The Biggest Tax EVER in Australia

[evand]

What a load of BS! What about new start? What about housing commission?

What about the system you're speaking of existing under a conservative govt?

Mate, i think you've lost the plot?

Well ng only exists because socialist govts, driven by dill ideologies, are too incompetent to provide the biggest low class handout of them all - cheap rental housing.

Hence they con/entice the naive to buy IPs, charge less than what it costs to hold, and gamble on credit bubble driven capital gains offsetting holding costs.

Make no mistake; a socialist govt can not afford to provide rental accommodation to 33% of the population cheaper, no matter the self patting on the back by Tanya Pliberseck, for a few dozen affordable housing projects here and there. These are the ideologue's symbolic token efforts. And that's all socialists are capable of, because they run out of other people's money before delivering on their doe eyed promises.

 

[evand]

I was actually referring to your posts about hail damaging solar panels, solar arrays not being cost effective, all Labor voters sit around and get the dole, all Liberal voters are hard working industrialists that carry the nation.......and all the similar stuff you've posted that is just patently wrong.

I dont need an opinion to determine the correctness or otherwise of that stuff.

Fortunately for the majority on this forum, your personal opinion of "the facts" is not the definitive version by which we go by.

You do not and cannot determine what is absolute fact and what is not....and for that, I am eternally thankful.

 

[StefanA]

On the former, plenty of countries are enacting real policies on climate change. The fact that a global carbon trading market doesn't exist outside Kyoto and CDM is irrelevant in that context.

What happens to carbon trading after Durban?
"And Europe's carbon price has not been in parity with Australia's $23 a tonne price since June and now sits at about $10 following a downward price trend.As long as the EU's emissions trading scheme accounts for 97 per cent of the global carbon market, the price will be set in Europe and a price drop there will significantly influence whether emissions cuts will be achieved in Australia.
Not that Europe is leading by example. China accounts for 40 per cent of Europe's emissions reduction through Kyoto's clean development mechanism that allows developed countries to buy emissions reduction in developing countries and count the cuts against their own register.
At least Europe is consistent. It is going cap in hand to China to finance its debt crisis and then giving it back to China to cut its emissions. It's all becoming a bit of a merry-go-round."

On the latter point, this is the precise nub of the argument around how much is it all going to cost. You reckon $40 hey? Not $39? $35? $30? $25? The only fact is that you don't know - nobody does.

That's a point you should be making to Gillard, Brown, and Combet, who sold the electorate $23, when Europe is half that.

 

[Seabreeze]

The fact that the Europeans are doing it for $10/tonne doesn't make you question your previous statement that it would take $40/tonne here?

Low carbon prices in an ETS mean the required emissions reductions can be achieved cheaply. Surely this is a good thing?

And the fixed price period only lasts three years anyway so is hardly worth the discussion in the context of such a long term reform.

 

[Belbo]

Hi Dazz

Thanks for posting this.

If it wasn't for issues such as carbon I would agree with you - the choice would be simple. The problem is the Liberal party has always been torn in half between the "liberals" (who founded the party) and the "conservatives" (who don't yet have a viable party further to the right of the existing one in which to hang out). John Howard was such a good Liberal leader because he sat so well between these two camps. He was probably more of a conservative personally but made many decisions that were more progressive to keep the "wets" onside and keep the party together, within the "broad church" philosophy.

His influence was reputedly instrumental in getting Turnbull to hang around to ensure the party didn't become completely conservative under Abbott. It's also good risk management in the event the party is seen by history as backing the wrong horse with the "direct action" policy.

Personally, I'm philosophically a Liberal but I can't stand Abbott. A small section of the laundry list of policies that just make no sense from him include:
- "Direct Action" aka "No Action" or "Big govt purchasing instead of allowing the market to operate"
- No Statutory Individual Contracts (wtf? A classic policy that is in direct contravention of what the Liberal party stands for!)
- No offshore processing in countries that haven't signed the Refugee Convention (even though Nauru was in this category when Howard used this precise option)
- Maternity Leave - where did this come from? I would see it as a positive if he explained how he would pay for it (among other things) but he hasn't, which is a very un-Liberal thing to do. Where is all this money coming from????
- No Resource Rent Tax (at all? really? see above point about paying for his policies). Ken Henry explained very well why relying on royalties alone is bad policy and the states can't do anything other than royalties.
- Anti Dumping (What???? After decades of prosperity brought about by reducing tariff walls and increasing competition and productivity we want to go back to the past and increase bureaucracy to look through corporate underwear?)

