Labor's carbon tax lie

[JTLP]

In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:

1: The small number of high-income individuals on incomes like $100,000+ Not many Australians fit into this category, and those that do are by far the most able to reduce their carbon footprint if they wish. The fact that so many of them would rather whinge and complain than actually do something about it does not reflect well on them. Measures as simple and practical as orienting that fancy new house to face north and have properly-sized eaves can save thousands upon thousands of dollars over the life of a house.

2: The modest but suignificant number of people who (a) do not pay tax and (b) are on a fixed income with no pension or benefit payable. Some self-funded retirees fit into this class. (But most do not - a great many self-funded retirees also have some taxable income, either from part-time or, more often, from income producing assets held outside their super fund, typically because they are not spending all of the mandatory 4% pension mode super fund draw-down and invest the balance. All of these people benefit enormously from the gigantic lift in the tax-free threshold, and for the first time ever, about 2 million Australians won't even have to fill out a tax return.

1. You'd be surprised who earns over 100k these days. By the way - I earn about 75k (single) and end up worse off by the governments own calculators?!?! How do you explain that one? I'm not exactly a big carbon emitter (train to work/live by myself etc). I think a lot of people will fit in my boat as well and still cop this crap.

Your point about houses etc also highlights that this is really all about dollars and dollars only - people aren't only whinging because they're being slugged - they're whinging because there is no proof in climate change at all - and Australia - a minnow of the world - is slugging its citizens with the highest tax. Makes cents? Nope - but $$$ for the government. Get the 2 billion from India and China changing their climate ways and then maybe a country which is barely making a dint in that population should act.

I don't know how many times it's been said - it's not a gigantic lift in the tax-free threshold...they've wiped out the low income offset etc. Rest assured Tannin you'll be copping this rubbish just like the rest of us...

 

[sails]

In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:...

You call carbon tax a reform? Unbelievable...:bad:

 

[Smurf1976]

In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms

The focus on household bills is almost completely missing the point. They are at best a trivial issue, no more relevant in this debate than they are to any other economic debate of the past 30 years. It's the overall economy that most are worried about.

It already costs around $250 per tonne of CO2 for the average householder via electricity use so adding another 11% to that isn't going to break the budget in most cases. It's the literally 100% increase in baseload electricity prices to industry, which has already occurred upon introduction of the tax, that has me and many others worried. How on earth are Australian manufacturers supposed to remain viable under this situation? How, exactly?

All this tax would seem to be doing, is turning us into one giant quarry plus a non-productive service sector. Hence the banks etc are keen on it and the miners aren't overly worried either. Meanwhile it is manufacturers and processors who actually create real value who are being driven offshore.

Household bills are a very long way down the list of issues relating to this tax.

 

[Tannin]

Manufacturers, like everyone else, need to review their energy use. In most cases, energy costs are a minor factor in the overall health of a business. The exceptions essentially fall into three camps:

1: massively energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting. Simply, these industries need to find a way to switch to renewable power or shut down. In the short term, they wil be replaced by overseas industries (which is bad). But in the medium term, the balance will be restored as, one by one, other countres adopt a carbon trading system. This process is underway now. You can't turn it back, and only a suicidal lunatic would wish to. Our children's future depends on it.

2: wasteful business which still have not responded to energy costs despite plenty of warning and substantial non-carbon-related price hikes. Every day I am still seeing, for example, fast foot joints with multiple light globes running all night still using incandescent bulbs! Just for their own proftability, never mind their responsibility to waste less carbon, they should have switched to energy-efficient fluros or LEDs years ago. We see the same with madly over-optimistic air-conditioner settings, unnecessary patio heaters, little or no insulation, very high ceilings with no reverse-directon fans .... on and on and on, the wasteage is incredible. Hopefully, the tax will finally see some of these neanderthal managers wake up and step into the current century (and save themselves a lot of money). But don't hold your breath. To have got this far without takling any action they must be pretty stupid.

3: marginal export-exposed business. This is the real problem area. The huge mistake in the current carbon tax system is that imports are exempt from it. This is a major flaw, and we really should be pressuring both major parties to address it immediately by placing a carbon equivalent levvy on imports from countries which have not yet begun a trading system or equivalent. It would take a bit of work to implement, of course, but no worse than GST was, and it could be 100% self-funding so far as the collection side of it goes, and also add a substantial amount to consolidated revenue, which then provides room for further reductions in income tax.

 

[Calliope]

You call carbon tax a reform? Unbelievable...:bad:

Yes it's very strange how they can call tax increases reforms. Henry is now advocating reforming the GST.

Independent experts also called for the GST to be raised above 10 per cent and extended to food, health and education to make room for personal and company tax cuts.

Debate on the GST has intensified in the wake of a Grattan Institute report last month that said a wider consumption tax was one of three reforms that could pay for income tax cuts and add $80bn to economic output by 2022.

