This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

What does the Carbon Tax mean for me?

Haha wow guys really gettin off the rails here - I should mention the Original Post was to find out how the tax changes would effect me, lol.
 
Haha wow guys really gettin off the rails here - I should mention the Original Post was to find out how the tax changes would effect me, lol.
The problem is that the figures from the Clean Energy Future website represent the high water mark for the net impact of the compensation.

The carbon price will be expanded and rise year after year. That's what it's designed to do. While there's another slight increase in the tax cuts in the future (2014 I think), this are post-election and could be withdrawn by any future government as Paul Keating's infamous L-A-W tax cuts were in 1993.

Then there's the export of our wealth offshore after it becomes a trading scheme further reducing federal budget flexibility.

Ont thing that won't be withdrawn, by Labor at least, is the carbon tax itself.
 



This issue is not about being left or right, it is about honesty and what is good policy for the country.

The implementation of the carbon tax fails on both counts.

And seeing that you guys have tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists, I notice this one overriding trait as evidenced above when faced with an overwhelming logic, immediately employ any number of fallacious arguments, such as argumentum ad hominem and our old friend the straw man argument.

Kindergarten stuff fellas.
 
This issue is not about being left or right, it is about honesty and what is good policy for the country.

This is the best comment I have read on this issue.

I am actually left leaning in alot of my views. I do support a society that helps those in need(to a point) but I cannot make any sense of this policy.

I still don't know how this tax will help improve the environment. As I see it, it's just a redistribution of wealth(and a portion to the banksters).
 
Yep Kavla, good post.

A distribution of wealth is how I see this policy.

I suppose it depends on how you view it whether its good or bad for the country.
 

The flood levy as such maybe dropped, but the insurance companies intend to apply and increase for floods etc, before they happen.
Check your house insurance against the previous year.

On mine it has, MUST-HAVE WATERTIGHT FLOOD COVER.
Insurance costs 2010 $1279.06....., 2011 $2148.86 ..., increase of 67.93%.

Lets not play mindgames on the flood levy. The public will be hit in anyway the companies decide it.
And to think we are better off with the compensation of the carbon tax makes me laugh.
Gee they just bought out another model, which shows an improvement over the last model.

Finally I think you should just accept the fact that we will never be better off with anythink this Labor Government touches. The facts are the proof.

joea
 
Yep Kavla, good post.

A distribution of wealth is how I see this policy.

I suppose it depends on how you view it whether its good or bad for the country.

Will it be a distrubition of wealth(that's what you are made to believe), or a direct transfer of funds to Labor's coffers.

They say "a fool and his money are soon parted", and are we not treated as "fools" by Gillard?
To believe anything she says, we would have to be!!!

joea
 
How could you run a country if every policy decision made had to pass the approval of all the voters immediately?

Extremely easily with the internet and technology these days. Simply have every vote that the senate takes online, people can then login using the TFN, Passport or something similar and vote if they feel like it. If not they have abstained and therefore have no right to whinge about it.

We (and every nation) are running an archaic system designed to keep politicians in power when we actually have the ability to pursue a much purer form of democracy through technology.

MPs are the people's representatives - they are not elected to be dictators.

Exactly. If the majority of people disagree with this, how can it pass? Thats not democracy.


Remind me why we are even paying this tax as well? Because our governments have been too short sighted to put away some cash to pay for unexpected events. If your house burnt down without insurance you would be out of pocket, think the gov would help out?

Mining Tax, Flood Tax, Carbon Tax: Yep, Australia is really moving forward in the last decade...

anyway, i dont usually comment on political threads, due to the fact that everyone discusses with their blinkers on. Just bear in mind that we can have proper democracy due to the Internet, if we pushed hard enough for it.
 

How was anything I said ad hominem? Making broad descriptions about *some* of the people who post here certainly isn't. Would you actually disagree that the majority on here are not Right?

I love how much you use the word socialist to describe anything or any person you disagree with. Brilliant.
 

Actually Mclovin it is because he said it. Can't get clearer than that can you ?

Law of papal infallability I think as applied by the local gods.
 
How was anything I said ad hominem? Making broad descriptions about *some* of the people who post here certainly isn't.

But you did use argumentative fallacy.

Would you actually disagree that the majority on here are not Right?

I don't know, I don't really think in terms of right and left. Some accuse me of being Right, some accuse me of being Left. I suspect that would apply to many posters here categorized as "Right".

I think in terms of liberty and authoritarianism... and depending on whether we are talking social liberty or economic liberty, depends on what sneering categorization I get. I also suspect that again applies to many posters here categorized as "Right".

I love how much you use the word socialist to describe anything or any person you disagree with. Brilliant.

I think so too. But that is not quite accurate is it McLovin... another argumentative fallacy.
 
Actually Mclovin it is because he said it. Can't get clearer than that can you ?

Law of papal infallability I think as applied by the local gods.

Now now basilio, lets not get too carried away with the machinations of forum order.

PM me if you'd like to say more.
 
But you did use argumentative fallacy.

I wasn't arguing, at least I didn't think I was. I made a statement of opinion based on my own observations. Infact, the opinion was tangential to the thread in that I was speaking broadly of this forum not specifically about this thread.


Good for you. If you think that way, why the reference to socialism, a term that could be nothing but associated with Left politics, as opposed to say economic authoritarianism?

I think so too. But that is not quite accurate is it McLovin... another argumentative fallacy.

It seems no different than your suggestion that because I'm not frothing at the mouth about how the government is destroying our democracy by implementing a tax, I've somehow "tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists".
 
I wasn't arguing at least I didn't think I was.

You may not have been "arguing", but you were presenting an argument, a fallacial one in fact.

Check the meaning of this word McLovin... context is everything.


It seems no different than your suggestion that because I'm not frothing at the mouth about how the government is destroying our democracy by implementing a tax, I've somehow "tacitly aligned yourself with the Socialists".

It was more do do with comments regarding Alan Jones, Karl Marx and members of this forum... and I note yet another argumentative fallacy there.

Why not stick to the merits of the debate on this tax, rather than goofing around with attempted point scoring?
 
Now now basilio, lets not get too carried away with the machinations of forum order.

PM me if you'd like to say more.

So, so so sorry Mr Wayne. Just noting that an overwhelming amount of what passes as "argument" in this forum are just bald statements of peoples alleged political affiliations as an attack point.

Of course it's not just you who uses this particular technique. There are plenty of other "infallible beings " who when they can't find a rational reason for a position jump to the socialist/watermelon/ whatever tag to bag other posters.

My comment was for the benefit of McLovin (and others) who may have been surprised by the discussion process in this forum and hadn't been brought up to speed.
 

And what exactly is the discussion process on this forum... according to basilio?
 
And what exactly is the discussion process on this forum... according to basilio?

My observations of the discussion process on these forums?

It can have many facets. Sometimes it's thoughtful, witty, generous and insightful. Sometimes people bring quite personal and profound insights to share. Sometimes members offer information or perspectives that are enlightening.

And then ( far too often IMO) respect for other members falls away and we end up with nasty slanging matches where some people use arbitrary labels on others as ways to avoid providing any evidence or rational argument in discussing an issue.

And finally we have threads where ( again IMO) no amount of objective evidence is accepted by some forum members. At that stage there is no point continuing a discussion.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...