Labor’s tax cuts just bread and circuses

Nelson Haa-Haa! says:

08:28am | 22/03/11

Oh come on Sophie you can do better surely.

You already compared Gillard to Gadaffi ... you’ve got to top that surely.

Compare her to Beelzebub! That’ll get you a headline!

Hey ... seen today’s Newspoll?

The public are starting to see that your lot are nothing but a bunch of divisive wreckers with not a single policy except “pander to the greedy and the haters”.

Shane From Melbourne says:

09:06am | 22/03/11

At least a tax cut would affect all hard working taxpayers instead of the middle class welfare system which is simply wealth redistribution. Single person or childless couple? Sorry, you get screwed and your taxes transferred to help families buy their plasma tv, overseas holidays etc, but thank you for working. It is ironic that Liberal Party are against socialism, yet John Howard set up the middle class welfare system.

Tom says:

09:31am | 22/03/11

What is breath taking is the number of times the voter can be lied to and still not wake up to it. Their stupidity and short attention span is beyond rational explanation.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/tony-abbotts-approval-falls-to-record-low-latest-newspoll-reveals/story-e6freuy9-1226025843203

Mattb says:

09:50am | 22/03/11

Can’t talk about that Shane, that’s bringing up Johnny Howard and using what he did to justify a labor party policy. The libs on this site don’t like that. No negativity when discussing Howard please, just concentrate on the positive. Oh, and no discussion on Abbott either, he’s not in power, he’s just the alternative, so his policies don’t count.

You’ve just gotta learn to be more ignorant Shane…...

Knemon says:

12:44pm | 22/03/11

Nelson Haa-Haa! - Even funnier was last night on qanda, when the audience was asked to raise their hand in relation to whether they believed what ‘flip flop’ Abbott said about climate change - not one person raised their hand…enough said. People’s revolution indeed.

The LNP are going ‘to be slowly cooked’ on this issue, and how sweet it will smell.

iMitchy says:

12:58pm | 22/03/11

Mattb,
Good first sentence. Kinda sarcastic dribble after that.

It might be time for the established Punch Law-makers to create a new rule regarding comparing poorly constructed, old policy and events to justify poorly constructed, current policy and events.

The whole reason we have a crap government and a crap opposition caught in a stagnant mud-slinging match is because we, the voters, are caught in a time warp and are doing the same, instead of learning from the mistakes of the past and moving on to bigger and better things.
As long as the political parties can keep us bantering over irrelevant nothings from yesteryear, they will continue to do nothing and pass it off as major events via media hype and public opinion. This is the age of unremarkable government and insignificant policy.

It pays to remember that parties do not care about the die-hard voters, they only care about the swinging voters and if you think those who swing do so because of ignorance you are sorely mistaken, swinging voters are the only ones who elect government on the basis of policy quality alone.

Vaunted says:

08:51am | 22/03/11

I’m afraid I don’t have your confidence that the average Joe or Jill won’t buy the ALP spin that working families will be financially better off under an ALP carbon dioxide tax. While the idea of politicians ‘stealing from the rich and giving to the poor’ has been a success formula for thousands of years, Abbott should stop vacillating and gave the right-royal boot to the whole concept of Australian industrial pain having any meaningful effect on anthropogenic warming. For some crazy reason he seems to have completely forgotten his traction over Turnbull and with the electorate began with the word ‘CRAP’.  Voters believed it because their steadily-beeping bullshit detectors had reached a crescendo with Kevin’s pronouncements re Copenhagen. There just has to be a more imaginative, commercially based and constructive policy alternative than ‘us too, only we’ll do it slightly differently and naturally better’. The whole idea that tax creates investment in new technology is CRAP. Tony and his team need to find a policy position that reflects that position, and any party room dissenters asked to leave the room.

sof-eez says:

06:55am | 22/03/11

@My Word well said. I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that a few small business owners were the real issue in the roofs and halls rorts.

Joel B1 says:

07:20am | 22/03/11

“few small business owners were the real issue in the roofs and halls rorts. ” Yeah, sure, try the other one it’s got bells on.

