Carbon Tax

[medhead]

GST - Howard had said a number of years earlier he was against the GST (I think he said this six years or so before the election - not sure off the top of my head). He changed his mind a number of years later - he put it up at the election for the Australian people to vote on and he got in.

You might need to brush up a bit on history. It wasn't 6 years beforehand at all. (in fact 6 years before 1998, howard would have had to have been supporting Hewson's GST, at least publically). Howard said he would never ever introduce a GST in 1995, before the 1996 election. As I recall it was a major turning point in the lead up to that election. He the came back in 1998 with a GST. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia)

Gillard went to the last election promising no carbon tax - months later she announces a carbon tax! That is a lie in my opinion.

Still, So what? Howard lied about the GST. So what? What exactly is your point, all politicians lie. If you keep bringing this up due to political ideology, just stop it. Given you later comments about this thread going off topic why do you keep bringing this up?

China is building one new coal power station a week and we are all told that coal is bad?? What affect would one new coal power station a week have on emissions??

Again, as I have already mentioned China is also building lots of nuclear power plants. They plan to increase electricity generation from 1% to 6%. This is a massive increase. Given their lack of uranium resources this is not economically in their best interests as they then have to get fuel from other countries. But they are introducing low carbon emitting power sources because of pollution concerns. A lot more than can be said for Australia. Nuclear power in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I've mentioned all this already, did you miss it?

Anyway I think this thread has got a bit off topic - I didn't intend for this to turn into a political debate, my original intention was to discuss how this tax would affect VBA & QAN being in the top 50 list.

Well fair enough, but then you seem to have mentioned the political point about a lie a number of times. I really don't see what that means or how it is relevant to how this tax will affect VBA or QAN if it is ever introduced.

• Make sure it is revenue neutral (although this is Labor, and they love to tax)

But, of course, that's not the approach the government took. It was "look here's a big new tax you are getting."

Of course, ALP has consistently had a lower tax take than the liberals as a percentage of GDP.
And to be fair Abbott called it a big new tax, not labor.


But the other points that you mentioned are very important.

 

[Sifor]

For those of you who may like some Alan Jones..

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110331-aj1-comment.mp3

 

[dfcatch]

You might need to brush up a bit on history. It wasn't 6 years beforehand at all. Howard said he would never ever introduce a GST in 1995, before the 1996 election. As I recall it was a major turning point in the lead up to that election. He the came back in 1998 with a GST. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_Services_Tax_(Australia)



Still, So what? Howard lied about the GST. So what? What exactly is your point, all politicians lie. If you keep bringing this up due to political ideology, just stop it. Given you later comments about this thread going off topic why do you keep bringing this up?



Again, as I have already mentioned China is also building lots of nuclear power plants. They plan to increase electricity generation from 1% to 6%. This is a massive increase. Given their lack of uranium resources this is not economically in their best interests as they then have to get fuel from other countries. But they are introducing low carbon emitting power sources because of pollution concerns. A lot more than can be said for Australia. Nuclear power in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I've mentioned all this already, did you miss it?



Well fair enough, but then you seems to have mentioned the political point about a lie a number of times. I really don't see what that means or how it is relevant to how this tax affects VBA or QAN.



Of course, ALP has consistently had a lower tax take than the liberals as a percentage of GDP.
And to be fair Abbott called it a big new tax, not labor.


But the other points that you mentioned are very important.

The politics are relevant to a degree, and that is the degree of certainty that business and industry can have in terms of future investment, and business decisions.

Where we have a policy (carbon tax, and its predecessor the ETS), in a politically charged environment, the failure of global consensus, and a minority government; it all results in substantial business uncertainty.

Especially when you have a public backlash to the policy, and an opposition threatening to scrap it.

Medhead is right about one thing, and that is the Carbon Tax doesn't yet exist, and you never know, there may just be an intervening election before it can be enacted (although I doubt it).

As much as we love to bag our politicians, and as much as we love a good partisan political debate, these things (policy backflips/uncertainty/minority government) have an enormous impact on business confidence and the economy.

Fuel prices are rising, couple this with a Carbon Tax on top, and you potentially have a significant Fuel Levy being added to tickets.
I see this as the most obvious result. I don't think the foreign airline competition will be an issue, as Aussies already pay more than foreign-bought tix on QF. QF isn't the cheapest across the Pacific either.

On topic - I think we'll see the return of punitive fuel levies. No doubt QF and DJ are actively modeling various scenarios as we speak.
Once the political scene settles down, I think we'll find a lot more certainty appear across the markets.

