It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
LINK
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...
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.
LINK
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.
reply to post by stanguilles7
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.
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.
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
reply to post by stanguilles7
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.
Originally posted by MollyStewart
reply to post by stanguilles7
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.
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.
reply to post by stanguilles7
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.