The point of no return. Australia's Carbon Tax coming this Weekend

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


Oops, I made a mistake. It's almost 4 (four) times the annual pension. Actually, the "modest 3% in itself is very cloe to the annual pension. I would love to see these maggots live for 6 months on that small pittance. Unfortunately, I grew up in the days when there was the idea that we worked all of our lives, paid tax (which really was brought in to fund WW1 as a TEMPORARY measure) so that we would have a pension that allowed us to keep our dignity. Well, somewhere along the track, this idea was hijacked and two things came out of it. 1. the taxes don't go towards any future pension and 2. Any chance of dignity has just about gone out the _ I had a day dream the other day. I thought that we had that pompus ar5e Christopher Pine out here on our land and he somehow wasn't able to leave for 6 months. He had to live as we do. eg 1 can of soup each night, 3 wheat bix and milk for breakky with limited milk, sometimes an extra 2 slices of bread with jam on them during the day (or if wanted to, left till after dinner as "desert" 1 glass of cordial, any amount of water, 1 bucket of water to wash with and clean teeth (with toothpaste), good dunny paper (gotta have SOME luxuries). During the day he was able to come out with me and clean up any downed trees. Evenings were great. Could watch 1 hour of TV (limited because of electricity) and rugged up due to NO internal linings in the house or ceiling. There are many many people worse off but I doubt that poor "well spoken, self confident" Chrissy boy would be able to cope with anything less than that.

It was a great day dream seeing him finally realise how much of a pr1ck he was.
edit on 3/7/12 by steve1709 because: spelling




posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
MODERATOR I know this post is OFF TOPIC!

BUT

Thank you "dont tread on me" (mod) for letting me know that one or more of my posts was off topic. I noticed the cute little sign you placed where my comment once was. I have to type this here as when you sent me the U2U thing you didn't give me a right of reply to you by telling me that I couldn't. So fair enough call, the owner of the site pays the bills for it but me thinks that maybe you might have been a bit quick on the trigger. It said in your little pic that replaced my comment, that this was done "AFTER" a previous warning had been given on this thread. Well I checked the 11 pages and couldn't find it. Please, if it was there, accept my apologies but if not, how about, if you want members to stick to the rules, you do too. This topic lends itself to many passionate opinions that WILL twist and turn but I'm sure that eventually all roads lead to Rome. OK I know I will probably be banned now but at least I got this off my chest. So much for the internet allowing free opinions. If I do get slammed for my opinion here, maybe it's because you have just been trod on.
Regards

Steve
edit on 4/7/12 by steve1709 because: spelling
edit on 4/7/12 by steve1709 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
If the government is charging tax on an imaginary carbon foot print, start printing some of those imaginary carbon credits they said you will be able to buy. This is all a scam to control what people eat, wear, say and do. Australia is the testing ground. They’ve been working on this for years. At least the Australian people are tough enough to fight back and not go along like sheep.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
This whole carbon tax garbage sucks.....but no more than any other scam for politicians to line their own pockets. Basically, nothing changes.

Tax free threshold rises to $18,200 from July 1, 2012 Costs for average household will rise by $9.90 a week Average household assistance will be $10.10 a week Read more: www.news.com.au...
LINK

The carbon price won’t come out of your weekly pay packet directly, appear on your tax return or on a receipt like the GST. The study shows an average Australian household will see its living expenses increase by $9.10 per week on average.

The weekly grocery shop will also be slightly more expensive, with the average bill going up by $1.20 per week. A trip to the shops for a loaf of bread and a litre of milk will cost 2 cents more, while the average weekly spend on fruit and vegetables will increase by 14 cents.

To ease the strain, the government will assist households across Australia through tax breaks and compensation. In many cases, this compensation will outweigh the increased living expenses, resulting in a slightly higher income for some households. For example, if you are a family with two kids, earning $80,000 per year with the income split evenly between the two parents, you will see an overall gain to your income of nearly $2 per week. Most single parents and seniors are in a similar boat, seeing slight gains in their weekly incomes.
LINK

So while the MBA and HIA claim that costs will rise by as much as 2% or around $6,000 to build the average new home from July 2012 (and by as much as $13,000 over the life of a 25-year home loan), I do think the financial impact will be much less and, more likely than not, negligible. In fact, the two 0.25% recent rate cuts have delivered the average home owner twice as much savings (close to $28,000) in the interest payments over a 25-year period.
LINK
So yeah, quite simply a non issue.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   


Again, the point is that the price of coal powered energy will increase (and yes, obviously, this gets 'passed on' to the consumer), making other forms of 'alternative' energy better able to compete. If it reduces the amount of power people are using, then obviously it reduces emissions.
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Again, I understand the theory. My point is that just because the price goes up whether it is tax induced, general CPI or linked to the scarcity of fossil fuels, the cost is absorbed by the consumer and this will not change the way existing companies operate. If it does not directly affect their bottom line, it will change very little. It may initially introduce competition but that will not last very long and only with existing companies. The way competition works unless I am mistaken is they will drop the price to get the custom then simply match the same as everyone else. Also; the reality is that people cannot just stop or reduce the amount of power they consume because the cost increases without having immediate, viable alternatives already in place.

