Less the low to middle income refund means no net rise in power prices for most people. High income power wasters will pay the most. Sounds good to me.
Carbon Price ?
(385 posts) (28 voices)-
swanning_it
MemberHaving a read of Garnauts suggestion, I'm a bit concerned about the fine print (so to speak....)
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cut-household-tax-garnaut-20110317-1bz1y.html#pollLet's see:
- Half the revenue for tax reform
- Quarter the income for export industry compensation
- Quarter the income to low emmissions technology, regional compensation and buying greenhouse offsets.
- Low & middle income tax cuts to $5.75b
- Fuel excise cut offset by luxury car tax reform
- Aluminium and steel producers 90% compensation in first year only
- Rest of exporters 60% in first year onlyMy thoughts are....tax reform was a separate agenda, but this seems to be all wrapped up in one, with tax reform taking the lions share but you may notice he includes social security reform and comments...
"Such an adjustment would increase incentives to participate in the labour force at a time when Australia faces shortages of labour and inflationary pressures."I wonder how social security reform does this without cuts to social security. Also, it has been said previously, a fully employed workforce pegs unemployment at about 4%. Februarys unemployment rate was 5.0% and trending down, which makes me wonder if that comment was "filling".
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0More to that, 5.0% has been suggested as the magical figure where treasury says inflation trends up which in turn pushes interest rates higher.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/jobless-figures-heading-to-full-employment-level-20100610-y0jf.htmlSeems export industries will be sort of looked after in the first year (but only if you happen to be an aluminium or steel producer), then left to rot on the vine forever after, but domestic industry gets absolutely nothing at all. Bugger all is left of this "booty" to go toward renewable energy programmes (certainly not the amount needed for something like ZCA 2020) and I'm guessing the pulling of the export assistance in the 2nd year is to account for the reduction in tax revenue over time.
Unless I'm missing something, I see a failure on the cards because not enough is proposed for implementing alternative energies, meaning carbon intensive industries won't decrease much at all (and the carbon tax will simply be passed through to us, the consumers) and if it is very successfull (unlikely), new taxes will be needed to replace the "missing" carbon tax in years to come to pay the 50% of "tax reform".
As I said before, I see a tax for tax sake. At least the GST was put to the people and negotiated by the Democrats. Will the Greens have the intestinal fortitude to be capable of doing the same, on our behalf?
Posted Thursday 17 Mar 2011 @ 8:59:59 pm from IP # -
The problem with getting information from media outlets is that they are very biased and often conveniently leave out detail that they don't like. They have the most to lose by a tax on waste.
The carbon price which will ultimately end up as an emissions trading scheme was put to voters in 2007 and 2010. The opposition failed to win both elections and the party pushing a carbon tax the most heavily received there highest vote ever and their first ever rep in the lower house of parliament. I think the people have said what they wanted loud and clear. The shock jocks and media are shouting the loudest because empty vessels make the most sound.
The early stages of an ETS will by political necessity try to please everyone. Once other nations schemes start kicking in there will be an evolution that will be fast and furious as the true impact of climate change starts to bite. It's easy to accelerate a moving vehicle than it is to start from scratch. We have to make a start now as we have already wasted the first 11 years of this century.
Fasten your seatbelt is my advice because as one person said recently on climate change, we are heading towards a brick wall at 100kmh with no brakes and people are arguing over which seat they are sitting in.
Posted Thursday 17 Mar 2011 @ 9:54:36 pm from IP # -
Read the post. I said they "often" leave out ...... The Australian has published its desire to remove the Greens from our democracy and only publishes pro-denialist stories, and they are just that stories, no facts. But you choose to focus on that bit of my post.
No matter, I listened to what Garnaut actually said, not a 2nd hand report from discredited anti-climate change media. And I like what he says.
Posted Thursday 17 Mar 2011 @ 11:54:05 pm from IP # -
Why are we arguing? I think we are on the same side. I think we can safely say that the media has a very good history of distorting the truth, hence we must be vigilant.
You asked a lot of good questions and all you have to do now is collate them and send them to the CC committee at this address and you will get an answer from the source. They want to hear from you.
