Punch: it’s about jobs and clean energy, not a tax slug

Jason says:

05:16am | 10/10/11

I agree that it should be repealed by the next government, what worries me is that the Greens will ensure that the legislation makes it very very difficult and costly for the next government to repeal. From what I have read once the legislation is through it is going to be virtually impossible to scrap.

No legislation should be allowed to pass unless it has sufficient means to be repealed by future governments to protect the best interest of the community from rogue governments like the muppets we currently have.

mikk says:

05:23am | 10/10/11

Yeah lies like “core and non core promises”, children overboard and AWB. All governments, all politicians, all people lie. Get over it.

The broken record of “GBNT”, lies, denial and talking down the economy, against all evidence, are becoming embarrassing and proving to the rest of the world that Australians are morons, 30 years behind the times who cant have a civilised, productive debate about anything.

Rocksteady says:

06:17am | 10/10/11

Well over 90% voted for a price on carbon in 2007, that sounds like a policy with legitimate support.
I hope you are just as outraged that Liberal powerbrokers suddenly changed policy and leader to suit their immediate political needs, what about the people that voted in MP’s for Howard’s ETS?
Sounds like outright denial of democracy to me.

Against the Man says:

06:28am | 10/10/11

The Greens really have to consider their options, they are not going to be in control for long and do they want to be targeted and the focus of a perpetual negative campaign? Do they want the carbon tax dead weight to sink them the way of the Democrats?

The ALP/Gillard and the Independents have already lost. The Greens may be able to change enough to survive a little longer or drown a little faster.

Actually if it cost too much to be repealed then the Libs can use this for the next 10 election campaigns to remind people of the ‘evil’ ALP/Greens and their joyous destruction of Australia

gobsmack says:

06:48am | 10/10/11

“88% of the people voted for parties that promised not to introduce it.”
That doesn’t mean 88% of voters were against it.  It simply means that at the last election, the voters weren’t given a choice by the two major parties.
Both major parties went to the 2007 election promising some sort of emission trading scheme.  I doubt in that case that you could say 98% of voters were in favour of some sort of scheme aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
There are usually a range of issues which exercise the minds of voters when they vote.  Drawing conclusions about the “denial of democracy” based on a single issue is at best simplistic.

Joan says:

06:53am | 10/10/11

Yep Jason - also Gillard and Combet Labor have stitched it up so that it will be costly for tax payers to payout those permits that industry will be buying overseas instead of cleaning up their own backyards. The Pink Batts and BER rorts rip off of the tax payer will look like pocket money compared with Carbon Tax money shuffle and permit swap Gillard/Combet game. Gillard/Combet vision for Australia - vast tracts of land turned to Wind turbine industrial zones, turbines which only function when the wind blows and when wind blows from one direction only.  and solar panels with short- life durability dependent on sun shining. That`s energy security for Australia the Gillard and Combet way. In the mean time China powers through 21st century 300+ coal fired power stations fueled by cheap Australian coal and 13+ Nuclear stations.. Werribee sewage farm in top 500 to pay Gillard Carbon Tax - Victorians hit by Gillard crap Carbon Tax and Victorians will remember everyday and every time they get the bill. And of course unlike GST which is visible , Gillard and Combet have made the Carbon Tax sneaky, and invisible like CO2 (but more dangerous than CO2) -  it is illegal for business to indicate carbon tax on account to customer.  MPs who vote for Carbon Tax will be taking Australia back to 19th century power structure while China and India burn coal and utilise Nuclear energy to roar through 21st century while Gillard/Comet cripple Australia as they sit on Australia`s coal and uranium with a sign `banned in Australia`,  Gillard/Combet Carbon Tax will have Australia limping through 21st century.

Tubesteak says:

07:44am | 10/10/11

You clearly don’t understand the system of government in this country.

Here’s a hint: we have proportional representative democracy based on the Westminster system not first-past-the-post-winner-takes-all.

Adam Diver says:

08:18am | 10/10/11

Wow,

“Well over 90% voted for a price on carbon in 2007”

I have seen some spin, but are you honestly suggesting that policy taken to a previous election constitutes policy at the next election? Why would we bother having a new election in that case?

I am embarrassed for you…

JT says:

08:26am | 10/10/11

Rocksteady - ‘‘Well over 90% voted for a price on carbon in 2007, that sounds like a policy with legitimate support. ‘’

Irrelevant. There was another election in 2010 where 88% of people voted for parties that DID NOT support taxing Carbon Dioxide.

gobsmack - ‘‘That doesn’t mean 88% of voters were against it.’‘

It means 88% of the electorate did not deem it important enough to want to vote for a party that did support such a move (e.g. Greens)

gobsmack - ‘‘Both major parties went to the 2007 election promising some sort of emission trading scheme.’‘

wow you fools really like living in the past. There was another election in 2010 which promised the exact opposite by both parties to the 2007 election. 2007 is irrelevant.

mikk - ‘’ rest of the world that Australians are morons’‘

The rest of the world may indeed think that, but not for the reasons you believe. While the rest of the world is struggling with crippling debts and stagnant economies they look at Australia about to embark on a self-destructive tax. This government and those who support it are indeed morons.

jf says:

09:31am | 10/10/11

mikk says:06:23am | 10/10/11

“Yeah lies like “core and non core promises”, children overboard and AWB. All governments, all politicians, all people lie. Get over it.”

The only ones that need to “get over” anything are those that justify Gillard’s lie by referring to supposed lies by the last conservative prime minister.

The irony is that you then go on to call for “civilised, productive debate”.

But not before the broken record of lies about the current opposition leader straight from the ALP spin sheet and referring to anyone that doesn’t automatically agree with you morons.

Peter says:

09:51am | 10/10/11

Read what John Howard had to say on this subject back in 2005 in the context of the Iraq War:-

“I mean this proposition that you can never change a position without being accused of breaking a promise is absurd, it’s a new doctrine in Australian politics, governments often change their position in the light of changed circumstances, they would be foolish and stubborn if they didn’t do so,” he said on Brisbane ABC Radio.

