Carbon Tax

[Charley's Aunt]

I am currently working in Vientiane, Laos PDR and the general opinion here (expressed very politely) is that Australians are idiots, on carbon tax. asylum seekers, development aid and our attitudes to the reign in general (attitudes seen as cringing, self-serving, and generally not very bright).

People here find it inconceivable that we are are actually thinking of imposing a carbon tax when China and India and even places like Thailand wouldn't have a bar. Incidentally, here in the hot season, people use their air con at night to get some sleep, and also as a sound barrier against noisy neighbours.

An unusually outspoken student I met recently (well, he'd lived in the US) joked to me, "You know they beheaded Indonesian maid in Saudi last week ? Now Indonesia say no more maid workers go to Saudi. Why you allow Muslims come to Australia, take over ?" I could only smile weakly and change the subject.

I checked the beheading story - it was true.

 

[medhead]

I am currently working in Vientiane, Laos PDR and the general opinion here (expressed very politely) is that Australians are idiots, on carbon tax. asylum seekers, development aid and our attitudes to the reign in general (attitudes seen as cringing, self-serving, and generally not very bright).

People here find it inconceivable that we are are actually thinking of imposing a carbon tax when China and India and even places like Thailand wouldn't have a bar. Incidentally, here in the hot season, people use their air con at night to get some sleep, and also as a sound barrier against noisy neighbours.

An unusually outspoken student I met recently (well, he'd lived in the US) joked to me, "You know they beheaded Indonesian maid in Saudi last week ? Now Indonesia say no more maid workers go to Saudi. Why you allow Muslims come to Australia, take over ?" I could only smile weakly and change the subject.

I checked the beheading story - it was true.

I guess the only reason you smiled weakly is because you don't know enough about Australia. 1.7% of Australians practice Islam. 0.92% are of Lebanese ancestry. If the Muslims are taking over they have a looooooonnnnnnngggggggg way to go.

As for the beheading story. Wow, they act on one beheading but have done nothing about the hundreds of maids who are raped, abused, tortured and murdered?

 

[Durin's Bane]

Re: Isn't this forum overrun by capitalists?

Oh - so because there are 50 Chinese for every Australian then the average Aussies is allowed to pollute 50 times more than the average Chinese citizen? Put that one in the dictionary under "arrogance". The majority of households are being reimbursed under this scheme because it is designed to reduce pollution by the producers. As I mentioned before, the consumers already have price pressures that will reduce consumption. What does "Watermelon" mean? Is it a clever slogan to hide the lack of serious comment?

No, what is arrogance is that a portion of Australia's population want to mandate a Carbon Tax without engaging in debate or logical reason, and have a myriad of names for those that oppose or don't agree with them.

Producers being the 'high income' households? Your logic must be from the Wealth Distribution handbook, because I would estimate the 'majority' of households to be reimbursed (the 9/10 quoted by Goose) to produce far more emissions in total than the lesser number of 'high income' households. But in your estimation taking from the 'rich' and giving to the 'poor' is okay. Goose also said "For the lower-income households, we'll make sure there's a safety net there, a buffer, so they're actually getting 20 per cent more than the expected impact on them of a price on carbon." So tell me again how you're going reduce emissions by the 9/10 households?

Green exterior, red interior. I'll leave you to figure that one out for yourself. Judging from your comments in this thread I wouldn't be surprised if you also agree with the flood levy, the MRRT (or earlier mining tax), luxury car tax, etc. Would you consider opening the nuclear debate... or are you against that too?

 

[oz_mark]

I am currently working in Vientiane, Laos PDR and the general opinion here (expressed very politely) is that Australians are idiots, on carbon tax. asylum seekers, development aid and our attitudes to the reign in general (attitudes seen as cringing, self-serving, and generally not very bright).

People here find it inconceivable that we are are actually thinking of imposing a carbon tax when China and India and even places like Thailand wouldn't have a bar. Incidentally, here in the hot season, people use their air con at night to get some sleep, and also as a sound barrier against noisy neighbours.

Well, I am impressed by how well informed of Australian policy the average Laos resident is.

As for the carbon tax, we have precious little detail about what it exactly is. I expect that we will get something, that after the vested interests have been placated, will not achieve whatever policy objectives are stated for it to achieve.

 

[dfcatch]

Well, I am impressed by how well informed of Australian policy the average Laos resident is.

As for the carbon tax, we have precious little detail about what it exactly is. I expect that we will get something, that after the vested interests have been placated, will not achieve whatever policy objectives are stated for it to achieve.

Sounds like Politics and Government 101

 

[drron]

Well, I am impressed by how well informed of Australian policy the average Laos resident is.

As for the carbon tax, we have precious little detail about what it exactly is. I expect that we will get something, that after the vested interests have been placated, will not achieve whatever policy objectives are stated for it to achieve.

OK so I have gone and read the Garnaut analysis.His economic prediction is that at $26 a tonne for carbon it would raise $11.5 billion in 2012/13 and $16 billion in 2022/23 if no change in price-ie he expects emissions of CO2 to rise by ~4% a year for the next 10 years.
So what had happened ib Feb 2011 when JG announced this tax.Well we had had the QLD floods,Cyclone Yasi with at least the prospect of GDP falling.The first sustained reports of falls in house prices.Retail sales dipping.Portugal now sliding to a bailout.All factors that would reduce the chance of having a budget surplus that is so dear to WS's heart.
Sorry but I believe the Carbon Tax is about propping up the budget.

 

[cove]

Fancy that drron I think 80% of Australians are thinking just that.The Labor machine is facing some true dis-believers on this new tax.

 

[medhead]

All factors that would reduce the chance of having a budget surplus that is so dear to WS's heart.
Sorry but I believe the Carbon Tax is about propping up the budget.

A bit of selectively ignoring the constant mantra of the coalition? I'm sorry but it is Howard, Costello and now Abbott et al that have been banging on about surplus for the last 14 or 15 years. It was WS that said they won't maintain a surplus so as to pay for the various rebuilding costs. What was Abbott's response? "they're destroying the surplus they can't be trusted". Ignoring that the government needs to run their own game; If they are trying to get a surplus it is a bit rich to attack them for doing what the coalition thinks is best.

The 2 greatest lies in Australia politics, surplus and mandate - created and perpetuated by the coalition.

 

[drron]

A bit of selectively ignoring the constant mantra of the coalition? I'm sorry but it is Howard, Costello and now Abbott et al that have been banging on about surplus for the last 14 or 15 years. It was WS that said they won't maintain a surplus so as to pay for the various rebuilding costs. What was Abbott's response? "they're destroying the surplus they can't be trusted". Ignoring that the government needs to run their own game; If they are trying to get a surplus it is a bit rich to attack them for doing what the coalition thinks is best.

The 2 greatest lies in Australia politics, surplus and mandate - created and perpetuated by the coalition.

Well the pot calling the kettle black!Are you ignoring WS's election promise to have the Budget back in surplus-or is it a non-core promise?Though seemingly these are only bad if made by the Coalition.The promise was made because WS believed he had to to convince the public he was a good economic manager.Period.
Now let's cut to the chase.JG is PM,WS the treasurer.They are the government.They have the ability to govern.It doesn't matter a fig what TA and his team think or say-they are not in a position to do anything until at least the next election.
I think the greatest piece of BS in the press at the moment is concentrating on TA and having treasury assess his plans when JG and WS have still not given us detail of their Carbon Tax having announced it 4 months ago.And as I said they are the government and it is their plan that will be introduced not TAs.
As to the greatest lie in politics personally I would now rate JG's statement that I did not mean to deceive the public when i said there would be no Carbon Tax as up there with the best.

 

[cove]

WS produced a budget based on 3.75% growth for 2012.I thought on Budget Night this guy is way off the mark seeing growth of 2.0% is more likely (at the highest guess).I wouldn't trust these folks with any more sources of new money. They need to sort out their own mess or the electors will do it for them.

 

[medhead]

Well the pot calling the kettle black!Are you ignoring WS's election promise to have the Budget back in surplus-or is it a non-core promise?Though seemingly these are only bad if made by the Coalition.The promise was made because WS believed he had to to convince the public he was a good economic manager.Period.

I am asking you to question why he thought this would convince the public that he was a good economic manager. IMO because that has been the mantra of the coalition and it remains so. This is not a point about any particular core or non-core promise by either side, ie I'm not singling out a particular lie by either side. What I'm saying is that the coalition has deceived the country into this idea that surplus = good and deficit = bad. We both know that is going to change depending on circumstances. But western Sydney doesn't know that, Alan jones won't ever say that.

Now let's cut to the chase.JG is PM,WS the treasurer.They are the government.They have the ability to govern.It doesn't matter a fig what TA and his team think or say-they are not in a position to do anything until at least the next election.

True and I don't think I said otherwise. My point is that they are still trying to dance TA's tune. Do I think they are stupid of doing so? Yes. Do I think they should stand on their own feet? Yes. But the fact remains that thy have let themselves be sucked into TA's game. Don't worry I'm high critical of them for doing that, but I'm only looking at underlying causes.

I think the greatest piece of BS in the press at the moment is concentrating on TA and having treasury assess his plans when JG and WS have still not given us detail of their Carbon Tax having announced it 4 months ago.And as I said they are the government and it is their plan that will be introduced not TAs.
As to the greatest lie in politics personally I would now rate JG's statement that I did not mean to deceive the public when i said there would be no Carbon Tax as up there with the best.

Wow! I not really considering particular points more the foundations of what is going on. Again I think you are ignoring the underlying issues with both positions. Rudd was fairly attacked for lack of consultation. 4 months is not long for the current government to consult on something as big as a carbon tax. They certainly can't go and just impose something like Rudd would have done. So an alternative view might be that they have been upfront in saying we are doing a carbon tax, due to the so called lie, and are working through the details.

TA on the other hand can say nothing more substantial than "oppose". That is a fair advantage of his position. But on carbon tax TA let's us have the impression that there will be no carbon tax under his government. This is clearly not true and so it is only fair for the government/the 4th estate to question his position.

I'm not sure how it is deception when the ALP had a published policy to introduce a carbon price before the last election, just like the coalition.

As for you're impression that my position is only liberal lies are bad. I think you miss my point. We have plenty of people current carrying on about "Juliar" I'm simply trying to remind people that neither side can hold the moral high ground when it comes to lies. I'm also trying to gauge if the current Gillard haters are opposed to all lies or are they just party political when it comes to lies. I think it is a fair question.

Edit: I should add that a carbon tax by either side formed no part of my considerations on how I voted at the last election.

 

[drron]

I am asking you to question why he thought this would convince the public that he was a good economic manager. IMO because that has been the mantra of the coalition and it remains so. This is not a point about any particular core or non-core promise by either side, ie I'm not singling out a particular lie by either side. What I'm saying is that the coalition has deceived the country into this idea that surplus = good and deficit = bad. We both know that is going to change depending on circumstances. But western Sydney doesn't know that, Alan jones won't ever say that.
In general surplus=good,deficit=bad is correct.I doubt that BER,Pink Batts=good deficit.



True and I don't think I said otherwise. My point is that they are still trying to dance TA's tune. Do I think they are stupid of doing so? Yes. Do I think they should stand on their own feet? Yes. But the fact remains that thy have let themselves be sucked into TA's game. Don't worry I'm high critical of them for doing that, but I'm only looking at underlying causes.
I dont think they have been sucked into TA's game,more that the only thing they can think of to stop further falls in popularity is attack TA.



Wow! I not really considering particular points more the foundations of what is going on. Again I think you are ignoring the underlying issues with both positions. Rudd was fairly attacked for lack of consultation. 4 months is not long for the current government to consult on something as big as a carbon tax. They certainly can't go and just impose something like Rudd would have done. So an alternative view might be that they have been upfront in saying we are doing a carbon tax, due to the so called lie, and are working through the details.

In February JG announced there WOULD be a carbon tax-no consultation there.KR was critiscised for a lack of ALP consultation not necessarily the public.

TA on the other hand can say nothing more substantial than "oppose". That is a fair advantage of his position. But on carbon tax TA let's us have the impression that there will be no carbon tax under his government. This is clearly not true and so it is only fair for the government/the 4th estate to question his position.
Can you name the last opposition to have a fully costed set of policies in the public domain less than 12 months after an election.

I'm not sure how it is deception when the ALP had a published policy to introduce a carbon price before the last election, just like the coalition.
It may have been published but JG on several occasions said she would not introduce one this term=deception.

As for you're impression that my position is only liberal lies are bad. I think you miss my point. We have plenty of people current carrying on about "Juliar" I'm simply trying to remind people that neither side can hold the moral high ground when it comes to lies. I'm also trying to gauge if the current Gillard haters are opposed to all lies or are they just party political when it comes to lies. I think it is a fair question.
I think like in all human endeavours there is a great range of gillard haters,those that do just because she is from the ALP to those that feel deceived.The same would be true of the Howard haters.