As you very well know the money was handed out with any care or concern. Rudd/Gillard just threw the cash as fast as they could. Despite repeated warnings from the relevant departments that there were big problems.

ALP= No blame here

Joan says:

07:32am | 22/03/11

And how hard can it be for Juliar to stick to to her word…. loyalty to Rudd ended up in a kniffing of Rudd and a No Carbon Tax ends up as a a big Carbon Tax on everything. And the promised generous Tax cuts is probably just a myth in the making…... you can can count Juliar`s word on that !

My word says:

07:52am | 22/03/11

Speed was of the essence, certainly.  “handed out with any care or concern” is simply untrue.

Checks & balances from the outset, reviewed and strengthened by Dept advice on experience. It wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t perfect, but a lot was achieved.

And yes, there were rorts. By small business. But it’s stupid to pretend it was all waste and rort. It wasn’t.

Paul says:

08:19am | 22/03/11

My Word you are sadly out of touch. Do some serious reseach and ask the federal government how much it is still spending on checking every house in Australia which took up the $1600 roof insulation.  It is now either close to or has exceeded the original grant funding.
A team of federal government employed workers came to my daughter’s house (which had been checked by a registered electrician and told it was safe) and told her they had to rip it all out.
If she refused she had to sign a document which said the federal government wasn’t responsible.  She was terrified and signed.
Ergo taxpayers paid to install insulation and now to have it ripped out.
Get real My Word….
NB: Yesterday’s papers revealed these contractors are now flying in and flying out of Queensland towns to do this job, so include air fares and accommodation in this wasteful rout of taxpayers hard earned dollars.

Tom says:

09:38am | 22/03/11

@Myword, good Hawker Britton stuff. Whenever your side is caught telling a lie, get in first and accuse your opponent of telling a lie. That neutralises your own lie by confusing the dopey public who are generally too stupid to work out which side is telling the lie.

My word says:

10:09am | 22/03/11

Ah yes. Anything you disagree with must be a lie.  Sure, sure, sure.

I didn’t call her a liar. No need.  I simply took Ms M’s own text and turned it back on her.

The facts speak for themselves, though it suits Ms M’s purpose to misrepresent them.

Save your coded personal jibes for some other place, ta.

Adam Diver says:

10:33am | 22/03/11

Couldn’t agree more, its good to ee the same shonky business owners funding the repair and safety inspection of the 1,000’s of houses with insulation.

I have just been told by someone with a brain, that the tax payers are funding it at a cost of almost 1 billion dollars. Seems like no ALP responsibilty doesn’t cut it when talking about our money, not that I expect ALP supporters to care about value for money.

Martin Hopes says:

02:37pm | 22/03/11

Joel B1 - Wrong. it was unscrupulous business practices brought on by greedy capitalists. But of course, we should all be used to that in Australia, it’s been going on for years.

The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry!!

ZSRenn says:

02:49pm | 22/03/11

@My word you keep quoting the Garnaut report and putting a link so I would like to add another link to this discussion from the Garnaut report.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up6-carbon-pricing-and-reducing-australias-emissions.pdf

In this report you will see that Electricity will rise by an average of $625 / annum / household under the carbon tax. The report further goes on to justify this by saying that a .25% rise in interest rates would lift mortgages by $525 and that electricity prices fluctuate anyway due to market forces. If interest rates do rise do we get hit with a double whammy and what about people who don’t have a mortgage.

It also states that petrol prices will rise and justifies a 7c rise in fuel prices due to this tax by saying fuel prices fluctuate anyway.

You yourself have said in another forum that it is of no concern because petrol prices fluctuate by up 25c / week in our cities.

Now these figures used in the Garnaut come from the AIP figures and looking at them they at http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/retail/ulp/index.htm it is clearly seen that these prices have a weekly high of 145.8 to a low 140.4 Now my math’s is not good but this is a 5c fluctuation in my book not 25c The introduction of this tax today would mean the weekly high would be 152.8c / liter and the low 147.4.