He knew the decision would not be popular and the poll had shown this, he said. “But occasionally governments are required to take decisions that involve unpopularity”.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Unpopular-decisions-necessary-says-Howard/2005/03/15/1110649201475.html

Bruce says:

10:21am | 10/10/11

Combet: You just do not get it ! Your party did not support it, your leader said “there will be NO carbon tax under a government I lead” ALSO Wayne Swann publically supported that statement. Before the last election, correct me if I am wrong, but did I hear you publically not support the prime monster on this issue of NO carbon tax ? I would suggest the backward thinking communist greens have got the ALP by balls and will not let go until they get their way !! Also, as you suggest that industry will find new ways of producing cheaper clean energy, if not send there business of shore, common sence tells us that revenues must fall, so where does the money come from to continue with the assistance program.

gobsmack says:

10:43am | 10/10/11

@JT
I was pointing out the logical inconsistency in the first post.
If you want a more current example, at the 2010 election both major parties went to the electorate promising to work towards a 20%(?) reduction in carbon emissions by 2020.
By Erick’s logic (which I don’t accept), that means that 99% of the electorate wanted action to reduce carbon emissions.
Read posts carefully before calling someone a fool.

PTom says:

10:57am | 10/10/11

JT, Erick
Wrong, both major party went to the last two election with a plan to reduce emission.
In 2010
ALP said they plan to put a price on Carbon (ETS)
LNP said they had a direct plan
In 2007
Both had a ETS which had a fixed price period

I think only one member of HOR was elected that opposed to any action and that was Katter.

neo says:

11:04am | 10/10/11

What baffles me is these carbon tax do gooders are worried about the hypothetical children that will be born 500 years down the track, while there are real children starving in Africa today. Get your priorities straight.

Blagh says:

11:58am | 10/10/11

I’m pretty sure she promised a price on carbon (the system the govt is developing now), on election eve, so technically, she has a mandate.

Proof: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

It doesn’t mean it’s going to work though…

JT says:

12:00pm | 10/10/11

PTom - ‘‘In 2010 ALP said they plan to put a price on Carbon (ETS) LNP said they had a direct plan ‘’

Why the lies PTom? Neither of those plans equal a Carbon Dioxide Tax therefore the fact remains 88% of the electorate voted for parties that did not support a tax on CO2.

All the squirming and lying by you and Labor does not contradict that.

Dan says:

12:10pm | 10/10/11

“Only a policy that has the legitimate support of the public should be adopted”.

Erick, that’s not how Governments are run.

We elect politicians we trust to make the right decisions for us. Sometimes, we don’t completely agree with the decisions they make once in office. But in the interests of strong, functioning Government, they have the power and right to ahead anyway.

Some are calling for a fresh election, outraged that the current Government has the nerve to go against the will of two-thirds of the people (according to newspaper polling). Where is the precedent for such a move?

Sometimes Government’s make controversial decisions. Sometimes they make unpopular decisions. It’s the power we as voters grant them at election time, and they have every right to use it.

And surely this is the only time I’ve heard a Government criticised for not “playing the polls”, and having the courage to go against the voters? A far cry from the Rudd/Howard years at least.

PTom says:

02:15pm | 10/10/11

JT,
Did you read ALP or Greens policy on this. Both have a fixed period where the price is set by the Government which then moves to a ETS.

Under LNP it will still be a carbon tax. Using my tax to pay for DAP.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

02:26pm | 10/10/11

It’s about a Prime Minister blatantly lying to the public. This tax is an outright denial of democracy. 88% of the people voted for parties that promised not to introduce it 
 
This. 
 
What is the point of an election campaign if not to let the voters know what you will do and (equally importantly) will not do?

Labor is Toxic says:

03:03pm | 10/10/11

A Government of IMBECILES.

Here we have a government that imposes a tax, that it intends to give 90% away!!!! Instead, why don’t we have a $2.30 Carbon Tax and use this to build RENEWABLE ENERGY PLANTS. 

A Government of PROFLIGATES.

If Climate Change is sooooooo important why are we building the NBN at breakneck speed!!!

A Government of TRAITORS

Over the past 4-years, 10% of Australia’s manufacturing jobs have been lost. Gillard is driving Australian manufacturing over a cliff. If anyone is still an AMWU Member, I would cancel my membership immediately. Because you soon will have years of experience and qualifications for jobs that don’t exist, in businesses that have closed down that belong to an industry that left Australia.

A Government of FINANCIAL ILLITERATES

Well you know how Labor said that the Carbon Tax is going to be revenue neutral. WELL IT ISN’T!!!! There is a $4,000,000,000 hole in the costings. This means that it costs every Taxpayer in Australia almost $400/year. For a two income family that is approximately a monthly mortgage payment.

Look ...... I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING. All you have to do is -

1) Put an export tax on Coal and LNG (THAT’S IT!!!).

(Imagine ...... if you only put the tax on exported Coal, then it really would be a CARBON TAX!!! Not a CO2e TAX!!!)

With the Revenue Build
1) Nano Solar Plants (CHEAPER POWER THAN COAL!!!)
2) Solar Coal Hybrid Power Stations

And we agree that these assets never get sold off!!!! Permanent Assets that will benefit generations of Australians.

AND STOP BUILDING THOSE STUPID HOUSEHOLD SOLAR PLANTS THAT ONLY THE BETTER OFF CAN AFFORD (AND MANY FALL OVER) AND ENCUMBER THE LESS FORTUNATE AUSTRALIANS WITH HIGHER ELECTRICITY PRICES

JT says:

03:28pm | 10/10/11

PTom - ‘‘Both have a fixed period where the price is set by the Government which then moves to a ETS.’‘

Which is not however what they are doing right now, right now they are introducing a carbon tax despite an explicit promise not to do this. A lie that won Labor and Gillard the election. Squirm as much as you like PTom, they lied and no amount of knots you or Labor tie yourself in will justify the lie.

