This is NOT a bloody carbon tax

Horse says:

07:22am | 14/09/11

The line people need to follow is that atmospheric carbon dioxide is just a nett indicator of the processing of carbon-based organic-chemicals like fossil fuels.  It is an indicator of a number of gases that produce a greenhouse effect, another significant one being water vapour - a result of higher rates of evaporation due to higher temperatures. A snow-balling effect.

scubasteve says:

08:15am | 14/09/11

Agree. We all stopped listening a long time ago.
The greens will have their carbon tax and we will all punish Labor for it at the next election.

Fed up with this government says:

08:24am | 14/09/11

Agreed. There is one clear difference between speeding fines and a carbon tax. When you speed you pay the fine. You cannot put your wages up to pay for it! So if I am a business who gets fined for contributing too much carbon, how do you think I will recoup these costs to make my business profitable? I could just go out of business I guess, but then where would we all be if every ‘over’ contributor of carbon went out of business?

Horns Up says:

08:30am | 14/09/11

I’m not buying the bullshit that the price on carbon will be the end of the world either. But thanks for speaking for eeeeeveryone.

\m/

B says:

08:34am | 14/09/11

@Horse

The runaway Greenhouse effect was proven wrong.  See “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect” 
“The term is not generally used by the IPCC, which in one of its few mentions says a “runaway greenhouse effect” — analogous to Venus - appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities.[3]”

So no your “water vapor” snowball effect has no basis in reality.  Even according to your precious IPCC.

j says:

08:47am | 14/09/11

“scubasteve”:  Did you actually read the story.  THERE IS NO TAX !!!!!!!!

“Fed up with ... says”: If you get aspeeding fine, you can always change your behaviour so you don’t get fined again.  Companies hit with the carbon fine can change their behaviour to minimise/stop getting fined again.  They need to get below 25,000 tonnes p.a.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:14am | 14/09/11

You’d better look up the meaning of the word ‘‘tax’‘. 
 
‘‘A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers’ income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions’’ 
 
This is compulsory, it is a contribution to state revenue and how much of the tax you pay is decided by your income,

What the hell else would you call it?

It is a TAX says:

09:26am | 14/09/11

Yet another rusty yarn from a rusted on Labor spruiker. It is a charge levied by the Government that will flow right through the community, drive up prices and allow a bunch of grubby socialists to play out their wealth redistribution agenda. It is by any measure a TAX!

It will make not one jot of difference to world climate and at the risk of repeating what is resonating so loudly through all areas of the community (except of course those areas inhabited by the Canberra press gallery) is completely based on perhaps the greatest lie ever told to the Australian people - one that was meant to deceive and to steal government.

Mel says:

10:01am | 14/09/11

j - that’s about the most absurd argument against it being a tax I can think of.  Does that mean that when I get taxed for earning money I can choose to change my behaviour and not work - therefore it isn’t a tax??  Let’s get something very clear - from an economist’s perspective it is set up to run like a tax.  Pure and simple, and if any of you fools understood anything about the economic theory behind, rather than the BS politics, you would be quite embarrassed right now!

Horse says:

10:02am | 14/09/11

@ B, 08:34am

Yes, I agree the runaway effect does not occur. I was just referring to the progress to a plateauing greenhouse effect, as seems to be happening now

LeftRightOut says:

10:29am | 14/09/11

Can someone remind Mal, that Julia GIllard said “it is effectively a tax on carbon”?
When it looks like a tax, acts like a tax, costs like a tax - then it’s not over the top for the opposition to call it a bloody tax!
Geez, Farr, you suffer from the same problem as the government (perhaps because you’re almost part of the government - the propaganda wing). You are so preoccupied with Tony Abbott, you lose every issue, every debate, every news cycle.

Might be time to ty something different, for the government, how about actually governing, rather than focus everything on the opposition? Novel thought I know.
And you Mr Farr, how about focussing on the government - support them all you like, that’s your prerogative, but remember, the government’s woes are not Abbott’s fault, they’re the government’s.

B says:

10:50am | 14/09/11

@Horse

Ok.  I mainly had a problem with the use of SNOWBALL effect which makes it sound as though you were advocating for the Runaway Greenhouse Effect.

persephone says:

10:52am | 14/09/11

B

so the IPCC doesn’t use the term, and that proves that it’s been proven wrong?

Strange logic.

The whole ‘runaway climate change’ thing is what we’re trying to avoid. By definition, if we’re trying to avoid it, it hasn’t happened yet.

Of course, we could wait until it did happen, just to check if it’s real or not, but that would make avoiding it a bit difficult.

When a car’s bearing down on me, I can cheerfully assume the driver has seen me and will step on the brake in time, and test that assumption by standing in the middle of the road to see whether I’m right or not.

Or I can get out of the way.

Bruce says:

12:24pm | 14/09/11

So if the real intention of the tax is to make industry reduce carbon emmissions, what happens when they have reduced emmissions to an extremely small amount. Obviously, the amount of tax revenue must reduce therefore, the question is raised where does the resulting revenue come from to pay for the reimbursements back to consumers. Another question:  If industry passes on the tax to all other industry and consumers, as a result of reduced carbon emmisions and therefore less tax to pay, how will we know that industry will reduce their costs or will they keep their “margin increase” ? I would also like to see someone elses opinion on the multiplyer flow on effect of the carbon tax as it makes its way through the market. I can not see any definitive answer, which leeds me to believe that if some householders are to get re-imbursed, how will the government know the correct amount, or will this be a one off static amount ?  Any accountants out their who would like to comment ?  I am sure you know where I am coming from with this comment !

persephone says:

01:58pm | 14/09/11

Bruce

if emissions have been reduced to a teeny tiny amount, then companies are no longer paying the carbon price, because they’re not emitting enough to attract it.

Therefore they are not passing on higher prices to their customers as a result of paying the price, and thus their customers don’t need compensation.

B says:

02:22pm | 14/09/11

@persephone

Dont you do any reseach?  The IPCC and NASA both declared the Runaway greenhouse effect cannot happen on Earth.  We dont have the right conditions.

Also why is the IPCC right on everything else to do with climate change but not this?  Not too happy that they are going against you??  Hypocrite.

B says:

02:24pm | 14/09/11

@persephone

Poor analogy as well.  Unless you were paying horrendous amounts of money the driver to drive slowly just in case he drove down that particular road at that particular time??

Belle says:

02:50pm | 14/09/11

Regarding the runaway greenhouse effect, it should be noted that a runaway effect and positive feedback are very different things. While a runaway greenhouse effect is incredibly unlikely on Earth, as pointed out by B in the Wikipedia article, positive feedback effects do occur, including water vapour, the release of CO2 sequestered in the oceans, and an decrease in albedo due to loss of ice over land masses (as also pointed out in the Wikipedia article).

persephone says:

03:24pm | 14/09/11

So what Horse was talking about was different to what B was talking about.

So B didn’t understand what Horse was talking about, and I assumed (silly me) that B did.

No wonder I got confused!!

Dave says:

03:25pm | 14/09/11

No, Erick, you are wrong and your line is just the same old propaganda pretending youve won this argument. You havent. Not everybody is buying the line you and Abbott take. I buy the Labor line because it is the right line. Therefore your line that “nobody’s buying” is completely and demonstrably wrong. But youre completely wrong on most things so why change now eh?

poa says:

03:28pm | 14/09/11

Better wipe that drool from your chins Mal. This is a Carbon tax. Plain and simple.
Did ALP head office tell you its to be called something else.
Make Joolia’s There will be no carbon tax ..technically correct?
Save it for those with an IQ less than 70 mate.
Or the True believers…..They’ll believe you. Both of them!

TomZ says:

08:11pm | 14/09/11

@Dave, 27% is closer to “nobody” than the alternatives. BTW: Graham Richardson supports Erick’s assessment.

Horse says:

08:21pm | 14/09/11

persephone, My use of the phrase “snowballing effect” -  to describe the increasing role of water vapour as a greenhouse gas, as a consequence of rising temps due to rising atmospheric CO2 - gave the impression I was referring to the “runaway G/House effect”.

I was referring to how things progress, but realise that is up to a point.  The Earth’s atmosphere is likely to stabilise, but with a climate with more dramatic weather patterns, less frozen stuff, and more water cycling as it does - check the Water Cycle.

persephone says:

08:42pm | 14/09/11

Yep, I’m clear on that now!!

However, I disagree with you on the possibility of future stabilisation of climate.

It’s not going to happen unless we can reduce CO2 emissions - there’s simply no reason why it shouldn’t.

We know that the Earth’s atmosphere can sustain much much higher concentrations of CO2 then we emit at present or are likely to emit in the foreseeable future, so there’s no reason why it shouldn’t continue to snowball.

Of course, when the Earth sustained those concentrations - human beings weren’t around to see if they were capable of dealing with them.

Horse says:

10:36pm | 14/09/11

Well, it is likely to self-stabilise, just with a lot of upheaval to a lot of areas if the CO2 rises cannot be halted - a different climate with more weather variations, hotter weather in temperate zones, more flooding, more land slides, etc.

Dom Italiano says:

12:19am | 15/09/11

Since when was a sppeding fine not a road tax…..sorry Malcolm getting fined for 3km over the limit when my needle is 5km wide on my dial makes it nothing more than a road tax…...but perhaps you dont live in Victoria “The State to be Fined”. 

As for the rhetoric on what the “Carbon Fine” should be called ...who cares…..Its going to cost us all in many ways and I’m not convinced it will do anything to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels which is what we should be doing.

Geronimo's brother says:

12:35pm | 21/09/11

The speeding analogy is probably the dumbest yet. By the same rationale Mal, “income tax” isn’t a tax at all. I only get taxed when I earn over a certain amount (like when I get fined for travelling over a certain limit). So it can’t be tax can it? And by the same token, if I want my family to prosper I need to earn more money, as the economy needs to produce more carbon dioxide. hand in glove and all that.

amcoz says:

07:36am | 14/09/11

D, spot on. This whole mess of laws for what? Certainly not about the weather, or making the nation richer, or just a sink-hole of slush-funds to be spread around to maintain political power.

DJ says:

07:54am | 14/09/11

Dead right SuperD. Farr is an absolute goose. Since when did the lie Julia told pre-election become an “accusation” by Abbott. She told it, we heard it and we wont forget it.

dovif says:

07:59am | 14/09/11

D spot on
Which part of the government collect money and spend it on bribes do Malcolm not understand
If we look at the Europe experience, we will see how bad this carbon tax will be for Australia and how ridiculous our lying PM is. Note also the Carbon tax will hurt Australia much harder then Europe
Has CO2 reduce in Europe, yes on a per capital terms, this is because of the following
-France get 75% of their electricity from Nuclear Power plants, which had been ruled out by the ALP
-The now import most of the things that consume large amount of carbon
Europe has been looking at a carbon tariff on import, because they are losing industries to China, the worst thing is, China has more inefficient coal fire plant, then Europe and the Shipping also emit much more CO2, so actually the ETS in Europe has increase Europe’s per capita CO2 emittion, they just transfer the emittion to China. The amount of job lost in Europe because of their softer ETS is part of the reason most European economy are struggling.
The other myth that Australia will led the world in clean energy, let us look at Europe again, they import solar panels from China, the irony is that China makes it cheaper because it has no ETS/carbon tax, most wind farms are in receivership or owned by the government.
The other myth that there will be no lost jobs. One of my friends own a printing business, and it is estimated Carbon tax will increase his cost by 2-5%, he is already suffering from cheap import printing from China/India, the Carbon tax might drive him out of business, the same will happens to all our retailer, where extra energy cost will make more people buy off-line from America, Gillard is going to destroy thousands of jobs in Australia
History will remember Julia Gillard, as the liar that she is, and for stuffing up the budget and destroying the Australian economy. Gillard better hope the Miners and China saves this incompetant government for a second time.

fiz says:

08:19am | 14/09/11

“It’s a contrived market that will inevitably be subject to fraud”
mmmm… I’d rather have the Coalition’s Direct Action.  Then all I need to do is call up a couple of mates in the Liberal Party and get them to give me a stack of money to reduce my emissions. 
A bit like Turnbull’s Rainmaker mate, really.

MarkS says:

08:49am | 14/09/11

D
Super
This is not a tax, a simple tax I would have agreed with & surported. This mess is rubbish.  If somebody makes something that should be simple into something that is complex & difficult to understand then you know that they are eitheir stupid, dishonest or both. In this case I suspect both.

andye says:

09:35am | 14/09/11

@MarkS - This IS the simple solution. It is a market solution, so one isnt relying on the government to effect change. Companies are motivated to do so.

Lots of people say this wont have any effect and companies will just raise the prices. This isn’t realistic. If companies could simply raise prices and make the same number of sales, everything would cost an infinite amount of money. This isn’t how the market works, though.

Lets say the naysayers are right, though. Just for the sake of the argument. Lets say the tax breaks are completely eaten up by increased prices. Is that the end of the story?

No.

Even if that was the case, the polluters are paying a Carbon bill. The have an opportunity to decrease that outgoing expense by investing in reducing carbon emissions. It is not worth their while, and a dollar value can be easily placed on that. The case for investment is much easier to make when the savings can be easily measured against the costs.

Companies will seek to reduce that expense. Any other argument assumes that a company will not act rationally in its own best interest.

As for the breakdown of the personal tax cuts? I have no issue with that leaning towards the low income. Almost all of this money will go straight back into the economy and support business. If we gave personal tax cuts higher up then far more of the money would be locked up in investments and property. You might subscribe to the Reagan idea that a “rising tide lifts all boats” to justify tax cuts for the wealthy, but then you would also be an idiot. That never works.

Tim says:

09:49am | 14/09/11

andye,
surely a more simple and effective option would be to remove the compensation altogether?
You might think that getting a minority of people to pay the tax will effect change in the rest of the population who are being bought off by the government, but you would be wrong.

dovif says:

10:28am | 14/09/11

andye

Look at Europe before you speak, there is tens of thousands of lost jobs and lost industry, and jobs exported to China and India, because they have no Carbon tax.

The only industry that thrived was nuclear and Gillard has promised to not go there

Cina says:

12:10pm | 14/09/11

Why do you all continue to speak of job loss to other countries like India and China like it is some new unheard of movement in Australia! I work in IT and have for years, and all of the large companies (our clients) that cause a huge carbon emission have been shipping their work force overseas for many years, WELL before any carbon tax was even whispered. Stop acting like the big companies have never done this before… and the carbon tax is the reason their morals are now going to be forced to be questioned by sending jobs overseas. they are doing it now, they have been doing it for a long time and they are probably jumping at another reason to do it again!  If these big companies that are crying out about the carbon emission pricing really cared about Australia and its well being, they would jump on right path of investing into clean energy and the engineering of cleaner use of carbon fuel (which in essence would create more jobs) rather then just sending the jobs overseas, but they probably wont, so why dont you put some energy into question the entire system, rather than just trying to scape-goat one piece of the overall picture.

Economist says:

12:26pm | 14/09/11

@SuperD, while I share your concerns this “trading” problem is not specific to the creation of a carbon market. The money market is a contrived market. Speculative and hedging markets are nothing but rorts. The solution is to only allow trading in the market if you have a geniune need for the commodity. Good luck with that.

The commodification of carbon is a reasonable solution.

I beleive Mals analogy is a little missed place, it’s more along the lines of a tax on something like smoking. Increasing the price does reduce consumption, but not necessarily across the board.

@Dovif, Europe manufacturing moving offshore is not just due to carbon pricing there are a wealth of other reasons far more significant.

