This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new
I don't know why we are getting all so upset about this? Afterall she has a track record of it.

Didn't she say this "'There is more chance that I would line up at full forward for the Dogs" just before she knifed Kevin007?

and then this one "It is not within cooee of my day to day reality. You might as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No, I'm not"

and this one "I will wreck the people smuggling trade by removing the incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin in the first place".

So now we have a boat stopping, full forward Doggie, flying to Mars on a carbon tax that was never going to happen in her term of Goverment.

I can't wait to see what excrement is going to dribble from her mouth next.

Oooops forgot about the mining tax one. The deal the miners signed off on with candidate Gillard to get them off her back in the campaign is not the one that Prime Minister Gillard delivered.

The agreed deal said that any state royalties the miners paid would be deducted from the resources tax. The tax actually proposed only allows royalties that were in place at the time of the deal or were scheduled then.

The miners would never have agreed to the open-ended nature of the tax that would leave them hostage to double-taxation from both state and federal governments.
 

Attachments

  • 187559-106turd_polish.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 248

And the big miners are investing huge sums in the Pilbara ?
I thought the new tax was going to stop all that.
Remember Twiggy and Julie the koala in the gone with the wind photo
 
The CEO of bluescope made a interesting point on the weekend that his companys steel would be taxed but steel imports would not be taxed. That in itself i would think would either require significant job cuts to compensate for the tax or there margins would need to be squeezed more(which i dont see likely).

Is there anybody on here who believes the whole green/global warming thing is complete crap?
 
nukz said:
The CEO of bluescope made a interesting point on the weekend...
Click to expand...
Yes I saw that, on Inside Business. He made several good points. Amongst which - this won't reduce carbon, just export it, along with the jobs. Australia will lose comparitive advantage and hence markets.

Hey unionized coal miners and steelworkers, do you think your boys Combet and Shorten are protecting the security of your jobs?

Low-income compensation will only last until the public have been brainwashed. A blank cheque is what we're being asked to sign - everybody pay the tax, then on bended knee, beg the govt for some re-distribution of it.

It says everything that there are no specifics on exactly who is to get compensation. Did you get a $900 cheque in 2008? You might just get some carbon tax compensation. Doubtless the committee of Green Christine Milne, and the ALP's Jennie, Penny, Julia, and Tanya will be scrupulously fair, won't they?

Social engineering and wealth redistribution, and above all, power. These are the hidden sub text.
 

Yes nukz, absolutely. It is just another money grab by this 'GRUBBY' Labor Government and to make matters worse we don't fully how it will affect our standard of living. It will be an added cost on evrything no matter what it is and the unscrupulous will exploit it to the fullest. I would sooner see a 2.5% increase in the GST. At least one would know exactly how much extra we have to pay.

This carbon tax will do absolutely nothing to climate change as the majority of us know is a natural phenomemon that has taken place for thousands of years.
 
According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.
 
todster said:
According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.
Click to expand...

And the sooner the better for us all. Bring it on.
 
todster said:
According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.
Click to expand...

Instead of criticising other posters why don't you tell us why you like the Gillard government?
 
Excellent summary.

todster said:
According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.
Click to expand...
They have announced they will wipe the carbon tax if elected. While that seems the obvious policy direction, isn't it going to have a downside? i.e. if business now alters their direction to align with the carbon tax isn't the thought that whatever they do will be wasted if the Coalition takes power? And doesn't this bring us back to the same uncertainty which we've been told is much of the reason for the rises in electricity prices so far?

Given the squabbling that is already evident amongst the government, Christine Milne (who does not like being rebuked by Ms Gillard) and Tony Windsor getting pretty antsy and stating he has definitely not yet decided to support the tax, maybe it will never happen. Milne said this morning that the Greens will not support the legislation if it doesn't include petrol. Windsor responded that he wasn't happy about his electorate facing rising petrol costs. All one big happy family in the multiparty climate change committee!
 
Fantastic idea from Ross Gittens, economist - and I quote:

The power generators could be made to pay for their emissions, but the higher costs could be offset by direct payments to the retail distributors. This would leave the price incentive for generators to invest in less emissions-intensive production methods, while removing the need to raise household electricity costs but then compensate people for the rise in their cost of living.