Members of the public and interested parties who wish to provide input on this approach should contact: MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au, or write to:
The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee Secretariat
GPO Box 854
Canberra ACT 2601
AustraliaPosted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 12:30:11 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberHey rockabye......we don't argue, much! I think it was just yesterday we agreed on something
I do note though, there's a big difference between Garnauts proposal and the ANU proposal you linked to the other day. 10 billon dollars a year differance! I wonder who'll be proven right in the fullness of time. I wonder if the current gov't will legislate to prevent increases, like the previous gov't did with the GST. Doesn't look like it as even Garnaut suggests a $400m per annum increase in tax! Let's not forget to, that the States (predominantly Labor states) were supposed to introduce a raft of state tax cuts to offset the GST revenue they receive, but mostly they have failed in that. Just remember, when a new tax is introduced, it's had to ever get rid of! I trust you are 100% confident this tax will work to rid us of all carbon emissions, otherwise we're all going to be paying for it (including the low income and welfare dependant members of our society) and still not have a newable based energy supply.
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 1:29:13 am from IP # -
No one likes taxes but I am confident of only one thing. If we don't start to do something no amount of tax will save us. Most science is now saying our current rate of emissions is tracking the worst case predicted. The longer we dither the harder it's going to be to avert disastrous climate change.
The choice we are faced with are an opposition who denies climate change exists or a government that at least wants to start programs aimed at slowing climate change. Once an incentive to change exists there will likely be a lot of non government activity generated.
As for 100% confidence in the tax 'working' as hoped who knows. This is no different to a necessary life saving medical procedure. No doctor or specialist will give you a 100% guarantee you will live after the treatment but most will give you a 98% guarantee you will die or suffer greatly without it. That is our choice.
I can't guarantee with 100% confidence I'll even be here tomorrow. Every cyclist knows this.
BTW this is what Garnaut says about the media, kind of agrees with what I said earlier.
"Debate about scientific matters that occur in the public domain (such as in newspapers and on blog sites) can come to be divorced from scientific quality, rigour and authority. One blog and one book is as good as another. This is the antithesis of science,"
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 3:06:46 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberSwanning
If the tax dispersement you wrote is true, then I would have to say the "carbon tax" is a still born. It is cancelling out it's positive effects by itself, by re-circulating the funds.
From a $100 input thats:
$50 reshuffling the already excessive deck (What exactly does this entail?)
$25 to allow our emissions to be exported and produced offshore (along with the jobs)
$25 to assist RE, but mostly to reduce fossil emissions (ie low emissions), then help regions for job loses in fossil industry (where are they going to go if there is no substantial RE, aren't they just on the street after retraining??) and then of course the greatest scam of all "green offsets". A tree can't put the fossil emissions deep underground where they came from!Can anybody show me how these "economical" levers produce and environmental effect, if fossils and regions are being compensated by a industry that is meant to die a slow death? I just don't get it, how long can that work for, if at all?
It sounds like a scheme only a politically impotent Labour government could come up with...I am just wondering why the Greens choose to be in bed with them, their conception can be a mutant beast at best.
Rockabye
On Garnauts statement let me add:
A democracy, who's citizens opinions are led by a capitalist media, driven by commercial opportunities (propoganda, shock stories, conspiracies etc etc), that have no intention of providing "factual" unbiased opinions, is a democracy that is not at all capable of making accurate and truthful decisions. You cannot make an accurate decision based on biased mis-information. It's what they don't say that worries me more than what they say.As to the "scientific" quality of information; lately in the UN a council member once proclaimed in defense of man made climate change, that the sun had nothing to do with global warming and had no effect on global weather!!! What the?? The blind leading the blind...still
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 4:22:37 am from IP # -
The UK conservative coalition govt must be impotent as well, they have a very similar plan. In bed with the minority party they vigorously opposed during the election. Sounds familiar. Better an impotent govt than one that has passion fingers.
It's like building a house, the plans are drawn up, first bricks are laid but you can't live in it yet. Some people want instant results or they deem the plan to be a failure. Got a better idea, stand for election. Can't wait for that, write to the committee with your better plan. That's what I do.
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 5:05:01 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberWell, I too rockabye, doubt that we're too different on the destination, just the direction to the destination we're at odds on.