It may come as a surprise to some people but the government does not have a good track record for using tax payer funds for the benefit of the public in general and a new tax earmarked for investment in cleaner energy does not mean that is where it will end up nor do I trust it to be so just because it sounds like a good idea in theory.

I reserve the right to be extremely wary and skeptical with regard to this Carbon tax until proven otherwise.

cheers



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MollyStewart

Again, I understand the theory. My point is that just because the price goes up whether it is tax induced, general CPI or linked to the scarcity of fossil fuels, the cost is absorbed by the consumer and this will not change the way existing companies operate. If it does not directly affect their bottom line, it will change very little. It may initially introduce competition but that will not last very long and only with existing companies. The way competition works unless I am mistaken is they will drop the price to get the custom then simply match the same as everyone else.


No. The point is that the current 'alternative' energy sources will have a more level playing field if the cost of coal rises a bit. Again, not saying i support such measures. Just pointing out the financial/economic reasons behind it.


Also; the reality is that people cannot just stop or reduce the amount of power they consume because the cost increases without having immediate, viable alternatives already in place.


Firstly: People can ALWAYS reduce their energy consumption. Much of the typical household's energy consumption is or rather unnecessary things, like television, dryers, microwaves, etc.

Second: How do you think 'viable alternatives' , already in the place, appear out of the blue?

Here's a tip: The supply of coal is running out. Your country runs off of a lot of coal. Your population is increasing. Your energy use is increasing. This means costs will go up, with or without an added 'tax'. Everyone will have to consume less. Period. That is reality.



It may come as a surprise to some people but the government does not have a good track record for using tax payer funds for the benefit of the public in general and a new tax earmarked for investment in cleaner energy does not mean that is where it will end up nor do I trust it to be so just because it sounds like a good idea in theory.


Now THAT I agree with. But that is a complaint with the level of corruption in your government, and not really a viable refutation of the principles behind this specific carbon tax.


I reserve the right to be extremely wary and skeptical with regard to this Carbon tax until proven otherwise.

cheers


You should be VERY skeptical. But you should also have all the facts and not just one side.Approaching it with a pre-determined opinion will only cloud your ability to see all the facts.
edit on 5-7-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
My house is on full solar. I generate enough for us to live without reliance on coal fired power and, pump the excess back into the grid.

We have planted over 80,000 native, local species trees on our property.

We harvest our own rainwater and grow our own meat (pork, chicken and lamb), vegetables, fruit, eggs and honey.

As far as I'm concerned, we're already doing everything we can to reduce our pollution output.

I'll continue to do as much as possible to NOT pay any of this "Carbon" Tax / Fine that has been forced upon us by the current lying Government. Please don't tell me Abbots just the same. I have no time for him either.

I really think if TPTB were serious about things, they could start by assisting to provide cheap solar systems for citizens. The Carbon Fine is nothing but a money making roundabout for them.

As much as humanly possible, I will not be a part of their rip-off schemes.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
114000 homes about to be powered by 100 new wind turbines over in WA. This was just announced on Sky News. Also just heard John Hewson admit that he was at a meeting where the audience was "filled with the big polluters" He asked the question "how many here have not been planning for carbon reduction?" He said NOT A HAND WENT UP. He went on to say that they have been planning this for over 10 years. He mentioned, yes, they were still playing the short term political game but were aware and planning "for the inevitable", a reduction in carbon use. So, to all of the squealers who are saying companies can't or won't be doing anything about carbon emissions, there you go. A lib who had the balls to call it as things are. When energy production through high carbon emmission methods increases in price, the main players "DO" look for alternative methods.

Back to my first point, doing the maths, doesn't that mean each wind turbine provides household energy for 1.14 thousand homes? Well, even if right now the expense is high, with improvements in technology and design and materials, surely even the most hardened lib fanatic can see that we can and must look towards clean, alternative energy production. And to ANY pessimists out there that look at the advances in technology towards this clean energy production as a glass "half empty", instead of being that anchor in the dirt that progressive people have to keep dragging behind them, how about picking up your anchor and HELPING your kids and grandkids and my kids and grandkids have a fair go. And the argument that "look! our power bill is increasing! must be the carbon tax!" I have news for you, Your power bill was going to increase anyway. There were ALREADY increases lined up for you bill whether the carbon tax came in or not. And look at one really good example of how business (AKA lib backers) are showing their true colours. BRUMBIES put out a memmo saying to BLAME high prices ON THE CARBON TAX where possible. The sleeze of the blue party comes through again.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by steve1709
 


I agree with the use of Wind Farms... to a point. We are about to have (hopefully not, mind you), about 40-50 wind turbines installed along pristine hills and scrub-land less than 1km away from us. They will be taller than the tallest building in Adelaide and face a direction that means when the sun rises in the morning we will be doused in flickering shadows from light passing through spinning blades. Our property value will decrease (according to both real estate agents and an official Bank valuer), and to top it off, they are being installed right in the middle of a Wedge Tailed Eagle nesting site. The turbine company denies this but having lived here all of my life, I know where they nest and hunt far better than them.

The install process means two years of concreting and removal of scrub land. The concrete and items being used to build this monstrosity have a large amount of pollution attached to their construction. It has divided the community. There are a small number of land owners who are being paid HUGE amounts of money to have these installed on their property. An annual payment of around $20,000 PER FAN! Some landowners have 20+ planned for their properties.

And guess what - I live in South Australia. The company who is installing these is from Victoria. The energy produced does not get used here. It is pumped back to Victoria. South Australia does not benefit from this at all. Not to mention the sheer disdain their employees show towards anyone who disagrees with their plans. The vast majority of people living in the affected area are against this.

Laws have hurriedly been changed to allow this process to go ahead. They have been changed to the point where the public actually gets no real say in whether they go ahead or not.

Overall I'm angry. It seems as though it is being forced upon us. My initial comment stands in that I think Wind Farms could be a good thing however, they need to be placed away from populations. We have ample desert or ocean locations for these. Don't inflict them upon those who do not want their back yard to become a whirring nightmare.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   


Firstly: People can ALWAYS reduce their energy consumption. Much of the typical household's energy consumption is or rather unnecessary things, like television, dryers, microwaves, etc.
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


There are many points to this argument, not just one,not just yours and mine. I am not that narrow minded that i cannot see where you or other people are coming from. I also agree there are measures one can put in place to try to reduce the amount of power a household consumes. I am saying that the small measures like turning power off at the power point when items are not in use, turning lights off when you leave a room and perhaps throwing on a jumper instead of turning on the heater might save the regular household a few bucks a year but as the cost steadily increases, whatever measures they put in place to reduce their own power costs and consumption will be eaten up in the increased charges leaving those on lower incomes unable to afford alternatives like solar.

As a low income earner, I can not afford to just drop 14000+ for the initial installation, even with government rebates. That is kids schooling, clothes and medical for a year. It is simply beyond my reach, I could work seven days with two jobs and still not be able to afford that sort of money. So in theory, it sounds great. The practical is just out of reach for low income earners which make up a good majority of our workforce.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by MollyStewart



Firstly: People can ALWAYS reduce their energy consumption. Much of the typical household's energy consumption is or rather unnecessary things, like television, dryers, microwaves, etc.
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


There are many points to this argument, not just one,not just yours and mine. I am not that narrow minded that i cannot see where you or other people are coming from. I also agree there are measures one can put in place to try to reduce the amount of power a household consumes. I am saying that the small measures like turning power off at the power point when items are not in use, turning lights off when you leave a room and perhaps throwing on a jumper instead of turning on the heater might save the regular household a few bucks a year but as the cost steadily increases, whatever measures they put in place to reduce their own power costs and consumption will be eaten up in the increased charges leaving those on lower incomes unable to afford alternatives like solar.

As a low income earner, I can not afford to just drop 14000+ for the initial installation, even with government rebates. That is kids schooling, clothes and medical for a year. It is simply beyond my reach, I could work seven days with two jobs and still not be able to afford that sort of money. So in theory, it sounds great. The practical is just out of reach for low income earners which make up a good majority of our workforce.


I'm not sure why you keep mentioning solar. I said nothing about it. My point was simply about using LESS power, not different power. The reality is, coal is in limited and ever-dwindling supply. That will mean price increases far exceeding a minimal tax increase. So whatever complaints you have against the tax, you should have against your government ten fold for not funding alternatives NOW that will help alleviate further prie increases in the future.

And, in the meantime, if this carbon tax means the average consumer consumes less energy by watching the television, running clothes dryers and air conditioners, by having extra fridges, etc etc etc, then its a good start.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   


I'm not sure why you keep mentioning solar. I said nothing about it. My point was simply about using LESS power, not different power. The reality is, coal is in limited and ever-dwindling supply. That will mean price increases far exceeding a minimal tax increase. So whatever complaints you have against the tax, you should have against your government ten fold for not funding alternatives NOW that will help alleviate further prie increases in the future.
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I keep mentioning solar because it is one of the few alternatives to the existing utilities consumers have and it is expensive. I am using this as an example. I understand you did not bring it up, I did. Hope that clarifies things for you.

The complaints I have against the tax are valid and I can assure you they pale in comparison to the ones I have with the Australian Government not just with regard to this tax but their many failures to the people they are supposed to represent.

So rather than go off on a tangent I will simply say again that unless the funds collected from this tax are earmarked for cleaner, renewable, viable utilities and alternate power sources that do not rely on ever dwindling coal and fossil related fuels and you and I both know that greedy governments will do nothing of the sort, it is a useless endeavour.





top topics
 
23
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join