Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
peterc005
You have got to be kidding.
A number of different measures were introduced in Australia between 1980 and 2001 to try to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use. These measures included banning the promotion of cigarettes, increasing the price of cigarettes, limiting the number of places where tobacco could be smoked, the presence of effective anti tobacco advertising, effective health warnings on tobacco products, and restricting adolescents’ access to tobacco products.
The Excise Duty on cigarettes is currently 53.4% plus 10% GST and yet with all these taxes and the above restrictions cigarette use in Australia has only declined from 35% of the population smoking in 1980 to 23% in 2011.
You still haven’t explained to anyone how imposing a tax on carbon polluters and then compensating the end user, i.e. tax payers is going to reduce carbon emissions. I don’t see cigarette smokers getting a tax break from the excise on cigarettes.
You have got to be kidding.
A number of different measures were introduced in Australia between 1980 and 2001 to try to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use. These measures included banning the promotion of cigarettes, increasing the price of cigarettes, limiting the number of places where tobacco could be smoked, the presence of effective anti tobacco advertising, effective health warnings on tobacco products, and restricting adolescents’ access to tobacco products.
The Excise Duty on cigarettes is currently 53.4% plus 10% GST and yet with all these taxes and the above restrictions cigarette use in Australia has only declined from 35% of the population smoking in 1980 to 23% in 2011.
You still haven’t explained to anyone how imposing a tax on carbon polluters and then compensating the end user, i.e. tax payers is going to reduce carbon emissions. I don’t see cigarette smokers getting a tax break from the excise on cigarettes.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 4th Jul 2012 at 00:20.
Seasonally Adjusted
As an aside, I note that lefties and greenies very quickly turn to insults in the face of rational debate
At the risk of being banned/censured.........
are you f*cking delerious or what!!!!!!
are you f*cking delerious or what!!!!!!
BULL ****!!!
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOP PRESS
Gosford Council on the mid north coast of NSW has rescinded a previous edict warning about sea rises that will wipe out coastal housing. This knee jerk reaction a year or so ago caused house prices in the local area to plummet and insurance premiums to soar. The lobster talks of Abbott's scaremongering - none are worse than her and her cronies led by flannery whose only qualification is a degree in looking up a dead dinosaur's bum.
GAGS
E86
Gosford Council on the mid north coast of NSW has rescinded a previous edict warning about sea rises that will wipe out coastal housing. This knee jerk reaction a year or so ago caused house prices in the local area to plummet and insurance premiums to soar. The lobster talks of Abbott's scaremongering - none are worse than her and her cronies led by flannery whose only qualification is a degree in looking up a dead dinosaur's bum.
GAGS
E86
Heh, the ol "climate hysteric has no idea so lets compare to tobacco" furhpy..
Well, ah used to be a pack and a half a day man until i stopped 30 odd years ago... so i geuss like many posters here i gots some personal experience of the mater.
"...tried to discredit the research..."
peterc005, ask any of our top physical sports athlets how much they smoke. Think you will find none.
Anyone who has ever taken up smoking will tell you smoking affects physical performance - yer dont need to be a scientist to know that. If its affecting physical performance you wonder what else its doing to yer body.
Regarding the known medically proven health effects, well we all seen them research proof photos of tarred lungs... we all seen them heavy smokin relatives/freinds dying of lung cancer... we all seen that GOOD HARD EVIDENCE. Smoking is bad fer you, and most current smokers will tell yer that.
"...Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research..."
Yer dont know much about the subject do ya peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW and i'm still waiting..
As to the 'fact' that CO2 by itself is a green house gas, well thats been known fer about 150 years - Not two decades.
Gettin back to the smoking compare... The medical claims that smoking is bad fer you is backed up by good solid real world proof that most people on the planet have personal experience of or can see right there in front of them - PROOF.
The IPCC claims the science of AGW is proven via computer models (models of the garbage in garbage out type) showing ever increasing world temps. The famous, and corrupt, IPCC Hocky stick graph was supposed to be the real world proof. The real world observations of earths temperatures do NOT back up the computer models - FACT.
.
via peterc005;
In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.
Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.
Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.
Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.
I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.
This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.
I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.
Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.
Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.
Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.
Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.
I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.
In terms of Public Policy, you should consider comparing the Carbon Tax with the taxes on Tobacco.
Initially the negative health impact of smoking was not recognised. When the first research emerged relating smoking with serious diseases such as cancer the big Tobacco companies resisted this and tried to discredit the research.
Eventually the government recognised the negative health impacts of smoking and took steps to discourage smoking, such as restricting access to tobacco to minors and adding taxes.
Taxing something makes it more expensive and will directly reduce it's demand.
I don't recall what happened at the time, but I imagine smokers complained about the cost and how it was impinging on their ability to enjoy smoking.
