Carbon tax

Let's see ... the 80% of households that get compo will not change their ways because they are pocketing more than they lose.

The other 20% who, according to the government, are rich rich rich beyond their wildest dreams (yeah right :rolleyes:) won't be compensated at all so will be racing out to install solar panels to decrease their usage - glad I've already got my panels on. Pity mosty won't be able to afford the extra $10-20k required as they're flat out paying for the current, soon to be increased, cost of living.

And, as pointed out by Mr Abbott - it is not possible to have solar powered steel mills, prime movers, combine harvesters etc, so these so-called high polluting industries will have no choice but to continue and charge more, head overseas or sink.

IMO, there is no real incentive for usage to change - producers/users will either be compensated or have no choice but to continue in their current frame.

Reading up, high polluting industries in Australia have already cut their emissions by 50% since 2000 ... so one wonders how much more room there is to be more efficient.

Personally, I believe there would be more incentive by increasing company tax rate by x% (say 1-2%) for those who make a net profit of over $x/yr (say $500,000) ... and using the extra income to give incentives to those who reduce their pollution ... or use the extra income to fund innovation ... or both.

Much simpler than passing money back and forth, and fairer to all
 
Have a look at the results from the polls from across the different states, surely Labor can see this is going to be the end of them if they continue with this.

I laughed at the perth now poll...

The majority of people said they would not change energy use after the taxes introduction because climate change is a myth...

Trouble is the tax is not a myth, even if you don't agree with climate change it is probably best to curb your power use just to save money.
 
I think a much better system would be to curb Centrelink payments to my many watermelon friends who rort the system, and then use the savings to plant trees to offset carbon emissions.

Tadaaaa problem solved!
 
I laughed at the perth now poll...

The majority of people said they would not change energy use after the taxes introduction because climate change is a myth...

Trouble is the tax is not a myth, even if you don't agree with climate change it is probably best to curb your power use just to save money.

I laughed at how everyone's costs of electricity etc are going to go up but they won't change their attitude --> inflation

I also laughed at how everyone got tax cuts, especially bogans, and chances are they'll blow it --> inflation

I laughed at how the average Australian will now face higher interest rates in an already difficult retail environment --> bankruptcy / foreclosure

I laughed at how the landlords who support carbon tax on this forum will end up losing money on properties --> laughing
 
I laughed at how everyone's costs of electricity etc are going to go up but they won't change their attitude --> inflation

I also laughed at how everyone got tax cuts, especially bogans, and chances are they'll blow it --> inflation

I laughed at how the average Australian will now face higher interest rates in an already difficult retail environment --> bankruptcy / foreclosure

I laughed at how the landlords who support carbon tax on this forum will end up losing money on properties --> laughing

Well maybe I should not have laughed but cried then.

I guess people saying no I don't care about the new tax, climate change is a myth so I will go on using power as before irrespective of the cost just went against my own limited understanding of economics.

There was another two questions of which I voted no to carbon tax and more likely to vote lib, but yes I will still comply and use less power, though likely even though I am ridiculously unnefficient around power use to make little difference overall in my total energy use.

It may be due to my own avid watching of everything political that has given me a heightened sense of panic around the tax and hence me kurbing its use.

Disincentives like taxes and tarrifs on things work to kurb there use even if philosophically people disagree with the idea of it.
 
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... :confused:

of course they are going to increase net taxes.
(a)yes they have increased the tax free threshold, but have increased the marginal tax rate on the next two tax brackets, are these tax brackets going to be indexed for inflation.
(b) what about someone who does a few hours of overtime????
(c) carbin tax increases by 2.5% for the first few years, again what sought of tax relief offset is there? only the next increase in the tax free threshold (and this increase in tax free threshold is not a 'natural' increase they are reducing the low income tax offsets.
 
It's clear from this thread that personal greed conquers all.

Which is exactly why the money needs to be redistributed to the punters, otherwise the tax would be absolute suicide.

Is there a plan to gradually reduce the compo to polluters such that something is actually done about their carbon emissions? Or does it rely on companies desire to make some money out of this?
 
Let's see ... the 80% of households that get compo will not change their ways because they are pocketing more than they lose.

Of course they will change their ways because the cost of carbon intensive goods and services will rise, encouraging the switch regardless of what happens to anyone's income. If the price of power goes up, I look to how I can use less power, regardless of whether or not I'm now paid more.

Obviously I must be unique?

And, as pointed out by Mr Abbott - it is not possible to have solar powered steel mills, prime movers, combine harvesters etc, so these so-called high polluting industries will have no choice but to continue and charge more, head overseas or sink.

The Esperance power system covers an area roughly the size of Tasmania. It is powered 30% by wind and the rest by gas. Towns in WA alone, like Hopetoun, Denham and Coral Bay get 50% of their power requirements from the wind on average. When it's windy it's 100%. The rest comes from diesel. This has been happening for more than 10 years. 100% renewables is fully achievable with storage - it's just a matter of price.

It is self evident Mr Abbott has no interest in how to design a power system of the future.

Personally, I believe there would be more incentive by increasing company tax rate by x% (say 1-2%) for those who make a net profit of over $x/yr (say $500,000) ... and using the extra income to give incentives to those who reduce their pollution ... or use the extra income to fund innovation ... or both.

