Carbon tax compensation

[MAD]

Get a load of what Senator Brown wants to do. Which way do you want it Bob? I like that he's passing the buck already to "future goverments"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bre...-1226017054124

FEDERAL Greens Leader Bob Brown says he agrees with resources giant Rio Tinto that local industries trading in overseas markets should not be unfairly disadvantaged by a price on carbon emissions.

Senator Brown says an independent arbiter should decide on compensation levels, but companies should not be compensated for "theoretical losses".

"Rio Tinto want real-world accounting for trade-exposed industries in the upcoming program for finding a carbon price for Australia. Look I agree with Rio Tinto," he said in Sydney.

He was speaking after Rio Tinto's Australian managing director David Peever said in an article that trade-exposed companies had a legitimate right to insist on a level playing field.

"I think that trade-exposed industries - if they can show that they are at a loss - ought to have that looked at by future governments," Mr Brown said.

"What we don't want to see is a program that allows theoretical loss to be compensated. Real loss: yes," he said.

In the article published in The Australian newspaper, Mr Peever called for "real world" modelling, saying a fixed carbon price would hurt businesses in a downturn.

Mr Peever believes Prime Minister Julia Gillard should offer more generous compensation and industry protection for business than a scheme proposed by former prime minister Kevin Rudd in 2009.

Meanwhile, Senator Brown said NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell, who is campaigning against the Federal Labor Government's carbon emissions tax in the state election, should reject the Federal Opposition's policy on the issue.

"It is much costlier than any of Prime Minister Gillard's options and leaves no money to compensate households," Senator Brown said.

Mr O'Farrell has told NSW voters the carbon tax will increase the average family's power bill by about $500 a year.

Senator Brown said economists agree Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's strategy to tackle climate change "is the most expensive way to go".

"Their tax is no different in that it's an indirect tax on households while the big polluters get off scot-free," he said.

"If you're an average voter in NSW, the O'Farrell-Abbott prescription is going to hit you far harder than anything the Gillard Government's climate change committee is going to come up with," he said.

They may have all the best intentions to compensate householders but after they're finished compensating the trade companies, the 20 bucks left over wont go very far.

[Jim Goose]

Its been said quite a few times that the carbon tax only applies to corporate polluters, not the average household or small buisness.

I cant see why large companies should even be compensated???

[GOLDIE]

how is it not going to effect households and small buisness theyy can not compensate for all the higher prices we are going to pay.
Also theyy are going to have a gst windfall because every price rise brings them more gst.

Small buisness will get nothing so they have to pass it on.

Ian

[Jim Goose]

And who are the big polluters in Australia?

Mines and coal fired stations... we dont even have any other major industries anymore in this country.

The biggest squealers so far are mines.... and how will they pass it on to the average house hold? Most of our mines are selling their product overseas. Therefor they cant raise prices to remain competitive and must reduce emissions to pay less of the tax.

And no im not in favour it as it really doesnt solve anything, but the hype being dished out doesnt have anything solid to stand on as the governemnt hasnt even released all the details of how it will work (or not!)

[GOLDIE]

power will sky rocket under this the mines will have to recoup some how they will either shut down or reduce staff niether will help us.

Ian

[metallurg]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

And who are the big polluters in Australia?

Mines and coal fired stations... we dont even have any other major industries anymore in this country.

And where exactly do you get your electricity from?

Most of us rely on coal and/or natural gas - we can't afford to put solar panels on our roofs.

And if electricity goes up, so will everything that relies on it. Expect to pay more for pretty much everything as businesses pass on the increased costs.

Hence the need for compensation, in one form or another.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its been said quite a few times that the carbon tax only applies to corporate polluters, not the average household or small buisness.

I cant see why large companies should even be compensated???

Large companies have the ability to move their business or investment off shore. Companies like BHP, Rio, can mine (or increase their investment) overseas. Governments know this and as such offer incentives to keep them local.

The government has stated many times that we will see increased costs (households and small business) Google carbon tax there are plenty of articles where various government figures have stated that households will receive some compensation to try to offset the extra costs due to the carbon tax.

