FYI: Tax rates going up

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

On the lighter side of things, must admit some poeple obviously beleive these taxes can do some incedible things so I would like to suggest the following
cancer tax - to eliminate all cancer
hangover tax - eliminates all hangovers

tobacco and alcohol taxes already contribute to helping your cause.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by SB076

The sxcise tax has been around since the 1900's how do you draw that conclusion?

Beats the **** out of me...

We're being 'proven' wrong again - with no real knowledge or understanding of how we're wrong - WE JUST ARE...

We may be driving more fuel efficient cars - BUT - there are a lot more vehicles on the road than their previously were, and not all (bearing in mind there are more than a handful of forum members who still drive those older cars who's emissions must be 'terrible' for the environment) are utilising the environmental benefits of more fuel efficient cars...we should be strung up and quartered!



And Sudzy, I'm well aware of what you said. I'm also well aware of your ideals - industrialisation is the devil's work and should be stopped - RIGHT NOW...and I've argued against it...you still seem to think you're right though, and don't seem to have taken anything else into consideration?

As far as tobacco and alcohol tax, oh wait, what's the point...you'll refute that too...

We should all just give our whole pay cheque to the government, because we clearly don't understand what the hell we work for...

Originally Posted by sudszy

without the excise tax people would be driving bigger cars/distances and creating more pollution......you can try and deceive, but logical argument against, no.

And that's just an outright lie, on your behalf...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by MAD

But you've already stated that it will do nothing to change our emisisions, so why opt for paying more to do nothing?
Economists and pollies debating whats best... shouldnt that be done by scientists?

Because that's exactly how the welfare recipient eco-tard mindset works. They think by making us pay more they're going to receive more.
What they haven't factored in is all the nepotism and corruption which will siphon the extra money collected. Equally, what none of these socialist idealists realise is that by constricting business, you reduce turnover. The basic laws of supply and demand don't apply in the mindset of a leftie, which is why none of the front bench of the ALP have any business experience. In fact, 100% of the government is from a union/non business background. And they're going to tell companies how to be run? If it wasn't so dangerous it would be hilarious.

It's also why they make vindictive remarks and accuse others of the same; make unsubstantiated claims and ask others for evidence to refute them (ie; global warming is real, prove it's not); and then refer to everyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory way such as calling them "denialists" which for the last 60 years has been common slang for those who denied the Jewish Holocaust in WW2.

The real zealots of Gaia cult worship aren't only deluded, they've evolved into something much more dangerous. They have an elitist attitude which prohibits them from allowing anyone else having a point of view, and vociferously attack others when challenged. Despite obvious flaws and contradictions in their arguments, they'll stay on a message even if it's proven to be incorrect but they'll repeat it ad nauseum hoping to make it true. Sort of like the "working Families" or "Moving Forward" mantra.

What's there motivation?
Well, there are several types of people motivated to destroy prosperity. Most commonly though is those on the gravy train worried the money for their little scare is going to run out. In this case it's people like the academics, the support staff to academics, the universities themselves, consultants, lawyers etc. Also, politicians and senators who have ties to green companies also stand to profit and try to keep the public scare alive even though it has been roundly discredited. Tim Flannery is a case in point with his Geothermal company and one of his recommendations is Geothermal energy, which would receive around 90 million from govco once the carbon tax is enacted.

Then there's those who think they'll get rich off it. These are the useless fools who blindly advocate and support it, but shortly after madness is enacted end up being bitterly disappointed as their is little loyalty in the extreme left. Then there's the bludgers who think they should be paid to do nothing. These people all have one thing in common though, they hate free enterprise and they hate people having freedom to live how they want. They are mostly jealous of others and because they suck at life never really achieve success. They're the people keeping this dying pig on life support.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

cmon, if we pulled the 40cent? excise tax from petrol tomorrow you dont seriously think it will affect people's view on what car they can afford to drive and how far they drive it

You said and I quote

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes Im sure the excise tax(not that it was put in place to curtail pollution) that we all pay on petrol has forced people into using less fuel consuming cars, so the world has already benefitted from less pollution......want to argue agains that?

