Getting rid of the Carbon Tax

[HiEquity]

Currently it is Liberal party policy to:

- Repeal the carbon tax; and then
- Impose a reduction in emissions on the Australian economy which is exactly the same as that which the carbon tax would achieve, just through another means which they like to call "Direct Action" because people like the sound of that, even though it just means "higher taxes" to pay for it.

This is called "having your cake and eating it too". It is hard for me to imagine the Australian electorate would be happy for them to go through all the palaver necessary to unwind the Carbon Tax only to just change the look of it to achieve the same outcome anyway.

One of those policies will have to give and when it does they will lose a lot of support because currently they are getting the support of all the people (a very large percentage of the electorate) who think "something should be done" but (incorrectly) think that it should be able to be achieved without them actually having to pay for it through the tax system.

As the majority of people still believe in science and the scientific method because of the immense benefits it has given to society throughout history, they also won't be happy with a policy that "nothing should be done" and the rest of the world can go to #$%@ because we aren't going to lift a finger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There isn't a large company in Australia that sees a zero carbon price as a realistic scenario. In my work they are only interested in scenario modelling for major infrastructure build in the range of $15 - $60 per tonne. It's just not seen as a possibility out there in the real (i.e. non-political) world.

 

[Sunfish]

Julia has proven herself accident prone. The less kind might even say disaster prone.

By next year the labor brand will stink like rotten fish. Watching them now they remind me of Monty Python's Black Knight: The more bravado they show, the more limbs they lose. Time will NOT heal the injuries they have inflicted upon themselves, they will simply grow weaker through loss of blood.

If things don't change SOON Australia will be facing a constitutional crisis of biblical proportions. All on account of power hungry individuals, and the personal greed of three "independents". They should shoulder much of the blame.

I am saddened and feel for my country. It doesn't deserve this.

 

[weg]

Accident prone?

Are you making excuses for her poor judgement, underhanded dealings and lack of insight there Sunfish .

It looks more self inflicted than accidental to me.

In the case of Gillard, as opposed to the Labor Party itself, I think the BIGGEST factor leading to her demise is her lack of morals.

If her actions were MORE honourable, rather than self serving and decietful, that have become her trademark, then at least some her failures wouldn't have appeared so bad. Many of the disaster would not have occured at all.

Some basic lessons to be learned right there.

 

[Token Funder]

Currently it is Liberal party policy to:

- Repeal the carbon tax; and then
- Impose a reduction in emissions on the Australian economy which is exactly the same as that which the carbon tax would achieve, just through another means which they like to call "Direct Action" because people like the sound of that, even though it just means "higher taxes" to pay for it.

This is called "having your cake and eating it too". It is hard for me to imagine the Australian electorate would be happy for them to go through all the palaver necessary to unwind the Carbon Tax only to just change the look of it to achieve the same outcome anyway.

One of those policies will have to give and when it does they will lose a lot of support because currently they are getting the support of all the people (a very large percentage of the electorate) who think "something should be done" but (incorrectly) think that it should be able to be achieved without them actually having to pay for it through the tax system.

As the majority of people still believe in science and the scientific method because of the immense benefits it has given to society throughout history, they also won't be happy with a policy that "nothing should be done" and the rest of the world can go to #$%@ because we aren't going to lift a finger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There isn't a large company in Australia that sees a zero carbon price as a realistic scenario. In my work they are only interested in scenario modelling for major infrastructure build in the range of $15 - $60 per tonne. It's just not seen as a possibility out there in the real (i.e. non-political) world.

+ 1.

For a the party that is supposed to be a supporter of free markets to claim direct govt action is the best and most efficient way to reduce emissions shows how far the Liberals have strayed. They are now a party of social conservatives. not economic ones.

 

[Dazz]

Currently it is Liberal party policy to:

- Repeal the carbon tax; and then
- Impose a reduction in emissions on the Australian economy which is exactly the same as that which the carbon tax would achieve, just through another means which they like to call "Direct Action" because people like the sound of that, even though it just means "higher taxes" to pay for it.

This is called "having your cake and eating it too". It is hard for me to imagine the Australian electorate would be happy for them to go through all the palaver necessary to unwind the Carbon Tax only to just change the look of it to achieve the same outcome anyway.

One of those policies will have to give and when it does they will lose a lot of support because currently they are getting the support of all the people (a very large percentage of the electorate) who think "something should be done" but (incorrectly) think that it should be able to be achieved without them actually having to pay for it through the tax system.