Not insignificant for fuel to rise over the $1.50 mark because of this tax. 

Another thing with the Garnaut report is that it quotes Australian emissions at 28.1 metric tones / capita and the Department of Climate Change seems to have accepted these figures yet the CSIRO says our usage is 17.5 metric tones / capita. So where has this figure come from? Treehugger.com?  This is the only other site that quotes a figure this high.

These three strikes say to me that the Garnaut report has a lot of explaining to do before anyone can accept these hedged figures.

My word says:

04:52pm | 22/03/11

ZSR:  Sadly, no. 25c was your *own* claim.

All I’ve ever said is

“On petrol? Less than the usual weekly price variation in Australia ( a curious piece of trade practice itself unique to Oz). “

More than once too.

And why wouldn’t anyone in the debate cite Garnaut? His is the principal current source for the issue here. 

This is all getting a bit pointless.

ZSRenn says:

07:20pm | 22/03/11

I am sorry my word it was the Garnaut report that said

“and to the recent national average petrol price increase of about 25 cents per liter since September 2010” in an attempt to justify a further 7c rise. Not you.

Yet the AIP figures show that the fuel price on a national average has risen by 16c / liter and not the 25c quoted in the Garnaut report.

It may be getting pointless to you but I have been saying for six weeks that the cost of this tax will be about $2500 / household / year.

With the two figures above:

7c /liter fuel increase assuming we use similar figures for the US / capita of 4164 liters / year. (Sorry I tried to find actual AU figures but even I have a limit) and this is 80 liters / week / capita. This works out at $1300 / household / year.

If we take the Department of Climate Change figures and The Garnaut review figures ranking us at No 1 polluter then this must be a low figure for Australia.

Combine that with the $625 electricity increase / household / year.

We are now up to $1925 / household / year increased cost.

Only $575 to go and we have not started factoring in costs to be handed down from manufacturing and farming yet.

My concern is that this is too much for the average Australian Family to bear including myself and just to save 0.0073% of global emissions.

It just doesn’t seem right and therefore it will never be pointless to me because I believe I am in a fight for the survival of Australia.

My figures come from

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up6-carbon-pricing-and-reducing-australias-emissions.pdf 

Fuel usage figures

http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/2006_08.php

Steve Putnam says:

07:39pm | 22/03/11

I think she’s been smoking again and I don’t think its just (British American) tobacco this time.

ZSRenn says:

03:55pm | 23/03/11

Pot calling Kettle black Steve?

TimB says:

07:47am | 22/03/11

Here’s another:

What will it take for people like you to actually hold the Government of the day to account instead of constantly whining about the Opposition?

Anthony says:

09:39am | 22/03/11

@TimB,oppositions need to be held to account too.Abbott et al are being shown up for what they are. Policy bereft whiners with no vision,no plan.Its alright to oppose Tim but when you have no viable or credible policy alternatives your’e not part of the debate thus you are not an alternative.It would appear that the LNP need “A GREAT BIG NEW PLAN”.

Arnold says:

09:41am | 22/03/11

The government is being held to account Tim. Every day the media discusses the issues of the day, the week, the year.
What is your point? All governments make decisions that are good and bad. Whether they are good or bad usually depends on how and if they affect you directly.
Are you suggesting that this government is any different to the Conservative government that preceded it?
We don’t hold an election every time Tim or Sophie is pissed off about something.
The opposition is important to the people of Australia, because they are supposed to show us what alternatives there might be to government policy and explain to us why these alternatives are better.
The conservative opposition fails miserable at this. They have a policy of NO to counteract anything the government proposes. That may be conservative, but it is not constructive. 
The conservative opposition adds nothing to the debate, that is unless you consider NO and mud slinging a contribution.
So Tim, what would you have us do? How do you propose we hold this government to account without a viable opposition? Do you want government handed to you just because?
If you conservatives ever want to feel the reigns of power in your bony cold hands again, get some policies and debate the issues.
It’s your call.

