Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > Australia > The Barbie
Reload this Page >

Reasons Gillard should go...

Reasons Gillard should go...

Old Aug 23rd 2012, 8:51 pm
  #16  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
carolinephillips's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 7,580
carolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond reputecarolinephillips has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

She has lost all creditworthiness with her "no carbon tax"- JuLIAR Gillard, and the woman has the most boring drony insufferable voice. She gave a speech at DD's school which was supposed to be for charity, and turned it into a political speech about why carbon tax was good for you....or something. I lost the will to listen after a minute. She made the school's headmistress seem interesting, and that takes some doing.
DD was not allowed to heckle, much as she wanted to.
carolinephillips is offline  
Old Aug 23rd 2012, 9:39 pm
  #17  
BE Forum Addict
 
verystormy's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,321
verystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond reputeverystormy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Carbon tax & mining tax.

Her legacy, along with her union cronies, is to kill the mining industry in Oz
verystormy is offline  
Old Aug 23rd 2012, 10:50 pm
  #18  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Zen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by carolinephillips View Post
She has lost all creditworthiness with her "no carbon tax"- JuLIAR Gillard, and the woman has the most boring drony insufferable voice. She gave a speech at DD's school which was supposed to be for charity, and turned it into a political speech about why carbon tax was good for you....or something. I lost the will to listen after a minute. She made the school's headmistress seem interesting, and that takes some doing.
DD was not allowed to heckle, much as she wanted to.
While no one is sure why the carbon tax is good for them, we're all very sure it's going to be bad for the Australian Labor Party.
Zen10 is offline  
Old Aug 23rd 2012, 11:37 pm
  #19  
BE Forum Addict
 
knockoff nige's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
knockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

I know I've asked this before but what is going to happen with this tax money? Are we investing in solar panels for everyone or are there widespread pay rises for the Labor party?
knockoff nige is offline  
Old Aug 23rd 2012, 11:47 pm
  #20  
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
 
GarryP's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
GarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by knockoff nige View Post
I know I've asked this before but what is going to happen with this tax money? Are we investing in solar panels for everyone or are there widespread pay rises for the Labor party?
Carbon tax was supposed to be relatively revenue neutral (its one of the problems). They are giving back as much as they take - families get tax threshold rises, benefits, etc. and businesses get offsets and support with changing to lower polluting alternatives.

This approach dulls the impact of the pricing of carbon, people have a tendency to continue as before. You're right, the money should have gone into insulation improvements, solar panels, etc. to get a win-win.

It's part of the problem, they had an eye too much on consensus with the libs (who backtracked on their support for a carbon tax), and on making it not hurt anyone (except the rich, who weren't voting labor anyway).
GarryP is offline  
Old Aug 23rd 2012, 11:57 pm
  #21  
Lets Rock !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
4500 Times's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 599
4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute4500 Times has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Her ears lobes are out of control

Bring back Pauline.........
4500 Times is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:06 am
  #22  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Zen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by GarryP View Post
Carbon tax was supposed to be relatively revenue neutral (its one of the problems). They are giving back as much as they take - families get tax threshold rises, benefits, etc. and businesses get offsets and support with changing to lower polluting alternatives.

This approach dulls the impact of the pricing of carbon, people have a tendency to continue as before. You're right, the money should have gone into insulation improvements, solar panels, etc. to get a win-win.

It's part of the problem, they had an eye too much on consensus with the libs (who backtracked on their support for a carbon tax), and on making it not hurt anyone (except the rich, who weren't voting labor anyway).
Yes this is true, I agree. The problem we have here is that power is already grotesquely over-priced in South Australia:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226305741810

so chucking on the carbon tax and my winter quarter has leapt from $400 for the last few years to $800. Projecting in to the future no compensation is going to cover this increase so we are totally worse off and by a proper sum of money as well.

Now, I said to my wife last night that I would take this hit if I knew the rich were getting taxed, but they are not - or not properly taxed anyway., The purpose of a socialist government is to iron out the excesses of the previous conservative government and redistribute wealth before the cons get in again. As they are not doing this, in the UK or Australia, I see no reason in voting for them. Throw in doubling my power bills and they can kiss good bye to my support until they start doing what their function is - tax the rich and redistribute the funds.
Zen10 is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:14 am
  #23  
...giving optimism a go?!
 