I said the excise has been in place in Australia since the 1900's So if the excise as you stated has forced people into less fuel consuming cars - we should have seen people in fuel efficient cars 100 years ago.

Another way to look at it is if the excise as you stated successfuly put people into fuel efficient cars and can be consider a success - it has only taken 100 years to start to make an impact. Now if we relate that back to the carbon tax. I take it you are happy to wait 100 plus years before we start to make any inraods into reducing emissions?

Comeon Sudszy this is too easy

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

tobacco and alcohol taxes already contribute to helping your cause.

So the tobacco and alcohol taxes are a success have they?
The effect of the tobacco tax is hard to measure as there have been various health campaigns and other measures put in place with the tobacco tax.

So lets look at the tax on alcohol, Has there been a dramatic decline in the amount of alcohol consumed per person in Australia? I'll answer that for you, no for the last 20 odd years our per capita consumption of aclohol as been steady at around 10 litres - What has the tax done?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by SB076

So the tobacco and alcohol taxes are a success are they?
The effect of the tobacco tax is hard to measure as there have been various health campaigns and other measures put in place with the tobacco tax.

So lets look at the tax on alcohol, Has there been a dramatic decline in the amount of alcohol consumed per person in Australia? I'll answer that for you, no for the last 20 odd years our per capita consumption of aclohol as been steady at around 10 litres - What has the tax done?

It's also arguable that in times of the depression and recessions that people not only drank more, they binge drank...

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by SB076

On the lighter side of things, must admit some poeple obviously beleive these taxes can do some incedible things so I would like to suggest the following
cancer tax - to eliminate all cancer
hangover tax - eliminates all hangovers

How 'bout a SOAP tax?.... (Eliminate sudz)

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

You said and I quote
I said the excise has been in place in Australia since the 1900's So if the excise as you stated has forced people into less fuel consuming cars - we should have seen people in fuel efficient cars 100 years ago.

Another way to look at it is if the excise as you stated successfuly put people into fuel efficient cars and can be consider a success - it has only taken 100 years to start to make an impact. Now if we relate that back to the carbon tax. I take it you are happy to wait 100 plus years before we start to make any inraods into reducing emissions?

Comeon Sudszy this is too easy

Bottom line, if the excise tax wasnt there you'd all be likely to be using more fuel, the tax has an effect on reducing consumption

Likewise, do you think a tax of $2/L would not change behaviours either

[StrokedXT]

Reading Suddzys posts reminds me of an old labor saying

"if your not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if your still a socialist in your 30s your an idiot"

This tax was the last straw for this lifetime paid member of the labor party, I apologise to everyone for my vote at the last election, I let my ideals get in the way of what was the right thing to do.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Bottom line, if the excise tax wasnt there you'd all be likely to be using more fuel, the tax has an effect on reducing consumption

Likewise, do you think a tax of $2/L would not change behaviours either

Real world scenario? May I ask what do you expect people to do if the tax pushes the price of petrol up to $2/L????? Do you think everyone has $40,000 stashed away so they can buy a new car thats more efficient? Or do you think Public transport will majically become available for everyone? A lot of people will not be able to afford a new car, nor will they have any alternative so they will keep pauing $2L, but they will slash costs elsewhere, maybe their kids education - maybe they will work a second job - is this really what you support?

This proves another point, what you are suggesting is that if you tax people really hard (ie increasing the petrol excise to make fuel $2 per litre, that you will start to make an impact on people) So by this same reasoning you are happy and would support a carbon tax increasing to what $100 a tonne, $200??? where does it end? How much pain do you want to put the general public through to achieve very little when you could achieve a lot more and not tax the public in the first place.

What do you support Sudszy????

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Bottom line, if the excise tax wasnt there you'd all be likely to be using more fuel, the tax has an effect on reducing consumption

Likewise, do you think a tax of $2/L would not change behaviours either

I drive my car more now than when I paid 68c a litte, big oil sells more fuel, and there's more cars on the road.

Dog I don't think your argument stands up, all higher fuel prices do is increase theft

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Bottom line, if the excise tax wasnt there you'd all be likely to be using more fuel, the tax has an effect on reducing consumption

Likewise, do you think a tax of $2/L would not change behaviours either

Has it changed behaviours in the past...NO...

