods" like income and profit to taxing "bads" like environmental damage instead. A groundbreaking shift in taxation policy and a historic reform. The reductions in income tax provide fantastic incentive for people to get out there and make something of themselves.
- One million Australians will no longer have to file tax returns courtesy of the increase in the tax free threshold. I can imagine there might be some accountants who could be a little unhappy about that... perhaps they should look at career options in the clean energy industry instead! Good to see genuine tax reform part of the package this time.
- This package does actually support clean energy, where $23/tonne alone wouldn't have. A historic investment in diversity of energy supply and research and development on a scale necessary to develop the new technologies we need in an Australian context.
- Emissions intensive trade exposed industries are looked after and even International Power (Hazlewood) can't complain about sovereign risk with their generous assistance. Although they've known about carbon risk for twenty years, at least...
- Agriculture excluded, which prevents a can of worms being opened on both sides of the fence.
- Compensation for pensioners is generous enough to give them a buffer and no doubt a needed increase in the pension anyway.
- The level of the tax isn't high enough to cause jobs to move offshore.
- Truckies need to work out how to charge their customers more, although I'm sure they would have done that before when the price of diesel rose by 6c/litre...
- For the first time, people innovating in the clean energy space will actually have a market for the products they hope to develop. Why would anyone develop a technology for reducing / sequestering / avoiding greenhouse emissions in the absence of a market for such a beast?
- If companies spend as much time and effort in reducing their exposure to this tax as they do in reducing their other taxes, the results in terms of innovation will be extraordinary!

As for Mr Abbot's scheme, his presentation was full of misinformation. I would call it "lies" if it wasn't so obvious that he doesn't actually know the first thing about power systems or renewable energy integration. Hi examples about landfill gas, to take just one example, are disingenous to say the least (being polite), where he must know that for marginal landfills to be developed know require a package like this to get through. As for solar powered factories, WTF?

The subject matter just doesn't interest him - that is self evident every time he opens his mouth. As for his "direct action" plan, it's a joke masquerading as a farce. Allow farmers to make money from soil carbon, which they are increasing anyway for productive reasons via no-till, but don't charge them for their fertiliser emissions? It's the ultimate rent seeking welfare scheme for farmers....

I really wish the Coalition was doing this, just as I really wished they floated the dollar, reduced tariffs and supported Medicare. But we are where we are and they did none of those things despite ample opportunity and we see history repeating itself. The mother of all scare campaigns until we all discover that.... life goes on. It seems the only major economic reform the Libs will ever be able to lay claim to is the GST, which of course had an inflationary impact that was many multiples of this proposal... and similar types of people predicting doom and gloom at every turn.

If and when this passes the parliament, it will make me proud to be Australian...

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Well the only alternative is to legislate law that companies cannot raise prices based on the carbon tax. And that's not going to happen.

Thw whole point is to change prices. That way, cleaner and more efficient energy creation and use is ecnomically advantaged. As such, companies have a strong motivation to utilise cleaner sources, and the viability of clean energy investment is improved.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

What are you on about? It was obviously a joke.

Once would have been a joke.

 

[evand]

I disagree. The tax is coming from the other end. From the large producers of pollution.

If companies reduce their pollution, the savings to them will be massive. They will be more competitive in the market (by not having to increase prices). That is the basis of the tax. To get companies to reduce pollution, therefore reduce their tax and of course to be more competitive.

I'm sure that answers your question.

Thw whole point is to change prices. That way, cleaner and more efficient energy creation and use is ecnomically advantaged. As such, companies have a strong motivation to utilise cleaner sources, and the viability of clean energy investment is improved.

 

[evand]

huh? The first was time i was stating a fact that he plagiarised a Labor politician. (ironic for such a blue blood Liberal supporter)

The 2nd one was a joke when he plagiarised me. Totally confused here why you're continuing with this.

Once would have been a joke.

 

[random]

Blueys right , just look at the money to be made out of all this . If you like money , there's gotta be a fortune out there on it's way as we speak .

The solar industry says it will be on steroids once this is in for instance .
What do you guys think of solar shares , anyone got a gooden ? One of the little mobs that have the pipeline " nearly " happening would be nice .

Cheers

 

[HiEquity]

I understand how it works. My point is that it doesn't need to be so complex, because the whole point of the tax should be to impose an economic imperative to implement cleaner and more efficient energy creation. By compensating most of the community, much of the economic imperative is diluted.

This makes no sense . You would prefer the govt introduce an entirely new tax and then.... just keep the money? Do nothing with it whatsoever?

The better way to look at this package is that it is reducing taxes like income tax (particularly the tax free threshold - finally!) while introducing a carbon tax. It's revenue neutral overall for the govt (actually slightly revenue negative), which is as it should be and provides a much needed price signal for companies to emit less than they do now. Whereas right now they can emit as much as they like and not be penalised for it at all.