I agree with his view on the NBN though and a few other things. The point being there is an avalanche of current policy in the Liberal party which openly contradicts Liberal values and it's down to the leader to fix it. I find it almost impossible to support the Liberals in their current form as a result. The only saving grace is that Turnbull is still there and with him there is a hope of the return of Liberal values rather than purely conservative ones (although maternity leave would have to be an outlier there...).

BTW I don't agree that "Corporate power" is a Liberal value. A combination of "Economic prosperity" and "Individual responsibility" could perhaps be better used in this context. Environmental stewardship is also a Liberal value - it's not and should not be the sole domain of the left. The Liberal party has a strong record on this through legislation such as the EPBC Act. And used to also have a strong record on it during its suppport of an ETS, at least in concept.

Kudos for the quality of this post! It looks to the merit of policies, rather than to the merit of historical party-political ideologies, for inspiration and constructive ideas.

Really: Don't you all think that more of the this sort of discussion, rather than caustic, unrelenting and repetitiously dull party tribalism, could actually be infinitely more informative?

In a word: Stop telling us why your political enemies are so utterly wrong, and start telling us how your political friends could do a bit better.

(And in the process, you 'rusted-on' diehards might actually win a vote or two thousand in the process, I suspect.)

Thanks for a decent breath of fresh air, Seabreeze.

 

[StefanA]

The fact that the Europeans are doing it for $10/tonne doesn't make you question your previous statement that it would take $40/tonne here?

Low carbon prices in an ETS mean the required emissions reductions can be achieved cheaply. Surely this is a good thing?

And the fixed price period only lasts three years anyway so is hardly worth the discussion in the context of such a long term reform.

The Europeans are "doing" what exactly? trading a fixed amount of carbon credits at a low price, in a highly elastic global economy?

This is the con of ETS. In April 2006, EU ETS carbon permits were trading at 1 euro after dropping from 30. So the market, much of which is derivative, was saying the cost of pollution, or the reward for reducing emissions was essentially nothing.

Did the real cost differential between dirty energy and development of cleaner stuff change? No.

All that happened was the markets thought there'd be prolonged global economic contraction. Did the cap change when the global outlook changed? No.

 

[Indifference]

The Carbon Tax is the biggest con of the 21st Century...

It has been scientifically PROVEN (through ice core samples...look it up) that CO2 does NOT cause the earth's temperature to rise.... Actually it is the exact opposite!

The earth's temperature IS correlated to CO2 BUT inversely to that touted by the government. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.... CO2 levels lag the earth's temperature variations & it has been shown through numerous peer reviewed research that CO2 levels are actually predominately driven by the earth's temperature....

To comprehend this, you need to realize where the largest source of CO2 creation comes from and why....

OK, I'll make it easy..... the oceans are the largest source of CO2 on earth by a margin of multiples..... why? The Sun.....

The Carbon Tax is the biggest Scam in our lifetime and most ppl are too ignorant to research the facts and inform themselves... Humanity is more akin to sheep than I care to acknowledge,,,,,

 

[Macca]

I always think this reversal of all that we know is hilarious, simply ask yourself why do we keep foodstuffs cool or frozen ?

Because when it warms up it decays quicker, so to me it is extremely obvious that when the earth goes through a warming cycle then all the old vegetation is going to rot a little bit quicker which in turn releases CO2 quicker.

Maybe I could get a $10m grant to study the effects of refrigeration of organic matter

The Carbon Tax is the biggest con of the 21st Century...

It has been scientifically PROVEN (through ice core samples...look it up) that CO2 does NOT cause the earth's temperature to rise.... Actually it is the exact opposite!

The earth's temperature IS correlated to CO2 BUT inversely to that touted by the government. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.... CO2 levels lag the earth's temperature variations & it has been shown through numerous peer reviewed research that CO2 levels are actually predominately driven by the earth's temperature....

