Printable View
Actually, in terms of finding money, he did actually say that he would reduce tax for the household. He couldn't answer where the money would come from to fund all of this. Knowing Hockeys competence with producing a budget, they will fund it with an error in their mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
What consensus are you refering?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
Regardin Hockey, read here, "superb" display in econimicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
Joe Hockey’s Embarrassing Budget Bungle Gutter Trash
But Hockey and Abbott have a great man in the team on Greg Hunt, read here
7.30 - ABC
Hope thats your typo, at the $10 per week the govt says it will cost its a min of $520 per year :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
I,m not confused I just dont want to pay any more tax to anybody:D
Totally Agree, in Kerry Packers words you need to minimise your tax because the government is not spending it good enough to give them 1c more than they deserve. ( maybe not word for word but close )Quote:
Originally Posted by THE BOOGER
Cheers Ean
So,Quote:
Originally Posted by jeebuz
let's take away 60% of economists then, 145 economists - 60% leaves us with 58 economists.
hmmm...
My maths isn't that good, but wouldn't there still be about 89% saying Abbotts plan is not economically viable? It would just be 89% of 58 economists...
Oh wait!
I should have just taken away 60% of the economists from the 89%!! I reckon you could apply for Hockeys job with that sort of logic...;)
Oh, and why a debate? if Abbott had his way, it would go straight to an election! Because we all know that if the government makes an unpopular decision, we have to go to the polls... AND, because that way, he could go visit even more mines and scare every one some more with absolute dribble and bully tactics, not promise a thing and, continually point out the flaws whilst providing no solutions.
Wayne swan is certainly no better....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtEyAe1QqCg]‪Wayne Swan trying to answer questions on inflation.‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
I think the level of politics in Australia at the moment is terrible and actually embarrassing.
Oh wait!
I should have just taken away 60% of the economists from the 89%!! I reckon you could apply for Hockeys job with that sort of logic...;)
No politics for me, I don't like canberra, its better than (R)adelaide but still :)
The balance is too close as to the economist point of view if it were 75-25 there is a big difference, but 60-40, not a very big difference at all (IMO)
Again as stated IMO, I agree wholeheartedly with the concept, I cannot see any real change in "big polluters" if the tax is getting funded by compensation.
That is where I agree "more" with the Lib proposal. Both are not "right".
The way I see it, it should be a culture change, GST is just tack on 10% rather than having lots of different tax rates, its 1. (ok fuel, tobacco excise etc is the exception, but generally, 10% done)
A carbon tax that is not returned to the end users (payers, aka the general public) will incite 2 things, 1, A change of how the impacted products are used, (in the case of electricity, people might actually turn it off at the wall. Install better lighting, Architects and planners might actually start using the surrounding environment instead of factory housing, use air conditioning at a responsible level) 2, due to a public outcry on demanding something happen, companies will be forced to clean up their act or suffer. Yes coal pollutes, yes nat gas is better but too far away to enact a change now. Lest it be not thought about enough and a better system comes not long behind it.
A few years ago when i did my rebreather cert, i did heaps of research as to what is used to scrub co2, if hazelwood's exhaust is x cars, the common response at the time was to introduce exhaust filters on cars, every car required a scrubber in the exhaust and the figures were tremendous as to the cost of roll out and infrastructure. (similar to gps speed tracking proposal i read at the same time) simple(r) more cost effective solution, scrub the power plants emissions, shopping centres and large buildings air conditioning. But this seems too hard or ineffective an idea. Gee clean coal, has been a gillard gov't tag line, (from memory even rudd gov't was pushing for it).
Coal is a fact in Australia, same as China, small changes at sources make big effects in the long term. Toyota (camry assembly plant at laverton) changed the rollers in which doors move at the plant, it saves 8c per vehicle due to lack of down time in that section, a by-product of this is it also saves 60% landfill on that consumable and makes the outer side of the rollers last 20x longer than previous.
Do something with the exhaust of coal, and emissions drop considerably, a small cost which could be shared by Universities involved in the process, the power plants, job creation of installation/manufacture and a big ass tax concession of the plant for being so good at cutting pollution. Let alone the CSIRO (most likely) patents on said technology.
There is no money tree, ok. The proposed ALP-Greens tax just seems too much of a feedback loop. If it were the Lib's proposing the ALP tax there would be an outcry that they are just looking after big business and the tax concessions are not enough in reality to cover the extra expense.
Yes I generally vote Lib, but I just do not agree with current proposal.
I can't see it doing anything. A carbon tax should make change, this seems just like the vic gov't's solar rebate, "a hey look we do it mum, see see." type response.
A good reading or explanation is here:
Why economists prefer a market-based response to climate change
A major problem with the Carbon Tax debate is that those who say that carbon Dioxide is the cause global warming crush all dissenting views. For example I do believe in the Bible account of creation as was discussed in an AULRO forum thread ages ago [[I]the point of this post is not to reopen that debate within this thread. [And yes, I have read Professor Plimmer's book attacking creationists, because the Bible tells me to "Prove all things," 1 Thessalonians 5:21].
One vocal opponent of the science behind the teaching of special creation, was the widely published skeptical Geologist Professor Ian Plimmer who rubbished all the science proving special creation is likely. Skeptic Professor Ian Plimmer wanted to totally stop Special Creation being taught, and would have had it's teaching totally banned if he could do so.
However though I do not believe in Karma, if their was such a thing, karma rebounded on Skeptic Professor Ian Plimmer. See Professor Ian Plimmer is also is a climate change skeptic, and just as he wanted all those opposed to evolution censored and not to be published, he now finds he is censored, and cannot get his views published. I do wonder how he likes being in the same position as creation scientists, in not being able to get his scientific views now published, because of censorship against anything that may prove to be the Truth--Governments cannot afford to let people know the Truth, and so must keep them in ignorance.