FYI: Tax rates going up

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

now the reasoning argument of why ? is the baffling question here .
i say WHY DIDNT they just raise the gst to 12% , or just raise income taxes ?

Because we get angry when our tax's go up.

Originally Posted by gtfpv

instead they chose a very hard sell , to create revenue as many of you put it ???

This way there are plenty of people who are not only willing, but actually happy to pay more tax 'because it's for a noble cause'.

Originally Posted by Sam_Boss260

But this just doesn't make sense. Once again, we be being taxed (either directly or indirectly) for what?

For the moral high ground and an inflated sense of self worth.
We can save the world, the polar bears, and the Great Barrier Reef.
We can make the planet a better place for our children.
We can lead the way and show those worthless other countries how superior we are.
We can be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
And we don't even have to get of our backsides and do anything, all we have to do is hand over some money.
It's just so easy, do I have to wait till next year or can I start paying more tax now?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Sam_Boss260

I agree, raising the GST to 11% or 12% would make more sense. You pay extra tax as in you incur extra spending.

Sam, this is a concept I have been trying to get an answer on for some years - mostly borne out of my hate for having to keep receipts and do a tax return to get a benefit (if there is one to be had).

10% is what the states get and changing that will likely be impossible. The only way it could happen is if we had LNP in every state and they believed each other.

The concept I wish I could get an answer on, even though I accept that I know but a fraction of its impact, would be:

Why can't we abolish all taxes in their entirety and implement a flat ~30% "GST". The more you spend, the more you pay. All of life's essentials are tax free which promotes their affordability by all wealth delineations. A reality is that the more you earn, the more you spend and the rule described above would account for you at that point.

When we have a major disaster to pay for, the Govt of the time can announce that for X time, we are winding the tax up by 0.5% to cover it (much like the RBA control growth with the cash rate).

I absolutely accept that it may be over-simplistic and not thought through - but I'm buggered if I can find anyone to tell me so!

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Scott

Sam, this is a concept I have been trying to get an answer on for some years - mostly borne out of my hate for having to keep receipts and do a tax return to get a benefit (if there is one to be had).

10% is what the states get and changing that will likely be impossible. The only way it could happen is if we had LNP in every state and they believed each other.

The concept I wish I could get an answer on, even though I accept that I know but a fraction of its impact, would be:

Why can't we abolish all taxes in their entirety and implement a flat ~30% "GST". The more you spend, the more you pay. All of life's essentials are tax free which promotes their affordability by all wealth delineations. A reality is that the more you earn, the more you spend and the rule described above would account for you at that point.

When we have a major disaster to pay for, the Govt of the time can announce that for X time, we are winding the tax up by 0.5% to cover it (much like the RBA control growth with the cash rate).

I absolutely accept that it may be over-simplistic and not thought through - but I'm buggered if I can find anyone to tell me so!

that is a good concept and does have merit , i have often wondered why govts havent simplified taxes also .
one finance guru of the 1990's from europe , cannot recall his name , studied the australian tax system .
and suggested that we could erraticate all income taxes , and have a debit tax of 1% on everything we purchase , in other words every single transaction incurrs 1% tax . not just on purchasing , but on everything , deposits and gifts inc, he concluded that the tax would be fairer across the board for all , and would pretty much demolish the black market . revenue would be increased and all would be better off .
wether this was true or not . ( i wouldnt have a clue) but i liked hearing the concept .

[MITCHAY]

While I accept the main objective (well the greenies one anyway) of this is to persuade industry to reduce pollution be that by investing in environmentally friendly technology or improving processes, I think the reality is that they will just increase prices to cover their carbon tax liability without actually reducing emissions.

I really don't have faith in industry taking it as it was intended even ignoring the fact it will have little effect in the context of the whole world.

[tranquilized]

Going by most of the posts on this thread, I can only conclude that some people are against the carbon tax because they dont understand the theory behind it.

The main point to understand would be that the actual funds raised by a carbon tax isn't what brings a reduction in emissions or helps the environment. So raising existing taxes to fight climate change would have zero effect. Forget raising the GST or income taxes - how exactly would that make you pollute less?

The tax sends a price signal - harnesses the market to achieve an outcome. I'm sure everyone has heard those catchphrases more than a few times over the last few weeks.

To put it simply;

Company A get slugged with carbon tax, then pass every cent on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Company B spend a bit of time and money to implement a less polluting way to produce the same product, aren't taxed, and offer it to the market cheaper than company A. Consumers automatically buy from company B, forcing company A to change their practices = less pollution.