And for the record - IMHO I don't believe that Abbott will simply rollback the Tax if he wins the next election. I think a sensible restructure would be the result.
This means that as soon as it's passed in Parliament there should be some level of certainty about price modeling.

Off topic - medhead, I have to correct you on one point...
The total tax take that you quote (ALP vs LIB) which is a favourite ALP line, selectively includes the GST in Commonwealth Tax Revenue (even though it's a State Tax, collected by the Feds and then distributed to the States).
Of course, GST didn't exist under the previous ALP Government so the figures are not comparing Apples to Apples

(sorry - can't stand inaccurate quotes).

 

[medhead]

Off topic - medhead, I have to correct you on one point...
The total tax take that you quote (ALP vs LIB) which is a favourite ALP line, selectively includes the GST in Commonwealth Tax Revenue (even though it's a State Tax, collected by the Feds and then distributed to the States).
Of course, GST didn't exist under the previous ALP Government so the figures are not comparing Apples to Apples

(sorry - can't stand inaccurate quotes).

Actually the figures I'm thinking of don't include the GST. Look at the budget figures and they quote the tax taken as a percent of GDP. During the Howard years the budget numbers excluded GST. While they varied by about 3 to 4%, the Hawke/Keating range was a percent of so less than under Howard. The current numbers do include GST and have been corrected backwards to about 1998. I do think it is appropriate to include GST in this way. It is a Commonwealth tax, even if it is distributed to the states. The States have continued to collect taxes that were suppose to be replaced by GST (stamp duty anyone). Also the GST has significantly replaced Commonwealth Grants. As an example where Hawke/Keating might have collected 23% of GDP, he then had to pay a big chunk of money to the States. Howard/Costello in some years still collected that 23% but then had GST revenue on top of that to pay the States instead of taking the state money from their 23%. Sure that is just the way it was, but that situation did give a big advantage to Howard and I think we can all admit that when we think about the massive middle class welfare that he gave us.

Anyway, my take is that over time the tax take range for both sides overlaps. Fundamentally, it is wrong to claim either side is higher or lower taxing.

 

[drron]

Well Medhead you are splitting hairs aren't you.remember ALP politicians and their commentary on Little johnny-core and non core promises.Sorry but if you dish it out expect it in return.Julia told a porky in the election campaign.Period.
But how about this one,actually by Rudd,Garrett in 2007.The Renewable Remote Power Generation program.As part of that Garrett/Rann on 19/2/2008 announced a solar power station for Coober Pedy to be finished by 2009.

The Coober Pedy Solar Power Station will be Australia’s largest off-grid solar power station, located at remote Coober Pedy in South Australia’s far north. The project will cost $7.1 million and the Australian Government is providing $3.55 million under its Renewable Remote Power Generation program. When completed at the end of 2009, the power station will consist of 26 solar dishes, each one 14 metres high, which will track the arc of the sun. The power plant will generate about 1860 megawatt hours a year, 13 per cent of Coober Pedy’s total electricity requirements. It will cut diesel fuel consumption by up to 520,000 litres a year, saving 1,500 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

As Peter Garrett said-"a spectacular example of the Rudd Labor Government's commitment to a clean energy future."
Guess what.never happened and on May 1 Coober Pedy's electricity tarriffs are rising by up to 123%.Great commitment!
As to the Carbon tax-if it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it is by sending a price signal so reducing energy usage.Otherwise it is a sham.All the utterances from Ministers strongly suggest to me it is a sham.

 

[medhead]

Well Medhead you are splitting hairs aren't you.remember ALP politicians and their commentary on Little johnny-core and non core promises.Sorry but if you dish it out expect it in return.Julia told a porky in the election campaign.Period.

Yes that is what I'm trying to say. Thank you. I think that you might find I'm not the one trying to dish anything out. Someone else is serving a dish here, I'm just offering a view that neither side is a pure as the driven snow. Hence picking up that point is meaningless. In any case, Gillard told a porky, so what. Howard told a porky in an election campaign. Period.

BTW Howard is the one who coined the phase non-core. The ALP wasn't allowed to use his terminology?

As for coober pedy, I wouldn't feel sorry for them. They choose to live in the middle of nowhere of course things cost money. Remember this is also one of the richest communities in south australia, and would be right up there in australia. Besides the government has committed a lot of money to all the geothermal energy work that is going on in that area.