I also think people are forgetting that the Libs have a policy of direct action that either will result in a cut to the budget in other areas or an increase in other taxes rather than the creation of a new tax. Either way action on climate change is going to cost us, and arguably no action on climate change is going to cost us, just in the future.

Willie Mac says:

01:06pm | 14/09/11

Amazing, a conservative who is disgusted by free market mechanisms. Still, this is not inconsistent with Abbott’s newfound support for protectionism, so maybe it’s a general trend among Australian conservatives.

dovif says:

01:33pm | 14/09/11

Willie Mac

Do you know what the definition of a free market is? ie no helping hand, no tax etc.

A free market is where people will choose to buy from a more expensive Wind power generator, then from a cheaper coal fired plant

A tax is coersion and is actually opposite to the definition of free market

As for the european ETS, the EU acknoleges that 10s of thosands of jobs had been lost due to the Carbon tax, that is why they are thinking of legislating a tariff against countries that does not have one.

Make no mistakes, Gillard’s Carbon tax lies, which is much bigger then the ETS, will cost Australia thousands of jobs

Super D says:

01:39pm | 14/09/11

@Willie Mac - its not a free market, well not on the buying side anyway.  No one is buying permits out of their own free will.  They are being forced to by governmant dictat.  Hence it is a contrived market, not a free one.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

02:00pm | 14/09/11

Willie Mac
It’s not a free market because the price on carbon has been set (its not open to market forces of demand and supply on pricing) - and I may add its alot more expensive than the actual market price.

PTom says:

02:25pm | 14/09/11

Super D
“No one is buying permits out of their own free will. “
Yes they are if the wish to emitt then they need to buy a permits to do so. Otherwise they could not emitt and not have to buy permits.

Economist and andye.
It is even easy to description everyone must be repsonible for the waste/pollution they produce whether it is computer, paper, water, chemical, smoke or CO2.

Companies already pay to to reduce computer, paper, water, chemical or smoke now they will have to pay for their CO2.

Super D says:

03:27pm | 14/09/11

@PTom - the government has decided that they must buy permits.  Without this government intervention permits of themselves would not be necessary and hence would not be bought.  The government has dictated that carbon credits are a new cost for certain business activities and hence are forcing businesses who undertake these activities to buy permits.  Of course you are correct that some businesses may decide not to “pollute” under this regime and may shut down or move offshore instead.

acotrel says:

04:04pm | 14/09/11

If the state government EPAs had been doing their jobs, and fining polluters, we’d already be paying the priceof grub business owners !

Greg says:

04:14pm | 14/09/11

Most gases are ‘invisible’ - try flourine or phosgene.  Extremely hazardous but invisible.

I have stopped arguing with the ‘head in the sand crowd’ and am now working out what I will tell my grandchildren in 40 years time about the sorry state of our soceity:
“We didnt really care what we left you, we were interested in saving ourselves from a cost much less than the GST.  So we ignored the science, pretended that we could talk the world out of warming and hoped that the ice caps would stay.  When told otherwise by scientists who actually looked at the data we just shouted louder and voted for the sceptics.  Sorry that you have a much harder world to live in, but I had a good life!”

Note that Exxon is relying on global warming to allow them to drill in the artic - search for the Exxon Rosneft deal.  They are relying on global warming in their business case!

Channel says:

04:53pm | 14/09/11

Greg,
You can start to explain this to your grandchildren by telling them:

Once upon a time, not too very long ago there was a political party who acted only on behalf of the richest citizens in our nation. They called themselves liberals, but they were anything but liberal in nature.

Their objective was to extract as much as possible from the common man so that the rich could get richer and the rest could remain under their thumb and subservient. The liberals seized power by controlling the public debate through their “friend” who owned the media machine and succeeded in poisoning the minds of men.

The liberals were obsessed with selling all of the country’s resources to their big business mates in return for money and favours after they left office. They never saw pollution from their gilded offices and even if they had, they knew it wouldn’t affect their decadent lifestyles or those of their children.

Sherlock says:

07:28am | 14/09/11

Erick says: Putting a price on carbon is needed to stop dangerous climate change. It is as simple as that.

Really?

Seeing these schemes haven;t worked anywhere else, just how much will Australia establishing a carbon tax reduce the global temperature or how much less will the global temperature rise?

Answer: Nil and Abbott’s direct action scheme is equally useless.

If the answer was something else then perhaps taxpayers might accept it. Yet we see the rest of the world move away from pricing carbon and Australia looks more isolated every day.

Perhaps if both parties didn’t spend so much time, money and political capital on a local scheme simple to appease the dwindling base of climate change believers, they could have worked harder on the diplomatic front to attempt to get some form of Pacific wide scheme into operation.

After seeing what has happened here politically what other government is ever going to propose a price on carbon?

jf says:

07:30am | 14/09/11

I’ll bet the dinosaurs wish that they could have used a tax to stop climate change. Poor buggers.

L. says:

08:04am | 14/09/11

“I’ll bet the dinosaurs wish that they could have used a tax to stop climate change. Poor buggers. “

They would have needed a “meteor” tax, wouldn’t they..?

dovif says:

08:05am | 14/09/11

Erick
Can you explain that again, or are you just blindly listening to another lie by Gillard?
India and China had increase their CO2 emition by more than the total emition from Australia, every year over their last 5. China,India and the US will be responsible for over 50% of the world’s emition by 2040, if they are not doing anything, can you explain how without a worldwide agreement, how our Carbon tax will have any effect
Also by the government’s own estimate, CO2 emition will still rise in Australia, so if today’s level of CO2 is creating climate change, the Carbon tax will do nothing

Col. of Blackburn says:

08:12am | 14/09/11

@Erick
So when is this ‘dangerous climate change’ of yours going to start, that you feel sure we have to stop? I recently read an Australian novel, published in 2000 that had as its theme, ‘climate change’. Here we had people talking about the issue 11 years ago, and still the seas haven’t risen 100’ and the Earth hasn’t fried! Some of the ‘learned scientists’ that talked about the ‘next ice age’ in the 1970’s are the very same that now say we are going to fry! As time goes on, more scientific papers are published that refute the idea of CAGW, more scientists are speaking out against this crap.

Max Redlands says:

08:24am | 14/09/11

@ erstaz Erick - how low can you go mate? Using another’s regular handle is desperate stuff.

You’re not fooling anybody - except, perhaps, yourself.

Tedd says:

08:29am | 14/09/11

Sherlock, they haven’t had a chance to work - if they are going to work it will be over a couple of decades.

jf, no tax was going to stop the meteors that cause their demise.

jf says:

09:15am | 14/09/11

Tedd says:08:29am | 14/09/11

“jf, no tax was going to stop the meteors that cause their demise.”

I am have zero expertise in the study of dinosaurs Tedd, but I was under the impression that the meteor theory was one of a number of theories another one of which was that the dinosaurs were unable to adapt to the changing climate.

In any case, I was using poetic licence to illustrate a point.

So, let’s stop fncking about with analogies and metaphors; are you telling me that the climate change is only a recent phenomenon?

Sherlock says:

09:28am | 14/09/11

Tedd says: Sherlock, they haven’t had a chance to work - if they are going to work it will be over a couple of decades.

And Europe’s carbon emissions kept rising until the GFC hit and as they come out of recession emissions are rising again.

They had a goal of a reduction of 20% on 1990 figures (and 1990 was picked as it made the target easier) and they have no hope of achieving it..

RyaN says:

09:40am | 14/09/11

@Seano: still up to your old infantile tricks posting under other peoples names?

TomZ says:

09:50am | 14/09/11

Err, fellas, I don’t believe this is the real Erick?

Has Labor stooped that low that its bloggers have to steal names? Are they so desperate in their dishonesty and so bereft of real arguments?

Wag the Dog says:

10:42am | 14/09/11

Well done Erick. You will go down in history as being on the side of deceitful rhetoric to manipulate self-serving political outcomes.

The One True Erick says:

11:05am | 14/09/11

Errr, fellas and fellaesses, I wish to advise TomZ is not the real TomZ.

TomZ says:

11:40am | 14/09/11

Onya Seano. Yawn one day, vomit the next.

Horns Up says:

12:51pm | 14/09/11

Well that’s something didn’t know.

Apparently in the whole world there is only one Erick, but no lack of idiots.

\m/

andye says:

02:38pm | 14/09/11

@Col. of Blackburn - “Global cooling” was a minority position in the 70s. Even then, most studies were showing warming.

Amy says:

12:02am | 17/09/11

@ fiz ~ mmmm… I’d rather have the Coalition’s Direct Action.  Then all I need to do is call up a couple of mates in the Liberal Party and get them to give me a stack of money to reduce my emissions. 

fiz, Direct Action, as I understand it, will be the likes of planting trees and a regime of taxaton deduction incentives. This hardly falls into the catagory of just “getting a stack of money” off mates in the Liberal Party.

As for the “A bit like Turnbull’s Rainmaker mate, really.” Be a little balanced if you are going to slight one side of politics then also have a go at the other. Maybe you would like to ask the question, “Has Mr Wood’s groundbreaking $1.6 million donation made a difference to your political considerations, Bob Brown?

SimpleSimon says:

09:37am | 14/09/11

“cars produce CO2 , you are taxing them and everything else that produces it.”

No it’s not. Nobody is taxing the CO2 emissions from cars - at least, not in Australia. I am not going to be taxed for the emissions of my airconditioner, and neither are you. The fines (price, tax, levy, whatever) will be subjected to the 500 largest emitters of CO2. Unless your daily drive is a 1 million litre Hummer the size of NSW I think it’s safe to say you won’t be taxed for the emissions of your vehicle.

Nathan says:

10:19am | 14/09/11

No, there will be no increase in petrol excise as a result of the carbon tax. The costs are to be offset with tax increases greater than the proceeds of the carbon tax, so the Government will not receive greater monies of ours to waste.

The point Malcolm is making is that a speeding fine is not a tax on cars, but on people who speed in cars and as such increases the chances of an accident, or increase the severity of an accident when one occurs.

LeftRightOut says:

10:37am | 14/09/11

err Simple Simon, you actually will be taxed for your Air Conditioner, only indirectly. All importers and manufacturers are included in this legislation.
Your A/C uses refrigerant, all synthetic refrigerants have a “Global Warming Potential” measured with CO2 as the reference. So, say your refrigerant has a GWP of 1300 (R410A, fairly new zero ozone depletion gas - 1300 times more greenhouse effect than CO2), for one kilogram of R410A, you’ll pat just under $30 per kg in CO2 tax.
Your Air Cond for your house, probably uses about 6 kg or more of refrigerant. Spring a leak, or require a major part, there’s nearly $200 in taxes for you my man!

dovif says:

01:44pm | 14/09/11

Simple Simon

You are well named, guess what happens when your coal electric power plant (a top 500 polluter) gets a bill for millions of dollars

Will they
a. absorb massive losses and go out of business
b. charge you for the carbon tax

You are listening to Gillard’s lies and her lying commercials without thinking

andye says:

02:40pm | 14/09/11

@dovif - what happens if they try to charge more? people use less.

AJ says:

03:26pm | 14/09/11

andye, what if 90% of families are compensated?  Do they use more, the same or less?

dovif says:

03:32pm | 14/09/11

andye

Power is an inelastic good, power prices have gone up a lot recently, and people are not using less, fruitless stupid argument.

The only argument is that increase in power cost will make people use other forms of electricity, ie nuclear in Europe, which was ruled out by this government.

So all this tax does is make goods in China/India/US/EU cheaper compare with Australian products, which destroys Australian industries

gangusk says:

03:41pm | 14/09/11

Andye

Bravo, you have figured this out!!!!

When people use less Australian printing, because China is now relatively cheaper, they will use less Australian printing, and Australians will be out of a job

When people find shipping Steal from Indonesia/China is cheaper, then buying Australian Steel, We will use less and more Australians will be out of business.

Thousands of jobs will be lost because of Gillard. And the shipping of these good to Australia will actually increase our carbon footprint

gangusk says:

04:22pm | 14/09/11

AJ

That is not correct, only 20% of people will be fully compensated, ie the people who does not work, the next 50% will only be partially compensated and about 30% of people will not be compensated.

The Greens also plans to increase the prices going forward, so that more people will be worse off.

This will reduce our standard of living, put more people on mortgage stress. if you are stuggling with your budget or mortgage at the moment, the ALP are going to make it harder for you.

And a lot more people will be out of a job

andye says:

04:23pm | 14/09/11

@gangusk - Inelastic? Is that why AGL has forecast soft demand for gas and electricity, citing high prices as part of the reason?

Time and time again, people say that demand wont change with price on certain things… and yet it does. The more power costs, the more we will be careful using it.

Almost every argument against the carbon price working from a market perspective seems to include at least one magical exception to the rule. Power is different! Companies will just raise prices and demand wont fall!

AJ says:

06:18pm | 14/09/11

gangusk

Apologies, the numbers seem to be changing on a daily basis.  The last I’ve heard, was that 20% of people will be over compensated, the next 50% if not fully, as close as it gets, and the next 30% partially.  Irrespective, what I’m asking is still valid, those that are compensated, will they use more, the same or less?

persephone says:

10:26am | 14/09/11

Er….Gary….transport is exempt.

Jay Santos says:

11:19am | 14/09/11

“...Er….Gary….transport is exempt….”

Which just underscores the stupidity of Gillard-Brown’s Carbon Dioxide Tax.

Let’s NOT tax one of the single biggest contributors to (alleged) “carbon pollution”.

Hilarious.

jf says:

11:20am | 14/09/11

Gary Cox says:06:37am | 14/09/11

“Gillard claims that it will encourage transport companies to upgrade to more ‘energy efficient’ plant”

persephone says:10:26am | 14/09/11

“Er….Gary….transport is exempt.”

Yes Gary. So there is even less incentive for transport companies (amongst the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions) to change their behaviour than there is for the other big emitters who will be taxed and then rebated.

How anyone who truly believes in AGW can support this non-solution is beyond me.

Anubis says:

11:24am | 14/09/11

@ Persephone - I understand that personal transport is exempt but commercial transport (feighting of goods from one location to another) is not. Nor is the diesel used on public transport (trains, buses etc). When Gillard is on record as stating that the impost on transport companies will encourage them to change to more energy efficient plant then I would assume that she considers that transport is also affected. Do you know something that PM J. Gillard doesn’t??

Matt says:

12:39pm | 14/09/11

Isn’t it funny how persephone starts a lot of her posts with ‘Er’. Superiority complex at work I suppose.

Matt says:

12:42pm | 14/09/11

... unless persephone is hesitant/uncertain about what she is writing? That may be it too, considering the subject.

dovif says:

01:40pm | 14/09/11

Er Persephone ... Transport is not exempt

Petrol is exempt, trains, trams and electicity power bus are not

Which means the Carbon tax will encourage more people to drive, rather than take mass-transit, leading to more carbon pollution.

This is the absurdity of Gillard’s lies, that for transport, the Carbon tax, will increase carbon emittion

PTom says:

02:01pm | 14/09/11

May be she is using Abbott speak just so could understand.

persephone says:

02:07pm | 14/09/11

Anubis

well, your understanding is wrong.

Private transport is totally exempt (correct).

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/transport-fuels/

outlines the position for freight:

‘... Heavy on-road vehicles will not face a carbon price from the commencement of the scheme. The Government intends to apply a carbon price on heavy on-road vehicles from 1 July 2014,’

So it’s not part of the present legislation, which is what we’re discussing.

As for those of you whinging that fuel should be included if we can achieve the 5% target without including fuel - and the modelling says we can - then it doesn’t have to be.

