Thread: The carbon tax is wonderful

The rage against everything seems like a lot of fuel and time off to go and complain about the result of the last election. Must be the off season in long haul trucking demand.... Do you think it will all be claimed as operating expenses in their P&L's? I wonder if the Tax Dept is watching?

As for the Camel Tax, there was no other way the thing could be done as it is a negotiated solution between ideologically differing parties. It does resemble the GST in a number of respects most specifically the exclusions. What is most noticeable is the money thrown at opposing the tax that doesnt exist and probably wont get up anyway.

I know it's not the same but there are similarities between it and the screaming about speed cameras. Don't speed, don't get fined.
Cheers,
Jim

I've had at least 3 speeding tickets over the years where I know I wasn't speeding, and a few more where I was pretty darn sure I wasn't.

Having said that it is a greatly larger issue.

The traffic act was passed to protect road users from harm and property damage. Misdirecting that to raise revenue harms safety. Look at the data, carefully. There is no instance in the developed world where anti speeding campains brought a reduction in the road toll. Queensland is a particularly clear example. The state toll fell steadily until 98 when Beatie, looking for more revenue, brought in speed cameras and sent out the police "thou shalt book". The decline halted abruptly, the toll rose slightly and plateued for 12 years. While crashes due to speeding remained static crashes due to inattention rose.

Forgetting for a moment that I don't embrace the AGW religeon:

The proposed legislation forces companies who emit sugnifigant carbon dioxide to buy permits or reduce emmissions.

The australian scheme is set to charge $24/tonn. This isn't enough to even switch to gas let alone anything else, apart from perhapse nucleur.

Overseas permits are currently selling for much less and show no sign of rising. In fact they have been falling steadily for years. The Chicago exchange has shut down through lack of volume and a closing price of almost no $.

So in a couple of years after it's introduction the emmitters will simply buy all their permits overseas. There will be no revenue for the government to fund research, development or consumer compensation.

There will be no reduction in emmissions.

Some companies even at these low levels will shut shop in Australia and move steel making and other non geographically dependant activities overseas. Jobs will be lost.

People poorer than me will struggle to pay their bills, which will be higher than they otherwise would be. Yes electricity will go up to fund infrastrcuture costs, but it'll go up more with this impost.

It will add a cost to all businesses and will make us less productive and less competitive.

It probably won't break us, but it will impose a drag on our economy and a cost to consumers for NO gain.

It won't reduce pollution. It won't reduce global emmissions of anything, in fact it'll probably increase them since our industries are amongst the best and often the best at clean coal burning in both steel and power generation.

We have introduced effective stategies over the years to reduce pollution. These have been shown to work and never attracted the protest this has. The reason is simple, people know when they are being conned.

The problem the labour government have is that it's not the tax, it's the lie. It's blatant, really simple. JG didn't have to horse trade, she could have gone into opposition. The simple fact is they have shown they will do ANYTHING, sacrifice any principle, to stay in power. Furthermore they have made a hash of everything they have touched these last 4 years. Committee after report after review and when they finally act they make a hash of it. I cannot think of one thing labour has done right since kevin 07.

The only reason the coalition didn't win in a landslide was Tony Abbott leading the coalition. MT will never get back. Labour voters love him, everyone else wants him gone. I wouldn't be surprised if he is disendorsed at the next election.

The only reason Labour got to a hung parliment was JG's promise 4 days out. She "won" on that basis and has reniged on a blatant unambigious promise.

I agree Howard didn't win on the back of the GST, obviously, but dislike him as much as I do he at least had the credibility to be honest about it PRIOR to an election. It was the democrats who backstabbed the electorate then, and see what happened to them.

The opposition right now are agitating for an early election. That's their job. If they succeed the greens will lose half the contested senate seats and their lower house seat. Labour will be decimated although I doubt it'll be the 29 seats the polls indicate. If the parliment goes full term labours loss is still certain but will probably be less of a route.

I had traditionally voted independant and minor parties. I now vote coalition just because labour make so much trouble.

A member of this forum, who I shall not name, said to me the other day that he thought young people voted labour because they had never suffered under a labour government. Once they experienced one they woke up and switched. I thought at the time those were extremely wise words. The more I think about it the more I think he was bang on.

Originally Posted by jimbur

I know it's not the same but there are similarities between it and the screaming about speed cameras. Don't speed, don't get fined.
Cheers,
Jim

And apples are the same as oranges? They are both fruit and they both grow on trees, don't they.

I have a choice on whether I speed or not, where is my choice on a carbon tax?

Sorry, can't see any similarities.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

And apples are the same as oranges? They are both fruit and they both grow on trees, don't they.

I have a choice on whether I speed or not, where is my choice on a carbon tax?

Sorry, can't see any similarities.