Actually, I recall something about this solar project. Didn't the company involved go bust? What the government is supposed to step in and bale out a company that goes bust. Would that let to accusations of financial irresponsibility from the liberals? All that BS we hear about the BER? (yes the BER whinging is BS, building standards are the responsibility of state governments) Of course, it is one thing to bale out Stan Howard's business......

 

[drron]

Well they may have been very rich in the past but having stayed there last month there were many businesses that had closed since our last stay.Surviving because of the other minerals found in the vicinity and new mines.
Besides the point of the project was proving the environmental credentials of Rudd and Rann-not because Coober Pedy was a poor community.
As to geothermal energy isn't that what Rann campaigned on as proving his vision for sustainable energy.I doubt they are investing in it because they feel sorry for the good folks of Coober Pedy.
The private firm involved was a division of Wesfarmers.
50% of cost was coming from the C'wealth,25% from the state and 10% from the council.Only $1 million from private sources.
Yes Johnny coined the word non core re election policies but it was the ALP that used it as a point of derision.Though the good burghers of Coober Pedy were using it in the same way re the present government.
And just because it is more costly to live in the outback it somehow is now immoral?If Coober Pedy did not exist where would the work crews on the Stuart highway or railway live-there would have to be another place.

 

[medhead]

Well they may have been very rich in the past but having stayed there last month there were many businesses that had closed since our last stay.Surviving because of the other minerals found in the vicinity and new mines.
Besides the point of the project was proving the environmental credentials of Rudd and Rann-not because Coober Pedy was a poor community.
As to geothermal energy isn't that what Rann campaigned on as proving his vision for sustainable energy.I doubt they are investing in it because they feel sorry for the good folks of Coober Pedy.
The private firm involved was a division of Wesfarmers.
50% of cost was coming from the C'wealth,25% from the state and 10% from the council.Only $1 million from private sources.
Yes Johnny coined the word non core re election policies but it was the ALP that used it as a point of derision.Though the good burghers of Coober Pedy were using it in the same way re the present government.
And just because it is more costly to live in the outback it somehow is now immoral?If Coober Pedy did not exist where would the work crews on the Stuart highway or railway live-there would have to be another place.

I think you misunderstood me a fair bit. I didn't say anything about being immoral because it is costly to live in the outback. I've done my time out there and my wife spent a big chunk of her life in the outback. Simple idea, people know it is costly before they choose to live there so they need to be prepared for things like electricity to cost money.

As for used to not being rich, don't be fooled by opal miners crying poor. It's part of their way of life.

I think you'll find that government in SA are investing in these projects because they see the need to reduce carbon emission and provide better energy supplies to those out back areas.

Non-core is a term of derision deservedly so for the cynical way Howard lied about the GST.

 

[straitman]

Slightly OT but I need to ask medhead if there is a post of his where he did not say Howard lied or told porkies :?: :shock:

 

[dfcatch]

Medhead - regardless of political partisanship, the issue isn't about a "lie" (although people will no doubt form opinions on Gillard / Howard based on their personal perceptions of whether they felt "lied to" or not).

The issue is one of "electoral mandate".

When Howard was elected in 1996 he was elected partly on the policy promise of "no GST".

He therefore had no electoral mandate to introduce a GST.

Likewise when Gillard was elected In 2010 she was elected partly on the policy promise of "no carbon tax".

She therefore had no electoral mandate to introduce a Carbon Tax.

Now - we all know Howard changed his policy and announced he wanted a GST. But his mandate for election was based on no-GST.
So he called an early election which was essentially a referendum on a GST, which he won. Winning the 1998 election gave him an electoral mandate to introduce the GST which he did.


Now Gillard needs to do the same if she wishes to have an "electoral mandate" to introduce a Carbon Tax. I doubt this will happen as she has said repeatedly that she wants it in place by 2012.

The issue isn't about "lying". The issue is about giving the electorate a chance to vote based on policy.
Howard (whether you like it or not) gave the electorate this democratic right.
So far - Gillard has not. That's the difference.


And on the point that in 1998 Howard lost the popular vote but won the necessary seats, that's how our democratic system works. It's not based on popular vote.
ALP supporters need to get over that fact and stop beating about losing the 1998 election. Just as Liberal supporters need to get over the 2010 hung parliament.

(although the comparison with Abbott in 2010 is inaccurate as not only did Abbott win the popular vote, but he also won more seats than the ALP).

As I stated earlier - I think the more damaging issue is the political climate of uncertainty, not necessarily the backflips

 

[drron]

I think you misunderstood me a fair bit. I didn't say anything about being immoral because it is costly to live in the outback. I've done my time out there and my wife spent a big chunk of her life in the outback. Simple idea, people know it is costly before they choose to live there so they need to be prepared for things like electricity to cost money.