Australia’s major problem with emissions comes from our electricity production. The US, for example, is more reliant on cars then we are, but our emissions per capita are higher than theirs.

The ‘easy pickings’ when it comes to reducing our emissions thus come from tackling our electricity production, not getting cars off the road.

As has been stated by the PM, we can acheive a 5% reduction under this scheme, which is the equivalent of removing 40,000,000 cars from the road—and which indicates that cars play a relatively small role when it comes to emissions.

persephone says:

02:15pm | 14/09/11

dovif

Gary was clearly talking about freight.

It’s anticipated that the impact of carbon pricing on public transport - not what Gary was talking about - will be less than 0.5 % .

RyaN says:

02:23pm | 14/09/11

@PTom: is that like a hyperbowl?

dovif says:

03:46pm | 14/09/11

perse

It seems you are regurgitating the liar’s lies, how much can you trust our PM, when she says we will stop the boat people, or there will be no carbon tax?

How about Swann, he has missed the treasury estimates by more then $10 billion each time so far. do you think they can accurantly predict Carbon emmittion, when they cannot get the budget correct?

Tator says:

12:24am | 15/09/11

Persephone,
Heavy road transport may be exempt from the carbon tax, but the ALP are still going to increase their costs by reducing the fuel tax credit the transport companies receive by 6 to 7 cents a litre.  Not exactly small bikkies considering fuel costs around around 40% of total costs for a freight company, and increasing that by around 4%.(using diesel prices of around $1.50 per litre).
My brother in law who owns a small rural transport company states that this increase will increase his fuel costs by at least $10000 per truck per year, so he is running 6 modern trucks, all Euro 5 compliant(the latest and most efficient vehicles on the road with respect to co2 emissions), so it means his company which employs 8 people, will have $60000 taken out of its bottom line unless he raises his costs which go straight into increase costs for local businesses and farmers he services, most of who would not get compensation for the carbon tax.

Richard says:

09:25am | 14/09/11

So we dont need to help an injured person on the side of a busy street in central Sydney until everyone else walking past lends a hand?? not that you will get any help from the selfish masses.

Kenny says:

09:56am | 14/09/11

Wow Richard what an intelligent comparison.

Potato says:

10:48am | 14/09/11

The tax I pay each week as a result of my salary is so small it won’t make a difference to the economy of Australia - so next week I’ll just stop paying….

The police arresting one person for crimes won’t stop all crime, so why not just look the other way…no point arresting one person unless every other criminal is arrested at the same time - it just won’t make a difference…

Fixing one pot hole wont help the roads, its just one pot hole.  Don’t fix it until there is agreement across the country to fix ALL potholes at the same time.  Whats the point in fixing pot holes in my street if the cumulative impact of potholes on all roads in Australia means the roads are still

Seriously, this dumb argument that ‘it won’t make a difference’ unless there is consensus is silly. We do lots of small things everyday that add up to make a difference….whats so different about a carbon tax/price/whatever…

Old people really don’t have a clue

TomZ says:

11:03am | 14/09/11

Richard, thankyou for advocating Christianity on this site. Unfortunately, Christianity has nothing to do with taxes and coercive governments. Let’s leave all that to the government. There’s a good chap.

gra gra says:

01:06pm | 14/09/11

@ TomZ. “Christianity has nothing to do with taxes and coercive governments”? Are you mad? (Rhetorical question.)
And Kenny the comparison had more value than your sarcastic non-comment. Did you say why you thought it unintelligent? No. Like many others who don’t think, (except to ‘wet-dream’ Abbott), you just criticise. Not an intelligent comment, Kenny.
Abbott supported a penalty for over-pollution, (call it what you like), until big business waved the threat of “no contributions” and then he swiftly opposed penalties. He introduced the fear of polluters increasing prices to pay for the cost of their pollution. Both he and Joe then made a decision, (it’s called an “Ab-Hock” decision0, to labor the point. What they both knew was that if Companies A,B, and C all give off different levels of emissions, and only A and B are called upon to pay, that they will put up their price to the consumer, us, and that we won’t then, by comparative pricing, buy from C. But that didn’t stop Abbott, Hockey, and the rest of the “Deception Party” from lying blatantly to the public and, importantly from Australia’s economic/future view, to prospective investors.
That lie is what has the real potential to create unemployment and national stability. And any thinking person, (as against a politically opportunistic person) would see that as sowing the seeds of anarchy. Or Ab-Hockery.

PTom says:

01:30pm | 14/09/11

TomZ,
Yes, that right Christianity has nothing to do with taxes because the churchs don’t pay any. Just like Richard comment has nothing to do Christianity, yet most of the people that would have walked past would have claimed to be Christian.

B says:

02:33pm | 14/09/11

@all

Such BBBAAADDDD comparisons.  Did all of you come from the same ball of wax this morning.  All comparisons are shocking and flat!!!

Steve Putnam says:

05:47pm | 14/09/11

When have we ever achieved “global agreement” on anything?

TomZ says:

07:41pm | 14/09/11

@gra gra, No I am not mad. Suggest you google “Render unto Caesar.”

scaper... says:

07:41am | 14/09/11

So am I. The last time I’ll read anything from this phallic instrument of Labor.

k says:

08:53am | 14/09/11

If it looks like a Liberal stooge and sounds like a Liberal stooge ...

I'm Erick and so is my wife says:

07:35am | 14/09/11

No. We’re calling you a liar, and Tony Abbott.

Gillard said the scheme would operate “similar to a tax"for it’s first two years.

Farr has nailed it here.

It’s clearly not a tax, unless you also think a speeding fine is a “great big tax on driving”.

So if, after all the evidence, you persist on calling it a tax, you are by definition, a liar.

Brian Taylor says:

08:02am | 14/09/11

Meant Mr Farr not Marr sorry about that old chap

jf says:

08:03am | 14/09/11

I’m Erick and so is my wife says:07:35am | 14/09/11

“It’s clearly not a tax, unless you also think a speeding fine is a “great big tax on driving”.”

I wasn’t aware that I could pass the cost of my speeding fine on to others. I was also unaware that the government would rebate heavy speeders. All those young punks in hotted up Evos are going to be loving it.

dovif says:

08:08am | 14/09/11

Erick

What do you call a tax, where the government take money from Australian people, so they can collect it and use it to bribe the electorate.

All Australians will be paying for Gillard’s deceit from higher electricity and grocery prices because of this TAX

Brian Taylor says:

08:12am | 14/09/11

would you care to tell me just where the money goes from a speeding fine?
into the govts bloody pocket thats where, just the same as all our tax’s go.
so whats the diff? not much.
I got booked doing 101kph in a 100kph zone New Year’s Eve, was that fair? don’t think so, but hey, the govt needed money for their xmas and new years parties.
where will this BLOODY CARBON TAX money go?
some, not quite sure how much, will go to the UN, what in hell for?
2Billion will go to the greenies, again, what in hell for?
This carbon TAX is nothing but a bloody rip off and if the pollies were honest, know that’s a joke whichever way you look at it, they’d tell us so.
you lefty labor wankers will be crying into your expensive coffee sooner or later, lol

ronny jonny says:

08:13am | 14/09/11

ummm the way speed cameras are operated in Victoria , it is most definitley a tax on driving.

lisa says:

08:17am | 14/09/11

No, Erick and so is my wife, it is not similar in nature to a speeding fine.  To avoid a speeding fine, I just slow down.  Simple.  Easy. However, I cannot simply decide to avoid consuming carbon when there are no alternatives.  Thus, it operates as a TAX.

Mmm does that make you the liar then?

L. says:

08:26am | 14/09/11

“It’s clearly not a tax, unless you also think a speeding fine is a “great big tax on driving”.”

Ummm…No.

The speeding fine gives a driver a free pass from 0 kph up to 60 kph in a 60 zone.

The Carbon Tax is applied from 0 kph (using the speeding fine analogy).

There will never be a carbon “free” state of manufacture for many industries.

No! I'M Erick! says:

08:38am | 14/09/11

Lisa,

To avoid a speeding fine you slow down. To avoid carbon pricing you buy a cheaper, alternate product which does not attract carbon pricing.

Companies which produce carbon-intensive products either lose sales to cheaper competitors, or change their practices so they do not attract a carbon price.

It’s a market-based mechanism, the sort of policy conservative economists were advocating before Tony Abbot told them he didn’t believe experts who disagreed with him.

Now, this may be hard to understand, given the minimal levels of education attained by those who hate the carbon legislation because it was proposed by Labor (and, gasp, a WOMAN!) but perhaps you can put at least one of your prejudices on a shelf and actually read the article before making I’ll-informed comments?

Try moving your lips when you do if it makes you feel comfortable.

B says:

08:46am | 14/09/11

@I’m Erick and so is my wife

We call it like it is.  If is quacks like a duck.  Its a duck!!!

So now Im being told another lie.
Carbon Tax - It is CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.  Get it right!!!
Carbon Fine - Seriously?  You cannot consider this worthy of publishing.  Honestly how dumb do you think Australian’s are???

Erick's uncle, Erick says:

09:21am | 14/09/11

B, lotsa critters quack like ducks that ain’t ducks. In fact, humans have been known to quack like ducks on occasion. Truth be told, even I’ve quacked like a duck a couple of times. I’ll leave it to others to judge if I’m a duck or not, but I’m quite certain that if a human quacks like a duck, that human cannot automatically be said to be a duck.

In answer to your question; “how dumb do you think Australian’s are???”, I’d say some of them are very dumb. Very dumb indeed.

Must waddle off, now. Quack, quack.

Hang on, what if I really AM Erick? says:

09:38am | 14/09/11

B says “How dumb do you think Australian’s (sic) are?”

Well B, based on your grammar, pretty bloody stupid actually.

And based on the comments on Mal’s fairly sensible story, really, really dumb.

I mean, you read The Punch and it’s like half the nation woke up and took dumb pills.

At least this one’s on carbon pricing, so it’s not like I have to wade through the usual racist sewage that passes for commentary on any asylum seeker story.

Rose says:

09:42am | 14/09/11

Actually jf, my husband already passes on the costs of speeding fines or any other expense to his customers. As a contractor he just builds it into his quotes. With the work he does (construction-sort of), few people notice a $10- $100 addition to the price. In fact, we upped tyhe cost of installations simply because we wanted a holiday last year. People who own businesses where there is room to move on pricing regularly move pricing to suit themselves, if customers don’t question why a price is what it is, too bad!

persephone says:

10:29am | 14/09/11

Brian Taylor

When did Julia say it was a carbon tax?

I think the closest she’s come is to say wtte that it isn’t, but she can understand why people call it that.

The government consistently use the term ‘carbon pricing’ - as I have always done, for the same reasons outlined by Farr.

jf says:

10:37am | 14/09/11

Rose says:09:42am | 14/09/11

“Actually jf, my husband already passes on the costs of speeding fines or any other expense to his customers. As a contractor he just builds it into his quotes. With the work he does (construction-sort of), few people notice a $10- $100 addition to the price. In fact, we upped tyhe cost of installations simply because we wanted a holiday last year. People who own businesses where there is room to move on pricing regularly move pricing to suit themselves, if customers don’t question why a price is what it is, too bad!”

How proud of his theft you must be.

jf says:

10:38am | 14/09/11

Rose says:09:42am | 14/09/11

“Actually jf, my husband already passes on the costs of speeding fines or any other expense to his customers. As a contractor he just builds it into his quotes. With the work he does (construction-sort of), few people notice a $10- $100 addition to the price. In fact, we upped tyhe cost of installations simply because we wanted a holiday last year. People who own businesses where there is room to move on pricing regularly move pricing to suit themselves, if customers don’t question why a price is what it is, too bad!”

But what a great analogy for the carbon tax. Thankfully people are actually questioning it.

LeftRightOut says:

10:45am | 14/09/11

How long are the mods going to tollerate this Erick spoofing rubbish.

Children, pathetic bloody children.

Erick's Mother in Law says:

10:47am | 14/09/11

Leave the innocent ducks out of this!!!

B says:

10:47am | 14/09/11

@Erick’s uncle

Fine.  Nitpick if you want. It doesnt change the facts that you believe a lie and a liar and will be part of the biggest scam in this country!!  It is plain and simple for any intelligent member of the Australian public to figure out, but quite clearly escapes you!!

lisa says:

10:53am | 14/09/11

No! I’M Erick!,

Oh, ok then.  Yes it IS like a speeding fine,  that is if you set the fine within the current speed limit and your only alternative is to pay the “fine” or get off the road (or in this case buy from overseas).  Geez.

Come 1 July next year are you going to rub some sticks together to generate electricity which doesn’t attract a carbon tax?  We can hardly call it a “fine” when we have got no option but to pay.  It’s a tax.

Erick's uncle, Erick says:

11:19am | 14/09/11

@B 10:47am,

“Nitpick”? Ducks would more likely suffer from lice, I’d say.

LeftErickOut says:

11:26am | 14/09/11

@  LeftRightOut

The mods have been tolerating Erick’s spoofing rubbish for quite some time, it’s high time others had a go.

Let the “pathetic bloody children” play, gramps.

Rose says:

11:37am | 14/09/11

How is it theft jf? He places a price on his labour for every single job he does, as do all contractors. He provides the service he charges for to the best of his ability. The price is set prior to commencing the job and is signed off by the customer. It is set at a competitive rate in order to secure business but, he does take into account our cash flow needs as well as the ‘going rate’ when setting a price. A customer is well within their rights to question the price and some do, to them he may, if there’s room to move, offer a discounted rate. All I am saying is that he passes on costs when he can, and holiday leave is a valid cost of business (you pay employees leave plus loading so why wouldn’t you do that for yourself?). The pharmacy I worked for changed their prices so they all end in either .59, .79 or .99. Why, because it improved the GP, all prices were rounded up not down. Do not kid yourself, everything you pay is set at a price that takes into account all the businesses owner’s needs if their is sufficient room to move on pricing, if there isn’t room to do that I suggest that the business owner could conceivably be in quite significant trouble anyway….what happens when the electricity or phone bill goes up? If you can’t move prices you end up behind the eight ball, just look at what is happening with dairy farmer’s inability to price their produce with the big supermarkets!

jf says:

12:14pm | 14/09/11

Rose says:11:37am | 14/09/11

“How is it theft jf? He places a price on his labour for every single job he does, as do all contractors.”

I have no problem a private contractor charging as much as he likes. However, I believe that passing on the cost of a personal indiscretion is not ethical. If he itemises it as “speeding fine” the no problem.

“”you pay employees leave plus loading so why wouldn’t you do that for yourself?”

What does leave loading have to do with someone passing on a personal expense to clients?

“The pharmacy I worked for changed their prices so they all end in either .59, .79 or .99.”

But they didn’t charge for one thing and substitute another.

“If you can’t move prices you end up behind the eight ball”

I couldn’t give a rat’s if his prices are double the next guy. I work for myself and charge appropriately.

I have a lawyer and accountant. I trust their ethics to charge me honestly. They could pad the bill and plenty do.

However, I have trouble with anyone, builder, lawyer or accountant disguising a personal expense in an invoice. If my accountant or my lawyer presented me with an invoice with an itemised charge for speeding fines, I’d tell them to jam it.

If they presented me with an invoice for 5 hours work and I discovered she’d done 2 or if my lawyer charged me at the partner’s rates and had a graduate doing the work, or if either added their speeding fines to the total, I’d see that as a gross betrayal of trust and I would find another adviser.