They have not finalised the detail yet, but I doubt there will be compensation for small to medium size businesses. As such some, depending on the industry they are in, some will move offshore, others will face greater overseas competition and possible closure, and some will see very little change.

Edit comparisons of electricity costs these are rough, but to give you an idea
Australia pays approx. $0.20 Kwh, USA $0.10 Kwh, China $0.028 Kwh.

[GK]

1. I do not for a second think that man made global warming is real. Sure temperatures change, but surely the sun has more effect on the world than we do?

2. For goodness sake - everyone wake up. CO2 isn't pollution. If we stand by and swallow this load of malarky, then they'll be able to justify taxing every breath we exhale.

3. Taxing us (with the aim to make us stop consuming these products that produce Co2) is a moronic idea of the highest order. Will we really not use our lights at night, and turn off air conditioners/coolers and heaters when it's hot or cold? Why does Julia want to smash our economy for 1.4% of the world's so called "pollution"? All this will do is further smash the local industry and have more jobs moved overseas.

If this stupid idea does get up, then it should only be on the basis on the following.

4. It's not a level playing field until each nation signs up to the same sort of deal. Even then, it'd still be darn stupid, but at least we'd all be taxed by the same system.

5. Any nation that eventually does get taxed, should have to pay for their % of the so called pollution.

Rant over

GK

[Barnaby]

Originally Posted by GK

For goodness sake - everyone wake up. CO2 isn't pollution.

GK

Quote your source so I can read it and "wake up"

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by GK

1. I do not for a second think that man made global warming is real. Sure temperatures change, but surely the sun has more effect on the world than we do?

2. For goodness sake - everyone wake up. CO2 isn't pollution. If we stand by and swallow this load of malarky, then they'll be able to justify taxing every breath we exhale.

3. Taxing us (with the aim to make us stop consuming these products that produce Co2) is a moronic idea of the highest order. Will we really not use our lights at night, and turn off air conditioners/coolers and heaters when it's hot or cold? Why does Julia want to smash our economy for 1.4% of the world's so called "pollution"? All this will do is further smash the local industry and have more jobs moved overseas.

If this stupid idea does get up, then it should only be on the basis on the following.

4. It's not a level playing field until each nation signs up to the same sort of deal. Even then, it'd still be darn stupid, but at least we'd all be taxed by the same system.

5. Any nation that eventually does get taxed, should have to pay for their % of the so called pollution.

Rant over

GK

Agreed, notice how the word carbon is frequently used. It somehow adds more credence to the 'pollution' argument when in actual fact the government is referring to carbon dioxide, a trace gas in in the atmosphere of approximately 390parts per million, or 0.039% of the earth's total atmosphere.

Where does this notion that CO2 is a pollution comes from, and why should business be compensated for creating CO2. Businesses should be punished for polluting the environment, air and waterways, not compensated for emitting a trace gas.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The biggest squealers so far are mines.... and how will they pass it on to the average house hold?

Probably cause the biggest polluters will get the biggest amount of compensation. Like they were gonna get in the ETS.

[pottery beige]

get the feeling some loony bum puncher is pulling the strings....

[Franco Cozzo]

No matter how much you whinge and complain, its going to get passed through anyway.

[vztrt]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2....htm?site=news

Expert downplays carbon tax price rises

By Jeremy Thompson

The carbon tax debate raged on in Canberra this morning as a visiting European Union carbon price expert declared people would see little impact on their cost of living under the scheme.

The 500 million people in European Union countries have lived with an emissions trading scheme since 2005.

Jill Duggan, a carbon price expert from the EU's Directorate-General for Climate Action, says the scheme has created more jobs and was easier to implement than first feared.

Briefing journalists in Canberra, she said carbon tax only accounted for a fraction of the yearly price rises for fuel.

"The impact would be a quarter of the impact of gas or oil prices, so people notice gas or oil prices rising, they notice the impact on their household bills, but the carbon price is much, much smaller than that in impact."

Ms Duggan said Australia had the chance to invest in sustainable energy systems such as solar to actually increase employment.

