Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

You mean the exact transition that was written into the legislation and is merely taking place a bit sooner ? Presumably this will also be dishonestly spun out of control by people faking surprise and outrage that something they were told was going to happen, is happening.

Entertaining that you link to a "mostly false" statement to try and support the argument.

Yes, I mean the exact transition that Rudd now says will take place sooner. That's what I mean when I say "The current debate is over the transition of Gillard's carbon tax to Rudd's market and how much that will cost taxpayers.

And yes, Hockey said it was $15 billion. Let me quote the summary from that link: Joe Hockey says that moving quickly to a floating carbon price would mean a budget black hole of up to $15 billion. The hole would be likely to be nearer $8 billion if the change was immediate, and would be nearer $4 billion if it happened in one year's time.

As I say, the debate is now over how much it will cost taxpayers. $4 billion, $8 billion, $15 billion. Are you claiming there is no debate over the cost?

You seem to be agreeing with the facts as I presented them. Do you need more clarification? Would it would help if you read the Politifact article in full?

 

[drsmithy]

Temporary or not, if Gillard says it's a carbon tax, that's pretty much the game right there. You calling Julia a liar when she says it's a carbon tax?

No, I'm calling Tony Abbot, and all those who support and agree with him on this topic, fundamentally dishonest in the way they have presented a minor change to the implementation of a promised policy as "a lie".

Labor took ETS carbon pricing to two elections. Heck, the Liberals took it to the penultimate one, and it remained their policy stance until Abbot took over. Probably because he thinks the science behind it is "absolute cough".

 

[drsmithy]

As I say, the debate is now over how much it will cost taxpayers. $4 billion, $8 billion, $15 billion. Are you claiming there is no debate over the cost?

A "debate" is something one generally engages in to evaluate out consequences of a particular question or scenario to reach a decision about pursuing it.

It's not generally a term used to refer to some piece of factual data that simply has an unknown magnitude.

You seem to be agreeing with the facts as I presented them. Do you need more clarification? Would it would help if you read the Politifact article in full?

I did read the article in full. Hockey's not the coldest beer in the fridge, so I do wonder if he realises that by attacking the "budget hole" left by reducing the current carbon price he is, in effect, attacking his own party's planned elimination of it. Given the shameless hysteria about the Carbon Tax Abbot's Liberal Party has historically propagated, however, I guess we should be thankful ol' Joe is only predicting an impact of $15 billion, and not the complete collapse of the Australian economy.

 

[Skyring]

No, I'm calling Tony Abbot, and all those who support and agree with him on this topic, fundamentally dishonest in the way they have presented a minor change to the implementation of a promised policy as "a lie".

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are out of step with expert opinion, the media, the public perception, and Julia Gillard herself. And me, I'm falling in love with these Politifact people. Hunt down the truth and give ticks or flicks to politicians of all sides. Woot!

The more truth and honesty in politics, the better, don't you agree?

 

[Skyring]

A "debate" is something one generally engages in to evaluate out the consequences of a particular question or scenario to reach a decision about pursuing it.

And we seem to be having a debate over it, here and now. I'm beginning to suspect you are just trying to pretend to disagree to take up time and space. If you only want to present your opinion without reference to any good sources of information, then we're getting into the Monty Python school of debating.

[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

 

[drsmithy]

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are out of step with expert opinion, the media, the public perception, and Julia Gillard herself.

Putting up a web page makes one an "expert" ? Who knew ?
Julia Gillard agreed she didn't intend to price carbon ? When did that happen ?

And me, I'm falling in love with these Politifact people. Hunt down the truth and give ticks or flicks to politicians of all sides. Woot!

It's interesting to read the summary in the link above (emphasis mine):

Abbott said Gillard broke her pre-election promise ‘there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’.
On literal truth, the experts say the carbon pricing mechanism is not technically a tax - although it tastes, sounds, and smells like one for the first three years.
Prior to the election, Gillard distinguished between a carbon pricing mechanism and a tax, and this is what she has essentially delivered, except for the three-year fixed price period. And that’s a big exception.
In the public mind, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, notwithstanding finer distinctions of ornithology.
From that point of view, average Australians - the very target of the prime minister’s no-tax pledge - might have struggled to see the nuance in her policy.

So from the "public perception", it was a broken promise, but in actuality it was just a change to a promised policy.

An odd definition of "fact". One wonders if they would consider, say, evolution to be a "lie" in a locale where "public perception" was that it didn't happen, since apparently it's "public perception" that matters.

