Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

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.

Yep I covered that in the rest of my post, that you forgot to quote.

Basically - Best case: the taxpayer doesn't pay tax to the tune of [whichever figure is correct]. That's a saving!
Worst case: other tax measures are used to collect the forgone revenue. So the taxpayer ends up paying what they were going to pay originally.

Regardless of where the final outcome sits between those 2 extremes, it is hard to agree the tax payer will pay more.

 

[serfty]

...


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 !

Even Julia Gillard knows the difference: (Yes, I vowed no carbon tax - Julia Gillard | News.com.au)

...
"A carbon tax is where you fix price," Ms Gillard said.

"An emissions trading scheme is where you fix quantity and allow the market to sort out price ... "
...

 

[drsmithy]

Even Julia Gillard knows the difference: (Yes, I vowed no carbon tax - Julia Gillard | News.com.au)

Your lack of intellectual integrity in cherry picking quotes is unsurprising.

The relevant part you left out was:

The Prime Minister explained that a fixed-price period, for an interim three to five years, would effectively operate as a carbon tax"

Lo and behold, exactly what I said - an ETS with a short-term fixed price period.

 

[medhead]

Even Julia Gillard knows the difference: (Yes, I vowed no carbon tax - Julia Gillard | News.com.au)

Just a shame the coalition doesn't.

 

[serfty]

Even Julia Gillard knows the difference: (Yes, I vowed no carbon tax - Julia Gillard | News.com.au)

Your lack of intellectual integrity in cherry picking quotes is unsurprising.

The relevant part you left out was:

The Prime Minister explained that a fixed-price period, for an interim three to five years, would effectively operate as a carbon tax"

Lo and behold, exactly what I said - an ETS with a short-term fixed price period.

Please don't impune my integrety. I was simply showing that JG called it a TAX. AN thankyou for the additional part - I did I miss it, and it supports what I have been indicating.

Even Gillard referred to it as a Tax, and more than once ...

... and was even happy to do so: (Julia Gillard Announces Carbon Tax For 2012)

...
As Abbott quickly pointed out, her plan is a blatant breach of Gillard's election promise not to introduce a carbon tax. Notably, Gillard shied away from the T-word at her press conference, although she admitted in question time that the initial part of the scheme, a fixed price, was ''effectively like a tax''.

By last night, Gillard was saying on TV: ''I'm happy to use the word 'tax' . . .

 

[Skyring]

Regardless of where the final outcome sits between those 2 extremes, it is hard to agree the tax payer will pay more.

Well, I dunno. These short term soundbite solutions haven't been working out very well for the economy. What about good government? Wouldn't that be much better for all concerned?

Kevin Rudd thinking up something new every day to make a headline doesn't sound like an efficient way to run a country.

 

[medhead]

Well, I dunno. These short term soundbite solutions haven't been working out very well for the economy. What about good government? Wouldn't that be much better for all concerned?

Kevin Rudd thinking up something new every day to make a headline doesn't sound like an efficient way to run a country.

Well good news Rudd's headline today is cut or deferred government spending to cover the short fall from the carbon tax/ETS change.

It's a shame you don't seem to comment about Abbott's three word sound bites.

 

[Skyring]

It's a shame you don't seem to comment about Abbott's three word sound bites.

Sure, but TA isn't running the country with soundbite solutions. He's not coming up with government policy on the run.

This is 2010 with the Rudd and Gillard roles reversed. Rudd is trying to convince the voters he's got solutions to all the problems Gillard faced, and his solutions only have to stand up until the election too.

Aren't you getting a sense of déjà vu on this?

 

[drsmithy]

Please don't impune my integrety. I was simply showing that JG called it a TAX.

No, she said - in the part you have so conveniently highlighted more than once - "would effectively operate as a tax".

Note: not actually a tax. An ETS with a short-term fixed-price period that "would effectively operate as a tax" for the fixed-price period.

Let's come at this from the other side. Do you, or do you not, agree Labor's clear intention was to somehow price carbon, and that this intention was shared by the Liberal party going into the 2007 election and then subsequently until Abbot became leader ?

AN thankyou for the additional part - I did I miss it, and it supports what I have been indicating.

You are "indicating" that Julia Gillard said she wouldn't introduce a carbon price, by conflating it with the words "carbon tax".

... and was even happy to do so: (Julia Gillard Announces Carbon Tax For 2012)

Mmm.

"I understand some silly little collateral debate has broken out today. I mean, how ridiculous. This is a market-based mechanism to price carbon.''

Keep Googling. I'm sure if you search long enough you might even find one quote where she had a slip of the tongue and actually said what you want her to have said. But it still won't change the actual facts of the matter: Labor intended to introduce a carbon price, and that's what they did. Pointless semantic word games don't change it, nor will they change the dishonesty of trying to present what actually happened as a major shift in policy rather than a minor change in implementation process.

 

[drsmithy]

Well, I dunno. These short term soundbite solutions haven't been working out very well for the economy. What about good government? Wouldn't that be much better for all concerned?

How about you define "good government" so we all have the same understanding of what we're talking about. Examples would be helpful.

Kevin Rudd thinking up something new every day to make a headline doesn't sound like an efficient way to run a country.

Since you're so hot on evidence, do you actually have some he's just making stuff up on the fly, and not reading from a plan he's been developing for the last couple of years ?

 

[serfty]

PM Kevin Rudd reveals $3.8 billion price tag on decision to 'terminate' carbon tax - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help cost of living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business," Mr Rudd said.