It really is a very simple concept to understand; the theory of carbon tax I mean.

As for the one we're getting, I haven't had time to research the finer details, so unlike most, I wont comment on it specifically.

A point to consider though - the GST wasn't popular at the start and resulted in the Howard governments approval rating to dip to the low 30's

déjà vu anyone?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Forget raising the GST or income taxes - how exactly would that make you pollute less?

Why would it??? The comments are about reducing the incredibly complex web of taxes, duties, levies and fines we pay. So complex as to completely catch-out and entrap everybody over and again, every which way it can and being so complicated that no-one can have a grip on all of it.

Originally Posted by tranquilized

A point to consider though - the GST wasn't popular at the start and resulted in the Howard governments approval rating to dip to the low 30's

déjà vu anyone?

Nope. We agreed on it and voted him/them in to implement it. The current Govt was overwhelmingly rejected at the last election and sold us all out to further their own game. They were not wanted or elected then and they are not wanted and won't be elected again.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by Scott

Why would it???
Nope. We agreed on it and voted him/them in to implement it. The current Govt was overwhelmingly rejected at the last election and sold us all out to further their own game. They were not wanted or elected then and they are not wanted and won't be elected again.

If I remember correctly we got the GST after Howard got 48% of the two party preferred vote?
Ironically (and sadly) it's the same situation we're in now.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by WMD351

If I remember correctly we got the GST after Howard got 48% of the two party preferred vote?
Ironically (and sadly) it's the same situation we're in now.

We voted on a GST and we got it. This time, we voted on NO CARBON TAX and we got it.

You say same, I say not.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, your selective data and selective quotes denotes your true allegiances such as organisations as Getup and the youth climate ****-stravaganza. Every post by you seems to be publishing government spin and propaganda and nothing to do with cars except maybe the prius or camry hybrid. You'd find more sympathy at http://www.eco_twats.com or http://.www.alp.gov.au or http://www.greenfags.com.au. Enjoy.
BTW, every thread you get on gets closed down prematurely; who'd thought you'd have the same affect on threads as say, Gillard has in the opinion polls? Sudzy, you've just done a Gillard.

report sent.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by WMD351

If I remember correctly we got the GST after Howard got 48% of the two party preferred vote?
Ironically (and sadly) it's the same situation we're in now.

Correct.

Hopefully this carbon tax does to the greens what the GST did to the democrats.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

To put it simply;
Company A get slugged with carbon tax, then pass every cent on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Company B spend a bit of time and money to implement a less polluting way to produce the same product, aren't taxed, and offer it to the market cheaper than company A. Consumers automatically buy from company B, forcing company A to change their practices = less pollution.

It really is a very simple concept to understand; the theory of carbon tax
anyone?

What about company C? They decide to move their production offshore, therefore avoiding the carbon tax and not having to spend any time or money trying to reduce emissions. Company A and B close their doors at the loss of x number of jobs. Company C actually adds to the worlds pollution woes as we now have increased shipping burning tonnes of oil. So how does the tax work again?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Scott

We voted on a GST and we got it. This time, we voted on NO CARBON TAX and we got it.

You say same, I say not.

So how many people here voted Labor, I assume from the above you did Scott? and if you did are you upset about the "carbon tax lie"

It would appear to me the people screaming most about deceiving the people with the 'no carbon tax in a ...." are the ones didnt even vote for labor in the first place, how exactly have they been deceived?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Going by most of the posts on this thread, I can only conclude that some people are against the carbon tax because they dont understand the theory behind it.

The main point to understand would be that the actual funds raised by a carbon tax isn't what brings a reduction in emissions or helps the environment. So raising existing taxes to fight climate change would have zero effect. Forget raising the GST or income taxes - how exactly would that make you pollute less?

The tax sends a price signal - harnesses the market to achieve an outcome. I'm sure everyone has heard those catchphrases more than a few times over the last few weeks.

To put it simply;

Company A get slugged with carbon tax, then pass every cent on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Company B spend a bit of time and money to implement a less polluting way to produce the same product, aren't taxed, and offer it to the market cheaper than company A. Consumers automatically buy from company B, forcing company A to change their practices = less pollution.

It really is a very simple concept to understand; the theory of carbon tax I mean.

As for the one we're getting, I haven't had time to research the finer details, so unlike most, I wont comment on it specifically.

A point to consider though - the GST wasn't popular at the start and resulted in the Howard governments approval rating to dip to the low 30's

déjà vu anyone?

No ... there is no deja vu ..... Why?

