Carbon Tax

[dfcatch]

Well that's nice but I'll stick with the dictionary definition of mandate.

BTW I'm not making any comment about Howard only just winning or otherwise. He won. but still didn't have greater than 50% support.

In either event, the difference is clear.

Howard changed his mind and went back to an election.

Gillard changed her mind and won't go back to an election.

That's the difference - plain and simple.

 

[medhead]

However the constant raising of Howard and the GST when responding to the controversy over the Carbon tax Does give the impression of a party political view no matter what your intentions are in raising it.The conservative side of politics remembers well the vitriol heaped on Howard and is slightly incredulous that people are questioning the relative minor claim of Julia lying.

Therein lays the hypocrisy of conservatives. They are heaping vitriol on gillard now. Do as they say not do as they do.

In either event, the difference is clear.

Howard changed his mind and went back to an election.

Gillard changed her mind and won't go back to an election.

That's the difference - plain and simple.

And that difference does not make one case a lie and the other not a lie - plain and simple.

 

[drron]

Therein lays the hypocrisy of conservatives. They are heaping vitriol on gillard now. Do as they say not do as they do.

As well as the Hypocisy of those on the left.

Anyway back to the Carbon tax.A reasonable article-
Calculating costs of the carbon tax

What worries me is this-

The carbon price will rise by the inflation rate plus 2.5 per cent a year. Once the ETS or "cap-and-trade" system starts, the price will reach whatever it takes to get there. Treasury's guess is $131 a tonne in today's prices.

​

And of course most of the compensation wont be indexed.So there will be pain-mostly for the battlers.

 

[dfcatch]

And that difference does not make one case a lie and the other not a lie - plain and simple.

OMG Medhead you are ridiculous.

You're not an English teacher in a former life are you??

Well I guess by your reasoning, if I give up and concede the argument to you then that makes my previous comments a lie too??

Ridiculous.....

Look - let me put my ALP supporter hat on for a minute.....

1/ Defend Gillard at all costs - "She didn't lie - she changed her mind".

2/ Attack Howard - "I'll take any chance and any excuse to blame Howard for the world's ills and accuse him of lying over the GST".

3/ I'm getting bored of waiting until you get around to saying that Howard lied about the Iraq War too??

(I mean really Medhead - do I have to do everything for you?)

Look - I get that you vote for the ALP. It's cool, at least 27% of the population will join you if an election was held today.

But serious question - and don't just blindly support the Government in your answer.

If the Government was to turn around tomorrow, and dump the Carbon Tax - in fact - completely about face and maybe even go so far as the question the need for Australia to do much at all.....

Would your position change?

In other words - would you embrace the ALP's new position? Or would you staunchly defend your current pro-carbon tax position?

Honest question!

 

[medhead]

OMG Medhead you are ridiculous.

The only ridiculous thing happening is that you think what I'm saying has anything to do with party.

Either they both lied or they both didn't lie. No party politics involved and an election cannot change that fact. It is only you who is bringing party politics into this by insisting that gillard lied and Howard didn't. That you seem to be incapable of understanding this point is ridiculous.

Edit: by the number of times I have to edit to correct spelling and grammar, you can probably tell English is not a strong point.

 

[medhead]

As well as the Hypocisy of those on the left.

And of course most of the compensation wont be indexed.So there will be pain-mostly for the battlers.

Well we are talking about the coalition reaction, but yes the hypocrisy of anyone who thinks only the other side lied.

I thought I read that the compensation is indexed. Pretty sure the pensioner payment is indexed. Family tax benefit is indexed, I think. The tax free threshold increases for the first couple of years. Gotta say one of the surprises in this was a first step to reform the tax system by almost making the low income offset irrelevant.

 

[oz_mark]

Gotta say one of the surprises in this was a first step to reform the tax system by almost making the low income offset irrelevant.

Probably the best thing about the changes was some of the reforms:

1) tripling the tax free threshold - which puts it above the pension rate, so it helps get rid of some of the strange interactions that happened between the social security and tax systems
2) winding down of LITO.

Whether any of this will have the stated effect of reducing carbon emissions, well.....

 

[dfcatch]

The only ridiculous thing happening is that you think what I'm saying has anything to do with party.

Either they both lied or they both didn't lie. No party politics involved and an election cannot change that fact. It is only you who is bringing party politics into this by insisting that gillard lied and Howard didn't. That you seem to be incapable of understanding this point is ridiculous.

Edit: by the number of times I have to edit to correct spelling and grammar, you can probably tell English is not a strong point.

Fair point - and I'll concede that we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "lie" - not that I genuinely care either way.

My point was and still is simply that if you/Gillard/ALP/whoever is unhappy about the public attacking her based on the "lie" (or whatever you want to call it), and if you want to equate it with what Howard did - then she has to act like Howard did and take it back to an election.