State governments have also stepped up calls for reforms as they confront lower GST receipts, partly as shoppers move to overseas internet sites but also because key parts of the economy are exempt from the tax

.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-population-ages/story-fn59nsif-1226427567438

 

[noco]

Yes it's very strange how they can call tax increases reforms. Henry is now advocating reforming the GST.


.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-population-ages/story-fn59nsif-1226427567438

Calluope, that is what I have been quoting on several occassions. At least one would know what they are paying.

With this stupid Carbon Tax it is hidden by unscroupulous business and it will go up and up.

 

[Julia]

With solar panels, NSW already and we will probably learn soon Qld as well, will not need so many extra infrastructure: lower peaks due to aircond during the day, and when feed in , no infrastructure and losses on 100's kms as the solar house feeds its immediate neighborhood;
This is saving the networks billions but costing the reseller power companies as there is less consumption..
So propaganda......

Good point.

As for the argument only the wealthy could afford it:
6 months ago. anyone could have had a solar system for $0 or hardly any deposit as installers were ready to advance the cost against your credits and some repayment matching the savings..

Perhaps where you are. Nothing like that in my area. You had to upfront with the capital cost.

once again a typical aussie ACA style argument: the dummers are renamed the battlers

From Whirlpool:

IPART in NSW has released a fact sheet on the impact of green schemes on regulated electricity retail prices in NSW. The report identified that "In percentage terms the costs of complying with these schemes has been the fastest growing proportion of a customer’s bill over the past two years. " This is in contrast to media reports that attribute network costs being the main contributor to price increases.

I mentioned all the various green schemes, not just solar panels. The carbon tax, at the very least, should see these wiped imo.

And "the dummers"? I'm assuming you mean people who are 'dumb'? Perhaps some of them are.
Perhaps they haven't had your genetic or educational advantages. Many lack basic life skills because they've never received any decent parenting, just for a start. Whatever the reason if they are 'dumb' in your opinion, perhaps consider feeling sorry for them rather than pouring scorn on them.

 

[drsmith]

You call carbon tax a reform? Unbelievable...:bad:

He's only posting rubbish that's not worthy of substantive response.

Case in point,

In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:

1: The small number of high-income individuals on incomes like $100,000+

With regard to the GST, the rate should not be increased by default. It's allready too easy for governments to increase taxes instead of living within their means. The base however should be broadened as a simplification measure and the proceeds returned to taxpayers in the form of cuts (or even elimination) if other taxes.

 

[Calliope]

With regard to the GST, the rate should not be increased by default. It's allready too easy for governments to increase taxes instead of living within their means. The base however should be broadened as a simplification measure and the proceeds returned to taxpayers in the form of cuts (or even elimination) if other taxes.

Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.

However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.

However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."

I've got a bet with my uncle for $50 taken 3 years ago, that the Libs will increase the GST within the first 2 terms when they regain power.
I only heard a few snippets on the ABC, but Ken Henry made a lot of sense on taxation generally. Too bad that our politicians and media are incapable of discussing the issues. The public probably should share some of the blame also.

 

[drsmith]

Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.

However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."

In the broadest sense, both aspects should be considered, but the logical starting point remains broadening the base before increasing the rate.

The difficulty I have with increasing the rate is that as a revenue raising measure, it's the easy option that in itself does nothing to improve the efficiency of tax transfer. To me, other areas should be looked at first, such as reinforcing the tax base for income tax and reducing the overall number of taxes to the most efficient. Removing deductions for salary income for example would also raise extra revenue which could be used to reduce marginal rates. For efficiency, this is a win-win.

I'm not sure what John Hewson is dreaming of with 20% GST and base broadening. With the latter at least, he would be able to satisfactorily explain its impact on a birthday cake.

I can't see Tony Abbott touching the the GST in his first term, but a broad based tax reform package as part of his second term agenda I would like to see. This perhaps is the best we can hope for.

 

[StumpyPhantom]

Apparently Gillard convinced quite a few of the 200 or so people at a Perth community forum (held in the last 24 hours) about the merits of the Carbon Tax.

Does anyone know anything about it? Better still, did anyone atend?

I think most of us are prepared to debate the pros and cons - what I don't think Gillard gets is the fact that the electorate strongly objects to the way it's been foisted onto us.

Don't suppose we'll get an apology for that anytime soon.

 

[Smurf1976]

1: massively energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting. Simply, these industries need to find a way to switch to renewable power or shut down. In the short term, they wil be replaced by overseas industries (which is bad). But in the medium term, the balance will be restored as, one by one, other countres adopt a carbon trading system. This process is underway now. You can't turn it back, and only a suicidal lunatic would wish to. Our children's future depends on it.