So, he can charge all he likes, I have no problem with that. If I am prepared to pay, that is my call. However, the moment he presents me with an invoice includes charges for personal items, particularly disguised as remuneration for the work I commissioned, I have an issue. 

If this is standard practice amongst this industry I can see why they are under threat from skilled immigrants.

Rose says:

01:13pm | 14/09/11

jf, every single ‘personal expense’ incurred by my husband is paid for by his customers, he doesn’t get wages, he gets the profit he makes from providing a service. If personal expenses go up so does the cost of the work he does, that’s life.
‘So, he can charge all he likes, I have no problem with that”.  You say you have no problem with that, but is that only when you get to have a say in what he spends the money on?
By the way, to my knowledge he has never had a speeding fine, I was just demonstrating that, as with all costs incurred by business, if it can be passed on it will be!

Damo says:

02:09pm | 14/09/11

What about this Erick tool, I am sure he is laughing all by himself with each (what he thinks) clever name he puts on his blogs, wonderful sense of humour mate, comic genius, your the “Kenny Bania” of The Punch, any Ovaltine jokes up your sleeve.

jf says:

02:17pm | 14/09/11

Rose says:01:13pm | 14/09/11

“jf, every single ‘personal expense’ incurred by my husband is paid for by his customers, he doesn’t get wages, he gets the profit he makes from providing a service. If personal expenses go up so does the cost of the work he does, that’s life.”

I couldn’t care if his personal expenses went down and he charged more. I would imagine that what he charges has more to do with how good he is and what the market will bear. My point is that he is obstensibly charging for constructions services and padding the account out with personal items. That is dishonest. If itemised the bill with “speeding fines” (or “skiing trip in Aspen” for that matter) I couldn’t care less. It would be up to the client then to decide if that was something that they were prepared to pay for. 

“You say you have no problem with that, but is that only when you get to have a say in what he spends the money on?”

He can spend it on gummy bears for all I care. My point is that he is obstensibly charging for constructions services and padding the account out with personal items.

“By the way, to my knowledge he has never had a speeding fine, I was just demonstrating that, as with all costs incurred by business, if it can be passed on it will be!?

Oh good for him. I have, however it has never occured to me to bump my invoice up include that expense in addition to the work that the client has commissioned me to do at a pre-agreed rate. A speeding fine is not a business expense. But once again, any costs incurred by the business should be itemised and the client absolutely sure that they are being invoiced for what they have agreed to pay for.

Quite simply, if a builder agreed to build me a pagola and quoted me $20,000 I would, having agreed to that price, pay. If the bill came in at $20,200 I would want the extra $200 explained. If it was due to a change that I had made I would hav no problem. If it was for a speeding ticket I would tell him to jam it.

I couldn’t give a rats if he charged based on market forces or personal needs. My point is that with respect to business or personal expenses “building it into the quote” because people “won’t notice” is grubby.

PTom says:

02:56pm | 14/09/11

L.
“The speeding fine gives a driver a free pass from 0 kph up to 60 kph in a 60 zone.”
No it does not you can be fined for doing 20 kph in a 60 zone.

Tator says:

10:25am | 15/09/11

PTom,
ICB, you cannot get fined for doing 20km/h in a 60 km/h zone under speed zone laws unless there are other behavioural offences such as drive without due care/consideration or if it is a manner dangerous.  Purely by driving at 20km/h in a 60 zone is not an offence under Section 20 of Part 3 of the Australian Road Rules which is the legislation dealing with speed limits.

Erick's left nut says:

01:33pm | 14/09/11

Looks like you are easily scared.
+1 for Abbott
PS let me know when the sky falls in.

Mickey T says:

10:36am | 14/09/11

It’s not a case of the people not listening…the average Australian is just too dumb to understand. What do you expect when they take their advice from the likes of Tony Abbott and Alan Jones? Scaremongering halfwits, both.

“does it come out of my pay packet?” - “does it work like GST?” LOL

Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt Et al have much to answer for, they have brainwashed the voters to such an extent that the average redneck moron bogan simply doesn’t understand, and probably more to the point…doesn’t want to understand.

Peter says:

11:19am | 14/09/11

So people who don’t agree with Greenie philosophy are redneck moron bogon half wits? Nice one Mickey T. That should do your cause the world of good.

Mickey T says:

12:04pm | 14/09/11

@ Peter - I hadn’t even got to the position of “agreeing” or not…I was dealing first with the basic principle of “understanding”...you must be able to crawl before you can walk.

The carbon tax debate is obviously too complex an issue for some people to even grasp the basic fundamentals of how it will work, (see article and refer to comments here) therefore it seems that the best option for these people is to place their head firmly in the sand and try not to even understand the basics, forget the science, that’s way too difficult to grasp.

My apologies for offending you.

Crike is an anagram of erick says:

01:11pm | 14/09/11

No Mickey T it is a case of the people not ‘believing’.  And given the lame argument you just ran it is no surprise.
Scaremongering is the basis of this Carbon Tax

MadKat of Melbourne says:

01:56pm | 14/09/11

Mickey T - you’re confusing having an understanding of a subject with a difference of opinion on a subject. What you’re actually saying is that everyone that doesn’t agree with you is stupid. That is the argument of someone with little intellectual ability of their own and that can’t formulate an argument using facts and figures. Instead of making such lame, negative comments why not try to have a debate and persuade your opposition by producing facts.

Jay Santos says:

08:12am | 14/09/11

“...I wasn’t aware that we could pass the costs of our speeding fines on to other users…”

Snap!

And only the top 1000; no wait a minute 500!!

No hang on I THINK it’s somwhere around 400.

I think!

Malcolm Farr | Pwned!

James In Footscray says:

08:15am | 14/09/11

“It is not a tax on carbon, just as a speeding fine is not a tax on cars.”

I’m with jf, The analogy doesn’t work on any level.

Even the government does not suggest emitting CO2 is a ‘crime’ like speeding. Rather, the government believes emitting CO2 is undesirable, and wants to discourage it. It’s more like they want to reduce car use, so we’ll be charged a fee/levy/tax for every kilometre we drive if it’s over a thousand kilometres a week.

Tim says:

08:17am | 14/09/11

If you were a taxi driver and your passenger asked you to speed, you might be able to ask him to pay any fine you got. He might agree…or you might not agree to speed. Which really is the point. This is an incentive for people to reduce their pollution. Reduce pollution; don’t pay the tax/fine/fee for emitting carbon/whatever you want to call it.

Tony Abbott is the one in trouble here, because when this legislation actually begins and the only thing people notice is a slight increase in their take-home pay, he’ll have nothing left to talk about. No wonder he wants to race to the ballot box before people find out the truth.

L. says:

08:35am | 14/09/11

“I wasn’t aware that we could pass the costs of our speeding fines on to other users.”

Excellent point…

Jay Santos says:

08:54am | 14/09/11

“...This is an incentive for people to reduce their pollution…”

I’d love to hear what you are defining as “pollution”.

Or should I just pour you some more Kool-Aid?

Joan says:

09:30am | 14/09/11

Right on - JF a totally moronic analogy by Farr.  Gillard slams a great big tax/price on Victorian coal fired power stations and Werribee sewage plant,  the cost is passed on to all Victorians - a speeding fine I get does not get shared by rest of Victoria.  The Gillard Carbon Tax/price paid by everyone is invisible like the CO2 and is quite unlike the GST which is visible and clear for consumer to see. Sneaky Gillard at work,  snatching money from hard working Australians, taxing/pricing their existence, to fulfill her phony dream of saving the world. Australia only contributing 1.5% to world CO2 emissions. Gillard $23 tonne Carbon price is top of the range world price for a nation at bottom of range emission - Gillard and followers are truly off the planet!

jf says:

09:34am | 14/09/11

Tim says:08:17am | 14/09/11

“This is an incentive for people to reduce their pollution.”

How does this incentive people to reduce their pollution again?

Micky G says:

08:25am | 14/09/11

Even worse Fiddler, there are Indian and Chinese COAL burning power plants which are allowed by the UN to generate carbon credits. So we dig up the coal, pay the ‘tax’ to the government, sell the coal to India who pays us for it, then they burn it and we pay them for the supposed emissions savings..and this is how the government thinks we will be reducing carbon emissions? ludicrous…

persephone says:

10:40am | 14/09/11

At the last election, the vast majority voted for action on climate change, and particularly a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 (the target offered by both major parties).

And that’s exactly what they’re getting.

If you want to run with the mandate idea, however: Both major parties presented forms of action on climate change which were rejected by the populace. However, the populace also voted for action on climate change.

Therefore the actions offered by both major parties weren’t what the public wanted.

So there was a mandate to act on climate change, but no mandate as to the form of action.

In that case, it’s quite appropriate for Parliament to work it out.

Syl says:

11:12am | 14/09/11

Perse

Bullshit…
The VAST majority of Australians voted for parties which presented climate change policies that did not include a Carbon Tax (or whatever you want to call it).  The winning party EXPLICITLY stated that they would not introduce such a scheme.  Yet they introduced it anyway because the balance of power is held by a nutcase who got a minority of votes and is holding the government to ransom.

You can spin as much as you like (and you do) but the issue is really quite simple.  People are angry, twisting words to insinuate that they actually voted for this is insulting in the least.

persephone says:

02:19pm | 14/09/11

Syl

I’m with Farr - this isn’t a carbon tax, therefore GIllard did not lie.

In the same interview where she ruled out a carbon tax (which was clearly defined by Abbott during the CPRS discussions as a price you personally would pay to the ATO on purchases and claim back at the end of the year) she said she would impose a carbon price.

She’s imposing a carbon price.

People are angry because they’ve been lied to, yes. But the lying did not come from the government, which has consistently said that they’re pricing carbon, not taxing it.

PTom says:

02:42pm | 14/09/11

Syl,
No your wrrong. The winning party did say they would introduce a Carbon Price scheme and that is what they are doing.
Companies wil have to pay for permits to emitt which they can either not pay be reducing their emission or sell to a third party.

I don’t see a tax in there.

Chris L says:

03:51pm | 14/09/11

@Syl - That quote you remember where Gillard said there’d be no carbon tax actually has more to it that people edit out. Gillard went on, in the same sentence, to say there would be a carbon price. Even Andrew Bolt pointed this out on the eve of the election.

Syl says:

04:42pm | 14/09/11

So why does Gillard herself admit that it will “effectively work as a tax?”, and that “circumstances have changed” since her promise not to introduce a tax.  This would insinuate that she has indeed gone against her word.

These are her own words.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/things-have-changed-since-carbon-tax-promise-says-julia-gillard/story-e6frg6xf-1226012682698

People are angry because Gillard lied (or changed her mind), she has admitted it, are you that unable to admit when your side has screwed up?

I await further spin with bated breath.

Chris L says:

05:45pm | 14/09/11

Who knows Syl? She’s probably just trying to pander to the angry mob, or maybe she didn’t bother double checking the record and she’s just taking Abbott at his word. She certainly isn’t very good at getting her message across. I’m just pointing out that what we’re getting is what she promised.

Disraeli says:

10:09pm | 14/09/11

At the end of the day, the Labor pre-election policy was for an Emission Trading Scheme. Not a tax - just a commercial market mechanism.

Post-election negotiation got us to where we are now. A Carbon Price. A charge on the biggest greenhouse gas polluting companies. Still a clear market signal but effectively a tax -  for the first three years only. Then on to an Emission Trading Scheme - a commercial market mechanism -  -  pretty much as originally proposed .

The Prime Minister has consistently sais she had no intention to mislead, and I think that’s right.

But plainly it could have been better explained.  On the sort of posts we see here, it seems to me that the difference between a Carbon Price and an Emissions Trading Scheme is still poorly understood, though its been covered multiple times by eg Stern, and in both Garnaut Reports, if I recall correctly.

The whole point of either scheme is to drive a market mechanism that acts on the production of the main man-made green house gasses - Carbon or CO2 for short.  It’s widely understood that either sheme can work effectively.

And the major companies can avoid the cost, if they choose - by switching to more energy efficient systems, and lower emissions.

All bitching and moaning about poor presentation aside, a market signal at the production end, whether by fixed price or market trading, is a more effective way of tackling AGW emissions than trying to tax consumption.

That’s the key - a market signal on production. It’s a deliberate and gross distortion to pretend this is some sort of individual tax.  It isn’t. 

And while industry adjusts, individuals and households - who are already modifying there consumption - will get some help with any cost flow on. That won’t detract from the market signal. It’ll make it possible for consumers to do more to use energy more efficiently still.

Like the tax breaks for small business on energy efficiency. Less open fridges in supermarktes, for example: lower energy use, translating to lower emissions at the production end. 
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-business/business-and-a-clean-energy-future/

Horns Up says:

08:45am | 14/09/11

Then judge Abbot who has the same pollution targets, a policy that economists don’t buy and wants to give our taxes to polluters.

Abbott has the same intentions with a policy likely to produce worse results.

\m/

ronny jonny says:

09:21am | 14/09/11

Horny,
I believe the whole point of Abbotts plan is that it can be done away with at no great cost. We are not locking ourselves into an economy wide destructive tax. If economic times look a bit fragile, just cancel it. Or if as is looking more likely as each decade goes by, the climate change issue is a crock, it’s no drama to get rid of the damn thing.
I think Abbotts true intention is to pay lip service until elected and the shit can the whole thing. Good job too.

Rose says:

09:52am | 14/09/11

So ronny jonny, you’re saying that Tony Abbott is setting up, deliberately, a GREAT BIG LIE!!  That makes him a good alternate PM….NOT!!
The hypocrisy of Abbott fans is astaounding.

Rose says:

09:52am | 14/09/11

So ronny jonny, you’re saying that Tony Abbott is setting up, deliberately, a GREAT BIG LIE!!  That makes him a good alternate PM….NOT!!
The hypocrisy of Abbott fans is astaounding.

Your name:Geez.... says:

12:00pm | 14/09/11

Rose…your time would be better spent with your husband conjuring up more ways to rip your customers off.

Horns Up says:

12:45pm | 14/09/11

If you accept climate change science which the LNP supposedly does then you can’t do away with the “action” plan as a cost cutting measure.

So what you’re really saying is Abbott’s plan is a sham to con people that he cares about the environment.

And yet you want policy that is “judged by it’s results not by it’s intentions”.

\m/

B says:

09:11am | 14/09/11

@Tax guy
They actually all are TAXES.  See the definition before commenting.  it makes you look stupid.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tax
Tax (tks)
n.
1. A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
2. A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.

I would put it to you that fee’s and levies are classified as a TAX under the actual DEFINITION of tax.  Not some lose definition used by the Labor goverment and Farr.

Peter says:

09:44am | 14/09/11

Thanks Tax guy.  It’s refreshing to read from someone who actually has a clue as what they’re talking about.

Tax guy says:

10:57am | 14/09/11

B
No. I have grave doubts about which one of us is stupid regarding tax.

Maybe if I based my job on a 20-cent web definition I’d be stupid, but I’m sure my clients will be glad to know I prefer to use actual legal definitions and laws and court decisions. You know.. “reality”. Tax only exists in law, it doesn’t exist in and of itself.. you cant point at anything and say ‘there’s a tax in its natural state’ - if there is no law imposing or regulating a tax - then a tax does not exist.

...and on that free dictionary.. I discovered I could house my car at a gambling house, while I housed for a drink. None of which things is - a house!
See where I’m going here…??

JT says:

11:22am | 14/09/11

JHC are you really that stupid Tax guy? You can not simply redefine words because you don’t like the meaning of them. As B says; every example given is by definition a tax. No screeching from you changes that fact, to ignore this is either a case of incredible stupidity or deliberate deception.

