What is this thing called carbon tax?

[AjayVMX]

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm

More nonsense 

Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... 

[motomaniac]

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm

More nonsense 

Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... 

total dribble :-

"Australia already has a number of carbon taxes, by the way. You probably just don’t know them by that name. Top of the list are petrol and diesel excises, which together raked in $13.2 billion in 2010-11, according to the Budget Papers.

We also have the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which levies a royalty on oil and gas extraction in Australian federal waters, responsible this year for $940 million.

In other words, carbon-based taxes already bring in more than the approximately $11.5 billion that Ross Garnaut has estimated a $26/tonne carbon tax will levy in its first year. Which rather puts some of the over-heated rhetoric about the destructive impact of a carbon tax into perspective, doesn’t it? "

this dick author is equating fuel excises and resource tax with CO2 tax. That will be $11.5 bill less tax revenue if fossil fuels are replaced. If we are already paying carbon tax like this dick says its not having much effect on us moving away from fossil fuels so how is "the new" carbon tax going to be any different?Its not ,they just want to build capital with the average Joes money.What a joke.

[Nathan S]

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/06/bunch-of-fairies

I dunno about old Bob. Agree with him on some stuff, disagree with him on plenty of others. Didn't vote for him, and am highly unlikely to do so while the "green" movement is about nonsense rather than pragmatic conservation.
But I don't understand how the "shonky character" stuff can be seriously aimed at him. From what I've seen, he's been very consistant, coherent and open with his thoughts and policies, across a bloody long time period - far more than either of the two major party leaders.
Sure, we might disagree with Green policies, and that's fair game - but his character is pretty much squeaky clean (particularly for a long-serving politician), so it seems really weird/stupid to try to target him on that. There's plenty of policy issues where he could be made to squirm, but instead the attacks are aimed at his strongest part. WTF?

To me, it shows how dysfunctional the whole political/social/media scene is in this country - that there's no real analysis of policy, and its about irrelevant personal attacks and rampant emotion.

------------------------

Um, MM, why shouldn't a govt build capital? How should they do it without taxation?

[mx250]

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/05/calm-carbon-storm

More nonsense 

Just wait until the truckies get stuck into Julia... 

Just wait until the Mining Industry gets stuck into Julia . The fur will start flying this Sunday.

And I want a vote on the issue. It is not democracy having a minority govt do the bidding of fringe element ratbags. I'll be on the streets demanding  a vote on the issue. I loath the Mad Monk with a passion, but I'll support him absolutely on this issue. I wonder how many other Australians feel this way?

[crash n bern]

Someone once told me that governments have a research group that analyze down to the last cent, how much they can tax the people before they will revolt.

I think it was a joke, but hard to tell.

[AjayVMX]

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/06/bunch-of-fairies

I dunno about old Bob. Agree with him on some stuff, disagree with him on plenty of others. Didn't vote for him, and am highly unlikely to do so while the "green" movement is about nonsense rather than pragmatic conservation.
But I don't understand how the "shonky character" stuff can be seriously aimed at him. From what I've seen, he's been very consistant, coherent and open with his thoughts and policies, across a bloody long time period - far more than either of the two major party leaders.
Sure, we might disagree with Green policies, and that's fair game - but his character is pretty much squeaky clean (particularly for a long-serving politician), so it seems really weird/stupid to try to target him on that. There's plenty of policy issues where he could be made to squirm, but instead the attacks are aimed at his strongest part. WTF?

To me, it shows how dysfunctional the whole political/social/media scene is in this country - that there's no real analysis of policy, and its about irrelevant personal attacks and rampant emotion.

Um, MM, why shouldn't a govt build capital? How should they do it without taxation?

Nathan,  I think Bob Brown manages the Green rabble with great skill and sometimes flair.  There is no doubt he is a good politician, but part of that is because the Greens have flown under the radar of scrutiny until just recently.  This is especially true of the mainly left leaning Canberra press gallery.  Bob now has serious problems to solve for the future of the Greens to be as rosy as he likes to paint. 

Firstly, the watermelons (i.e. the Greens who are more interested in socialist ideals and not environmental ones) have now infiltrated the Greens to the extent where if Bob should retire, the next in line will be a Watermelon.  His "control" of their radical tendancies, e.g. the BST of Israel issue, will be fundamental in whether the Greens ever get more people elected at all in this country. 

Secondly, as the party which has the balance of power in the Senate, the Greens will have to be seen to use that power responsibly, implying compromises on Greens policies.  They are starting to show that with the negotiations on the Carbon Tax (for which they will blame Labor of course) but a lot of Greens supporters are not used to the realities of mainstream politics (compromise) and may well get angry at them, sapping their support base.

