# What does the Carbon Tax mean for me?



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Hi everyone.

I have been reading various information about the CTax since someone had mentioned thresholds being increased or something along those lines.

Well, I earn over 37K and under 80K, and the original tax is X amount plus 30%. The threshold for $0 Tax will be increased to 20K respectively. The tax amount, however, will now be 32.5%.

Does this mean that I will be paying even more tax at the end of 2012 then the previous year? It just seems to me that there will be no change for people earning around my bracket, and the only change being paying even more tax than before.

So, what's happened here? We are paying for Carbon that we don't emit, as well as having company cost added to goods?

I am no good with taxes so I beg for someone to enlighten me on this...


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

I don't think anyone knows.  Think Pink Batts, BER and every other Rudd/Gillard fiasco - what hope is there of this being done properly?

Costello said recently that the easy part is the legislation and the most difficult is the actual implementing of a new complex tax.

Treasury has done computer modelling, but I'm not so sure that they've got it any where near right according to this article:

From Henry Ergas: *Swan hides his dodgy carbon model*


----------



## medicowallet (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Hi everyone.
> 
> I have been reading various information about the CTax since someone had mentioned thresholds being increased or something along those lines.
> 
> ...




even IF you break even on this.

There is no doubt going to be a ramping up of the tax as we "fail to meet targets"

or a decrease in compensation.

MW


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Sorry?

I am trying to figure out why the threshold is being increased for $0 tax, but the tax rate is increasing for everyone else. How is this a Tax break?

Am I correct in saying that for those who earn over 37K are going to be paying 2.5% more tax by next year? Threshold increase from 16K to 20K respectively; but why is my tax going up?

This would be my first year in business (quite small), and yet I feel as if I am being gouged.


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

Here is another interesting article on Treasury modelling by Peter Gallagher who is a leading Australian consultant on trade and public policy:

An excerpt:



> The exchanges between Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in the past day or so about modelling “compensation” for the proposed carbon tax suggest that the Prime Minister believes modelling is sufficiently accurate to guide the fine-tuning of her tax and “compensation”. But if the Treasury’s 2008 modelling of the proposed ETS are an indication of the sort of advice she is getting about the impact of her tax then I can’t agree.




Full article - worth reading:  *Treasury modelling of a carbon tax*


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> I feel as if I am being gouged.



 Congratulations.  You have it in one.
Good luck.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Sorry?
> 
> I am trying to figure out why the threshold is being increased for $0 tax, but the tax rate is increasing for everyone else. How is this a Tax break?
> 
> ...




You won't be paying more tax directly, it is an indirect tax i.e. you will be paying more for electricity and gas.
If you live at home you will hardly notice the difference.
However you will be compensated by a tax break that will come as a lump sum. You will do OK. It is the people over 80K that lose out.


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> You won't be paying more tax directly, it is an indirect tax i.e. you will be paying more for electricity and gas.
> If you live at home you will hardly notice the difference.
> However you will be compensated by a tax break that will come as a lump sum. You will do OK. It is the people over 80K that lose out.




Well it was those breaks I was looking at that didn't make sense.

Earners who earn more than $37,001 will end up paying 32.5% and the threshold for $0 tax is being pushed up to $20,000 respectively. So, all in all, I will end up paying tax on the entire NET including that $20,000?

This just doesn't make sense - why on Earth would the Government do something like this when the Tax is aimed at Carbon producers? I will not only pay a higher tax but increased costs?

This just doesn't make sense - surely I am severely mistaken... Am I?


----------



## danbradster (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Sorry?
> 
> I am trying to figure out why the threshold is being increased for $0 tax, but the tax rate is increasing for everyone else. How is this a Tax break?
> 
> ...




It is to get votes and to make it sound positive, it allows for them to have more tricky wording.


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

o...k...

So I _will_ be paying more tax, as well as more on certain other things through increase in price of goods....

That doesn't make sense to me.... And how exactly are they going to get more votes? Everyone is being gouged, not just the pensioners...

This ISN'T a CTax Rage thread - I seriously want to know how it is going to affect my income tax as per some crap I read about threshold increases.

I'll just call an accountant in the morning....


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Well it was those breaks I was looking at that didn't make sense.
> 
> Earners who earn more than $37,001 will end up paying 32.5% and the threshold for $0 tax is being pushed up to $20,000 respectively. So, all in all, I will end up paying tax on the entire NET including that $20,000?



No.   The $20K tax free threshold is just that.  You pay nothing on the first $20K.
Then you pay according to your marginal rate on any amount thereafter.

It's not actually much of a change, in that the $20K tax free threshold wipes out the previously claimable low income tax offset which amounted to around $18,000, I think.

The above is as I understand it, but I'm happy to be corrected.

But don't be under any illusions that any compensation from the government will actually compensate you for all the increased costs.  We will all have not only increased household electricity accounts (plus the amount the energy companies whack in as they claim "the uncertainty still pertaining to the whole carbon tax situation will result in higher prices which will have to be passed on to the consumer"),
but also everything you buy/consume has electricity as a component.

Prices will be able to rise exponentially with the gougers compassionately telling you there's nothing they can do about it as "it's all due to the carbon tax".
Good luck proving it's not.
We will be ripped off big time.


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Julia said:


> No.   The $20K tax free threshold is just that.  You pay nothing on the first $20K.
> Then you pay according to your marginal rate on any amount thereafter.
> 
> It's not actually much of a change, in that the $20K tax free threshold wipes out the previously claimable low income tax offset which amounted to around $18,000, I think.
> ...




Julia, how is it that this odd scheme has made it through parliment? Surely this is a joke...


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Julia, how is it that this odd scheme has made it through parliment? Surely this is a joke...



A reasonable suggestion, Lost My Shirt.
Not sure why you're surprised, however, given the overall quality of decisions made by this government.

I doubt many were aware of the low income tax offset which has existed for years, thus enabling the government to claim a magnificent benevolence in offering a whole $20K tax free threshold as part of the compensation for the carbon tax.  This, of course, is pure bull**** and all they are offering is around $2000 p.a. extra, as i understand it.

I believe I have heard just one economist pull the government up on their spin on this.


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> ...However you will be compensated by a tax break that will come as a lump sum. You will do OK. It is the people over 80K that lose out.




What about a separated parent earning over $80k who have been screwed with massive legal fees to gain time with their kids plus stung  again heavily by child support on which they pay tax but is tax free to the non-income parent.  While these are mostly dads, it is more to do with the higher income earner who cops it.  I would imagine there will be no relief for people like this doing it tough.


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Julia; well, this is not going to be fun...


----------



## moXJO (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Julia; well, this is not going to be fun...




For labor it will be
Now bend over and grab your ankles while labor saves the planet by screwing you


----------



## tothemax6 (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> This would be my first year in business (quite small), and yet I feel as if I am being gouged.



Lol, we are all getting gouged my friend. 
Tax should be half what it already is, not even bigger. I'm afraid there aren't that many choices to be had though - not all of us can run away to Switzerland. 


LostMyShirt said:


> Julia, how is it that this odd scheme has made it through parliment? Surely this is a joke...



It was insane the moment it was suggested, it's still insane now. But then again, most of the things politicians suggest and do are completely insane and incomprehensible. I just say '2+2=5' to myself, shrug it off, and think about something else.


----------



## danbradster (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> o...k...
> 
> So I _will_ be paying more tax, as well as more on certain other things through increase in price of goods....
> 
> ...




They advertise the tax break and never mention the passed on costs from businesses, that is how they try to get votes, and that is what allows for the tricky wording.

"Nine out of 10 households will get tax cuts or payment rises and more money will flow into clean energy as Australia's 500..."  Notice the 9/10 figure used, while the majority of them will only see tiny tax breaks, which will be drastically outweighed by cost of living increases.


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Julia; well, this is not going to be fun...




With a name like yours surely you are not surprised at being screwed.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> With a name like yours surely you are not surprised at being screwed.




..... That is an odd response.

Julia; Thank you very much for responding to the thread with viable information - you answered the questions I needed to be answered.

I am dissapointed really....

Well, all of you _progressives_ have gotten your wish. You want to be modern, rational and scientific - good luck to you all, as you have been fleeced by cloak and dagger tax covered in irrational informations and pseudo-sciences.

I'll end this with a common spew that I usually divulge to those "progressives"; just because if makes you feel warm and fuzzy within your skin, does not mean you are correct nor does it indicate your view is Universal. Using your dogmatic sciences, you have ffectively fleeced the entire populas. Those who boast rationality, have accepted the irrational. those who bow to the scientific dogma, have been fleeced with pseudo-science - welcome to the modern day society, where we pay for non-existant effects. Australia has become a semi-free country. We may not pay for the air we breath, but we will certainly pay for the air we breath out....


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> ..... That is an odd response.



Don't worry, the carbon tax won't take your pants and leave you totally naked (hopefully), but you, like the majority will be poorer for the experience as you have worked out.

It is, put simply, an exercise in socialism dressed up as environmentalism.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Don't worry, the carbon tax won't take your pants and leave you totally naked (hopefully), but you, like the majority will be poorer for the experience as you have worked out.
> 
> It is, put simply, an exercise in socialism dressed up as environmentalism.




I wonder if the Vegans from Newtown are feeling all warm and fuzzy knowing that 100ft Tsunami's won't ravage the "New Age" life they have build for themselves....


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

I won't get stuck into vegans as that's just a choice about what to eat, but I do feel there are many voters who support the Greens without fully understanding what they actually represent.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I won't get stuck into vegans as that's just a choice about what to eat, but I do feel there are many voters who support the Greens without fully understanding what they actually represent.



Plus those who voted for them not out of any philosophical concerns, but simply because they hated both the main parties.
I wonder if some of these people are now feeling a bit sick about their cop-out decision.


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> ..... That is an odd response.




Not at all. Your user name indicates that you are no stranger to doing your dough. You obviously had false expectations that Gillard would compensate you in some way for acceptance of the Carbon Tax.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Not at all. Your user name indicates that you are no stranger to doing your dough. You obviously had false expectations that Gillard would compensate you in some way for acceptance of the Carbon Tax.




What is the infatuation with my forum handle? It is supposed to be catchy and fun, not an indication to the world about me being shirtless due to loss of finances...

I had no part in the up-bringing of the Ctax, and didn't vote for anything. I was merely trying to understand what these "benifits" actually were that were being thrown around like a hacky-sack. I didn't understand them, I do understand them much more now, and I have the very few users who actually answered my question to thank.

Also I should mention I am not making fun of Vegans - just those Greenies who follow anything Scientific as a dogma, and blame the rest of the world for being dogmatic.


----------



## MACCA350 (18 October 2011)

Julia said:


> We will all have not only increased household electricity accounts (plus the amount the energy companies whack in as they claim "the uncertainty still pertaining to the whole carbon tax situation will result in higher prices which will have to be passed on to the consumer"),
> but also everything you buy/consume has electricity as a component.



And going by this:


MACCA350 said:


> Was watching some senate committee hearings regarding the carbon dioxide tax. Being interviewed was a major Victorian electricity wholesale supplier. They were asked how much they expect the carbon tax to increase their wholesale costs. Their response was a 30% increase in their wholesale rate
> 
> So much for the theory that this tax will have little impact
> 
> Cheers




That little, as we've been led to believe, electricity impact won't be so little

Cheers


----------



## marioland (18 October 2011)

Although I agree that they shouldn't put up the Carbon Tax, I don't think it would be that bad. Scandinavian countries had the Carbon Tax for years and they're still doing good.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 October 2011)

marioland said:


> Although I agree that they shouldn't put up the Carbon Tax, I don't think it would be that bad. Scandinavian countries had the Carbon Tax for years and they're still doing good.




They are doing well because the little people fork out for emissions made by industry, while applying a tax on the emissions, and the corporations pass the cost on.

So yeah, all in all, if you make people spend MORE, you will ultimately look as if you are doing well on your balance sheet.


----------



## sails (18 October 2011)

marioland said:


> Although I agree that they shouldn't put up the Carbon Tax, I don't think it would be that bad. Scandinavian countries had the Carbon Tax for years and they're still doing good.




Have you compared them properly to Australia?  Do they have other base load power such as hydro or nuclear? 

Australia has no other reliable, affordable and readily available alternative to our current coal fired stations.  And some of these other countries are not slugged as hard as we are going to be.  Below is a picture of the suggested per capita amount of $391 per annum for every man woman and child in Australia compared to how much is charged in other countries.

If 80% of the population is to be compensated, that means 20% will be carrying all the load.  I'm not so sure that Australia will fare nearly so well as other countries who have a cheap alternative for baseload power.


----------



## IFocus (18 October 2011)

Looking forward to the sky falling in, plague and pestilence visiting you all soon.

Don't fret Abbotts blood promise is he will remove the tax......then spend your taxes through the back using the folly called direct action.

That's of course after Hockey blows a $70 bil hole to the forward estimates cannot wait.


----------



## LostMyShirt (18 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Looking forward to the sky falling in, plague and pestilence visiting you all soon.
> 
> Don't fret Abbotts blood promise is he will remove the tax......then spend your taxes through the back using the folly called direct action.
> 
> That's of course after Hockey blows a $70 bil hole to the forward estimates cannot wait.




Written in blood while Abbots face is smeared with Egg....


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Don't fret Abbotts blood promise is he will remove the tax......then spend your taxes through the back using the folly called direct action.



I thought he was a skeptic. 

He might actually do away with the so-called direct action as well when in power.

We can only hope.


----------



## sails (18 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I thought he was a skeptic.
> 
> He might actually do away with the so-called direct action as well when in power.
> 
> We can only hope.





I think that is highly likely as we are already seeing the majority of Aussies  turning away from anything carbon.  I think there is far greater public awareness and with dire AGW predictions not happening, people are certainly becomming more sceptical.

This is confirmed with this poll out yesterday:



> 60pc say Abbott would repeal tax
> Coalition primary vote at 51pc
> Lead 58-42 on two-party preferred
> 
> ...




Read more from News.com by Simon Benson:
*Carbon tax anger points to landslide win for Opposition *


----------



## derty (18 October 2011)

sails said:


> I think that is highly likely as we are already seeing the majority of Aussies  turning away from anything carbon.  I think there is far greater public awareness and *with dire AGW predictions not happening*, people are certainly becomming more sceptical.



 It is only 2011.


----------



## Eager (18 October 2011)

Ummm, has everyone forgotten that the Flood Levy, which affects high income earners the most, will be removed on June 30 next year? Here, I expect its removal to cover any increase in cost-of-living expenses due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax. As a bonus, my wife will get a tax cut.

I'm a bit skeptical about computer modelling, though it can be applied equally to both sides of the argument. On one hand it remains to be seen whether the predictions for increases in the cost of living are accurate, but on the other hand would those predictions be any more inaccurate than any computer-modelled predictions of economic doom and gloom that a lot of people seem to take as gospel?


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

derty said:


> It is only 2011.



The year the hyperbowl  rose to *catastrophic* climate change.



Eager said:


> Ummm, has everyone forgotten that the Flood Levy, which affects high income earners the most, will be removed on June 30 next year? Here, I expect its removal to cover any increase in cost-of-living expenses due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax.



Take with one hand, reverse that after 12 months but then take some with the other hand.

I'm over the moon on that prospect.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I thought he was a skeptic.
> 
> He might actually do away with the so-called direct action as well when in power.
> 
> We can only hope.



I'd say it will only be a short step from repealing the carbon tax (which Tony Abbott absolutely has to do, however difficult it is, if he is to maintain any credibility) to "postponing" any action on so called climate change.
I can almost already hear the collective sigh of relief throughout most of the electorate if that were to happen.
Perfectly easy for him to do this, unless there is a huge change in the attitudes of the rest of the world in the meantime.




sails said:


> I think that is highly likely as we are already seeing the majority of Aussies  turning away from anything carbon.  I think there is far greater public awareness and with dire AGW predictions not happening, people are certainly becomming more sceptical.
> 
> This is confirmed with this poll out yesterday:



I actually thought rather the opposite, Sails, in view of Labor's small bounce in the poll.  I'd have expected a further fall in their rating now that the carbon tax legislation is through.

What do you think the bounce to Labor indicates?


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Julia, how is it that this odd scheme has made it through parliment? Surely this is a joke...




They have raised the tax free threshold and accordingly raised the tax rate on earnings after the first 20K..how is that odd?

It will make it through parliament because The greens, Independents and Labor control both houses, and one vote Tony and the rest of the lunatic right, refuse to deal constructively with the Government on any level...thus have no influence over outcomes other than handing the greens almost there entire political agenda on a silver platter.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Ummm, has everyone forgotten that the Flood Levy, which affects high income earners the most, will be removed on June 30 next year? Here, I expect its removal to cover any increase in cost-of-living expenses due to the introduction of the Carbon Tax. As a bonus, my wife will get a tax cut.



You should be working for the government (um, perhaps you are?) with this level of spin!!!
If the government had managed its finances properly, it would have been able to provide flood assistance without imposing an additional levy on the population, fergawdsake!

How on earth can you suggest we should regard the end point of this levy as some sort of amelioration of the impost of the carbon tax?


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> It will make it through parliament because........



Labor has bent over to The Greens and Independents for the spoils of office.


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor has bent over to The Greens and Independents for the spoils of office.




Onshore illegal immigrant processing...compliments of 1 vote (wreck everything) Tony.


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Onshore illegal immigrant processing....



Having adopted the above undignifying posture, that's Labor unable to get the Greens off its back.


----------



## sails (18 October 2011)

Julia said:


> I...I actually thought rather the opposite, Sails, in view of Labor's small bounce in the poll.  I'd have expected a further fall in their rating now that the carbon tax legislation is through.
> 
> What do you think the bounce to Labor indicates?




What bounce, Julia?  I think there was a couple of percent, but I also understand there is a 2-3% margin of error, so anything inside that amount is probably neither here nor there.

58:42 would still give a landslide victory to the Coalition and is clearly not an endorsement for Gillard's carbon tax.  And 60% believe Abbott would have the electoral and moral authority to repeal the tax as per the poll in my last post in this thread.




So_Cynical said:


> Onshore illegal immigrant processing...compliments of 1 vote (wreck everything) Tony.





Actually, Gillard chose on shore herself.  She had the choice of off shore with Abbott or on shore with the greens.  We know she chose the greens thanks to the thoughtful MP who leaked the info.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Onshore illegal immigrant processing...compliments of 1 vote (wreck everything) Tony.



How about offering a response to my earlier question before just thoughtlessly and repetitively parroting whatever the government says?
Surely you can come up with some remarks that are actually a result of your own thought processes instead of mindlessly copying the Prime Minister?


----------



## Julia (18 October 2011)

sails said:


> What bounce, Julia?  I think there was a couple of percent, but I also understand there is a 2-3% margin of error, so anything inside that amount is probably neither here nor there.



I thought the margin of error was around 1% but am open to correction.

I'm just trying to be objective and even handed.
Whenever the government falls further in the polls, even by just one point, someone always puts up the poll on the thread, and we all smile happily.

I'm not at all suggesting the opposition should be worried about the rise to 30%, but at the same time, I think things could easily turn around if there were a change of Labor leader and a postponing of the carbon tax, plus a reversion to using Nauru.


----------



## drsmith (18 October 2011)

Julia said:


> I thought the margin of error was around 1% but am open to correction.



Is Labor's rise in primary votes sloshing between Green and Labor ?

No meaningful change on Essential Media's poll,

http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2011)

sails said:


> Actually, Gillard chose on shore herself.  She had the choice of off shore with Abbott or on shore with the greens.  We know she chose the greens thanks to the thoughtful MP who leaked the info.




Sorry im confused...Tony had a choice between offshore anywhere and onshore...and he chose which?


----------



## sails (18 October 2011)

Julia said:


> I thought the margin of error was around 1% but am open to correction.
> 
> I'm just trying to be objective and even handed.
> Whenever the government falls further in the polls, even by just one point, someone always puts up the poll on the thread, and we all smile happily.
> ...




Julia, I certainly agree that things could turn around for labor if there were a change of Labor leader and a postponing of the carbon tax, plus a reversion to using Nauru.

Here is the latest NewsPoll and the 3% is shown in the small print: http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/10/11/1226163/501640-111011-newspoll.pdf

Although there have been small fluctuations in the polls, there has been a steady trend away from labor and to the coalition since February when Gillard announced that she would be legislating a carbon tax without the citizens assembly that she promised and that she would not be taking carbon tax to the people for permission by way of election or referrendum.

We can only hope that people will not be fooled by the alp spin.  Howard was punished severely for not listening to the people over work choices and it's hard to see that Gillard will be let off any lighter than Howard.

A change of leader seems to be the only hope for Labor to save some of their seats, however, I it seems that Gillard may be threatening to quit parliament if she is removed from leadership:



> But several of Ms Gillard's backers in caucus sent a warning to MPs who might be considering swinging behind Kevin Rudd to take back the leadership, threatening she would quit parliament and vacate her seat if they tried to blast her out of the job.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ed-over-refugees/story-e6freuzr-1226166261758

So, I guess labor has to decide if it's better to take the medicine now before Gillard does any more damage to the party or sit it out.  One gets the feeling they are like rabbits in the headlights.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 October 2011)

Found this.

This website shows how much compensation you will get from the government for the Carbon Tax.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

Try it out "Lost My Shirt"


----------



## LostMyShirt (19 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Found this.
> 
> This website shows how much compensation you will get from the government for the Carbon Tax.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that mate. 

I did go to the site earlier and found the tax table, also found a picture show with a sped up hand drawing doodles to explain the carbon tax as if I was a toddler with no real brain - than again what is there to expect from Governments who govern in isolation? I suppose to them we are all a right bunch of nitwits who need picture books to explain things...

I'm insulted and appauled.


----------



## basilio (19 October 2011)

Hi Lost my shirt and others. Actually it looks as if most people will receive even more compensation for the carbon tax levy than the government calculated. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling did it's figures and says that most families will be $120 a year ahead.

They also worked out that the people who will pay more will be those in the top 20% of incomes. Worth checking out. I think you said you were just starting up a business and unlikely  to making a lot of money immediately?

I also checked out the site  and (FWIW)  I thought the animated story was  quite good. Clear, to the point and simple. I have certainly seen much more boring and complex explanations than this.

Cheers


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...rbon-scheme-20111018-1lyt8.html#ixzz1bCRfM5sX


----------



## prawn_86 (19 October 2011)

We will be down $700 pa according to that calculator. Typical.


----------



## basilio (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> We will be down $700 pa according to that calculator. Typical.




Well Prawn you must be doing reasonably well at the moment. I played with the calculator and (just guessing) I punched in a couple with no children earning $180 k between them. 

Net cost was $600 a year.

I did try other figures that were lower on the scale and the cost was similarly reduced. 
Anyone else want to try it ?

https://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/household-assistance-estimator/

I had a few more goes at the calculator and realised that in fact if there were 2 people earning (say $77k each) the cost would be around the $600 a year mark. The calculation I used initially was based on an unequal split of incomes.

And living Sydney I can see why you wouldn't feel that this was a particularly rich lifestyle


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 October 2011)

Calm down everyone. It is for your own good. :hide:


----------



## prawn_86 (19 October 2011)

Why should i pay for something that i dont agree with and didnt vote for, or that the majority of the populous didnt vote for or have a referendum about?


----------



## McLovin (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Why should i pay for something that i dont agree with and didnt vote for, or that the majority of the populous didnt vote for or have a referendum about?




If only we could pick and chose what we pay and don't pay for based on these parameters!


----------



## prawn_86 (19 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> If only we could pick and chose what we pay and don't pay for based on these parameters!




I'm (kinda) happy to go with the majority, but on a major transformational issue like this, i just dont see how they can implement it without consulting the population.

Also, check out a party called Senator Online. Proper democracy that can now be utilised due to electronics and the internet. If more people voted for them then we could pick and choose what we pay for...


----------



## basilio (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Why should i pay for something that i dont agree with and didnt vote for, or that the majority of the populous didnt vote for or have a referendum about?




Because governments make decisions all the time which many people don't like or agree with.  How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?


----------



## LostMyShirt (19 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Hi Lost my shirt and others. Actually it looks as if most people will receive even more compensation for the carbon tax levy than the government calculated. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling did it's figures and says that most families will be $120 a year ahead.
> 
> They also worked out that the people who will pay more will be those in the top 20% of incomes. Worth checking out. I think you said you were just starting up a business and unlikely  to making a lot of money immediately?
> 
> ...





Yeah I have just started a home business and should be clearing an estimated 50Kpa providing there is consistency etc. Since my business is to do with certain goods it is only natural that Q3-4 outsell Q1-2.


----------



## McLovin (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> I'm (kinda) happy to go with the majority, but on a major transformational issue like this, i just dont see how they can implement it without consulting the population.




Meh, every government does it, that's the way the system works. The idea is to do it early enough in the term that by the time the next election comes around the population has been pork barreled into submission or just doesn't remember it. JH was just as disingenous in the '98 election campaign about the GST being "dead and buried" as JG has been. Of course at least with JH you kind of had some idea what he stood for rather than the current PM who just flaps in the breeze of focus group opinion.


----------



## McLovin (19 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Because governments make decisions all the time which many people don't like or agree with.  How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?




I think you'd find it would be, has to pass the approval of all those who disagree.


----------



## Eager (19 October 2011)

Julia said:


> You should be working for the government (um, perhaps you are?) with this level of spin!!!
> If the government had managed its finances properly, it would have been able to provide flood assistance without imposing an additional levy on the population, fergawdsake!
> 
> How on earth can you suggest we should regard the end point of this levy as some sort of amelioration of the impost of the carbon tax?



Oh FFS, why can't you take my post at face value? Do you always regard the truth as spin? 

At the end of the day it is a matter of dollars and cents in your pocket, agreed? Forget about whether there is give-and-take involved or not, the fact is that all the whingers conveniently forget that a levy will be removed, and the removal of that levy will ease the pain.


----------



## Eager (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> We will be down $700 pa according to that calculator. Typical.



What about after the flood levy is removed?


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> What about after the flood levy is removed?





So, the flood levy is to get people being used to not having some money they've earned?

That's despicable. Working Aussies are already paying taxes and none of this pinching more money from their wallets was necessary and democracy has not been honoured, imo.

 Gillard could have cut some of the wasteful spending to pay for the flood damage, but it looks like it was part of the conditioning plan, now that you've pointed it out.

Shame on the lack of democracy.


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> ... JH was just as disingenous in the '98 election campaign about the GST being "dead and buried" as JG has been....




Rubbish.

JH took his GST backflip to the people by way of election. But he didn't do the same over work choices and all his advertising did not appease the electorate one bit.

Gillard has learned nothing from JH's mistake and advertising and propaganda is only going to make those who already feel dudded more angry.

Not sure if that has already been posted, but labor has been sprung setting up a PROPAGANDA unit to sell carbon tax and good pay for the fat cats too.  More waste.



> LABOR has set up secret carbon price spin unit to help it sell its deeply unpopular carbon tax.
> 
> The carbon price implementation team is staffed by five Labor operatives, reporting directly to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.
> 
> The unit's senior adviser-level head earns up to $170,000 a year, while its four adviser-level staffers draw salaries of up to $115,000.




Definition of Propaganda:

*Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.*​Read more from Coalition complains of 'propaganda' unit set up to sell Labor's carbon tax


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Because governments make decisions all the time which many people don't like or agree with.  How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?





Basilo, *major policy should be taken to the people.*  Opinion polls are showing very clearly that the people who pay the MPs their wages are not wanting this tax imposed.

MPs are the people's representatives - they are not elected to be dictators.

If Gillard was my lawyer, I would fire her for not following my instructions.  Democracy is the same principle.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 October 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> We will be down $700 pa according to that calculator. Typical.




$303 per year better off for me.


----------



## McLovin (19 October 2011)

sails said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> JH took his GST backflip to the people by way of election.




You're correct. My apologies.


----------



## Eager (19 October 2011)

sails said:


> So, the flood levy is to get people being used to not having some money they've earned?
> 
> That's despicable. Working Aussies are already paying taxes and none of this pinching more money from their wallets was necessary and democracy has not been honoured, imo.
> 
> ...



I was previously criticised by *Julia* for using spin when all I did was point out a fact, but by comparison the overwhelming amount of negative spin that consists of fearmongering, wild accusations and utter bullsh!t around here seems to be acceptable! :screwy:

*sails*, you have come to the conclusion that the flood levy was used as a conditioning plan. That's what I call despicable. :disgust:


----------



## JTLP (19 October 2011)

I don't see how 3 questions determines so much?

Anyway - i'll be worse off - which is laughable as I live by myself and don't exactly earn a packet...


----------



## So_Cynical (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I was previously criticised by *Julia* for using spin when all I did was point out a fact, but by comparison the overwhelming amount of negative spin that consists of fearmongering, wild accusations and utter bullsh!t around here seems to be acceptable! :screwy:
> 
> *sails*, you have come to the conclusion that the flood levy was used as a conditioning plan. That's what I call despicable. :disgust:




As has been stated by others...this forum is dominated by the right, some further right than others, some you can talk sense to, most not....i highly recommend the ignore function as an alternative to banging your head against the brick wall of fear, misinformation and negative spin of the ASF right and its lackeys.


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> ...*sails*, you have come to the conclusion that the flood levy was used as a conditioning plan. That's what I call despicable. :disgust:




Eager, I wouldn't have thought of it, but at least a couple of times now you have suggested that, because of losing the flood levy, carbon tax will take it's place.

It was you that suggested it and the way you worded it came across like the levy was was being used to condition workers into being without the money.

When labor went to the last election, it was to get a mandate for no carbon tax and there was nothing about it passing on levies should there be natural disasters. 

The whole thing is despicable.


----------



## Eager (19 October 2011)

I never suggested conditioning!!!! if you came to the wrong conclusion, well, I can't help that. It was never meant to be as such.

Everyone seems to think that they will be x amount of $ worse off, but they continually fail to realise how much they will save by no longer having to pay the flood levy.

Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Eager (19 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> As has been stated by others...this forum is dominated by the right, some further right than others, some you can talk sense to, most not....i highly recommend the ignore function as an alternative to banging your head against the brick wall of fear, misinformation and negative spin of the ASF right and its lackeys.



Like!

If nothing else, I can have fun attempting to bring a bit of balance to this place. All the pigeon holed right wing, white collar shiny bum, money hungry Chicken Littles around here must think it is absolutely abhorrent that a blue collar left leaning bloke has actually got enough brains to consistently make money out of shares, and spoil their party to boot!


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I never suggested conditioning!!!! if you came to the wrong conclusion, well, I can't help that. It was never meant to be as such.
> 
> Everyone seems to think that they will be x amount of $ worse off, but they continually fail to realise how much they will save by no longer having to pay the flood levy.
> 
> Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!





Your logic is flawed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

The levy shouldn't have been there either !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Labor don't even spin well...


----------



## sails (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Like!
> 
> If nothing else, I can have fun attempting to bring a bit of balance to this place. All the pigeon holed right wing, white collar shiny bum, money hungry Chicken Littles around here must think it is absolutely abhorrent that a blue collar left leaning bloke has actually got enough brains to consistently make money out of shares, and spoil their party to boot!





Supporting this government you are in the minority.  Get over it...


----------



## Julia (19 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Because governments make decisions all the time which many people don't like or agree with.  How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?



Of course that wouldn't be practical.  But you're totally ignoring the essential fact that Gillard stated categorically during the election campaign that there would be "*No Carbon Tax under the government I lead"*, and many people voted for her on that basis.  Then, as we all know, she did a complete about turn on the instruction of the Greens who made it a condition of letting her govern, and decided we would have a carbon tax.  

I don't believe for a moment that you can't see what a betrayal this is, or why the electorate so largely feels angry with her.

Your own credibility would be enhanced if you'd just acknowledge this inescapable fact.




McLovin said:


> Meh, every government does it, that's the way the system works. The idea is to do it early enough in the term that by the time the next election comes around the population has been pork barreled into submission or just doesn't remember it. JH was just as disingenous in the '98 election campaign about the GST being "dead and buried" as JG has been. Of course at least with JH you kind of had some idea what he stood for rather than the current PM who just flaps in the breeze of focus group opinion.



Good to see you've subsequently corrected yourself here, McLovin.  If Ms Gillard had gone to an election with the carbon tax, and received electorate endorsement for it, then those of us who don't want it would just have to suck it up.




Eager said:


> Oh FFS, why can't you take my post at face value? Do you always regard the truth as spin?



Because you have put forward spin.
It is spin because, as I have already said, if the government had been managing its finances properly instead of wasting huge amounts of taxpayer funds, they would have been able to supply funds relief without imposing yet another levy on the population.  

To suggest we should feel all warm and fuzzy about the carbon tax just because the flood levy will shortly end is an example of either disconnected thinking or a determination to present the carbon tax dishonestly in a favourable light.



> At the end of the day it is a matter of dollars and cents in your pocket, agreed?



No. Not agreed at all.
For many of us the actual dollars and cents are a secondary consideration to the utter nonsense that sees Australia imposing a tax which will render many of our industries non-competitive for no measurable outcome on climate.

If the rest of the world were moving in alignment and our trading competitors were not being given therefore an advantage, that might be a different story.  





> Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!



This is where you completely miss the point made by many, i.e. that the whole carbon tax is a political move to satisfy the Greens.  Ms Gillard before the election was part of the ousting of Kevin Rudd on the basis that the proposed ETS should be shelved indefinitely. 

Then, whacko, the Greens say "hey Julia, we'll allow you to take government if you introduce a carbon tax".  OK, says Julia, anything you say to allow me to be Prime Minister, and thus it has remained ever since.

To say it's about dollars and cents, and not politics is total nonsense.


----------



## McLovin (19 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> As has been stated by others...this forum is dominated by the right, some further right than others, some you can talk sense to, most not....i highly recommend the ignore function as an alternative to banging your head against the brick wall of fear, misinformation and negative spin of the ASF right and its lackeys.




I agree, except rather than ignore you can just treat it for what it is, an anonymous IBB and not take it too seriously.

Some (most) of the posters on here make Alan Jones look like Karl Marx. It's good for a chuckle. There's also a remarkably high number of conspiracy theorists.


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Everyone seems to think that they will be x amount of $ worse off, but they continually fail to realise how much they will save by no longer having to pay the flood levy.
> 
> Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!



Everyone aye!

Not a good outcome for Labor.

The mathematics is that we are worse off compared to the policy position put by Labor at the last election.

When introduced, the impact of the flood levy was intended to be temporary regardless of any carbon tax, or are you saying otherwise ?

Can you explain where the money comes from to support the carbon tax related tax cuts when billions of Australian dollars are exported overseas after it becomes a trading scheme ? 



So_Cynical said:


> $303 per year better off for me.



What about as the rate goes up and up and and it's expanded, for example, to include fuel on heavy transport ?

??


----------



## drsmith (19 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Oh FFS, ........



And please, chill a little.

You don't want to be cybersmacked by the mods, do you ?


----------



## LostMyShirt (19 October 2011)

Haha wow guys really gettin off the rails here - I should mention the Original Post was to find out how the tax changes would effect me, lol.


----------



## drsmith (20 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Haha wow guys really gettin off the rails here - I should mention the Original Post was to find out how the tax changes would effect me, lol.



The problem is that the figures from the Clean Energy Future website represent the high water mark for the net impact of the compensation. 

The carbon price will be expanded and rise year after year. That's what it's designed to do. While there's another slight increase in the tax cuts in the future (2014 I think), this are post-election and could be withdrawn by any future government as Paul Keating's infamous L-A-W tax cuts were in 1993. 

Then there's the export of our wealth offshore after it becomes a trading scheme further reducing federal budget flexibility.

Ont thing that won't be withdrawn, by Labor at least, is the carbon tax itself.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> I agree, except rather than ignore you can just treat it for what it is, an anonymous IBB and not take it too seriously.
> 
> Some (most) of the posters on here make Alan Jones look like Karl Marx. It's good for a chuckle. There's also a remarkably high number of conspiracy theorists.






Eager said:


> Like!
> 
> If nothing else, I can have fun attempting to bring a bit of balance to this place. All the pigeon holed right wing, white collar shiny bum, money hungry Chicken Littles around here must think it is absolutely abhorrent that a blue collar left leaning bloke has actually got enough brains to consistently make money out of shares, and spoil their party to boot!






So_Cynical said:


> As has been stated by others...this forum is dominated by the right, some further right than others, some you can talk sense to, most not....i highly recommend the ignore function as an alternative to banging your head against the brick wall of fear, misinformation and negative spin of the ASF right and its lackeys.




This issue is not about being left or right, it is about honesty and what is good policy for the country.

The implementation of the carbon tax fails on both counts.

And seeing that you guys have tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists, I notice this one overriding trait as evidenced above when faced with an overwhelming logic, immediately employ any number of fallacious arguments, such as argumentum ad hominem and our old friend the straw man argument.

Kindergarten stuff fellas.


----------



## kavla1970 (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> This issue is not about being left or right, it is about *honesty and what is good policy *for the country.




This is the best comment I have read on this issue.

I am actually left leaning in alot of my views. I do support a society that helps those in need(to a point) but I cannot make any sense of this policy.

I still don't know how this tax will help improve the environment. As I see it, it's just a redistribution of wealth(and a portion to the banksters).


----------



## Tink (20 October 2011)

Yep Kavla, good post.

A distribution of wealth is how I see this policy. 

I suppose it depends on how you view it whether its good or bad for the country.


----------



## joea (20 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I never suggested conditioning!!!! if you came to the wrong conclusion, well, I can't help that. It was never meant to be as such.
> 
> Everyone seems to think that they will be x amount of $ worse off, but they continually fail to realise how much they will save by no longer having to pay the flood levy.
> 
> Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!




The flood levy as such maybe dropped, but the insurance companies intend to apply and increase for floods etc, before they happen.
Check your house insurance against the previous year.

On mine it has, MUST-HAVE WATERTIGHT FLOOD COVER.
Insurance costs 2010  $1279.06....., 2011  $2148.86 ..., increase of 67.93%.

Lets not play mindgames on the flood levy. The public will be hit in anyway the companies decide it.
And to think we are better off with the compensation of the carbon tax makes me laugh.
Gee they just bought out another model, which shows an improvement over the last model.

Finally I think you should just accept the fact that we will never be better off with anythink this Labor Government touches. The facts are the proof.

joea


----------



## joea (20 October 2011)

Tink said:


> Yep Kavla, good post.
> 
> A distribution of wealth is how I see this policy.
> 
> I suppose it depends on how you view it whether its good or bad for the country.




Will it be a distrubition of wealth(that's what you are made to believe), or a direct transfer of funds to Labor's coffers.

They say "a fool and his money are soon parted", and are we not treated as "fools" by Gillard?
To believe anything she says, we would have to be!!!

joea


----------



## prawn_86 (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?




Extremely easily with the internet and technology these days. Simply have every vote that the senate takes online, people can then login using the TFN, Passport or something similar and vote if they feel like it. If not they have abstained and therefore have no right to whinge about it.

We (and every nation) are running an archaic system designed to keep politicians in power when we actually have the ability to pursue a much purer form of democracy through technology.



sails said:


> MPs are the people's representatives - they are not elected to be dictators.




Exactly. If the majority of people disagree with this, how can it pass? Thats not democracy.



Eager said:


> I never suggested conditioning!!!! if you came to the wrong conclusion, well, I can't help that. It was never meant to be as such.
> 
> Everyone seems to think that they will be x amount of $ worse off, but they continually fail to realise how much they will save by no longer having to pay the flood levy.
> 
> Forget about politics; it's just mathematics!!!!!!!!!




Remind me why we are even paying this tax as well? Because our governments have been too short sighted to put away some cash to pay for unexpected events. If your house burnt down without insurance you would be out of pocket, think the gov would help out?

Mining Tax, Flood Tax, Carbon Tax: Yep, Australia is really moving forward in the last decade... 

anyway, i dont usually comment on political threads, due to the fact that everyone discusses with their blinkers on. Just bear in mind that *we can have proper democracy due to the Internet*, if we pushed hard enough for it.


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> And seeing that you guys have tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists, I notice this one overriding trait as evidenced above when faced with an overwhelming logic, immediately employ any number of fallacious arguments, such as argumentum ad hominem and our old friend the straw man argument.
> 
> Kindergarten stuff fellas.




How was anything I said ad hominem? Making broad descriptions about *some* of the people who post here certainly isn't. Would you actually disagree that the majority on here are not Right? 

I love how much you use the word socialist to describe anything or any person you disagree with. Brilliant.


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> How was anything I said ad hominem? Making broad descriptions about *some* of the people who post here certainly isn't. Would you actually disagree that the majority on here are not Right?
> 
> I love how much you use the word socialist to describe anything or any person you disagree with. Brilliant.




Actually Mclovin it is *because he said it.*  Can't get clearer than that can you ? 

Law of papal infallability I think as applied by the local gods.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> How was anything I said ad hominem? Making broad descriptions about *some* of the people who post here certainly isn't.




But you did use argumentative fallacy. 



> Would you actually disagree that the majority on here are not Right?




I don't know, I don't really think in terms of right and left. Some accuse me of being Right, some accuse me of being Left. I suspect that would apply to many posters here categorized as "Right".

I think in terms of liberty and authoritarianism... and depending on whether we are talking social liberty or economic liberty, depends on what sneering categorization I get. I also suspect that again applies to many posters here categorized as "Right".



> I love how much you use the word socialist to describe anything or any person you disagree with. Brilliant.




I think so too.  But that is not quite accurate is it McLovin... another argumentative fallacy.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Actually Mclovin it is *because he said it.*  Can't get clearer than that can you ?
> 
> Law of papal infallability I think as applied by the local gods.




Now now basilio, lets not get too carried away with the machinations of forum order.

PM me if you'd like to say more.


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> But you did use argumentative fallacy.




I wasn't arguing, at least I didn't think I was. I made a statement of opinion based on my own observations. Infact, the opinion was tangential to the thread in that I was speaking broadly of this forum not specifically about this thread.



wayneL said:


> I don't know, I don't really think in terms of right and left. Some accuse me of being Right, some accuse me of being Left. I suspect that would apply to many posters here categorized as "Right".
> 
> I think in terms of liberty and authoritarianism... and depending on whether we are talking social liberty or economic liberty, depends on what sneering categorization I get. I also suspect that again applies to many posters here categorized as "Right".




Good for you. If you think that way, why the reference to socialism, a term that could be nothing but associated with Left politics, as opposed to say economic authoritarianism?



wayneL said:


> I think so too.  But that is not quite accurate is it McLovin... another argumentative fallacy.




It seems no different than your suggestion that because I'm not frothing at the mouth about how the government is destroying our democracy by implementing a tax, I've somehow "tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists".


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> I wasn't arguing at least I didn't think I was.




You may not have been "arguing", but you were presenting an argument, a fallacial one in fact.

Check the meaning of this word McLovin... context is everything. 




> It seems no different than your suggestion that because I'm not frothing at the mouth about how the government is destroying our democracy by implementing a tax, I've somehow "tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists".




It was more do do with comments regarding Alan Jones, Karl Marx and members of this forum... and I note yet another argumentative fallacy there.

Why not stick to the merits of the debate on this tax, rather than goofing around with attempted point scoring?


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Why not stick to the merits of the debate on this tax, rather than goofing around with attempted point scoring?




Said the pot to the kettle.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

:sleeping:


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Now now basilio, lets not get too carried away with the machinations of forum order.
> 
> PM me if you'd like to say more.




So, so* so*  sorry Mr Wayne. Just noting that an overwhelming amount of what  passes as  "argument" in this forum are just bald statements of peoples  alleged political affiliations as an  attack point.

Of course it's not just you who uses this particular technique. There are plenty of other "infallible beings " who when they can't find a rational reason for a position jump to the socialist/watermelon/ whatever tag to bag other posters.

My comment was for the benefit of  McLovin (and others) who may have been surprised by the discussion process in this forum and hadn't  been brought up to speed.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> So, so* so*  sorry Mr Wayne. Just noting that an overwhelming amount of what  passes as  "argument" in this forum are just bald statements of peoples  alleged political affiliations as an  attack point.
> 
> Of course it's not just you who uses this particular technique. There are plenty of other "infallible beings " who when they can't find a rational reason for a position jump to the socialist/watermelon/ whatever tag to bag other posters.
> 
> My comment was for the benefit of  McLovin (and others) who may have been surprised by the discussion process in this forum and hadn't  been brought up to speed.




And what exactly is the discussion process on this forum... according to basilio?


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> And what exactly is the discussion process on this forum... according to basilio?




My observations of the discussion process on these forums?

It can have many facets. Sometimes it's thoughtful, witty, generous and  insightful. Sometimes people bring quite personal and profound insights to share.  Sometimes members offer information or perspectives that are enlightening.

And then ( far too often IMO) respect for other members falls away and we end up with nasty slanging matches where some people use arbitrary labels on others as ways to avoid providing any evidence or rational argument in discussing an issue.

And finally we have threads where ( again IMO) no amount of objective evidence is accepted by some forum members. At that stage there is no point continuing a discussion.


----------



## Eager (20 October 2011)

This place is so much fun!!!

Go against the grain and everything that one says is an argument. State a fact and have it declared as spin. Words are put into one's mouth. Remind people of dollars coming their way and the thread is hijacked. 

But the biggest observation I make is that the vast majority of members must be Greek.


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

Okay lets take this discussion back to somewhere close to the role of the Carbon levy.

One of the intentions of the carbon levy is to change the financial figures facing businesses and encourage the replacement of carbon base fossil fuels with renewable energy supplies. We don't want to talk about it too much but one of the overarching issues facing our society is peak oil and peak energy. Put simply it is becoming very clear that sometime soon (if not already)  our energy supplies will start to go down hill and there will be no way to reverse the trend.

At that stage we should of course have gracefully transformed our society to renewable energy sources that never run out shouldn't we ?

*But maybe it isn't as simple as that*. There is an excellent post which outlines the impact simply developing renewable energy technology will have on our energy supplies.  Perhaps this is what we need to consider before we kick out the carbon pollution levy. Check it out



> *Do We Have What it Takes?*
> 
> Many of us have great hopes for our energy future that involve a transition to a gleaming renewable energy infrastructure, but we need to realize that we face a serious bottleneck in its implementation. The up-front energy investment in renewable energy infrastructures has not been visible as a hurdle thus far, as we have had surplus energy to invest (and smartly, at that; if only we had started in earnest earlier!). Against a backdrop of energy decline””which I feel will be the only motivator strong enough to make us serious about a replacement path””we may find ourselves paralyzed by the Trap.
> 
> ...




http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-10-19/energy-trap-0


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Okay lets take this discussion back to somewhere close to the role of the Carbon levy.
> 
> One of the intentions of the carbon levy is to change the financial figures facing businesses and encourage the replacement of carbon base fossil fuels with renewable energy supplies.




Wrong. It's about distribution of the wealth, and that's what this thread is all about. LosyMYShirt wanted to know what his share of the re-distributed wealth will be. It's all about getting something you haven't earned..


----------



## JTLP (20 October 2011)

People probably say the majority on here are righties because this is a "Stock Forum" - primarily about wealth creation and capitalism - 2 things the lefties wouldn't know anything about!


----------



## IFocus (20 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Everyone aye!
> 
> Not a good outcome for Labor.
> 
> ...




Feel happy to explain how Abbott and Hockey will fill the structural hole left by Howard and Costello to the Federal budget.

Hint middle class welfare + GST.


----------



## tothemax6 (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Okay lets take this discussion back to somewhere close to the role of the Carbon levy.
> One of the intentions of the carbon levy is to change the financial figures facing businesses and encourage the replacement of carbon base fossil fuels with renewable energy supplies.



Perhaps 'encourage' isn't the word you are looking for. A mugger, for instance, does not 'encourage' you to give him money with his gun.

Basics: electricity generation using carbon is a product of a need. That need is 'the most efficient way to get things done'. Getting things done (manufacturing, mining, r&d, entertainment) is conducive to a pleasant standard of living. 'Not getting things done' is bad. People in Africa don't 'get things done'.

Renewable energy is not used because it does not 'get things done'. It is a sap. When A is more expensive than B, it means A requires more effort, energy, labour, materials (i.e more money) to produce the same result as B. It saps energy and resources, and we lose. That completely defeats the purpose of energy generation in the first place. Understand?

The carbon tax, in a country where carbon generates energy, is the same thing as saying 'we are going to throttle our energy output'. This in turn is the same thing as saying 'we are going to throttle our economic activity'. How does this manifest itself? Most visually, the price per unit energy increases. This price is an input to _every single stage of the production structure_. As goods traverse the production timeline, from early raw materials, through manufacturing, through distribution, through retail, they collect the increased costs created by the increased energy price.
The consumers, *lose*.

Expressed another way. Suppose the energy output rate was 10GW. The carbon tax is introduced, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions. Logically, as energy is produced from carbon, the goal is also reducing energy output rate. Now the rate is 8GW. How does this occur? 2GW of power which were being used by industry and consumers, ceases. Thus 20% of industrial output and consumer enjoyment, ceases.

But 'new renewable energy projects will make up for this' you say? But those generators do not exist. They must first be built. How much resources would it take to replace the coal stations that were providing the power originally? Where will those resources come from? From everywhere else. We all *lose*. And how long will it take to build these generators, which are more expensive, and less familiar to construction firms than coal stations, when the energy supply is concurrently throttled? How long before we got back to where we were, 20 years?
Do you see?

I guess the Australian government wasn't content with everyone else being in a recession, and wants our country to join the club. After all, doesn't a recession mean politicians are looked at to 'do something'? They love that.


----------



## sails (20 October 2011)

Eager said:


> ... State a fact and have it declared as spin....)




If something is truly an indisputable fact, it would not be declared as spin...

So, if you are stating something that isn't actually fact, expect to cop a hiding...




IFocus said:


> Feel happy to explain how Abbott and Hockey will fill the structural hole left by Howard and Costello to the Federal budget.
> 
> Hint middle class welfare + GST.




I doubt that I will agree with everything the coalition come up with as policy, but even their duds will have to be streets ahead of what we have now.  

IFocus, I notice you often like to divert attention to the coaliton and their ability to budget - but do you ever look in your own corner to see just how poor the budgeting skills are?  Have you looked at the black holes of debt that are rising at a frightening rate?  Do you understand the billions of dollars that are likely to be sent overseas in abatements to PRETEND we are reducing emissions?  It really is the pot calling the kettle black, imo.  

At least carbon tax will be repealed and the Pacific Solution re-instated.  Now that's a great start...


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 October 2011)

When the rest of the world has been devoured by excessive carbon dioxide, everyone can come live in clean, green Australia.


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

Thanks To the Max for recognising the intention of the carbon levy. The point I was trying to get across is that at some stage in the not too distant future all of us will have to deal with declining fossil fuel production - simply because we are reaching peak supplies. The scary part is that actually changing our societies dependence on non renewable fossil fuel to renewable alternatives *will require all the juice you are talking about and a long lead time*

Your quite right to point out the challenge to our economy.

But unless every  analyst  is totally wrong (yet again ) we are definitely running out of cheap easy to find energy and the consequences will be dire. And that is certainly one of the reasons we need to start the change away from carbon fuels.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...fleming’s-us-army-war-college-thesis-peak-oil


----------



## basilio (20 October 2011)

> If something is truly an indisputable fact, it would not be declared as spin..   sails .




Unless of course* you *simply make the decision it is *not *a fact and declare it propaganda or spin. eh


----------



## drsmith (20 October 2011)

Eager said:


> But the biggest observation I make is that the vast majority of members must be Greek.



Cheerio Eager.

Please close the door on your way out. There's the stench of a rotting government wafting in.



IFocus said:


> Feel happy to explain how Abbott and Hockey will fill the structural hole left by Howard and Costello to the Federal budget.
> 
> Hint middle class welfare + GST.



I have empathy for you IF. 

I understand why you want to change the subject.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Can you explain where the money comes from to support the carbon tax related tax cuts when billions of Australian dollars are exported overseas after it becomes a trading scheme ?




You do understand that billions of dollars will be imported into Australia to pay for offsets and their creation...you are aware of that right?



wayneL said:


> This issue is not about being left or right, it is about honesty and what is good policy for the country.




We have the out come we have because of the left - right tug of war, honesty and good policy is wishful thinking, if John Howard had the balls to follow the recommendations of the Howard funded Australian greenhouse office way back when....we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Unfortunately the Libs decided to stay in power by pissing of as few people as possible (doing nothing) instead of being honest and implementing good policy for the country.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 October 2011)

It's the broader economy effects that will matter to most far more than any change in personal taxation (or increased household electricity bills).

In very rough terms, it looks like a further push in the "two speed economy" direction with relatively little impact on mining in WA whilst the tax has a much larger impact on manufacturing which affects Vic, SA, Tas especially. 

So overall in a big picture sense, it further splits the country into the "two speed" model and that's going to make life difficult for the RBA amongst others. If interest rates were set based only on the non-mining economy then they'd have been slashed long ago...

Enter the mining tax... By throttling mining to some extent, thus adding a burden to that industry in a similar manner to how the carbon tax affects services and especially manufacturing, the two speed economic situation is reduced. It's a bit like saying you applied some of the brakes and that made the car handle dangerously. So now you apply the rest of the brakes - but have no doubt that what you are doing is slowing it down overall even though it might be done in a controlled manner.


----------



## drsmith (20 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> You do understand that billions of dollars will be imported into Australia to pay for offsets and their creation...you are aware of that right?



Where, how, and to what extent will it offset the money going out ?

Also, to what extent will it displace other productive activities such as food production ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Thanks To the Max for recognising the intention of the carbon levy. The point I was trying to get across is that at some stage in the not too distant future all of us will have to deal with declining fossil fuel production - simply because we are reaching peak supplies. The scary part is that actually changing our societies dependence on non renewable fossil fuel to renewable alternatives *will require all the juice you are talking about and a long lead time*



Strongly agreed about oil etc being limited.

However, in the context of Australia the most rational thing to do in the short term would be to:

1. Phase out gas-fired electricity generation as rapidly as possible, with a target of minimising it as far as practical straight away and getting down to a limit of 3% of total generation into main grids by 2030.

2. Prioritise any fuel other than oil, gas and conventionally mined black coal (in order of priority for avoidance) as the preferred fuel for electricity generation to the extent that we are still going to use some fossil fuels for this purpose. This would include the encouragement of underground coal gassification.

3. Adopt CNG as the preferred fuel in new light vehicles (hence the critical step point 1 above).

The problem I have with the carbon tax is that it actually encourages the burning of more gas which is pure madness in a resource management sense. It's like literally turning gold into lead when you've already got heaps of lead just sitting there. Logically, we should avoid using the scarcer resources for electricity and use things which are plentiful - renewables, brown coal, underground gassification etc but not precious natural gas (or even worse, oil).

I'd be much happier with the whole thing if it were a tax on limited resources per se rather than a back door means which has the nasty side effect of encouraging the large scale squandering of gas. .


----------



## drsmith (20 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Unfortunately the Libs decided to stay in power by pissing of as few people as possible (doing nothing) instead of being honest and implementing good policy for the country.



Once up on a time, 

in 2007, 

there was a federal election.

One of the major parties running for office kept saying,

all together now........

*ME TOO*


----------



## Julia (20 October 2011)

basilio said:


> So, so* so*  sorry Mr Wayne. Just noting that an overwhelming amount of what  passes as  "argument" in this forum are just bald statements of peoples  alleged political affiliations as an  attack point.
> 
> Of course it's not just you who uses this particular technique. There are plenty of other "infallible beings " who when they can't find a rational reason for a position jump to the socialist/watermelon/ whatever tag to bag other posters.



Basilio, can't you perhaps see that you also do this from your own point of view?
It's nonetheless a fair comment because we are all going to be guilty of seeing anything from the point of view of our own fixed biases.

But (though you don't do this to the level So Cynical and IFocus do it) it does become irritating to continually be labelled as "The Right" simply because one has offered a criticism of government behaviour and policies which demonstrate total ineptitude.

I'm a swinging voter, have voted both conservative and Labor, both federally and State.  I'm quite OK with a Labor government if that government demonstrates a comprehension of social, economic, and geopolitical fundamentals.

Such can not be said of this government, hence much of the criticism that is directed toward it.

Making such criticism should not automatically confer the label of "The Right".
Please stop this silly labelling, all of you who do it so repetitively.



JTLP said:


> People probably say the majority on here are righties because this is a "Stock Forum" - primarily about wealth creation and capitalism - 2 things the lefties wouldn't know anything about!



Valid comment.  There is bound to be a particular demographic attracted to this forum.




> IFocus, I notice you often like to divert attention to the coaliton and their ability to budget - but do you ever look in your own corner to see just how poor the budgeting skills are?  Have you looked at the black holes of debt that are rising at a frightening rate?  Do you understand the billions of dollars that are likely to be sent overseas in abatements to PRETEND we are reducing emissions?  It really is the pot calling the kettle black, imo.



If you're actually expecting a response from IF, don't hold your breath.  I'm still waiting for a response to a question I asked days ago.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> People probably say the majority on here are righties because this is a "Stock Forum" - primarily about wealth creation and capitalism - 2 things the lefties wouldn't know anything about!




That's a crock! i say the majority of ASF posters are right wing because the evidence of that is totally overwhelming (number of posts and threads) we live in a world of capitalism tempered with socialism..if you don't like that go live in the US were the minimum wage is like $6



drsmith said:


> Where, how, and to what extent will it offset the money going out ?
> 
> Also, to what extent will it displace other productive activities such as food production ?




How long is a piece of string? what will a tonne of iron ore be worth in 5 years or a Liter of milk? 

Fact is Australia will be one of the country's of first choice when it comes to international offset creation investment, especially when the difficulty's encountered by international offset investors are taken into consideration...JI and CDM investment in developing country's over the last decade and a half has not been a spectacular success due to political uncertainty's and regulatory issues.


----------



## drsmith (20 October 2011)

Some supporting projections please, or are we expected to fly blinded by that piece of string of unknown length ?


----------



## Julia (20 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> we live in a world of capitalism tempered with socialism..if you don't like that go live in the US were the minimum wage is like $6



Typical of you to quote the minimum wage without reference to the fact that most of  the income of most people in the US on this low wage is derived from tips, something that hardly exists in Australia.


----------



## sails (20 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> That's a crock! i say the majority of ASF posters are right wing because the evidence of that is totally overwhelming (number of posts and threads) we live in a world of capitalism tempered with socialism..if you don't like that go live in the US were the minimum wage is like $6...





I've got a better idea.  Tell that to the striking Qantas workers...

And, I agree with Julia that it's very silly to call people who are dissatisfied with this government as being "right".  Most thinking Australians are concerned for this country and don't like the deceitful way this carbon tax has been forced on to us. 

When there was similar anger against Howard's work choices, would you then consider all swinging voters as "left" even though some of those same voters now will swing to the "right"?

It's more about what's best for the country and which party will inflict the least damage on to our economy.


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Typical of you to quote the minimum wage without reference to the fact that most of  the income of most people in the US on this low wage is derived from tips, something that hardly exists in Australia.




In most states working in a job with tips will reduce the minimum wage that has to be paid. At the extreme, in Virginia, for example, the minimum wage can be reduced to $0 if it can be shown the worker will earn the minimum wage in tips. Hardly a system to strive for.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 October 2011)

sails said:


> It's more about what's best for the country and which party will inflict the least damage on to our economy.




The last part of your post says alot..and its something ive been going on about in this forum for a while...You and the majority of the right want Govt's to do nothing, change nothing...the overwhelming concern seems to be about the (perceived) damage done rather than the cost of opportunity.

Change is life sails...embrace it.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2011)

Yes many states have wages below $3.00 if there are tips.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes many states have wages below $3.00 if there are tips.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages




Not only that, but in 1979 the minimum wage was $2.90. 32 years later and it's $7.25. You don't need to be a CPI wonk to know it's been going backwards in real terms.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> Not only that, but in 1979 the minimum wage was $2.90. 32 years later and it's $7.25. You don't need to be a CPI wonk to know it's been going backwards in real terms.




It's been worse lately.
The average pay the middle class gets has actually gone down over the last 8 years. Saw the chart on Mish's Blog a while back.

How can the USA recover if they make the ordinary person poorer. THe trickle down affect from the top isn't working. You can tell by the Wall Street sit in and the Tea party people that the average Joe is starting to get sick of being cut out from a fair share of the wealth. I give it about 8 years before we start getting a sea change in US politics.


----------



## derty (20 October 2011)

McLovin said:


> Not only that, but in 1979 the minimum wage was $2.90. 32 years later and it's $7.25. You don't need to be a CPI wonk to know it's been going backwards in real terms.



Ahh yes the trickle down economy appears to be a little too viscous.


----------



## McLovin (20 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> It's been worse lately.
> The average pay the middle class gets has actually gone down over the last 8 years. Saw the chart on Mish's Blog a while back.
> 
> How can the USA recover if they make the ordinary person poorer. THe trickle down affect from the top isn't working. You can tell by the Wall Street sit in and the Tea party people that the average Joe is starting to get sick of being cut out from a fair share of the wealth. I give it about 8 years before we start getting a sea change in US politics.




Great question. They're squeezing the middle-class (who are also bearing the tax burden) into working poor and then wondering why the middle-class isn't spending.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2011)

What is the government (us?) striving for? Better living conditions? How much better is better? Where does it stop? Why can't people be happy with living simply and comfortably? Everyone wants more more more.

Shelter :- that being rent or buy a dwelling. 
Problem :- Cost to rent upward from 25% of wage, cost of house unaffordable by "average" wage earner.

Food/clothing/furniture/whitegoods etc.  :- nourishing, wholesome food for the organism; comfortable, climate-suitable  clothing, fridges, computers
Problem :- escalating costs due to what? manufacturing/production costs, labor costs (chicken or egg first), importing more and more from other countries, GST. 

In the end it is the same story, the majority run through life with the wealth carrot dangling in front of their nose, forever just out of reach.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2011)

I like your line WYSIWG. Perhaps the best answer is to be live more simply and not try and keep up lifestyles that we simply can't afford - either individually or collectively.
_____________________________________________________________________

Looks like BIG Business is coming out in support of a carbon price to tackle the effects of Global Warming. (Remember that this the main game in the  debate)



> *Business leaders issue 2˚C Challenge*
> *More than 175 corporations sign new statement demanding global emissions deal to limit temperature rise and build green economy
> *
> By Will Nichols
> ...




http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2118466/business-leaders-issue-2-c-challenge-communique


----------



## Calliope (21 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> That's a crock! i say the majority of ASF posters are right wing because the evidence of that is totally overwhelming (number of posts and threads) we live in a world of capitalism tempered with socialism..if you don't like that go live in the US were the minimum wage is like $6




JTLP's remark must have cut you to the quick. You not only aspire to be the leading Leftie but you continually tell us what a smart trader you are.


----------



## Julia (21 October 2011)

basilio said:


> I like your line WYSIWG. Perhaps the best answer is to be live more simply and not try and keep up lifestyles that we simply can't afford - either individually or collectively.



Agree in principle but the reality is that an increasing percentage of Australians seem to be unable to afford even the most basic lifestyle.  e.g. how can anyone exist on an unemployment benefit of $240 p.w.?  Not everyone on this benefit is a so called bludger. Many decent, hardworking Australians have been made redundant as companies have downsized during the GFC.

The increases in electricity and other costs  from the carbon tax for people living in poverty will place a disproportionate burden on them.

So easy for all those who are responsible for instigating this illogical tax to impose it when they're earning above average incomes.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2011)

> Agree in principle but the reality is that an increasing percentage of Australians seem to be unable to afford even the most basic lifestyle. e.g. how can anyone exist on an unemployment benefit of $240 p.w.?  Julia




Quite true. I think that is a scandal.

I was  actually  referring to the  range of people in more normal income  level , and I suggest everyone. Reducing our overall energy/environment impact makes sense on many grounds. At the most basic it will be because economic conditions deteriorate and we will have to work out how to live on less. 

By the way the compensation package the Government has floated for either pensioners or lower income families  should  overcompensate them for cost increase due to  carbon levy costs.


----------



## Calliope (21 October 2011)

basilio said:


> By the way the compensation package the Government has floated for either pensioners or lower income families  should  overcompensate them for cost increase due to  carbon levy costs.




Yes, that shows it's more about winning votes. There is Buckley's chance of it affecting climate change.
.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Your quite right to point out the challenge to our economy.
> 
> But unless every  analyst  is totally wrong (yet again ) we are definitely running out of cheap easy to find energy and the consequences will be dire. And that is certainly one of the reasons we need to start the change away from carbon fuels.



Nuclear is the only realistic base load energy source going forward.


----------



## IFocus (21 October 2011)

Julia said:


> If you're actually expecting a response from IF, don't hold your breath.  I'm still waiting for a response to a question I asked days ago.




When you develop some manners and behave yourself I will start talking to you.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Nuclear is the only realistic base load energy source going forward.



 Yes away from communities and water supplies and earthquake zones and cyclone activity and grazing land is fine.
Oh and jettison the waste into the sun.


----------



## IFocus (21 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I have empathy for you IF.
> 
> I understand why you want to change the subject.




That one is a bit hard to deal I take it.

There is a revenue hole approaching future governments Abbotts narrative means he will not be able to deal with when he becomes PM.

That also includes an incredible long list of other issues.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> When you develop some manners and behave yourself I will start talking to you.




Julia,

I can translate leftist doublespeak:

What IF is saying is that he has no answers to your question.


----------



## Eager (21 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Cheerio Eager.
> 
> Please close the door on your way out.



You're one funny guy!


----------



## Eager (21 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> People probably say the majority on here are righties because this is a "Stock Forum" - primarily about wealth creation and capitalism - 2 things the lefties wouldn't know anything about!






Julia said:


> Valid comment.  There is bound to be a particular demographic attracted to this forum.




Not valid at all - This leftie knows how to make money quite well, thankyouyverymuch. BTW Julia, I've swung before too, from the introduction of the GST and for a while after. Statewise, it has always been about 50/50. But I simply cannot vote for a government led by Tony Rabbit.


----------



## Eager (21 October 2011)

sails said:


> When there was similar anger against Howard's work choices, would you then consider all swinging voters as "left" even though some of those same voters now will swing to the "right"?



I guess then that the main decision people will have to make at the next election is to either vote for the Carbon Tax, or Workchoices Mk II. 

Some people have already made up their minds and that's fine by me, it really is, but for all those that will swing back to the Coalition in 2013, are you sure in your own minds which is the lesser of two evils?


----------



## Eager (21 October 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> What is the government (us?) striving for? Better living conditions? How much better is better? Where does it stop? Why can't people be happy with living simply and comfortably? Everyone wants more more more.



Yes, good point.

It is amazing, isn't it? We are such a comparitively affluent nation with high living standards, yet so many people bitch about it.


----------



## startrader (21 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I guess then that the main decision people will have to make at the next election is to either vote for the Carbon Tax, or Workchoices Mk II.
> 
> Some people have already made up their minds and that's fine by me, it really is, but for all those that will swing back to the Coalition in 2013, are you sure in your own minds which is the lesser of two evils?




Oh yes we're sure, we're very sure!  People will be taking a lot more into consideration than what you have suggested and, guess what, a lot of people won't be swinging BACK to the Coalition, it will be the first time they have ever voted for them and they won't be voting for Labor again for a very, very, very long time.


----------



## sails (21 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I guess then that the main decision people will have to make at the next election is to either vote for the Carbon Tax, or Workchoices Mk II...




Yeah, that's exactly the scaremongering that will come from the left as soon as an election is called.  But are you telling the truth?  Can you substantiate your statement of WC MkII?????


There are two things that stand out from the last election.  It was Gillard's droning voice that seemed to be always on TV carrying on about Work Choices on Monday AND "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

The coalition did not have policy to revive work choices to the best of my knowledge, so Gillard was simply scaremongering and misleading voters about her tax.

How she thinks anyone will believe her anymore (except her faithful tag alongs) is beyond me.


----------



## drsmith (21 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> That one is a bit hard to deal I take it.
> 
> There is a revenue hole approaching future governments Abbotts narrative means he will not be able to deal with when he becomes PM.
> 
> That also includes an incredible long list of other issues.



Perhaps a topic for one of your past someone-or-another sending something-or-another broke threads, if you dare.


----------



## drsmith (21 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Yes, good point.
> 
> It is amazing, isn't it? We are such a comparitively affluent nation with high living standards, yet so many people bitch about it.



I thought you concluded that the majority of us were Greek and that you were superior. 

Have you now decided that you're Greek too ?


----------



## Julia (21 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Julia,
> 
> I can translate leftist doublespeak:
> 
> What IF is saying is that he has no answers to your question.



Thank you, Wayne, for confirming what I'd already concluded.  
IF, I'd almost begun to develop some respect for you at one stage when you demonstrated some objectivity.  It's really not that hard.  Maybe consider it again.



Eager said:


> Yes, good point.
> 
> It is amazing, isn't it? We are such a comparitively affluent nation with high living standards, yet so many people bitch about it.



You might bitch about it too, if you were unemployed and trying to live on $240 p.w., or trying to support a severely disabled child on a pathetic level of benefit.

So easy for those of us who are doing OK to be so dismissive of those who are absolutely disadvantaged.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 October 2011)

> Work Choices was passed by the Howard Government in 2005 and *was designed to improve employment levels and national economic performance by dispensing with unfair **dismissal laws for companies under a certain size*



That being any bogus excuse to remove employees is okay. Is not working hard enough, according to the employer, a valid excuse? Any excuse will do? 


> removing the "no disadvantage test" which had sought to ensure workers were not left disadvantaged by changes in legislation, thereby promoting individual efficiency and *requiring workers submit their certified agreements directly to Workplace Authority rather than going through the Australian Industrial Relations **Commission.*



Law of the jungle, only the strong survive and stuff you jack I am keeping my job at your demise. Worplace "Authority"???? What the hell is that?


> *It also significantly compromised a workforce's ability to legally go on strike*, *requiring workers to bargain for previously-guaranteed conditions without* *collectivised representation*, and significantly restricting trade union activity and recruitment on the work site.



The end of trade unions and the unified strength of the workers. You know, the people who toil for their pay and suffer life long physical and mental ailments after (and some during) their service to the employer. If anyone has experienced working life as a casual as I did then y'all would know there is no recourse for being moved on next day for some lame excuse.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 October 2011)

Julia said:


> So easy for those of us who are doing OK to be so dismissive of those who are absolutely disadvantaged.



Indeed and that's the fatal flaw in the carbon tax.

Some will be "compensated" with an amount supposedly equal to their increased living costs. Others will lose their jobs and receive virtually nothing in compensation.

The workers should just re-train and accept it I hear someone say? Oh great, so we swap more high wage manufacturing jobs for $15 an hour service industry jobs. That's just wonderful if you've got a mortgage to pay and a family to support as many have. :


----------



## tothemax6 (21 October 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes away from communities and water supplies and earthquake zones and cyclone activity and grazing land is fine.
> Oh and jettison the waste into the sun.



Meh, the numbers are clear. You can't meet the natural increase in energy consumption any other way.


----------



## Calliope (21 October 2011)

Eager said:


> You're one funny guy!




He was serious. Perhaps you should take his advice, unless of course you have something worthwhile to offer.


----------



## tothemax6 (21 October 2011)

Eager said:


> I guess then that the main decision people will have to make at the next election is to either vote for the Carbon Tax, or Workchoices Mk II.
> Some people have already made up their minds and that's fine by me, it really is, but for all those that will swing back to the Coalition in 2013, are you sure in your own minds which is the lesser of two evils?



To call workchoices evil requires twisted morals. Employers should be as free to decide who they employ (and on what terms), as employees are free to decide who employs them (and on what terms). Restricting the later is defined as 'slavery', restricting the former _should_ be considered equally immoral. 


Eager said:


> Yes, good point.
> It is amazing, isn't it? We are such a comparitively affluent nation with high living standards, yet so many people bitch about it.



Because you don't _stay_ an affluent nation by allowing lunatics to deliberately inflict damage upon you. There are a long list of affluent nations that descended into obscurity. Mongolia used to be the biggest and most powerful empire in the world. Portugal used to be one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and the foremost naval power. Things change, often when people change them.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2011)

I don't think any analyst would suggest that a single technology or approach will be sufficient to create a sustainable, non carbon based, renewable energy supply.

I think the 4th Generation Thorium reactors could be a goer as part of a solution. Solving Geothermal issues and using underground heat also seems a winner. At the moment I'm very interested in the development  of cheap alkaline fuel cells (AFC) that could replace coal fired power stations ( They can use gasified coal either from underground or above ground gasification Check LINC energy)

And or course wind, solar, wave, tidal and *energy conservation* can play a part.

But we have to want to go down these paths. And as you identified earlier (To the Max) the huge re engineering projects required will have to  crowd out some consumer spending. 

Or we can just keep going as we are until it becomes clear that finite fossil fuel energy supplies are  collapsing ahead of increasing  demands. Not pretty.


----------



## basilio (21 October 2011)

Welcome to the Cuckoos nest Eager.  You have already been introduced to most of the residents and I'm sure many others will come out soon.

Don't be too put off. I'm sure they are all basically harmless and at heart good people. Just we sometimes  have some strikingly different concepts of "logic" "reality"  and "common sense" . It gives us all something to think about.

Cheers


----------



## basilio (22 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Indeed and that's the fatal flaw in the carbon tax.
> 
> Some will be "compensated" with an amount supposedly equal to their increased living costs. Others will lose their jobs and receive virtually nothing in compensation.
> 
> The workers should just re-train and accept it I hear someone say? Oh great, so we swap more high wage manufacturing jobs for $15 an hour service industry jobs. That's just wonderful if you've got a mortgage to pay and a family to support as many have. :




I'm really surprised you see the workings of a Carbon Levy in this way Smurf.

If the levy is successful there will be some big re engineering programs around new renewable power supplies. This is all manufacturing jobs surely? And the intention of the levy and the renewable energy fund is to drive new clean power technologies. I would have thought the skill sets would be similar to many/any  jobs lost in the process ?


----------



## tothemax6 (22 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Or we can just keep going as we are until it becomes clear that finite fossil fuel energy supplies are  collapsing ahead of increasing  demands. Not pretty.



I just don't think its going to be that big an issue. There has been this story of 'we are going to run out of fossil fuels, thus guaranteed economic implosion' for a long time now. It doesn't really work like that though. Prices provide a mechanism by which people smoothly move from one energy source to another.

Prior to cheap oil, most land transport was done by burning coal in steam engines. Expensive oil prices encouraged oilers to go out and drill (to strike it rich). Companies like Standard Oil came into existence, oil became widely affordable, and trucks and cars started to fill the place of trains. 

The same thing will more or less happen with fossil fuels vs renewable energies and nuclear. Whilst I personally hate the phrase 'renewable energy' (because of how it is currently talked of as a panacea), under $200 oil it will become attractive. Nuclear and battery technologies will become increasingly attractive. Entrepreneurs, eager to strike it rich, will plough money into development. The prices will come down.

The energy problem will largely be solved automatically, provided citizens are not obstructed from solving it by their governments.


----------



## basilio (22 October 2011)

> The energy problem will largely be solved automatically, provided citizens are not obstructed from solving it by their governments. To the Max




Maybe your right ..As I research the field I don't have as much confidence as you seem to. 

It seems that the critical factor is *energy return on energy invested, or EROEI.* Basically that means that if you have to put more and more energy into a technology to get an energy return you end up shooting yourself. Just for one ridiculous example consider someone running a generator to power a mobile phone  recharge.

I did post a quite good story on this issue previously. 

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 October 2011)

We already have electric cars that don't require petrol/diesel to run. Probably some grease for bearings so no life threatening issue if oil ceased tomorrow. Electricity generation is what is critical and there is hundreds of years of coal in ground so if we have evolved to this stage in 100 years, mind and computer will create a solution. Doesn't look like the Americans are doing away with ICE's yet. 

Don't worry, probably a move to nuclear power by next century to charge the mobile phone battery.


----------



## tothemax6 (22 October 2011)

basilio said:


> It seems that the critical factor is *energy return on energy invested, or EROEI.*



EROEI does seem a useful way of describing it, 'do the math' looks to have some interesting things to say, I'll have to check it out some more. Mind you I still prefer $ as the unit, and profit/loss as the measure, since it embodies all resources including energy (labour, materials etc).


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

sails said:


> Yeah, that's exactly the scaremongering that will come from the left as soon as an election is called.  But are you telling the truth?  Can you substantiate your statement of WC MkII?????



Watch This Space. 

Let's have a little wager. Once the Coalition release their policies running up to the next election, if Workchoices (or whatever it will be called next time) is officially a part of their policy, you leave the forum. If it is not, then I'll go.


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I thought you concluded that the majority of us were Greek and that you were superior.
> 
> Have you now decided that you're Greek too ?



Greeks bitch about their country (and riot in the streets) because they donna wanna paya da tax! Similarly, many people are upset here.

I'm happy to pay my way.


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> He was serious. Perhaps you should take his advice, unless of course you have something worthwhile to offer.



Why? What are you scared of?


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Because you don't _stay_ an affluent nation by allowing lunatics to deliberately inflict damage upon you.



In other words, Keep Your Hands Off My Stack.


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

basilio said:


> Welcome to the Cuckoos nest Eager.  You have already been introduced to most of the residents and I'm sure many others will come out soon.
> 
> Don't be too put off. I'm sure they are all basically harmless and at heart good people. Just we sometimes  have some strikingly different concepts of "logic" "reality"  and "common sense" . It gives us all something to think about.
> 
> Cheers



 It's all good. I'm thinking of making a suggestion though. To better suit the needs of the vast majority here, perhaps Aussie Stock Forums should change its name to _Clique Go The Shares, Boys, Clique Clique Clique..._


----------



## Calliope (22 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Why? What are you scared of?




Five inane posts in which you have contributed nothing, but smart-ar*e comments.


----------



## Joe Blow (22 October 2011)

Lets keep this thread on topic please.

Discuss the topic at hand rather than trying to provoke others.


----------



## JTLP (22 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Not valid at all - This leftie knows how to make money quite well, thankyouyverymuch. BTW Julia, I've swung before too, from the introduction of the GST and for a while after. Statewise, it has always been about 50/50. But I simply cannot vote for a government led by Tony Rabbit.




Bwahahaha. The knife has well and truly cut and leftie deep.

I don't think lefties know what they stand for? Wealth reduction through taxes that will leave the poorer richer? Lol I feel like i'm spinning myself out!


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Meh, the numbers are clear. You can't meet the natural increase in energy consumption any other way.



Ultimately, we can't sustain constant growth ANY way be it through coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro or whatever. 

That is the fundamental realisation which needs to set in. The target rate of GDP growth ultimately needs to be reduced to ZERO since constant growth at any rate is ultimately unsustainable on a finite planet.

It's really just a numbers game. You can have a high rate of growth from a low base but it doesn't work once the base becomes higher. Looking specifically at energy, it's worth considering that if Tasmania had sustained its' historic (1950's, 60's, 70's) energy growth rate then since 1980 we would:

1. Have dammed every river, stream and creek in the state
2. Fully developed the state's entire known coal resources
3. Be consuming Australia's entire domestic natural gas supply

Now that's just to keep the lights on in Tasmania with 0.5 million people. Do the same math for the much larger economies of Qld, NSW or Vic and it is truly frightening even if they did go down the nuclear track. They too have now reached the point where constant growth becomes increasingly impractical. Give it a few years and WA will end up in the same situation also.

10% per annum energy growth couldn't be sustained in Tas or Vic that was prettty clear 30 years ago (and the utilities themselves recognised it years before that by the way). But ultimately, even 1% growth can't be sustained anywhere once the base becomes large enough no matter what energy source you choose. If we continue constant growth then pretty soon we'll end up needing the entire output not just of a few reactors or coal plants but of the sun itself. Good luck trying to tap the entire output of the sun and bring that back to Earth. And just think of almighty mess we're going to make of the planet simply using that much energy (regardless of how we obtain it).

Constant growth isn't sustainable. Nuclear power (or clean coal, solar, hydro, wind, geothermal or anything else) doesn't change that reality. At best, it buys a bit of time but that's it.

My own preference is that we bring about a rational transition that fixes the real problem in an orderly manner which minimises the inevitable suffering that will result. Simply delaying the inevitable via nuclear power can only make things worse in the long run as does putting of any painful decision.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2011)

basilio said:


> I'm really surprised you see the workings of a Carbon Levy in this way Smurf.
> 
> If the levy is successful there will be some big re engineering programs around new renewable power supplies. This is all manufacturing jobs surely? And the intention of the levy and the renewable energy fund is to drive new clean power technologies. I would have thought the skill sets would be similar to many/any  jobs lost in the process ?



The thing about renewable energy is that virtually all forms of it are capital intensive to build but very cheap to operate. In layman's terms, that means they provide a lot of jobs during construction but virtually no ongoing employment once built. 

Unless you count burning wood which is labour intensive, even large scale reneable energy power stations tend to have an operating staff of literally zero except during maintenance outages (which are also less frequent than with a coal-fired plant). There aren't many jobs running hydro, wind, large scale solar etc once they're built.

My point isn't about jobs mining coal or in power stations however, but about jobs in manufacturing industry. We close the steel, aluminium etc industries and replace it with short term employment building wind farms etc. Then what? There is ongoing employment, exports and wealth creation from smelters but there is little ongoing activity generating electricity from renewables (and without the smelters etc we won't be generating as much power anyway). Meanwhile production of metals will simply shift offshore - still using coal, still emitting CO2, but without economic benefit to Australia.

If you go back 30 years then one of the arguments from environmentalists against hydro development was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment once built. The same is true of most renewables (notable exception of wood). The counter argument at the time was that whilst generating power doesn't employ many, using it in industry certainly does and that's where the benefits arise. But if we close industry and shift to renewables then that wouldn't seem to create many long term jobs at all...


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> EROEI does seem a useful way of describing it, 'do the math' looks to have some interesting things to say, I'll have to check it out some more. Mind you I still prefer $ as the unit, and profit/loss as the measure, since it embodies all resources including energy (labour, materials etc).



If EROEI is negative then it's not a net energy source no matter what the $.

I understand what you are saying, my point though is that oil at $100 or $20,000 has zero impact on EROEI. If the physics doesn't work then it doesn't work - no increase in price will change that.

Just as I can't catch a train to the moon no matter how much I pay, so too we can't gain energy from a process with negative EROEI no matter what the price in $. If EROEI is negative then by definition we're putting in more than we're getting out - it can't make an energy profit in the same way as spending $2 to earn $1 (gross) can't make a financial profit.


----------



## tothemax6 (22 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ultimately, we can't sustain constant growth ANY way be it through coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro or whatever.
> 
> That is the fundamental realisation which needs to set in. The target rate of GDP growth ultimately needs to be reduced to ZERO since constant growth at any rate is ultimately unsustainable on a finite planet.
> 
> ...



The solution you are looking for is extermination of the human species. There is non other.
You cannot control humans 'on the downside', if you will (i.e. reducing their consumption rate), _with humans_. And unless there are angels willing to do it, it won't happen. 
In the hypothetical situation were say, a bunch of nations strangle their consumption rates, the rest of the worlds nations become more powerful, push the stranglers aside, grow, and more than make up for the consumption rate.
A pendulum is stable at the bottom of its swing, not the top.


Smurf1976 said:


> If EROEI is negative then it's not a net energy source no matter what the $.
> 
> I understand what you are saying, my point though is that oil at $100 or $20,000 has zero impact on EROEI. If the physics doesn't work then it doesn't work - no increase in price will change that.



The increase in price creates pressure to develop alternative fuel sources (as per my oil vs coal example). EROEI is related to ROE. The ROE decreases as EROEI decreases, and vice versa. A negative EROEI fuel can only persist temporarily, and typically does so because of existing capital (i.e. in my trains example, even if it took oil to extract coal, at negative EROEI, it would still be done in the interim as capital investment moved from (lossy) trains to (profitable) trucks.
It's like saying 'burning walnut wood has negative EROEI' - but it is not a coincidence that the ROE on an energy company that did this would be massively negative as well.

If we must go grand-scheme, there is more than enough sources of energy in the universe to support exponential energy consumption increase by a small blip (humans & earth) for _quite some time_. Certainly longer than any individual human should be worried about. After all, the sun burns up at some point .


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Five inane posts in which you have contributed nothing, but smart-ar*e comments.



You admit to being scared by my posts???????

Rather, perhaps you find opinions different to yours confronting.


----------



## poverty (22 October 2011)

For ME the carbon tax 'package' makes me around $2405 worse off per year.  My wife is at uni and I'm the sole bread-winner.  From memory the govco carbon tax calculator declares we're around $50 a year worse off, but it fails to mention the abolition of the dependent-spouse tax offset for spouses born after 1971 which is part of the package (the offset is $2355), so unless I decide to enlist the spousal services of a sugar-momma very soon we will be $2405 a year worse off on this new arrangement compared to what we previously were entitled to.

All this back and forth about families/pensioners etc being X amount of $100 up or down per year really makes me feel ill knowing the amount we will be disadvantaged is such a massive amount of our household takehome dollars.  We with a moderate single income (55K) and no kids or plans to have them seem to fit exactly in the demographic that never receives a sheckle of assistance, student wife ineligible for HECS loan, existing entitlements to the tune of a few grand taken away to pay for carbon tax compensation for bludging families, pensioners and other welfare recipients and in return we get 'tax breaks' that could not even buy 2 slabs of beer for $70 on special at woolies.  Thanks Wayne Swan!


----------



## Eager (22 October 2011)

JTLP said:


> Bwahahaha. The knife has well and truly cut and leftie deep.
> 
> I don't think lefties know what they stand for? Wealth reduction through taxes that will leave the poorer richer? Lol I feel like i'm spinning myself out!



Hasn't cut deep at all. Water off a duck's back in fact. One gets used to it from the herd. 

There's one rightie in particular who I haven't got a clue what he stands for, and that's Abbott. I only know what he stands against....perhaps you can personally enlighten me?

Don't worry Mods and Admins: I'm only responding in kind.

*Poverty* - That doesn't sound right. I've never heard that the dependant spouse rebate had a cutoff age/date before. Are you sure that there are no other tax break schemes that your wife can partake in? I'd seek advice from Centrelink or even a tax accountant or similar to make sure you're getting what you can.

Again, it just doesn't sound right.


----------



## poverty (22 October 2011)

Eager said:


> *Poverty* - That doesn't sound right. I've never heard that the dependant spouse rebate had a cutoff age/date before. Are you sure that there are no other tax break schemes that your wife can partake in? I'd seek advice from Centrelink or even a tax accountant or similar to make sure you're getting what you can.




http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/Content/00223292.htm&page=9

"On 11 May 2011, (as part of the 2010-11 Budget measures) the Treasurer announced changes to the dependent spouse tax offset. As announced, it is proposed that from 1 July 2011 only taxpayers with a dependent spouse born on or before 30 June 1971 will be eligible to claim this offset."

My wife was previously eligible, but since she's born in 1983 and they've moved the goalposts she is no longer.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 October 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> The solution you are looking for is extermination of the human species. There is non other.
> You cannot control humans 'on the downside', if you will (i.e. reducing their consumption rate), _with humans_. And unless there are angels willing to do it, it won't happen.
> In the hypothetical situation were say, a bunch of nations strangle their consumption rates, the rest of the worlds nations become more powerful, push the stranglers aside, grow, and more than make up for the consumption rate.
> A pendulum is stable at the bottom of its swing, not the top.



Agreed with your comments BUT the earth is ultimately a finite resource. Humans and their resource use WILL stop growing whether we like it or not.

We have a finite amount of land. We have a finite quantity of every single resource available to us. At some point, constant growth would become physically impossible no matter what we tried.

At 4% per annum growth, the magic number that economists seem to like, Australia alone will be using 60% of the entire world's present oil output in 100 years time. Meanwile Adelaide will be larger than any city on Earth today, there will be 29,000 flights at Sydney airport every day which is one plane every 3 seconds and so on...

Good luck making that work. Can anyone honestly tell me that we're going to have 29,000 flights in Sydney every day? Or that Adelaide will have a population of 50 million? Present day concerns about aircraft noise (Sydney) or development in the parklands (Adelaide) will seem trivial compared to the havoc that even approaching those figures would create. It's just not going to happen no matter what economists and their fixation with GDP growth might wish for. Even at 1% growth, it still turns to poo eventually.



> The increase in price creates pressure to develop alternative fuel sources (as per my oil vs coal example). EROEI is related to ROE. The ROE decreases as EROEI decreases, and vice versa.



Can't argue about that. Problem is, we're running out of energy sources with a high EROEI - that's the crux of it. Instead of getting a 100:1 return, we're going to have to accept 2:1 or something like that. The almost free ride is coming to an end and now we're going to have to divert quite a lot of human effort into energy production.

I can accept that technology may fix the energy problem in due course, although we're a bit late getting started given that oil is already becoming a problem. Maybe we'll get there in 20 years time, but it's going to be interesting in the meantime and that's what I'm worried about...


----------



## drsmith (22 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Greeks bitch about their country (and riot in the streets) because they donna wanna paya da tax! Similarly, many people are upset here.
> 
> I'm happy to pay my way.



And happy for everyone else to pay your way too, or so it would seem.

That's the problem with the carbon tax and Labor's other taxes.



Eager said:


> Don't worry Mods and Admins: I'm only responding in kind.



I doubt very much that you have the forum mods worried.


----------



## IFocus (23 October 2011)

Julia said:


> IF, I'd almost begun to develop some respect for you at one stage when you demonstrated some objectivity.  It's really not that hard.  Maybe consider it again.
> 
> (




I shall limp on with the heavy burden of not having your respect..........


----------



## IFocus (23 October 2011)

wayneL said:


> Julia,
> 
> I can translate leftist doublespeak:
> 
> What IF is saying is that he has no answers to your question.




Finally a clever riposte.


----------



## drsmith (23 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> I shall limp on with the heavy burden of not having your respect..........



That has much in common with Rudd/Gillard Labor.

It limps on under the heavy burden of its policy failures and lies without the respect of the vast majority of the voting public.


----------



## Calliope (23 October 2011)

Eager said:


> You admit to being scared by my posts???????
> 
> Rather, perhaps you find opinions different to yours confronting.




I wasn't aware that you had opinions on anything. Just snide remarks.


----------



## Eager (23 October 2011)

poverty said:


> http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/Content/00223292.htm&page=9
> 
> "On 11 May 2011, (as part of the 2010-11 Budget measures) the Treasurer announced changes to the dependent spouse tax offset. As announced, it is proposed that from 1 July 2011 only taxpayers with a dependent spouse born on or before 30 June 1971 will be eligible to claim this offset."
> 
> My wife was previously eligible, but since she's born in 1983 and they've moved the goalposts she is no longer.



So despite what you said before, your situation has actually got nothing to do with the Carbon Tax 'package' at all.

I am sympathetic to your situation but you should still contact Centrelink to see what other assistance might be available.


----------



## Eager (23 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> I doubt very much that you have the forum mods worried.



Yes, there seems to be more freedom here than on other fora where political issues seem to be taboo. It is important to remember that places like this cannot be taken too seriously. Just like your posts doc; every time I read one of your posts that seems to contain some serious content, I look at your avatar and cannot help but to burst out laughing!  :


----------



## Eager (23 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> I wasn't aware that you had opinions on anything. Just snide remarks.



Which you cannot help replying to.

It is my opinion that the introductuion of the Carbon Tax in itself will have a negligible effect on anything as long as business proprieters do not price gouge.


----------



## tothemax6 (23 October 2011)

Eager said:


> It is my opinion that the introductuion of the Carbon Tax in itself will have a negligible effect on anything as long as business proprieters do not price gouge.



Would you care to go back to my post (in this thread) regarding the economic effects of a tax on carbon, and rebut?


----------



## Julia (23 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Yes, there seems to be more freedom here than on other fora



Ah, I knew eventually there'd be something I'd like about your posts, Eager.
Just fancy, someone actually using the word 'fora'.


----------



## Calliope (23 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Ah, I knew eventually there'd be something I'd like about your posts, Eager.
> Just fancy, someone actually using the word 'fora'.




Who'd have guessed it? Our young Eager beaver purports to be a Latin scholar. The heights of pretention have been reached.


----------



## IFocus (23 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> That has much in common with Rudd/Gillard Labor.
> 
> It limps on under the heavy burden of its policy failures and lies without the respect of the vast majority of the voting public.





None actually but sure to be brought to you by PM Abbott, no carbon tax, no mining tax, tax cuts and record return to surplus.(apparently its a DNA thing).


Now about that structural hole thingy...............LOL just keep looking the other way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> None actually but sure to be brought to you by PM Abbott, no carbon tax, no mining tax, tax cuts and record return to surplus.(apparently its a DNA thing).
> 
> 
> Now about that structural hole thingy...............LOL just keep looking the other way.



To the extent that it results in increased economic growth, tax cuts as a means of returning to surplus is a very credible strategy. 

If you cut taxes then (1) more people will pay the tax as it becomes less worthwhile to find means of avoiding it and (2) economic growth should increase, thus leading to collection of more tax (amongst other things).


----------



## drsmith (23 October 2011)

Eager said:


> Yes, there seems to be more freedom here than on other fora where political issues seem to be taboo. It is important to remember that places like this cannot be taken too seriously. Just like your posts doc; every time I read one of your posts that seems to contain some serious content, I look at your avatar and cannot help but to burst out laughing!  :



I can change it if you like.

How about this,


----------



## drsmith (23 October 2011)

No prizes for guessing who he's running down.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> No prizes for guessing who he's running down.




Malcolm Turnbull?


----------



## Julia (23 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> I shall limp on with the heavy burden of not having your respect..........




Happy to accept you can't answer my questions.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2012)

When the government announced the carbon tax, it also announced an increase to the tax free threshold to $18,200 from the current level of $6000.

What they omitted to mention, except in some fine print, was that along with this increase would go the abolition of the low income tax offset.

I had occasion to ask some questions of the ATO today re projected tax free thresholds for something I'm considering doing.  I was interested to have them say that so far they have no advice from government about any coming change in the tax free threshold or associated offsets.

Hasn't all this legislation been passed now?  Why wouldn't the tax office be in a position to advise people re the situation as it will apply in the coming financial year?


----------



## sptrawler (16 February 2012)

Julia said:


> When the government announced the carbon tax, it also announced an increase to the tax free threshold to $18,200 from the current level of $6000.
> 
> What they omitted to mention, except in some fine print, was that along with this increase would go the abolition of the low income tax offset.
> 
> ...




Don't get caught up on the fine print, this is about backfilling a huge hole they have dug, who cares if it works.
It is all very sad.


----------



## MACCA350 (16 February 2012)

Maybe that's one of their "non-core Promises", or maybe it's like that "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" promise

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (12 June 2014)

Your energy charge includes a carbon component of $101.74 which compromises Synergys *ESTIMATED* carbon costs. Also I am paying a CARBON TAX and a GST on top of my usage !!

So if this is estimated and not an actual calculable figure do I get a credit if it is cheaper or do I get a bill if it is dearer? 



> ENERGY company Synergy is pocketing millions of bonus carbon tax dollars by holding on to the money collected from West Australians for up to a year before handing it over to the Federal Government.
> 
> The monopoly electricity retailer already has collected $68 million from households and businesses and will raise an estimated further* $150 million b*efore it passes on one cent in tax.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...n-carbon-tax-con/story-e6frg6n6-1226514353609

I had a wholesale electricity supplier in the other day and he showed me some startling figures where over 20% of the energy bill is made up of fees and charges (unethical in his opinion) Only about 9% is actual generation of electricity and the remainder was to pay for the "asset" and bureaucrats wages and profit back to the government. The less we use in electricity (and once again in his words) the more we will have to pay in "fixed costs". I queried about all the people with solar panels generating their own electricity and he claims that they are actually driving the price up !! He also went on to say that electricity (in Western Australia) is going to go up by 54% in the next 3 years - State budget documents duly handed over and noted as fact. 

Apparently the modelling was done on an exponential growth in electricity consumption but it has actually turned out that we are using less electricity because of the price increases (read carbon tax and GST blah blah blah) So the less you use will eventually end up costing you more as they still need to cover the costs of the "fixed asset". 

So I have now decided to crank up my wood fire to heat my home (lotsa lovely Co2 into the atmosphere) and use candles instead of those ridiculously expensive LED lights I installed in my home to save electricity. Yep .. gotta love this carbon tax !! Pfffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttt


----------



## pixel (12 June 2014)

> I queried about all the people with solar panels generating their own electricity and he claims that they are actually driving the price up !!



Yes, I've heard that too. It's one of the most devious lies concocted by the power generators, in order to justify their "god-given right to profit" from selling more dirty power at fatter profits.
And the governments fall for it: How dare those citizens try to get something for free, consuming energy without paying their fair share of GST and other charges! (... reminds me: Is there a way to tax sunlight and oxygen? How about we let Industry pollute the air so badly that people NEED to buy oxygen in cylinders and gas masks that need regular maintenance... yeah - should work. Together with the GST on fresh food, the government could collect ever more revenue from the population while reducing the Corporate Tax burden even further...)

How is that? You Solar Nutters invested $Thousands up-front when you had those solar panels installed? Well, thanks for those Tax Dollars and money spent to keep solar companies in business and people employed. But that was years ago and the proceeds have long since used up in consolidated revenue, paying for bonuses and perks for your hard-working members of parliament...

Makes your blood boil!


----------



## Julia (12 June 2014)

trainspotter said:


> I had a wholesale electricity supplier in the other day and he showed me some startling figures where over 20% of the energy bill is made up of fees and charges (unethical in his opinion) Only about 9% is actual generation of electricity and the remainder was to pay for the "asset" and bureaucrats wages and profit back to the government. The less we use in electricity (and once again in his words) the more we will have to pay in "fixed costs". I queried about all the people with solar panels generating their own electricity and he claims that they are actually driving the price up !!



Well, the amount being paid to people who have the solar panels has to come from somewhere, and it's my understanding that (at least in Qld) it is coming from an additional charge on the bills issued to general consumers without the solar panels.  eg those who perhaps were renting or simply didn't have the available capital to install the panels have subsequently been indirectly paying the subsidy to those who could afford them.
Sounds logical to me.  I doubt anyone would imagine either the electricity companies or the government is going to just absorb that cost.   It has been since the solar panels were introduced and so widely taken up that the huge increases in electricity charges have been so apparent
.
I acknowledge at the same time that infrastructure improvements have also added to cost of quarterly bills.



> He also went on to say that electricity (in Western Australia) is going to go up by 54% in the next 3 years - State budget documents duly handed over and noted as fact.



I wouldn't be surprised.  It's completely out of control, it seems.  In Qld we will have a 13.6% increase in July and ditto in future years unless something is changed.



> Apparently the modelling was done on an exponential growth in electricity consumption but it has actually turned out that we are using less electricity because of the price increases (read carbon tax and GST blah blah blah)



Not just the carbon tax and GST but the reality that the infrastructure was (sensibly enough, before the whole solar/green energy craze) upgraded to cover increased population and to provide reliability of service, but then with the proliferation of the solar panels, fewer households actually consumed electricity, leaving ever fewer suckers who were not able to install the panels liable to meet a much greater proportion of the fixed cost attributable to the infrastructure improvements.

Once again, it's the affluent who get the benefits and the poor, with fewer choices, who just get the non-discretionary bills.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2014)

trainspotter said:


> I queried about all the people with solar panels generating their own electricity and he claims that they are actually driving the price up !!



True in a literal sense, since solar panels mean less electricity used and thus a higher price per kWh at the household retail level.

But it could be said with equal accuracy that wood fires, anything running on gas, insulation, LED backlit TV's and Hills hoists also drive up the price of electricity by same underlying means as solar - a reduction in net consumption per connection.

Solar cops a lot of criticism but it's primarily for political reasons. With a 1:1 FIT or less as is now common, it has no more real impact on power prices than anything else which reduces net consumption.

In the broader context, plenty of engineers and _rational_ accountants have worked out over the years how to minimise the cost of energy supply to households and it isn't rocket science. All you really need is to (1) focus on electricity and in due course abandon gas and wood unless the total cost of operation is less than the _marginal_ cost of additional electricity which typically isn't the case (2) tariff structure with one option only for pricing, no ability to cost shift by dodgy accounting and (3) direct linkage between all aspects of the industry, generation and network considerations become the primary means of retail price setting.

We've taken a bit of a step in that direction once again in Tasmania, with the Hydro regaining its' effective monopoly status as a generator and cutting costs (and CO2 emissions by the way) as a direct result. That was implemented June 2013 and has been passed on as a cut to household rates of a bit over 5%.

Transmission (Transend Networks) and distribution (Aurora Energy) are also being merged into a single entity (to be known as Tas Networks), again to save costs. To be implemented 1 July 2014.

As for retail, well that's a bit of a downside since the politicians have a bit of a mental block there and still seem to think that adding 10% on top of all costs, then having retailers compete to cut that back a bit, is going to be cheaper than not having that additional cost in the first place. They haven't quite worked out that this isn't going to work yet, but give them a bit of time and reality will whack them in the head no doubt.


----------