Semantic Nonsense says:

12:07pm | 14/09/11

@Tax Guy, might I suggest your clients find a new lawyer?

5. Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
6. Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011

Why are we making “Tax Laws Amendments” if this isn’t a tax? You said so yourself, if it says tax in the law, it’s a tax.

Tax guy says:

12:17pm | 14/09/11

Just as you cannot impose a meaning that is absent.

When you buy a carbon credit, you receive an asset. A carbon credit. You can keep it, use it or sell it. It’s yours.

When you pay a tax, you receive no corresponding consideration.

...Unless of course you’ve found an internet definition which says “Tax - the act of buying an asset from a government”... ?

Tax guy says:

01:30pm | 14/09/11

Semantics:
I’ll concede.. saying ‘not one of them is a tax bill’ is misleading. Two of them are *tax bills* - but they just modify existing taxes. None of them are a bill to impose a carbon tax - which is what I meant.

The two you’ve pointed to dont create a tax, either.

PTom says:

01:51pm | 14/09/11

@Semantic Nonsense

You do know they are change tax laws too, like income tax threshold.
Which has nothing to do with the price on emission/credit but is part of the overall scheme.

B says:

02:18pm | 14/09/11

@Tax Guy

You prove my point.  You can do anything with words.  But a Definition is a definition, by the very definition of the word definition.  Doesnt matter how you spin it to your “clients”.

I wasnt saying you were stupid regarding tax.  Reread my comment.  I was saying you looked stupid on your explaination on what a tax is.  Because your explaination was and still is flawed.

Your analogy of paying a tax with no benefit is incorrect.  I see a benefit every day in new roads, construction, government employees and buildings.  It has yet been explained to me what the ROI on a carbon TAX would actually be.  As in not a “FLUFFY” piece of carbon credit.  Something that is as worthless as the air we breathe.

“Tax only exists in law”?  What world do you live in mate.  What society does not tax?  It is a right of a sovereign nation to tax its populace.

“A tax may be defined as a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority.”[1] A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.”[1]”
From wiki this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax

IT IS A TAX.  No amount of spin will change this fact.

Tax guy says:

03:39pm | 14/09/11

No, B… it isn’t a tax. Nor is it any of the other words you looked up (unless some of those words were “price” or “trading right” or “market” - in which case, it is those things).

No amount of wikipedia will change this fact.

Chris L says:

04:07pm | 14/09/11

If everyone has decided that price and tax are the same things, why didn’t anyone point this out when Gillard said there would be no carbon tax but there would be a carbon price?

persephone says:

10:46am | 14/09/11

Er, climate change and the various forms of carbon pricing have been debated, both in Parliament and in the public sphere, for well over a decade - far longer than the GST.

There have been something like 35 Parliamentary enquiries.

The present proposal is very very similar to that presented by both parties in the lead up to the 2007 election and to the CPRS.

The only major change is that, instead of the one year fixed price proposed by the CPRS, there’s now a three year fixed price.

So the issue has well and truly been debated.

Stephen says:

11:13am | 14/09/11

Persephone…

Whilst there has been much debate, there is no consensus. So, how about a referendum on the issue? If we are to believe Juliar, and her puppet master, Brown, they are speaking for the majority of Australians, then they should have nothing to fear. So lets put it to the people? Or are you concerned that the people are not informed enough, after these years of debate?

We both know why there will be no referendum. It disempowers the political parties and their dogmatic ideology. It makes political parties less relevant, and we can’t have that, can we? Political parties know whats good for us, don’t they. They are anointed by a wisdom and insight that we mere mortals simply don’t have access to.

Until the next election.

jf says:

11:30am | 14/09/11

The GST was first formally proposed by Keating in 1985 and finally passed in 1999 - 14 years.

The GST was mooted by others, on boths sides of politics before that.

“There have been something like 35 Parliamentary enquiries.”

Waste upon waste upon waste. Nothing to boast about Perse. A parliamentary enquiry is not a debate. The debate is still very much alive and kicking.

Dan says:

12:22pm | 14/09/11

“It’s a tax on living a tax on breathing, it’s the ultimate free trade tax, it’s a tax on everything!”

Actually, it’s a penalty handed to the 500 top polluters, based on the amount of carbon dioxide they produce over a certain level.

So no, it’s not “a tax on everything”.

And I think the Tory UK PM David Cameron would object to the label “latte greenie do-gooder”. Especially considering how much he’s copping from the Left over there.

FINK says:

12:50pm | 14/09/11

persephone,
So with all these 35 Parliamentary enquiries who led and instigated them? Greens! biased? Yes!
“ry similar to that presented by both parties in the lead up to the 2007 election and to the CPRS.”
So if we were all so informed and everything was out in the open, the science debate was cut and dry and was publicly accepted, why did neither party go to the 2007 election with that as their primary policy platform, (if I remember correctly one prominent politician sated “There will be no CT! uner my government) ? Because they would have been obliterated.
So to cap it off:
- Political debate has to been by vested groups to push their agendas.
- The public does not know the cut and dry science of global warming and the true effect of the tax on the environment, will it alleviate the carbon pollution produced by the Chillean volcano eruptions?. This has not been discussed and debated in open with the public.
The GST debates saw contending leaders thrown to the political wilderness and after over 15 years of political debate the public decided through due process of election that is was acceptable.
- The Carbon Tax is in it’s infancy both as an economical plan and a sustainable principle going forward for both the economy and the people of Australia. Let’s face it they can’t even get the basic construct of who pays it correct at the moment
    - 1000 of the biggest polluters will pay
    - next only 500
    - next only 400
    - next, only those who drive a 1978 milk van delivering mile after 6am will pay.

FINK says:

01:05pm | 14/09/11

Dan,
Only 500 of the big polluters?
Like Energy providers for example! don’t we all use the energy provided? So in effect the tax is passed on to US meaning we all pay the tax and that the business’s that use energy to provide food to your table and make the things we use everyday will pass on their part of the tax to us! I am sure you are broad minded enough to realise that.
Also the Top 500 (originally 1000) reminds of John Howard’s promise with the introduction of the GST! Most existing state and federal taxes will be abolished under a GST! Yeah right! I

Dan says:

01:25pm | 14/09/11

Fink,

I’m certainly glad we can agree it’s not “a tax on everything”, but instead a tax on the top 500 polluters.

You’re quite right, they will pass on costs. Power price rises won’t be easy, given the role of IPART in States like NSW, but it’s certainly likely.

I believe that’s where the broad, and generous, tax cuts come into play. The net impact on the consumer is either nil or actually positive, while the companies still cop the blow.

Not really a “breathing” tax after all.

FINK says:

02:20pm | 14/09/11

Dan,
While I can see your point! It is a tax on breathing because they use CO2 as the litmus test for the tax. CO2 is something we breathe, just because they can centralise the tax to a few the repercussions of the flow through is higher prices caused by the instigation of the said tax. Now since these big polluters provide pretty much most of our daily needs (funny that) we need to cause pollution in this day and age to survive, so in my humble and highly simplistic opinion it becomes a tax on everything, except maybe for sex (and I am sure there is mass debate going on in parliament as we speak on how they can tax that). I also agree with that IPART is a travesty of a body have they actually denied any major utility increases?
As for the generous tax rebates, well not for me there isn’t but I wouldn’t want them anyway, if the end result of Carbon Tax is that in ten years the air of the Sydney CBD is of the same fresh quality of Wentworth Falls out of bushfire season then I will happily comply that it was worthwhile initiative, otherwise I will call it for the scam I think it is.

persephone says:

02:27pm | 14/09/11

Stephen

if, after all this debate, there is no consensus, why would a referendum solve anything?

And referenda are not used to determine policy - they are used to change the Constitution. You wouldn’t be able to have one in this case, because it doesn’t require any constitutional change.

Over 50% of MPs supporting a piece of legislation is seen as consensus under our system (and has been as long as the Westminster system has existed), so we do have a consensus where is counts.

jf

we are talking here in the context of whether or not more time is needed in Parliament to debate the issue.

If we kept debating issues until a consensus is reached, we would never see any legislation passed at all.

FINK

incorrect. The majority of them were carried out under the Howard government. That’s why the Howard government went to the 2007 election with a policy to reduce emissions by 5%.

No statement was made by any politician I’m aware of prior to 2007 ruling out a carbon tax.

Otherwise, what Dan said.

FINK says:

03:33pm | 14/09/11

persephone,
And what happened to Howard at the 2007 election! I rest my case.
As for “Over 50% of MPs supporting a piece of legislation” this does not mean that over 50% of the population support it! The fundamental flaw in our the Westminster system in that we Trust Governments to do the best thing by us and not for themselves.

jf says:

03:41pm | 14/09/11

persephone says: 02:27pm | 14/09/11

jf

“we are talking here in the context of whether or not more time is needed in Parliament to debate the issue.

If we kept debating issues until a consensus is reached, we would never see any legislation passed at all.”

Fair enough. I was simply correcting your erroneous reference to the GST.

I agree with your point in relation to this government’s shamelss waste on endless committees, parliamentary enquiries. and lack of leadership.

persephone says:

04:44pm | 14/09/11

Oh, hardy hardy ha, jf, what a funny person you are!

As I said, most of those enquiries were under Howard, the first back in 1994.

And no, you weren’t ‘correcting (my ) erroneous reference to the GST”  - firstly, it isn’t erroneous at all.

For a parliamentary enquiry to take place in 1994, there had to be discussions already going on for some years before hand.

For action to take from 1994 to the present is 17 years, so considerably longer time for debate and consideration than the GST had.

If waste - of time, of resources - is your concern, than you would welcome a speedy resolution.

It isn’t, so don’t pretend you’re trying to do anything than score a couple of debating points.

jf says:

07:59pm | 14/09/11

persephone says: 04:44pm | 14/09/11

“Oh, hardy hardy ha, jf, what a funny person you are!”

I thought you’d like that.

FINK says:

08:43am | 14/09/11

You’re right Phil, If Gillard had just called it a “LEVY: then it would be all okay now! We would grumble a little, but as a “LEVY: it is okay, but as a “TAX”  we despise and hate it’s very nature!
The only difference with a “TAX” and a “LEVY” besides it’s obvious spelling differences and that “LEVY” is a much softer word and doesn’t sound like a dirty swear word is that Levies are a lot lower than a Tax! So why is this being called a Tax (this carbon reducing initiative)? Because it is going to be so high ! That’s why.

B says:

09:16am | 14/09/11

@Matt

Please offer a resonable solution to any problem that exists?  Before offering a solution actually outline a problem with RECENT scientific facts, and how your “resonable” solution would solve this problem, and how much it would cost?

I bet you can’t.  Because there is no problem, and no solution even if there was an issue.  Before I pay ANY carbon tax.  I would like to see the actual proof of AGW existing.  Because the proof would be in the pudding, and beleive me, I have eating it 5 times over and there IS NO PROOF.

andye says:

03:01pm | 14/09/11

@B - Australia is using a bit over 4 times as much carbon per person as china. Indonesia has 10 times our population and uses about the same as us.

We are small, but the average australian produces more carbon than even the average american. If you accept that Climate Change is a real problem, then we are taking more than our share. We are being selfish.

Funny how in this country at the moment conservatives are so concerned about queue jumpers and dole bludgers and anyone they think is taking more than their share… yet don’t see it as a problem when we as a nation are producing more than our share of carbon.

Jasmine says:

12:35pm | 14/09/11

@ onlooker, best post on this blog. Such sensibleness is out of place here apparently

FINK says:

04:06pm | 14/09/11

Sensible, Yes! practical, No!
By the next election it is in and it won’t be coming out, so it will be too late. You are better to be informed of all the ups and all the downs and make as much an informed decision at election time. I would much rather prefer to say to my Grandkids that I made an informed decision based on the evidence before me on a Carbon Tax, I do NOT want to tell them that the Carbon Tax went in and the reasons are so bad because of some buffons in Canberra thought it would be a good idea at the time and didn’t want to listen to an informed public!
“Tony Abbott has already said he will undo it”
I applaud that piece of witticism it has put a smile on my face.

Chris L says:

11:00pm | 14/09/11

@FINK - then the question is: How to we get the information to inform our decision? Do we listen to politicians like Gillard and Abbott? Do we listen to opinion authors such as Farr and Bolt? Do we listen to scientists, economists? To businesses?

I think that’s the problem at the moment. Are we listening to the right people? Are we only listening to those who tell us what we want to hear?

I am not providing answers here, just asking the questions I think we should all ask.

persephone says:

08:48pm | 14/09/11

Tory

can you help it if you sound exciting and awesome?

Seals says:

01:36am | 16/09/11

Yes, I wonder if the Carbon Tax will lower the “Global Warming” that is currently happening (according to NASA) on Mars too.

B says:

10:12am | 14/09/11

@Horns Up

Sounds like our current Socialist Prime Minister!!!

Horns Up says:

10:31am | 14/09/11

What part of NOT wanting to give out hand outs for nothing is socialism? And why is that bad?

\m/

tommo says:

11:41am | 14/09/11

@horns up
The irony of the whole thing is that those who dislike the carbon and play the liar card, is that they support abbott because they know he is lying and will not introduce a carbon reduction policy of any kind

Horns Up says:

12:41pm | 14/09/11

Exactly right Tommo.

Abbott and his supporters have plumbed new lows in political discourse in this country in their quest for power for the sake of power.

\m/

Disraeli says:

09:26am | 14/09/11

“Revenue by the way comes from taxing, so we may as well see it for what it is and that’s a BIG FAT TAX, no doubt helping the government attempt to meet its surplus.”

Sorry, no. Quite incorrect. None goes to the surplus. It’s pretty well revenue neutral, the revenue going to support households, jobs in affected industries, renewable energy and etc. The budegtting is clearly outlined on line.

More: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/
and http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/question-and-answer/
and in more detail http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/#content00

Disraeli says:

09:51am | 14/09/11

Error on my part here.

Over the period 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, the scheme in total will cost the budget bottom line just under $4billion over those 4 years, ranging from a deficit of $2.7bn in 2011-12 to a surplus of $1.1bn in 2012-13.

Details:http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/#content013

Apologies, my mistake.  But the point remains: this is not a revenue booster. It’s a market mechanism.

B says:

10:26am | 14/09/11

@Disraeli

You tell me how often the goverment is correct in their budget estimating.  Because they are never correct.

Disraeli says:

12:58pm | 14/09/11

Pfft. No more or less correct for this Government than for any other Federal Government over the past 110 years.

Budget estimates of revenue and expenditure aren’t set in concrete, for Pete’s sake.  Who on earth told you they were?

The economy and the budget are like any of the really big subjects: part of an ever changing world. That’s exactly why we have annual budgets and half-yearly reviews. As we should. As we must.

That’s why we make sure that Governments - and Departments - keep their policies, programs, revenue and spending under careful and open review, at every level from Parliamentary debate on down to regular public annual reports. For Goodness sake.

Economist says:

01:47pm | 14/09/11

Ok let’s make a distinction here between opinion and a piece perpetrating to be factual news. Mal’s piece is opinion yet compare that to this expose by Whitbourn http://www.afr.com/p/national/how_to_cook_up_carbon_tax_story_hoOqXPowtk0YihTtmkIJZO. Paul Whittaker has a lot to answer for on this one. Disgraceful. And you wonder why a meida eniqury isn’t necessary?