TimB says:

12:27pm | 22/03/11

@ Anthony “no policy alternatives” is just false. Do a little research.

Besides which, sometimes simply opposing *is* an alternative. Let’s try an extreme example. What if Labor, in response to the number of road accidents, decided to ban all cars? The opposition quite rightly shouts down such a stupid idea.

Do people like you come back with “Well what’s your policy then? Don’t have one? Stop dissing the banning idea then. its better than nothing!” Wrong. Doing something stupid is not better than nothing.

@ Arnold, I’m not talking about the media (although I could ask the same questions of a few select journalists), I’m talking about Faz and his ilk. Who’s every response to government criticism is “Look over there! The opposition!”

It’s a distraction tactic. Nothing more.  Ask the Opposition questions if you want. Hold them to account as necessary, but *don’t* use whatever the opposition may or may not be doing as an excuse to explain the failings of the actual government. The two things are seperate.

Joel B1 says:

07:22am | 22/03/11

@ TChong “attention seeking harpy”

That’s a bit ALP-ish isn’t it? Personal attacks and smears. Oh, and name-calling too.

Do grow up, no-one thinks it’s cool…

TChong says:

07:53am | 22/03/11

Joel B1 - you are going to be a busy chap if you are going to reprimand name calling.
But I will be very keen to see if you get around to correcting the Right Punchers.  Jul -liar is the current favorite.
Cheers ! to your new self appointed role JB1.

Mahhrat says:

09:16am | 22/03/11

@Joel, when you review your comment, I want you to use the search function and count how many people use the term “Juliar” or “Gilliar” or similar insertions of the word “liar” in our PM’s name.

Just sayin’

Ellie says:

10:15am | 22/03/11

Joel B1 says:

‘Personal attacks and smears. Oh, and name-calling too.
Do grow up, no-one thinks it’s cool…’

I agree, however, it would seem that your words, only apply to certain people.

Having just come from Julia Thornton’s piece, personal attacks and smears, oh and name calling too, most of the posters, thought it was very cool.

As you posted on that thread, you would have read the comments. 

Did not read your post on there telling them to grow up, cos its not cool.

Joel B1 says:

12:17pm | 22/03/11

Well, Julia Gillard is actually a liar. As your PM she lied to you and then said, “I have a mandate for the position I told you I wouldn’t do”.

In contrast, Abbott is not actually a rabbit, and Mirabella is not actually a harpy.

Simple enough? Gillard is a liar, Abbott is not a rabbit and Mirabella is not a harpy.

Honestly, some people.

Mahhrat says:

12:50pm | 22/03/11

@Joel, you really consider yourself “better” because you wear blue rather than red?

You honestly, truly believe that “Juliar” is a somehow more appropriate insult than “harpy”?

This is why you are confused with the world.  A siginificantly large amount of people disagree with you.  That’s why they vote ALP, because they pick up on that very sense of righteous entitlement.

You think you’re better than the rest of us.  You’ll never understand that it’s BECAUSE of us that you even have that privilege, and that’s a real shame, because individual freedom somehow became a Liberal philosphy in Australia, which is simply not true any more.

Rosie says:

04:04pm | 22/03/11

Chongy you should be a happy chappy today, the polls should be to your liking! What is your problem now? You have won this time round and should be pushing to sell Gillard’s or Garnuat’s carbon tax or is it you think you have it in the bag but still feel the need to attack a Liberal MP.

By the way I do like the word “harpy” and remember calling Julia Gillard, the harpy treacle lips, nothing but “sweet f%$& all” just keeps oozing out of her.

Joel B1 says:

07:18pm | 22/03/11

@Mahhrat

Nice try, but FAIL.

If you can show me any comment I have ever made where I used a derogatory nickname for anyone I’ll happily (well, not happily) donate $100 to a charity of your choice (and send the receipt as proof to The Punch). Can you say the same?

So put up or shut-up. I don’t name-call, at worst, I realistically describe Gillard as a liar. Which she is.