1. There was a lie before the election

Company B? Is this the fairies that dance at the bottom of my garden?



There are way way to many questions with no definitive answers .......

EVERYTHING will increase ... To what extent? No one knows.

There will be profiteering. To what exetent? No one knows.

How many jobs will be created, maintained or lost? No one knows.

How much visual pollution is wind farming going to produce? No one knows.

Carbon Dioxide produced 'unnaturally' is actually a real problem here? Only those that think they know know but who knows really.

Who is these 500 companies that are going to pay? I dont think they really do know.

Who is running the country? I know.

When are we going to close the coal mines down and stop exporting? I know we wont.

What is the true cost to the manufacturing sector here? No one knows

Is there going to be any manufacturing left? No one knows.

What is the air quality be like in Melbourne or Sydney on 20 years time because of this tax? No one knows.

What is going to be my electricity bill be in 3 years time? No one knows.

How is it going to effect me and my family in 10 years time? No one knows.

How is not the air we breath out labeled as pollution? I dont know.

How much pain are we about to bear against the pain of having a status quo? No one knows.

In the world environment, what difference are we going to make? No one knows.

'They' pay a tax .... 'They' pass it on to me ..... 'They' don't care. Magically ..... No polluting carbon? How? I don't know

The air will be better ..... really? To what extent? No one knows.

Why is Carbon dioxide such a dirty word? It is very natural and is a necessity ..... both natural and unnatural. I don't know why.

What is going to replace these 'dirty' coal power stations that will guarantee a continuity of power? Solar? Gas? Wind? How clean is gas? I don't know?

Climate will be controlled ...... well holy cow they are a damn clever bunch!

........... can think of another 20 BASIC questions but unfortunatly they are a bit political but I hope you understand that it is NOT

It really is a very simple concept to understand; the theory of carbon tax I mean.

FAR FAR FAR from it and to say it is ...... some one as been sucked in well and truely .... especially for someone who states ....

As for the one we're getting, I haven't had time to research the finer details, so unlike most, I wont comment on it specifically.

If someone can change the "I don't knows" to a definitive "I KNOW!" ... then I will decide if its going to be good for me, my business, my family, my future etc .....



We aren't talking about bananas here ..... we can do without these when the price sky rockets. We are talking about the necessities of life in the 21 century and bugger me if I am moving into a grass hut and walking to work.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Why is Carbon dioxide such a dirty word? It is very natural and is a necessity ..... both natural and unnatural. I don't know why.

This explains why excess co2 isnt a good thing, if you want more detail, (like which wavelengths of Ir cause resonance in the co2 molecule), there is info on that out there too.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So how many people here voted Labor?

37.99% of voters voted Labor.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Scott

Why would it??? The comments are about reducing the incredibly complex web of taxes, duties, levies and fines we pay. So complex as to completely catch-out and entrap everybody over and again, every which way it can and being so complicated that no-one can have a grip on all of it.

Fair point. Perhaps my post wasn't directed at you.

Originally Posted by Scott

Nope. We agreed on it and voted him/them in to implement it. The current Govt was overwhelmingly rejected at the last election and sold us all out to further their own game. They were not wanted or elected then and they are not wanted and won't be elected again.

Again, fair point and a vaild distinction. I was more referring to the fact that GST wasn't popular for a while, but now its just business as usual. I suspect it will be the same with the Carbon tax, despite its implementation against all promises.

As for the current government being overwhelmingly rejected, thats obviously not entirely true. I could have said the same about the opposition had they managed to snare power. Although I agree with you on their future prospects.

Originally Posted by SB076

What about company C? They decide to move their production offshore, therefore avoiding the carbon tax and not having to spend any time or money trying to reduce emissions. Company A and B close their doors at the loss of x number of jobs. Company C actually adds to the worlds pollution woes as we now have increased shipping burning tonnes of oil. So how does the tax work again?

Well they'd get hit with the carbon tax on the freight over here wouldn't they? Foreign shipping company... probably not, I dont know. This is definitely an achilles' heel in our setup; the possible flight of industry overseas. Australian companies need to distinguish and promote the benefits of Australian made. Consumers need to buy with a social conscience. (Pie in the sky, I know)

Anyway, I dont wish to discuss the carbon tax here as its a fruitless exercise - everyone has made up their mind. I just made my previous post because I'm certain some on here are clueless to the theory behind how a carbon tax might be effective.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Scott

37.99% of voters voted Labor.

I was asking to see if there were any people on this forum (in this thread perhaps)that actually voted labor and who were also peed off about the carbon tax lie thingo.

