Reasons Gillard should go...
#16
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.
DD was not allowed to heckle, much as she wanted to.
#17
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
Carbon tax & mining tax.
Her legacy, along with her union cronies, is to kill the mining industry in Oz
Her legacy, along with her union cronies, is to kill the mining industry in Oz
#18
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
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.
DD was not allowed to heckle, much as she wanted to.
#19
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?
#20
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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).
#22
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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).
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).
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.
#23
...giving optimism a go?!
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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?
#24
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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.
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.
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!
#25
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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.
#26
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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?
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?
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.
#27
...giving optimism a go?!
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Brisbane (leafy, hilly western suburbs)
Posts: 2,202
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.
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.
#28
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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.
#29
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
...might have stretched it a bit there.
#30
Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,300
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
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.
This might be the point of the government - to reduce out power consumption - but it can't be the goal of the power company!