As Denniss reminds us, behavioural economics explains why the punters hate being taxed with one hand and compensated with the other. Partly it's distrust - the pollies may welsh on the deal - but mainly it's because most people are ''loss-averse'': they dislike losing money more than they enjoy receiving money.

The very use of the word ''compensation'' is a reminder to people there must be pain involved.

Because it's so hard to adequately compensate every last person with unusual circumstances, governments commonly end up overcompensating a lot of people.

So if you sent the compensation direct to the electricity retailers, you could avoid wasting the proceeds from the tax on overcompensation, leaving more available for subsidising research and development of alternative energy.

Disclosure: I own shares in Origin Energy.

PS Those people dreaming that the Libs will get rid of the tax are doing just that, much of industry wants it and remember Howard promised it also.
Also, I think if Gillard does this well, she will dominate the next election unless Abbott is removed - just watch.
I predict he will be out manouvered.
 
todster said:
OK they got rid of work choices and they make you angry
Click to expand...

None of your posts have anything to do with the thread. Your posts are just flaming and thread jacking. However they are harmless and lack the venom of others.
 
To want this tax you must believe climate change exists, i dont understand Gillards logic at all in the radio interview she had with Alan Jones.

She said that we need this tax to become more competetive and she explained that the world is changing to greener initiatives and thats why we need this. To me everything she says almost seems like a lie.

If you support the tax, can anybody explain how this is needed because the world is changing and we will be left behind if we don't do it?

left behind what? You won't see China implimenting this tax because there not stupid enough to do it.
 
(My underlines in the quote). Gittens' proposal is way fairer than the current proposal Knobby, so it's an option that deserves to be right there in the mix.
 
todster said:
Hey noco what do you and your righty mates whinge about when the Libs are in office?
Click to expand...
Well T, for your info, this 'righty mate' voted for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. And while I'm at it, A. Bolt was on Hawke's staff.

Hawkey wouldn't have brushed the coal miners and steel workers like the ex-trade union leaders now in parliament.

Big bad union leaders, shaking in their boots, three bags full Bob Brown and Christine Milne.

Should be a good ABC Q&A tonight, hosted by Mr Climate Change.
 
Logique said:
(My underlines in the quote). Gittens' proposal is way fairer than the current proposal Knobby, so it's an option that deserves to be right there in the mix.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree Logique, it would achieve the aims while no one would feel any different.
No social engineering, distribution problems every time the tax rate is changed etc.
I like the fact that Labor plan to specify the price of carbon for the first few years - this gets rid of other problems. If they are smart enough to go this route, and they haven't said how they will do it, it could be the best of all worlds - but are they smart enough? The greens will probably hate it as it doesn't punish inefficient users enough but this could be got around by using regulations such as what the Libs had already set up.

Please gov'mint - listen!
 
No surprises there Logique
 
It does have the side effect of financially killing major energy intensive industries who deal directly with the generators (not distributors) however.

Looking ahead, the miners etc won't suffer too much but downstream processing (steel production etc) will be killed off by the carbon tax. The incentive now is to dig it up here, process it overseas, then import the finished product (at far higher price than the exported raw materials). Doing it that way, emissions are exported to non-carbon tax countries.

The logical broader consequences of this is a ramp up in unprocessed materials exports to offset the economic impact of the loss of downstream processing. A scenario that will sound very, very familiar to those who have already seen it happen in Tasmania with forestry. As was the case with Tas forestry, it's the road to ruin in the long term.

Anyone who doubts that all this Green stuff isn't good economically need only compare the economic performance of Tasmania (absolutely the "Greenest" state by far) with any other Australian state over the past 30 years. Nobody could deny that the Tas economy has seriously underperformed the rest of the country over that period, and has also seriously underperformed compared to the previous decades prior to the emergence of the Greens.

I don't doubt that they may well have done some good environmentally, but their economic policies are a clear failure. Now, you can prop up one state with 2.3% of the national population via redistribution of taxes, but you can't prop up the entire country that way. Someone has to create wealth...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
13K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
13K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
3K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
18K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...