‘‘Under LNP it will still be a carbon tax. Using my tax to pay for DAP.’‘

No it won’t and you lying about their policy to justify Labors current lie is truly scrapping the bottom of the barrel. The fact is, you as well as I know Labor lied and that lie was enough to win the election. They were elected without a mandate and they and you know that to seek that mandate would result in them getting slaughtered. Instead they will do whatever necessary to hold onto their ill gotten power no matter the cost or trampling of democracy (e.g. no government ever should bind the hands of the next no matter their ideology).

Sodapoppy says:

04:17pm | 10/10/11

Greg, you fool! You didn’t mention Tony Abbott!! What happened to your “must remember to include” list? The Altona BoganQueen will be cross with you! You didn’t mention you live by the beach, either! But as your idiot adviser says, nothing will happen for a thousand years, so his beach compound will be jake too.

PTom says:

04:39pm | 10/10/11

JT
Since you seem to know what they are doing now and no else does. Please tell us what they are doing? or will spin more lies to cover your BS.

Nige says:

12:31pm | 11/10/11

I still can’t get over the picture and its caption! LOL

“See how happy we’ll all be when there’s a wind farm on every hill?”

Did Combet choose this???

Seriously let all sit down and shut up and we can be as happy as the teletubbies!!!

Andrew says:

06:17pm | 13/11/11

LOL at those who use China as an example to demonstrate that they will just use our cheap coal. Well if you compare our size to China and think we are equal interms of size and population then yes, that would be scary. On the other hand and the other half of the story which you forget to mention is that China in 2010 alone invested 45 BILLION in clean energy technologies. In light of that, which party is taking us forward and who is holding us back? I don’t understand how people do not see the importance of this tax how this tax benifts most Australians. They would rather listen to propoganda of the businesses who are sucking us dry.

Rocksteady says:

06:05am | 10/10/11

Do you think Abbott’s “direct action” is more free market than an ETS?
Is giving miners get huge fuel subsidies free market economics?
How about negative gearing? or maybe the Billions of $$$ in corporate welfare going to car manufacturers, property developers and power stations ?
Australia just couldn’t cope with a real free market.

Greenhouse gas pollution has a cost to society, companies externalise the costs and don’t pay a cent regardless of how much they pollute.
  If a company could save money by tripling pollution, why not do it?

gobsmack says:

06:27am | 10/10/11

@TimB
If we had a “truly free market”, companies would be able to use child labour, dump their toxic wastes into rivers, etc..  A modern society necessarily places restrictions on companies who are otherwise motivated purely by profit.

dovif says:

08:02am | 10/10/11

Rocksteady

Yes direct action would definitely be more free market.

The Carbon tax is about making our energy cost more expensive, in order for Australians to use less, company/small business will have to cut down on their energy consumption or other cost. For company that are barely profitable atm, this will means job losses, which is what the Carbon tax is suppose to do. If people loses their jobs, because companies are not making money, there will be less CO2 polution

The Carbon tax is a complete distortion of the market, which will results in heavy lost of jobs. This is the Green agenda

This is what Gillard sold out Australians for.

Dash says:

08:32am | 10/10/11

TimB 100% correct. The ALP are a pack of frauds and to suggest this is a market mechinism shows how stupid they are.

It’s such a “free market mechinism” that the ALP are going to compensate the steel industry and the coal industry! It’s such a “free market mechinism” that the ALP are going to discriminate against Australian families on the basis of their income! Wow that really sends the right signals to the market!

What would this socialist pack of lefty idiots running the ALP know about the free market?

How stupid do the ALP think the electorate are?

And then when the ETS comes in, it will force Australian wealth overseas to shonky carbon credit salesmen! If you are going to inflict a cost on the economy like this, why send the revenue overseas? Unbelievable pack of incompetent morons!

At least direct action keeps the revenue base in Australia for the good of all Australians. It doesn’t make some idiot in a foreign country planting trees rich from our wealth. Can people please wake up!

Rocksteady, you need to go back to school! Negative gearing is how our tax system works. The revenue base is taxable and expenses necessarily incurred to derive that revenue are deductible. You probably believe in death duties as well?

If the ALP are concerned about the social cost, then why make this an exercise in wealth redistribution whilst compensating steel and coal? Why keep selling coal in increasing quantities to China? I’ll tell you why, because this has nothing to do with the environment! And people who believe the bullshit about this being an environmental policy are so stupid it’s not funny.

This policy is nothing but a fraud inflicted on Australians on the back of an election eve lie! The ALP deserve to be kicked into the wilderness for a very long time over this one!

andye says:

09:40am | 10/10/11

@TimB @ Dash He said “Market”, not “Free market”. You start with one and suddenly switch to the other. They aren’t the same thing, and nobody is arguing that this is a “free market” solution.

Calm hand on the tiller says:

10:28am | 10/10/11

The fear factor is strong in this one.
I guess that’s to be expected from a conservative mope.

PTom says:

11:17am | 10/10/11

dovif,
What are you on and can you share it around.
“Yes direct action would definitely be more free market.”

What to give wage earners money to companies to look at ways to reduce their emission.  How is that any type of market.

Lee says:

08:10am | 10/10/11

I saw this bloke on Insiders yesterday - the amount of bile spewing from his mouth about Abbott was so embarrassing.

Greg, act with some decency please. Nothing more offputting than a grown man acting like a spoilt child.

Brett says:

09:01am | 10/10/11

@Lee - Well he is a former Union leader, so what do you expect? They are embarrassing human beings generally.

stevekag says:

11:27am | 10/10/11

Combet is fool, just another Labor union thug like the rest of them….I can’t stand Labor, i can’t stand this Labor government in particular at least the Hawke/Keating government had brains…

This mob are there illegally, they are pushing through illegal “reforms”....how much money have we wasted already, Insulation, Schools, NBN…..the list goes on and on and on…..oh and the ministers when they were union leaders used their credit cards for hookers…....and the ranger knew about it….....How can we believe anything they say, they lack credibility on every level.