"The experience in Europe is the drive to a low-carbon economy has created more jobs - I'm not aware of any jobs that have been lost as the result of a carbon price.

"It was easier and cheaper to reduce emissions than was initially estimated. The impact has not affected the economy adversely."

Speaking earlier, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott repeated his claim the tax would add $300 a year to power bills and bump up the price of petrol.

"Every time prices go up if this carbon tax comes in to effect people will think of the government, because this tax will cascade through the economy."

Slush fund

Greens leader Bob Brown took exception to Mr Abbott's description of household compensation as a "slush fund".

"His new description of proposed compensation for households under the carbon tax proposal as 'slush' will offend many Australians but delight the big corporations who want the same money for themselves," Senator Brown said.

Senator Brown says the "slush fund" is actually the Coalition's "direct action" plan to compensate polluting industries without compensating households which he claims will have to pay an extra $720 a year.

Climate Change Minister Greg Comet has pledged to return the entire carbon tax to consumers, particularly low-income households and pensioners.

"Every dollar raised by the payment of the carbon price by the large polluters - because that's where the obligation resides - will be used to support households to meet price impacts," Mr Combet said.

He says it will also be used to help industries transition to a low-pollution future.

"Mr Abbott will run a fear campaign and that's exactly what he's doing, but we intend sticking to our guns, arguing the case because it's the right thing to do for the future of this country."

Mr Abbott said he would welcome an early election on the issue - but said it was not up to him.

"It's up to the Prime Minister to go to Yarralumla and call an early election if that's what she wants to do. It's up to the independents to decide what they do."

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by Barnaby

Quote your source so I can read it and "wake up"

Umm ?? The oil is from decaying vegetation etc...

How come most the oil around the world comes
from deserts ???

Climate change has been going on for years...

[atec77]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its been said quite a few times that the carbon tax only applies to corporate polluters, not the average household or small buisness.

I cant see why large companies should even be compensated???

how do you ifigure that ? , if a company gets taxed guess who pays it for them in every item bought or they go off shore and we lose yet more jobs
Bad fail goolia

[snappy]

Cant believe they had to go all the way to Europe to find someone with something good to say about a carbon tax .

Please people correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Spain almost gone broke , Germany is winding back because its sending them broke . studies in Europe done for every green job created 3.7 jobs have been lost .

I for one am not happy about it firstly i didn't like being lied to by raggedy Ann and secondly i don't want my taxes going to the UN.
Plus if we reach our target we drop the planets temperature by something like 0.0000001 degree celsius or something to that effect . As far as i can tell wanting a carbon tax is like wanting to be violated

[vztrt]

There was an interview this morning on the ABC 24 morning news show. Where they did have someone saying that a carbon tax would be useless and it would cost to much and not really reach its objective. But it would be better to just invest in a green industry. I wish I could find a link to it, but there is nothing on the ABC website.

[BA-Fan]

Was emailed this in February:

===
February 28, 2011 12:00AM

Tim Blair
From: The Daily Telegraph
* BY how much will your carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia's temperature?

* IF after five years there has been no recorded decline in temperature, will the tax be abandoned?

* MULTIPLE choice! How much money has already been wasted by Australian federal governments on pointless climate change initiatives that have done nothing:

a - $2,000,000,000

b - $3,500,000,000

c - $5,500,000,000

* IF taxing Australians at a certain level will make us more competitive with the rest of the world, as you claim, then surely taxing us at even higher levels will make us more competitive still. Universal taxation at, say, 80 per cent should make us a global powerhouse. Why are you holding Australia back?

* YOU claim that Australians want this new tax. How about testing your theory at an election?

* IF I announced on television that I was going to kidnap the federal Cabinet and put them through a series of deadly Saw-style torture tests, do you think I could avoid charges by asking the police to stop going on about "semantics" and "word games"?

* DO you have any experience in herding cats? This might be important during your coming 16 months of negotiations with the Greens, who you seem to have forgotten are completely insane.

* CONSIDERING Labor couldn't run a simple grocery pricing website and Labor's attempts to insulate houses ended up setting them on fire and killing people, what are the odds Labor can successfully run the country's largest and most complicated tax regime?

