MERGED: Petrol exempt from carbon tax. Aviation included?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will make no difference now, but don't forget that this thing will go up 2.5% on top inflation every year, till they go to carbon trading. So the $23/Tonne will increase by at least 5% a year every year. I would suggest that CPI is going get much higher than the 2-3% figures we are used to in this country.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any man in the street who thinks they'll be better off with a Carbon Dioxide would also have to believe in the tooth fairy. Given the way it has been introduced, a sensible person would begin to think it's nothing to do with plant food, but everything to do with revenue. The banking and finance industry will make a killing when they begin trading CDO's (Carbon Dioxide Obligations), not to be confused with the CDO's that caused the GFC in 2007, which is why they've stayed fairly quiet, and this link explains why: A Bankers Wet Dream
On the lighter side, Australia Post recalled a 55c stamp with the picture of Gillard on it because of complaints it would not adhere to the envelope.
After much investigation, it seems everybody was spitting on the wrong side.
On the lighter side, Australia Post recalled a 55c stamp with the picture of Gillard on it because of complaints it would not adhere to the envelope.
After much investigation, it seems everybody was spitting on the wrong side.
Last edited by Ovation; 11th Jul 2011 at 05:55. Reason: Added Link
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As it's all passed on to consumers the additional tax will attract gst on top as well. Tax on tax on tax - at least the effects will be dispersed across a number of pax... And the knock on effect would be that airlines would find savings in fleet modernization... No more old bangers
A couple of solutions available to solve ALL the recent problems in Australia.
1) Canberra has one of the best grassy knolls in the world. Certainly it is right up there - truly world class. Much as the mafia may have utilised one in Dallas, so too could we in Australia. I've been to the one in Dallas and it isn't a patch on what we have in CBR. To my knowledge we haven't ever used our knoll before, aside from the practicalities what is the purpose of having built one if we never use it? As an aside (seems silly to reinvent the wheel when there are experts possibly available) did Lee Harvey leave any relatives and if so might they make themselves available?
2) We could start a breeding program for Milats. I envisage a large mob/herd (collective noun for Milats anyone?) being bred for release around Lake Burley Griffin in late spring. They would of course need careful monitoring, but they are an available resource with known skills that would certainly be of benefit to the nation in this time of crisis. I think a mob of wild Milats would (at the very least) encourage a rethink on some recent policy changes - or hopefully solve the problem permanently. Once the primary problem is solved it would surely not be hard to cross train them to hunt Leprechauns.
1) Canberra has one of the best grassy knolls in the world. Certainly it is right up there - truly world class. Much as the mafia may have utilised one in Dallas, so too could we in Australia. I've been to the one in Dallas and it isn't a patch on what we have in CBR. To my knowledge we haven't ever used our knoll before, aside from the practicalities what is the purpose of having built one if we never use it? As an aside (seems silly to reinvent the wheel when there are experts possibly available) did Lee Harvey leave any relatives and if so might they make themselves available?
2) We could start a breeding program for Milats. I envisage a large mob/herd (collective noun for Milats anyone?) being bred for release around Lake Burley Griffin in late spring. They would of course need careful monitoring, but they are an available resource with known skills that would certainly be of benefit to the nation in this time of crisis. I think a mob of wild Milats would (at the very least) encourage a rethink on some recent policy changes - or hopefully solve the problem permanently. Once the primary problem is solved it would surely not be hard to cross train them to hunt Leprechauns.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Whoohooooo! i can afford a can of coke!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.
Climate change has been happening since evolution and the world temperature, carbon dioxide levels and seal levels have been much higher in the past
What difference will Julia's TAX here in Australia make to the worlds environmental problems?
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
the extra 2.9Bilion will come from the increase in GST revenue after its added to the prices with carbon tax already added.
Anyone else get the feeling that we are headed to a stiuation similar to that in which Greece currently finds itself?
peterc005 You cannot be serious.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Khemlani affair comes to mind.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something needs to be done about climate change, and I'm impressed that Julia Gillard is brave enough to see this difficult policy thru to a successful conclusion.
You may trust her capabilities, but I (and I'm sure I speak for many others) certainly don't. The wife of Craig Emerson MP might have an opinion whether Gillard's an honorable person or not.
Look here: Gillard's dirty little Secret
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This latest offering by Gillard isn't about saving the environment; it's wealth redistribution, pure and simple. What did Margaret Thatcher say about Socialism? "It works wonderfully until you run out of other people's money."
What's happening to this country under Gillard is well explained in the message below.
What's happening to this country under Gillard is well explained in the message below.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be Labour Party minded, and she was very much in favour of higher taxes to support her education and for more government programs - in other words, the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured a selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors must be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who
only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, it would be fair and you would both be equal."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea; how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative side of the fence."
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Conservative and Labour/Greens, I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.
If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.
If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don't like should be banned.
If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Labour/Green will delete it because he's "offended."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon Conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured a selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors must be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have
time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she
never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who
only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, it would be fair and you would both be equal."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea; how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Conservative side of the fence."
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Conservative and Labour/Greens, I'm all ears. If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Conservative supporter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labour/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.