My word says:

07:32am | 22/03/11

“A tax cut here just means a tax hike somewhere else”
Yup. Like the never-ever GST.

Still, the GST broadened and simplified the tax base - though sadly skewed to those who need no help.

Carbon price? Gives a strong signal to business to clean up its act, while funding a tax break to those least able to carry the initial cost.
Efficient and fairer, by the looks.

Hamish says:

08:35am | 22/03/11

Simply not correct My word. A carbon tax should surely be designed to tax pollution right? The mechanism should tax people who pollute the most, the most right? That’s what you imply isn’t it? That people will change behaviour to avoid the tax. This makes compensation completely counter-productive as it means the tax is not tied to emmissions, it simply becomes another redistributive tax. So, what is the point of having a carbon tax if you simply take all the money and then hand it back to people regardless of how much they pollute? It defeats the whole purpose and makes it ineffective and completely unfair as if you’re rich no matter how much you change your lifestyle to reduce your carbon footprint, you’ll still pay.

Of course, the fact that there are no serious alternative power sources also makes the tax useless, but that’s just one more issue in the policy-on-the-run embarrassment highlight reel that is the Gillard led ALP government.

Ryan says:

08:42am | 22/03/11

@My word: “Gives a strong signal to business to clean up its act, while funding a tax break to those least able to carry the initial cost.” or to just put a whole lot of workers out of jobs and shift it offshore. I know if I had a business that relied on energy with this on the horizon, I would certainly be making for an exit strategy.
Unemployment queues here we come, this government wants your job sent overseas.

My word says:

09:44am | 22/03/11

If Hamish doesn’t accept my summary, that’s up to him. Taken from Garnaut.

Of course, he could better inform himself by reading the Garnaut updates himself, then his view might actually contribute to robust debate. Too much trouble, apparently.

My Word says:

10:28am | 22/03/11

Quiet simple, H. The carbon price is applied to the businesses responsible for creating the emissions directly.

Policy on the run? Haw. Just taking Garnaut: initial report 2008, commissioned 2010, papers online now.

Suggest you read up then start hacking with some actual information.

Try Garnaut
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers.html

Carbon price here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up6-key-points.html

Household effect here :
Paper 6 Box 8
“It is sometimes suggested that providing households with assistance would cancel out the benefits of introducing a carbon price. They suggest, wrongly, that if we impose a carbon price on a household worth $100 and then provide that household with $100 worth of assistance, nothing has changed. The important point is that the carbon price, even with assistance, has altered the relative prices of more and less emissions-intensive goods and services. High-emissions goods are now relatively more expensive than low-emissions goods, so demand for the former will fall, while demand for the latter will rise.”

and

“The success of a carbon price in altering the relative prices of more and less emissions-intensive goods depends crucially on the nature of the assistance provided to households. If assistance is directly linked to the consumption of relatively emissions-intensive goods (for example, rebates on electricity bills affecting the price of electricity at the margin), then it will remove the incentive for the household to switch away from more emissions-intensive goods and towards less emissions-intensive goods. A tax or social security adjustment, as outlined in Section 4, would not discourage households, now facing relative prices that reflect the socials costs of the goods they consume, from lowering their emissions.”

Hamish says:

11:12am | 22/03/11

My word, I simply disagree with that analysis. I think it’s incorrect on a number of levels. Firstly high and low emmissions goods wil not be goods that are an alternative to each other as essentially everything in Australia is produced using emmissions intensive power generation. There is no current base-load power alternatives in Australia so no one really has much of a choice. The only real way you would be able to get around this is by buying goods from overseas where they obviously won’t have to pay a carbon tax. So, the price signals that Garnaut talks about simply won’t exist except between imported goods and those produced here.

Also the average Australian is simply not as aware as Garnaut thinks they are about the average price of goods they buy. If people’s standard of living is maintained (which Garnaut is suggesting we do for everyone who’s not ‘rich’) then what will be their incentive to change their lifestyle? For people who are very budget conscious and know what they spend all their money on, he may be somehwat correct, but the vast majority of people are not like this and budget on the basis of whether their income is covering their expenses. For these people they will not change their lifestyle because there is no incentive, they can simply continue to consume as they have been.

