This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
I think the non labor members i.e the independants will only need an opportunity, to start and distance themselves from the impending train wreck.
Actually that will probably be a good indicator for the demise of this guvnmint.
Click to expand...
They're going to be reluctant to do that because to do so will call into question their original judgment and make them look silly.

However, if any of them were to do this, my money would be on Tony Windsor who at least seems to have come to a belated understanding of what is best for his electorate.
 
Greg Combett has his hackles up,

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/142422.html

His beef is Greg Hunt's and Glen Milne's interpretation on compensation.

This is what Greg Combett actually quotes himself as saying on a ABC Radio National interview,

The full stop is the killer on the impression that it gives.
 
By "large polluter" does he mean all the vehicles that are on the road, what about all the houses that burn electricity? These are owned and operated by the "little polluters" who when aggregated together form a very LARGE phalanx of polluters.

If electricity goes up and transport costs increase then does the likes of Coles, Woolworths et al increase their costs of supplying product to us to cover their overheads? Are they compensated at the same rate as the "householders" ???

Me thinks we are in a world of pain here. Where is the detail? Have you heard any one from the Guvmint explaining this in any way, shape or form other than to say we will be "compensated" ?? Well have you?

I remember seeing a cartoon with John Hewson asking Wayne Swan to explain the detail of this tax ...... AHEM ...... carbon price ........ similar to the "birthday cake" fiasco. Very apt IMO.
 
Agree TS that the government are only further harming themselves by failing to clarify details of the proposed tax. However, they can hardly make public what they don't know themselves. I don't think they have a clue about how the tax should work or how any compensation will need to be applied. Someone suggested a while ago that it will be like the pink batts on steroids. Sounds about right to me.

Meantime, I came across the following letter to the ABC's "7.30" program.
Could the writer have something here? i.e. that the Unions' dissent is largely manufactured to provide the government with (down the track) an apparently unassailable reason to drop the tax?

Perhaps this is too machiavellian? Had a ring of sense to it for me.

 
Has anyone thought of this carbon tax like this before or is it just me?

I am using ELECTRICITY as an example. No doubt their will be thousands more.

We are the consumers that require electricity to run our homes.

We have coal fired electricity generators that "pollute" the atmosphere and need to pay a carbon tax because we the consumers require the electricity.

The electricity generating companies are taxed also. They are not compensated but can buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. So therefore they DO NOT have to reduce their output of pollutants. We the consumer require their electricity so the electricity generating companies cannot reduce their output.

We the consumer are compensated for the rise in electricity costs so therefore we DO NOT have to reduce our usage of electricity.

Big polluters have not reduced their output but have been taxed.

Consumers have not reduced their usage as they are compensated for the costs.

WTF ??? WTF ??? WTF ???

This carbon tax was supposed to REDUCE our output and usage by "using a market mechanism by putting a price on carbon". It was supposed to make it soooooooo expensive that we would use less of it. Now we are being compensated for it?

 
More waste by this incompetent Labor Government to give away $599 million of tax payers money to the UN to stop "GLOBAL WARMING" (SORRY CLIMATE CHANGE) plus on top of all that 10% of the money raised courtesy of the carbon dioxide tax. Furthermore, how much extra is it going to cost to administer this crazy idea; how many more bludging bureaucrats will be required?

All for what? Zilch reduction in climate change or temperatures.

We are constantly pounded by the propaganda from this Labor Party and there coalition partners the Greens, if you don't believe in climate change you are a denier.I have not met one person who does not believe in climate change, but do believe climate change is created by a natural phenomenon ie. the Sun and other contributing factors.

Why in the hell these weak independants are not screaming from the roof tops, "enough is enough".


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...f_599_million_to_the_united_nations_warmists/
 
sails said:
Too much egg on their faces for getting it wrong?
Click to expand...
Tony Windsor might by now be hoping that Labor replace Julia Gillard as leader. He then has an out.

Rob Oakshott on the other hand I suspect would go down with the ship for an extra 10 seconds of limelight.

Andrew Wilkie will remain focused on his individual agenda and Adam Bandt (along with the rest of the Watermelons) will be happy to dance on Labor's grave while fantasising about replacing them as one of the two major parties.
 
sails said:
Because they have been bribed...ooops pork barrelled?

Too much egg on their faces for getting it wrong?
Click to expand...
I know this will be considered a heretical comment, but perhaps there's always the possibility that all the Independents, except Bob Katter, actually believe in anthropogenic climate change (they have all said so at some stage) and further believe that the carbon tax might be the only way to take any sort of action at this stage.

Certainly we don't agree with them, or most of us here do not, but i don't think anyone should discount their genuine belief that they are 'on the side of what is right'.

I might be quite wrong, but my guess is that they are way more genuine in their beliefs than is our Prime Minister who quickly changed her climate change tune when it was, she thought, politically expedient to do so.

Meanwhile, she is swanning around Japan. A letter to "The Australian" today said:
Hasn't Japan suffered enough?
Click to expand...
 

Even if they do genuinely believe in anthropogenic climate change, do they realise how little Australia actually emits? For all the pain this carbon tax will inflict in potential job losses and hurting those who do not qualify for compensation, it will possibly achieve next to nothing in Australia's carbon reduction.

And then it was mentioned in one of the threads today that around $1.5 billion will be spent on airline travel - do these "enlightened" pollies ever stop to think of their own carbon footprints? And Ms Gillard is swanning almost halfway around the world in a jet for her use. If she really believed that carbon was dangerous, why isn't she choosing other greener alternatives as she is suggesting to her electorate?

I find it difficult to understand how any pollie with half a brain can actually think that Australia can make any significant difference to carbon reduction.
 
Julia said:
I might be quite wrong, but my guess is that they are way more genuine in their beliefs than is our Prime Minister who quickly changed her climate change tune when it was, she thought, politically expedient to do so.
Click to expand...

Neither Oakeshotte nor Wilkie has a genuine bone in his body. They are grafters. Windsor and Katter are motivated by their hatred for the Nationals, as turncoats usually are.
 
Sails, I totally agree with you. Just don't think anyone should expect the independents to change tack. I hope they do, of course, but won't be holding my breath.
 
If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.
 
Calliope said:
If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.
Click to expand...

Calliope, do you not agree though, if one indy defected there would have to be an election because the government would not be able to function.
 
At last. Thank you Julia. Makes a big difference to how complicated issues are discussed when people acknowledge that reason and good will don't always produce the same outcome.

Ghoti
 
Calliope said:
If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.
Click to expand...
So, if we accept this, do you really think he would turn any of them down if they offered to switch sides?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
10K
Telamelo
T
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...