Main point here is that in the specific context of aluminium smelting, any move to renewables does in practice mean one thing - big dams. Hydro has always been the aluminium industry's preferred energy source, since it is cheap, but if history is any guide then I have a feeling that environmentalists won't be too keen on going down this track again (and nor will most politicians).

We're not going to run a smelter on solar panels anytime soon, that's for sure. The energy density and volumes just aren't workable at present.

2: wasteful business which still have not responded to energy costs despite plenty of warning and substantial non-carbon-related price hikes.

Agreed that there is a lot of waste and that it makes sense to eliminate this. No issues with that one other than to note the difficulty of bringing about a meaningful change in attitudes.

marginal export-exposed business. This is the real problem area. The huge mistake in the current carbon tax system is that imports are exempt from it. This is a major flaw, and we really should be pressuring both major parties to address it immediately by placing a carbon equivalent levvy on imports from countries which have not yet begun a trading system or equivalent.

Also agreed. The great problem with the carbon tax is that it can not actually work in an environment where "free" trade is permitted for the simple reason that a substantial portion of emissions will simply be relocated to a non-taxing country.

Don't think it will happen? Just look at how practically every labour-intensive manufacturer has relocated to countries with low wages. Have no doubt that energy-intensive ones will do the exactly the same - indeed they already have since cheap electricity is the primary reason they set up in Australia in the first place and they'll leave just as easily.

If we could get over the notion that there will ever be "free" trade then the concept of a carbon tax does indeed become a lot more workable. But as it stands today, Australia is basically giving away its' manufacturing industries for no gain environmentally or otherwise. That's the bit I'm worried about - household bills are less of an issue.

 

[So_Cynical]

Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, today committed his government to introducing an emissions trading scheme.

Howard said the government would set a long-term emissions target in 2008.
Addressing the Melbourne Press Club at the Hyatt Hotel, Howard also outlined a series of measures costing $627 million over the next five years “that reinforce our commitment to tackling global warming”.

http://australianpolitics.com/2007/07/17/howard-commits-to-emissions-trading-scheme.html

Amazing how far the noalition has come hey...see this is leadership, without Howard and Turnbull the clowns are left running the show.

 

[sptrawler]

Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.



http://australianpolitics.com/2007/07/17/howard-commits-to-emissions-trading-scheme.html

Amazing how far the noalition has come hey...see this is leadership, without Howard and Turnbull the clowns are left running the show.

Well So_Cynical if the noalition is so bad and the Goon show is so good, why don't they call an election?
I know why, because like you, they are full of it.LOL,LOL,LOL

 

[moXJO]

Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.



http://australianpolitics.com/2007/07/17/howard-commits-to-emissions-trading-scheme.html

Amazing how far the noalition has come hey...see this is leadership, without Howard and Turnbull the clowns are left running the show.

He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.

 

[Eager]

Well So_Cynical if the noalition is so bad and the Goon show is so good, why don't they call an election?
I know why, because like you, they are full of it.LOL,LOL,LOL

LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,DROLL.

I know! You're a lolly! Not sweet though, on the contrary, quite bitter.

There will be an election late next year. You'll get your chance. That's what happens in a democracy.

 

[noco]

He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.

Once again the lefties don't tell the true story.

They only quote what they reckon can do some damage.

Gillard has been on the same caper for months. More lies.They just can't help themelves.

 

[Julia]

I think most of us are prepared to debate the pros and cons - what I don't think Gillard gets is the fact that the electorate strongly objects to the way it's been foisted onto us.

More than that is the reality that it will make no appreciable difference to the environment whilst significantly disadvantaging business which will pass its costs on to all consumers.

I don't think people mind paying a tax when they can see a valid reason for it. An example was the floods levy.
What they utterly detest is that we are being screwed over on the basis of what Gillard had to agree with the Greens, simply to keep herself in power.
For your average Australian to be personally footing the bill for Gillard's political survival is beyond disgusting.

But as it stands today, Australia is basically giving away its' manufacturing industries for no gain environmentally or otherwise. That's the bit I'm worried about - household bills are less of an issue.

Perhaps so, from your objective overall view, but for the people paying those household bills, I doubt they will agree that it's 'less of a problem'.

He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.

Exactly. This is so fundamental, and what the Left always oh so conveniently omits.

 

[sptrawler]

LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,DROLL.

I know! You're a lolly! Not sweet though, on the contrary, quite bitter.

There will be an election late next year. You'll get your chance. That's what happens in a democracy.

Thats funny, I thought what happened in a democracy, was the people got to vote on the policies.

With this government, they don't put up the policies, you vote, then you get the greens policies.

Bitter, yes I'm bitter.

Dissapointed somewhat also, because the government after decieving the electorate, now think by putting off the election, will be able to convince the population that deception is ok.

Also eager, like I said to so_cynical, if the government feels it is doing the right thing why not go to an election now?
It is hard to get any traction when you know nobody believes you.LOL,LOL,LOL