Julia's Reign

[Scotty]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-a-climate-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226011792834

Later, Ms Gillard branded suggestions she'd broken an election commitment as “semantics” and “word games”.

“I'm not going to get hung up on word games about how you describe various pricing mechanisms,” she told reporters.

“And I've been very upfront with people with a fixed price. It's effectively like a tax taking you to an emissions trading scheme.”

The hypocrisy is astounding. She is the one refusing to call it a tax, yet every one is playing 'word games'.

Oh, and apparently she has been 'very upfront with people'. Goodness me, hate to see her if she wasn't being 'up front'.

 

[Ruggo]

The problem here is this coalition is completely dumb to the idea of negotiation and just thrive on opposition for the sake of opposition. Under Turnbull they did not like the Rudd model and were smart enough to negotiate a better one. Abbott and co are just not capable of it it seems. Carbon has to be reduced and if the Coalition is concerned about the effects of radical perspective from the Greens, approach the negotiating table and fight for ammendments, thus taking the Greens out of the equation. That would take moral will rather than political will of course.

This whole bagging of "Julia's reign" is nothing more than a smokescreen for how incompetant the Coalition has become.

On a side note, did anyone hear Julia Gillard's interview with Alan Jones? It was great to see sombody put that arrogant bastard in his place.

 

[Scotty]

Ruggo,

So lets get this straight. It is the Coalitions fault that this government is incompetent, and that they clearly are only playing the political game, rather than doing what is right for the country? Does that make any sense to you?

The government has had the following backflips:

- ETS
- Mining Tax
- Carbon Tax
- Reforms to the health system (to an extent)
- Internet censorship (to an extent)

Each of these flips are due to politics. Changing their minds (or lying in the first place) because their decisions are 'unpopular'.

And they have failed to deliver with any success the following:

- BER program
- cash for clunkers
- Insulation rebate

Not to mention that they are pushing 40 billion into an infrastructure that the majority of Australians don't want, which looks now like it could blow out further.

By almost all criteria, it would be a very easy argument to say that this Labor government has been the worst in the last 20 years of Australian politics. I fail to see how that could possibly be the opposition's fault!

 

[Scotty]

But new figures released by the Department of Climate Change yesterday showed Australia's biggest energy companies would be put out of business if they had to pay the world price for carbon emissions under a carbon tax without compensation.

The giant NSW power company Macquarie Generation, Australia's biggest emitter, would face a bill of $613 million if it had to pay the $26 a tonne the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme was based on. The tax bill would be more than three times the company's latest profit of $196m, while the second ranked Delta Electricity would face a bill of $538m or almost 10 times its last full-year profit.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-turns-to-petrol/story-e6frg6xf-1226012289558

 

[Cutter]

Scotty I thought I'd warned you about Uncle Rupert? He can't be trusted.

I'm no fan of Gillard. Its clear this is a backflip. She's not being straight about what she said etc... That is all irrelevant. She's doing something that needs to be done. If Tony Abbott was doing it I'd support him doing it. I suspect you would too.

We need to do something about climate change. So does the rest of the world, but their delay shouldn't be an excuse for our delay. We are one of the highest (second highest behind the US?) contributors per capita. We won't change our behaviour unless forced to. Increased prices might make us change our long term behaviour. I hope it does. We're also one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We can afford to pay a bit more if there is a long term gain.

Interestingly, I heard Rory Tapner, the CEO of RBS Wealth, speak recently about China. He said they are investing enormous money into renewable energy and that they want to lead the world. Yes, they're also building coal stations daily, but they are putting huge resources into renewable energy. The work we put into this now may be hugely profitable in time.

 

[Scotty]

Cutter,

I don't believe that it is in anyway irrelevant when politicians so blatantly lie. She clearly just said that before the election because she was worried about not winning if she supported a carbon tax. If it was a one off, then fine, but this government has had more backflips than a world champ diver. It seems to be so inherent in their make up to simply just role over when the going gets tough, that I for one have lost all confidence that they can actually deliver on anything the promise. You are bringing this down to the one issue of climate change, and seem to believe that it doesn't matter how it gets done, or how much it costs as long as something happens (5% emissions reduction is going to cost how much)!

There is no doubt in my mind that this government has wasted tax payer funds like no other since Whitlam. If you added up all the wastages and stalled programs (BER, insulation, ETC, mining tax, internet censorship, 2020 conference) and stuck that money into some direct investment into renewable energy tech, low energy tech, or just simply planting trees, then it is clear we would have already made a step in the right direction of reducing emissions.

Do you really believe that this government can deliver any major program without actually taxing the crap out of the Australian taxpayer (or companies)? The additional taxing will damage our economy and ultimately lead to a poorer result regarding things such as climate change action (not to mention upgrading losing many other efficiencies while we are at it).

I think that maybe they have pulled the wool over your eyes. A market based system, with a cap on emissions is surely the only concrete way of achieving a set reduction. This carbon tax is merely an appeasement of the far left party of the Greens to ensure they retain their support (in keeping a stable government and passing other things through the senate). And if you think having a socialist-esque party in control of our country, then you and I are never going to agree on any politics.

 

[Scotty]

Scotty I thought I'd warned you about Uncle Rupert? He can't be trusted.

PS I hope you don't go to the ABC for your news. They have clearly skewed onto the left course. It is ok for a private company to choose sides of polititcs, but is not ok for a public, taxpayer funded one to do so.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Per capita emissions is pretty meangingless in reality. It's the absolute amount that counts in the grand scheme of things. If AGW is real, we wouldn't be getting a per capita rise in temperatures, it would be an absolute amount, like the rest of the world. This is why the rest of the world needs to step up as well. If they don't, then what would be the point of us doing it?

 

[Scotty]

I will stretch it another way. I think one of the first things that both sides of parliament need to do is change the laws and tax system in regards to housing investment. We need to restrict the continuing price growth in housing by making it less attractive to invest in housing (from a long term rented out perspective) and better to invest in developing housing. This will ultimately reduce or limit the prices of housing in relation to income.

The lower the cost of your own home, the higher your disposable income, and the more likelihood of you investing in businesses which will in turn generate more money from more taxes, and have more scope to pay for green type schemes.

 

[Scotty]

As a bit of a fluke, it seems my views are shared by those higher up and more experienced. I like all of these recommendations. These are the areas our government should be focusing on first and foremost.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-homes-and-control-mine-boom-ceos-urge-20110225-1b8kh.html

 

[Cutter]

Yes, what a coincidence.

Brown Hornet - ask the Chinese if they think per capita emissions are meaningless.

The lower the cost of your own home, the higher your disposable income, and the more likelihood of you investing in businesses which will in turn generate more money from more taxes, and have more scope to pay for green type schemes.

Disposable income is not linked to tax paid. Gross income is. The rest of that paragraph doesn't necessarily follow either.

I'm not saying Gillard is wonderful. I'm saying I support that policy and I'd support it no matter who proposed it. Whether it becomes too watered down to have a value remains to be seen. However, taking action on climate change is a policy that will always garner my support.

 

[chief]

PS I hope you don't go to the ABC for your news. They have clearly skewed onto the left course. It is ok for a private company to choose sides of polititcs, but is not ok for a public, taxpayer funded one to do so.

I watch ABC News every night for the reason that I simply don't want to know the News personalities I want to know the News. The ABC isn't really left, it's more common sense IMO. Shows all over the ABC yesterday grilled Gillard for what she said in the election.

Climate Change is real, and something productive needs to be done. Negotiation in Cancun was in December, and the science was accepted and a price on carbon was the best mechanism. Irrespective that Gillard lied, she can lie to me all day and all night about Climate Change, I want to see action. Half the Coalition thinks this carbon price is a good idea, as the Coalition's plan was paying the big polluters to stop polluting and they would achieve token cuts, nothing big at all. I wonder if we'll see any Liberals like Turnbull cross the floor. Could be interesting.

 

[Ash]

Despite the small error in terminology for disposable income I agree with the housing part. I think there is several problems to be overcome:
- cheap credit an lending to the Henderson(?) poverty line
- negative gearing
- inflexible supply

As you said, with people paying nearly all their wages to the bank the broader economy suffers.

I will stretch it another way. I think one of the first things that both sides of parliament need to do is change the laws and tax system in regards to housing investment. We need to restrict the continuing price growth in housing by making it less attractive to invest in housing (from a long term rented out perspective) and better to invest in developing housing. This will ultimately reduce or limit the prices of housing in relation to income.

The lower the cost of your own home, the higher your disposable income, and the more likelihood of you investing in businesses which will in turn generate more money from more taxes, and have more scope to pay for green type schemes.

 

[Scotty]

Yes, what a coincidence.

Brown Hornet - ask the Chinese if they think per capita emissions are meaningless.



Disposable income is not linked to tax paid. Gross income is. The rest of that paragraph doesn't necessarily follow either.

I thought you'd like a fairfax link for a change?

As far as addressing your other comment
Less income going to mortgages = more going to other investments = more going to investments such as businesses that make money = more business making money = more tax. What doesn't follow?

or you have the other option:

Less income going to mortgages = more spending on consumer products = more products being sold = more tax.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yes, what a coincidence.

Brown Hornet - ask the Chinese if they think per capita emissions are meaningless.

They are in the top two biggest emitters of CO2 in the world. In absolute terms. So wouldn't they be the ones to get started with this? If they and the US get cracking, then I'd be happy for us to do the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

China emits 22.30% of the worlds CO2, we emit 1.28%. Tell me again why we should go first. We could stop emitting any CO2 at all and it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

I'll support and vote for a carbon tax regime if we can get the Greens and ALP to agree to allow nuclear power and hydro where it's practical and for whichever government is in power at the time to remake the tax system to accomodate it. As I've said before, continual levying of new taxes hurts our economy, no matter how good the intentions are.

 

[Aussie D]

Does anyone else see this as a cynical attempt by Labour to ensure that they are in Surplus in 2013 as promised? The tax kicks in in July 2012 which would enable them to meet their self-imposed deadline.

 

[Cutter]

I thought you'd like a fairfax link for a change?

As far as addressing your other comment
Less income going to mortgages = more going to other investments = more going to investments such as businesses that make money = more business making money = more tax. What doesn't follow?

or you have the other option:

Less income going to mortgages = more spending on consumer products = more products being sold = more tax.

My objection was that it's too simplistic. A counter argument is that less spent on mortgages means less bank profit therefore less tax. Or, as a mortgage is considered an investment, perhaps just more saved and then spent on overseas holidays. Its difficult to say what irrational (because that's what we are) people will do with their disposable income. I think the latest statistics show we're paying off debt and saving it. That changes depending on the cycle of the economy and our fickle confidence.

 

[Cutter]

They are in the top two biggest emitters of CO2 in the world. In absolute terms. So wouldn't they be the ones to get started with this? If they and the US get cracking, then I'd be happy for us to do the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

China emits 22.30% of the worlds CO2, we emit 1.28%. Tell me again why we should go first. We could stop emitting any CO2 at all and it wouldn't make the slightest difference.

I'll support and vote for a carbon tax regime if we can get the Greens and ALP to agree to allow nuclear power and hydro where it's practical and for whichever government is in power at the time to remake the tax system to accomodate it. As I've said before, continual levying of new taxes hurts our economy, no matter how good the intentions are.

That's right, but the Chinese (and other developing countries), who are now a world super power, have said that unless the countries with high per capita emissions take serious steps to reduce their total emissions and emissions per capita, why would they, who have much lower per capita emissions, take steps to change. I can understand that argument. They are, instead, reducing their emissions by reference to their GDP. So, their emissions will continue to grow as they industrialise. If you disagree they are entitled to industrialise then we'll never get anywhere. To date our efforts to either reduce our per capita or total emissions have been fairly impotent (and completely half hearted).

Nuclear power couldn't come on board in Australia for 20 years by which time its too late. And, there is still no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste. The problem with hydro is that, in the south the rivers havent received consistent rain. In the north there are wet and dry seasons so, while its consistent, its not constant. If there is a price on carbon, the other renewables are a better option.

 

[Cutter]

Despite the small error in terminology for disposable income I agree with the housing part. I think there is several problems to be overcome:
- cheap credit an lending to the Henderson(?) poverty line
- negative gearing
- inflexible supply

As you said, with people paying nearly all their wages to the bank the broader economy suffers.

As I understand it, what you're talking about is reducing the value, in relative terms, of our housing. Those structural changes are beyond the courage of any politician. It will require an external shock for that to take place. We missed the last one that hit the US, Britain and Europe. Although completely unpalatable in the short term, it would possibly be in our interests in the long term. I recognise that but wouldn't welcome that sort of shock to our economy (and haven't prepared for it financially).

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

I will stretch it another way. I think one of the first things that both sides of parliament need to do is change the laws and tax system in regards to housing investment. We need to restrict the continuing price growth in housing by making it less attractive to invest in housing (from a long term rented out perspective) and better to invest in developing housing. This will ultimately reduce or limit the prices of housing in relation to income.

The lower the cost of your own home, the higher your disposable income, and the more likelihood of you investing in businesses which will in turn generate more money from more taxes, and have more scope to pay for green type schemes.

We all know exactly how to do this, and I can only hope that one day someone grows the balls to take it to Parliament, but heaven help the politician who opens their mouth and utters the dread words - "Capital Gains tax extended to primary residences". It'd be like walking into a press conference and setting yourself on fire.

Incidentally. I've assisted with two independent studies of ABC language in reporting, and read most of the literature produced in the last decade and a half, and there is simply no evidence to support the accusation of bias in the ABC. One of the statistics gurus I briefly worked with at USyd used to describe ABC bias as Gerard Henderson's personal Tasmanian Tiger. I am usually a subscriber to old idiom "where there's smoke, there's fire", but in this case I'll adjust it slightly; 'Where there's smoke, there's a dry ice machine with "property of John Howard" scrawled near the on/off switch'.