![]() |
Carbon tax
Well?
|
Re: Carbon tax
Yes thanks.
|
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 9487190)
Well?
" I want to talk to YOU today " - then I switched off. Viva la revolucion ! |
Re: Carbon tax
Giving people more money to spend on consumer goods is hardly likely to reduce carbon consumption. :confused:
|
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by spalen
(Post 9487336)
The only good thing out of this is the comedy value in the stupid adverts from queen gillard.
" I want to talk to YOU today " - then I switched off. Viva la revolucion ! Soon people will be better off on 60K with all the benefits on top. Not much incentive here to work hard is there:eek: |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by jad n rich
(Post 9487353)
Few people at work moaning this morning about the family on $150,000 being the ones hit AGAIN.
Soon people will be better off on 60K with all the benefits on top. Not much incentive here to work hard is there:eek: Its usual BS from Labor. |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by spalen
(Post 9487336)
The only good thing out of this is the comedy value in the stupid adverts from queen gillard.
" I want to talk to YOU today " - then I switched off. Viva la revolucion ! |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by jad n rich
(Post 9487353)
Few people at work moaning this morning about the family on $150,000 being the ones hit AGAIN.
Soon people will be better off on 60K with all the benefits on top. Not much incentive here to work hard is there:eek: |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 9487190)
Well?
A dogs breakfast. Gillard and, especially, Combet looked scared shitless in their press conference. They know it's a cock-up and will not be able to sell it to the people. They are dead men walking. |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9487360)
Personally I'd rather be on $150k than $60k but maybe that's just me. :thumbup:
I'd be interested to see how the 2 families would compare. I'd expect the 150 family to be somewhat better off but nowhere near the double/treble image people might expect. You know, minus flood levy, medicare surcharge, little or no family benefits, 40k tax.... Then 60K plus family benefits, childcare payments, rent assistance, minimal tax... I did see the figures done in the howard years, it was quite a shock, think it was done on 50k V 100K. |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by Rambi
(Post 9487345)
Giving people more money to spend on consumer goods is hardly likely to reduce carbon consumption. :confused:
Anyway even if you aren't that taken by arguments or data supporting a global warming hypothesis it would be a good idea to get a grip on using fossil resources in the long term. So you offer people a carrot and stick, then take away the carrot later ;). |
Re: Carbon tax
I'm speechless! The discombobulated "policies" (my quotes) of this "government" (ditto) just keep getting more far side.
You want to cut down emissions, the increase of which is caused by increasing population, so you put a tax on them - and reimburse especially those who are increasing the population. You tax the big polluters - and then give rebates to such industries as steelmaking. You want to cut down on energy usage - so you *don't* put the tax on petrol. Then you and your mates all up and fly backwards and forwards across the country selling the unsellable, burning kerosine all the time. Juliar almost made me throw up with her to-the-camera yesterday - what a clown! |
Re: Carbon tax
They couldn't organise a successful chook raffle.
|
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by jad n rich
(Post 9487353)
Few people at work moaning this morning about the family on $150,000 being the ones hit AGAIN.
Soon people will be better off on 60K with all the benefits on top. Not much incentive here to work hard is there:eek: |
Re: Carbon tax
Originally Posted by jad n rich
(Post 9487374)
I'd be interested to see how the 2 families would compare. I'd expect the 150 family to be somewhat better off but nowhere near the double/treble image people might expect.
You know, minus flood levy, medicare surcharge, little or no family benefits, 40k tax.... Then 60K plus family benefits, childcare payments, rent assistance, minimal tax... I did see the figures done in the howard years, it was quite a shock, think it was done on 50k V 100K. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:34 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.