 

[Dazz]

As Peter Garrett once sung "Short memory must have a....short memory"


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7945914/pm-says-no-carbon-tax-under-her-govt

 

[bluestorm]

- We are moving from taxing "goods" like income and profit to taxing "bads" like environmental damage instead. A groundbreaking shift in taxation policy and a historic reform. The reductions in income tax provide fantastic incentive for people to get out there and make something of themselves.

What are you on HiEquity. It's just the first step of Labor to increase the tax amounts. For now they have increased the threshhold to $18200, and the 15% rate to 19%, and 30% to 33%. I will guarantee you that their next move will be increasing the other, high income, tax rates up. The Labor magic and light shows has not got you thinking long term.

1million Australian who were previously paying tax now get to become freeloaders.

Anyway, we'll all agree to disagree.
I'll let you greeny hippies have your group kumbaya lovein, while the capitalist in me makes money on shares from this Carbon Tax decision.

It's revenue neutral overall for the govt (actually slightly revenue negative), which is as it should be and provides a much needed price signal for companies to emit less than they do now.

Oh dear lord. Yes, governments introduce taxes in order to make a loss out of it. How very charitable of them.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

huh? The first was time i was stating a fact that he plagiarised a Labor politician. (ironic for such a blue blood Liberal supporter)

The 2nd one was a joke when he plagiarised me. Totally confused here why you're continuing with this.

You were carrying on about the libs pages ago, including in responses to my posts.

Anyway, your right about continuing. Let's forget it.

 

[HiEquity]

What are you on HiEquity. It's just the first step of Labor to increase the tax amounts. For now they have increased the threshhold to $18200, and the 15% rate to 19%, and 30% to 33%. I will guarantee you that their next move will be increasing the other, high income, tax rates up. The Labor magic and light shows has not got you thinking long term.

The package clearly shows this combination of carbon tax introduction and income tax reduction, coupled with the other measures, will result in a small loss of revenue to the government. You are claiming that they secretly wish to increase taxes by reducing them?

Certainly an odd way to go about it...

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

This makes no sense . You would prefer the govt introduce an entirely new tax and then.... just keep the money? Do nothing with it whatsoever?

The better way to look at this package is that it is reducing taxes like income tax (particularly the tax free threshold - finally!) while introducing a carbon tax. It's revenue neutral overall for the govt (actually slightly revenue negative), which is as it should be and provides a much needed price signal for companies to emit less than they do now. Whereas right now they can emit as much as they like and not be penalised for it at all.

I would rather see the money used more effectively than simply handing it back to joe average. If they were serious about environmental concerns, there would be new tax deductions or rebates available to companies to further encourage clean eneregy development.

I can see that this will encourage some companies to develop cleaner energy development and consumption, but the other half of the solution should have been to encourage consumers to vote with their wallets. By handing back the money, there is little incentive for the consumer to use less or change provider.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Such negativity in this thread. Coupled with ignorance it becomes a powerful cocktail and causes a big froth about nothing. If this package does pass parliament it will be a great day in the history of this nation. There isn't a country in the world who has yet proposed a better way of dealing with this issue. Most of the international schemes by comparison look wasteful, expensive and inefficient. The Productivity Commission has to take some of the credit for that, following their excellent report on pricing carbon (as far as it went) - we were able to learn from a lot of mistakes, including the CPRS.

- We are moving from taxing "goods" like income and profit to taxing "bads" like environmental damage instead. A groundbreaking shift in taxation policy and a historic reform. The reductions in income tax provide fantastic incentive for people to get out there and make something of themselves.

i'll believe it when i see more than a lift in the tax free threshold from $6k to $18k - saves me a whopping $1800 per year....yay

- One million Australians will no longer have to file tax returns courtesy of the increase in the tax free threshold. I can imagine there might be some accountants who could be a little unhappy about that... perhaps they should look at career options in the clean energy industry instead! Good to see genuine tax reform part of the package this time.

it's not reform, it's a gig. The Stupid Cow was on JJJ this morning highlighting how it'll be good for working students because they'll get a lift in the TFT. awesome - now tell them what their train fee, accomodation fees and bus fare will be....

- This package does actually support clean energy, where $23/tonne alone wouldn't have. A historic investment in diversity of energy supply and research and development on a scale necessary to develop the new technologies we need in an Australian context.

at $2.5b pa for the next 40 years? no offence, but that's a pittance if we want to be "sustainable". i'd like to see the figures of all the aluminium refinery and silver/copper mining to suppot solar panels, the lifespan of windmills and their intensity as well. The Stupid Cow waffles on about geothermal, but nothing is set in concrete - no doubt ot end up in the "too hard basket".

