Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Sky Pilot]

Having heard a little bit about this, I'm wondering how this is going to help? Tax the companies / large users of Carbon - increasing the cost of energy, increasing the cost of manufacturing. So then all Australians pay extra for power bills, companies employing blue collars workers move their manufacturing overseas where it is cheaper to operate business.... Then what happens with the money? It gets distributed to people to offset the rise in living costs - so does everyone get their money back? No - the rich will pay for the poor, ok fine, I get that and believe that low income earners will need help when being hit by another tax... But what does it do for jobs and how does it combat climate change? Doesn't seem to make sense to me - stratergies to encourage private investment into green energies by way of giving energy producers a guranteed price for the energy returned to the grid maybe a more direct approach?

you might be onto something scoobster.

[fish]

Why was this topic moved from General Discussion into Politics?

[fish]

Having heard a little bit about this, I'm wondering how this is going to help? Tax the companies / large users of Carbon - increasing the cost of energy, increasing the cost of manufacturing. So then all Australians pay extra for power bills, companies employing blue collars workers move their manufacturing overseas where it is cheaper to operate business.... Then what happens with the money? It gets distributed to people to offset the rise in living costs - so does everyone get their money back? No - the rich will pay for the poor, ok fine, I get that and believe that low income earners will need help when being hit by another tax... But what does it do for jobs and how does it combat climate change? Doesn't seem to make sense to me - stratergies to encourage private investment into green energies by way of giving energy producers a guranteed price for the energy returned to the grid maybe a more direct approach?

I believe that high-emission exporting/importing industries will receive some assistance (from the money raised by the tax) to either offset their higher prices or to switch to low emission technology.

As for how the tax reduces carbon emissions - it will give low-emission suppliers an economic edge over high-emission suppliers and make them more competitive. As people then buy more from the low-emission suppliers less emissions are produced.

Another way the tax works is when peoples power bills or petrol bills go up they will try to use less and thus their emissions will be reduced.

[Darth Vader]

so fish are you saying that as peoples power bills go up they will desist from using their pool pumps and airconditioners in summer and central heating in winter. They will stop ironing their clothes, take less showers, throw out the power tools and forget about cooking the Sunday roast in the oven. They will buy smaller fridges, chuck out deep freeze units and accept daily shopping instead of weekly or fortnightly?
Are you expecting people to stop buying petrol and ride bikes?

[fish]

so fish are you saying that as peoples power bills go up they will desist from using their pool pumps and airconditioners in summer and central heating in winter. They will stop ironing their clothes, take less showers, throw out the power tools and forget about cooking the Sunday roast in the oven. They will buy smaller fridges, chuck out deep freeze units and accept daily shopping instead of weekly or fortnightly?
Are you expecting people to stop buying petrol and ride bikes?

Nope

[Sky Pilot]

so fish are you saying that as peoples power bills go up they will desist from using their pool pumps and airconditioners in summer and central heating in winter. They will stop ironing their clothes, take less showers, throw out the power tools and forget about cooking the Sunday roast in the oven. They will buy smaller fridges, chuck out deep freeze units and accept daily shopping instead of weekly or fortnightly?
Are you expecting people to stop buying petrol and ride bikes?

Nope

Phew!

[mick]

so fish are you saying that as peoples power bills go up they will desist from using their pool pumps and airconditioners in summer and central heating in winter. They will stop ironing their clothes, take less showers, throw out the power tools and forget about cooking the Sunday roast in the oven. They will buy smaller fridges, chuck out deep freeze units and accept daily shopping instead of weekly or fortnightly?
Are you expecting people to stop buying petrol and ride bikes?

The green utopia, bring it on

[fish]

so fish are you saying that as peoples power bills go up they will desist from using their pool pumps and airconditioners in summer and central heating in winter. They will stop ironing their clothes, take less showers, throw out the power tools and forget about cooking the Sunday roast in the oven. They will buy smaller fridges, chuck out deep freeze units and accept daily shopping instead of weekly or fortnightly?
Are you expecting people to stop buying petrol and ride bikes?

The green utopia, bring it on

I reckon Darth made it up.

[redandblack]

It went through to the 'keeper, fish

[Sojourner]

If things have changed why not then simply take the proposal for the Carbon Price to a referendum and allow the public to make their decision?

