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?

Jump to new


I've got a better idea. Tell that to the striking Qantas workers...

And, I agree with Julia that it's very silly to call people who are dissatisfied with this government as being "right". Most thinking Australians are concerned for this country and don't like the deceitful way this carbon tax has been forced on to us.

When there was similar anger against Howard's work choices, would you then consider all swinging voters as "left" even though some of those same voters now will swing to the "right"?

It's more about what's best for the country and which party will inflict the least damage on to our economy.
 
Julia said:
Typical of you to quote the minimum wage without reference to the fact that most of the income of most people in the US on this low wage is derived from tips, something that hardly exists in Australia.
Click to expand...

In most states working in a job with tips will reduce the minimum wage that has to be paid. At the extreme, in Virginia, for example, the minimum wage can be reduced to $0 if it can be shown the worker will earn the minimum wage in tips. Hardly a system to strive for.
 
sails said:
It's more about what's best for the country and which party will inflict the least damage on to our economy.
Click to expand...

The last part of your post says alot..and its something ive been going on about in this forum for a while...You and the majority of the right want Govt's to do nothing, change nothing...the overwhelming concern seems to be about the (perceived) damage done rather than the cost of opportunity.

Change is life sails...embrace it.
 
McLovin said:
Not only that, but in 1979 the minimum wage was $2.90. 32 years later and it's $7.25. You don't need to be a CPI wonk to know it's been going backwards in real terms.
Click to expand...

It's been worse lately.
The average pay the middle class gets has actually gone down over the last 8 years. Saw the chart on Mish's Blog a while back.

How can the USA recover if they make the ordinary person poorer. THe trickle down affect from the top isn't working. You can tell by the Wall Street sit in and the Tea party people that the average Joe is starting to get sick of being cut out from a fair share of the wealth. I give it about 8 years before we start getting a sea change in US politics.
 
McLovin said:
Not only that, but in 1979 the minimum wage was $2.90. 32 years later and it's $7.25. You don't need to be a CPI wonk to know it's been going backwards in real terms.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes the trickle down economy appears to be a little too viscous.
 

Great question. They're squeezing the middle-class (who are also bearing the tax burden) into working poor and then wondering why the middle-class isn't spending.
 
What is the government (us?) striving for? Better living conditions? How much better is better? Where does it stop? Why can't people be happy with living simply and comfortably? Everyone wants more more more.

Shelter :- that being rent or buy a dwelling.
Problem :- Cost to rent upward from 25% of wage, cost of house unaffordable by "average" wage earner.

Food/clothing/furniture/whitegoods etc. :- nourishing, wholesome food for the organism; comfortable, climate-suitable clothing, fridges, computers
Problem :- escalating costs due to what? manufacturing/production costs, labor costs (chicken or egg first), importing more and more from other countries, GST.

In the end it is the same story, the majority run through life with the wealth carrot dangling in front of their nose, forever just out of reach.
 
I like your line WYSIWG. Perhaps the best answer is to be live more simply and not try and keep up lifestyles that we simply can't afford - either individually or collectively.
_____________________________________________________________________

Looks like BIG Business is coming out in support of a carbon price to tackle the effects of Global Warming. (Remember that this the main game in the debate)


http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2118466/business-leaders-issue-2-c-challenge-communique
 

JTLP's remark must have cut you to the quick. You not only aspire to be the leading Leftie but you continually tell us what a smart trader you are.
 
basilio said:
I like your line WYSIWG. Perhaps the best answer is to be live more simply and not try and keep up lifestyles that we simply can't afford - either individually or collectively.
Click to expand...
Agree in principle but the reality is that an increasing percentage of Australians seem to be unable to afford even the most basic lifestyle. e.g. how can anyone exist on an unemployment benefit of $240 p.w.? Not everyone on this benefit is a so called bludger. Many decent, hardworking Australians have been made redundant as companies have downsized during the GFC.

The increases in electricity and other costs from the carbon tax for people living in poverty will place a disproportionate burden on them.

So easy for all those who are responsible for instigating this illogical tax to impose it when they're earning above average incomes.
 
Agree in principle but the reality is that an increasing percentage of Australians seem to be unable to afford even the most basic lifestyle. e.g. how can anyone exist on an unemployment benefit of $240 p.w.? Julia
Click to expand...

Quite true. I think that is a scandal.

I was actually referring to the range of people in more normal income level , and I suggest everyone. Reducing our overall energy/environment impact makes sense on many grounds. At the most basic it will be because economic conditions deteriorate and we will have to work out how to live on less.

By the way the compensation package the Government has floated for either pensioners or lower income families should overcompensate them for cost increase due to carbon levy costs.
 
basilio said:
By the way the compensation package the Government has floated for either pensioners or lower income families should overcompensate them for cost increase due to carbon levy costs.
Click to expand...

Yes, that shows it's more about winning votes. There is Buckley's chance of it affecting climate change.
.
 
Nuclear is the only realistic base load energy source going forward.
 
Julia said:
If you're actually expecting a response from IF, don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for a response to a question I asked days ago.
Click to expand...

When you develop some manners and behave yourself I will start talking to you.
 
tothemax6 said:
Nuclear is the only realistic base load energy source going forward.
Click to expand...
Yes away from communities and water supplies and earthquake zones and cyclone activity and grazing land is fine.
Oh and jettison the waste into the sun.
 
drsmith said:
I have empathy for you IF.

I understand why you want to change the subject.
Click to expand...

That one is a bit hard to deal I take it.

There is a revenue hole approaching future governments Abbotts narrative means he will not be able to deal with when he becomes PM.

That also includes an incredible long list of other issues.
 
IFocus said:
When you develop some manners and behave yourself I will start talking to you.
Click to expand...

Julia,

I can translate leftist doublespeak:

What IF is saying is that he has no answers to your question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ATO Tax!
Replies
18
Views
2K
Ibza
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
L
Setting up what structure for investing in shares?
Replies
3
Views
3K
Sharkman
T
What will be the gold?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Craton
Carbon Prices Around the World
Replies
0
Views
2K
Ann
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...