that's the same as the GST.
"user pays" system whereby everythign was affected to the point where you couldn't NOT pay GST in some form or guise.
that worked awesome - so many people were abel to avoid paying GST - not.
Carbon tax
- Thread starter lizzie
- Start date
that's the same as the GST.
"user pays" system whereby everythign was affected to the point where you couldn't NOT pay GST in some form or guise.
that worked awesome - so many people were abel to avoid paying GST - not.
I repeat. Where's the motivation for 70% of households who end up with more money, to reduce carbon emissions?
Why doesn't Julia just slap a higher tax on large engine vehicles, petrol, diesel, LPG, electricity, animal products? Nice and simple. Farmers can pass on the additional costs to consumers, pensioners don't drive much and can live more healthfully on vegetable protein. And labor can move their govt departments out of cbd's to the burbs where employees can bicycle to work. Remote/rural allowances can compensate those who live further from service centres.
Why do Labor and the Greens insist on painting an expensive complex redistributive tax as an environmental protection tax?
Why doesn't Julia just slap a higher tax on large engine vehicles, petrol, diesel, LPG, electricity, animal products? Nice and simple. Farmers can pass on the additional costs to consumers, pensioners don't drive much and can live more healthfully on vegetable protein. And labor can move their govt departments out of cbd's to the burbs where employees can bicycle to work. Remote/rural allowances can compensate those who live further from service centres.
Why do Labor and the Greens insist on painting an expensive complex redistributive tax as an environmental protection tax?
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...
There will be a larger loss to the government than is being stated. Regardless of the hugh bureaucracy, 10% of the tax is being paid over to the UN's climate change fund. This was something Rudd agreed when he was PM.
That's exactly what we are doing here? A perfect example of choosing our own energy path rather than being beholden to the coal industry, to take just one example. As for your other points:
- The $1800 per year from the increase in the TFT is probably larger than the price increases from a $23/tonne carbon tax, if you use an average amount of carbon intensive goods and services.
- Public transport prices will hardly rise at all, given this only means an increase in the price of diesel of 6c/litre, if they get caught up with the truckies (I haven't checked on this point - they may not).
- Hazlewood and Playford power stations are the most likely to be removed by this proposal. But they will be compensated for shutting down.
- The assistance for clean energy is well in excess of that currently received.
- Contract periods for truckies are irrelevant given they have two years notice.
- Wind turbines take 3-6 months to pay back the energy used to produce them, out of a minimum 20 year life.
- Can't see anymore substantive issues - BTW it's well understood that agriculture is a net emitter while it uses fertiliser (can't see that changing in a hurry) regardless of soil carbon / bio char etc etc.
If it's easier to stay with an existing provider, and you're being compensated anyway, why go to the hassle of changing? Some people might, but a lot won't. Until it hits people in the hip pocket, I don't think there'll be genuine consumer demand for cleaner and more efficient solutions.
I had a little think about this. There are plenty of scenarios but here are a few.
To make $2000 in 1.5 hours you would need to invest $100k in a share that rises 2% in 1.5 hours.
Or $50k in share that rises 4% in 1.5 hours
Or invest $20k in a share that rises 10% in 1.5 hours.
Or any combination of the above.
I have been a trader for a long time (my usual trade = $20k - $40K) and i know that any one of the above scenarios is very very unlikely.
Firstly, that YOU would not risk $100k in a casual day trade. Secondly its incredibly rare that any share will jump by 2% - 10% in an hour and a half. Especially on a a morning when the market fell about 1% in the first hour.
Combine the above 2 points and i call you're telling porkies. Easy to big note yourself on an anonymous forum. But you should have a bit of a think first.
To make $2000 in 1.5 hours you would need to invest $100k in a share that rises 2% in 1.5 hours.
Or $50k in share that rises 4% in 1.5 hours
Or invest $20k in a share that rises 10% in 1.5 hours.
Or any combination of the above.
I have been a trader for a long time (my usual trade = $20k - $40K) and i know that any one of the above scenarios is very very unlikely.
Firstly, that YOU would not risk $100k in a casual day trade. Secondly its incredibly rare that any share will jump by 2% - 10% in an hour and a half. Especially on a a morning when the market fell about 1% in the first hour.