As for used to not being rich, don't be fooled by opal miners crying poor. It's part of their way of life.

I think you'll find that government in SA are investing in these projects because they see the need to reduce carbon emission and provide better energy supplies to those out back areas.

Non-core is a term of derision deservedly so for the cynical way Howard lied about the GST.

No you are wrong.Non core had nothing to do with the GST.It was the 7.6 billion black hole and the ditching of spending promises in the first budget.
Cynical?you must be joking.John Howard was always in favour of the GST(as was Paul Keating in the 80s).You definitely need to brush up on your history.He ditched it after the Libs lost the unloosable 1993 election-you can call him wimpy,lacking ticker if you want.When he decided to stand up for his beliefs he took the GST to an election.Unlike Julia who counselled K Rudd against a carbon trading scheme,went to an election saying no carbon tax and her ministers have indicated they want in place in 2011.If it doesn't come in it will because an independent doesn't support it-nothing to do with Julia wanting to keep a promise.
BER-yes the States administered the scheme-but it was a Commonwealth scheme and funded by them-surely they are responsible for the financial oversight?
Bailing out Stan Howard.Made a good attack point but the bailout of National textiles was because it was in a marginal electorate.I know-I was a candidate there.The payout was so that the workers would get their full entitlements according to Mr. Combet when talking of the Ansett collapse.

GREG COMBET: When it's John Howard's brother - when his company collapses, the Government steps in and makes sure the workers get 100 cents in the dollar. When it's Chris Corrigan, friend of the Government mate of John Howard's - attacks the unions, the Government steps in makes sure the workers get 100 cents in the dollar. In fact, in the waterfront dispute the Government underwrote Chris Corrigan's liabilities in essence. But when it's Ansett collapse - different set of rules apply. Mr Howard rejects Mr Combet's allegations, unlike the Labor Party the Coalition Government has established a number of safety net schemes. One reason why the national textiles received their full entitlement was because in that instance the NSW Government contributed a significant share. The Federal Transport Minister's spokesman said in a statement the waterside workers were paid full entitlements due to the restructuring of an industry. But it is not just Ansett workers who are angered by the national textiles settlement - so are the company's former creditors, who were not satisfied with the ASIC inquiry into the matter.

Note that the NSW Government-then led by Mr.Carr also contributed-It was also a marginal state electorate held by the ALP.The Federal seat was held by the Libs.So if you are saying it was wrong or immoral of the Howard Government to bail out national textiles was it also wrong for Mr.Carr to do the same?
As to Opal miners-there were over 4000 in the 80s,now down to less than a hundred-and yes those left include the rich ones.

 

[medhead]

Slightly OT but I need to ask medhead if there is a post of his where he did not say Howard lied or told porkies :?: :shock:

Not many, but there are a few. In my defense I'm only being reactive on the lie point because I believe any mentioning of politicians lying is ridiculous. I also love the way that people will go to extremes to justify howard's lie based on following events, but say Gillard lied. Period. Such an absolute position in a developing situation says a lot to me, not the least that if Gillard does take the tax to an election these people will not see a need to eat their words. Anyway, I'm having fun on this, refer to my signature if explanation is required.

Medhead - regardless of political partisanship, the issue isn't about a "lie" (although people will no doubt form opinions on Gillard / Howard based on their personal perceptions of whether they felt "lied to" or not).

The issue is one of "electoral mandate".

When Howard was elected in 1996 he was elected partly on the policy promise of "no GST".

He therefore had no electoral mandate to introduce a GST.

Likewise when Gillard was elected In 2010 she was elected partly on the policy promise of "no carbon tax".

She therefore had no electoral mandate to introduce a Carbon Tax.

Now - we all know Howard changed his policy and announced he wanted a GST. But his mandate for election was based on no-GST.
So he called an early election which was essentially a referendum on a GST, which he won. Winning the 1998 election gave him an electoral mandate to introduce the GST which he did.

Now Gillard needs to do the same if she wishes to have an "electoral mandate" to introduce a Carbon Tax. I doubt this will happen as she has said repeatedly that she wants it in place by 2012.

The issue isn't about "lying". The issue is about giving the electorate a chance to vote based on policy.
Howard (whether you like it or not) gave the electorate this democratic right.
So far - Gillard has not. That's the difference.