 

[drsmithy]

And we seem to be having a debate over it, here and now.

Not from where I'm standing.

You're posting links about Hockey's ramblings on how reducing the carbon tax will put a "hole" in the budget and calling his mistake about how big that hole is a "debate".

I'm pointing out his criticism of the consequences are rather hypocritical given his party's plans to completely eliminate it.

If you only want to present your opinion without reference to any good sources of information, then we're getting into the Monty Python school of debating.

Are you disagreeing it's the Liberal Party's stated intention to eliminate carbon pricing ?

 

[medhead]

Yes, I mean the exact transition that Rudd now says will take place sooner. That's what I mean when I say "The current debate is over the transition of Gillard's carbon tax to Rudd's market and how much that will cost taxpayers.

And yes, Hockey said it was $15 billion. Let me quote the summary from that link: Joe Hockey says that moving quickly to a floating carbon price would mean a budget black hole of up to $15 billion. The hole would be likely to be nearer $8 billion if the change was immediate, and would be nearer $4 billion if it happened in one year's time.

As I say, the debate is now over how much it will cost taxpayers. $4 billion, $8 billion, $15 billion. Are you claiming there is no debate over the cost?

It's not going to cost anything. Those figures represent a reduction in revenue from tax collection, as in money that is not paid by the taxpayer. So it's a saving for the taxpayer.

Now sure they might increase revenue collection in other areas to cover the uncollected carbon tax. But that's only going to bring us back to the same cost as if the carbon tax was not changed. So no extra cost for the taxpayer. They might also reduce spending to cover the uncollected/forgone revenue. That would then be a saving.

Basically Hockey seems to be getting confused between a cost to the taxpayer and a cost to government. The later is actually a saving to the taxpayer. All of which raises serious questions about his suitability to be treasurer.

 

[serfty]

...

So from the "public perception", it was a broken promise, but in actuality it was just a change to a promised policy.

An odd definition of "fact". One wonders if they would consider, say, evolution to be a "lie" in a locale where "public perception" was that it didn't happen, since apparently it's "public perception" that matters.

It's probably a waste of effort for me to type this, but might I suggest you go back and read posts #2054 through #2064 of this thread.

Here's some stuff:

...

[In the Labour Pre 2010 Election policy, Gillard proponed:] "A market based scheme" [which by definition] is not a government enforced tax on carbon.

There is no reference [in the policy] to any tax [in relation to Emissions] at all.

Now, The Coalition challenged that the ALP policy was all a camouflage for a carbon tax.

When so challenged, in clarifying ALP policy, Julia made her statement, and more than once, “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.

So, that policy is not proponing a Carbon Tax, and that is definite - thanks to the PM's clarification.

Oh dear ... it is currently not market based. So it must be a tax. If nothing changes then within a few years it will be market based. So then it won't be a tax???

I am thinking something will change - dramatically - before "market based" comes into it.

 

[medhead]

It's probably a waste of effort for me to type this, but might I suggest you go back and read posts #2054 through #2064 of this thread.

Here's some stuff:

Shame you didn't include the full quote from Gillard. The bit where she says she will put a price on carbon.

Still, did her comments on this change your vote?

 

[drsmithy]

It's probably a waste of effort for me to type this [...]

It is, because it doesn't change anything of substance.

Labor's policy was to price carbon with an ETS. That's what they did, with a fixed price for the first few years. If they hadn't moved to a floating price, then - and only then - would the "carbon tax lie" arguments actually have some validity because then - and only then - would a substantial shift in policy have occurred.

Abbot's argument about the carbon tax is like a child who was promised a three red matchbox cars for his birthday but only got a yellow one, then two red ones the year after, screaming his parents never give him any presents.

 

[serfty]

...The bit where she says she will put a price on carbon.
...

Yes, she did indicate a price on carbon - but it was not going to be a "TAX".

... Coalition challenged that the ALP policy was all a camouflage for a carbon tax.

When so challenged, in clarifying ALP policy, Julia made her statement, and more than once, “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.

We got a TAX!

 

[drsmithy]

Yes, she did indicate a price on carbon - but it was not going to be a "TAX".

And it's not legislated as a tax.

We got a TAX!

No, we got an ETS with a short-term fixed price.

Now we have an ETS with a floating price.

Just like they said. INCONCEIVABLE !

 

[Skyring]

It's not going to cost anything. Those figures represent a reduction in revenue from tax collection, as in money that is not paid by the taxpayer. So it's a saving for the taxpayer.