Do I think it will change behaviours in the future...NO...

I'm a realist in this situation, I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and say 'yes', because it's not true, and never has been - charging more money for something doesn't make it any less 'desirable' than it was before - and THAT...is FACT.

The sad part is there's no way to refute it in its entirety, for the simple fact that there is no way of knowing what it would be like without excise...it's been around longer than anyone here has been alive, and has become a fact - reducing the excise doesn't mean that people don't still need to travel further than they did before.

I choose to drive to Victoria from Melbourne, as opposed to flying, what's my carbon footprint for that...?

0.6t*Co2-e

If I fly, my carbon footprint is still...0.6t*Co2-e

There's no freaking difference in getting in a 1.8L car and driving as opposed to getting on a 737 and flying...

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

Reading Suddzys posts reminds me of an old labor saying

"if your not a socialist in your 20s you don't have a heart, if your still a socialist in your 30s your an idiot"

This tax was the last straw for this lifetime paid member of the labor party, I apologise to everyone for my vote at the last election, I let my ideals get in the way of what was the right thing to do.

Don't worry mate, I did the same thing...although mine only extended as far as local...it still seems to have bit me on the bum...

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

How 'bout a SOAP tax?.... (Eliminate sudz)

Well I was going to put a Common sense tax....

[burnz]

Originally Posted by ltd

That's where you're wrong. Fact is the Greens wanting a carbon tax have forced Julia Gillard to make the concessions agree on this economy wrecking tax. If it weren't for the Greens there would be no carbon tax.

The Liberals do not want a carbon tax. They were prepared to join in an ETS when the rest of the world was going to do it, but that was 4 years and 200 billion dollars of government debt ago. Then the rest of the world said bugger this pseudo science malarkey. Try to stay updated.

You backed the LOSERS in the Greens (Reds). Unless you work for Govco, your job isn't safe. And if you do work for Govco, it still isn't safe.

false: tony abbott said in 2009 he would implement a carbon tax!!

if the greens sided with nat/lib you would still have the tax..

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Has it changed behaviours in the past...NO...

Do I think it will change behaviours in the future...NO...

I'm a realist in this situation, I...

Some will claim they will not change their fuel use no matter how expensive it gets? let me know where the money tree is.

Why isnt the whole australian public driving big thirsty v8s, dont think it has something to do with the price of fuel

oh and americans drive little cars because fuel is really cheap there and the poms drive around in tanks because its expensive.....I could go on, but Im giving too much oxygen to this craziness.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by sudszy

oh and americans drive little cars because fuel is really cheap there and the poms drive around in tanks because its expensive.....I could go on, but Im giving too much oxygen to this craziness.

There's another idea for a tax an oxygen tax, due to recent population growth, we could tax oxygen - that way people can think before they breath, is this breath necessary?

I am concerned that you seemed to support a tax on the principal of doing good for the enviroment - however when questioned you are unable to explain the benefits of the tax. you acknowledge the tax does diddly aquat for global emissions but yet you still support it - why is that?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Under the carbon tax, only the people that use the products pay also, dont use the coal based electricity, you dont pay the carbon tax. If you dont use goods and services that use fossil fuel based energy, you wont pay either.

One avenue is legislation, but who pays for the cost of doing it?, ie if the power station is only allowed to produce X tonnes of CO2 and has to find other ways of producing the electricity, who pays the extra for that?, we do.
There is no hiding the costs.

This indeed has been entertained as an option but has been rejected by economists as being too costly a way to bring about the change and that a carbon tax is more cost effective, that's what Garnaut's work was all about.

Problem there is that EVERYTHING uses coal, unless your in Tassie.

Its the height of hypocrisy that we are looking at taxing the very source of power that keeps everyone warm, drives everyone, enables us to talk on computers, the whole lot.

People go on about wind, solar, tidal, geothermal etc but all of these are not proper solutions. The sooner we stop fluffing about and go nuclear the better..we have huge areas in the middle of no where that could be used as generation and waste sites, we have close enough to no worries about earthquakes causing havoc etc. If people were serious about reducing the amount we rely on coal then this is the only viable solution, ready now not in 20 years when alternatives finally work out how to improve their efficiency.

