Labor's carbon tax lie

[drsmith]

TS, agree about the electricity costs. They must have derived their 'averages' from a bunch of one bedroom pensioner flats.

Sink your eyes into this.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...hold-Assistance-Tax-Reform-110708-1234hrs.pdf

The promotion that under the tax changes, the tax free threshold goes from $6k to $18k is a lie as the low income offset currently results in an effective tax free threshold of $16k. The change in tax free threshold is in reality far more modest, from $16k to $20.5k.

As tax reform, it fails to fully integrate the low income offset into marginal tax rates. It's still there in 2015/16. Even with this new tax, they have not fixed this inefficiency with the current tax system.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/cameo-tables/

Tony Abbot is right when he says a single income family on $65k with one child under 5 will be worse off, on Labor's numbers.

On another page, Labor describes $35k as middle income for a single person household. On that definition, I'd hate to think where the the Greens consider middle class peasantry starts.

 

[drsmith]

Labor is kidding itself if it thinks it has snookered the Coalition here. The simple reality is that they are the ones who have taken ownership of a carbon tax what was not going to be introduced under a government Julia Gillard leads.

The Greens have infact snookered Labor into a no-win situation.

If push comes to shove, the Greens will back down on this. Labor and the Greens have clearly agreed to coal and steel industry compensation behind closed doors.

"We might support it, it remains to be seen," Senator Brown said. "Agreement for all parties has meant give and take, and this has had its moments, this package, there have been times when it looked like maybe it was not going to make it."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-industry-help/story-fn99tjf2-1226091903867

 

[trainspotter]

Heard on the am radio this morning that by the time everyone is compensated there is a 4 billion dollar hole in the budget and how it will effect it. Wayne Swan was questioned on this matter and he replied .............. "No it wont".

But our gracious lady Queen Red spake thusly:-

She said that although the introduction of the tax was taking $4.3 billion from the budget and couldn't be offset against the revenue expected to be generated by the tax, the scheme would not be reliant on budget top-ups in the future.

"We have been very transparent about this and when you look at those budget figures you will see most of that cost is in the set up period of the scheme," she said.

"It is the big change for the Australian economy, you would expect it to come with start- and set-up costs and it does. So more than $2 billion of the $4 billion is in the first year of the scheme and when you look, as the scheme gets up and running, then it becomes broadly budget neutral."

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/g...-increasing-20110711-1h9t9.html#ixzz1QFcO9xyh

A 4 billion dollar set up cost? How can this NOT effect the budget? Add the 2 billion that Barnett grabbed by increasing the royalties on the miners in WA at a state level and we are starting to get a bit shaky on the numbers.

 

[Calliope]

In an ideal world renewable energy would provide the bulk of our power. Unfortunately the technology doesn't exist to provide even a small fraction of our needs. It would make more sense for the government to allot several billion into Research and Development on efficient renewable or clean energy, instead of funneling it it into tired old inefficient schemes like solar and wind.

The Australian government's plan to pump $13bn into Australia's clean and renewable energy sector is a nod in the right direction. Unfortunately, the details released on Sunday suggest that this investment will subsidise the deployment of existing, inefficient technology.

We have seen this occur elsewhere. Germany, for example, led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by about $70bn in subsidies. Inefficient, uncompetitive solar technology sits on rooftops across a fairly cloudy country. Despite the considerable investment, this delivers just 0.1 per cent of Germany's total energy supply and has a trivial influence on global warming.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-save-the-planet/story-e6frgd0x-1226091913862

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe I am missing something, but can someone tell me how taxing a coalfired power station will encourage it to reduce its emissions. Won't it just pass on the extra generation costs to consumers, thats assuming it is base load generation.
If it is not base load and is only mid merit or peaking and the cost of generation exceeds return, it won't bid for dispatch. Following from this if the result is a shortage of generating capacity the price offered to the generator will have to rise.
I would think the last thing the generator will be interested in is increasing costs to reduce emmissions.
More likely is they will try to reduce their input costs by manning reductions and forcing coal suppliers to reduce their prices. Which in turn will force them to reduce their input costs and so the problem perpetuates.
The most likely outcome will be a reduction in the cost of coal fired generation and a resultant reduction in jobs not emmissions.
The cost of electricity will have to go to stupid levels to make gas generation competitive with coal and if this is the end game Gillard should come clean with what the cost of electricity will go to.

 

[sptrawler]

Another one they say will be brought into line is cement producers, who are large emmitters. If we tax them to the point that it is cheaper to bring in cement from SE Asia why wouldn't you just import the cement.
The cement producers are in business to make money at a reasonable return on investment. Wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a similar approach to the U.S and make targets that the manufacturers have to meet within certain timeframes.

 

[trainspotter]

WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?

THE Federal Government says about 500 companies will pay for the right to pollute - but can't reveal who they are to the public.

Commercial privacy laws prevent the Government from naming companies that will pay for their carbon emissions under the scheme.

It means the companies, and the number of companies, that are forced into paying could remain a mystery.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u

 

[drsmith]

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u

The Greens have infiltrated Rupy's empire.

On the pollution price fact sheet, only one of power, gas, food or petrol can be selected.