Also I love the fact that News Ltd journalists are appealing to the public to scrutinse the legislation and they post comments. Take this piece by Nick Calacouras. http://www.news.com.au/national/end-of-an-era-steve-jobs-resigns-as-head-of-apple/story-e6frfkvr-1226136657296. In it you have this contribution
“Here’s a tip for the jet setters. Hugh has written in telling us the bill increases the import tax on fuel. While this does not apply to cars, it includes all other forms of transport.

He’s calculated a single international flight:
0.0598 tax increase per litre x 241,140 fuel capacity = $14,420.17;
353 seats on aircraft x 81.3% Qantas average load factor (2010) = 287 seats average; So that works out to be $50.25 average increase per person per single flight”

Well no.

That assumes that a flight will use the entire tank. Which is not necessarily the case. If your going to report these things at least fact check and state it correctly. It’s bloody lazy.

Disraeli says:

09:10am | 14/09/11

Combet. Very articulate on the Carbon scheme, on air and in Parliament.

Swann: Very articulate on the economic and budget implications of Carbon scheme, on air and in Parliament.

Gillard: Very articulate on the Carbon scheme overall, and on the distortions of the Opposition, on air and in Parliament.

I read, I listen, I think and I vote.

Joan says:

09:35am | 14/09/11

Jame and Disraeli- thanks for the laugh - good pieces of political satire. Much funnier than the turkey of a show ` At home with Julia`

Jay Santos says:

09:41am | 14/09/11

“...I read, I listen, I think and I vote…”

That diatribe could have been delivered by the robot from Lost in Space.

Thanks for the laugh.

But seriously, a good squirt of WD40 will get rid of that rust problem right away.

SimpleSimon says:

09:44am | 14/09/11

What about the opposition? The only member of the coalition that even appears reasoned when they speak is Malcolm Turnbull. Every single other member I have heard speak spouts the same rhetoric to the point where they all sound like the same puppet with a draw string.

Disraeli says:

09:53am | 14/09/11

Joan’s entitled to take a different view. I form mine by listening to both sides, and making my own assessment.

L. says:

10:18am | 14/09/11

“Combet. Very articulate on the Carbon scheme, on air and in Parliament.”

...Really..?? Combet has been articulate and convincing on the REAL climatic effect of the carbon Tax..??

“Swann: Very articulate on the economic and budget implications of Carbon scheme, on air and in Parliament.”

...Really..?? Swann has been articulate and convincing on the REAL climatic effect of the carbon Tax..??

“Gillard: Very articulate on the Carbon scheme overall, and on the distortions of the Opposition, on air and in Parliament.”

...Really..?? Gillard has been articulate and convincing on the REAL climatic effect of the carbon Tax..??

...Could you please point to where they has been articulate and convincing on the REAL effects this tax will have on the climate..?

We are all listening.

HY says:

10:28am | 14/09/11

@Disraeli

That quite clearly is not the case.

Jay Santos says:

11:24am | 14/09/11

“...I form mine by listening to both sides, and making my own assessment….”

So what do you do when both sides are talking bullcrap?

iErick says:

09:35am | 14/09/11

“very semantic straws”?

Are they like those twirly straws?

AdamC says:

09:52am | 14/09/11

Back under your bridge, please.

NicoleG says:

10:50am | 14/09/11

So you won’t publish my comment mods, fair enough, it was rather scathing. But can you please explain WHY you continue to publish this toss bags comments, who is impersonating Erick?

PS: Mal, it is bloody TAX!!

iErick says:

10:55am | 14/09/11

Nah, sorry AdamC, I won’t be getting back under my bridge. I’m gonna stay right here. With you. Playing these delightful and important games. I’ll take a break for lunch, though. I might have some parmesan advocacy cheese. Pity you can’t eat it with a semantic straw.

Goanna says:

02:10pm | 14/09/11

@ Anna C - Do you think that by re-posting your comment someone will finally reply - well it worked.

Unlike the GST you and others will be compensated. Unlike Abbott’s plan you wont be, he will just take your taxes and give them to the big polluters and get them to promise that they will do the right thing…great idea that.

Tator says:

12:42am | 15/09/11

Goanna,
people were compensated for the GST, every taxpayer got a tax cut and welfare recipients received an increase in payments.  For the lower income earners received a tax cut of between 3 to 4 cents in the dollar whilst those on incomes above $50 k got a 1 cent in the dollar cut and an increase in the bracket before the highest rate kicked in which wasn’t changed.
The Carbon tax compensation actually increases the marginal rates of tax and the only change is the large increase in the tax free threshold.

AdamC says:

09:27am | 14/09/11

Most households will be better off, assuming the modelling of the impact of the carbon tax on prices is correct, because the government has looted the treasury to buy its way out of trouble. Again. People see through these deceptions. The government couldn’t sell its carbon tax policy, because it’s a dog, so they tried to transform it into a cash-churn, income redistribution exercise.

That is why so many people are confused. It is not their fault, or the usual suspects, ‘shock jocks’, ‘Mr Negativity Abbott, et al. It is the fault of the government.

BTW, why on earth did you choose that handle? So unfortunate.

Aitch B says:

09:42am | 14/09/11

@Disraeli

Absolute rubbish!!

You can sheet it home to the fact that she and others have either not been exposed to all the propoganda and spin put out by the Government on the subject (in the mailbox and on TV and radio) or has simply chosen to ignore it.

If Gilard and Co. can’t sell the message to the point where people are fully inforrmed (i.e. “Don’t believe Abbott - here is exactly how it will work”) then you can’t blame Abbott for that.

But of course you chose to ignore that possibility, didn’t you?

And of course Gillard’s bullsh*t about wearing out shoes travelling the length and breadth of the country getting the message across lasted how long? A few whistle stops and it was all over - laughable!

Disraeli says:

09:44am | 14/09/11

“Looted the Treasury”
Nothing but unsupported wild assertion, lacking all foundation in fact.

AdamC says:

10:28am | 14/09/11

Yawn, where do you think the non-proceeds of this non-tax are going, Disraeli? Hint: it’s not to fully compensate trade-exposed emitters or invest in renewable energy.

Tator says:

10:33am | 14/09/11

Disraeli,
you admitted in an early post :
“Over the period 2011-2012 to 2014-2015, the scheme in total will cost the budget bottom line just under $4billion over those 4 years, ranging from a deficit of $2.7bn in 2011-12 to a surplus of $1.1bn in 2012-13.”
that is looting the treasury by anyones definition

Disraeli says:

01:15pm | 14/09/11

“Admit”? Pardon? I *stated* clearly, and showed the source of the costings.

Looted? Hardly. You’re just exaggerating for effect. Over the four years, a surplus in one year and something over $1bn deficit in the other three years, to be found in budget savings elsewhere.

If you’re convinced that’s “looting”, go ahead and tell us the estimated total size of the overall Federal Budget: as Outlays, Revenue, and net surplus/deficit;  over each year 2010/11 to 2014/15.  Then compare the two. Go on. Can’t be hard.

AdamC says:

01:22pm | 14/09/11

Tator, it isn’t just that (though your point is eminently valid) but how Swansong and JuLiar are using the proceeds of the carbon tax to try to buy away its unpopularity.

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist, or a 19th century British Prime Minister, to realise that shovelling money at people to over compensate them for the effects of a carbon tax will blunt said tax’s effectiveness. Likewise, even the non-geniuses who listen to talk radio are smart enough to realise that, by not fully compensating trade exposed emitters, you are just exporting CO2 and killing industries in the process.

Indeed, it seem to be only the shrinking ranks of the Disraelis of this world who don’t get it.

PTom says:

04:40pm | 14/09/11

AdamC
Care to explain to Dr No Direct Plan.
Do include the impact on the budget because that would be looting.

AdamC says:

05:18pm | 14/09/11

PTom, sorry, but unlike some of your Laborite Punch colleagues, I do not act as an uncritical, interactive press release for the political party which I support. I have been quite open about the fact that I do not agree with Tony Abbott’s direct action CO2 plan. If you would like more information about it, go to the Liberal Party website and do some research for yourself.

Disraeli says:

07:12am | 15/09/11

“It is sometimes suggested that providing households with assistance would cancel out the benefits of introducing a carbon price. It is said that, if we impose a carbon price that costs a household $100 and then provide that household with a tax cut worth $100, nothing has changed.

These suggestions are wrong. The carbon price, even with the tax cut, alters the relative prices of more and less emissions-intensive goods and services. High-emissions goods become more expensive relative to low-emissions goods. Demand for the former falls, while demand for the latter rises. And putting a price on emissions encourages producers to use less emissions-intensive processes to produce goods and services.”
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/chapter6.html

In reaching my considered view, I’ll put more weight on Garnaut’s conclusions as an economist any day, than any sly personal insult slopped out on The Punch.

Personal insult and misrepresentation: the habitual tatty window dressings of those without a case other than aggro and factoids.

AdamC says:

09:37am | 15/09/11

Disraeli, I used the term ‘blunt’ for a reason. I never suggested that over-compensating people for the cost of the carbon tax would render the tax totally ineffective at changing behaviour. I am quite capable of understanding substitution incentives. It is also a bit much for someone who made such a fuss about my use of the slight, ‘loot the treasury’ exaggeration to then totally ignore the distinction between ‘blunt’ and, say, ‘totally undo’.

And I don’t believe I personally insulted you. I suppose you may have decided, based on my reponse to PTom, that I see commenters like you as little more than uncritical, interactive press releases for your favoured parties. You would be correct in that assumption, but I don’t think it is fair to characterise that description of you as being a ‘personal insult’.

Disraeli says:

01:28pm | 15/09/11

I chose to make a particular point, from Garnaut, about the usefulness of household cost rebates vs effectiveness. I agree with Garnaut’s assessment, in which he is not alone.

The state of your personal knowledge and understanding can only be judged by the content of your posts, AdamC. You chose the wild exaggeration in your empty “Treasury looting” jibe , not me.

Given the tenor of a number of the above comments, by posters indulging in the usual one-liners and sneers, I chose to conclude on a general point: that I prefer considered information to the empty sloppy bagging that is the stock in trade of so many Punch posters.

Disraeli says:

09:33am | 14/09/11

I’ll broadly agree with James, while noting that “CO2” and “carbon price” (or tax for that matter)  are just short-hand for tackling the whole suite of man-made global warming gasses. 

However, his points would have been better made if he’d resisted the temptaption to end with a cheap, stereotypical swipe for effect.

Bazza says:

09:42am | 14/09/11

Oh James, you will be there one day watching re runs of At Home with Julia with a rug wrapped around your knees muttering under your breath, dreaming of what it could have been like but cursing those fateful years between 2008-2012 and wishing you could afford to turn the heater on. We all grow old James, we all retire from work and every dog has his day.

James says:

10:56am | 14/09/11

Fair call, Disraeli. It is sometimes hard not to join in the hyperbole and name calling (and yes, CO2 is just one major target/culprit). Not all pensioners watch A Country Practice. Similarly, not all pensioners are disengaged from the science of climate change nor its ramifications for future generations. It was a nasty jab at a vocal minority. As a current tax payer, though and someone who is (fingers crossed) likely to continue to pay tax far into the future, the Direct Action nonsense still annoys me.

I look forward to an old age where populist tripe in politics is not so prevalent because we’ve spent our money educating intelligent, inquisitive citizens. I also look forward to the (nearly) free energy that will hopefully be spurred on by innovation. The market will achieve that eventually but not without a helping hand to assist in innovators breaking the hold of the current energy concerns. So long as these entities get a free ride polluting our air and (as a consequence) damaging our quality of life and future growth as a country, not to mention a species, they’ll continue to have an unfair advantage that they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect.

Steve Putnam says:

07:31pm | 14/09/11

No, its pretty well revenue neutral unlike Abbott’s bribe the polluter scheme which on his own admission will cost the budget bottom line $11 billion per annum.

AdamC says:

01:40pm | 14/09/11

Good point, NicoleG. Even Gillard ridiculed this, ‘It’s not a tax, it’s an ETS’ nonsense.

Erick's ticket inspector. says:

11:53am | 14/09/11

This duck issue is getting out of hand. With modern technology you can never be sure a duck is a duck. A duck could be a tax, though.

And in answer to your question; no, you didn’t read that. It was the bus timetable.

fairsfair says:

11:02am | 14/09/11

Oh the irony!

B says:

12:51pm | 14/09/11

@Dieter Moeckel

That was actually Benjamin Franklin:

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin”  http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/fool.html

Also think of this one then:
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.”
Albert Einstein

Go for it Abbott.  Even the Genius Albert Einstein agreeded your in the right.

Dieter Moeckel says:

11:14am | 14/09/11

John - so only noticed that now?  4% of the population now own 96% of the countries wealth. There was a saying that the little man’s only pleasures were coitus, a smoke and a drunk. Now they’re trying hard to get rid of smokes even. Nothing left but sex and booze and cheap booze at that.
Have a good look at the 7 deadly sins - all geared at ensuring obedience and subservience to the Master - Your Lord - the Boss - compliance of Labour to Capital.

john says:

11:33am | 14/09/11

Dieter the west’s prosperity is an illusion. they have over spend, and over consumed. What the west is doing now is spending people current savings. You might have 100k, 200k and 500k in the bank today and in a maybe in few years, but reality is this money won’t exist in the future, it will be wiped out. We live in a society were these higher ups want to make instant credit, money at a very fast rate, they do this via leaving someone else to keep the tab for next 30 years. What happens once the entire people are filled with debt? who will take new loans? Who will purchase goods and services with all these massive loans? The government going to borrow more from the counter-fitters? There needs to be financial regulation, you can’t allow counter-fitters, and people with heaps of money to dominate the system. Why is that a millionaire is set for life, while the lowbrow drags himself living a life of renting. Put must understand the reason why people are better off, is because someone else is not. We have a system where the middle class feeds off the low class, the high class feeds off the middle class and the low class. I’m not wanting communism, but capitalism needs regulation which should be seen in the nations interests and population interests. Not International and individual interests, which is how it works today.

Mickey T says:

02:51pm | 14/09/11

@ Elizabeth - Nice work. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story…Abbott’s handbook on dealing with scaremongering and propaganda must be doing the rounds.

Semantic Nonsense says:

12:28pm | 14/09/11

Agreed. I think what confuses people is they hear about “Levies” and “Stamp Duties” and thing, “it hasn’t got the word tax in it!”. The fact is, they’re all /kinds/ of taxes. They’re imposed under the power of the State to impose taxes.

Perhaps if people thought of them as sub-categories. In much the same way that males and females are different but they’re both /human beings/. A levy or registration fee might seem different, but they’re both /taxes/.

The Guardian says:

11:54am | 14/09/11

Neil….“even NSW and QLD Labor modelling says so.” Sorry Neil I thought the NSW government was a LNP government. I think you are thinking of the Victorian LNP government modelling which was commissioned,oh and by the way the modelling did not include the proceeds of money being raised being returned back to the community.Tricky by half hey!

neil says:

01:09pm | 14/09/11

Guardian the NSW modelling was commissioned by the previous ALP government. It predicted 35,000 lost jobs and a 3.5% drop in productivity.

The Guardian says:

01:43pm | 14/09/11

Ah yes Neil and The LNP modelling in Victoria showed 23,000 jobs would go without taking into account compensation as did the NSW government modelling,heres a link to start…..www.smh.com.au/.../carbon-tax-will-cost-31000-nsw-jobs-20110803-1ibrp…- and also see http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-figures-on-transport-gather-dust-20110912-1k637.html  Get the facts Neil.

The Guardian says:

11:38am | 14/09/11

Helps keep them off the streets BJA. However you neglect to point out that they also have Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt,you know the intellectual giants.They can also call Gina Rinehart and ask her to up her stake in the media so they can vent even more,just don’t try and report on her dealings she does not like that sort of news.