ZSRenn says:

02:58pm | 22/03/11

@ My word you can keep trying but at the end of the day the words of Prime Minister Bob Brown keep coming back to me

“Australians are smarter than this and they do not like to be patronized”

ZSRenn says:

01:48am | 23/03/11

In 2007 John Howard also lost the election. Probably the reason Julia thought she had to lie to win this one.

bobw says:

09:25am | 22/03/11

“You name the issue and the Climate Change Committee is ruling it.”

For example? 

The MPCCC hasn’t “ruled” on anything.

“How on earth did Gillard claim legitimacy.”

Constitutionally.

Matt says:

10:44am | 22/03/11

Oh great, the climate change preachers have added the extinction of koala bears to their doomsday predictions!

I just wish natural climate change would make AGW believers extinct, then we could focus on the actual issues the world is facing - like poverty, malnutrition, curable diseases, war etc.

Syl says:

04:17pm | 22/03/11

Please oh please
Can someone explain how this tax is going to do ANYTHING to save the environment…. anything.  How is it going to save the Koalas?  Its been asked time and time again and so far no-one has managed to answer it.

With no local, viable alternatives for “greener” goods it is simply a tax on everything.  A tax to keep Bob “Hippie” Brown happy.  Nothing more.

Im all for taking care of our environment, Im all for doing what we can.  But how about someone coming up with a viable system that will actually make a quantifiable change, rather than continually taxing the shit out of people for nonsense reasons.

And please, before someone pipes in “oh but Howard! Abbot!” or “your against it, you must be well off and can afford it so quit complaining” let it be known that I am a low income earner who didn’t vote for the Christian Crusader Abbot, I will receive my compensation and apparently it wont affect me (of course Im hoping to become a high wage earner, who isnt?  Then Ill be really pissed).  Im just disgusted that our PM would treat her people with such disdain in order to keep a minority (and loopy) party happy and keep herself in government. 

She is there to represent us, the people.  Not the interests of a crazy hippie.  The people voted overwhelmingly against a Carbon Tax… end..of..story.

JRM says:

09:41pm | 23/03/11

The tax on carbon will do everything. I reckon no more car crashes, and no more footy upsets.  And will save the whale and stop earthquakes surely.

It’s a great thing.

bobw says:

07:48am | 22/03/11

Actually, he apparently called himself a weather vane.

Steve Putnam says:

08:09pm | 22/03/11

Gillard has always supported an ETS, Abbott’s views have changed. Up to 2007 he opposed one, then in the lead up to the election that year he was all the way with John Howard in supporting one. He went one step further in July 2009 when he commented “The Coalition can hardly afford to go to the next election with browner environmental policies than those of The Howard Government” and then two weeks later he told a bunch of cockies: “Climate change is absolute crap”. As Byron said of Southey: “He turned his coat and would have turned his skin”.

TimB says:

09:39pm | 22/03/11

Always supported?

Julia was the one to tell Kevin Rudd to drop the ETS. Not the most solid of support there?

Political expediency. That’s Julia’s game.

If for whatever reason the Carbon tax doesn’t get up in this Parliament, and Julia is still somehow leading the ALP at the next election, watch any mention of an ETS or carbon tax vanish during the election period.

Richard says:

11:21am | 22/03/11

You clown! The coalition’s climate change policy of very comprehensive and common sensical. It is chock full of solutions that will actually make a difference (because the government’s won’t) like reforestation programs and tree plantings, and also includes market-based mechanisms that work DIRECTLY and are actually more efficient than Labor/the Green’s arbitrary and useless Carbon “price”.

GB says:

01:11pm | 22/03/11

@Dave, thanks for perpetuating the stereotype that all ALP voters are lazy good for nothing bludgers waiting for their next handout. You have access to the internet or you wouldn’t be here, so I suggest you google the Liberal Party and follow the link to their website. Here you will find the answers to all your questions, including “Sophie what exactly is your party’s plan to address climate change then? “. It’s really not that difficult.