If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labour/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Conservative is gay, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labour/Green is gay, he demands legislated respect.
If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labour/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labour/Greens demand that those they don't like should be banned.
If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labour/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Labour/Green will delete it because he's "offended."
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Granite Belt, Australia
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes sense!!!
Carbon tax is socialism by deceit
Mirko Bagaric
From: The Courier-Mail
July 12, 2011 12:00AM
CORE VALUES: Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan is really an attempt at wealth redistribution. Source: Sunday Herald Sun
THE only incontestable truth relating to the carbon tax is not the warming planet, but that Julia Gillard was always going to inflict a wealth distribution tax on Australia.
The carbon tax is nothing about cooling the planet; it is everything about wealth redistribution.
Prime Minister Gillard has tried hard to distance herself from the radical socialist ideology she promulgated at the start of her career. Her words repeatedly betray these values; her actions wholeheartedly embrace them.
The structure of the carbon tax is a basal lesson in human nature. People rarely abandon their core values and, given the opportunity to action them, will do so, no matter how much deceit is involved.
As a carbon reduction exercise, the carbon tax will fail at the global level. Australia produces about 1.5 per cent of the world's total greenhouse emissions. The best modelling suggests that if we closed down all of our industries, the temperature drop would be so small that it would not be detectable in most thermometers.
The carbon tax will do nothing to reduce climate degradation and the Gillard Government will eventually need to tell voters the embarrassing answer to how much temperatures will fall as a result of the tax.
The best argument in support of the tax is that it will set an example for other high-emitting countries, such as the US, China, Russia and India.
But the trend of human history shows that this aspiration is illusory. Australia has no international power or authority. In this sphere only two currencies count: wealth and military strength. We fare poorly on both. Other countries don't care what we do. They don't want to impress us because it is not in their self-interest.
Moreover, the tax is unlikely to achieve even the modest emission reductions proposed by government modelling. Most people will be financially better off under the tax and have no incentive to change their behaviour.
But that won't faze Gillard one bit. The design of the carbon tax shows that it can be explained by only one rational objective: to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The richest 10 per cent of households will now be forced to donate more of the products of their labour to the other households.
A tax aimed solely at reducing carbon emissions should affect every individual equally. The fact that there are distinct groups of winners and losers under the tax indicates that the aim of the carbon tax is other than to reduce emissions.
Gillard has achieved, under the supposed imperative of temperature cooling, the socialist utopia of wantonly taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
There are sound theoretical arguments for moving more towards a needs, as opposed to merit, based society and economy. There are also strong counter arguments for not introducing incentive-zapping economic reforms.
The real tragedy is the Australian community didn't have the opportunity to engage in this debate.
Mirko Bagaric
From: The Courier-Mail
July 12, 2011 12:00AM
CORE VALUES: Prime Minister Julia Gillard's carbon tax plan is really an attempt at wealth redistribution. Source: Sunday Herald Sun
THE only incontestable truth relating to the carbon tax is not the warming planet, but that Julia Gillard was always going to inflict a wealth distribution tax on Australia.
The carbon tax is nothing about cooling the planet; it is everything about wealth redistribution.
Prime Minister Gillard has tried hard to distance herself from the radical socialist ideology she promulgated at the start of her career. Her words repeatedly betray these values; her actions wholeheartedly embrace them.
The structure of the carbon tax is a basal lesson in human nature. People rarely abandon their core values and, given the opportunity to action them, will do so, no matter how much deceit is involved.
As a carbon reduction exercise, the carbon tax will fail at the global level. Australia produces about 1.5 per cent of the world's total greenhouse emissions. The best modelling suggests that if we closed down all of our industries, the temperature drop would be so small that it would not be detectable in most thermometers.
The carbon tax will do nothing to reduce climate degradation and the Gillard Government will eventually need to tell voters the embarrassing answer to how much temperatures will fall as a result of the tax.
The best argument in support of the tax is that it will set an example for other high-emitting countries, such as the US, China, Russia and India.
But the trend of human history shows that this aspiration is illusory. Australia has no international power or authority. In this sphere only two currencies count: wealth and military strength. We fare poorly on both. Other countries don't care what we do. They don't want to impress us because it is not in their self-interest.
Moreover, the tax is unlikely to achieve even the modest emission reductions proposed by government modelling. Most people will be financially better off under the tax and have no incentive to change their behaviour.
But that won't faze Gillard one bit. The design of the carbon tax shows that it can be explained by only one rational objective: to take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The richest 10 per cent of households will now be forced to donate more of the products of their labour to the other households.
A tax aimed solely at reducing carbon emissions should affect every individual equally. The fact that there are distinct groups of winners and losers under the tax indicates that the aim of the carbon tax is other than to reduce emissions.
Gillard has achieved, under the supposed imperative of temperature cooling, the socialist utopia of wantonly taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
There are sound theoretical arguments for moving more towards a needs, as opposed to merit, based society and economy. There are also strong counter arguments for not introducing incentive-zapping economic reforms.
The real tragedy is the Australian community didn't have the opportunity to engage in this debate.