PTom says:

11:39am | 10/10/11

You are twisting facts to fit.
Government permits only account for a small percentage of the companies the rest are still free.
The Commonwealth Entity has no reason to retain value in its pollution permits, companies have more reason to retain value in its pollution permits.

To ensure this occurs Government legislation requires Carbon polluters pay the Carbon pollution price which can then be either sold to emission reduction companies or they don’t purchase permits and reduce their emission by converting to Green Power.

Sirro says:

10:25am | 10/10/11

Absolutely spot on Sherlock. Summed up clearly.

Why dont you call it what it is Combet. A lefty scam to redistribute wealth from those who aspire to those who cant be bothered. Just like 95% of the other dimwitted policys that Rudd/Gillard/Swan et al have come up with since 2007.

What a bunch of drongos ... how fitting that they are forced into a coalition with the two other biggest drongos in Australian politics - Brown and Oakshot.

Rocksteady says:

07:34am | 10/10/11

There are some mighty strong vested interests who hold nuclear power down in this country and it’s certainly not the greens or the “not in my backyard” brigade. (**cough** coal)

N for Nelly says:

08:06am | 10/10/11

Actually they will pass on the cost plus a little extra… profits are expected to increase for those companies over the next decade. It is the perfect excuse to raise prices without anyone suspecting.

At whose expense? Yep, the consumer.

Brett says:

09:08am | 10/10/11

@Barrabob - Have to agree, the carbon tax is merely wealth redistribution. How about instead of giving it back to dole bludgers and people up to their eyeballs in mcmansion debt, they instead build some green energy plants?

Nuclear is one option (Uranium that is), but better options to research with the money and build are Thorium and molten salt solar.

Or we could put the money into research and patents and become the world leader in green technology and patents, start a new economy out of it?

No that would make too much sense, lets just screw over the businesses who employ people, without creating more jobs, screw over people trying to get ahead in life, and give more money back to people pumping out poorly raised kids. Nice work, that makes sense. Soviet Russia worked out really well, why don’t we just copy that Union leaders?

andye says:

09:45am | 10/10/11

@BarraBob @N for Nelly - The incentive exists even if the company increases its prices initially to match the tax cuts you will get. The company is still incurring the carbon bill. Reducing carbon emissions reduces that cost. Therefore the company has an incentive to reduce that expense.

The argument you are making boils down to the assumption that a company doesn’t try to maximise its profits. Betting against a company acting in its own self interest is pretty foolish. Making the use of carbon cost money WILL make the companies find ways to use less carbon.

Babe in the Woods says:

08:08am | 10/10/11

@marley, absolutely with you there.  Not a lot of this makes sense to me either.  The big thing though is I don’t see how any of this helps Australia at all or changes a thing.  Why would any of them reduce emissions if they are compensated?

andye says:

10:40am | 10/10/11

@marley - If the polluters raise prices to exactly match the tax cuts… there is still a carbon bill being paid by the companies, and therefore an opportunity to lower this expense by lowering carbon emissions.

Are you arguing that a company will not try to maximise profits? If there is an expense that can be minimised at a net profit, a company will do so. Placing the carbon burden on the polluters is actually the most effective way of getting this change to happen.

The government (any government) directly spending my tax money to try to enact this change? You are going to have a very hard time convincing me this is going to be effective.

To my mind, the Liberal solution is the socialist solution. if this wasnt some bizarro Australia, the Libs would be the ones advocating the market solution and decrying the “Big Government” tax spending direct action plan. Yet both parties have the opposite policies to what they would traditionally have.

Keith Hammersmith says:

11:30am | 10/10/11

@Andye
Your missing the point of the posters you are replying to. I totally agree that manufacturers would try to offset the carbon tax IF everyone was not being compensated. 
What you need to understand is the definition of profit.  Cosst go up, so price goes up,  consumers are compensated for said increase price,  profit remains the same…..

Unless the compensation is another lie,  then the tax may become effective, - we will reduce our emissions,  because loads of companies will shut down,  thus not emitting anything anymore.

PTom says:

12:01pm | 10/10/11

@marley
ICB do you think the cost of making beer and smokes has not gone up?

Companies have change how they sell beer and smokes to keep prices down.
A few years ago light and mid strengh beer in this country was almost unheard of until the government reduce the taxes on it compared to full strength.
I even remember one beer company reducing the size of a beer bottles so a price raise(included taxes) would have less impact.
As for smokes I heard a number of times people bitching about smaller packets.

BTW beer and smokes are addictive, I think trees are only one addicted to CO2

PTom says:

12:05pm | 10/10/11

Where is you complaint about Greg Hunt political advertising on the pucnh’s web site?
After that I gave up.

Dash says:

08:40am | 10/10/11

The ALP are not going to compensate all consumers. They are going to discriminate against Asutralians on the basis of their income! not on how they pollute! Not on their carbon footprint! But on what they earn. And at the same time they compensate the polluting steel and coal industries. Some people will get nothing in the way of compensation!

The ALP are introducting a policy of wealth redistribution. They are penalising those creating the nations wealth and rewarding those destroying it! They are a pack of deceitful morons! Not to mention the most socialist government in our history.

Glen M says:

01:43pm | 10/10/11

Dash , They are also willing to purchase 94 mega tonnes of carbon credits from overseas at a cost of over $2.1 billion dollars . That is straight from the pockets of Australians. They are not content with redistributing weath in our country they want to give it away to the rest of the world.
$2.1 billion spent on research and development in Australia would be far more beneficial to Australians and the climate.

Anubis says:

12:55pm | 10/10/11

@ Bob - Apparently it is no longer 500 polluters (down from the original 1000) but according to the Department of Climate Change it is closer to 400.

Ian1 says:

12:06pm | 10/10/11

Dave C, nothing in this policy will save the environment.
The world is in no way bound to it, and less likely to be as days move forward.  Even those in it are getting out.

