The carbon tax over time will be an accumulating cholesterol on our economic arteries.
Very, very bold statement. Can I have a lend of your crystal ball when you're done pontificating?These idiots running around saying the sky hasn't fallen in, obviously have no understanding of the tax.
Well, I must be one of these idiots. I have seen a small increase in my electricity bill. I may be paying other increases in prices of which I'm unaware because it's impossible to distinguish these from normal supply/demand variations.That is a good way of describing it.
These idiots running around saying the sky hasn't fallen in, obviously have no understanding of the tax.
Well, I must be one of these idiots. I have seen a small increase in my electricity bill. I may be paying other increases in prices of which I'm unaware because it's impossible to distinguish these from normal supply/demand variations.
It certainly hasn't had any unmanageable impact on my life so far.
(That's not to say I'm at all in favour of it: simply commenting that Mr Abbott seems to have once again indulged in rhetoric that in the event turns out to be well and truly overdone, and he is losing credibility and votes as a result.)
Yes, it is, because he is utterly failing to counter their attacks.Yes, Gillard is on a roll. The Labor "destroy the sexist, misogynist Abbott" campaign, is gaining momentum. The feminists are all getting stuck into him on ABC radio, on Twitter-World and in the Fairfax press, and the dirt is sticking.
Very, very bold statement. Can I have a lend of your crystal ball when you're done pontificating?
Did you realise that China, India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to name a few have all had some kind of advanced political discussions regarding (or in some cases have implemented) a tax on carbon dioxide emissions?You lose a cost advantage over your competitors
Apart from having cheap energy we don't have many advantages over Asia
The Coalition won't lose unless they do something silly like replace Tony Abbott with Malcolm Turnbull. He's politically too soft and Labor would rip him to pieces.
The next session of Parliament I suspect will be the moment of truth for one of the leaders of the two major parties.
I think the point we're trying to make is that this is a ticking time bomb, companies havent felt the full force yet and when they do we will cop it. Wait and see.
Did you realise that China, India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to name a few have all had some kind of advanced political discussions regarding (or in some cases have implemented) a tax on carbon dioxide emissions?
The tax itself is not large enough to destroy any cost advantage that our energy industry may or may not have (your words, not mine).
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201203/s3461101.htm
This source, I am not sure how valid you think it is, predicts that our coal exports will triple over the next decade.
You seem to be acting more out of emotion than any logic.
edit: in regards to manufacturing, our industries here have been in a long, slow decline for a long time now... I don't think the carbon tax has anything to do with that.
You've more adequately expressed what I was attempting to point out.You are correct in saying that the full force of the carbon tax hasn't been felt yet. However, I think the problem for Abbott is that the carbon tax will not be accounted for as a distinguishable item in the myriad of cost factors that make up the cost of doing business. It would be too complex to do. The more time the carbon tax has to flow through and be recycled through the economy, the greater the cumulative impact of it will be (the multiplier effect at play) but also the more difficult it becomes to identify the percentage of any cost increases down the line to any particular cost at the origin.
Abbott needed the carbon tax to have an immediate and detrimental impact on the economy for his predictions to be vindicated, as the cause-effect is then at its most obvious. It is now too late. Even if the economy tanks over the next few years no one will be able to say that the carbon tax was the fault and without it we would have been OK. Abbott blaming the carbon tax for the eventual demise would be viewed as "well he would say that, wouldn't he".
"Advanced political discussions"???? Anyone can have discussions about anything. Until our major trading partners are operating under the same conditions as Australia, our industry is disadvantaged.Did you realise that China, India, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea to name a few have all had some kind of advanced political discussions regarding (or in some cases have implemented) a tax on carbon dioxide emissions?
And perhaps your views might be somewhat coloured by your political bias?You seem to be acting more out of emotion than any logic.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/coalition-may-support-wayne-swans-budget-cutss-ays-tony-abbott/story-e6frf7jo-1226501248569New sexism row looming after Abbott's comments on Government's ‘inexperience' with kids
Oh God Tony!budget-cutss-ays-tony-abbott/story-e6frf7jo-1226501248569"]http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/coalition-may-support-wayne-swans-budget-cutss-ays-tony-abbott/story-e6frf7jo-1226501248569[/URL]
Oh God Tony!
Let it go.
This is one where I agree with Labor, infact the baby bonus should be done away with alltogether, although I do question their underlying motivation for the move.
The baby bonus itself was one of Howard's sillier ideas.
agreed, there should be no incentive on personal behaviours, including maternity leave programs that basically treat stay at home mums as second class women. The politcal reality is that it should be reduced gradually to nothing. Labour once again doing the right thing for 'wrong' reasons, which I guess I cant be too upset about
, wont get her many votes as it's obviously a misogynist move against women
It looks like the opposition will jump up and down a bit, but will allow through most, if not all the measures.Abbott better duck for cover once he backs it
+1. There was a woman babbling on in "PM" last night about how upset she was that the baby bonus had been trimmed. She whined that it had allowed them to have "some little extras" for their three children, but now that it wouldn't be the full $5000, they might not be able to afford the fourth!Oh God Tony!
Let it go.
This is one where I agree with Labor, infact the baby bonus should be done away with alltogether, although I do question their underlying motivation for the move.
The baby bonus itself was one of Howard's sillier ideas.
It should never have been introduced. It encouraged all the wrong people to have babies for the wrong reasons.
(that's undoubtedly a hugely politically incorrect statement).
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?