That's the point here - if you want to equate Gillard and Howard in terms of statements - then you also have to equate them in terms of actions.

Bottom line - if you want to say that Howard lied as Gillard did - fine - I'll agree with you. But then Gillard should do the right thing as Howard did, and have an election prior to enacting the legislation.

My concern (and clearly that of the majority of voters) is the relevant actions - not necessarily the statements made. (and yes I know what the vox pop says - I'm just cutting the bone)

 

[medhead]

Fair point - and I'll concede that we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "lie" - not that I genuinely care either way.

My point was and still is simply that if you/Gillard/ALP/whoever is unhappy about the public attacking her based on the "lie" (or whatever you want to call it), and if you want to equate it with what Howard did - then she has to act like Howard did and take it back to an election.

That's the point here - if you want to equate Gillard and Howard in terms of statements - then you also have to equate them in terms of actions.

Bottom line - if you want to say that Howard lied as Gillard did - fine - I'll agree with you. But then Gillard should do the right thing as Howard did, and have an election prior to enacting the legislation.

My concern (and clearly that of the majority of voters) is the relevant actions - not necessarily the statements made. (and yes I know what the vox pop says - I'm just cutting the bone)

You can define a lie however you like. If 2 people make 2 commitments they believe to be true and then change their mind, we need to apply the same definition to both. Personally I believe neither lied.

As for having to act like Howard, that's a bit of a joke really. Do we seriously think that all PMs have to act in the same way as past PMs? Howard acted the way he thought was right, he wasn't bound by hawke/keating/Fraser/etc. Gillard has to act as she sees fit, she is different person. Comparison of statements does not require equating actions.

 

[connieguy]

...Anyway back to the Carbon tax. A reasonable article-Calculating costs of the carbon tax...

To get from where we will be in say 3 - 5 years to 5% BELOW 2000 emissions is a BIG ask. A$131 per tonne of CO2 is not unreasonable and will totally change everything. What amazes me is Hansen and others are keeping quite on the rapidly melting ice cube (the Arctic Ice Cap) and what will happen as it starts to melt out in the hotter and hotter Arctic Summer months. It is if they do not want to say, sorry folks but we are too later. It is time to switch horses and now work to mitigate the negative effects to protect Australia, our GDP and way of life.

Oh BTW is current effective strength of CH4, Methane, is now rated at 72 times that of CO2 and not 25. Why the change? Because before the rating was based on the 100 year life span of CO2. But as Methane only lasts about 25 years, the effective real effect, over its shorter life span, is much greater. So with Methane at about 2,000 ppb or 2 ppm, that is an effective value of CO2 of 142 ppm. With CO2 at 395 ppm that gives us an effective value of CO2 + CH4 (CO2e) at 537 ppm. :shock: Well beyond anything anybody predicted in their worst case projections. No wonder the mass of the floating Arctic Ice Cap is dropping like a rock.

Since 1979, the Arctic Ice Cap has lost approx 12,000 cubic kms of ice or a piece of ice 1 km high, 1 km wide and 12,000 km long. That is a LOT of ICE that is needed to keep the Arctic sea and land cold during the hotter summer months. Just like an Ice Cube or 2 keeps your glass of single malt Scotch cold. That is until they melt and then the temperature of the Scotch rapidly climbs to room temperature.



Anybody for a room temperature Arctic?

Found this graphic of the global distribution of Methane. Either there are a LOT of cows emitting Methane in the Arctic or something else is releasing the Methane:



So guys talk all you want about who said what, when and why but it is not having any effect in dealing with this. We can't stop the Arctic Ice Cap from melting nor can we stop the increase rate of Methane release in the Arctic nor can we stop global temperature rises of many degrees.

Our government needs to address what is going to happen to Australia, our main trading partners, their main trading partners and now we can best deal with it while ensuring we have the most reliable supply of electricity in the world.

A Carbon Tax will not and can not fix that.

Soon Methane will overtake CO2 as the biggest GHG. I really do not believe I'm saying this but we would be mad to stop burning coal and mad to not start building a lot of Nukes. Why? Because we will need the energy to run a LOT of Desal plants as when the record and current La Nina moves away and is replaced by a El Nino, Oz will again turn into a very burnt piece of toast and our cities will need the Desal plants to survive.

 

[medhead]

Interesting little piece from the Oz. Says a lot about the rest of the world that isn't doing anything

Echoes of UK carbon bid ring loud | The Australian

 

[Sprucegoose]

Actually the written policy position was always to price carbon.

Maybe so, but she is a dead duck politically. So quite irrelevant at this point for her and her Partys success at the next election.

