The Abbott Government

sydboy007 · 12 May 2014

bellenuit said:
According to the latest figures, the Mining Tax costs more to run than it brings in. So that is not a revenue source, unless it is revamped and made more onerous on mining companies. But doing that runs the risk of driving investment on mining away and could result in less revenue being generated overall.

The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise. While Labor and the Greenies can dance with glee because their carbon tax has reduced carbon dioxide emissions in Australia, there will have been no reduction from a global perspective, as the countries that have taken our business will increase theirs by an amount similar to our emissions reduction. And if the competitors are in countries with less onerous emission controls that we impose, there may be an actual increase in carbon dioxide emissions from a global perspective.

In an open economy, business tax revenue is not proportional to tax rate. It is not inelastic. There are consequences of increasing the impost on businesses that must compete in an open environment.

Back in 1990 Australia came 10th in the world for per capital CO2 emissions at 16 tonne per person.

By 2000 we'd climbed to 8th at 18.6 tonnes each. By 2005 we'd maintained our 8th position at 20.3 tonnes each, but the USA was now at 9th. In 2011 we're back to 9th (USA 10th) with 19 tonnes each. In 2011 China per capita CO2 emissions were only 7 tonnes each. Seems a bit unfair to be saying we can pump out nearly 3 times s much as the Chinese and therefore don't need to do anything because we're just 1.2% of the global total (yet just 0.35% of the worlds population. The world avg in 2011 was just 4.9.

As for the current carbon reduction scheme affecting trade exposed industries, well they got the majority of their permits for free, so the impact was minimal to them, and in some cases they were able to make money on selling their excess permits.

I'd argue quite often the reason energy intensive companies have shut down in Australia is because they had not invested in worlds best practice plant and production techniques. I'd also argue it is because of the short sightedness of our politicians that has caused the fixed cost of the electricity networks to sky rocket, and with the gladstone LNG plants now sucking out all available gas the east coast market now has to try and remain competitive when gas prices will just about triple over the next few years.

sydboy007 · 12 May 2014

bellenuit said:
The same applies to the carbon tax. It is probably the most efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in a closed economy. But we are not a closed economy, we import and export. The additional cost of the carbon tax on our steel and aluminium industries, for instance, may give a short term increase in revenue, but if it just makes them uncompetitive, you again lose in the long run. You lose business to overseas and end up with less revenue than otherwise.

Further to my argument

Contemplate this astounding finding by the Productivity Commission:

''Over the period June 1995 to the present, productivity across all workers increased by 33.6 per cent, while in the electricity sector it declined by 24.9 per cent.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/power-sector-needs-a-good-dietitian-20140511-383og.html#ixzz31SpGhSrF

Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.

CanOz · 12 May 2014

sydboy007 said:
Further to my argument

Contemplate this astounding finding by the Productivity Commission:

''Over the period June 1995 to the present, productivity across all workers increased by 33.6 per cent, while in the electricity sector it declined by 24.9 per cent.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/power-sector-needs-a-good-dietitian-20140511-383og.html#ixzz31SpGhSrF

Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.

Awaiting the entrance of the Smurf...corn:

drsmith · 12 May 2014

sydboy007 said:
Sort out the electricity sector and we'd save more than the increased costs from the carbon tax - win win.

One though is not justification for the other.

Sort out both.

Calliope · 12 May 2014

overhang said:
But Knobby is right, I think the only policy Abbott ever supported while in opposition was the huge pay rise for themselves.

Knobby is being coy, but I guess we can look outide the list of the usual suspects...the perennial nay-sayers and knockers such as Plibersek, Burke, Cameron, Evans, Wong, Swann, Albanese, Macklin, etc.

I suspect he means Abbott.

overhang · 12 May 2014

drsmith said:
Selective memory disorder ??

He supported the NDIS and the associated Medicare levy rise which come into place on July 1 this year.

He also supported a number of budget measures proposed by Labor in the lead up to 2013 election that Labor itself now no longer support.

I didn't mean literally but it's difficult to convey that in text but yes opposition opposing legislation simply sells more tabloids than the many they agree with.

sydboy007 said:
Back in 1990 Australia came 10th in the world for per capital CO2 emissions at 16 tonne per person.

By 2000 we'd climbed to 8th at 18.6 tonnes each. By 2005 we'd maintained our 8th position at 20.3 tonnes each, but the USA was now at 9th. In 2011 we're back to 9th (USA 10th) with 19 tonnes each. In 2011 China per capita CO2 emissions were only 7 tonnes each. Seems a bit unfair to be saying we can pump out nearly 3 times s much as the Chinese and therefore don't need to do anything because we're just 1.2% of the global total (yet just 0.35% of the worlds population. The world avg in 2011 was just 4.9.

I don't think the atmosphere really cares about per capita emissions, to stem our global emissions is noble but rather ineffective at actually reducing the worlds emissions. So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves.
As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation? Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?

SirRumpole · 12 May 2014

I wonder if one of the government agencies to get the chop in the Budget will be the Human Rights Commission, to which a comrade of Tony Abbott, Tim Wilson of the IPA was recently appointed with a salary of $389,000 plus $50k expenses.