And on the point that in 1998 Howard lost the popular vote but won the necessary seats, that's how our democratic system works. It's not based on popular vote.
ALP supporters need to get over that fact and stop beating about losing the 1998 election. Just as Liberal supporters need to get over the 2010 hung parliament.

(although the comparison with Abbott in 2010 is inaccurate as not only did Abbott win the popular vote, but he also won more seats than the ALP).

As I stated earlier - I think the more damaging issue is the political climate of uncertainty, not necessarily the backflips

Interesting one sided view. Firstly and mostly my point, if lying isn't the issue then perhaps try mentioning that to Slats7 because he seems to only mention the lie issue and no one else seems to see the need to tell him that lying isn't the issue here, as opposed to electoral mandate.

Now let's be very clear, I'm not bleating about the outcome of the 1998 election. I also have no problem with understanding how the system works. In fact I recall having a very similar discussion with many here in reverse about the 2010 election result. Simply put, I reject the idea that Howard had a mandate for the GST from that election. As a referendum on the GST, he lost as a referendum is based only on popular vote. Regardless of the number of seats held, the majority said no to the GST. In addition Howard didn't win the senate. The GST only got up because of the democrats and look where that got them. Regardless of acceptance now, everything says that Howard had no mandate for the GST. Mandate was the word most abused by Howard.

Which gets to the 2010 result. Abbott won the popular vote, but he did not win more seats. If he had of won more seats then he would now be PM. The fact is that Gillard won the support of the most seats and she formed the government. That is how our government works. The comparison with Abbott in 2010 is valid, because he tried to claim support from minority party seats based on popular vote.

Further, Gillard didn't win a mandate for what she took to the election in 2010 and she has to work with the minor parties. She hasn't won a mandate for the No Carbon tax policy that she took to the electorate in 2010, and the electoral had a massive swing to the greens. On this issue that provides a pretty clear indication that the electorate what no carbon tax to be reconsidered.
BTW I think you'll find the ALP won the most seats of any single party.

No you are wrong.Non core had nothing to do with the GST.It was the 7.6 billion black hole and the ditching of spending promises in the first budget.
Cynical?you must be joking.John Howard was always in favour of the GST(as was Paul Keating in the 80s).You definitely need to brush up on your history.He ditched it after the Libs lost the unloosable 1993 election-you can call him wimpy,lacking ticker if you want.

thanks Dr, I'm well aware of the history and howard's support for a GST. I also recall Howard opposing it in the 1980s, of maybe the liberals. Anyway, your potted version of history supports my view that Howard was cynical in saying no GST before 1996. His never ever GST was simply an expedient lie to get himself elected after GST proved so unpopular in 1993. It was a critical turning point for him getting elected. He then described it as a "non-core" promise. That was specifically about the never, ever GST promise. I remember what I saw on TV at the time, so I'm not going to buy attempts to rewrite history. So no I'm not joking.

As for the election black hole, that was dealt with by 1998, I remember the spending cuts having lost a job (contract renewal) because of them. By the time 1998 rolled around the hole was mostly filled.

Unlike Julia who counselled K Rudd against a carbon trading scheme,went to an election saying no carbon tax and her ministers have indicated they want in place in 2011.If it doesn't come in it will because an independent doesn't support it-nothing to do with Julia wanting to keep a promise.

As I mentioned above Gillard took no carbon tax to the electorate. It was rejected, the electorate supported the greenies and not the liberals. That sends a clear message on that issue.

BER-yes the States administered the scheme-but it was a Commonwealth scheme and funded by them-surely they are responsible for the financial oversight?

I was referring to all the criticism about standards of the installation and the deaths and fires. These arise from failure to meet building standards - a state responsibility. But in any case, if the states are spending the money then they are responsible for getting value for money. If a bank gives you money to buy a car is the bank responsible for making sure you don't buy a lemon? Nanny state, or the liberals model of self determination - which is it?

Bailing out Stan Howard.Made a good attack point but the bailout of National textiles was because it was in a marginal electorate.I know-I was a candidate there.The payout was so that the workers would get their full entitlements according to Mr. Combet when talking of the Ansett collapse.

Note that the NSW Government-then led by Mr.Carr also contributed-It was also a marginal state electorate held by the ALP.The Federal seat was held by the Libs.So if you are saying it was wrong or immoral of the Howard Government to bail out national textiles was it also wrong for Mr.Carr to do the same?

Where was the national textiles tax? Have ansett workers got their full entitlements yet? Frankly, you are just highlighting the hypocrisy of howard on this point. Would you have been so accepting of the ALP bailing out a marginal seat? As with lies my opinion is that if one wishes to criticise one party, then they must criticise the other party when it does the same unacceptable thing.