Im now guessing you voted Liberal but are making a noise about how you were lied to by the person you didnt end up voting for anyway?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I was asking to see if there were any people on this forum (in this thread perhaps)that actually voted labor and who were also peed off about the carbon tax lie thingo.

Im now guessing you voted Liberal but are making a noise about how you were lied to by the person you didnt end up voting for anyway?

Doesn't matter one iota ....... she is PM ....... and lets be careful with the political side of things as hard as it is with a topic like this.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

No ... there is no deja vu ..... Why?

1. There was a lie before the election

Company B? Is this the fairies that dance at the bottom of my garden? .

Are you serious? You really think businesses wont undercut their opposition if they are able to and still make a profit? It already happens all the time!! Holden do it to the point of not making a profit!

Originally Posted by Auslandau

There are way way to many questions with no definitive answers .......



........... can think of another 20 BASIC questions but unfortunatly they are a bit political but I hope you understand that it is NOT

FAR FAR FAR from it and to say it is ...... some one as been sucked in well and truely .... especially for someone who states ....

If someone can change the "I don't knows" to a definitive "I KNOW!" ... then I will decide if its going to be good for me, my business, my family, my future etc .....



We aren't talking about bananas here ..... we can do without these when the price sky rockets. We are talking about the necessities of life in the 21 century and bugger me if I am moving into a grass hut and walking to work.

Thanks for listing all of your concerns, but they are completely irrelevant to anything I've posted.

As I've said a couple of times, I was commenting on the theory behind a climate tax, not the climate tax Australia is about to recieve.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I was asking to see if there were any people on this forum (in this thread perhaps)that actually voted labor and who were also peed off about the carbon tax lie thingo.

Thingo?

Get with the program. Every poll under sun is suggesting 60-90% of respondents want an election NOW on this issue. It's not us you need to convince sudzy, it's the whole damned country.

Thank The Lord that people are starting to speak their mind on this issue, it's been getting very scary for a long time now.

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, your selective data and selective quotes denotes your true allegiances.......

There are quite a few of those in this thread, and not from sudszy.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Are you serious? You really think businesses wont undercut their opposition if they are able to and still make a profit? It already happens all the time!! Holden do it to the point of not making a profit!





Thanks for listing all of your concerns, but they are completely irrelevant to anything I've posted.

As I've said a couple of times, I was commenting on the theory behind a climate tax, not the climate tax Australia is about to recieve.

..........but that was my point? Yes a long and laboured one but must admit the questions were very easy to type.

The point being ....... a tax based on theory ..... what the hell is the point! NO ONE knows what the outcome will be ...... and that is just a little bit scary. Communism is very very good in theory.

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

1. There was a lie before the election

There are many lies before every election. Tony Abbott has made plenty (think back to when he was Health Minister), and I'm still surprised they aren't being raised.

Julia Gillard did say there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads, but things change when you form a minority government. She would have had to make some sacrifices in order to form government, just as Tony Abbott would have had to make if he was successful in forming a minority government.

I love how everyone is bagging out the Labor party over this, when if the Coalition was in power things would be much worse all round right now. Tony Abbott wouldn't have stimulated the economy during the GFC, meaning our now strong economy would have been like those of many other less fortunate countries. He would have brought back a 'Work Choices' style industrial relations system, which would see many out of work during a bad economic situation, and with a much reduced chance of getting another job (which would probably be on much less pay, and with no job security). So you wouldn't have been taxed, but hey, you'd have very little to be taxed on anyway. There would certainly be no moves towards reform of an ailing health system, which is simply straining under an ever ageing population.

These are realities guys, there is always another side to things. I'm not saying I like all the decisions the current government has made. I cringed when the insulation scheme was introduced, but thought it would be good for some people who didn't have any insulation in their house (and couldn't afford to, i.e. pensioners). In the end, it was the shonky installers who were really to blame for that, but some responsibility should fall on the government for not ensuring adequate safeguards were in place. The same sort of thing happened when the LPG rebate was introduced by the Howard government, just not with tragic consequences (that I can recall anyway).

The debate in this thread has been quite one sided, and I'm just trying to introduce some balance. You can be a car enthusiast and support a greener future, and I will be worse off under this carbon tax.

Cheers

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by cosworthfreak

There are many lies before every election. Tony Abbott has made plenty (think back to when he was Health Minister), and I'm still surprised they aren't being raised.

Julia Gillard did say there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads, but things change when you form a minority government. .........