- Emissions intensive trade exposed industries are looked after and even International Power (Hazlewood) can't complain about sovereign risk with their generous assistance. Although they've known about carbon risk for twenty years, at least...

isn't this an oxymoron? aren't we meant to be REMOVING them? why are we looking after them? if there are so many jobs (wasn't the figure 1.6m jobs over 40 years?) in renewables surely a start now would be best? when are these big polluters wound down? when are they expected to be wound down?

- Agriculture excluded, which prevents a can of worms being opened on both sides of the fence.

i believe in TC's calculations more than i do Labors and wlecome this. although, does it show forethought or another "oh that's too hard to calculate properly, just exempt it" ineptitude?

- Compensation for pensioners is generous enough to give them a buffer and no doubt a needed increase in the pension anyway.

the removal of indexing was theft in my opinion. offer a product like4like, dont deny rights within the package willy nilly. i welcome this anyway.

- The level of the tax isn't high enough to cause jobs to move offshore.

like i said, i know of one company who have downsized to one employee under the redundancy payout figure (14 employees) so that if they are affected, they can just shut their doors. they must have learned it form either other business owners, business advisors (who would be advising others of the same) or accountants (also advising others of the same).

collusion-by-default.


- Truckies need to work out how to charge their customers more, although I'm sure they would have done that before when the price of diesel rose by 6c/litre...

actually, i know a number of blokes in transport and he couldn't raise his margins under the period contract, like a lot of truckies.

- For the first time, people innovating in the clean energy space will actually have a market for the products they hope to develop. Why would anyone develop a technology for reducing / sequestering / avoiding greenhouse emissions in the absence of a market for such a beast?



- If companies spend as much time and effort in reducing their exposure to this tax as they do in reducing their other taxes, the results in terms of innovation will be extraordinary!

i'm thinking about buying some useless West Coast land in Tasmania, planting a bucket load of pawlonia and selling 3 year carbon credits, harvest, sell timber, go again.

As for Mr Abbot's scheme, his presentation was full of misinformation. I would call it "lies" if it wasn't so obvious that he doesn't actually know the first thing about power systems or renewable energy integration. Hi examples about landfill gas, to take just one example, are disingenous to say the least (being polite), where he must know that for marginal landfills to be developed know require a package like this to get through. As for solar powered factories, WTF?

The subject matter just doesn't interest him - that is self evident every time he opens his mouth. As for his "direct action" plan, it's a joke masquerading as a farce. Allow farmers to make money from soil carbon, which they are increasing anyway for productive reasons via no-till, but don't charge them for their fertiliser emissions? It's the ultimate rent seeking welfare scheme for farmers....

I really wish the Coalition was doing this, just as I really wished they floated the dollar, reduced tariffs and supported Medicare. But we are where we are and they did none of those things despite ample opportunity and we see history repeating itself. The mother of all scare campaigns until we all discover that.... life goes on. It seems the only major economic reform the Libs will ever be able to lay claim to is the GST, which of course had an inflationary impact that was many multiples of this proposal... and similar types of people predicting doom and gloom at every turn.

abbot's idea is that a tax wont solve climate change any more than a TV tax disincentives the French to own tellies. climate changes - it's what it does, lets invest time and effort in being able to take advantage climate change, rather than fight it.

If and when this passes the parliament, it will make me proud to be Australian...

if this passes parliament, i will seriously think about giving up my citizenship as the UN will then hold a share as trustee as part of the CIF they set up currently for developing nations and then across to all nations utilising an international price on carbon. even The Stupid Cow admitted it's an international push. that will be the end of Australia's right to make it's own decisions on it's own energy future and bye-bye sovereignty.

sorry Antony, but i just can't agree with the tax because it's got international undertones and undermines the sovereignty of this country's ability to choose it's own energy path.

i respect the fact that you've researched and made a very informed decision as to how this will affect you and the country, but all i can see is 25 years down the track.

i agree that's it's both defeatist and apathetic to whinge about "other countires" and yes, i believe that something SHOULD be INCENTIVISED to create an industry.

hell, i could even support this tax if the incentives for other forms of energy coming out of the other side of the equation were equal to what went in at the start.

there's a UNFCCC funnel here that's not being reported anywhere and it set to make the likes of the UN a new force in international negotiations by making them an intrinsic part owner in all energy making decisions. if you thought the WTO was bad, wait until you cop these guys up the bum in 2030.

i won't mistake activity for progress.

"we must do something!"
"this is something!"
"we must do this!"

 

[HiEquity]

By handing back the money, there is little incentive for the consumer to use less or change provider.

I disagree. There is every incentive for consumers to use fewer carbon intensive goods and services. If pensionser do this, just for example, they will still receive more income through their pension than they pay in carbon tax. They can change their behaviour to avoid the tax as much as possible if they wish, while still receiving the extra pension.

The difference will then be paid by those who don't change their behaviour - as it should be. You can still emit as much as you like - just don't expect it to be free...