Well, Rusty 1970 you reckon this is the least informed debate you have heard on this subject hey?
You were probably referring to my last post when you made this statement:
(BTW, transport fuel is exempt from to the person who was complaining about costs on costs - not being rude, just can't remember who it was.)
You know what? That is plain wrong. Aeromedical might be exempt but aviation transport fuel is most definitely going to be taxed. That's right, aviation - where technological developments are an industry imperative and where leaps and bounds in efficiency measures are made all the time - is being singled out for prime pickings while other less innovative sectors of transport get exempt (some only temporarily).
RAAA director Jim Davis is quoted in the latest AA edition as saying "The annual cost to RAAA members of the carbon tax, being imposed through an increase in the levy on aviation fuels, is estimated at over $20 million a year
but it will bring no efficiency gains or reductions in emissions." (my bolding). That's right: estimated $20 million a year with absolutely ZERO environmental results to gain from it. That is why I call it a phoney tax!
You know what else? You might be partially right in that SOME transport will not be taxed. That's right, the vast sums of private motor vehicles. Also trucks will be exempt but only until 2014. That is the other big problem with this tax. Softly, softly approach and bring destruction by stealth. It might seem okay to start with and I'm not suggesting that the sky is going to fall in on July 1. However typical of the 'in the moment' generation, ignore the future consequences of where this will lead with subsequent changes and the fact that the 'set price' on carbon will only go up from the already inflated inaugural figures that are always being used with examples currently being bandied around. This tax IS going to cost with major consequences, and the most maddening thing is that there won't even be anything good to show for it...