In fact, as the world suffers we should consider the hypocrisy of Labor in supporting Coal exports to China whose efforts alone in producing Coal-fired power stations would totally eclipse any correction attempted here.

Let us not forget the history of Australia as a land which burns either.  Many native plants won’t germinate without exposure to flame and associated smoke.  The emmissions from fires buring, or volacanos errupting render any planned efforts to combat rising CO2 levels as juvenile for their lack of forethought.

You seem to demonstrate a lack of pure strategic logic by thinking that if we act first on climate change, some how the world will be saved.

The climate is global Dave, it’s not like Australians live under a dome and can affect a balance here at the exclusion of the others.

The Carbon Tax lie and associated wealth redistribution attempt is un-Australian and unworthy of consideration by our national leadership.

Arthur says:

01:49pm | 10/10/11

Do you realise Dave C it won’t stop the eventual entire consumption of fossil fuels? Poorer countries will use fossil fuels until they’re gone. So will rich countries. We need a different plan to this hair brained shamozel..

Dave C says:

11:46am | 10/10/11

Paddy, you completely lost credibility when you claimed the Greens haven’t opposed coal-seam gas - they, and other groups such as the much-maligned (by Alan Jones listeners and readers of The Australian) Get-up, are right out front in opposing uncontrolled expansion of CSG in Australia. They are more than concerned about the environmental impacts on the water table, aquifers more broadly and to on-farm production.

Steve Putnam says:

04:45pm | 10/10/11

Is this lightweight sarcasm all you’ve got? Combet must feel like he’s been flogged with a wet lettuce.

Mr Combet says:

09:55am | 10/10/11

Because its all Mr Abbotts fault..Everything is Abbotts fault,Every problem this Labor Governmnet has had is Abbotts fault..

Mrs Abbott says:

12:01pm | 10/10/11

You stop picking on my hubby!

andye says:

09:33am | 10/10/11

@Jacqueline - Negative gearing redistributes billions from low income earners to high income earners. I have to assume that if you are against the personal tax refunds in the Carbon Tax based on a problem with wealth redistribution then you also disagree with stuff like negative gearing?

Tator says:

10:45am | 10/10/11

Andye,
Explain how is allowing people to keep more of their own money a subsidy from the government.  The government has no money of its own and generates little income of its own so it appropriates money from people in the guise of taxation.  The people who receive REFUNDS because of negative gearing have already paid it as tax and it isTHEIR OWN MONEY being returned to them.  It is not a redistribution as they already earnt it and are being allowed to keep it.  It is not some poor lower income persons income being appropriated to pay someone else.

andye says:

11:16am | 10/10/11

@Tator - You are making this strange argument where tax cuts to the wealthy aren’t income redistribution, but tax cuts to the poor are…. and negative gearing is coming out of my taxes, thanks. Its always amazing that when conservatives disagree with something, it is their tax money - but when they agree the money suddenly becomes mysterious government money which appeared from nowhere.

Glen M says:

02:00pm | 10/10/11

andye ,
You obvously dont know how negative gearing works.  As a “conservative”  I do have a problem with how tax dollars are spent simply because of the excessive amount of tax that I pay. I certainly have earnt the right to be interested in how my tax dollars are being spent. I find it is generally those who dont pay tax think it is the “governments money” . Generally all forms of government spending are wealth distribution. Some of this is neccessary and socially important, but   claiming wealth distribution through a carbon tax is anything more than politically motivated is moronic.

Tator says:

02:16pm | 10/10/11

Andye,
negative gearing is not a tax cut for the wealthy.  Many people utilise negative gearing which is part of the basis for our tax system that business use to invest in their business and is also available for utilisation for investments other than business ie shares/property.  Now all income groups have and can use negative gearing and many low income people have used it but most either aren’t confident enough to take a risk to use it or just don’t know how to exploit it for their own benefit.
It is not the sole domain of the wealthy unlike that of the carbon tax where all the benefits are restricted by design to those on lower incomes.
As I have posted in the past , our tax system is the second most progressive in the OECD in that the top income earners already pay a higher percentage of total income tax receipts as a ratio to their percentage of earnings. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855
Plus the so called top end or top 2% of income earners pay 22.8% of total income tax receipts whilst earning only 12.8% of total income.  To match the tax paid by the top 2% takes the bottom 65% of income earners.  So basically the top 35% of income earners are paying the bulk of income tax as it is (77.2%)  and with FTB A and B plus the LITO, most low income earners don’t pay any income tax at all so how is giving the higher incomes a tax break costing the lower incomes when that tax break is providing cheaper rental housing and doesn’t cost the lower incomes anything in increased taxes whereas the new carbon tax will increase costs for those in the top 20% of income earners whilst rewarding those in the lower tax brackets with 120% compensation which is basically being paid for by those in the 20%.  On top of that, how is compensating someone more than what the increased costs will be going to change their behaviour and encourage them to reduce their emissions??

Bruce says:

02:46pm | 10/10/11

Glen M: Agree, No negative gearing, the rental market will just dry up. Then where will people who do not own homes live ? Paul Keating found this out in approx 1987 when he tried on getting ridd of negative gearing. Quickly bought it back !

PTom says:

03:15pm | 10/10/11

Tator.
Who taxpayer’s money is used when negative geared greater then the taxed you payed?
Negative gearing places a greater burden on other taxpayers by asking government to cover YOUR investment losses.
Just like the tax-concession on Super.

Glen M and Bruce.
Stop the lies.
The USA has rental vacancy above 5% No Negative gearing
Australia has rental vacancy below 5% in Sydney in it around 2%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-10/janda-lets-talk-about-tax/3457964

andye says:

04:02pm | 10/10/11

@Tator -  “On top of that, how is compensating someone more than what the increased costs will be going to change their behaviour and encourage them to reduce their emissions??”

It won’t. That isn’t the target of the carbon price. It is the top 500 polluters that are targeted.