Tony wouldn't do his mates out of a job, surely ?

Calliope · 12 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
I wonder if one of the government agencies to get the chop in the Budget will be the Human Rights Commission, to which a comrade of Tony Abbott, Tim Wilson of the IPA was recently appointed with a salary of $389,000 plus $50k expenses.

Tony wouldn't do his mates out of a job, surely ?

Tim Wilson was appointed to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech. It really is a mission impossible. Abbott would be wise to give the HRC the chop.

Julia · 12 May 2014

overhang said:
So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves.

This has been the objection of most who have not supported the Labor/Greens carbon tax.

As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation? Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?

Even when there is the wealth redistribution principle involved, the hypocritical Greens still find it possible to object to proposed government policy, via the deficit levy/tax. They are going to oppose it, apparently.

Calliope said:
Tim Wilson was appointed to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech. It really is a mission impossible. Abbott would be wise to give the HRC the chop.

+1.

McLovin said:
It's a pretty sad indictment of the body politic in this country when a guy can win in a landslide and six months later people are questioning if he'll be around at the next election.

Yes, totally woeful. If Mr Abbott's popularity doesn't pick up, the Libs are going to be looking for an alternative leader. Who do you think would be suitable?
The candidates would appear to be Joe Hockey, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull, the last essentially just because his name keeps coming up, albeit mostly from the Labor and Greens supporters who no doubt would like him because his philosophy most closely aligns with their own.

Yes, he's urbane and well spoken. But, without wishing to draw odious comparisons, he comes across to me as a more refined version of Clive Palmer, i.e. mostly about himself. Mr Turnbull has been very successful in most of what he has done with his life and gives the impression that he just needs to top it all off with being Prime Minister of Australia.
Certainly he has been more of a team player since the embarrassing Godwin Grech affair, but I still see him as a great leader for Labor rather than the Coalition. Happy to be shown to be wrong.

sptrawler · 12 May 2014

If all the things in the budget are knocked back in the senate, as is being sugested in the media, we all may get the opportunity to throw the coalition out.
Abbott may be forced to call a double dissolution.

Ah yes, let's get Labor and the Greens back in.lol

sydboy007 · 12 May 2014

Is it sensible policy for the Government to focus on aged - over 50s - unemployment at the expense of youth unemployment?

The rumour is in the budget there will be a new program where employers will be paid $250 a fortnight for six months if they take on somebody aged 50 or over who is unemployed… providing for a total payment of $3250 per employer…

This is because as of June 2013, there were 120,000 people aged over 50 who were out of work. The participation rate – which defines those either in work or looking for work – for people aged between 60 and 64 was 54 per cent. That is more than 10 percentage points lower than the national average of 65 per cent.

The budget measure will provide the incentive payments to employers who take on a mature-age worker who has been unemployed for six months or more and receiving the dole…

BUT

The unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds has increased significantly since 2008, rising to around 12.5 per cent in February… Since 2008 the participation rate has declined by over 5 percentage points and it’s now at its lowest level since the series began in 1978.

That’s right, Australia’s youth unemployment rate has tripled since the Global Financial Crisis to 12.5%, causing 257,000 young Aussies between 15 to 24 years of age to be jobless. Of this number, 50,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, with the average length of time taken to gain a job rising to 29 weeks from only 16 weeks in 2008. More are also working part-time.

So if the Government thinks 120,000 50+ unemployed is deserving of a special program to help get them back into the workforce, why are the over 250K worth of youth unemployed basically ignored? Shouldn't the Government be doing what it can to help ALL unemployed individuals to get a job, especially the long term unemployed?

Factor in making it possible to have an unlimited number of 457 Visa workers in the country, and it seems the L+NP are looking to discard the younger generation.

sptrawler · 12 May 2014

sydboy007 said:
Is it sensible policy for the Government to focus on aged - over 50s - unemployment at the expense of youth unemployment?

The rumour is in the budget there will be a new program where employers will be paid $250 a fortnight for six months if they take on somebody aged 50 or over who is unemployed… providing for a total payment of $3250 per employer…

This is because as of June 2013, there were 120,000 people aged over 50 who were out of work. The participation rate – which defines those either in work or looking for work – for people aged between 60 and 64 was 54 per cent. That is more than 10 percentage points lower than the national average of 65 per cent.

The budget measure will provide the incentive payments to employers who take on a mature-age worker who has been unemployed for six months or more and receiving the dole…

BUT

The unemployment rate for 15 to 24 year olds has increased significantly since 2008, rising to around 12.5 per cent in February… Since 2008 the participation rate has declined by over 5 percentage points and it’s now at its lowest level since the series began in 1978.

That’s right, Australia’s youth unemployment rate has tripled since the Global Financial Crisis to 12.5%, causing 257,000 young Aussies between 15 to 24 years of age to be jobless. Of this number, 50,000 have been unemployed for more than 12 months, with the average length of time taken to gain a job rising to 29 weeks from only 16 weeks in 2008. More are also working part-time.

