What is this thing called carbon tax?

[pancho]

 Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
 pancho

[vmx42]

We need better ideas.  Election time, how many millions are spent on propaganda campaigns to win votes?  Just to end up with incompetent politicians.

What I would like to see is a survivor type election campaign.  Take all the politicians and put them on an island.  All the incompetent ones get voted off.  The winner is the most hands on practical one.  The show broadcasts nationally on SBS, advertising and sponsorship is sold.

So we then end up with a reasonably capable Prime minister and a profit margin at the same time.  Win, win.

We also need to implement a fine system for politicians, screw up and it will cost you.

Any stupid things that a politician wastes tax payers money on that doesn't work.  They have to buy.

You could have invented the World's Most Popular Sport there CnB!!!!

Just imagine the TV ratings for that one!!!  

[vmx42]

Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
 pancho

If you mean that the world didn't end, and the sky didn't fall as predicted by the then Opposition. Then no it has proven to not be a bad idea.

It's just a different way of collecting tax revenue that we were used to. The paperwork is still a bit of a pain, but then so was the Sales Tax paperwork.

History is full of doomsday prophecies that turn out to be complete fizzers. Could this be the case with the Carbon Tax?

[mx250]

Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
 pancho

It is just another tax, but one brought in on a lie, "it will stop tax avoidance". Yeah right.

It wasn't a better tax, it wasn't a fairer tax and it didn't achieve it's stated aim - and they still haven't removed some of the indirect taxes that they said they would replace.

GST is a new income stream  for govt. The significant letter is the 'S' =  services. It was the first time services were taxed indirectly.

The GST was a fat lie. The fact that it is no longer contentious doesn't mean it was a good or necessary 'Tax Reform' . The populace have simple got on with things and adapted. And the one income 'Dad at work, Mum at home with the kids' family is probably worst off than before. Mind you, the D.I.N.K. Yumpie stockbroker loves GST.

The Carbon Tax is another fat lie. No the sky won't fall and the world won't end, but that doesn't make it good policy. The populace and economy will adapt and move on. Some jobs will move off shore and some new jobs and opportunities will be created. Net benefit or net loss is anyone's guess. My bet it will be a net loss and a decrease in living standards for the majority.

[crash n bern]

Does any body really still think the GST was a bad idea?
 pancho

Yeah, now I lose 10% straight of the top of my income.  Then I have to take out overheads.  Then whats left I get taxed on again. Oh and I had to employ someone to take care of all the paperwork for the 10%.  So more overheads.

Did you know that in the Australian constitution it states that it is illegal for any citizen of Australia to collect taxes on behalf of the government.  Therefore business's collecting GST are actually breaking the law.

It also states that all religions are beyond question.  So for example GMC could open up the Church of expansion chambers.  People could worship and for a suggested donation take home an expansion chamber to worship with at home.  All tax free, and it can't be questioned because it is a religion.

[Lozza]

I'm speaking from ignorance I know, but the big difference between a cigarette tax and the CO2 tax seems to me that the former affects one industry and only those people who choose to smoke, the latter affects most production and most energy consumption. From what I've read, there are precious few renewable energy sources out there that are likely to fill the gap in baseload for quite some time to come.

On a related topic, wind farms - if those things were related to fossil fuels the greens would be all over them. The costs, the land used, the roads etc needed for access, the sheer eyesore of them - versus the somewhat dubious returns. Someone has to be making a killing out of that!

Not really the true cost of cigarettes are borne by the health system ie you and I pay for the care of smokers suffering of lung cancer, and Mike I doubt any  'study' of that nature was ever undertaken.Let alone come to conclusions as silly as that.

Wind farms look better than smog. Takes a lot to be registered as a religion

[Nathan S]

Xenephon has been poking and prodding at the Scientologists.

[Graeme M]

Wind farms look better than smog? I could be wrong, but I don't think that power stations contribute to a smog problem in Australia. There are very strong controls on smoke stack emissions for coal fired powerplants in Australia, not so much in China of course. The point is that to replace coal fired power with wind or solar is just an enormous undertaking - the number of wind turbines required would be huge. Think about the costs in terms of setup, construction, cabling, land needed, on-going maintenance, danger to birds, the sheer eyesoredness of the things - for what?

[Graeme M]

Here's some thoughts on wind and solar versus coal - I won't say the author is right as I don't know, but my guess is he's pretty well informed:

"It’s all based around Capacity factor, the delivery of power to consumers in KWH compared to Nameplate Capacity and the formula is this:

NP X 24 X 365.25 X 1000 where NP is Nameplate Capacity, 24 hours in a day 365.25 days in a year (leap year the .25) and 1000 to convert from MW to KWH.

This gives the total maximum power. Capacity Factor is actual delivery compared to that figure.

You’ll read at Wiki (and never trust them) that coal fired power has a CF of around 62%. Where they get that number is for EVERY coal fired plant, and that is somewhat erroneous to say the least, because a lot of medium and smaller coal fired plants are used for Peaking Power and Load Following, so they are only delivering their power for part of the hours in a day.

Large scale coal fired power averages a CF of 87.5%, and Nuclear is the best averaging around 92.5% Worldwide, but in the US currently around 96%.

For Wind Power, even though you’ll see some places quoting 40% and some as low as 10%, The current best case average is the U.S. with the most recent technology, and the second most of it in total, that average is around 20%.

For Solar , and here I’m lumping it all in together because it is just such a tiny proportion of total power delivered, (around 0.2% at best) that CF is around 12.5% at best."

[Graeme M]

More...

"So to build a large scale coal fired plant, around 2000MW, we’re looking at around $2.5 Billion. It can be licensed for originally 50 years, and then out to 60 years and then out to 75 years if needs be.
It will deliver 15.5 Billion KWH a year.

For that same dollar amount you’ll get 900MW of wind power. (300 X 3MW nacelles) This will have a life span of 20 years.
This will deliver 1.55 billion KWH a year.

For Solar, and the same dollar amount, you’ll get 2 x 250MW Concentrating Solar Plants, delivering 50MW each on a close to 24 hour basis, but for the sake of the exercise, they are rated at 150MW for around a 12 hour delivery hence a CF of 50%, and here I’m being very kind. So, that’s 300MW. This also has a life span of 20 years. This will deliver 1.3 Billion KWH a year

The original cost has to be recovered in the life of the plant, hence the cost of the electricity is worked out from that.

Even adding in the cost of the coal over that 50 years, coal fired power is way, way, cheaper than Wind or Solar."

[oldyzman]

Definition of carbon tax:
Figment of the imagination of one stubborn red headed dumb bitch who's days in power are numbered....

[motomaniac]

The GST was a fat lie.
[/quote]

NO ARGUMENT THERE BUT WHO WAS LYING? The one who first purposed it in parliment ,the one who ran an election campaign on it and lost or the one who finally impl;emented it?

[mx250]

What bankrupted Spain? - govt grants for solar panels .

[mx250]

The GST was a fat lie.

NO ARGUMENT THERE BUT WHO WAS LYING? The one who first purposed it in parliment ,the one who ran an election campaign on it and lost or the one who finally impl;emented it?
[/quote]Both sides lied. It is another example of the public debate being tainted and manipulated by pollies, bureaucrats and academics for their own interests. Poor public debate leads to poor policy. The Carbon Tax will be the same.

[Nathan S]

Spain's experience with simply demonstrates that the "easy way out" of reducing pollution (govt subsidies for alternatives) isn't gonna work.