Also, apparently (according you your breakdown) I am helping pay the bulk of income tax in Australia. Don’t thank me, I am just doing my part.

Tator says:

07:56pm | 10/10/11

PTom,
Those US figures are a bit deceptive as there are a lot of vacant properties left over from the sub prime crisis that can’t be sold and banks are trying to rent them out.  Plus what you have forgotten is that Australia has a housing shortfall of around 180000 houses a year due to immigration which also drives rental vacancy rates down.  Plus if rental investors aren’t in the rental market, it would put more pressure on public housing authorities to provide more houses at greater cost to the taxpayer, so rather than spending $350000 on a new property, the taxpayer pays $5 to 6k a year for 40 years or so which is around $240k, so the taxpayer saves $110k on the property with no large upfront costs and more on pensions etc as the investor is less likely to rely on the old age pension for their retirement.  So there is a large plus that comes out of negative gearing residential properties, but also if you get rid of it, you would also have to consider removing it from commercial properties and shares otherwise the money invested in residential will move over to those areas as investments nearly always follow the path of best return.

Andye,
it has been pointed out several times on this blog that those top 500 polluters will simply pass on the additional costs to the consumer.  Now considering that apart from natural gas, there is no current technology vaguely cost competitive with coal for base load power generation capable of sustaining heavy industries at a competitive level, even with a $23 carbon tax and even then, there is massive capital costs for all the coal generators to convert to gas. http://www.agea.org.au/media/docs/mma_comparative_costs_report_2.pdf

And this report probably doesn’t take into account the fact that the Latrobe Valley and Port Augusta Brown Coal fired plant basically get their coal for mining and transport costs only as there is no export market for low grade brown coal which is why Victoria had such a competitive advantage because of its cheaper power.
So what happens if all generators become good global citizens and convert to gas, get better efficiency and reduce emissions but with increased generation costs keeping electricity prices at the same level.  This will mean a drop in revenue for the government who is relying on this revenue to compensate for the loss in tax revenue that the compensation package created.
Now I am also one who contributes well to taxable income, plus I have also taken steps to minimise my “carbon footprint” in that I have a 1.5kw solar system installed on my small 3 bedroom house which has natural gas heating, evaporative air conditioning ( a bucket load cheaper to run than a reverse cycle) fully insulated ceiling and walls and low power globes throughout the house, I don’t have a large plasma but a moderate 32 inch LCD tv with a small basic home theatre setup.  My wife and I both drive 4 cylinder cars , both over ten years old as buying a newer car won’t reduce the emissions by more than what the manufacture of the new one will generate.  We run them on E10 fuel whenever possible for the enviromental benefits, so my family are doing our bit as well, if not more than most, yet we will still be slugged by this carbon tax with increased costs and no compensation, even after the steps we have taken to reduce our emissions.

John Smythe says:

12:07pm | 11/10/11

well rebuked tator!

Harry says:

10:22am | 10/10/11

And when you see a refugee boat coming to Australia, thank Abbott for the new arrivals.
This is the “soft” side of Abbott.

Anubis says:

01:06pm | 10/10/11

@ Harry - you goose. The increase in refugee boats is 100% attributable to the Rudd/Gillard kitchen cabinet decision to dismantle the Pacific Solution and get of TPVs. This combination had effectively slowed the boat arrivals down to barely a trickle. As soon as Rudd/Gillard dismantled those things the arrivals increased. How you can blame Abbott is beyond me. Out of sheer political spite Rudd/Gillard destroyed a working solution just because itr was put in place by the previous Government. The argument that it was done on compassionate grounds has proven to be a crock when you look at the decision to send arrivals to Malaysia.

Number Cruncher says:

01:46pm | 10/10/11

@ Harry…don;t be a douche.  The only reason the boats are coming to Australia is because of Labor dismantling a policy that work.

Steve Putnam says:

06:41pm | 10/10/11

Yeah tell ‘em good and while you’re at it tell ‘em about alien infiltration in all of the world’s governments!
When are you conspiracy theorists going to approach the crucial issue of climate change with an open mind? You can post all the wacko blogs you want but you can’t give one single peak science body from any country in the world that accepts AGW denialism - NOT ONE!

Steve Putnam says:

05:17am | 11/10/11

“...squandered a multibillion dollar surpless…” The money spent saved Australia from the ravages of the GFC and built much needed amenities for public education. You know public education - the area most neglected by Coalition governments when they diverted funding to private schools to be squandered on rifle ranges and indoor swimming pools.
Were as upset about the “blatant deception” inherent in sending troops to Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction or lies about “children overboard” or bribing dictators to buy our wheat?

Al says:

11:37am | 11/10/11

Steve,

Oh yeah, that’s right, the $900 pat on the back, thanks for voting for me from Kevin 07. Like that went a long way.

So by your reckoning it’s OK to spend more than triple what a building is worth to “…..built much needed amenities for public education…..”

So by your reckoning it’s OK to set up a home insulation scheme that is so poorly regulated it burns homes down and kills people?

So by your reckoning it’s OK to give a percentage of the money raised from the carbon tax to an organisation as corrupt as the UN with no caveats on how it is spent or any knowledge on where it is going to be spent?

So by your reckoning it’s OK to spend millions of dollars on Islamic schools in foreign countries that don’t offer education to females and are alleged to be training grounds for the next batch of radical militants?

So by your reckoning it’s OK to spend 1.2 million dollars housing refugees in a four star hotel in suburban Brisbane?

So by your reckoning it’s OK to fly refugees in a privately charted jet from one side of the country to the other to attend a funeral that should have been held at the site of the tragedy, just like every other maritime disaster throughout history, only for them to get their faces on TV and call us all racists.

WRT the children overboard, don’t believe what ANY defence minister says, they’re politicians remember.

I can go on but I won’t. I agree with you on Iraqi but I sure as hell fear the day you ever have any control of public purse strings.