I have said a number of times, that I'm not totally opposed to a carbon tax (or ETS) but there has to be a clear, unambiguous path that is easily auditable with measurable outcomes. As Jeff has said (to which I agree) the whole thing just doesn't add up and Mr Garnaut has not helped at all. I think it's a BIG mistake trying too achieve tax reform within the same scheme, but the biggest issue I see (apart from it imploding in on itself requiring us to bail it out with loss of all those tax gains in the future), is there is no clear path forward, toward a non-fossil energy supply. No matter what everyone says (including Garnaut), legislated time lines for transition from fossil to renewable is possible and in my estimation, preferable to a muddied tax scheme.
To me, there's more hairs on this tax scheme than under an Amazons armpit!
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 5:50:23 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberSwanning
Do you mean Labour's "Amazon" armpit? lol
Completely agree on the destination, but cannot in good conscience condone using the carbon vehicle to get there.I think I preempted the carbon price objective in this thread before Garnaut announced the proposed mechanics of the scheme. It is a new tax. For it to work requires further tax reform. There is no guarantee for that reform, neither that the states will conform. It is a federal tax grab. It's bias is heavily in favor of government lobbyists, not the people. It does not provide clear incentives or direction for the required RE industry, neither adequate and substantial funding. It is about emissions and it's "cost" now, to maintain the status quo, and not about the sustainability and the cost of environmental degradation of our future.
Rockabye
I understand your frustration, but I am sure it is not new for you, nor for me.
The UK has not "lead" much anywhere since the old empire collapsed, and even then they only did so by "capitalistic" force. This "conflict" between morals and greed has been persistent for millenia, you cannot expect it to change overnight, or by government enforced mandate, carbon tax or otherwise.As for running for election, the thought crossed my mind just for an instant, because despite our best intentions, mankind has yet to develop the skills to be able "decide" to do good.
That is why I am concentrating on solutions that enable the people to change themselves, directly and within a community group, without excessive and remote subordination or exploitation. Dreamy objectives I know, but life changing ones nonetheless. BTW would you vote for me? On the basis of possibly having a "better plan", for example to promote RE by exempting it from tax, even for overseas companies, would any of you be interested in discussing how such a plan could function, as to find critical problems with it, that would lead to its failure? Obviously a taxation would need to be implemented after time, so say tax free for 10 years, 10% for 20 years and so on until RE is dominate. I know we are not necessarily "experts" in this field, but I find it very helpful to bounce ideas off others here in the forum, to gain some new perspectives. Rockabye should I start a new thread otherwise? Any input would be appreciated.
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:04:48 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberJeff wrote "It is about emissions and it's "cost" now, to maintain the status quo, and not about the sustainability and the cost of environmental degradation of our future."
TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO.........that Jeff, is probably my greatest fear (suspicion is possibly a better word). I do suspect that this whole tax is a whitewash to appease the Greens and allow Labor to cling to a precarious gov't.
I have long thought the ZCA 2020 plan doesn't have a hope unless the gov't (any credible gov't) is forced into it by either the people (unlikely) or a radical minority (also unlikely....until this last election). We now see a tax to quell the Greens single minded policies, tax compensation to bribe the masses whilst conning them into believing they ARE fixing the environment in the process........and what happens? Absolutely bloody nothing! The miners keep mining uneffected, the Greens, happy with their coup d'etat, retreat to pat each other on the back for the next 5 years thinking they've had a win, the public pay more but recieve more (maybe) and they too are happy to think they're doing their bit to save the planet, renewables never gains a toehold to dare threaten Australias balance of payment by decreasing fossil mining and Julia stays safe in the knowledge they'll be comfortably retired with private office, a superannuation payout you can't jump over and a comfy exec. director position with Fortescue by the time anyones any the wiser!
Hey, did I just break my own rule on discussing conspiracy theories?
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 10:44:43 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberSwanning lol
Hey there is no conspiracy here, only revelation!
It is only a "conspiracy" if it is intentional, my question is merely who's intention it is? I am sure that even good old Julia, or Bob are not even capable of understanding the underlying driving force, that of our combined persistent human greed.Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 12:27:28 pm from IP # -
A lot of what Swanning said above is being felt by many however I still hold the view that any change is better than the status quo because once the process starts new ideas can get a toehold. The Silex 50MW solar plant at Mildura is being built a last for example. The fact that our 'plan' and the UK minority govt one is so similar makes me wonder if there is outside 'pressure' being exerted as well. Maybe it's a carbon copy.:)
The minority govt came about because people had little confidence in the major parties abilities to bring in change so they decided to 'change' the status quo of either one or the other and make them all lift their game. They have already forced change on how parliament behaves and treats the ideas of independents so some other voices are now being heard. About bloody time.
What we need to do is get OUR views heard and letters to the committee that is making the decisions right now are a real opportunity. I have met a number of the players in Canberra personally in years past and I know they are receptive to sensible thinking. That is why ideas expressed here need to be sent through. So they know what interested people want. There has never been a better time to have your 20c worth.
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 7:21:29 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
What do you mean with " ...the Greens single minded policies ..."
If you open this link ( http://greens.org.au/policies ) and scroll down to the bottom you can see all policies. What is single minded?Or do you mean that the overruling spirit of all policies is respect and sustainability? Then I can agree.
Posted Friday 18 Mar 2011 @ 10:02:26 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberI don't know how anybody can support a popularly elected democratic political party....:)
Especially those without the power, leadership or willingness for the necessary change to sustainability. How can promoting something, with the capacity to do nothing, bring about change? That includes the Greens, the Reds, the Blues and the not-so Whites.If the Greens are not "single minded" (ie in agreement with eachother), wouldn't that imply that their policies are fractured, and likewise that they lack leadership? Which one is it then? Everyone wants for themselves, not for another. A piece of paper does not make it so.
Posted Saturday 19 Mar 2011 @ 3:32:25 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberGetting away from party politics and back to the carbon tax, I'm a bit lost as to how the proposed carbon tax is applied to say, plastics. Comes from oil, carbon based so am I correct in assuming they should be taxed?
If so, how? A fair chunk of our plastics are imported, so is it someones role to ascertain how much plastic is in a certain imported (or home grown) item, so the tax can be applied to the carbon content? Are imports going to be taxed at all, or is this yet another hurdle thown in to local manufacturers to jump that their import competition doesn't?
Posted Tuesday 22 Mar 2011 @ 7:44:20 am from IP # -
This is not how it works. The last attempt for carbon trading targeted dealing with the 1000 largest polluters.
Maybe a 'world tax' for everything that is not produced sustainably would be a nice option. Could also be used to fund Greenozi's world army.
Posted Tuesday 22 Mar 2011 @ 7:59:34 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberNine MSN website currently has a poll
"Do You Support The Carbon Tax?" http://ninemsn.com.au/
So far 12.51pm (EST)...
Yes - 9086,
No - 46262.Posted Wednesday 23 Mar 2011 @ 2:52:52 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberSorry S2S, I don't listen to AJ.
You might notice I've made no comment about the poll. It's not over yet and I've got no interest which way it goes, I just thought some ATA readers may be interested.
EDIT; I saw Media Watch the other night gave all the "shock jocks" a serve for breaching the commercial radio/tv code of practice for only giving airplay to the climate change skeptics and virtually none to the pro-manmade climate change lobby so i understand your concern, but the Prime Minister has to sway public opinion as a whole if she wants to get this up.
Posted Wednesday 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:10:55 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberRockabye, not all 'No" voters are deniers! I'd suggest a fair chunk just can't see a carbon tax working. Remember there are other avenues.......perhaps the poll should have asked;
Which carbon abatement method are you most happy with?
a) Legislation to limit carbon proliferation
b) A Carbon Tax
c) An ETS
d) No actionPosted Wednesday 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:19:55 am from IP # -
I would like to just come back to the point of carbon price, be it tax or carbon trading. I think unfortunately it is still not well understood by many people. And most of the time the key point it no well communicated either.
It is NOT the first priority to create high price for electricity to reduce electricity consumption.
The first priority is increasing the price of processes that emit green house gases.
This will make renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal and others (please not nuclear!!!) more price competitive and will change the mix of our energy generation over time.If users of electricity decide to reduce the use of electricity by either installing better insulation, better building design, solar hot water, heat pumps or less energy intense lighting, this will just be an added bonus. And this may not cost a cent over 10 years if calculated against the savings on electricity and possible tax compensations.
Posted Wednesday 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:27:04 am from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.