The Biggest Tax EVER in Australia

[Indifference]

They could always print it. It costs nothing and doesn't decrease productivity.

It costs everyone! This is currency debasement.... been around for centuries & never ends particularly well.

Just look at the US.... USD ~22% devalued since the printing press went ballistic in 2008. That is a huge cost in 3 short years and the affect is still not fully realized yet. Don't be fooled that governments can print without significant consequence and real costs.

 

[dan c]

They could always print it. It costs nothing and doesn't decrease productivity.

I assume this is a joke.

 

[Aaron_C]

I assume this is a joke.

 

[Novar]

Which is well on the way to being fixed due to government intervention and regulation banning the use of CFCs. Without govt action, the hole would have just kept getting bigger. Remember how the cost of aerosols was going to go through the roof because we would now have to use hydrocarbons rather than CFCs? And the cost of refrigeration was going to skyrocket due to the mandating of different refrigerants? Like that happened!

Was that the point you were trying to make?

Ozone hole grows to near record size - October 11, 2011

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/ozone-hole-grows-to-near-record-size-20111010-1lhmd.html

John Howard announces support of an ETS.

Scroll to 1:17 to hear it straight from John Howard himself.

Here's the LATEST from John Howard - JULY 2011
Former PM John Howard says Australia should not adopt a carbon price before the rest of the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-17/australia-crazy-to-lead-on-carbon-tax-howard/2797708

 

[josko]

Completely wrong. Read the Productivity Commission report. Seriously - just read it. It won't bite!

Someone said $400/tonne? That would make solar panels (one of the most expensive forms of carbon mitigation) economic in the shade! Seriously, where do people get these numbers?

Hi Seabreeze,
I went over the per capita issue in another thread...if you don't mind...where in the Productivity Commission Report does it contradict me...or where have have I misunderstood?....I am, however, quite happy to have my "opinion" opposed legitimately or my "statements" corrected with proof.

Rachel, can I copy and paste my link saying that you are wrong too?
I teach my children not to be sheep, to think outside the square and not to believe everything the Government says is gospel, nor everything they read in newspapers. Including any bias whether Libs or Labor.

I teach them to learn from experience, to listen intently to their elders...especially grandparents....and to learn from the experiences of those that have been on this earth and injured famine, wars AND Global Cooling and now Global Warming.

As I tried to point out in my original post, I did not want to debate whether or not we have Global Warming or as it is now referred to as Climate Change, but to dispute the very fact that this tax is a tax brought in by Gillard, who has politically prostituted herself to The Greens and Independants. There is no other reason she and her Deputy would say one thing before the election, accusing The Opposition of being hysterically inaccurate in claiming they would bring the tax in, and then be kissing eachother and slapping each other on the back yesterday...as they actually applaud eachother for turning full circle and doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

As you quite eloquently pointed out Seabreeze, the tax will be "redistributed"...but for what point?

You could argue that point about any "tax" on anything - not just an ETS. Stamp duty misallocates resources away from property transactions, company tax from building businesses and so on forever. All "taxes" reduce productivity due to misallocation of resources - the only question for society is which parts of the economy do you want to take it from? Disincentives that you want (emitting carbon) or ones that you don't want (earning income).

Yes, taxes are misallocated and I think this one will be one of the biggest misallocated tax of them all. If the middle classes are being compensated and so are the so-called big-polluters....exactly how is the tax going to force me to more cleaner resources?

Do you really think China will implement any serious policy that will ever reduce their emissions considerably and we will do anything at all to change the climate because of this tax...? Why would a Government introduce such a major tax at a time when there is so much Global uncertainty, employment is rising, small business is not growing and manufacturing and retail are stalling? Our country has stalled and we can blame the Carbon Dioxide tax and the uncertainty of what it brings in an uncertain world as a huge reason for this. Would you at least agree that this is definately not a good time for such a contraversial tax???

Incidently, on the radio news this morning..perhaps NOVA...I did hear mention that solar panels ARE going to become too expensive....if they are not already. But that's okay, because most of the Australian solar panel company's have sold out to China and now China can just add to their emissions while we buy back the solar panels without a CO2 tax and without polluting our beautiful air.

Regards JO

It is only my mere opinion...and apparently 80% of the country agree with me.

 

[Dazz]

Ozone hole grows to near record size

Good that you picked this up Novar.

Seabreeze has dropped some absolute clangers and no-one has said bo-peep about any of them. Mere fantasy. Fortunately, his / her view, along with all of the ETS supporters are in the vast minority, no matter how loud they scream.

Bring on the election and let the majority have their say.

History will look back on this wilfully negligent minority led Govt with disdain. Their incompetence in almost all matters is staggering.

What happened to Craig Thompson ?? Let's get him out of there, let's have a by-election, trounce the Labor party like in the NSW state election and end this farcical situation and steer the country back on track again.

Bob Brown and Christine Milne will surely go down as the most misguided individuals every to draw breath, other than that other Tasmanian loony Brian Harradine.

 

[Dazz]

the tax will be "redistributed"...but for what point?

You know the answer to that one josko.

This is an exercise in shuffling wealth from those who get off their *** and make something of themselves (who vote Liberal) to those who sit down and whinge about how tough life is (who vote Labor).

As Wayne Swan said yesterday...this Carbon Tax is "Labor to it's bootstraps".

 

[Seabreeze]

Ozone hole grows to near record size - October 11, 2011
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/ozone-hole-grows-to-near-record-size-20111010-1lhmd.html

Did you even read your own link? Seriously...

Dr Fraser confirmed trends still indicated recovery of Earth's ozone layer, while uneven, was continuing, with man-made ozone-depleting chemicals now about 15 per cent below their peak in the atmosphere.

''Year to year variability in the weather can effect the scale of the ozone hole significantly,'' Dr Fraser said.

.....

It said as a result of the phase-out of ozone depleting substances, the ozone layer outside the polar regions should recover to pre-1980 levels some time before mid-century.

Hi Seabreeze,
I went over the per capita issue in another thread...if you don't mind...where in the Productivity Commission Report does it contradict me...or where have have I misunderstood?....I am, however, quite happy to have my "opinion" opposed legitimately or my "statements" corrected with proof.

I don't know what you said in the other thread (which?) so can't respond to that.

[
As you quite eloquently pointed out Seabreeze, the tax will be "redistributed"...but for what point?

To reduce income tax! And reduce the tax free threshold! Reducing the admin burden on the ATO in the process. You guys seem to think that there is no benefit to the economy at all in reducing other taxes? To increasing the incentive to get into the workforce? Are you sure about that? Your only looking at half the picture...

Good that you picked this up Novar.

Seabreeze has dropped some absolute clangers and no-one has said bo-peep about any of them. Mere fantasy.

Riiiggghttt.... Speaking of "clangers" (Novar's in particular)... did you have anything in particular in mind or do you just enjoy making knee-jerk remarks on subjects you clearly don't understand?

As for mere fantasy, the idea that this will ever be repealed once it gets through the Senate is complete tosh. The repeal would never get through the Senate - even with a double dissolution, which is just fanciful over this issue. Australians would punish anyone who sent them back to vote straight after an election. Get used to it - the "fantasy" is fast becoming "fact" and will remain that way...

 

[tom32]

As for mere fantasy, the idea that this will ever be repealed once it gets through the Senate is complete tosh. The repeal would never get through the Senate - even with a double dissolution, which is just fanciful over this issue. Australians would punish anyone who sent them back to vote straight after an election. Get used to it - the "fantasy" is fast becoming "fact" and will remain that way...

Usually that would be the case, but rightly or wrongly as dazz points out Labor federally have the stench Labor had in NSW.

Barry OFarrel could have called 5 elections in a row over 3 months for ***** and giggles and would have won in all of them I suspect...

When I saw the crowd laugh at Q and A this week as Shorten suggested Julia was a visionary I knew we are entering into a new paradigm in federal politics where somehow we have a leader that does not just get heckled when giving presentations at the football but is simply laughable.

It is not that she is useless, so I don't know what is wrong there?

How it has come to this I do not know? Is it truly that we do not pay politicians enough? I don't know what the answer is but if it keeps going downhill like this by 2020 Global Warming will be the least of our problems...

 

[Dazz]

Riiiggghttt.... Speaking of "clangers" (Novar's in particular)... did you have anything in particular in mind or do you just enjoy making knee-jerk remarks on subjects you clearly don't understand?

Thank you. No point discussing further, you have your opinion and I have mine. Our opinions are opposites, and highly unlikely to shift.

As for mere fantasy, the idea that this will ever be repealed once it gets through the Senate is complete tosh.

I disagree with your opinion / prediction.

The repeal would never get through the Senate - even with a double dissolution, which is just fanciful over this issue.

I disagree with your opinion / prediction.

Australians would punish anyone who sent them back to vote straight after an election.

I disagree with your opinion / prediction.

Get used to it - the "fantasy" is fast becoming "fact"

No thank you. I shall do my utmost to fight it until it is repealed.

and will remain that way...

I disagree with your opinion / prediction.

 

[Novar]

Did you even read your own link? Seriously...
.

Yes I did, you said

"Which is well on the way to being fixed"

It is clearly NOT on the way to being fixed.

Also in that article
An unprecedented large ozone hole also formed over the Arctic earlier this year

Riiiggghttt.... Speaking of "clangers" (Novar's in particular)... did you have anything in particular in mind or do you just enjoy making knee-jerk remarks on subjects you clearly don't understand?

Never said I did understand the ins and outs of climate change OR even dangerous climate change for that matter. What I do know is ...
I've had an interest in greenhouse etc for 30 years, since the doomsayers started, I USED to believe it all until 10 years ago, I don't anymore, I have listened to enough different opinions to know the science is far from settled.

Having said that, I lead a very green lifestyle and do everything I can to reduce my footprint and encourage my adult children to do the same. I do that because it's the right thing to do and the way I have lived for 30 years and I'm happy to live this way. The one thing I can't stand in life is excess consumerism and waste.

Australians would punish anyone who sent them back to vote straight after an election. Get used to it - the "fantasy" is fast becoming "fact" and will remain that way...

If u believe that you are either a wishful thinker or totally out of touch with what the general population think. IF (another) election meant the end of the greens in the senate, Australia would jump at the chance. People are so angry with this minority government, the greens and independants.

 

[Seabreeze]

Oh that's alright Dazz. For awhile there I was worried that you disagreed about whether climate change was happening and whether the best way to respond to it was through taxing emissions rather than income. Good to see you don't disagree about that.

Novar, as the OP expressly didn't want to discuss the reality or otherwise of climate change in this thread I won't respond on that point.

 

[josko]

Usually that would be the case, but rightly or wrongly as dazz points out Labor federally have the stench Labor had in NSW.

Barry OFarrel could have called 5 elections in a row over 3 months for ***** and giggles and would have won in all of them I suspect...

When I saw the crowd laugh at Q and A this week as Shorten suggested Julia was a visionary I knew we are entering into a new paradigm in federal politics where somehow we have a leader that does not just get heckled when giving presentations at the football but is simply laughable.

It is not that she is useless, so I don't know what is wrong there?

How it has come to this I do not know? Is it truly that we do not pay politicians enough? I don't know what the answer is but if it keeps going downhill like this by 2020 Global Warming will be the least of our problems...

hi Tom,

I watch Q&A and I was so suprised, my 13 year old son even pointed it out first, that there seemed to be so much negativity towards Labor/Gillard. The tide has definately turned.

I actually don't think she is useless either, I think the problem has been the complete disillusion with ALL politicians which led to a hung Parliament and The Chosen Few were left with all the power to manipulate and lead.

If Labor had held a vast majority, there would be no CO2 tax.....but then this whole Non-Immigration Policy has been another disaster...and I really feel they have lost their way, as NSW Labor had. Internal politics have been poison with Labor, that and their lack of experience.

Against what some on this forum think, I'm not a huge fan of Abbott as a representative leader, he just doesn't present well. I like Bishop with her death stare far better. She is eloquent, and speaks clearly with precision. Abbott lacks this and like Gillard's droning voice, he is bagged in the same basket as she, where the the general public are concerned.

Those that vote with their heads are few.

Regards JO

 

[josko]

Hi Seabreeze and Novar,

Thanks for the consideration, it was only because most of us had gone down that path here:

http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?p=824051#post824051

I just personally don't "feel" like going there so expressively again if I can help myself ha ha, so I personally will try and stay out of that one. You guys go for it though!

Cheers JO

 

[Seabreeze]

Interesting thread. I only have two points to make.

The first is to point out the difference between facts from opinions. I don't know how much time you guys spend reading peer reviewed scientific journals on climate science but for those that do, the evidence within them is indeed "overwhelming". The evidence is not a matter for opinion and I'm not just talking about temperature - the way this enormous body of literature gets simplified to just issues like "temperatures" or "sea levels" is exceedingly frustrating when those things are often not the focus of the actual research and the evidence. The evidence cannot be disputed and should not be ignored by a wave of the hand by people who just don't know about it. The fact you don't know about the evidence doesn't change its existence!

The other point is on national science bodies like the CSIRO, who have never waivered in their stance on climate science. For years (a decade?) they were funded by a Liberal govt who had no policy on Climate Change until its dying gasp and had a massive vested interest in shutting down the debate. Through all those years the CSIRO just kept pointing to the evidence - its position didn't change then "in order to receive more funding" just like it hasn't changed now. Exactly the same phenomenon can be seen in all the major scientific bodies around the world, who have all kept pointing to the evidence regardless of the political colour of those who fund them. They are very obviously not at the whim of funding influence or their stories would have changed with different govts and they haven't. They don't have the luxury of ignoring the evidence because they know about it and understand it - and they are scientists, who don't have opinions! The greatest moment for a scientist is finding evidence that smashes conventional theories - not the other way around! Not being able to understand the evidence is no excuse for confusing matters of fact such as this with matters of opinion.