PTom says:

03:13pm | 22/03/11

@Richard.
You mean the LNP Taxpayer fund plan that cut government spend on services while paying lazy business to pollute.

It is not reforestation it is tree planting there is a differences.
Halve their plan is about bagging ALP.

Cate P says:

01:01pm | 22/03/11

Holly if you look at the longer term trend in the polls the Coalition come out slightly ahead overall; Labor/Greens is drifting downwards, Coalition upwards.  The Coalition is doing exactly what they should be, keeping it very close, and keeping the fight up to the Govt, trying to keep them accountable.  Leader popularity doesn’t matter, its the 2pp voting intention that is the best indicator of where the parties are.  The Coalition overall are doing the best they have done for a long time.  You won’t hear the govt rejoicing over this, it is better than the last poll but not good longer-term overall.

GB says:

01:15pm | 22/03/11

Yet funnily enough when Gillard’s and the current Government’s approval ratings were at an all time low 2 weeks ago, you and your ilk dismissed it as “polls bounce around all the time”. You can’t have it both ways Holly. So which one is it? Are the polls an accurate reflection of the mood of the electorate or not? Or is it only when the ALP has a good week that they have any relevance?

My word says:

10:01am | 22/03/11

Well said, Eddie. We may never agree on anything else, but well and truly said.

Joel B1 says:

11:30am | 22/03/11

How very droll. What a short memory.

It was the Rudd ALP government that “lost it’s way”. Deputy PM Julia Gillard said so. Or was that another bare-faced lie from her?

And really, who cares about the opposition, they’re not wrecking our lives and economy with a please-the-Greens carbon dioxide tax.

Flee says:

11:49am | 22/03/11

Red, we should dock her pay,every other persons is in the same situation!

bobw says:

12:20pm | 22/03/11

Now now, Flee.  Let’s not be hasty.  I’m sure Sophie used the time to reflect seriously and deeply on matters of policy.  Insightful articles like this don’t write themselves, you know!

Joel B1 says:

11:51am | 22/03/11

Democrat,

Wow, so that how it works! Just one question (obviously there are many questions about this).  “Consumers who have any charges passed on to them by the polluters”

So that’s all consumers is it? Or just some?

TimB says:

12:41pm | 22/03/11

So if the polluters pay the government, and pass their costs onto the consumers, then the government uses all that tax to reimburse the consumers….

Exactly what changes Democrat? Noone is under any incentive to do anything…wait except “high income families”. You didn’t mention those did you? Don’t they count as consumers? So why is it a lower income family who pollutes just as much as a high income family will get compensated whilst the higher income family won’t?

A few problems with Julia’s explanation don’t you think?

Mattb says:

12:48pm | 22/03/11

Let’s have a look at TA’s brain fart regarding climate change. Oh wait, what is his latest stance?, he brain farts every second day on this issue, must be a hell of alot of stale, hot air in there…..

bobw says:

01:04pm | 22/03/11

Richard:  “As you can see, the Professor’s proposed taxation “reform” is exactly the same as this little story analogises.”

The only thing I can see is that your “little story” is risible.

Mattb says:

01:27pm | 22/03/11

And I think I’d rather back the party taking advise from garnaut, than the party that’s taking advise from cardinal George Pell on the issue of climate change. You can just picture it can’t ya, Tony asking the Card what he should do about the issue and the Card saying-

Start by discrediting the science, those damn scientists can’t prove the existence of god for us, why should they be believed on climate change. Then, create a scare campaign, constantly change your stance, create confusion. They’ll not know what to trust then and they won’t bother to look at your policy. Then when you finally make PM, tell em you have the answer and ask them for their money. Trust me Tony, this method has worked for the church for centuries….

PJM says:

04:12pm | 22/03/11

Sounds fair to me. A polluting turd is removed from the environment and it’s a zero sum game!

bobw says:

05:52pm | 22/03/11

@PJM:  LOL.  Sharp, my friend.  Very sharp.