So if the Government thinks 120,000 50+ unemployed is deserving of a special program to help get them back into the workforce, why are the over 250K worth of youth unemployed basically ignored? Shouldn't the Government be doing what it can to help ALL unemployed individuals to get a job, especially the long term unemployed?

Factor in making it possible to have an unlimited number of 457 Visa workers in the country, and it seems the L+NP are looking to discard the younger generation.

Maybe they've found, that over 50's want to work, but can't find employment and unemployed youth can find employment but don't want to work?
Just a thought, several governments have thrown a lot of money at co funding youth employment, to no avail.

Best you can hope for Syd, is Labor /Greens get back in and we get back to, high spending and low taxing, magic.

sydboy007 · 13 May 2014

sptrawler said:
Maybe they've found, that over 50's want to work, but can't find employment and unemployed youth can find employment but don't want to work?
Just a thought, several governments have thrown a lot of money at co funding youth employment, to no avail.

Best you can hope for Syd, is Labor /Greens get back in and we get back to, high spending and low taxing, magic.

Why do older people feel entitled to put down young people by making such inappropriately broad statements?

It's just as offensive as saying all old people are grumpy and too set in their ways to accept change.

Could the lack of employment opportunities for youth in Australia be due to off shoring of many of the entry level jobs? I look at the opportunities within IT and so many of the jobs at the level I started in no longer exist here. Could the tens of thousands of 457 via workers be reducing opportunities for locals, especially considering a lot of employers have hired far more workers than they applied for?

Maybe it's too many employers have your attitude towards the youth that they are lazy and not willing to be hard working?

Whatever the cause, it's a major issue because the longer these young people go without work, the harder and harder it is for them to ever get a job.

So why not provide an incentive to employ anyone who's long term unemployed, rather than only those aged 50+??

chode84 · 13 May 2014

As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation? Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?

The Greens are supporting the fuel indexation as far as I'm aware. Although personally I think the carbon tax is a better mechanism from which to raise funds.

SirRumpole · 13 May 2014

Calliope said:
Tim Wilson was appointed to the HRC to try to provide a little balance to the other members who don't think Human Rights should include freedom of speech.

Presumably then, you would also support the abolition of all defamation laws ?

sptrawler · 13 May 2014

sydboy007 said:
Why do older people feel entitled to put down young people by making such inappropriately broad statements?

It's just as offensive as saying all old people are grumpy and too set in their ways to accept change.

Could the lack of employment opportunities for youth in Australia be due to off shoring of many of the entry level jobs? I look at the opportunities within IT and so many of the jobs at the level I started in no longer exist here. Could the tens of thousands of 457 via workers be reducing opportunities for locals, especially considering a lot of employers have hired far more workers than they applied for?

Maybe it's too many employers have your attitude towards the youth that they are lazy and not willing to be hard working?

Whatever the cause, it's a major issue because the longer these young people go without work, the harder and harder it is for them to ever get a job.

So why not provide an incentive to employ anyone who's long term unemployed, rather than only those aged 50+??

When it was sugested that long term unemployed people get government assistance to relocate to areas of employment, there was an outcry. All the people I saw interviewed, mainly young, flatly refused.
Why do people always come up with reasons why they can't avail themselves of work?
Why did we need to have 457's during a mining boom, doing unskilled jobs?
Time to tell people to suck it up and get on with it, or we will end up third world. Just my opinion Syd
By the way old people generaly are grumpy and set in their ways, it's not offensive.

Calliope · 13 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
Presumably then, you would also support the abolition of all defamation laws ?

Only you, Rumpy, could come up with such an illogical presumption.

trainspotter · 13 May 2014

overhang said:
I didn't mean literally but it's difficult to convey that in text but yes opposition opposing legislation simply sells more tabloids than the many they agree with.

I don't think the atmosphere really cares about per capita emissions, to stem our global emissions is noble but rather ineffective at actually reducing the worlds emissions. So unless all our trade partners and competitors introduce an ETS at the same time then we're just handicapping ourselves.
As far as the fuel excise tax is concerned then shouldn't the Greens be wrapped about this budget given high income earners will receive a tax increase and a carbon tax is introduced via fuel indexation? Or does a carbon tax only work when there is a wealth redistribution model to it?

Post of the month right here.

SirRumpole · 13 May 2014

Calliope said:
Only you, Rumpy, could come up with such an illogical presumption.

So what is your position on the defamation laws ? Aren't they a restriction on free speech ?

wayneL · 13 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
So what is your position on the defamation laws ? Aren't they a restriction on free speech ?

That's a pathetic straw man fallacy Horace, free speech has never included the right to defame without remedy, in any Western democracy.

The Abbott Government

sydboy007

sydboy007

CanOz

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

drsmith

Calliope

overhang

SirRumpole

Calliope

Julia

In Memoriam

sptrawler

sydboy007

sptrawler

sydboy007

chode84

SirRumpole

sptrawler

Calliope

trainspotter

SirRumpole

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

The Abbott Government

Home runs feel good, but base hits pay bills!

In Memoriam

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency