Thread: Carbon Tax. Well someone had to bring it up!

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Climate Scientists agreement has converged now on this not being a part of the normal change between ice age and water world. I doubt that there is any single group who are more sceptical than researchers, and they gain credibility by trying to disprove their own findings (rigour) and then release it to others to do the same. The concensus now apart from a few sponsored scientists is that this climate change is man created.

What consensus are you refering?

Originally Posted by Slunnie

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.

Regardin Hockey, read here, "superb" display in econimics
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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Isn't Abbott's plan to give $10b of taxpayers money to the biggest polluters as a bribe to reduce their pollution, with NO compensation for households who will suffer a cost of $720 each for Abbott's plan?
Whereas the government's plan is to put a price on carbon to encourage businesses to move away from 'dirty' to clean industry, with three-quarters of households being over-compensated for the $420 cost.
So, the supposedly socialist government is using free-market pricing to reduce emissions, whereas the supposedly capitalist Opposition is using big taxpayer subsidies with no compensation.
Its no wonder the public are confused.

Hope thats your typo, at the $10 per week the govt says it will cost its a min of $520 per year
I,m not confused I just dont want to pay any more tax to anybody

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Hope thats your typo, at the $10 per week the govt says it will cost its a min of $520 per year
I,m not confused I just dont want to pay any more tax to anybody

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 )


Cheers Ean

Originally Posted by jeebuz

So it in not inconceivable that 60% of economists are a waste of o2.
They are, not always correct and if the ALP system was so fantastic, why is there a debate, why not 85%+ of economists say its better. IMO 60% is not that good. The same schooling, the same companies. So IMO it might as well be no new tax, and a point of origin incentive,

So,
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.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Regardin Hockey, read here, "superb" display in econimics
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

Wayne swan is certainly no better....
[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