As to Opal miners-there were over 4000 in the 80s,now down to less than a hundred-and yes those left include the rich ones.

Isn't consolidation in industries a fundamental capitalist tenet? the strong survive and the weak go under. (except national textiles)

Edit: my hypocrisy in going on with this is getting boring. So I might leave it at that. Besides I gotta check my shares

 

[drron]

sorry you are bored medhead but i came back to the argument as you were decrying the one sided nature of some posters with one sided arguments that are equally biased.
Sorry but GST was never ever a non core promise as he did not go to the 1996 election promising one.
Here is the explanation from the urbandictionary-

non-core promise http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=non-core+promise#An election promise that you have gone back on after the election is over. It is important not to define what promises are core and what are non-core before the election itself.
After winning the 1996 Australian Federal election John Howard slashed spending on Education, Health, Social Welfare blaming a budget deficit left by the previous government. When it was pointed out that he had promised not to cut spending on these areas as part of his election platform and that he had lied, he claimed that these were "non-core promises"

See no GST.And not the 1998 election.Sorry but I think you are trying to rewrite history.
As to his non support of a GST in the 80s this is nonsense.John Howard expressed his support of such a tax in my presence in the 80s.

Where was the national textiles tax? Have ansett workers got their full entitlements yet? Frankly, you are just highlighting the hypocrisy of howard on this point. Would you have been so accepting of the ALP bailing out a marginal seat? As with lies my opinion is that if one wishes to criticise one party, then they must criticise the other party when it does the same unacceptable thing.

Well you really didn't read my point did you-Mr.Carr's ALP government also contributed to the bail out of National textiles because their marginal seat of Maitland contained the Rutherford mill of National Textiles.But it is good to see that you are by implication criticising the ALP as well as the Libs.
And a National Textiles tax?You must be joking.Total liability to employees was 11 million,available funds from liquidator-7.2 million.Why would you need a tax?

Now as to the Batts in the Belfry scheme.My MIL got batts installed under the scheme.After the furore her roof was inspected by an electrician paid by the Commonwealth government(not state).In April last year i as the owner of the unit was contacted by a commonwealth employee stating the roof of the unit needed to be inspected and the scheme was winding up soon.I explained it had been inspected but was told no record of that and i was strongly advised to have it inspected so it was again.
Upshot of 2 Commonwealth government supervised inspections-the unit is on the market.The pest report found no infestation but in the roof was just a pile of batts sitting in the middle providing no insulation.Sorry but i do not share your analogy with the banks.The commonwealth directly supervised the inspections.Besides if you bought a lemon with the banks money they still get their money back-totallt different scenario.

 

[cove]

Taking a completely different approach....would QF and VA have to pay carbon tax to the Australian Government once they are out of Australian territory and out over international waters??

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Taking a completely different approach....would QF and VA have to pay carbon tax to the Australian Government once they are out of Australian territory and out over international waters??

Cove.
Good question. Somebody else also asked that very same question in the previous pages, but l don't think it has been answered (....yet).

 

[cove]

Well when it comes to Emirates,Singapore,Etihad,United,Delta and the rest I really think the laughter would be loud if Australia tried taxing them!

 

[dfcatch]

Taking a completely different approach....would QF and VA have to pay carbon tax to the Australian Government once they are out of Australian territory and out over international waters??

The question is really whether the implementation is based on:

A/ The tax being applied to business inputs that are deemed "carbon inputs" such as electricity or fuel.

Or

B/ The tax being applied to an organization based on that organisation's net-carbon-footprint from it's operations.

B obviously has massive business compliance costs which would skyrocket the economic impost of such a tax.

Either scenario has big cost implications for QF, although B could be mitigated by "offshore based operations".

A would affect both domestic and foreign airlines when they purchase fuel at Australian ports.

In any event, the more you look at it, the more a unilateral tax seems an awful idea.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

As l asked in my first post to this thread, where does the money from this tax go to? Improving the Co2 levels (and constructing "green energy" projects) or patching the budget????

 

[dfcatch]

As l asked in my first post to this thread, where does the money go from this tax?

50% will go to temporary short-term compensation to low income earners.

50% (and later a higher percentage) will go to consolidated revenue.

Whilst in principle everyone would like to see the revenue quarantined only for climate projects - it won't.

 

[straitman]

It's good to see that the words 'Carbon Tax' have made it back into the thread :!: