What does the Carbon Tax mean for me?

[drsmith]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No prizes for guessing who he's running down.

 

[So_Cynical]

No prizes for guessing who he's running down.

Malcolm Turnbull?

 

[Julia]

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

Happy to accept you can't answer my questions.

 

[Julia]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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 before 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]

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]

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.