Edit: I should add that a carbon tax by either side formed no part of my considerations on how I voted at the last election.

And I am quite open as I did not vote for either major party or the Greens-1 candidate was sleazy,I thought another should have been behind bars and a third was just too dipsy.

 

[medhead]

And I am quite open as I did not vote for either major party or the Greens-1 candidate was sleazy,I thought another should have been behind bars and a third was just too dipsy.

I can't really reply properly because the quoting has gone funny in the iPhone app. But really all I can say is that I think the ALP is clearly being reactive to the opposition. This opens them to attacks and puts them on the back foot. I am not saying the the opposition should have fully costed policies at this stage. But given the government's reactive position it is an obvious, albeit also pointless, tactic to try to shift focus given the debacle with the opposition costings at the last election.

Your other points I respect, but there is no point delving into detail here.

 

[eastwest101]

Yes - talking with some other people about this and it seems that (putting aside carbon tax politics) that the ALP and the PM have decided that they will "crash though or crash" or "die in a ditch" over this one - whatever form the carbon tax does take. I think its now certain that some sort of Carbon Tax will be implemented by the current government despite any of the debates about its science, design, consultation, effectiveness, cost, scope, alternatives, exemptions or the public opinion.

Seems to me that the PM and the cabinet are now totally committed. The only really interesting thing will be to look back at this all in 2-15yrs time and see how it all played out. I use that timeframe - because it seems the next federal election will be in 2 yrs time, and whatever is implemented will take about 10-15 yrs for all the intended and unintended consequences to flow through the economy and society.

 

[medhead]

Page 7 of today's AFR makes for interesting reading. Headline: Abbott slams economists.*

Apparently, australia's economists are of low quality because they say the governments system is better then the oppositions direct action. That is gold! Hate the governments carbon tax if you like but the alternative is worse. All those wanting Abbott as PM, be careful what you wish for.

* sorry no link as I'm in iPhone and I believe the financial review is subscription only.

 

[drron]

Sorry Medhead but TA is right,the economists are wrong because they have referred to the Government's Carbon Tax and as JG has now told us it isn't a tax at all.How could they be wrong on such a crucial fact?

 

[Alanslegal]

abbott slamming his way at anybody.....http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...r-report-backs-carbon-tax-20110701-1gv3y.html

the highlight for me is the report says abbott's carbon plan has a more likely chance of a budget blowout, and at very little reduction to the emission reduction.no one seems to focus , or should i say, the debate is focused subjectively on the increase in cost issue .... nothing else gets into the media.

so the alternative PM is suggesting something that appears less effective and a potentially more dangerous, yet it gets zilch attention. sad.

 

[eastwest101]

abbott slamming his way at anybody.....Abbott lashes out as another report backs carbon tax

the highlight for me is the report says abbott's carbon plan has a more likely chance of a budget blowout, and at very little reduction to the emission reduction.no one seems to focus , or should i say, the debate is focused subjectively on the increase in cost issue .... nothing else gets into the media.

so the alternative PM is suggesting something that appears less effective and a potentially more dangerous, yet it gets zilch attention. sad.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to anything the Fairfax press has to say on the matter, besides which - as others have pointed out, whether the government calls it a tax or not (and that is changeable!), it wont reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions at all as it its a wealth transfer tax that will export industries and jobs out of Australia, and the PM went to the last election promising that there wouldn't be a carbon tax anyway so they have no electoral mandate for it.

 

[cove]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US has approved the use of a biofuel in aircraft.2% of carbon emissions in the world have come from aircraft and this will help reduce emissions as this fuel mix will be much cleaner.

 

[drron]

abbott slamming his way at anybody.....Abbott lashes out as another report backs carbon tax

the highlight for me is the report says abbott's carbon plan has a more likely chance of a budget blowout, and at very little reduction to the emission reduction.no one seems to focus , or should i say, the debate is focused subjectively on the increase in cost issue .... nothing else gets into the media.

so the alternative PM is suggesting something that appears less effective and a potentially more dangerous, yet it gets zilch attention. sad.

It's getting zilch attention yet you are quoting the SMH-Hmmm.
Of course this reort comes from how many economists who saw the GFC coming-hint the number is less than 1.