 

[noco]

WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u

OMG, this Green/Labor socialist left governement ARE a sneaky lot. How can anyone trust what they say.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Great to see someone stick up for coal-fired power stations, in the face of the campaign of lies about them. Terry Caldwell: "... with my many years of practical experience in the power generation industry I knew that all of the claims of 'pollution' from thermal coal-fired power stations are based on untruths.

Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.

 

[Ruby]

This is a letter from Terry Caldwell, 25 years experience working in the Electricity Commission of NSW.
It's good to hear from those with practical experience.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf

This is not a letter to the website, but a local newspaper, and was picked up by climatesceptics.com

Thanks for that great article Springhill - one to add to my collection

 

[white_crane]

From the outset there will be a cash shortfall - the receipts from permits will not cover the costs of compensation (and will only get worse). Has anyone heard anything about where this funding shortfall will be made up from?

 

[trainspotter]

From the outset there will be a cash shortfall - the receipts from permits will not cover the costs of compensation (and will only get worse). Has anyone heard anything about where this funding shortfall will be made up from?

According to the gracious lady Red Queen it will be "saved" from government expenditure. There was no other explanation after that. I heard it on the radio this afternoon as I was driving home. I mounted the kerb, took out a one legged pensioner walking his dog and laid black marks all the way up the street. Made me feel better.

 

[Julia]

WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u

What??? That's just unbelievable.
The following comment, taken from the screed of comments following the article above, accurately sums this up:

If there is no list there is no accountability. Companies that are not effected can still put up their prices under the guise of carbon tax and we will not be able to query them

When I think it can't get any worse, it does.

 

[sails]

According to the gracious lady Red Queen it will be "saved" from government expenditure. There was no other explanation after that. I heard it on the radio this afternoon as I was driving home. I mounted the kerb, took out a one legged pensioner walking his dog and laid black marks all the way up the street. Made me feel better.

How ever she thinks she can pull herself out of this hole she keeps digging deeper is astounding.

 

[bellenuit]

Wouldn't publicly listed companies be obliged to disclose that they are paying a carbon tax if the cost is material?

 

[Smurf1976]

I think I read that the average Aussie electricty bill was $1551 per annum. LOL ... My average per 56 days is over $500 (summer bill , not winter) to run my house. Times this by 6 to make it per annum and I am looking at electricity over $3000 per year. This is an average from the people I talk to in similar circumstances/demographic/modelling.

The result is similar with Natural gas (albeit approximately about half the cost of electricity) Once again similar to people I talk to with the same size house and family.

Am I using too much energy to run my house? If so why is it that the people I am comparing to are similar in their uptake? How is it that the "general" populace can survive on such limited amount of consumption of power?

I am using a LOT less in water than my counterparts even though I am sitting on near double the size of their properties? I also have 2 kitchens and 4 bathrooms in the one house. Slightly more than average comparison. I do not have any solar HWS or rely on any sort of solar panels on the roof for electrickery.

This is done by only using the water we consume (showers and toilets) are restricted to a time limit for showering and my WC's are 6 star rated. My garden has sensors for moisture in the lawn and in the gardens so the reticulation only comes on when required. I am saving close to $600 a year in water compared to my neighbours. (A more precious commodity IMO)

I would disagree that water (100% renewable) is a more precious commodity than fossil fuels (non-renewable), especially given that we have technology (desalination) for turnin fuel into water but not the reverse.

But all that said and back on topic, consider the freezing weather we've had recently. Not in terms of whether or not it is "evidence" of climate change, but how we respond to it. Victorians turn up the gas whilst Tasmanians stoke up the fire or switch on the heat pump. There in itself is a huge difference - gas in Melbourne versus wood or electric in Hobart. And then I could point out that Victorians tend to heat the whole house with a ducted system, whilst Tasmanian homes usually have a big heater in the lounge room and no ducts. Then I could mention that those in Darwin would find the concept of being cold a bit of a novelty and probably wouldn't bother actually heating the place (I'm guessing that last bit since I've never lived in Darwin).

As for what is normal, well that comes down to where you live, what you do for heating and so on. Obviously someone with gas heating, cooking and hot water is going to use a lot less electricity, and a lot more gas, than someone with an all-electric home.

As for me, well my household energy use (excluding transport) is 51% wood, 30% grid electricity, 17% solar, 2% oil. So I'm not really a "typical" consumer so far as the government is concerned, and nor are most people.

For what it's worth, tracing my energy supply back to its' actual sources gives the following results: wood 51%, hydro 24%, solar 17%, gas 4%, oil 2%, coal 1%, wind 1%. Again, not typical figures and it's hard to find someone who actually is "normal" with their energy use - there's huge variation between households.

 

[Smurf1976]

Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.

As with all this stuff - it can be done, at a cost...

 

[IFocus]

OMG this tax is terrible, its so bad its forced the DOW last night...............

Dont worry folks Abbott will sort it all out once he gets in................yes that's right Abbott's actually going to remove revenue..................your dreaming folks.

 

[Logique]

Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.

Provide evidence and a source please. An industry professional with 25 years experience seems to disagree with you.