DadAgain's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
DadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud of
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by knockoff nige View Post
I know I've asked this before but what is going to happen with this tax money?
There is some 'direct action' investment from CT revenue - but most CT revenue will be returned to general revenue and used to reduce the income tax burden.

If the tax works successfully the revenue from it will drop as people find their own efficient ways of avoiding paying it (for example I've reduced our electricity consumption by around 30% over the last few months meaning I've saved way more than any CT increases). This is the essence of a market based system - we dont need the government to dictate how best to reduce emmisions, by pricing them into everything businesses and individuals will find the most efficient ways. With a CT we will reduce our emissions to the target of 5% less than year 2000 levels with a cost of $23 per tonne.

By Comparison the LNPs direct action policy favours "Direct Action" - meaning the government (i.e. taxpayers) fork out for whatever is the government approved mechanism for reducing emissions. Solar panels for example are estimated to cost over $400 per tonne of emissions reduced. Of course in order to pay for this direct action (most of which will be payments to large poluters) taxes will have to be increased.

So which do you prefer - the efficient $23 a tonne model whereby the government dictates nothing and businesses and individuals work out the best way to avoid emitting (and therefore paying) - or the expensive 'centrally managed economy' model whereby taxpayers pay enormous amounts to polluters to achieve the same goals but less efficiently?

I understand the argument that "she lied" (I dont think its a good argument [I *like* the idea of a pragamatist able to adapt to changing circumstances] - but I understand it).

But the argument that CT is a bad tax is ludicrous compared to the alternative offering.

If you truly believe the CT is a burden on society and going to force us into economic hell - then just imagine the damage the far more expensive LNP solution will do!

The rational, logical way to vote if the cost of lowering emissions is your prime concern is surely in support of the current government?
DadAgain is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:15 am
  #24  
BE Forum Addict
 
knockoff nige's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
knockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by Zen10 View Post
Yes this is true, I agree. The problem we have here is that power is already grotesquely over-priced in South Australia:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226305741810

so chucking on the carbon tax and my winter quarter has leapt from $400 for the last few years to $800. Projecting in to the future no compensation is going to cover this increase so we are totally worse off and by a proper sum of money as well.

Now, I said to my wife last night that I would take this hit if I knew the rich were getting taxed, but they are not - or not properly taxed anyway., The purpose of a socialist government is to iron out the excesses of the previous conservative government and redistribute wealth before the cons get in again. As they are not doing this, in the UK or Australia, I see no reason in voting for them. Throw in doubling my power bills and they can kiss good bye to my support until they start doing what their function is - tax the rich and redistribute the funds.
I think they believe they are doing that, but their definition of rich is quite different to my definition. Families on lower incomes are getting a rebate. I am not, for two reasons. I earn over a certain amount and I am single. Labor don't like people like me.

It's not just the carbon tax I have an issue with though. Private health insurance. I'm getting taxed more on it now and, on top of that, Labor have off loaded the rebate payout to the health fund companies who, in turn increase my premium as they want. The reason they did this was to not have a lower income earner subsidising my health fund (which I have never used). Lower income earners mostly don't even need a private health fund, as far as I'm aware. But, when it comes to cost of health services (the whole point in the compulsory private health fund), the people mostly using these services are local income earners who get all of this for free. So, in reality, its not a case of someone paying less for my fund but me paying more for their health. I'm totally in favour of paying my way but hate getting stung because of a government who can't add up!
knockoff nige is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:18 am
  #25  
snɐןɔ ʎʇıuɐs
 
GarryP's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,558
GarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond reputeGarryP has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by Zen10 View Post
so chucking on the carbon tax and my winter quarter has leapt from $400 for the last few years to $800. Projecting in to the future no compensation is going to cover this increase so we are totally worse off and by a proper sum of money as well.
My thought is that I've cut back usage as far as is practical - and to deal with future increases an independence approach is necessary. That means alternative mechanisms for electricity and heat generation that make sizeable holes the consumption total, at sensible costs.
GarryP is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:22 am
  #26  
BE Forum Addict
 
knockoff nige's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
knockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by DadAgain View Post
There is some 'direct action' investment from CT revenue - but most CT revenue will be returned to general revenue and used to reduce the income tax burden.

