Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Q.]

Ross Garnaut unelected Labor member for what, comfortable upper middle class, nothing this hopeless mob does will affect him. A totally predictable statement

It's quite funny that you accuse of him of acting in self-interest.

[Squawk]

nothing but a wealth redistribution tax as I have always said

That's what it looks like to me now. I'm sympathetic to a sustainable environment but how is a carbon tax going to modify behaviour if 6m Australians are unaffected and 90% will get compensated? As for the other 10%, they just pay for everyone else to have the heater on all night.

[Tassie Blues]

So our lying PM who before the last election said she will not introduce a carbon tax has introduced a carbon tax. A tax on pollutions yet it’s not going to be on petrol that we all use and pollute our environment. Most Australian household will get a tax cut to offset the cost of a carbon tax. Big business is going to be biggest hit but most of them will get compensation by the govenment but will still pass on an increase in cost to Australian households. The supermarkets will add a little bit for themselves to the increase of prices and say the rise is due to a carbon tax.
So with the extra money they are going to get what are they going to do with it to improve the environment? Will they stop logging native forest stop the urban sprawl sending out native wildlife into extinction I think not. Is there any chance that once the carbon tax has been introduce I can call my electricity supplier and ask to be put on a 100% renewable energy supplier and it won’t cost me and extra $10 per month I guess time will tell. But if the home insulation, school halls and solar panels are anything to go by I would say we are once again being **** over by labour

[redandblack]

If it's a wealth distribution, which way is it being distributed and how?

If the answer is a bit from the top 10% to the rest of us, sounds good to me

[Q.]

But if the home insulation, school halls and solar panels are anything to go by I would say we are once again being **** over by labour

But the BER was a "gold standard stimulus program"

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/16/the-ber-outcome-time-to-correct-the-record/

[Q.]

For those that still don't get it:

[Squawk]

If it's a wealth distribution, which way is it being distributed and how?

If the answer is a bit from the top 10% to the rest of us, sounds good to me

Top 500 polluters pay and pass on costs to everyone.
90% get all or most back.
10% get nothing back.

So 10% are paying for most of the costs of everyone else.

I'd like to know how they do the calculations on household carbon consumption costs too. Is it based on the average consumption of the average family?

[cennals05]

Here is a website where you can get an estimate of whether you will be better or worse off...

www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au

[redandblack]

Squawk, this is where you and I just have different priorities.

The 10% who get nothing back are generally earning over $150,000 pa. This 10% own 45% of the private wealth of the nation.

I see nothing wrong with them having to pay a few hundred dollars a year more.

Point 2. If you and others oppose this scheme, do you either:

(a) think nothing needs to be done about climate change, or

(2) support Tony Abbott's 'direct action' plan.

Given that Abbott's plan is uncosted and will obviously cost a similar amount, who should pay for it, given that he will also supposedly give tax cuts, a generous parental leave plan and fund it all from vague and non-specific 'cuts to government spending'?

[Squawk]

I support initiatives to reduce the human impact on climate change, R&B.

However, this is everyone's responsibility, not just the top 500 companies or 10% of the Australian population.

If you are going to have a market-based mechanism like this, then everyone needs to be responsible.

When the GST came in, tax cuts were applied across the board to cover the 10% cost increases. In this case, tax cuts are being effectively provided to most, but not all.

Of that 10% who own 45% of the wealth, I reckon 1% would own 40% of it. There are plenty of families who consist of a police officer and a teacher; a nurse and a fireman etc who just creep over the $150k threshold. These people are already paying significantly more in revenue to this government by the imposition of the means test, and keep being asked to pay more and more on behalf of those under the threshold.

The tax system is designed to ensure that those with more support those with less. That's fine. But there is a point at which it is asking too much to keep asking the same people to dig deeper and deeper. Ironically, Julia describes education as being "transformational". Yet those who are educated then find there are few rewards beyond the remuneration ceiling imposed on them. Even more ironic, I just rang a bobcat operator and he charges $80-$88 hour. The cash economy is alive and well.

[redandblack]

As I said, it's a question of philosophy.

Some people make all their decisions based on money, some don't.

I'll be a bit behind on this package, but it might make me a bit more careful about unnecessary use of power, etc. In any event, it's a small price to pay for the necessity (IMO to address climate change, so I'm happy about it.