Thirdly, the press are now starting to analyse the Greens' policies in more detail and there are many skeletons in the closet.  When asked to explain how the policies will work, Bob gets extremely shifty and evasive, trying to imply that they are "more guidelines than policies".  The latest example of this being on Lateline on Tuesday night.  He also likes to demonise the "hate media", which apparently is anyone who has the temerity to ask him a difficult question.  This tactic won't work for long as he will use up all his political capital and merely motivate the media to ask more questions he can't or doesn't want to answer.

Lastly, the tactic of riding into power on the back of Liberal and Labor preferences may now be extinguished.  Certainly, the Liberal party has now learned, from the Victorian election, that there is a political benefit in preferencing Labor before the Greens and of course Labor fought it's hardest (almost to the point of losing Balmain to a Liberal) against the Greens in the NSW election.

So, I think Bob and the Greens have done a pretty good job to get themselves in the position they now are in Canberra.  But, like the Democrats before them, the cracks in the party and it's support have already started to appear and I believe that they are currently at the zenith of their power.  The next election, when it finally comes, will reverse their rising trend and it will be interesting indeed to see if they can arrest the decline or disappear into oblivion.

Certainly, if Bob Brown were to retire, the Greens would be shot ducks. 

[mx250]

If Bob Brown is such a smart politicians why did he declare war on the Coal Industry yesterday? (he said the aim was to get rid of the coal industry).

BTW, a very interesting summary Ajay .

[AjayVMX]

If Bob Brown is such a smart politicians why did he declare war on the Coal Industry yesterday? (he said the aim was to get rid of the coal industry).

BTW, a very interesting summary Ajay .

Did he?  I didn't hear that!  He certainly is inconsistent then, because he stated that the Coal Industry would not only survive but GROW on Lateline on Tuesday night.  Maybe he's caught Julia's disease, say what he thinks the specific audience wants to hear... 

One thing for sure, the Greens are going to certainly wear some indignation from their true believers as a result of the compromises that appear to have been made in the Carbon Tax negotiation.

If the consequences of the Carbon Tax weren't so serious, it would truly be laughable though.  The Greens have forced Julia to break a core election promise, making her unpopular (well more than she already was), the Greens have been forced to compromise far more than the KRudd EPRS which they opposed as being "not enough", which will make them unpopular with their core constituency and the Independants have driven the last nails into their policital careers by supporting it as well.  And we can't have an election to stop this stupidty.  What a fine mess.

And all to achieve NOTHING AT ALL for the global environment. 

Yeah, I guess that isn't really very smart is it.  Thanks Bob. 

[Nathan S]

I pretty much agree with your second most recent post, ajay.
The unanswered question is why we does the so called analysis of Greens' policy actually end up being schoolyard insults?

If anything, it hands credibility to the Greens - when someone promises a killer blow and actually comes out with "You're a poopyhead", then the easiest conclusion is that the attacker was full of crap from the start and/or that the attackee is in a lot stronger position than we thought...
In the case of the Greens policies, I find both options difficult to believe.

I can see the Angry Conservatives believing a lot of their own hype, and consequently thinking that they are making a much stronger case than they think they are... Basically: "Its so self evident to me that I am completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to explain it to anyone else"... I mean, the use of "lefty" as an insult against lefties is a great example - it shows how many Angry Conservatives have become so incredibly myopic that they are now incapable of understanding or even respecting other points of view.
How many blokes are offended by being described as a bloke? 

Personally, I am bitterly underwhelmed by Gillard's performance, but the largely factless hysteria from the other side of politics leaves me very unconvinced.
So old mate Bob's considered and reasoned approach seems like a breath of fresh air, even when he's actually speaking crap.

Both Abbott and Gillard have the same greatest asset: Each other.

FWIW, the Democrats were historically central and actually the true conservatives. They were the keel that stopped the boat from listing too far left or right. When they moved to the left, they removed their reason for existing - and they basically ceased to exist shortly thereafter.
Now that the Greens are living on the far left (of the mainstream political spectrum), and Labor is uncomfortably occuping the middle ground, I don’t think that Green vs Democrat comparions are particularly valid.

Sorry for the off topic rant. Can you tell how disappointed I am with the performances from ALL of the players in this game?

[Mike52]

This is sorta on the same topic.
The Greens have a stated policy where they will withdraw all funding from private schools.
The argument is that they are rich and they don,t deserve the money.
Taking a closer look and using the data from the Gov,s own "My School" web page .

Keeping in mind that every child has to be educated by law.

Public Schools are given $10000 a year on average to educate a child.

Private schools are given on an average $7000 for the SAME reason.

Sooo it appears that a child being educated in a private school is costing you and me $3000 LESS per head per year than sending them to public school.
Yep lets stop giving the private schools any money , sounds like a REAL GOOD idea. Duhh

[AjayVMX]

I can see the Angry Conservatives believing a lot of their own hype, and consequently thinking that they are making a much stronger case than they think they are... Basically: "Its so self evident to me that I am completely incapable of forming a coherent argument to explain it to anyone else"... I mean, the use of "lefty" as an insult against lefties is a great example - it shows how many Angry Conservatives have become so incredibly myopic that they are now incapable of understanding or even respecting other points of view.