If the tax works successfully the revenue from it will drop as people find their own efficient ways of avoiding paying it (for example I've reduced our electricity consumption by around 30% over the last few months meaning I've saved way more than any CT increases). This is the essence of a market based system - we dont need the government to dictate how best to reduce emmisions, by pricing them into everything businesses and individuals will find the most efficient ways. With a CT we will reduce our emissions to the target of 5% less than year 2000 levels with a cost of $23 per tonne.

By Comparison the LNPs direct action policy favours "Direct Action" - meaning the government (i.e. taxpayers) fork out for whatever is the government approved mechanism for reducing emissions. Solar panels for example are estimated to cost over $400 per tonne of emissions reduced. Of course in order to pay for this direct action (most of which will be payments to large poluters) taxes will have to be increased.

So which do you prefer - the efficient $23 a tonne model whereby the government dictates nothing and businesses and individuals work out the best way to avoid emitting (and therefore paying) - or the expensive 'centrally managed economy' model whereby taxpayers pay enormous amounts to polluters to achieve the same goals but less efficiently?

I understand the argument that "she lied" (I dont think its a good argument [I *like* the idea of a pragamatist able to adapt to changing circumstances] - but I understand it).

But the argument that CT is a bad tax is ludicrous compared to the alternative offering.

If you truly believe the CT is a burden on society and going to force us into economic hell - then just imagine the damage the far more expensive LNP solution will do!

The rational, logical way to vote if the cost of lowering emissions is your prime concern is surely in support of the current government?
I don't think it's a bad tax. I think it's badly implemented. Some of use are paying heavily for this now, others are paying less for it.

If everyone uses less electricity (for example), the energy companies will have to raise their rates. They are a company like any other. Their bottom line is to increase profit every year, not take a hit or even stay the same.
knockoff nige is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:23 am
  #27  
...giving optimism a go?!
 
DadAgain's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
DadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud ofDadAgain has much to be proud of
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

I doubt theres anyone out there who couldnt cut their electricity bill by at least twice as much as the CT adds by some simple measures. If you dont like paying CT - then do something about it and avoid it.


If you dont like paying the extra taxes Tony Abbott has to raise to pay for direct action however.... tough.... that wont be avoidable.

I cut our consumption by 30% by changing a few lightbulbs, changing a pool pump and removing some phantom current drawing devices. You dont have to spend a fortune to start saving a chunk of money - just think about it and do a few smart things.
DadAgain is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:26 am
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Zen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by DadAgain View Post
If the tax works successfully the revenue from it will drop as people find their own efficient ways of avoiding paying it
Indeed - I'm not going to pay for my $800 bill - Coles is, because we will reduce what we spend in the retail sector to recoup the money. It's just a giant game of dominoes.
Zen10 is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:28 am
  #29  
BE Forum Addict
 
knockoff nige's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,404
knockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond reputeknockoff nige has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by Zen10 View Post
Indeed - I'm not going to pay for my $800 bill - Coles is, because we will reduce what we spend in the retail sector to recoup the money. It's just a giant game of dominoes.
Who in turn up their prices and put even more pressure on trucking companies for deliveries resulting in more casualties. Well done Julia.

...might have stretched it a bit there.
knockoff nige is offline  
Old Aug 24th 2012, 12:28 am
  #30  
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Zen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond reputeZen10 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Reasons Gillard should go...

Originally Posted by GarryP View Post
My thought is that I've cut back usage as far as is practical - and to deal with future increases an independence approach is necessary. That means alternative mechanisms for electricity and heat generation that make sizeable holes the consumption total, at sensible costs.
We are cutting back and they have irritated me so much I have gone from someone who wrote a cheque to them without looking at the bill to someone who is on a religious mission to ensure they get less from me in the future than they did in the past.

This might be the point of the government - to reduce out power consumption - but it can't be the goal of the power company!
Zen10 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.