Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,948
- Reactions
- 7,039
Thanks for posting that link, Mexican. I have tried to point out before that the so called tripling of the tax free threshold is no such thing when the Low Income Tax Offset is taken into account, and I just can't believe that the majority of journalists are so slack that they have not called attention to this and allowed the government to continue claiming a tripling of the tax free threshold.
andANGLO American chief executive Cynthia Carroll says Julia Gillard's carbon tax could lead the miner to favour new coal investments in Colombia over Australia.
"There is no other country imposing this sort of carbon pricing scheme, so it puts Australia in a difficult competitive position when comparing it to countries that haven't taken this position, like the US, like Mozambique, like Mongolia and like Colombia."
The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.
Yes. From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.Haven't got ours yet, but it will be promptly returned. More likely in an envelope and pamphlet marked with black felt pen "carbon tax not wanted".
Did yours arrive in plastic, Julia?
Yes. From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.
Before I tossed mine into the post box marked" Return to Sender", I also marked it, also in big black felt pen letters, exactly as you suggest, sails, i.e.l "We do not Want your Carbon Tax".!
The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.
Cutting emissions now is too expensive and politically infeasible. Cutting in the future when the technology is available is cheaper and feasible. As for abatement, as Campbell says, "action in pursuit of the impossible is irrational"."
No address. So it will miss all those households which have instructions like "addressed mail only" on their letterboxes.Was it addressed specifically to you or to the "household" or just no address?
Totally agree. I'd be happy to pay the equivalent of the carbon tax for the above, especially water and food security.Labor thinks we should be saving the world with this BS
I would rather see a shoring up of our defenses towards climate change and energy shortages, rather then trying to reduce carbon specifically. Developing hardier crops, water security, energy and new tech etc should be at the forefront and I don't have a problem with Australia leading the field in these areas. I'm sure these things are being developed now but a boot load of carbon money would no doubt speed things along. The idea for us at this stage is adapt, because we don't have a hope in hell of providing change to global emissions.
Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.
I have not seen mine yet.Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?