 

[medhead]

Sure, but TA isn't running the country with soundbite solutions. He's not coming up with government policy on the run.

This is 2010 with the Rudd and Gillard roles reversed. Rudd is trying to convince the voters he's got solutions to all the problems Gillard faced, and his solutions only have to stand up until the election too.

Aren't you getting a sense of déjà vu on this?

In case you missed the word election in the thread title, Abbott wants to run the country. His CV for doing that is three word sound bites. He is coming up with coalition policy on the run and offering us that as his solution. That's his alternative government. You might be prepared to ignore his failings but some of us aren't. Now what was your comment about blindly supporting your team?

 

[whatmeworry]

Liberals to swing the axe on Tony?
Liberal Party's Best Bet: a Switch to Malcolm Turnbull

 

[Skyring]

In case you missed the word election in the thread title, Abbott wants to run the country. His CV for doing that is three word sound bites. He is coming up with coalition policy on the run and offering us that as his solution. That's his alternative government. You might be prepared to ignore his failings but some of us aren't. Now what was your comment about blindly supporting your team?

Calm down. Please. What policies has TA pulled out of his back pocket over the past week? Perhaps you'd like to list them for us?

But your man Rudd has certainly been pulling some surprises out, hasn't he? Dropping the carbon tax, sending cops to PNG, cleaning up the NSW Right (need help with the branch-stacking there, Kevin?), altering the federal ALP leadership process, economic migrants to Manus, jumping up for marriage equality...

Nothing concrete, of course, nothing happening immediately. Just a bunch of press releases and sound bites crafted by the staffers.

Another day, another headline. How much of this has been run past Cabinet, do you think?

And what's the betting tomorrow brings another lovely surprise announcement as Kevin pumps the media handle, just like the good old days?

Come off the grass, Medhead. Rudd is running his old familiar soundbite solution razzle-dazzle routine and you know it.

 

[drron]

I really am having a laugh at all those trying to rewrite history.
Fact.ALP policy when Julia Gillard was made PM included an ETS.She included that in her first press conference as PM.
Fact-In the Election Campaign of 2010 when challenged she did not add anything after There Will be no Carbon tax introduced by a Government I lead.No second sentence.Adding the second sentence often quoted here only appears when searching on Google this year.it is made up of her pre election campaign statements and her campaign statements.
Fact-both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have referred to the current policy as a CARBON TAX.No matter what sort of argument you make they believed it was a carbon tax.End of story.

 

[drsmithy]

Fact-In the Election Campaign of 2010 when challenged she did not add anything after There Will be no Carbon tax introduced by a Government I lead.No second sentence.Adding the second sentence often quoted here only appears when searching on Google this year.it is made up of her pre election campaign statements and her campaign statements.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Fact-both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have referred to the current policy as a CARBON TAX.No matter what sort of argument you make they believed it was a carbon tax.End of story.

The argument is actually really, really simple: it's not legislated as a tax, it's legislated as an ETS with an initial fixed price period. Anyone can call it whatever the hell they want, but that's what it actually *is*, per the law of the land.

In reality, the people banging on about the "carbon tax lie" simply lack the honesty and intellectual integrity to say "I don't think climate change is real and I don't think there should be a price on carbon".

 

[Moody]

I really am having a laugh at all those trying to rewrite history.
Fact.ALP policy when Julia Gillard was made PM included an ETS.She included that in her first press conference as PM.
Fact-In the Election Campaign of 2010 when challenged she did not add anything after There Will be no Carbon tax introduced by a Government I lead.No second sentence.Adding the second sentence often quoted here only appears when searching on Google this year.it is made up of her pre election campaign statements and her campaign statements.
Fact-both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have referred to the current policy as a CARBON TAX.No matter what sort of argument you make they believed it was a carbon tax.End of story.

Yep - agreed. To all intents and purposes it acts like any other tax, and splitting hairs by using its formal name is a moot point that even the Labour party has recently given up on.

And the point is what exactly????

 

[serfty]

...

And the point is what exactly????

erm, I suspect it may have something to do with the public perception that a specific election promise was broken.

 

[Skyring]

I really am having a laugh at all those trying to rewrite history.

It's a question of attitude and goes back to the religious point I raised some time back about the evolution museum and the resident astrophysicist. When questioned as to how he could be a scientist, believe in the scientific method of evidence and reproducible experiments and so on, and yet believe in the literal words of the Bible, he replied that when there was any conflict, the Bible trumped science. That was just the way it was for him. Science had to be wrong because the Bible couldn't be.

So too with the Carbon Tax. If it is indeed a tax, then when Julia Gillard said that there would be no Carbon Tax under a government she led and subsequently introduced one, then she broke a promise - or lied.

Tony Abbott made a great deal of headway on this.

For some people, it is a matter of faith that their chosen party, sporting team or philosophy must always be right and any opposition wrong. For these people, there can be no possible situation where Tony Abbott is right and Julia Gillard wrong. It's impossible. Therefore there must be some other explanation, or those who keep on supporting what cannot be right must be somehow unable to understand.

It's often the way that only a few true believers can see the whole truth and the 99% have been somehow sucked in.

You'd think that the documented evidence that even Julia Gillard was calling the tax a tax, therefore admitting that she had broken her promise, would be enough, but no…

 

[drsmithy]

You'd think that the documented evidence that even Julia Gillard was calling the tax a tax, therefore admitting that she had broken her promise, would be enough, but no…

You'd also think that the documented evidence it isn't a tax would be enough, but no...