Rejecting an idea because its "too hard or too costly" is wrong, do it once and do it right. This is the worst example of blanket/shotgun policy ever.

[SEZ213]

Hahah....it gets better...

http://ipa.org.au/news/2424/governments-carbon-skeleton

It's well worth the read...perhaps this is why the filthy 500 list isn't published...

The nuclear debate is an interesting one, but one that's fraught with the 'it's bad for my health' party that rolls around...and 'what about what happened in Japan'...with no real knowledge of what happened in Japan in the first place...

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Hahah....it gets better...

http://ipa.org.au/news/2424/governments-carbon-skeleton

It's well worth the read...perhaps this is why the filthy 500 list isn't published...

The nuclear debate is an interesting one, but one that's fraught with the 'it's bad for my health' party that rolls around...and 'what about what happened in Japan'...with no real knowledge of what happened in Japan in the first place...

Japans biggest problem was the earthquake am I wrong? I would imagine that their disaster action plan would be sufficient as well?

[MAD]

Nuclear power in Australia could even open up the opportunity for us to lease material to other countries.
With an enrichment facility nuclear material could be upgraded and then leased to ensure it's return (ie no dodgy usage for weapons, etc)
There are reactors, I think the name given to them is a "feeder reactor" where spent nuclear material can be inserted to the core and re-enriched, or somthing like that.
A business opportunity would be available for Australia to not only lease the material to other countries, but to then also store the waste, as we have a great land base for deep underground storage.

Not to mention the opportunity to tack on a desalination plant to each power station to make use of the waste heat, rather than build one that's only going to chew tonnes of fuel and add to Australia's emisisons, when apparently we need to reduce them.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Japans biggest problem was the earthquake am I wrong? I would imagine that their disaster action plan would be sufficient as well?

The biggest problem was their generator getting flooding if I recall correctly, everything else was taken into consideration with regard to tsunamis/earthquakes...just not the generator.

Their disaster plan was sufficient, with the exception of that tiny detail.

From what I am led to believe they were also built to withstand the bunker buster bombs, which effectively removes the aerial terrorism threat that people get all antsy about as well...

[mik]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Bottom line, if the excise tax wasnt there you'd all be likely to be using more fuel, the tax has an effect on reducing consumption

Likewise, do you think a tax of $2/L would not change behaviours either

either that or it may be that it is the extra cost that keeps the low paid individaul driving a 30 year old motor car putting out 3 times the pollution and using twice as much fuel as a newer car.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by burnz

false: tony abbott said in 2009 he would implement a carbon tax!!

if the greens sided with nat/lib you would still have the tax..

Sorry mate, but Tony Abbott has said as recently as today that when he gets into office, he will call a double dissolution to rid us of the Green stain.

Wayne is waxing idiotic about it but then again, idiotic is all Wayne Skwander knows.

Anyway, think real hard about what's happened to climate change in the last two years.
* East Anglia Falsification of data emails leaked
* Hopenchangin failed
* America pulled out of ETS and Chicago exchange bankrupted 3 times
* UK has debt of 100% of GDP and won't do the ETS
* Ireland the same
* Japan Tsunami so they're trying to rebuild
* Greece bankrupted
* etc etc.
The point is, the world has changed since 2009 and global warming/climate change has severe credibility issues.

[blueoval]

I just received this from one of our suppliers and how the Carbon Tax effects the new home market.

[MAD]

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/con...7/s3270516.htm

Something to read here.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&so...btqwaw&cad=rja

I read the entire article and am surprised that his conclusion leans on the negative, when it is just as likely that it will be positive. They dont know either way. But the assumption is that reducing our emissions will be good, but what happens if the world responds in the other way? do we then need to start adding CO2 as the multitude of new forests soak up too much carbon and we start global cooling?
Why is it that, of two options, the conclusion is only drawn from what he percieves to be the worst case. Yet there are no facts to back up that assumption.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by ltd

Because that's exactly how the welfare recipient eco-tard mindset works. They think by making us pay more they're going to receive more.
What they haven't factored in is all the nepotism and corruption which will siphon the extra money collected. Equally, what none of these socialist idealists realise is that by constricting business, you reduce turnover. The basic laws of supply and demand don't apply in the mindset of a leftie, which is why none of the front bench of the ALP have any business experience. In fact, 100% of the government is from a union/non business background. And they're going to tell companies how to be run? If it wasn't so dangerous it would be hilarious.

