Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Labor's carbon tax lie

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
Actually IFocus, you should send that post to Julia and Wayne, they would be silly enough to use it. LOL.:D
Click to expand...

Apart from India, the combined world carbon dioxide emissions of the eight countries (apart from India) proudly posted by IFocus is around 1%.

Surely, this has to be about a money grab (scam?) and next to nothing about reducing emissions.
 
And the UK aim to halve their emissions by.....building nuclear power stations, which doesn't seem to get mentioned.
 
Indeed mexican, but why should Professor Carter waste his time debating science with an Arts graduate. An Arts degree followed by a diploma in chasing kangaroos around and catching bats in mist nets = scarcely an adequate resume to speak authoritatively on atmospheric physics.

Better to get someone from the literary world, that's the level at which Flannery pitches his comments on climate change.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...nticBw&usg=AFQjCNHHCXWjg-LvTSvQoVvMY5AexnTdoQ
(Wikipedia)
"...In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods. Before this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English (1977) at La Trobe University[4] and a Master of Science degree in Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over 90 scientific papers..."
 
How do you get included as a signatory, when you haven't even signed? No apology noted for Father Maguire.

Still, one doesn't want to be "..'blasted' in a telephone call from an organiser of 1 Million Women.."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ught-in-yes-push/story-fn59niix-1226065971147
Identities unwittingly caught in Yes push. By Sallie Don, from: The Australian May 31

"..AT least three high-profile Australians have been included in the pro-carbon tax advertising campaign without their approval, including celebrated Sydney restaurateur Christine Manfield, who believes the tax is 'unethical'.."
 
Logique said:
And the UK aim to halve their emissions by.....building nuclear power stations, which doesn't seem to get mentioned.
Click to expand...

What struck me and I was surprised that they achieved significant reductions through tax or I guess a trading scheme of some sort without the sky falling in as expected by economists not as claimed on this thread repeatedly.

The other thing was they did it so long ago.

On the insiders week before last they pointed out how the Brits renouncement of their carbon plan rated 7th place on the news 6th was a dog that fell off a cliff.

Here the ads for the yes side get 1st place sort of makes Australian politics look pathetic.

Nuclear needs to progress a little further I think before its gets truly viable but that will be 20 to 40 years away.

Interesting the claims GE were making the other day about major improvements to photo cells unfortunately don't have the link.
 
Logique said:
Indeed mexican, but why should Professor Carter waste his time debating science with an Arts graduate. An Arts degree followed by a diploma in chasing kangaroos around and catching bats in mist nets = scarcely an adequate resume to speak authoritatively on atmospheric physics.

Better to get someone from the literary world, that's the level at which Flannery pitches his comments on climate change.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...nticBw&usg=AFQjCNHHCXWjg-LvTSvQoVvMY5AexnTdoQ
(Wikipedia)
"...In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods. Before this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in English (1977) at La Trobe University[4] and a Master of Science degree in Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over 90 scientific papers..."
Click to expand...
The one thing that I can't get my head around, is the fact that the opposition are not jumping all over these Professor's who are "qualified" to present these hypothesis and the quotes/or should I say hypothesis from Flannery in the past ie: "Our dams will never be full again" ....it makes me wonder how serious are they!
Australian politics are at a all time low!!!!!!
It would not take much to crush this tax and government!
 
i have been trying to find the "say yes" list of 'celebrities' who have publically put their name down in support of the carbon tax.... after googleing it i still havnt been able to find it... does anyone have a link to it?
 
Interesting to note several people who are alleged signatories (thanks Logique) have backtracked ??? :eek:

Meanwhile, the coalition of unions and environmental groups will today publish a national pro-carbon tax advertising campaign with 140 signatories from celebrities, scientists, doctors and sportsmen.

The ad includes endorsements from actor Rebecca Gibney, author Tim Winton, musician Katie Noonan, rugby union player David Pocock, Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty, artist Ken Done and former Liberal leaders John Hewson and Malcolm Fraser.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mor...sh/story-e6frfkvr-1226065349342#ixzz0pUKiSeVJ
 
Labor's new rich: $80,000 ?

Most of the household assistance under Prof. Garnaut's 10-year plan would be in the form of tax cuts, with the tax-free threshold raised to $25,000.

That would result in 1.2 million Australians paying no tax.

Other rates would be rejigged to ensure people earning more than $80,000 a year wouldn't benefit.
Click to expand...

This in practice will be difficult to sell. One method of phasing it out at $80k would be to lower the threshold for the 37% tax rate. The 37% threshold would need to be reduced from $80k to about $41k to neutralise such increase in the tax-free threshold by $80000. Such a measure would be serious fodder for the opposition.

I don't think they will fiddle with marginal tax rates directly, but will opt for a means teated rebate that achieves the above (or something similar) without it looking so obvious.

2011/2012 Financial year Australia Personal Income Tax Rates:

$0 – $6,000 - Nil

$6,001 – $37,000 - 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$37,001 – $80,000 - $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,001

$80,001 – $180,000 - $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over - $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
 
I wonder what Prof Garnaut's plan is to compensate those who pay no tax, i.e. those who earn very small amounts and self funded retirees who receive no welfare payments?

So how can (the prime minister) continue to maintain that her tax only makes big polluters pay," Mr Abbott asked parliament.
Click to expand...
The best question Mr Abbott is asking. I'm so sick of Ms Gillard saying the carbon tax will only be paid by 'big polluters', when quite obviously there will not be one cent incurred by industry that they fail to pass on to the consumer.
 
The big question for Abbott is why will the tax payers pay billions each year for so called direct action full stop / no subsidies, essentially socializing the cost for business.
 
Julia said:
I wonder what Prof Garnaut's plan is to compensate those who pay no tax, i.e. those who earn very small amounts and self funded retirees who receive no welfare payments?


The best question Mr Abbott is asking. I'm so sick of Ms Gillard saying the carbon tax will only be paid by 'big polluters', when quite obviously there will not be one cent incurred by industry that they fail to pass on to the consumer.
Click to expand...

When Gillard says the tax will hit the "big polluters", she obviously means the consumers of electricity. She will do her best not to alienate those in the socio-economic level who would normally vote Labor, with reimbursements that exceed their rising power costs.

The scene is set for this incompetent government to totally mismanage this exercise, with much of the taxpayers' money going to the wrong people.
 
In Parliament in recent weeks the Prime Minister has been unable or unwilling to answer a range of questions about the impact of her proposed carbon tax.

She has been asked about the impact on the cost of living, on manufacturing businesses, on construction costs, and the impact on jobs. She has even been asked whether amateur sporting clubs will be compensated for higher electricity costs of illuminating sporting ovals. All questions are met with a barrage of incoherent babble.
The fear of many manufacturing companies in Australia is that their costs will increase, while those of their international competitors do not.

Such concerns have been compounded by the announcement this week that Russia, Japan, Canada and the United States have announced that they will not be joining an updated Kyoto Protocol because it will fail to impose emissions cuts on China and other developing countries.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs...nient-truth-20110601-1ffa0.html#ixzz0pZszvkAD

:banghead:
 
Support for the carbon tax is highest among well-educated Australians who enjoy relatively secure employment or comfortable retirement - many of whom live in the inner cities. Concern about a carbon tax is greatest among Australians whose jobs are not so secure or who live on retirement incomes where life is a daily struggle - many of these Australians live in the suburbs and regional areas.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz0pa3zXpsq

It will be interesting to see the demographics on this one. Roll on the 30 November 2013.
 

Similar threads

basilio
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Value Collector
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ducati916
JohnDe
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
10K
Telamelo
T
bigdog
Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Investoradam
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Tisme
Top