To comprehend this, you need to realize where the largest source of CO2 creation comes from and why....

OK, I'll make it easy..... the oceans are the largest source of CO2 on earth by a margin of multiples..... why? The Sun.....

The Carbon Tax is the biggest Scam in our lifetime and most ppl are too ignorant to research the facts and inform themselves... Humanity is more akin to sheep than I care to acknowledge,,,,,

 

[BayView]

I'd argue that negative gearing is the biggest middle class handout of them all.

So, let's get rid of it, and the rents will go up. Great for me.

Let's see how the school leavers moving out of home afford the rent - as they have been doing for generations and generations.

 

[coastymike]

School leavers would adapt. They would just start sharing rooms as the asians have been doing for a long time. Can easily get 10 per cent yields in Sydney cbd with Asian students. In the right buildings as well body corporate couldn't care less.

 

[our obsession]

School leavers would adapt. They would just start sharing rooms as the asians have been doing for a long time. Can easily get 10 per cent yields in Sydney cbd with Asian students. In the right buildings as well body corporate couldn't care less.

Slight sidetrack, Coasty how are things going where you are, floodwise?(assuming still in BK). I see Don Muang has flooded.

 

[evand]

I'm back there in Jan/Feb so i hope things are better by then. I'd say they will be cleaning up after the water subsides. Suvarnabhumi is fine.

Slight sidetrack, Coasty how are things going where you are, floodwise?(assuming still in BK). I see Don Muang has flooded.

 

[coastymike]

Flooding in central bangkok is non existent. Sukhumvit dry as a bone. Suvarnabhumi airport dry as a bone. Bottled water is in plentiful supply despite crazy stories about only being able to purchase Evian water from the Siam Paragon. The business district of Bangkok is dry as a bone.

Great time for people to be going, particularly January/February, as the tourists have been scared off thinking the whole place is underwater. That's the media for you. Agreed other parts of Thailand are a disaster zone and if you want to head out to Don Muang then bring your waders.

As usual the Thais get on with life and a bit of flooding will not quieten them from money making opportunities. Not quite sure what is happening down on the bar scene but with tourism down things are probably quiet down there.

 

[our obsession]

Thanks fellas. I am very homesick for Thailand, but I am headed to Tassie than back to the States..

Later.

Thankyou!

 

[shuggy]

Looks like there's a few Thailand freaks on this board too, where's Terry.. tee nai?
I'm also homesick but have to stay in Bali for a month before i can go "home". Thanks for the update coasty, good to hear Suk is dry, especially lower Suk. I heard a lot of Bangkok refugees ended up in Pattaya and hotel occupancy was almost 100% so hopefully things will be getting back to normal soon.
thaivisa.com/forum/topic/508358-bangkok-refugees-overloading-the-place/

 

[pennyk]

Flooding in central bangkok is non existent. .

i'm not quite sure what you classify as "central" bangkok, but our office is flooded, and it is in Bangkok. Its in the Ladprao/ Chatuchak area, and the main road there is under around at least half a metre of water.

 

[coastymike]

That is not central bangkok. Lat phrao is northeastern bangkok. Well away from central bangkok. Shuggy , terry and a few others who know bangkok like the back if their hands will confirm.

Saying lat phrao is central bangkok is similar to saying penrith is close to the sydney cbd. Agreed both in sydney but worlds apart. Bangkok is not much different.

That being said i do feel for the people and businesses in those areas.

 

[shuggy]

That is not central bangkok. Lat phrao is northeastern bangkok. Well away from central bangkok. That being said i do feel for the people and businesses in those areas.

Agree with coasty on this, the city of Angels central district is considered around lower Sukhumvit where Nana and Asok BTS are located. Lat Phrao and Chatuchak are definitely way north of central BKK. The closest BTS is Mo Chit which is where the Northern bus terminal is located.

Unfortunately a lot of the canals were filled in during the 50's and converted to roads which took away any natural water runoff so flooding during the monsoon seasons is getting worse combined with natural sinking of a few inches a year.

 

[Dazz]

Now that's a sidetrack....

 

[coastymike]

I reckon. All the way from the carbon tax to flooding in Bangkok through to a map of the Bangkok transit system. A bit of everything in this thread.