That's a very optimistic view, and I commend you for it.

My guess is that the shortfall will be made up through other means, and that means either the government digging deeper into the taxpayer's pockets, or by cutting back on services, which presumably taxpayers will have to then fund by themselves.

My guess is that we the people will pay one way or another for Rudd's promise to dump the carbon tax. Call me a cynic. I've been watching politicians too many years.

So why is Rudd foregoing a very large amount of money in tax revenue, at a time when it would be really nice to have a few billion dollars extra?

Again, it's my guess, but my guess is that Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax is something that he could see being used as a very effective weapon against him in the election campaign and that in the Rudd Big List of Important Priorities, Getting Elected comes a long way ahead of Good Economic Management.

It's all a bit reminiscent of three years back, where Julia Gillard scrambled to find political fixes for the biggest problems. She barely scraped home, and over the next three years we saw all these hasty soundbite solutions blow up in her face. The mining tax turned out to be a dud, the boat people kept coming and coming and coming with a boat sinking every now and then, the carbon tax lie was a monkey on her back, and the voters started hating on her and then her own party sunk the boot in. The horror.

My guess is that Rudd is trying to do exactly the same thing. Political solutions to practical problems and then he's got three years in government to hope something else comes along. Maybe the global economy will improve.

But make no mistake, Rudd's Number One Target is to hang onto the keys to the Lodge. It's not the welfare of the Australian voter, taxpayer or economy.

And certainly not the environment. He made that clear in 2010 when he ran away from "the greatest moral challenge of our generation".

 

[Skyring]

I am thinking something will change - dramatically - before "market based" comes into it.

Oh boy, it's been nuttin' but drama!

Can't we just chain all these coughs to their desks and get them to work instead of prancing about in front of the cameras? It takes more than soundbites and policy on the run to run a good government.

I wonder just how much of what is coming out of Kevin Rudd's mouth has been run past Cabinet. Or is he up to his old one-man-band habit?

 

[Alanslegal]

I am back! How things change since I was last here. Ok, see you later, will come back post election (whenever it is).

 

[Moody]

That's a very optimistic view, and I commend you for it.

My guess is that the shortfall will be made up through other means, and that means either the government digging deeper into the taxpayer's pockets, or by cutting back on services, which presumably taxpayers will have to then fund by themselves.

My guess is that we the people will pay one way or another for Rudd's promise to dump the carbon tax. Call me a cynic. I've been watching politicians too many years.

So why is Rudd foregoing a very large amount of money in tax revenue, at a time when it would be really nice to have a few billion dollars extra?

Again, it's my guess, but my guess is that Julia Gillard's Carbon Tax is something that he could see being used as a very effective weapon against him in the election campaign and that in the Rudd Big List of Important Priorities, Getting Elected comes a long way ahead of Good Economic Management.

It's all a bit reminiscent of three years back, where Julia Gillard scrambled to find political fixes for the biggest problems. She barely scraped home, and over the next three years we saw all these hasty soundbite solutions blow up in her face. The mining tax turned out to be a dud, the boat people kept coming and coming and coming with a boat sinking every now and then, the carbon tax lie was a monkey on her back, and the voters started hating on her and then her own party sunk the boot in. The horror.

My guess is that Rudd is trying to do exactly the same thing. Political solutions to practical problems and then he's got three years in government to hope something else comes along. Maybe the global economy will improve.

But make no mistake, Rudd's Number One Target is to hang onto the keys to the Lodge. It's not the welfare of the Australian voter, taxpayer or economy.

And certainly not the environment. He made that clear in 2010 when he ran away from "the greatest moral challenge of our generation".

I'm confused, Skyring. So now you support the current Carbon Pricing Mechanism and don't want to see it transition a year early to a market-based ETS? So you're keen not to lose the additional investment in renewable energy or the financial assistance to low income earners to (over) compensate for the additional costs?

You surprise me!

 

[medhead]

Yes, she did indicate a price on carbon - but it was not going to be a "TAX".

We got a TAX!

So you disagree with the coalition's view that its a "tax" regardless of the pricing mechanism and the coalitions gold standard of public perception.

 

[serfty]

So you disagree with the coalition's view that its a "tax" regardless of the pricing mechanism and the coalitions gold standard of public perception.

Yes ... and my view has not altered since I made those posts in April.

 

[Moody]

Oh - and here's some good news for a change :- Australian Carbon Emissions Down

Come in spinner!