The debate in this thread has been quite one sided, and I'm just trying to introduce some balance. You can be a car enthusiast and support a greener future, and I will be worse off under this carbon tax.

Cheers

A blatant lie against a new tax ...... in the context of this topic and this discussion it is extremely relevant. People can change there minds of course, there ideals, there what evers ...... but on this topic it is a biggy in the scheme of things.

One sided? I look at it as a larger percentage in disagreement. I haven't said I am for or against it really but ..... if you asked anyone if they would like a cleaner environment the answer would be yes. Its how it is implemented that can be the problem. The implementation of this tax seems that it will hurt more than it being a fix to anything and long term it is just guess work ..... except that it is inevitable that the cost of living will increase somewhat. That is the only fact.

As someone said the other day ....
"If you were a climate change believer you should be disgusted in this package ..... and if you are a skeptic, even more so."

[naddis01]

Greg Combet (sp?) said this week that there would be over $600,000,000 going to the UN. Is this 10%? He also said it won't be funded by the Carbon Tax. Really?

Transport fuel excluded, but heavy transport to start paying carbon tax in 2014.

So the way I read that, diesel fuel will be taxed. So I would assume that diesel fuel used in a private vehicle will also be taxed? Has anyone definatively (not guessed) worked out how much it works out to be per litre?

Originally Posted by WMD351

If I remember correctly we got the GST after Howard got 48% of the two party preferred vote?
Ironically (and sadly) it's the same situation we're in now.

The difference being, Howard went to one election (1995?) saying there won't be a GST and there wasn't. He then went to the next election saying there will be and there was. Now we went to an election based on "there will be no Carbon tax under a Government I lead" and now we are getting one.

So yes Howard said there wasn't going to be a GST and we ended up with one however we had the chance to not have one. Big difference in my book.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

As someone said the other day ....
"If you were a climate change believer you should be disgusted in this package ..... and if you are a skeptic, even more so."

Whilst we're trotting out the quotes:

Originally Posted by Tony Abbott on Gillard lying, or rather "changing her mind"

"yeah, look. You can change your mind but when you change your mind on something as big as that you should take it to the next election"

Seems pretty bloody fair to me.

[cosworthfreak]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

A blatant lie against a new tax ...... in the context of this topic and this discussion it is extremely relevant. People can change there minds of course, there ideals, there what evers ...... but on this topic it is a biggy in the scheme of things.

In your opinion. You could not definitively say that Julia Gillard had every intention of introducing the tax when she made that statement. That's what it would need to be for her to lie. It may have been a mistake for her to make that statement, but I don't believe she lied. It appears to me that the opinions expressed in this topic are more based on hatred and emotion than on common sense, and this may well be a result of the uncertainty of how the carbon tax will affect people. It's certainly not helped by the misinformation and scare campaign being waged by the opposition.

One sided? I look at it as a larger percentage in disagreement. I haven't said I am for or against it really but ..... if you asked anyone if they would like a cleaner environment the answer would be yes. Its how it is implemented that can be the problem. The implementation of this tax seems that it will hurt more than it being a fix to anything and long term it is just guess work ..... except that it is inevitable that the cost of living will increase somewhat. That is the only fact.

It has been very one sided, and I suspect many who don't agree with the views expressed in the first few pages of this thread (especially) would be reluctant to get involved for fear of personal attack on an alternative view, something that started to occur once some alternative views were expressed. I see that you responded sarcastically (and inappropriately for a moderator) to a previous comment, so I don't know how you haven't expressed a view either way.

The devil is in the detail, and you're correct in that how this is implemented could be a problem. It is inevitable that the cost of living will increase, but the only real fact is that this will happen regardless of a carbon tax. From what I've seen of the details of the new tax, the cost of living will not increase for alot of people, although this is being actively misreported by some sections of the media.

As someone said the other day ....
"If you were a climate change believer you should be disgusted in this package ..... and if you are a skeptic, even more so."

Sounds like something Tony Abbott has said, and I take everything he says with a bag of salt (not just a grain).

[Sam_Boss260]

Or take it to a referendum

[cosworthfreak]

Just in case you were wondering which post I was referring to:

http://fordforums.com.au/showpost.ph...6&postcount=87

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by naddis01

So the way I read that, diesel fuel will be taxed. So I would assume that diesel fuel used in a private vehicle will also be taxed? Has anyone definatively (not guessed) worked out how much it works out to be per litre?

the same as everything else $23/tonne, which will see it at about 7 cents/litre for diesel, this has been the figure mentioned by government, though I dont see it in the policies.