It's also why they make vindictive remarks and accuse others of the same; make unsubstantiated claims and ask others for evidence to refute them (ie; global warming is real, prove it's not); and then refer to everyone who disagrees with them in a derogatory way such as calling them "denialists" which for the last 60 years has been common slang for those who denied the Jewish Holocaust in WW2.

The real zealots of Gaia cult worship aren't only deluded, they've evolved into something much more dangerous. They have an elitist attitude which prohibits them from allowing anyone else having a point of view, and vociferously attack others when challenged. Despite obvious flaws and contradictions in their arguments, they'll stay on a message even if it's proven to be incorrect but they'll repeat it ad nauseum hoping to make it true. Sort of like the "working Families" or "Moving Forward" mantra.

What's there motivation?
Well, there are several types of people motivated to destroy prosperity. Most commonly though is those on the gravy train worried the money for their little scare is going to run out. In this case it's people like the academics, the support staff to academics, the universities themselves, consultants, lawyers etc. Also, politicians and senators who have ties to green companies also stand to profit and try to keep the public scare alive even though it has been roundly discredited. Tim Flannery is a case in point with his Geothermal company and one of his recommendations is Geothermal energy, which would receive around 90 million from govco once the carbon tax is enacted.

Then there's those who think they'll get rich off it. These are the useless fools who blindly advocate and support it, but shortly after madness is enacted end up being bitterly disappointed as their is little loyalty in the extreme left. Then there's the bludgers who think they should be paid to do nothing. These people all have one thing in common though, they hate free enterprise and they hate people having freedom to live how they want. They are mostly jealous of others and because they suck at life never really achieve success. They're the people keeping this dying pig on life support.

i can think of a member who fits this profile perfectly.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Problem there is that EVERYTHING uses coal, unless your in Tassie.

Its the height of hypocrisy that we are looking at taxing the very source of power that keeps everyone warm, drives everyone, enables us to talk on computers, the whole lot.

People go on about wind, solar, tidal, geothermal etc but all of these are not proper solutions. The sooner we stop fluffing about and go nuclear the better..we have huge areas in the middle of no where that could be used as generation and waste sites, we have close enough to no worries about earthquakes causing havoc etc. If people were serious about reducing the amount we rely on coal then this is the only viable solution, ready now not in 20 years when alternatives finally work out how to improve their efficiency.

Rejecting an idea because its "too hard or too costly" is wrong, do it once and do it right. This is the worst example of blanket/shotgun policy ever.

You don't expect the zombie-like droids who make up the anti-CO2 cheer squad to give you a sensible reason for no nuclear do you?

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by blueoval

I just received this from one of our suppliers and how the Carbon Tax effects the new home market.

Well, to be honest, I expected that...particularly given my earlier comments on price increases of between 10 and 20% already for large manufacturing.

1.2-1.4% doesn't seem like a lot, until you add a build price of $300,000 to $500,000 to the equation...

The true costs will be seen in the future and not the immediate future.

Thanks for sharing that, I was wondering how long it would take...short answer...less than a week.

[blueoval]

Seems to me, that unless there is a dollar in it for the government or other authorities to make for any decent solution, they aren't interested. It's like they have to make sure they make money from what ever they decide to come up with.

I dunno, it is highly possible I am still very naive on the topic, but removing selfishness out of the equation isn't high on the agenda.

[cheap]

News Flash:

Yet another non-cooperative volcano has erupted (this time in Indonesia).

On the plus side, all CO2 emissions from a volcano are "good CO2's" and can easily be identified from "bad CO2's"

Dear old mother nature doesn't seem to want comply with the zombie CO2 droids does she.