* LABOR promised to reduce the number of boat people arrivals. As with everything else, Labor's policies resulted in exactly the opposite outcome. Now you're trying to change the weather. Where should people hide?

* CARBON dioxide contains two oxygen atoms for every one carbon atom. Shouldn't we call it an "oxygen tax"?

* IF the aim of the carbon tax is to change behaviour, why are you planning to compensate so many households? They'll just keep killing the planet and get no penalties at all.

* AT what point does carbon dioxide's necessary presence in the atmosphere become "pollution"?

* IF the carbon tax is definitely going to be introduced on July 1, 2012, how come Tim Flannery is going to be paid $720,000 over the next four whole years while he roams the country "explaining" it?

* ISN'T explaining new taxes your job? Or, more specifically, Wayne Swan's?

For that matter, where was Wayne the other day when you announced this massive new tax? You were there, and so was Bob Brown and Christine Milne and Greg Combet and Tony Windsor and the Hairy Princess. But no Wayne.

The next time you see Wayne, could you ask him why he said this last August: "What we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax." This question should really be asked by journalists, I guess, but they're too busy making excuses for your hilarious lies.

* WHAT is the point of building a $27 billion national broadband network to deliver computer connectivity across the nation when Greg Combet is telling people to turn off lights and televisions?

* ANOTHER thing: how much more cost will be added to the NBN courtesy of the carbon tax?

* AGRICULTURE, which produces around a quarter of our carbon dioxide output, is exempt from the carbon tax. You're not really serious about this whole "carbon pollution" deal, are you?

* WHY don't you just ban the mining, burning and export of coal? Your boss Bob Brown wants to. He thinks that coal caused the Queensland floods (or "water pollution").

* YOU'VE said that people shouldn't be worried about media estimates of the amount they will be penalised. Why should they believe you?

* HOW does taking money off person A and giving it to person B help the climate? You'd be surprised, Ms Prime Minister, you really would, at the way clever lawyers can shift investments and capital around so that the source becomes "agriculture".

* IN 2007, Labor Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said that a mere $30 carbon tax on local flights would "kill the Australian aviation industry both domestically and internationally".

If he was right, what does that mean for all Australian industries facing a carbon tax?

* WHAT level of bureaucratic expansion will be required to deal with the intake and dispersal of something like $10 billion per year?

* WILL your compensation plans take into account Australia's regional differences in living standards?

Because if they don't, hard-up families in Sydney are going to be giving money to the well-off in Adelaide.

* WHAT percentage of revenue from the carbon tax will be lost in bureaucratic churn between it being collected by your Government and handed out in compensation?

* INSTEAD of creating a tax system that eventually gives people their money back, why not just let them keep their own damn money in the first place?

* ACCORDING to you, "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead". Would you mind telling us who does lead this Government, then? Otherwise I've sent this to the wrong person.


===

[Spanrz]

Can we hit the DSE with Tax, for "burning off" and creating Carbon.

Has anyone ever hit Uncle Bob Brown about one of the Government dept's creating a huge carbon release?

Bob Brown....pffft

[snappy]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Its been said quite a few times that the carbon tax only applies to corporate polluters, not the average household or small buisness.

I cant see why large companies should even be compensated???

This is what happens we you learn economics from bob brown .

I'll give you a crash coarse on this tax
Take for example you wnat to buy some rice grown by aussie farmers
Bascally
Plow the feild - takes petrol/diesel = carbon tax
seed it - again same thing
fertelise it - again same thing + ferterliser cost more because the tax
herbercides/pestercides - same as above
harvest it - petrol again = tax
ship it to processing - petrol again = tax
processing -uses electricity = tax
packaging - oil and electricity = tax
delivery - tax again
supermarkets - electricity = tax again

If you dont think those costs wont be lumped on top of the price of a packet of rice think again .
An this is the best bit the rice that comes from asia doesn't get taxed
Which one do you think people will buy .

[SpoolMan]

Surprised it has lasted this long, as it was only last week same topic was closed.