 

[our obsession]

Excellent post, thanks again Seabreeze.

Interesting thread. I only have two points to make.

The first is to point out the difference between facts from opinions. I don't know how much time you guys spend reading peer reviewed scientific journals on climate science but for those that do, the evidence within them is indeed "overwhelming". The evidence is not a matter for opinion and I'm not just talking about temperature - the way this enormous body of literature gets simplified to just issues like "temperatures" or "sea levels" is exceedingly frustrating when those things are often not the focus of the actual research and the evidence. The evidence cannot be disputed and should not be ignored by a wave of the hand by people who just don't know about it. The fact you don't know about the evidence doesn't change its existence!

The other point is on national science bodies like the CSIRO, who have never waivered in their stance on climate science. For years (a decade?) they were funded by a Liberal govt who had no policy on Climate Change until its dying gasp and had a massive vested interest in shutting down the debate. Through all those years the CSIRO just kept pointing to the evidence - its position didn't change then "in order to receive more funding" just like it hasn't changed now. Exactly the same phenomenon can be seen in all the major scientific bodies around the world, who have all kept pointing to the evidence regardless of the political colour of those who fund them. They are very obviously not at the whim of funding influence or their stories would have changed with different govts and they haven't. They don't have the luxury of ignoring the evidence because they know about it and understand it - and they are scientists, who don't have opinions! The greatest moment for a scientist is finding evidence that smashes conventional theories - not the other way around! Not being able to understand the evidence is no excuse for confusing matters of fact such as this with matters of opinion.

Again:

Not being able to understand the evidence is no excuse for confusing matters of fact such as this with matters of opinion..

 

[HomeBuyAU]

Some points I have read include "Gillard and Labour are only doing this because of pressure from the Greens and Indy's..... well I don't care for the political reasons, as long as we are doing something then that is all that matters to me.

As for the comments about China are polluting much more than us and don't do much etc, yes I totally agree but at least Australia are in a much better position now to start dictating to China and telling them to get off their cheap asses. As I have mentioned before, Australia is China's btch and it's time we tell them to shove their cheap plastic crap that is shoved in gullible Aussies faces at places like BIGW, Kmart and all the other Chinese junk offloading $2 dollar stores that is produced in the most inhumane conditions and in the most environmentally harmful conditions (picture a factory pumping out toxic plastic black smoke and then X that by thousands). Australia is economically in a good position mainly because of all the Uranium we offload (thank Howard for that) along with all the resources we sell to China. I'm not sure why people in this country are so OBSESSED with out economy being at the top? It would actually be good for the world economy if China slowed down and we let Europe and the US come up to our level a little. First we need to stop offloading all of our resources to China...

 

[HomeBuyAU]

This is an exercise in shuffling wealth from those who get off their *** and make something of themselves (who vote Liberal) to those who sit down and whinge about how tough life is (who vote Labor).

that's funny as most of the whinging here is from the ABBOTT (the biggest whinger in Australia at the moment) fanboys about the carbon tax

 

[Novar]

Australia is China's btch and it's time we tell them to shove their cheap plastic crap that is shoved in gullible Aussies faces at places like BIGW, Kmart and all the other Chinese junk offloading $2 dollar stores

Oh, I so agree, makes me sick the amount of absolute rubbish people buy and then toss in landfill next week. Don't see it ending anytime soon tho, people are addicted to spend spend spend and some will buy absolutely anything rather than nothing.

Same with junk food outlets, Macca's, KRc, Hungry Jacks, Pizza etc it's time to hit them up with a massive excess rubbish tax to curb all the waste their customers toss in the bin after each binge. You consume - you pay, I say.

 

[topcropper]

First we need to stop offloading all of our resources to China...

What a ridiculous comment!

What do we manufacture here? We import massive amounts of consumer goods. We have 75% of the workforce employed in services and rising. What do you think pays for the lifestyle we all lead?

Every economy in every country has to first produce something of wealth. In Australia it is mainly coal, gas, iron ore, gold, other industrial metals and agricultural products. However in Japan it might be electrical products and cars. In Saudi Arabia it's oil. The US it's big machinery, aircraft, and agricultural products. The total amount of wealth produced in a country divided by the number of people in that country gives you an economy. You then trade what you have excess of, for what you need to import. And despite our massive commodity exports, we generally still run a trade deficit.

And you think we need to stop sending our resources to China?



Your thinking is exactly the thinking of our labor and green politicians. None of you get it. Do you honestly think we could stop exporting commodities to China or anywhere else and everything would continue on as before?


See ya's.