This approach worked, and the levels of tobacco consumption have been falling in Australia for decades.
I don't think any rational person would argue about the idea of discouraging tobacco consumption, although assuming rationality in anonymous internet forums may be futile.
Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research.
Reducing carbon emissions should help to mitigate climate change.
Putting a tax on carbon should reduce carbon emissions by making it more expensive and encouraging alternatives.
Looking back now, we can say public policy decisions made decades ago to reduce tobacco consumption were obvious and wide.
I suggest that, while not everyone will agree now, in decades to come taxing carbon emissions to reduce the pressure on global warming will be viewed in a similar light.
"...tried to discredit the research..."
peterc005, ask any of our top physical sports athlets how much they smoke. Think you will find none.
Anyone who has ever taken up smoking will tell you smoking affects physical performance - yer dont need to be a scientist to know that. If its affecting physical performance you wonder what else its doing to yer body.
Regarding the known medically proven health effects, well we all seen them research proof photos of tarred lungs... we all seen them heavy smokin relatives/freinds dying of lung cancer... we all seen that GOOD HARD EVIDENCE. Smoking is bad fer you, and most current smokers will tell yer that.
"...Climate change is a scientifically proven fact, backed by more than two decades of peer-reviewed academic research..."
Yer dont know much about the subject do ya peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW and i'm still waiting..
As to the 'fact' that CO2 by itself is a green house gas, well thats been known fer about 150 years - Not two decades.
Gettin back to the smoking compare... The medical claims that smoking is bad fer you is backed up by good solid real world proof that most people on the planet have personal experience of or can see right there in front of them - PROOF.
The IPCC claims the science of AGW is proven via computer models (models of the garbage in garbage out type) showing ever increasing world temps. The famous, and corrupt, IPCC Hocky stick graph was supposed to be the real world proof. The real world observations of earths temperatures do NOT back up the computer models - FACT.
.
djpil
No I didn’t but it is an interesting question.
Therefore since 1980 there is only 200K less smokers in Australia.
No I didn’t but it is an interesting question.
1980 = 14.7M x 35% = 5.2M
2011 = 21.5M x 23% = 5.0M
2011 = 21.5M x 23% = 5.0M
Bread costs up...
.
"Let the carbon tax take the blame, after all, your costs will be going up due to it."
Heh, at least Brumby's managing director Deane Priest is correct about the carbon 'tax' putting prices up.
Brumby's under fire over 'blame carbon tax' memo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Meanwhile, over in NZ, an outbreak of common sense...
"The Government has indefinitely postponed key stages of the emissions trading scheme, saying the economic environment means consumers and businesses simply can't afford it..."
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1672
.
"Let the carbon tax take the blame, after all, your costs will be going up due to it."
Heh, at least Brumby's managing director Deane Priest is correct about the carbon 'tax' putting prices up.
Brumby's under fire over 'blame carbon tax' memo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Meanwhile, over in NZ, an outbreak of common sense...
"The Government has indefinitely postponed key stages of the emissions trading scheme, saying the economic environment means consumers and businesses simply can't afford it..."
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1672
.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say again my one luxury in life is a daily cup of coffee with my wife in my favourite cafe. On Sunday 1 July 2012 the price went up .50cx2x7=$7.00 per week
And that comment is nothing to do with whether the tax is a good idea or not.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50c Rise ?
It might actually be close to the truth.
Lets breakdown our humble coffee shall we.
Cost of the water
Cost of heating the water
Cost to purchase the Cup
Cost to purchase the spoon
Cost to purchase the sugar
Cost to .............
I think you see where I am going... I did this roughly and stopped counting at 20 different items involved making the humble coffee, that would on their own attract a portion of carbon tax.
If you were to do it as a time wasting exercise, and said each element was worth 1c, you might be surprised at what the cost impost is going to be.
Keep in mind, once you've added em all up, you need to add the 10% other tax the guvmint wants on this.
Lets breakdown our humble coffee shall we.
Cost of the water
Cost of heating the water
Cost to purchase the Cup
Cost to purchase the spoon
Cost to purchase the sugar
Cost to .............
I think you see where I am going... I did this roughly and stopped counting at 20 different items involved making the humble coffee, that would on their own attract a portion of carbon tax.
If you were to do it as a time wasting exercise, and said each element was worth 1c, you might be surprised at what the cost impost is going to be.
Keep in mind, once you've added em all up, you need to add the 10% other tax the guvmint wants on this.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STOP PRESS
Gosford Council on the mid north coast of NSW has rescinded a previous edict warning about sea rises that will wipe out coastal housing. This knee jerk reaction a year or so ago caused house prices in the local area to plummet and insurance premiums to soar. The lobster talks of Abbott's scaremongering - none are worse than her and her cronies led by flannery whose only qualification is a degree in looking up a dead dinosaur's bum.