 

[Alanslegal]

I guess Australians are becoming much more savvy after Howard and the GST benefits he promised .... just to refresh, the GST promised a huge reduction in the 'black cash economy' and guess what?!? total opposite! u can google the sources as im iphone'ing here.

just like ANY carbon reduction promise from either side .... big promise (gillard with market based mechanism and assisting those under $150k and abbott with his green army and taxpayers to subsidy the polluters) but all of this to NO avail as China, India, USA et al will still continue as normal coughping out 98 or whatever % of the world emissions regardless. like the gst, big promise, achieves zilch!

 

[medhead]

I guess Australians are becoming much more savvy after Howard and the GST benefits he promised .... just to refresh, the GST promised a huge reduction in the 'black cash economy' and guess what?!? total opposite! u can google the sources as im iphone'ing here.just like ANY carbon reduction promise from either side .... big promise (gillard with market based mechanism and assisting those under $150k and abbott with his green army and taxpayers to subsidy the polluters) but all of this to NO avail as China, India, USA et al will still continue as normal coughping out 98 or whatever % of the world emissions regardless. like the gst, big promise, achieves zilch!

Did anyone get sucked in by the black cash economy lie? If they did then they obviously never, ever watched a single episode of Minder.

India has put a carbon price on coal. China is developing an emission trading scheme. California, the worlds 8th biggest economy, has a trading scheme of some type that they plan to link to the EU scheme. I already provided a link with this information in this thread

 

[dfcatch]

Did anyone get sucked in by the black cash economy lie? If they did then they obviously never, ever watched a single episode of Minder.

India has put a carbon price on coal. China is developing an emission trading scheme. California, the worlds 8th biggest economy, has a trading scheme of some type that they plan to link to the EU scheme. I already provided a link with this information in this thread

California is bankrupt, so I wouldn't be putting any stock there

 

[dfcatch]

I guess Australians are becoming much more savvy after Howard and the GST benefits he promised .... just to refresh, the GST promised a huge reduction in the 'black cash economy' and guess what?!? total opposite! u can google the sources as im iphone'ing here.

just like ANY carbon reduction promise from either side .... big promise (gillard with market based mechanism and assisting those under $150k and abbott with his green army and taxpayers to subsidy the polluters) but all of this to NO avail as China, India, USA et al will still continue as normal coughping out 98 or whatever % of the world emissions regardless. like the gst, big promise, achieves zilch!

Very off topic Alan, but the GST did stop a decent portion of the cash economy at the time.

As a consumption tax you can not avoid it, you pay it when you purchase any goods or services from anywhere (with some minor food exceptions). So even if you are skipping on income tax, they get you when you spend your money.

Previously, you could get paid in cash, skip on the income tax, and avoid funding the government.

Secondly - the GST replaced wholesale sales tax, which in Victoria at the time was 22% on most things.
The level of rorting of the WST was massive. So whilst the GST and BAS statements were a nightmare to administer, it was a massive improvement over the WST.

And yes there are still loopholes, but the GST did manage to capture a large part of the cash economy at the time.

There are so many issues around this thread:

- the carbon tax itself
- the issue of global warming
- the tax reforms as part of the government's package
- the government's credibility/mandate

It's not a simple topic, and that's where it is similar to the GST.

But you're right - IMO the public are very suspicious of these types of things, and that's why Howard only just got the GST through, and why it is unlikely that Gillard will survive.

 

[medhead]

California is bankrupt, so I wouldn't be putting any stock there

And????? That is relevant how? They are a world leading economy doing something. As are India and china.

 

[drron]

Though China has just overtaken the US as the world's largest emitter of CO2.And yes I realise that still means 25% of the US level per head of population.
And Medhead it is extremely relevant that California might go into bankruptcy as that will lower emissions far more than any ETS/Carbon tax

 

[oz_mark]

I guess Australians are becoming much more savvy after Howard and the GST benefits he promised .... just to refresh, the GST promised a huge reduction in the 'black cash economy' and guess what?!? total opposite! u can google the sources as im iphone'ing here.

The GST was sold as a reform of the tax system - and this it was, and has replaced a number of taxes (WST, FID, BAD etc). Now while it hasn't achieved all of its stated goals (what program ever does?), I think that it is a lot better than the tax system it replaced.

The carbon tax, however, strikes me as a bit of a different story. If it were sold as a reform, to move partly from a system based on profits, to one based on emissions, then perhaps I'd by it more. Given that part of the story involves some reform of the income tax scales, I am not sure why they couldn't take the extra step.

So, is the carbon tax going to achieve its objectives? I'd say, by and large no. But that is not to say we don't need to do something. But there are significant issues in weaning off fossil fuels, and finding a way of keeping coal in the ground.

 

[medhead]

And Medhead it is extremely relevant that California might go into bankruptcy as that will lower emissions far more than any ETS/Carbon tax

However, it is not relevant to the claim that none of the worlds large "carbon polluters" are doing something. Bankrupt or not they are a large economy that is doing something.