I'll be worse off under Mr Abbott's plan. Nobody seems to ever want to discuss his alternative and we all know why.

I don't care whether we're first to do it or not, it needs to be done.

[Sky Pilot]

Squawk, this is where you and I just have different priorities.

The 10% who get nothing back are generally earning over $150,000 pa. This 10% own 45% of the private wealth of the nation.

I see nothing wrong with them having to pay a few hundred dollars a year more.

Point 2. If you and others oppose this scheme, do you either:

(a) think nothing needs to be done about climate change, or

(2) support Tony Abbott's 'direct action' plan.

Given that Abbott's plan is uncosted and will obviously cost a similar amount, who should pay for it, given that he will also supposedly give tax cuts, a generous parental leave plan and fund it all from vague and non-specific 'cuts to government spending'?

mate this is socialism. It didn't work in Russia, its not working in North Korea.

[redandblack]

You would have fitted in well back in the old Communist scare days of the 1960's, SP

It's not socialism, but if it is, I'll tell you who are candidates for being socialists are in Australia.

1 Businesses recently loved 'socialism' when they stuffed up the world economy and had to be rescued by the Government.

I think it's called 'capitalise the profits and socialise the losses'.

2 If you're all against wealth redistribution as being socialism, I presume you're also against accelerated depreciation rates for business and afrmers, investment allowances, subsidies, primary producers income averaging (and several other rural subsidies), diesel fuel rebates, etc, etc, etc.

Or perhaps you're only against 'socialism' when it suits you?

As for where it works, capitalism isn't doing that well in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the USA at the moment, either.


It is doing well in Australia, though, where we are up with the leaders of the world in most economic data and outcomes. Unfortunately they are facts and don't fit in with the 'She's ruining us" mantra.


Still nothing on Mr Abbott's climate policy?

[fish]

“This is a strong climate change policy package. It will allow Australia to do its fair share in an effective global effort to reduce the risks of climate change, and to do so at reasonable cost.

I attach particular importance to the governance arrangements for the emissions trading scheme. The arrangements for adjusting targets, including through the role of the Climate Change Authority, allow appropriate flexibility in response to international developments within a stable and predictable framework. The arrangements for reviewing assistance to trade-exposed industries, including through the role of the Productivity Commission, introduces economic discipline in decisions of large consequence for national economic performance.

The treatment of the land sector will encourage new forms of carbon sequestration that create important opportunities for rural Australia. Here our pioneeering role in measuring and rewarding sequestration in soils, pastures, woodlands and forests is likely to have international influence.

The package has emerged from a policy-making process that allowed consideration of a wide range of issues and advice. I congratulate the Prime Minister and her colleagues in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee for the sound process and on the good outcome for Australia and the international community.”

Ross Garnaut
10 July 2011

Ross Garnaut unelected Labor member for what, comfortable upper middle class, nothing this hopeless mob does will affect him. A totally predictable statement

Ross Garnaut is one of Australia's foremost experts on the economic aspects of climate change both here and abroad and to ignore him would, I believe, be foolish.

[fish]

If it's a wealth distribution, which way is it being distributed and how?

If the answer is a bit from the top 10% to the rest of us, sounds good to me

Top 500 polluters pay and pass on costs to everyone.
90% get all or most back.
10% get nothing back.

So 10% are paying for most of the costs of everyone else.

I fully support the proposal that low income people (including pensioners) are compensated more than high income people for the impact of the carbon tax.

For as long as I can remember Australia has had sliding tax rates where the more you earn the higher proportion you pay in tax - this is nothing new. The only time I can remember that being challenged was by Joh Bjelkie-Petersen sometime in the 80's I think where he suggested everyone pay 25% tax regardless of income. IIRC that was a massive flop and contributed to the Coalition losing the next federal election.

I'd be interested to hear what other ideas people have for how the compensation for the carbon tax should be rolled out...

[Sojourner]

No contest

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a little stroll in town one afternoon enjoying the sunshine.

As they walked, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."

"I am entering!" said Snow White.

After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya go?"

"I won First Place !," said Snow White.

They continue walking and they see another sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."

"I'm entering," says Superman.

After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"

"I won First Place , too," answers Superman. "Did you ever have a doubt?"

They continue walking when they see a third sign: "Contest - Who is the greatest liar in the world?"

Pinocchio quickly enters the contest. After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.

"What happened?" they asked.

