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

I dunno,

In my experience as a student, and a parent. School teachers have very little clue about science, and are often 25+ years out of date (representing their education and the age of textbooks) or do not understand the concepts.

This is EXACTLY what happens with AGW and GLOBAL WARMING and CARBON TAXES.

I can honestly say, as a qualified research experienced scientist, that AGW science needs to be analysed VERY thoroughly, which is a hobby of mine.

SCM, the cafe late sipping new age save the planet type just believes the tripe fed to him, and no doubt has no thought for himself. A follower no doubt.
 
Actually starcraftmazter, have you ever put yourself out in an unselfish way and helped someone financially, just to help them out.
Never expecting a return or financial restitution, just helping someone who was not in a position to help themselves and I am talking $1000's not a $20 donation.
I doubt it.
 
From the Australian article:
" Added to this failure to reveal the true cost of a carbon tax is the other big lie, pointed out by my colleague Henry Ergas (among numerous other failings in the scheme), that the carbon tax "job growth" does not exist.

The jobs growth as such is not a result of the Treasury model; it is an assumption of the model. It relies on lower real wages to make good the assumption of full unemployment.

All other things considered, the real outcome of the carbon tax will in fact be both job losses and real wage decline. Treasury knows this and the Treasurer knows this, or at least he should ".

The loss of jobs and lower real wages with the resultant loss of living standard, is the real issue this lousy government is covering up.
 

Typically encouraging business somehow involves making things worse for the taxpayer and employee. Regardless, I cannot judge without being there.

Smurf1976 said:
Agreed that this would represent bias.

But if the same publication presents nothing but positive stories in relation to the same program then that also represents bias.
Click to expand...

Sure.


Of course you would - people on this forum do nothing but make stupid personal assumptions and insult others. Very few people are able to discuss and debate things in a civil fashion, so I would not expect better. Your assumption is once again false.
 
drsmith said:
Bit of a generalisation there.

It's past your bed time, again.
Click to expand...

Obviously touched a nerve.
Its very easy when young and idealistic to shout loudly for your cause, it takes time to realise that your cause isn't necessarily right or what the majority want.
Just because it furthers your ends doesn't make it right, especially when it financially impacts on the majority.
Oh sorry I forgot, you said, the majority a stupid. That is probably why you are pushing for them to pay for your ridiculously expensive N.B.N. rather than your company.
 
Starcraftmazter said:
Typically encouraging business somehow involves making things worse for the taxpayer and employee.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how turning an unemployed person into an employee is making things worse, unless of course we are talking about people who would prefer not to be employed or to otherwise work.
 
But the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, has insisted the climate policy deal is done, and the only changes to iron out technical glitches will be made to the legislation before it is introduced to parliament next month.
Click to expand...
Dear Mr Combet,

The only deal you have done is with the Greens and the "legend in their own lunch time" independents.

The deal Labor did with the Australian people was not to introduce a carbon price this term, a deal Labor has reneged on to satisfy the above and maintain power.

It is well past time you, and Labor in general, listened to some common sense,


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-carbon-tax-escape-clause-20110818-1j045.html
 
Julia said:
Once again, there is no ETS. What is being proposed is a carbon tax.
Click to expand...

Starcraftmazter said:
I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


As everyone (including the Government itself) has correctly termed it a tax except you, what you have argued for here is no less than your own ejection from this forum.

But as the forum doesn't share the Green's Stalinist ideology of removing dissent, censoring media or executing (yes this has been suggested) those who disagree, we allow you to state your "flat earth-like" opinion that the tax is an ETS.

Just one example of several cognitive dissonances you have displayed here.
 
Smurf1976 said:
I fail to see how turning an unemployed person into an employee is making things worse, unless of course we are talking about people who would prefer not to be employed or to otherwise work.
Click to expand...

Well if it's for example by abolishing company tax...

wayneL said:
Just one example of several cognitive dissonances you have displayed here.
Click to expand...

Again, the government has been cornered into calling it a tax. Media is stupid and biased; especially any commercial media. Just because they call it a tax doesn't make it a tax. Broadly, just because anyone or any group of people refer to something by a specific term - doesn't make it so.

Unlike you I seem to be capable of making my own judgements.
 

You quoted some random guys blog to prove it wasn't a tax
 

If it looks like a DUCK, if it walks like a DUCK, if it quacks like a DUCK, it is DUCK!!!!
 

I am just wondering what planet you originated from?
The reason I ask, is you still have not cottoned to the english language and politics yet.

It appears what you call a judgement, is then to infer that all people should accept your judgement. We live in a democracy and the last time I looked, if the majority
says its a tax, its a tax.
joea
 

It is not a carbon trading scheme it is a tax that the government can decide what it spends it on. That is why a percentage is being used to compensate lower income earners(for now). At a later date the government can change the allocation as it desires.
 

Likewise, not calling something a tax, doesn't NOT make it a tax, "levies" for instance.

Unlike you I seem to be capable of making my own judgements.
Click to expand...

And unlike you, I do not have to add an ad hominem insult to bolster a spurious argument.
 
wayneL said:
Likewise, not calling something a tax, doesn't NOT make it a tax, "levies" for instance.



And unlike you, I do not have to add an ad hominem insult to bolster a spurious argument.
Click to expand...

Excellent wayneL, this forum is like our own episode of "letters and numbers", Hominem what a fantastic seven.
I had to go to the dictionary to find out what it meant, then I realised I am definitely punching above my weight.
 
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
9K
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...