I was looking at the long picture Fred. If it works, and I'm not holding my breath either because every tax or impost creates a market for fiddling, industries that pollute will pay subject to a whole load of horse-trading and those who don't pollute won't.
The problem from a government point of view is that once you embrace free trade you have no tools left to control anything other than by imposing local taxation. No import duty on goods manufactured by world's worst practice overseas whether it be using slave labour or massive pollution etc. Important though we are (to us) we are a small player at the beck and call of every country or business that wants to use us for a gamble on currency or to dump cheap goods that result from overproduction in their own countries.
An example of the stupidity we are fed is the cost of living index. It went up partly because of the increase in banana price. As if people didn't move to cheaper oranges and apples
Cheers,
Jim

I suppose I should think about selling my 357 small block. But then I dont believe, nah I'll keep it

The opposition right now are agitating for an early election. That's their job. If they succeed the greens will lose half the contested senate seats and their lower house seat. Labour will be decimated although I doubt it'll be the 29 seats the polls indicate. If the parliment goes full term labours loss is still certain but will probably be less of a rout.

..and this is a view held by a few labour heavy weights such as Graham Richardson. He suspects that they may go full term and sees a rout even then. But thinks that Windsor will jump ship and he doubts if Labour will last beyond next July,not my words his. I caught him on the radio driving to work the other day. Either way..... it does not bode well for them.

Originally Posted by damian

I've had at least 3 speeding tickets over the years where I know I wasn't speeding, and a few more where I was pretty darn sure I wasn't.

Six tickets? You really should get that speedo checked.

Originally Posted by damian

The only reason the coalition didn't win in a landslide was Tony Abbott leading the coalition. MT will never get back.

Until UteGate, Malcolm Turnbull looked like the only one to have a clue.

The original post on this thread referred to "On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications" by Lindzen and Choi. The scientists, and they are scientists, released a report in 2009 that was heavily criticized, they went back, reviewed their findings, corrected, re-evaluated then released this one. Their findings weren't that AGW is false, but that the Climate Sensitivity Models used by the IPCC overstate the impact of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrialisation levels.

Their worst case scenario being a Global Temperature increase of 1.3 degrees C. This figure is unlikely to trigger the positive feedbacks required to facilitate many of the worst case scenarios presented previously in the Climate Change debate. I don't know enough about it to validate their findings, and the report will be subject to peer review and the scientific process, it's being hailed on the Websites that "deny" AGW as a smoking gun to prove a political global conspiracy, a "religion" in it's own right, but assuming they're correct and that their findings are accepted it removes the "immediate action" previously imposed by the likes of James Hansen et al.

OK great news! Unlikely to stop the momentum that Climate Change has gained, not a reason to halt any shift towards sustainable renewable energy
(which would take 50 years if we actually got serious about it today)
I agree with the Carbon Tax, which is completely at odds with what I've just written, but the concept of a payment to the environment for services rendered, Truth is though if we were to actually make that payment, in monetary terms it's likely to be in the vicinity of 3 times the Global Domestic Product.

Originally Posted by jimbur

An example of the stupidity we are fed is the cost of living index. It went up partly because of the increase in banana price. As if people didn't move to cheaper oranges and apples

That's not stupidity, that's how you do it.

To calculate something over time you need to use the same calculation year to year otherwise what's the point?

Oh right, 2011 was the year they took out bananas and put the iPad v1 in. Yeah it should have been the iPad2 but I think they did that next year, ok? Or did they put bananas back?

The 'basket' they use does change occasionally, but banana prices will be a single year blip, like it was last time.

Originally Posted by Dropcat

Six tickets? You really should get that speedo checked.

Over the last 25 years. None incidentally were speed cameras. The tickets I dispute were guns or "observations".

I actually drive really slowly. Passengers often comment on how close I stick to the limit, but I am incredibly unlucky with speeding tickets. Some I've had were legitimate, but some seriously weren't. My hatred of the speed camera is a bit absurd because I get done by them much LESS than police. Only one achievment award in all these years. Maybe they have less "bias".

Pity there are still systems in place to ensure police, on or off duty, can wiggle out of a happy snap.

Originally Posted by ColW

The scientists, and they are scientists, released a report in 2009 that was heavily criticized, they went back, reviewed their findings, corrected, re-evaluated then released this one.

I wonder what the odds are that this paper is crap as well?

They do show their bias, "CO2 has increased and it might have been us..." Y'reckon?

Originally Posted by damian

Over the last 25 years. None incidentally were speed cameras. The tickets I dispute were guns or "observations".

I've had none in the last 25 years. Interesting.

nor has my partner, but she routinely drives 20 over.

CO2 has been much much higer than it is right now, long before humans let alone the industrial revolution, but then that's heracy isn't it, questioning the church....

Always makes me laugh that science can't be questioned if it supports your view, but if a scientist puts forward a contrary view they are either corrupt, insane or incompetant. The AGW faithful tell us peer reviewed papers are gospel until you show them a peer reviewed paper like this one that contradicts the faith.

The truth of course is that scientists are corrupt, insane and incompetant and the peer review process is hopelessly compromised often, but getting past the politics and the personality, the religeon and prejudice if the science is sound you can access the data and methodology and verify it for yourself. Just remember if you do you might learn something you don't want to know.

ColW, that was a good rational comment.

Originally Posted by damian

A member of this forum, who I shall not name, said to me the other day that he thought young people voted labour because they had never suffered under a labour government. Once they experienced one they woke up and switched. I thought at the time those were extremely wise words. The more I think about it the more I think he was bang on.

You gotta love this type of "wisdom". If it was in any way true, we would only have ever had a labour government once.