Much simpler than passing money back and forth, and fairer to all

So instead of passing money back and forth you intend to.... pass money back and forth! And the incentives you speak of, what form would they look to be optimal to work the best? If you asked the Productivity Commission for their view, it would be a price on carbon... :rolleyes:

The more you earn the more carbon you use according to

https://www.cleanenergyfuture.​gov.au/helping-households/hous​ehold-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:mad:

This is what makes my blood boil, under a this government the harder you work the more you are punished

That model is based on evidence that higher income earners consume and consequently emit more than low income earners. It's a fact ie it's what actually happens - independent of which govt is in power or how they view the world.

Is there a plan to gradually reduce the compo to polluters such that something is actually done about their carbon emissions? Or does it rely on companies desire to make some money out of this?

Yes, most of the assistance in this form is transitional. Power stations only get compensated once for closing down. Clean energy gets direct action and the behavioural changes rely on the carbon price itself.

of course they are going to increase net taxes.
(a)yes they have increased the tax free threshold, but have increased the marginal tax rate on the next two tax brackets, are these tax brackets going to be indexed for inflation.

Probably not - they haven't been under successive Labor and Liberal govts although at least recently Labor did reset them upwards (ie less income tax). Both kinds of govt rely on bracket creep for their income to keep up with their expenses.

(b) what about someone who does a few hours of overtime????

It just changes which tax bracket they fall into, as per what happens now.

(c) carbin tax increases by 2.5% for the first few years, again what sought of tax relief offset is there? only the next increase in the tax free threshold (and this increase in tax free threshold is not a 'natural' increase they are reducing the low income tax offsets.

See above post on bracket creep. Neither party is likely to index tax brackets to CPI. They both need more control than that sort of precedent over the Budget.
 
Of course they will change their ways because the cost of carbon intensive goods and services will rise, encouraging the switch regardless of what happens to anyone's income. If the price of power goes up, I look to how I can use less power, regardless of whether or not I'm now paid more.

Obviously I must be unique?

To me, what you are saying is common sense. If Good A goes up in price, and this makes Good B cheaper by comparison, then people will look to buy 'B'. And they will make this decision regardless of whether their income goes up or not.

I'm not sure how the supposed economic giants on here are missing this point.
 
To me, what you are saying is common sense. If Good A goes up in price, and this makes Good B cheaper by comparison, then people will look to buy 'B'. And they will make this decision regardless of whether their income goes up or not.

I'm not sure how the supposed economic giants on here are missing this point.

Mate, prices won't come down, only up for electricity.
In case you have missed a crucial point, coal is a cheap form of energy. Wind, Solar, etc, etc, will cost you more regardless.
It's like green cars compared to normal cars. Green is never cheaper as it takes more effort to produce.

And by the way, if I spend $200 on a dinner out, do I care if my electricity bill goes up $200/qtr. It's peanuts.

And here's a thought for you green fanatics. The "polluters" are the ones producing the materials used to actually build all your fancy Wind turbines and solar panels, etc. Bunch of hypocrates.
 
And by the way, if I spend $200 on a dinner out, do I care if my electricity bill goes up $200/qtr. It's peanuts.

I totally agree. That would mean there's no reason not to do it... :)

As for our manufacturing industries, why would they invest in carbon efficiency specifically without a price on carbon? If it's free to emit, why would they spend a cent not to?

BTW I find coal power stations a lot more "fancy" than a wind turbine... they're certainly a lot more complex!
 
To me, what you are saying is common sense. If Good A goes up in price, and this makes Good B cheaper by comparison, then people will look to buy 'B'. And they will make this decision regardless of whether their income goes up or not.

I'm not sure how the supposed economic giants on here are missing this point.

Probably cynicism.

You only have to look at other taxes which have been introduced as a deterrent or to in this case internalise negative externalities to find later they are being used to raise revenue; tobbaco, developer levies etc etc.

You can imagine in several years (could easily be a future liberal government...) them sitting around looking at higher tax levels but the resulting drop in revenue being too much and saying lets just raise it by $15 dollars a tonne to reap maximum tax, otherwise these coal power plants will actually close which is no good for our bottom line.

I imagine the reason they are also taking direct action (close brown coal plants etc) is that the tax in isolation will have very little effect on carbon emmissions unless it is much higher than it is currently and so a 5% reduction by 2020 will not even be looking like happening at the end of the fixed price period leaving much heavy lifting and pain for a future ETRS.
 
Mate, prices won't come down, only up for electricity.
In case you have missed a crucial point, coal is a cheap form of energy. Wind, Solar, etc, etc, will cost you more regardless.
It's like green cars compared to normal cars. Green is never cheaper as it takes more effort to produce.

And by the way, if I spend $200 on a dinner out, do I care if my electricity bill goes up $200/qtr. It's peanuts.

And here's a thought for you green fanatics. The "polluters" are the ones producing the materials used to actually build all your fancy Wind turbines and solar panels, etc. Bunch of hypocrates.

I understand your first point, I was just making a general point about finding a cheaper alternative. If prices go up, people look for a cheaper alternative regardless of what their income does.

As for your $200 dinner, fine, but then why are you bleating about the tax? This tax is going to destroy everything. Except my $200 dinners. It doesn't mesh.

As for your last point, it's spelt hypocrites. It doesn't help your 'I'm the smartest guy here' schtick if you can't spell.
 
Back
Top