GAGS
Gosford Council on the mid north coast of NSW has rescinded a previous edict warning about sea rises that will wipe out coastal housing. This knee jerk reaction a year or so ago caused house prices in the local area to plummet and insurance premiums to soar. The lobster talks of Abbott's scaremongering - none are worse than her and her cronies led by flannery whose only qualification is a degree in looking up a dead dinosaur's bum.
GAGS
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe this one.
Just watching ABC 7 o'clock news, just mildly interested.
Then on comes this guy whose company recycles green waste.
He reckoned that the carbon tax was a great thing, and expected his business to go from recycling 20k tons of green waste per year to 1mil.
Local residents were complaining about possible sinus and asthma effects on the increasing business, and stuff coming out of the flue.
The bit that got my attention, and direct quote from the guy................"it's basically just carbon dioxide!"
What hope have we got for common sense to prevail
Just watching ABC 7 o'clock news, just mildly interested.
Then on comes this guy whose company recycles green waste.
He reckoned that the carbon tax was a great thing, and expected his business to go from recycling 20k tons of green waste per year to 1mil.
Local residents were complaining about possible sinus and asthma effects on the increasing business, and stuff coming out of the flue.
The bit that got my attention, and direct quote from the guy................"it's basically just carbon dioxide!"
What hope have we got for common sense to prevail
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rusty
I don't think that you can raise the price of any item 1 or 2 cents can you??? I thought 5 cents was our smallest denomination coin.
I don't think that you can raise the price of any item 1 or 2 cents can you??? I thought 5 cents was our smallest denomination coin.
Last edited by Rusty1970; 4th Jul 2012 at 11:04.
Since this thread seems to have been ambushed by a few resident trollers!! How about we get it back on topic with a Phearless Phelan contribution:
Even a tax on fighting carbon-emitting bush fires! – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Help! Aviation slammed by new tax – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Girrard, Albo and Co along with the regulator are killing off the GA sector...it won't be until there is a need for a mass aerial application to stop an insidious weed or bushfire that they'll realise what they have done..."GA what GA!"
Even a tax on fighting carbon-emitting bush fires! – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Help! Aviation slammed by new tax – aviationadvertiser.com.au
Member groups of the Australian Aviation Associations’ Forum say they are “disappointed” with the Government’s Clean Energy Future plan and have again raised concerns about the government’s lack of consultation with the aviation sector
Last edited by Sarcs; 4th Jul 2012 at 21:27.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is rusty, p.... and others just blindly follow what juliar tells them without thinking about the compounded results of juliar's rubbish, failed policies.
GAGS
E86
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an airplane, business, house and office owner I am well qualified to comment on the cost of the Carbon Tax.
The only financial impact on me will be thru electricity bills and small increases in the cost of petrol and Avgas.
The costs I estimate will be:
$200 Avgas
$200 petrol for the car
$600 home electricity
$600 office electricity
Offsetting this:
$800 compensation from the government
$400 saved on electricity bills by choosing a cheaper provider
So the net financial cost to me might be $400 a year tops.
I was going to buy a new Babolar tennis racquet for myself, costing about $400. Instead I'll use the old one for another year and I'm square.
The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall. The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.
The only financial impact on me will be thru electricity bills and small increases in the cost of petrol and Avgas.
The costs I estimate will be:
$200 Avgas
$200 petrol for the car
$600 home electricity
$600 office electricity
Offsetting this:
$800 compensation from the government
$400 saved on electricity bills by choosing a cheaper provider
So the net financial cost to me might be $400 a year tops.
I was going to buy a new Babolar tennis racquet for myself, costing about $400. Instead I'll use the old one for another year and I'm square.
The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall. The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.
.
peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW that you claim exists, and i'm still waiting, waiting...
There are many in Oz who will be in a simular blissful position - in the short term..
Run along then peterc005..
.
peterc005. I have asked you before to produce the scientific 'proof' for AGW that you claim exists, and i'm still waiting, waiting...
via peterc005;
...The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall...
...The Carbon Tax will probably cost me nothing financially overall...
via peterc005;
...The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.
...The true cost is time wasted getting caught up in stupid discussions on topics of no consequence.
.
peterc005
I’ve asked you at least twice now to explain how the Carbon Tax will reduce CO₂ emissions when the end users according to you and the Gillard government will be compensated almost 100% for its cost. The whole idea of this tax is to reduce CO₂emissions by making it more expensive for everyone.
I’ve asked you at least twice now to explain how the Carbon Tax will reduce CO₂ emissions when the end users according to you and the Gillard government will be compensated almost 100% for its cost. The whole idea of this tax is to reduce CO₂emissions by making it more expensive for everyone.