NicoleG says:

12:05pm | 14/09/11

Take it as flattery Erick. This sad, sad, troll just wants to be you. What a life. Spending all day impersonating you.

The Inimitable Erick says:

12:28pm | 14/09/11

What’s the matter, big fella, you don’t like it when Ericks don’t take Erick as seriously as Erick takes Erick?

Erick says:

12:04pm | 14/09/11

@fake Erick 11:43am - Pretending to be someone else makes you a liar.

That dishonesty reflects on your side of politics. Why do lefties feel they need to lie?

Eric says:

01:28pm | 14/09/11

Stop pretending to be me.

Erick says:

02:39pm | 14/09/11

Anyone who says they’re not Erick is a liar.

Matt says:

12:18pm | 14/09/11

If you have $100k in the bank, and you are receiving less than 3.6026% in interest, then you’ve only got yourself to blame.

Otherwise, your post does nothing more than show your economic ignorance.

John says:

01:05pm | 14/09/11

Matt your talking about your self. Please re-read what I have wrote, I’m sure many others know what I’m implying.

Matt says:

02:09pm | 14/09/11

John, perhaps instead of making implications, you should state clearly your opinion? Because I’m clearly not getting it. Unless you’re saying the carbon tax is a bit like inflation?

Dodge says:

12:44pm | 14/09/11

The deafening silence is more a result of utter incredulity at your ignorance. The MOST successful current economies in the world all have huge Government services and relative high taxes (Scandanavian nations, Australia, China etc). Oh and you might want to check out those countries approach to carbon emisssion while you’re at it.

Your self promoting couple of last paragraphs are more of an exercise in your out of touch sentiments. ‘Limited’ Government = promoting a plutocracy and frankly, promoting Corporations (as you are by ‘limiting Government’) to take up the slack of less political Governance spells out your true want. Plutocrat.

Frankly, while Government incompetence (and the harboring of deadwood) is an unfortunate aspect of Government services, it is at least transparent. This same willingness to dispense with Government would see less regulations and thus more failures on the scale of Enron or putting lives in the hands of the Skase’s of the world. All fair game right? It’s the ‘free’ market in action… Right?

I suppose we could continue ignoring the data available on the most efficient method or means of reducing carbon emissions, but how long for? How many sciences and economists would you like to deny? You play a fool’s game believing the interpretation of non-experts who attempt to alter the truth or create their own spin of the expertise available.

All the best,

Richard says:

02:35pm | 14/09/11

Hi Dodge, thanks for the reply, but unfortunately you are the one betraying your own utter ignorance.

You see plutocracy and the primacy of Big Corporations can only exist to the extent that Big Government exists. In the absence of Big Government, Big Business would wither and die.

This is because, in a true free market, large and unwieldy Corporations and Big Business Behemoths would simply be unable to compete with smaller, more agile firms who have the advantage of local knowledge and pre-existing relationships with customers.

The only way that Big Business can survive is when Government regualations and requirements become so onerous, and when tax codes grow so complex and unfathomable, that Big Business can use their economies of scale to employ hordes of lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to gain a competitive advantage over the smaller, more agile local firms who cannot afford such extravagant expediture on compliance.

Thus we can now see how Big Government, far from antagonising Big Business, actually enables it. In fact the two have a symbiotic relationship, to their mutual benefit, (and to the rest of our’s disadvantage).

Dodge, we ALREADY live under a Plutocratic Kleptarchy, and the only way to change it is to REDUCE the size of government.

Dodge says:

04:34pm | 14/09/11

Having worked for large multi-nationals, smaller local firms and Government, I’m calling out most of your reply.

Firstly, the regulation light version of capitalism in the States CERTAINLY doesn’t reflect what you typed about the dynamism and agility of ‘smaller firms’ at the expense of larger unwieldy Corporations. That’s purely on a factual level, anecdotally I couldn’t disagree with you more. The wealth, power and influence a large corporation brings to bear will never be placated by LESS regulation.

This Government is evil mantra is so tiring. Are we learning nothing from the Fanny May, Freddie Mac’s, various pyramid schemes and enrons of the World? It is utterly disingenuous to posit the (apparent) good nature of businessmen (ROFL) can be relied upon in helping the common worker. It’s as if OH&S standards, working hours, leave conditions are a negative consequence of Government, unionization and the other safeguards for workers developed over the last few centuries.

And no, Australia is not a plutocracy, nowhere near the level of the heavily lobbied system in the states… Which can really only be your point of comparison, where else has less regulation and less Government been a success? Dying to know.

I think our Government has done a stirring economic job the envy of the world for nearly 3 decades through both left and right Governments, both with excellent fiscally responsible initiatives. The heavy regulation of the banking sector can take credit for shielding us through the GFC. The large pool of savings generated out of Super another asset in the Governments toolset. So, in short, I disagree

Richard says:

05:19pm | 14/09/11

Dodge, listen to yourself~! Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac are State Sponsored Enterprises! They were set up by the Government in order to meddle with the free market! How can you then turn around and say that their failure means we need the Government to meddle in the free market more?!?

And as for Enron, they were the ones who pioneered this whole concept of Carbon Trading which our Government is trying to ram down our throats in the first place. They were the ones who invented it!

You have in no way succeeded in disproving my point that Big Government enables Big Business, and that Big Government and Big Business share a symbiotic relationship with each other to the detriment of every one else. The US does not even nearly have the sort of “regulation light” system you suppose it does, in fact its even more archaic and inflexible than ours, their Government even larger and more spendthrift than ours, which is why in large part they are experiencing such terrible economic difficulties.

We in Australia had the good fortune to be ruled for 11 of the last 15 years by a Fiscally Conservative Government who reigned in spending and paid back all the Government debt, which is why our economy is now able to prosper. If only the United States had had such a responsible Government as our Howard Government over this period, perhaps their economy would not be so dire as it is now.

I do agree though that the Keating reforms were also very valuable and have served us well. Note thought that they all, more or less, were about de-regulating the economy, floating the currency, instituting enterprise bargaining etc.,  which is actually in alignment with the sort of limited, fiscally conservative government that I’m talking about.

Dodge says:

03:30pm | 15/09/11

You’re really going to blame Government for the GFC, and not the unscrupulous folks leading those companies? Revisionism this close seems inappropriate. The entire problem was giving mortgages out that people could not pay back… That’s pretty gross and propoganda-like. The sub-prime crisis was not wholly manufactured by Corporate America but to not allot the lion’s share to them is massively disingenguous.

Having studied Enron a great deal, I can correct you on their forays into Carbon trading. Absolutely they invented Carbon trading, you make it sound like a bad thing…. There is nothing wrong with a system that incentivises non environmentally destructive endeavours, it’s absolutely required in this day and age of profit over people. They collapsed 10 years later due to rampant corruption - I have to laugh at you ignoring that and discussing some of the actual decent work they did in the 80’s and early 90’s.. The fact they spent millions on bribing politicans is redundant because the scheme wasn’t picked up…. Besides this is exactly why these initiatives must be explored by Government and not lead by the private sector and it’s inherent propensity for corruption. Their data trading sceme was inspired, but that’s just my opinion.

You havent proved big business and big Government go hand in hand in the slightest. How you can reconcile your comments when big business in America is Massively powerful and easily the lowest regulated, least monitored in the world. You would really contend MORE regulation would see their share grow? And what SMB would flourish? Again, where is your examples if not the USA? The US is taxed extremely light, they have problems with spending - but only as much as the vast majority of the western world at the moment. The regulation loopholes are far more easily exploted by big business who can afford to organise their funds in such a way to maximize the raping of the US people. Incidentally, the US economy is not in touble in the slighest, if you understood international finance you would see through the rhetoric. Their debt to gdp is some of the lowest, number 40 in the world or so I believe.

I’ve got no problem with Howard carrying on the fine fiscal management laid down before him, however, his attempted destruction of workplace conditions rightfully saw the end of him. LOL@ Forced super and more regulated banking being a conservative approaches. You sure see things in one light.

I agree about the former American Government however, it’s an embarressment Bush was allowed to set the country on such a dark road. The tax cuts that are now set in stone by the tea party are a complete embarressment to the Civilized world as are their talk of ‘job creators’ and complete aversion to infrastructure spending (yet another facet of society greedy corporations don’t touch due to profit levels).

Disraeli says:

01:17pm | 14/09/11

+1, Dan. Good stuff.

Richard says:

02:58pm | 14/09/11

But emitting carbon is not “breaking the law”. Furthermore, emitting carbon is currently a necessary aspect of ALL economic activity (thanks to the current state of technology). Now the argument is that pricing carbon will spur advances in technology to alter this situation. Sure, just like amputation is an effective way of treating a broken leg. But there are other ways that are less damaging.

You see when it comes to international competitiveness, Australians firms are now to be hindered with an enormous impost bigger than anyone else’s on the conduct of ALL economic activity.

Call it a Tax, call it a Price, call it a Penalty, whatever. That doesn’t alter that fact that it unfairly disadvantages Australian Industry and is thus in opposition to the National Interest.

Dan says:

05:59pm | 14/09/11

You’re right, emitting carbon is an essential component of most Australian industry. The point is, we now see that as a problem.

And you’re right again in saying the carbon price is a means of driving investment in new technology. You seem to think there’s a better means of achieving that ends, than a carbon price. May I ask what that is? From here, it seems that the world has agreed a market mechanism is the best process.

It’s certainly an economic impost. But Australian industry is strong enough to handle it, and intelligent enough to learn to work around it. Find efficiencies, develop new technologies, and then sell them across the globe.

Wayne says:

07:29pm | 14/09/11

Dan, I work in industries that this will affect. We have no competitive advantages any more, We used to have cheap energy we could leverage, value add and be competitive. This is now to be taken away, and even more we have no advantages left. Our cost base for everything (repeat everything) is higher, so any goods or services are much more expensive than an overseas provider for an equivalent product or service, and don’t say quality is better here, that is cr#p. Goods or services of equal or better quality can easily be sourced from overseas. We cannot export as our costs and therefore the prices to recover the costs and make a return are too high and we are flooded by imports at prices against which we cannot compete. You have no idea of how hard it is to recover our costs, far more make a profit. We are now forced to source from overseas to have any future at all. This does not bode well for the future of Australian jobs and to brush of this extra impost as having little effect is naive in the extreme..

Keith Hammersmith says:

09:34pm | 14/09/11

“It’s not a tax. It’s a penalty, designed to change behavior.” 
except that we are supposed to all be “compensated” for the price increases, thus not being penalized, thus this tax having no effect.
Or, people being compensated was just another Gillard lie?

Dan says:

10:11pm | 14/09/11

Wayne -

You didn’t mention which exact industry it is, but from the sounds of things, it’s manufacturing.

I’m not sure if you watched Sophie Mirebella’s address to the National Press Club earlier today. I managed to catch a few minutes, and it was on this very issue.

The problems plaguing manufacturing in Australia are enormous. You’re right in suggesting that a carbon tax will do little to ease any of those burdens. But I can’t justify holding back on a reform of this magnitude, just to help prop up an industry going through a period of serious transition.

How Australian manufacturing will remain competitive in the age of free trade is beyond me. There are encouraging signs in the US, with some major companies moving their manufacturing back on shore - but it must be said, their wages are far lower.

I’m sorry Wayne, you’ll probably forever regard me an absolute tosser, and I’ll understand. If it was my career, my factory, my livelihood, I’d feel exactly the same way. But I can’t remain opposed to this reform, where all the evidence suggests it will start turning around carbon emissions, to try and save an already struggling industry.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:48pm | 14/09/11

This-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SYc_flMnMQ

Erick says:

12:52pm | 14/09/11

No you’re not, I am. You’re both fakes. I’m the real one.

gra gra says:

01:22pm | 14/09/11

The real Erick, as much as he and I differ opinion/wise, would never have written “I am real Erick”. You sir, stand exposed, for which I’m told there is a tax payable. Or is that a fine? Or an environmental penalty? I’ll ask Anthony Abbott which opportunistic label it attracts this week.

Erick says:

02:35pm | 14/09/11

We’re all Erick.

Erick says:

03:14pm | 14/09/11

We may all be Erick, Erick, but some of us are more Erick than others… Erick for instance.

Derick says:

03:36pm | 14/09/11

@ Erick - I believe you Erick but then Erick butted in and said he was Erick, then the other Erick said we’re all Erick then gra gra said you weren’t Erick…will the real Erick who is more Erick than Erick put their hand up, this is just too confusing.

Erick says:

03:46pm | 14/09/11

Oh yes. Erick is far more Erick than Erick.

RyaN says:

04:12pm | 14/09/11

Are you seriously letting this crap through? Soon this site will be like the comments section of failblog.

Bruce says:

04:13pm | 14/09/11

I’m not.

Erique says:

05:18pm | 14/09/11

It’s less crap than the usual crap hereabouts, RyaN. In any event your petulant plea has been heeded — some dude called antsharwood who uses a surveillance photo of himself for his twitter profile pic is threatening dire consequences if the Erick festivities continue. 

How dull.

Mickey T says:

03:19pm | 14/09/11

Laughable…your handle is appropriate.

“On one side there is reason and common sense. On the other there is the fear campaign of Combet” - LOL

Tony Abbott is the master of scaremongering and the finest purveyor of fear that this country has ever seen, no-one can take that mantle from Abbott, he makes John Howard look innocent.

Erick says:

03:23pm | 14/09/11

That wasn’t me.

LC says:

05:37pm | 14/09/11

Obviously.

gra gra says:

01:56pm | 14/09/11

I don’t pay a tax. Under Abbott’s, (read ‘big business’s) , plan I would pay a tax, and then I would complain. As I’ve said before, even though two companies both produce the same product but only one of them attracts a penalty do you really think that they are going to price themselves out of business by raising their price above the product cost of the second. non-penalised company? As I’ve also said before this is known as ABB-Hockery, and is unworthy of even those two.
Again, it is not a tax. Nothing any of you Abbotteers say can alter that.  Of course the proper definition of this penalty-for-overpolluting means that Gillard never lied. And as unpalatable as that may be for your syncophantic minds, you have to accept it. You won’t acknowledge the truth, and you will attempt to maintain the deception, but deep down you will have already accepted that fact.
            Gillard…..did…..not…..lie.

RyaN says:

02:27pm | 14/09/11

To date there is not one scientist that has published a peer reviewed paper showing a definitive human marker in Global Warming. So what exactly is that “consensus” about, ah I remember now, Climate Change that thing we call the weather. Yes we all know the climate changes we also know that this is not what any carbon tax is about.

Dman says:

03:17pm | 14/09/11

When it comes to the cautionary principle, I’ll trust the 99% of scientists over the corporations with vested interests, thanks.

It has been known for hundreds of years that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to accumulation of heat.  Decades ago the extreme effects of this were shown to operate on Venus contributing to intense atmospheric heat.  It is also acknoweldged that humans have unlocked massive amounts of CO2 by burning fossil fuels and deforestation (don’t quote disproven “volcano” stats - they contribute a few % of amounts caused by human activity).

Given the seriousness of the issue and potential consequences, even this sinmple evidence is worthy action - after all Dick Cheney argued for a “1% Doctrine” in relation to terrorist threats - I think the far more serious issue of catastophic climate change at least deserves the benefit of a 99% Doctrine.

As for formal proof, well gravity is also just a theory, but I’m not going to jump off a tall building on the off-chance it’s wrong.