Irrespective of what politicians have promised and not delivered on, if GIllard stated that there would not be a Carbon Tax and now by her own admission she says that she was wrong and now there has to be, then the public should be given the opportunity to excersize our democratic right and vote it in or out accordingly.

Howard said there would not be a GST, then changed his mind and said that there would be, yet he took it to an election first. If Julia does not want to wait until the next election to let the people decide, then referendum seems to be the way to go, and if the answer is that they would not have it because it would be widely knocked back by the public, then perhaps that is a good reason not to do it in the first place and to come up with some other options to deal with the problem.

Reading the current election odds, the following data is given, - The Coalition has firmed from $2.20 to $1.67 as favourites to win the 2013 poll, Sportsbet says. Labor are now $2.20 outsiders to win the election, out from $1.65 when the market opened in September last year. Its been brought up before on here that the bookies odds are rarely wrong in terms of outcomes, yet what does Gillard hope to gain from the Carbon price? One would think the only outcome of it for the ALP as it currently stands is to bleed votes away from the party? Is going into coalition with the Greens and following a Green agenda a good enough reason to cling on to power for two more years if the government does actually see out the term, only to be smashed by the opposition and spend another 2-3 terms on the sidelines as what happened last time around?

Labor have promised that the poor wont be any worse off - yet they also promised that there would not be a Carbon Tax in the first place. Good luck to the ALP strategists in getting that to actually wash with the general public...

[once_were_warriors]

You can't have a referendum on every piece of proposed legislation put forward by a government, nothing would get done.

Parliament will decide whether it becomes law or not.

With the people of Australia voting upon the government in the next election.

[Psyber]

You can't have a referendum on every piece of proposed legislation put forward by a government, nothing would get done.
Parliament will decide whether it becomes law or not.
With the people of Australia voting upon the government in the next election.

But perhaps you should when diverting in a major way from pre-election policy statements.

[once_were_warriors]

You can't have a referendum on every piece of proposed legislation put forward by a government, nothing would get done.
Parliament will decide whether it becomes law or not.
With the people of Australia voting upon the government in the next election.

But perhaps you should when diverting in a major way from pre-election policy statements.

Well we best remove the senate and have a referendum every month when a government changes tact on every bit of legislation that goes through.

I neither agree or disagree with the governments decision on this proposal.

Again I will reiterate, the parliament will decide and then ultimately the people at the next election on legislation.

If we have a referendum on this , where does it stop?

[Q.]

Switzerland hold a number of referendums every year. It's really not that much of a burden to be a little more democratically responsible.

[once_were_warriors]

Well if we have one on this , then I would also like to include the following:

1. Flat tax rate Vs current system.
2. Medicare Levy payment removed if you have Private health.
3. Flood levy Yes or No
4. Budget distribution , should we decrease the budget allocation say on Defence?
5. Foreign Aid
6. Exporting of uranium.

Disolving of parliament, instead we hire a CEO and every citizen on every Saturday can go and decide how we should run this country.

Be careful what you wish for if you want to become "Democratic"

[Q.]

Referendums wouldn't be held for existing policies, but proposed and potentially divisive ones.

The obviously flaw is the terrible state of our MSM and the manipulation of the flow of information.

[once_were_warriors]

It just won't work.

Question : Do you support the proposal that the Federal Government take control of the distribution of water and the management of the Murray/Darling catchment.

WA and Tasmanians : What has this got to do with us?

Already we have a conflict over a devisive issue.

Referendums generally don't work because.

1) Australians aren't interested and will vote No.
2) Australains aren't interested and will vote No
3) """""""""

[Q.]

Which is why you wouldn't have a referendum on that particular issue. I'm not saying have a referendum for everything, you've distorted my original point.

Although you do make a good point, perhaps Australians are too complacent to want to vote more than once every three years?

[Psyber]

Dissolving of parliament, instead we hire a CEO and every citizen on every Saturday can go and decide how we should run this country.
Be careful what you wish for if you want to become "Democratic"

That is similar to what happened in Athens way back when democracy was born.
Of course they had a policy that no "Polis" was bigger than 100,000 people so it could work.
We now live in a Representative Oligarchy where we get to choose between a few organised power groups.
It would be nice if more true democracy could be restored

[once_were_warriors]

Australian governments are decided upon by 35% of the population.

The other 65% are that disinterested in other parties policies, that they will always vote for the same party regardless of their short comings.

Hence referendums will always struggle , majority of votes and a majority of states: - waste of time