Thereby your arguement fails.  It is very rare for conservatives to exhibit the sort of "anger" that hard line leftists show.

While it IS common for any side of politics to do what you allege the Conservative do - in my eyes, the Greens and Left politics do it even more than the conservative forces.  Name calling by the left is a very early result when thier beliefs are challenged, let me assure you.  And the names aren't as benign as "lefty" either. 

[vmx42]

total dribble :-

"Australia already has a number of carbon taxes, by the way. You probably just don’t know them by that name. Top of the list are petrol and diesel excises, which together raked in $13.2 billion in 2010-11, according to the Budget Papers.

We also have the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, which levies a royalty on oil and gas extraction in Australian federal waters, responsible this year for $940 million.

In other words, carbon-based taxes already bring in more than the approximately $11.5 billion that Ross Garnaut has estimated a $26/tonne carbon tax will levy in its first year. Which rather puts some of the over-heated rhetoric about the destructive impact of a carbon tax into perspective, doesn’t it? "

this dick author is equating fuel excises and resource tax with CO2 tax. That will be $11.5 bill less tax revenue if fossil fuels are replaced. If we are already paying carbon tax like this dick says its not having much effect on us moving away from fossil fuels so how is "the new" carbon tax going to be any different?Its not ,they just want to build capital with the average Joes money.What a joke.

Hey Moto,
Very true, but don't forget that the government takes with one hand and gives with the other. So, yes the government collects fuel excises, but it also gives tax credits and direct subsidies to the same industries to the value of almost $10 billion a year.

It makes any true, considered analysis of this issue very difficult indeed.



A few days ago I claimed not to know what to say about of the Climate Change debate, but now I will put my balls on the line by asking the following questions…

Much as I enjoy the endlessly entertaining, old game of "my singular fact" trumps "your singular fact" or "my web search says this" but "my web search says this" it hasn't really advanced the debate on this thread.

Sure Gillard lied!! Hold the presses, "a politician lied" get over it!!! [good thing Honest Tony or Honest John (non core promise) Howard et al, wouldn't stoop to that kind of henious crime  ]. Yeah, it's old news and is more often than not just used as a smoke screen to divert any serious debate of the real issues.

So are you brave enough to examine the real FACT on this issue.

"I don't have them and neither do you."

You might think you do, but you are an adult so don't kid yourself. If anybody on this site, or in the broader community has in their singular posession more than a 1% grasp of the facts on this issue, let alone a real and genuine non-biased opinion then I will eat my hat. All I can see here are people posting using whatever fact they can dredge up [from whatever dubious source] to support their current belief, and while that is a normal human trait it again hasn't advanced the debate one iota.

So instead of playing endless 'dueling facts' while Rome burns how about you [we and me] confront the issue from a moral perspective. So I will start with a few questions of my own…

Are we as a population willing to run the gauntlet and play God with the future of others? Are we really that shallow and selfish that a nominal, possible, short-term* increase in taxation will divert us from doing what is right?

Do we really believe that even if the proposed tax did impinge our 'hallowed standard of living' in some small way that it is a real and signficant justification to ignore the real issue? Would it really hurt us to go back to a 2006 standard of living [for example]?  Or heaven forbid a 1999, last century standard of living.

Are you willing to accept responsibility for your part in our future or will you let the fear mongers, shock jocks, spin doctors, media barrons [Murdoch] and short sighted seat warming politicians control the debate on our collective futures? Or will you tell them that their self centred, egotistical and biased performances are an affront to our intelligence and that a considered, rational and professional response to this question is what is needed and expected by the electorate?

Or are we just going to continue to go around in circles playing the 'man' and not the 'ball' as they want us to do? And don't forget, that is really what they fear which is why they spend so much time and energy diverting our focus by encouraging mindless 'you said' - 'he said' arguments.

If you really want to make headway with this issue then you [we] must aim to simplify the debate and not be drawn into and bogged down with the truly mamoth amount of detail that just clouds the true issue.

Well how about it, can you stop playing the role of a reactionary citizen and help us take control of our combined futures? Or will you let the puppeteers win?

VMX42





_{*I say short term as most tax changes settle down over time and are usually not felt by the broader community over time.}

[vmx42]

Thereby your arguement fails.  It is very rare for conservatives to exhibit the sort of "anger" that hard line leftists show.

While it IS common for any side of politics to do what you allege the Conservative do - in my eyes, the Greens and Left politics do it even more than the conservative forces.  Name calling by the left is a very early result when thier beliefs are challenged, let me assure you.  And the names aren't as benign as "lefty" either. 

Ajay,
That is like arguing that your shit tastes slightly better than my shit…
Keeno

[AjayVMX]

Well I don't intend to find out... 

[Graeme M]

Jeff... Let the puppeteers win?

What is the goal of the puppeteers?