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


Well, doesn't that just go to show the mentality of the lefties. If one parent doesn't work and stays home to look after the kids, it actually costs the government money as they don't receive tax revenue from the non working parent AND it is likely they will pay more in family tax benefits to that family. Doh...

Even now to get the child care 50% rebate for out of pocket expenses, you have to be working, training or studying. The amount is also capped, so your rich friend taking a nanny on overseas holidays might he is not eligible or that the help is limited, but it could be very useful to situations where both parents are working trying to make ends meet.

Here is more from Centrelink on the current system:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/childcare_rebate.htm
 
AND it is likely they will pay more in family tax benefits to that family. Doh...
Click to expand...

I also said that family benefits should be cut so that people decide for themselves if they can afford children.

And you are calling me a leftie.

You are the one supporting socialist family benefit handouts.
 
Family support should be provided through the tax system rather than welfare that supports specific services.

That way, there's a proper mrket mechanism for third party child support services instead of direct government support distorting that market.
 
rumpole said:
...That's the sort of people we need in government, not ones slavishly shackled to archaic ideologies.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like pricing carbon? I think that paradigm has peaked and is now losing steam. Will soon be an archaic ideology. And Turnbull continues, like Gillard, to insist on this unpopular and unwanted policy? He has blown any chances of lib leadership, imo.

Latest Poll shows 60% do not want carbon tax. That won't be helping Turnbull if he is aspiring to lib leadership.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...27-per-cent-20120401-1w6n7.html#ixzz1qpHQV7v7
 
It's a bit late for this,

http://www.news.com.au/national/its...s-trading-scheme/story-e6frfkvr-1226316373815

Meanwhile, Julia Gillard's own words in 2010,


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...-election-debate/story-fn5ko0pw-1225896808486

No carbon price there, and that community consensus stands at 60% against.
 
drsmith said:
No carbon price there, and that community consensus stands at 60% against.
Click to expand...

Combet says it is all the fault of Tony Abbott "running around" spreading fear. And as fot David Murray what would he know about the short comings of a Carbon Tax when he doesn't even accept "the science" of global warming.

An ex-union official like Combet is much more expert on these matters. It's all to do with ideology.
 
Looks like Gillard will do anything to stop Abbott repealing legislation. Let's hope the people give the coalition a majority in both houses to sort these messes out.

THE Gillard government will fireproof its $10 billion green technology fund against an attack from any future Coalition government by forcing Tony Abbott to repeal legislation in order to shut down the flow of money.
Click to expand...

Read more from the Age: Abbott-proof fence around clean-energy funds
 
In the new budget: $800 for each high school student and $400 for each in primary school. No claim, no receipts, it just appears in 6 monthly intalments in the bank account.

I think we all knew that a way would be found to insulate 'working families' from the price of living increases under the carbon tax.
 

I thought Gillard "promised" generous 50% rebates for school expenses for this financial. Now, it seems they have changed it to this.

Are they giving with one hand but taking more back with the other?
 
sails said:
I thought Gillard "promised" generous 50% rebates for school expenses for this financial. Now, it seems they have changed it to this.

Are they giving with one hand but taking more back with the other?
Click to expand...
That's my impression. I think previously they were able to claim school expenses, but many families didn't bother. I'd have thought OK, if they can't be bothered making the claim they don't need it too much.

But no, the government have decided that it's too much to expect 'working families' to actually ask for the reimbursement and they will instead just find the money in their bank accounts.

Nothing like discouraging personal responsibility with a socialist government.
 
Julia said:
That's my impression. I think previously they were able to claim school expenses, but many families didn't bother.
Click to expand...
Only some expenses were eligible and only to those who were eligible for Family Tax Benifit Part A. It was a 50% rebate to a max payout of $750 for secondary students, can't recall the max for primary.....$350 rings a bell. Eligible items were things like laptops etc, in-eligible items were school books, uniforms, camps, excursions etc as I recall.

Claims were made through the tax system. I'd have to look through the paperwork to be sure but from memory that's how it worked, I think the max payouts were per family not per child......ie two secondary students max was still $750..... I think.


What Logique mentioned seems like a far simpler method and I assume would be automatically paid to any family receiving FTB part A with eligible students. Families haven enough on their plate as it is without having to jump through hoops to receive government rebates.

Cheers
 
It's actually better to recognise the cost of raising children directly through money than through rebates through specifics which require much more of an audit trail.

It should be through the tax system though and not through welfare and it should also be recieved in small regular amounts instead of lump sums. An increase tax free threshold for families with children for example would suit perfectly.

None of these cash giveaways will save the government. When the electorate decided Howard's time was up, his government was tossed out regardless of the tax cuts and middle class welfare that was dished out by that government.
 
I am not against children personally, but how on earth does the introduction of a carbon tax fit with subsidising education?

If there was a serious intention of reducing CO2 emissions then there would if anything be a tax on having children, not a subsidy, in order to discourage Australians from reproducing. After all, having children is the single most CO2 emitting and resource consuming decision the average person will ever make.

I suppose it could be argued that educating the children well might result in them having fewer children themselves 20 - 30 years from now thus lowering CO2 emissions sometime after 2030, but that's drawing a pretty long bow I think given the supposed urgency of the issue.
 

Smurf, I think it's pretty clear this tax has little, if anything, to do with the environment. It just makes a good excuse, imo.

Sad that kids are taught this AGW stuff at school and it seems to be taught as fact. I hope that is something the coalition remove from the curriculum. If is taught, then both sides of this argument should be taught so kids can make up their own minds - and preferably get it right out of primary school.

That said, I have no problem with kids being taught to be responsible with their rubbish and other general areas to keep our world clean.

And, if the government were really concerned about the environment, why do they continue with the unlimited baby bonus?
 
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...