As the majority of people still believe in science and the scientific method because of the immense benefits it has given to society throughout history, they also won't be happy with a policy that "nothing should be done" and the rest of the world can go to #$%@ because we aren't going to lift a finger.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There isn't a large company in Australia that sees a zero carbon price as a realistic scenario. In my work they are only interested in scenario modelling for major infrastructure build in the range of $15 - $60 per tonne. It's just not seen as a possibility out there in the real (i.e. non-political) world.

-1.

This is Green logic, and utterly fails the most basic of common sense tests.

Your post is riddled with untested assumptions, most of which are untrue.

Fortunately, the majority of the population disagree with your view.

The expedient lie that the Carbon Tax is based upon, one that was extracted from Labor as the price to get into bed with the Greens and form a Fed. Govt from the hung parliament will come back to bite and bite hard.

We have seen this in every state election since the lie was made, and the Green / Labor alliance was signed off. The vast majority of the public (89%) don't agree with this Green view of the world, as determined by the ballot box.

The Carbon Tax is a socialist policy and most people don't like it, and many large companies would love to put $ 0 in their little modelling spreadsheets if they thought it was a reality. Every day that passes, with Labor on the nose everywhere, the thought of scrapping it is becoming a reality.

With the Liberals very likely to make the next election a referendum on the subject, Australian folk will finally have a say about what they think of it.

I can't wait to see the result of what the Aussie public collectively think of it.

 

[HiEquity]

Oh well, I guess it's all the way with Direct Action and the same level of emission reductions anyway then. No problemo...

 

[HotRod]

The recent Qld election gives a hint of the impending carnage.

 

[Sunfish]

As the majority of people still believe in science and the scientific method because of the immense benefits it has given to society throughout history, they also won't be happy with a policy that "nothing should be done" and the rest of the world can go to #$%@ because we aren't going to lift a finger.

15 months is a long time in politics, and in the "climate change" wars. The wheels are falling off the AGW alarmism bandwagon and today a majority no longer believe the sky is falling. This collapse will start in Germany where the practical Huns are seeing reality. Within our borders, Newman has scrapped a heap of "green initiatives" to general approval. Maybe this will stir the timid libs to trust the electorate more. [Timidity and lack of vision have been the lib's most obvious traits in the 50 years I've been voting].

By the time of the next election, the pragmatists in the liberal camp may be bold enough to "out" themselves. Forget Turnbull, if he ever leads a party again it will be the one that fills the vacuum when labor collapses.

 

[Belbo]

I can't wait to see the result of what the Aussie public collectively think of it.

But isn't it curious, eh? Prior to the GFC when the public supported the idea of action on carbon emissions, Abbott was all for it. After the GFC, with the public more concerned about the costs involved in carbon-reducing action, Abbott has come out against it.

The only constant here appears to be - as Abbott himself has said - that he'd sell his *** to become PM.

Hence my concern for the future rational management of fiscal policy.

 

[buzzlightyear]

...The only constant here appears to be - a Abbott himself said - that he'd sell his *** to become PM....

Whilst Gillard knifed an incumbent PM, changed tact on the mining tax, warned off Rudd to not pursue a carbon emissions plan. What's the difference?

You can't make any change in public policy whilst being on the cross-benchers.

 

[locko24]

But isn't it curious, eh? Prior to the GFC when the public supported the idea of action on carbon emissions, Abbott was all for it. After the GFC, with the public more concerned about the costs involved in carbon-reducing action, Abbott has come out against it.

Forgive me if i'm mistaken, but i thought it was a pollies job to represent the folks who elected him/her!?!

 

[turk]

But isn't it curious, eh? Prior to the GFC when the public supported the idea of action on carbon emissions, Abbott was all for it. After the GFC, with the public more concerned about the costs involved in carbon-reducing action, Abbott has come out against it.

The only constant here appears to be - as Abbott himself has said - that he'd sell his *** to become PM.

Hence my concern for the future rational management of fiscal policy.

If you are that blinkered that you think the only constant is Abbott flip
flopping then it is obviously a waste of time mentioning the same flip flopping by Rudd and Gillard to stay/become PM.

Such a blinkered outlook undermines any other credible arguments that you put forward.

You, along with others here represent the majority of voters that toe the party line.