Al says:

11:46am | 11/10/11

Better make that “$3 million-a-month bill to house asylum-seekers in hotels. “

Oh and then there is the legal fees at 10 million - all legal aid Steve, the refugees don’t pay for any of that, you and I do!

And you don’t think this government squanders money?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/pm-faces-refugee-inquiry/story-e6freuy9-1226060279171

Steve Putnam says:

07:29pm | 12/10/11

@Al I made no comment about the UN or on matters pertaining to refugees or Islamic radicalism but can’t let your comment about the decision to fund secular education in Indonesia pass. This was bi-partisan policy when the Howard Government proposed it, but Abbott has seen the opportunity to do a bit of dog whistling on the subject by opposing it. That we would spend $500 million in an effort to strike at the root problem of radical Islamic terrorism in our own back yard seems a logical step. When I was in London earlier this year, Conservative British PM Cameron (with the support of the Labour opposition) passed a bill to fund secular education in Pakistan to the tune of 950 million pounds. This was recognised as the best way at striking at the hate filled madrassas that spawned the Taliban by giving kids a modern education with an opportunity to better themselves. Sadly in this country, bi-partisanship is impossible with trogs like Abbott heading the opposition. Over 90% of the BER was delivered on time, on budget and to the satisfaction of the recipients. The insulation scheme wasn’t successful and it was regretable that deaths occurred but at the height of the GFC a combination of public and private spending was responsible for a 3.1% growth in GDP (overall growth 3.7%) for financial year 2008/09. Needless to say this was instrumental in keeping unemployment down to 5%. All this was achieved within a debt level of 7% of GDP. No country in the developed world can show stats like this. I welcome your comments Al but please don’t try and tell me what I think.

Flying High says:

12:10pm | 10/10/11

If the end of humanity means you are one of the first to go…then bring it on!

What a tosser!!!

Dan says:

12:13pm | 10/10/11

Jeremy,

I’d urge you to have a look at the make-up of the Senate Committee to which you refer. Dominated almost entirely by Coalition members. Chaired by Mathias Cormann. Do you think they may have had an agenda going into this one?

There’s a reason the report was mostly ignored by the media. I think it should best stay that way.

Tator says:

03:17pm | 10/10/11

Dan,
the make up of the committee doesn’t mitigate the fact that it was the Treasury’s modelling that states that there will be a cost of $1 trillion to the economy because of the carbon tax.  All the composition of the committee does is allow the opposition to expose to the public inconvenient aspects of the carbon tax that the government would like to stay hidden.

Kika says:

03:09pm | 10/10/11

And and when there was the highest levels of carbon there were also dinosaurs, jungles everywhere and mosquitoes the size of a small car. Do you want to live like that?  Thats life with high levels of carbon dioxide.

Semi Concerned Citizen says:

04:09pm | 10/10/11

Kika, thanks you made me chuckle

LC says:

10:08pm | 10/10/11

Of all the components of this tax package, it’s the compensation plan that makes little sense. A carbon tax is supposed to change consumer habits by making harmful products more expensive, correct? If you give some of the people their money right back, why would they stop? If they don’t feel the squeeze in their hip pocket, where is the incentive? Is Middle Class Martha gonna think twice about watching whatever ever it is she watches on her massive LCD TV with surround sound while she cooks on her electric stove illuminated by her halogen down-lights if she’s receiving compensation for price rises caused by the carbon tax that’s supposed to make her think twice about doing all that? No.
The second is the exceptions. You say the biggest emitters of carbon “pollution” are electricity generation, oil burning cars and agriculture. Then you turn around and exempt two of them. That is contradictory and stupid beyond comprehension. Is Bogan Barry going to think twice about driving his V8 Commodore/Falcon all over the place is the price of the fuel he needs to power it isn’t burning a massive hole through his hip pocket? No.

This not only guarantees the tax will do sweet f*** all for the environment, but it also serves to give people who believe AGW is a part of a massive global socialist/communist plot some pretty hard-hitting ammo (I’m not really into conspiracy theories myself, but let’s face it).

If AGW is occurring, everyone shares a part of the blame. Not just corporations. Not just the rich. EVERYONE. And EVERYONE should pay.

A carbon tax plan of $2-5/tonne, no compensation, no exemptions, and 75% of all the revenue raised going straight back into R&D into sustainable energy sources and the installation of the required infrastructure would be a more sensible plan I’d be happier to support. But before that, Julia has to go out and get herself a mandate for it.

Al says:

02:58pm | 10/10/11

In a nut shell:

1.  The polluters get taxed,

2.  The costs get passed on to end users,

3.  Subsidies are paid to end users to “compensate” for the increased costs (I’ll believe that when I see it).

All under the pretext of doing something positive for the environment, what is the point of this BS?

It is only creating more jobs in the public sector to administer this joke of a policy. In a country that is already over governed, has a massive welfare liability and an ageing population, more public servants are the last thing the Tax payer needs.

Will it stop the earth’s rotational precession and nutation from pointing the earths polar axis closer to the sun? Answer - No

Will it stop the increased exposure of sunlight at the poles (from the earth’s precession and nutation) from melting the polar ice caps? Answer - No

Will it stop the 55% of Australian greenhouse gases emissions generated by bush fires? Answer - No

Will it stop the billions of tons of greenhouse gasses emitted by erupting volcanoes? Answer - No

Is America, China, India and the other big polluters going to follow suit? Answer - No

Can you trust a government that has already squandered billions of dollars with the revenue raised from this Tax? Answer - You might be able to Dan, but the rest of us can’t!

Champ, you can sit in your ivory towel and look at the world through rose coloured glasses but the rest of us that live and work in it can see through the BS straight up.

Molly Brown says:

03:28pm | 10/10/11

I think the term for you was coined by a Russian Communist leader. Useful idiot! You un-patriotic traiter. Look at the catastrophic economic collapse of Europe since bringing in their own usless ETS with money borrowed by the bankers and taxing the daylights out of the unwitting public.