Combine the above 2 points and i call you're telling porkies. Easy to big note yourself on an anonymous forum. But you should have a bit of a think first.
Anyway, just made $2000 this morning by trading on some companies that will benefit from this Carbon Tax. This offsets 2yrs of Gillards Carbon Tax impact to my household. And I expect a bit more when the hit miners recover later in the day. The rich get richer
Cheer evand. Keep the green madness coming. There is money to be made from it.
Because they can choose to spend that money on goods and services that don't have a high carbon intensity, instead of those that do...
As for transport, at 13% of our total emissions across all sectors (road, rail, marine etc etc), just hitting transport would make next to no difference. Same thing for agriculture at about 16%. Better to concentrate on what is actually responsible for our emissions, rather than the fluff...
It will hit them in the hit pocket! The price for that good or service will rise... more than enough reason to think about doing something about it!
There is already massive demand for cleaner greener solutions.
Its a booming industry still in its infancy and growing fast. The explosion in this industry is very much consumer demand driven.
Its a booming industry still in its infancy and growing fast. The explosion in this industry is very much consumer demand driven.
Except they'll be compensated irrespective of whether they change or not.
So they can keep the compensation and not be exposed to the price increase by choosing low emissions goods and services. All paid for by those who keep choosing high emissions goods and services. Sounds like a good incentive to me!
That right pensioners. Suck it up.
You carbon intensive electricity usage is killing the planet. Now us Labor folk know that you live on bread and water, but we'd like you to go out and spend $10000 on solar panels, so you can cut down you evil polluting ways and save the planet for you grandchildren. Or better still, we are working with the Greens on introducing euthanasia laws. It would only be thoughtful of you if you completely slow using carbon intensive good and services and make use of these new laws. You grandchildren and the planet will thank you for your co-operation.
Regards
Watermellons (Greens and Labor)
i wonder if being human can be considered a carbon sequestration program?
after all, we are mostly carbon.
the fatter you are, you more credits you can sell. the more kids you have, the more credits you can sell.
why limit it to just trees and plants?
i wonder if the govt will sell creidts from their national parks - there's a nice money spinner.
after all, we are mostly carbon.
the fatter you are, you more credits you can sell. the more kids you have, the more credits you can sell.
why limit it to just trees and plants?
i wonder if the govt will sell creidts from their national parks - there's a nice money spinner.
I thought we were mostly water.
If hitting transport makes next to no difference because it is only 13%, then hitting the 20% of greenhouse gas emissions Australian households are responsible for should make 'almost' next to no difference. So why should households change their behavior when it is the evil 500 that are the devils' advocate?
But then, it is all a bit of a con really isn't it. Because households somewhere in the world are the end consumers of everything.
That's an easy one.
You're getting compensated for an average increase.
If you can source cheaper power/products and lower your costs to below the average increase, you pocket the difference.
This, in turn, creates a financial incentive for suppliers to abate their emmissions and minimise their carbon tax,giving them a comparative advantage over those that don't.
Clear price signals change behaviour.
In my own case, I'm one of the lucky few not receiving any compensation, so my motivation is stronger again.
According to Minerals Council CEO and cartoon superhero model, Mitch Hooke, it is soooo large it will bring about the death of the minerals sector and, reading between the lines, simultanously remove all the bubbles from beer, making the national beverage flat and lifeless for evermore.
I think I got that last bit right.
The more you earn the more carbon you use according to
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
Maybe if I sit at home all day surfing the net, smoking dope and watching tv I will do better for the environment
This is what makes my blood boil, under a this government the harder you work the more you are punished
https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/
Maybe if I sit at home all day surfing the net, smoking dope and watching tv I will do better for the environment
This is what makes my blood boil, under a this government the harder you work the more you are punished
Yes, but the policy here does not distribute money from the big companies as they'll simply pass the cost on via the products they sell you, such as electricity.
So who's footing the bill? Simply middle-class people, who now face higher costs of products. Oh and did I mention the tax cuts combined with higher costs of products leads to inflation --> yes, interest rate rises.
Similar threads