"Who the hell is Julia Gillard?" asked Pinocchio.

[Squawk]

If it's a wealth distribution, which way is it being distributed and how?

If the answer is a bit from the top 10% to the rest of us, sounds good to me

Top 500 polluters pay and pass on costs to everyone.
90% get all or most back.
10% get nothing back.

So 10% are paying for most of the costs of everyone else.

I fully support the proposal that low income people (including pensioners) are compensated more than high income people for the impact of the carbon tax.

For as long as I can remember Australia has had sliding tax rates where the more you earn the higher proportion you pay in tax - this is nothing new. The only time I can remember that being challenged was by Joh Bjelkie-Petersen sometime in the 80's I think where he suggested everyone pay 25% tax regardless of income. IIRC that was a massive flop and contributed to the Coalition losing the next federal election.

I'd be interested to hear what other ideas people have for how the compensation for the carbon tax should be rolled out...

fish I also agree with that principle - as long as there is appropriate proportion. What has happened is that this government has effectively increased taxes by the back door for those on higher incomes, and my proposition is that the line in the sand at $150k per household is too low. Two graduates in the first year of work make $100k.

The Julia model prices carbon emmissions by the top 500 polluters. They then pass the cost on. How are they given any incentive to reduce pollution if demand doesn't reduce as a consequence of the tax? And it wont reduce as long as the costs are compensated as heavily as they are, for those households earning under $150K If they do find alternative means of production, who's to say they wont still sell the new products at a high cost resulting in no savings for consumers?

As for compensation, I think everyone should be responsible for their carbon footprints - direct and indirect. Provide compensation to those who make green choices that are promoting a sustainable environment. Encourage good behaviour in addition to discouraging bad behaviour. For example, give fish some compensation if he uses green energy after switching from coal-based energy. Or if you drive less than 10,000km a year in your car and/or use public transport for 40 weeks of the year. Put a tariff on the exports and imports of goods that are produced by high polluters - based on a "star" type rating or a "credit" rating as is used by banks to determine how much interest to charge on a loan.

There's a few ideas, but realistically, I doubt many of them are politically sustainable ones. And therein lies the problem. What's best for the national interest is rarely best for the political interests at stake.

[redandblack]

Squawk, that's a thoughtful contribution.

I'll continue it in more detail as soon as I can, but let me say that I can guarantee that high income earners have far more opportunity under the tax laws to pay less tax than low income earners, through all sorts of tax arrangements relating to superannuation, negative gearing, investment options, etc.

It's not much of an impost for them with this carbon tax, given the concessions they already get, compared with most low income earners.

[redandblack]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cartoons

[OnSong]

Not often I agree with Barnaby Joyce, but here's his latest ramble. Some gold in there.

The inconvenient truth

Labor's coalition partner, the Australian Greens, and their leadership aspirant Senator Sarah Hanson-Young have prescribed a dire outcome for regional Australia under the Green-Labor-Independent government.

Senator Hanson-Young, and Greens South Australian MP Mark Parnell, said yesterday that “small towns that are based entirely on fossil fuels probably won't exist."

So the Princess of university lefty students has decided that we don't need small regional towns. I know that comment is a little bit cutting but I also know what she said was totally insulting.

This is the crowd that is currently running the country. These are the things they are saying. Yet they tell us a carbon tax won't hurt. We can judge them now not only by their actions but also by their words.

Every day that Julia relies on the Greens support, and she does, she endorses the Greens' statements.

What do we say to people in a small town with a mortgage Sarah Hanson-Young? What do they do, pick up their house and move? Where exactly are these green towns? I have a vision of Nimbin but that is about as far as I get.

Sarah what you really mean by green jobs, is the transfer of people from boilermakers and fitter and turners into national park guides, carbon bureaucrats and Australian Taxation Officials.

The effect of all this, we know from Treasury modelling, is that real wages will fall. A promise the Labor party always seem to be able to deliver on.

In Sarah Hanson-Young's mythical economy we become a nation of bio-ethical kitchen renovators. We make money apparently because people like us. We put love and good thoughts on the boats that used

to export our coal.

I can say that because the Greens really do want to close down the coal industry. It is no good Labor saying that it doesn't want to shut down the coal industry when your coalition partner says they do.

If you don't want to do that why did you sign the registry book, witnessed by the Australian people, remember, the shot where Bob had the corsage in his lapel.