Dan says:

05:34pm | 10/10/11

Oww!!! Sorry, I just slapped my forehead as I realised it’s all an evil green conspiracy to make us poor.

Seriously? You think the world’s top scientific academies forgot to consider ‘the sun’ in determing the causes of global warming?

Please. Why does this painfully simple policy work? Because it creates an incentive for heavy polluters to cut back their emissions. There’s a reason this market-based approach is favoured by conservative governments around the world.

I actually agree with you. Sort of. Alone, this policy doesn’t do a whole lot. But I don’t share your cynicism over the rest of the world’s approach.

Al says:

09:49pm | 10/10/11

@Dan

“Seriously? You think the world’s top scientific academies forgot to consider ‘the sun’ in determing the causes of global warming?”

None of them have mentioned or taken into account our own geodesy so why would they think about the sun?

“Why does this painfully simple policy work? Because it creates an incentive for heavy polluters to cut back their emissions. “

Sorry, wrong, there is no incentive. The heavy polluters pass on all costs to the consumer. The consumer gets compensated for the increased cost.

The polluter doesn’t care he is still getting paid, the consumer doesn’t care, he/she has subsidies to cover the increased cost.  (That remains to be seen)

The government takes from the polluter with the right hand and gives back to the polluter with the left hand through the consumer. The only thing that has increased is the level of bureaucracy, who pays for that? Answer - The same poor bastard that is struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

And you’re counting down the days till this legislation passes????

And we wonder why we have fools in government.

Dan says:

08:49am | 11/10/11

Al,

The incentive is staring them right in the face. New taxes are being applied to their carbon emissions. Cut down emissions, pay less carbon tax.

You’re right, they’ll initially pass the costs onto consumers. But, the incentive is there to make changes to the way they do business, and cut down their own operating costs.

Think of it like any other cost within business. When companies carry too many staff, do they:

a) Raise the price of their goods, to cover the cost of paying the staff?

or

b) Sack the staff, cutting the cost entirely?

The answer is obviously B. And the same principle applies to the carbon tax.

Painfully simple, enormously sensible.

sunny says:

02:23pm | 10/10/11

I’m not really on either side but find myself favouring doing something about climate change. When CSIRO and other ‘real’ institutions say it exists, it’s hard to disbelieve them. Personnally I think it really all comes down to one number: total tonnage of fossil fuels (coal/oil) unearthed by humans in the last 150 years and burnt. It must be a big number. Trillion tonnes? maybe ten trillion tonnes?. Whatever the number is, imagine piling it all up into one heap and putting a match to it. I think that would have some effect on the climate! Then there is the real possiblility our great grandchildren will probably have to live in sweltering times ..and might have to grow gills to adapt just like in Waterworld. We must do something to save our great grandchildren from a Kevin Costner style big-budget over-rated future-world scenario like that, or at least start work on building a better harpoon-shooting jet-ski (and call it direct action).

LC says:

05:22pm | 29/10/11

The difference, sunny, comes from over the period of time it’s burned. We haven’t burned 150 trillion tonnes of anything at once in one place before. The effects of doing that would only be short, with any effect disappearing after a year or so.

Even then, the effects would hardly be felt outside of a certain radius of where the burning takes place.

sunny says:

05:53pm | 30/10/11

@LC “Disappearing after a year or so”? To where? It was buried and inert, and now it is dug up and thrown into the atmosphere/biosphere by the unearthing and burning of it!
BTW I said 150 YEARS not 150 trillion tonnes (pay attention) ..although I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the actual volume.
If you think burning fossil fuels only affects the local area where the burning occurs you should go to the CSIRO or BOM website and do a bit of reading, pay attention to the numbers.

Greg says:

02:52pm | 10/10/11

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that these waterfront homes will be “drowned” in our lifetime. I know property is a long term investment but unless you plan on keeping the investment for 100-200 years, the rising sea levels thing shouldn’t be a problem. So yeah, your argument is meaningless.

sunny says:

04:04pm | 10/10/11

George for God’s sake announce your workings! ..for the good of us all !

Gnome says:

09:16pm | 10/10/11

I don’t remember the debate years ago, was there one?  The debate we needed to have seems to be happening about now, and the alarmists are starting to lose badly.  Get your head out of your fundament and read up on it.  You might learn something.

sunny says:

05:34pm | 10/10/11

PS you are on the right track

JT says:

06:18pm | 10/10/11

Or better yet, we could round up you morons under 30 and throw you into the sun, won’t do shit for so called AGW but overnight the world IQ would improve 100 fold.

sunny says:

06:40pm | 10/10/11

@JT that’s hillarious (it really is). What about us older morons(40+) who are a lot heavier (have a LOT more baggage along with our big asses to hurl into the sun) ? Have you got the strength to hurl all of us into the sun?

TheRaptured says:

09:35pm | 10/10/11

New World Order

Adam says:

04:52am | 11/10/11

I’d totally support a referendum on this issue to - provided only people under 50 got to vote…..because if you’re over 50 you’re not going to be alive to have to live with the consequences so there’s no incentive for you to make a balanced, considered decision (see my previous post re: over 50s and climate change).  This is essentially a debate between a short term risk management approach and a long term one, and only people under 50 have vested self interest in considering both approaches

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

09:47am | 11/10/11

@ Adam says: 05:52am | 11/10/11 and     @  Dr. B S Staye says:

One major reason why I am suggesting a Referendum on the carbon tax is that it is the only way for the poor PM Gillard to get rid of this anchor around her necks and all the ALP MP’s necks. They are boxed into a suicide corner by this carbon tax by the Greens. The only way to survive the next election is to get rid of this useless and politically motivated carbon tax.

LC says:

11:57am | 11/10/11

If a referendum is called, no person can be withheld their right to participate in it. Sorry.

And anyway, they’d still end up voting at the 2013 election and being able to voice their opinion there. That is, unless you’re planning on forbbiding them from voting in federal elections too.

Yeah. Not very democratic of you at all.