 

[Belbo]

If you are that blinkered that you think the only constant is Abbott flip
flopping then it is obviously a waste of time mentioning the same flip flopping by Rudd and Gillard to stay/become PM.

Such a blinkered outlook undermines any other credible arguments that you put forward.

You, along with others here represent the majority of voters that toe the party line.

I agree about the flip-flopping, Turk. The ALP government HAS undermiined itself . No argument! But that doesn't make me wrong about Abbott, you see?

 

[Sunfish]

Ours is not a presidential system. The PM only holds the position while he maintains the confidence of the party room. He can be removed at any time, as has been shown.

Let's hope the party room has a significant input to policy in the next gov. It has been largely ignored in this one. Somehow I doubt that the majority of the labor members are as crazy as their leadership. Will some jump ship in a vain attempt to save their asses?

Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances. I'll take a chance on liberal.

 

[turk]

I agree about the flip-flopping, Turk. The ALP government HAS undermiined itself . No argument! But that doesn't make me wrong about Abbott, you see?

No it doesn't make you wrong it just makes you a party hack by leaving out the same behaviour by Rudd and Gillard.

The constant I saw was the 3 leaders flip flopping.

Do you have the same lack of confidence in Gillards rational management of fiscal policy as you would have in Abbotts due to the same behaviour?

 

[warrenkh]

re

I am actually neutral on the carbon tax issue. Let me explain this way:

At the next election:

1. If labor wins, the carbon tax goes ahead, tax increases, and small people like us pays.

2. If liberal wins, and if carbon tax gets cancelled. Then we have 'direct action'. Where instead of punishment, we have a scheme that 'rewards' positive changes. Well, that 'reward' would probably be at tax payer's expensive, so small people like us pays.

3. If liberal wins, and nothing is done. Then, we go on as usual. And if climate change happen to be true, then it would still be small people like us that pays for the consequence - which could range from higher prices, or cost of repair after certain natural disaster etc etc

4. What if climate change science is wrong? Well, my dear friends, the government will always find ways to raise more tax from us. May be one day, we get to pay an Oxygen tax! This is the price we pay to live in Australia.

So either way, we pay! Climate change, carbon tax or not, so stop stressing!

Warrenkh.2012

 

[buzzlightyear]

.... Somehow I doubt that the majority of the labor members are as crazy as their leadership. Will some jump ship in a vain attempt to save their asses?....

So if the ALP are in the same electorial position with regards to polls 6-9 months out from the next election, do they change leader, or go to the gallows with JG?

 

[Belbo]

No it doesn't make you wrong it just makes you a party hack by leaving out the same behaviour by Rudd and Gillard.

The constant I saw was the 3 leaders flip flopping.

Do you have the same lack of confidence in Gillards rational management of fiscal policy as you would have in Abbotts due to the same behaviour?

You tell me, Turk. Is the Gillard/Swan government trying to serve up a balanced budget next month, or not?

But as for me being an ALP hack, sorry. Way off target. The ALP have screwed up their chance here at governing utterly. I'm neutral!

But coming back to this thread's topic of repealing the carbon tax, what did Dazz say again? That the challenge for someone will be maintaining their rage to remember to do it? But WHO?

 

[Dazz]

Ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances. I'll take a chance on liberal.

That seems to be the over-riding sentiment with the majority of folks Sunfish.

From where I sit, you'll always have 40% of the public ageeing with everything a major party stands for, you'll have 40% of the population disagreeing with everything the same major party stands for, and you've got a 20% block who seem to change depending on certain things that deeply affect them, to the exclusion of all other things.

It seems 10 or 11% of those 20% vote Green....probably the same bunch who used to vote for the Democrats, and the other 8 or 9% are made up of either informal votes or true swing voters.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

 

[turk]

You tell me, Turk. Is the Gillard/Swan government trying to serve up a balanced budget next month, or not?

But as for me being an ALP hack, sorry. Way off target. The ALP have screwed up their chance here at governing utterly. I'm neutral!

But coming back to this thread's topic of repealing the carbon tax, what did Dazz say again? That the challenge for someone will be maintaining their rage to remember to do it? But WHO?

They will hand up a balanced budget but to me the relevant questions are
how is the budget surplus gathered, honestly or by sleight of hand and the important one, does it actually end up in a surplus? We wont know for months.

you seem to have missed this question,

"Do you have the same lack of confidence in Gillards rational management of fiscal policy as you would have in Abbotts due to the same behaviour?"

You may be neutral but your posts aren't.