Dr B S Goh says:

01:34pm | 22/03/11

Thanks for giving us this news.

The proposed carbon tax and any ETS for Australia makes sense only if the group of nations which produce more than 60% of global CO2 pollution has an effective plan of action. Until then we should do nothi8ng like a carbon tax or ETS.

In the meantime we can introduce a special tax on all our coal exports. It can be FULLY refunded if the exporter can show proof that our coal are not used in old power stations which are great CO2 polluters.

Mouse says:

07:24pm | 22/03/11

Hi Democrat. OK, the Liberals say they will take back any tax cuts and pension increases given by the current government to compensate for the carbon tax. They will also disband the carbon tax so I think that makes your last sentence irrelevant. If you think that Labor’s suggested tax cuts are going to cover all the increased living costs anyway,  you will be very sadly mistaken.  Any tax cuts that are given will not be to all taxpayers, only the lower end, and the cut off point will not be as high as you think either.  All consumers will be hit by the carbon tax, whether you pay tax or not, because it will increase the price of everything that uses carbon in its production or transportation. That’s a lot of things!
What do you think of a government that floats a suggestion that you may get a tax cut, if you are on welfare or low income, in the future? Pretty good isn’t it! You are going to get money and not even have to do anything for it! Fantastic! Maybe you should check this out then http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/razor-gang-hunt-for-billions-as-budget-cuts-welfare-pensions/story-e6frea6u-1226025694502?referrer=email&source=AN_email_nl&emcmp=AD&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
To get your couple of bucks extra a week, Labor are going to cut health, science programs, school programs (both primary and high schools), medical research and access to the disability pension. They are also going to make it easier for the unemployed with a big boost to job participation. Work for the dole maybe? 
Very interesting times ahead methinks!

LC says:

07:38pm | 22/03/11

“We now also know that they intend to take back any tax cuts and pension increases that are given by this government to compensate those affected by the pricing of carbon.”

Seeing as the Coalition plans on removing the carbon tax this point is moot.

Campbell the Economist says:

11:11am | 23/03/11

If you think about it, its not a moot point. If they remove the tax breaks and the carbon tax, then it will be moot. However, if they then have to fund payments to polluters, they will have to tax someone more - either by increase tax or reducing services to taxpayers. Its a negative sum folks, the LNP is proposing a system that will cost, but won’t actually impact on the behaviour of polluters or consumers.

LC says:

12:24pm | 23/03/11

@ Campbell

And do you seriously believe that a carbon tax will not cost Asutralians lots of cash and will have any impact “big polluters” or consumers behavior at all?

Newsflash: IT WON’T. “Big polluters” will simply pass the tax down to their customers and the customers themselves won’t really have a choice as low-no carbon alternatives for power generation and transportation are not there yet.

This will put people struggling to make ends meet in an even worse position than they are in now, for a gain of, what, 0.015% reduction in global carbon emissions at most? The government should be focusing on LOWERING the cost of living, not increasing it.

Wake up.

bobw says:

05:51pm | 22/03/11

“Gillard is an atheist. Does that mean she is a ‘denier’?”

No, it means she is an atheist.

“the use of the word ‘denier’ ... is an example of her recklessly changeable values”

No it isn’t, unless you’re wholly incapable of disentangling obviously separate issues.

wow says:

07:04am | 23/03/11

Loonies are coming out for a march. These misinformed people foaming at the mouth are a fringe group based on the US right-wing movement - and attracts some prize specimens, just like the tea-party nutters.
As for your statement about being “thrashed”, in October 2009 Abbott said at a meeting in Victoria ” 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.” Good luck and may the ignorant be with you.

Andrew says:

01:22pm | 23/03/11

I might be missing the point here, but could someone explain to me how creating a price on carbon while at the same time providing tax cuts to cancel it out will make a difference? Surely people will continue to consume just as much and pay the extra electricity costs etc with the tax money they save right?