RyaN says:

04:10pm | 14/09/11

@Dman: yes we know all about that “gravity is just a theory” hoax pulled by the leftist scum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkrBd0N4ZaA James Brechney that leftist community radio announcer trying to be an idiot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpb52AaJ2tY

Since all of these factors are so well established, tell us then, what will the reduction in degrees per year in global temperature be as the result of this carbon tax?

Dman says:

04:56pm | 14/09/11

“gravity is just a theory” is a hoax?  Does that mean you’ve sorted out the laws of gravity?  I don’t know of the scum you’ve referred to but by using the terms like “leftist scum” you’re turning climate change into a political argument rather than a scientific one. 

And really, the “how many degrees…” questions as a justification for inaction is a useless straw man.  How many people will I kill if I drive drunk? If you can’t give me an accurate answer I guess we shouldn’t have laws against drink driving.  Seriously, some things are about common sense - if there is a strong possibility excess CO2 will cause harm, shouldn’t we do something to limit CO2 emissions?

Yesterday there were media reports of China and India making approving comments about Australia’s policy and seeing it as a test-case for similar policies.  This is the real value of Australia (and other developed countries) going down this path.  There is no way China or India would or should be expected to be first movers in this respect (after all, per capita they are kermit the frog compared to developed countries).

I remember when an ETS was the conservative, rational approach to the scientifically accepted problem of Climate Change. Nothing has changed except the politics.

Steve Putnam says:

08:07pm | 14/09/11

OK RyaN, what in your view has caused the massive increases in co2, methane and other greenhouses gases since the start of the industrial age?
Why do you repeat your your moronic expression about a “human marker in Global Warming” ad infinitum? Do you seriously discount an eight-fold increase in the earth’s population in the last 200 years as a “human marker”? Is your house insured against fire? If it is we are forced to conclude from your absurd logic that it has already caught alight.

RyaN says:

10:05pm | 14/09/11

@Steve Putnam: so Steve, even with the billions upon billions of dollars that have been thrown at the cash cow called “Climate Change” AKA “Global Warming”, rich climate scientists in their Maseratis etc and one very rich Al Gore, still no evidence, why do you think that is Steve?

Fact is yes I can agree with reducing pollution, what I cannot agree with is the lie that is being used to dupe stupid punters into parting with their hard earned cash on zero proof and zero intention of actually doing anything about pollution with said billions of dollars. Self enrichment by the elitists is the entire agenda of the “Climate Change” brigade, self enrichment through the sale of snake oil.

RyaN says:

10:17pm | 14/09/11

@Dman: strange how every leftist elitist scumbag who has an agenda for self enrichment through the scam we know well as “global warming” has jumped on this bandwagon, hell even that cockroach James Brechney managed to lift his little profile through it.

But Dman we do know how many people die if everyone is allowed to drive drunk, we can put an actual figure on it. Unfortunately for you who is trying very hard to blur a factual argument by using an example that we all know has shown a measurable decrease in deaths due to less people driving drunk. The fact that we are to implement a carbon tax and have no measure by which we can gauge, nor a base line shows what a straw man argument the case is for a carbon tax.

There is to date still no definitive proof that a kilogram of carbon dioxide raises the temperature of the atmosphere by a set measurable amount over a set period of time, you know real science and mathematics. This is the reason why this argument is used, it goes to show what a joke this so-called “science” has made of real science and scientific method.
http://www.suite101.com/news/top-american-scientist-quits-aps-over—global-warming-scam-a295057

Junk science is what it is, and this is junk science, period.

Dodge says:

04:56pm | 14/09/11

The ball has to start rolling somewhere, how can we ask China or India to reduce emissions when we have some of the highest per capita in the world? Or do we just let the planet tank until the last possible moment? What’s the end game here, just wait?

What about all the lies STILL put forward as fact from the usual suspects - like petrol being in the tax, like householders paying ‘thousands a year’. It’s all fear mongering nonsense.

And so, ‘global warming is a natural process’ - no doubt, would you like to stick the middle finger up to the millions of people currently living below sea level? Again, whats the end game, saying tough luck? Hoping against hope humans have no bearing on this planet through pollution? What about tacitly supporting other environmentally destructive industries by giving global warming no support whatsoever? People just think in black and white terms far too much.

Why do people want Australia to be a follower and not a leader? Does this reveal your own defeatist mindset? Since when have Australians backed multi-national bottom lines at the expense of all other aspects. The impact of the ETS to homeowners is nominal at best.

Business innovates to succeed, this has always been the case. Most conservatives are going to look really stupid due to this debate in 10 years. Much like the GST naysayers look today.

Damocles says:

05:42pm | 14/09/11

Bring on Sept 2013! I want to hear Gillard’s groan, see Brown’s frown, hear Windsor’s whine, Wilkie’s “What happened!” and Oakshott’s obituary! Hahahahahaha! Bring it on!

splash the cash says:

12:58am | 15/09/11

Yes and all the bullshitt work that went into the tax, and all the wasted talk, will all be for nothing as it will be Recinded and Rejected by the Majority at the next election, who will be in waiting with bats, to put the greens, independants and labor into the political Abyss for long time.

Wayne says:

08:12pm | 14/09/11

Agree. Just one more silly analogy put to rest.

Disraeli says:

08:27am | 15/09/11

Best check your facts from a more reliable source. Both your claims are incorrect.

The Carbon Price and ETS will not put the Budget in surplus.
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/#content013

Nor is the Future Fund going to be used for that purpose. It’s simply not so.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/OpinionNews/pg/0/fi323641.htm
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=660606&vId;=

RyaN says:

09:55am | 15/09/11

@Disraeli: and of course we can trust this Labor government on their word right? pfffttt need I remind you of this pearler “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”?

DC says:

10:48am | 15/09/11

@RyaN:

So, if a person lies, we shouldn’t trust them?

By your own rule, Tony Abbott should absolutely NOT be trusted.

He’s a well known liar and he’s admitted it numerous times including his infamous 7.30 PM admission that he’s not entirely consistent.

Anyone who has watched Tony Abbott rise through the ranks of the Liberal Party would be well versed in the numerous lies he’s told - and been caught out on - during his political career.

But of course, if you listen to any of the Liberal Party spin doctors here, you’d think that Tony Abbott was a saint.

He’s not.

Disraeli says:

10:59am | 15/09/11

The PM took Labor to the polls on an Emission Trading Scheme. Not a tax - just a commercial market mechanism.

Faced with an even electoral result, legitimate post-election negotiation, as provided by our democratic system, got us to where we are now.  A Carbon Price. A charge on the biggest greenhouse gas polluting companies. Still a clear market signal but effectively a tax. But for the first three years only. Then on to the Emission Trading Scheme, the commercial market mechanism pretty much as originally put forward.

Plainly it could have been better explained.  On the sort of posts we see here, it seems to me that the difference between a Carbon Price and an Emissions Trading Scheme is still poorly understood, though its been covered multiple times by eg Stern, and in both Garnaut Reports, if I recall correctly. Seems to me the PM thought most people would know the difference. Plainly wrong, to her cost.

The whole point of either scheme is to drive a market mechanism that acts on the production of the main man-made green house gasses - Carbon or CO2 for short.  It’s widely understood that either scheme can work effectively.

The Prime Minister has consistently said she had no intention to mislead, and I think that’s right.  She was originally aiming for an ETS, not a Carbon Price, and ended up with a compromise - both - and quite legitimately. 

And Abbott, to gain support in those negotiations (and thus office ) would have had to make much the same level of compromise. He couldn’t, Gillard could.

RyaN says:

09:56am | 16/09/11

@DC: care to back up your baseless slur with the actual text of the incident to which you refer?
If not then we know why don’t we?
This joke of a baseless claim used so often by the Labor party is so easily refuted by posting the actual text, how about the next baseless claim, the liberals having no policies? http://liberal.org.au/policies

RyaN says:

09:58am | 16/09/11

@DC: oh and when compared that lying commie Gillard, Tony Abbott is more than a saint, he is a freaking angel!

RyaN says:

10:07am | 16/09/11

@Disraeli: “The PM took Labor to the polls on an Emission Trading Scheme. ” and there I thought you had far more credibility and intelligence than to go down this road. Sigh!
“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/julia-gillard-finally-admits-its-a-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226085918836

Whats that Disraeli? Thats your credibility flying out the window!

Disraeli says:

06:20pm | 16/09/11

OK, so Ryan still doesn’t get the difference.  No surprise there, then. Still, best to stick to the facts. Readily available.

Appearing on ABC TV’s Q&A program, the Prime Minister said she was glad to explain:

“I did say during the last election campaign, I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That’s true and I’ve walked away from that commitment and I’m not going to try and pretend anything else,” she said.

Ms Gillard said if she was leading a majority government she would have an emissions trading scheme with no carbon tax, but the hung Parliament forced her to “work with others”.

“I had a really stark choice. Do I act or not act, well I’ve chosen to act,” she said.

“I didn’t intend to mislead people.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/gillard-walked-away-from-tax-promise/story-e6freuzr-1226021528940

Happy to stand by this post and everything on this matter that I’ve consistently posted, here and elsewhere.

Erique says:

10:10am | 15/09/11

Erick, is that you!?

gra gra says:

10:27am | 15/09/11

JG, She said it was effectively like a tax. But she also explained that we, the people, would not be paying it, and that the industries who exceed permissable levels of pollutants would be.
See what happens to your ‘out of contex’ grubbiness when the truth is told. But your philosophy, ie, that of Abbott and his big business cronies, makes no allowance for truth, does it?
Abbott, who you obviously support, (delusions of grandeur?) would have you and me paying a tax to “reimburse” the polluters for contaminating the air we breathe. Ergo, the industries who give no thought to our health will be given assistance to pay their penalty so that they can continue with their nefarious work free of constraint. This, you bunch of morons, is the “Abbott Plan”. And you decry Gillard’s “polluter pays” scheme, support Abbott, (and Hockey’s), “polluter benefits” program, and are happy to think you are intelligent.
By your self-destructive reckoning my garden sprinkler is, by comparison, a genius.

Disraeli says:

10:38am | 15/09/11

Empty hysterics that don’t address a single issue simply don’t cut the mustard.

The Carbon Price is levied on big business. It is not a personal tax. The costs are, for most households, fully compensated:
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/question-categories/household-family/

Talon says:

11:45am | 15/09/11

@Disraeli.  Sorry but like this article, “cleanenrgyfuture” is just government propaganda designed to make you feel good and keep you ignorant of the truth.  It is missinformation.

The government knew the real cost of the carbon “whatever” long ago.  Why else cap public servant wage rises and what was that blip a few months back re a helpline for those facing bankruptcy?  I thought is already existed.

Disraeli says:

01:15pm | 15/09/11

Oh please.  It’s off the main official site for information on the policy.
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/about/

It’s free, publicly available, and using the base material that underpins the Government’s policy.  It’s there for anyone to use, for, against, or looking to make up their own minds.

The Government, the Climate Change Dept and the Treasury and etc are accountable for the quality of the information.  Should it turn out to be materially misleading, then called to account they’ll be. 

It’s the duty of Government -any Government - and the policy Departments of the time to provide the very best information they can to the public. That’s their job, and that’s what they do.

Its simply ludicrous to dismiss a sound official accountable source of primary, documented information on the policy as “propaganda” or “misinformation” just because you don’t like it.

Public Service wages: for Pete’s sake, a completely separate budgetary measure in rather testing times.

As for “sorry”, uh huh. Sure. Who are you trying to kid?

Talon says:

03:32pm | 15/09/11

@Disraeli.
Thanks again for the internet link.  I did go through it.  It is good to know that you have such faith in the integrity of the Government.

The earths outer magnetic field is lethal to humans…..  It is possible to tell nothing but the truth and still misslead.  I did not say “but who would float outside the atmosphere in jeans and a cap”.  The information in the site is rosey all over but limited in its information scope, carefully avoiding the negative.  As with the magnetic field, not all the story is being told.  Follow the dots to the end and see why we are upset.

It is not all sunshine and lolly pops.  There are long term consequences and damage.

The use of the word sorry is not always in appology.  In context it would have been a regret.

RyaN says:

10:01am | 16/09/11

Yes Disraeli, posting Labor government propaganda is discrediting you.
Perhaps you want to post a link to the communist manifesto next, just so we can get used to the idea?

Disraeli says:

06:26pm | 16/09/11

If Ryan can’t be bothered making proper use of public information freely provided for all, that’s his look out.

Instead he’d rather keep trotting out his weary old tricks: making things up, misleading, misrepresenting other’s words.

Didn’t work last time, Ryan. Isn’t ever going to work.

See ya!

Talon says:

10:43pm | 16/09/11

Sigh…. Yes…yes I sympathize RyaN.  You know what they say..  Horses and water, dogs and tricks, old head and young shoulders.

Disraeli says:

02:09pm | 15/09/11

Oh please. The PM and Senator Brown -and any other MP - will be as exposed to any flow on cost as anyone else, and given their incomes, will carry most of that cost themselves.

The rest of your post is worthless rant.

Damocles says:

04:23pm | 15/09/11

Oh, please yourself…...........and I’m sure you do! My “worthless rant” trumps your mindless, Laborite spin. “Carry the cost themselves”? give me a break, your soporific, mindless blathering would send anyone into a coma.
It’s a tax that will effect everything and will be passed on to everyone.
Go trundle your GetUp Labor bs somewhere else.
\V/

Disraeli says:

06:01pm | 15/09/11

I’m happy to let the content of my posts stand on their merits. And I don’t need baseless personal insult to make my points. 

Others may agree or disagree, but when faced with mindless spouting, and plain misinformation, I’ll call it civilly to account.

Talon says:

07:43pm | 15/09/11

@Disraeli.  Civility, merit?  These are the words of the high minded, closed minded. To whom will you plea and beating of breast when the gnashing of ignorance leaves you in jest.  There is no embarrassment in this as we do not all get the opportunity to learn at the same rate.  Sure some are emotional and seem to type drivel, but underneath is some point. To turn your back on it and never knowing seems to be a waste.

Disraeli says:

10:32pm | 15/09/11

Learn away. That, indeed, is the whole point.  To seek access to enough information to form our own views. Any of us with a little curiosity and a little time can do so.

That’s why I post pretty much as I do.  I chose to talk about content, rather than base personal attack and baseless personal assumption.

Whatever my opinion, the basis for it is found in reason and the best information I can find. The readily checkable sources are shown in most of my posts, so that any reader can chose to look further and make up their own mind.

You may not have noticed, but I simply don’t do pleading, gnashing, or beating of breasts. All too common hereabouts already.

I’m content to let my posts stand as they are. Others will form their own views, either on the basis of useful information and reason, or by hectoring insult, misleading misinformation, and baseless personal assumption. No prize for guessing my view on which is the more useful, in the end, and which is more likely to lead to learning.

Still, you don’t like the style and content of my posts. That’s up to you. Not much point, though,  in dressing your opinion up with so much empty supposition. But that, too, is entirely up to you.

Steve Putnam says:

08:57pm | 15/09/11

Fatuous nonsense Damocles. Unless the Tories divest themselves of Abbott they will loose the next election. Keep that sword of yours nice and sharp so it causes you less pain when you use it on yourself come the time.

gra gra says:

02:13am | 16/09/11

Damocles, with the sword sitting over your head, and of course over the head of the priest you apparently fancy, did you ever think to consider what may be best for Australia?  No?
You are a clever little girl, able to predict a result two years hence. Perhaps you can tell us why a priest is a better investment than a normal non-religous person, given that priests, monsignors, bishops and arch bishops are all p