Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
There was a report in this morning's paper that said the average price of electricity will rise by $317 a year because of the carbon tax, and the cost of basic food will rise by $416 a year. I can't find the news report online, but will post it if I can find it. When you consider we are getting a tax reduction of $300 a year, it still puts most people way in the red. That will barely cover the increase in electricity, which at the moment is the highest in the world apart from Germany I believe. Rego will go up from $26 to $37 a year depending on the type of car you drive.

Want to know just how much of a joke the Gillard government thinks we are? This child bonus thing they put out equates to around $3 a day per kid, and $5 a day for high school kids. An average lunch order? Around $8 per kid. Excursion? Swimming lessons for my two are $36 each for five days worth of lessons, through the school. Uniforms? $26 a pop for shirts, and around $40 for school jumpers and dresses. On top of that, most of the money we got went back to public, government funded school fees, so basically all they did was give us money from the pile we then put back into the pile.


I think Australia needs a revolution. And soon.


ETA: I couldn't find the local link, but here's one from the Adelaide Advertiser that is pretty close. The headline says it all.
How Much More Living Is Going To Cost
edit on 29-6-2012 by 74Templar because: ETA




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by mainidh
 


So are you telling me that a business paying $500M a year in carbon tax (a number out of thin air) wouldn't look at that figure and think "Hmmm how can we lower this by utilising less pollution producing methods"?

That will be the first thing they do.


No.

Companies will continue their practices and will more than likely raise the prices of consumer products.

If you owned a company, you wouldn't want it to lose money.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by mainidh
 


So are you telling me that a business paying $500M a year in carbon tax (a number out of thin air) wouldn't look at that figure and think "Hmmm how can we lower this by utilising less pollution producing methods"?

That will be the first thing they do.


Or, they could pass the cost on to the consumers. Which do you think is more likely? Why are you so keen to support this tax?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
But explain to me why Australia should pay the highest carbon tax in the world, when we produce 0.001% of global emissions and China is building 3 coal plants per week?


Its just another excuse to tax people.

Humans produce only 0.8% of all CO2 in the atmosphere Link.

Cows on the other hand...


Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife.

The Independent


edit on 30-6-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deessell
reply to post by mainidh
 


Paul Keating? Why do you think he was so bad? A better choice would have been Little Johnny Howard.


They're all out of touch with reality, but he just strove to be the worst. Pig farms and pandering to the northern neighbours. "This is the recession we had to have..." what a gronk.

Howard at least tried to find a solution to our current influx of boat people. A method many people are suggesting that red haired crazy look at. Shes so up herself all she can smell is her tonsils.

But none of them have my respect. Kim beazleys father said it best:

"When I first joined the Labor Party (in the 1940s), it was made up of the cream of the working class. When I left it (in the 1970s), it was made up of the scum of the middle class."

They're all weasels.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by mainidh
 


So are you telling me that a business paying $500M a year in carbon tax (a number out of thin air) wouldn't look at that figure and think "Hmmm how can we lower this by utilising less pollution producing methods"?

That will be the first thing they do.


No they don't and a famous example of why is in Queensland atm where they have scrapped the building of anymore solarhart panels. The reason is because people were getting too much electricity from the sun and the company wasn't making enough money, so they have switched back to fossil fuels, clever aren't they?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


That is exactly what I'm telling you. They are not in it for the benefit of society, they're in it to make a profit. They won't suddenly start thinking "Oh it costs us to do this. We better stop and find a more costly alternative." They will simply keep doing what they do and to cover their losses put it on the consumer.

Any good business model has a contingency for loss of profit. And it never involves reducing production.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by mainidh
 


So are you telling me that a business paying $500M a year in carbon tax (a number out of thin air) wouldn't look at that figure and think "Hmmm how can we lower this by utilising less pollution producing methods"?

That will be the first thing they do.


No.

Companies will continue their practices and will more than likely raise the prices of consumer products.

If you owned a company, you wouldn't want it to lose money.


You don't think companies will fight for consumers via price? Company A sells *whatever* at $5 a can and is paying a carbon tax. Company B selling the same thing but via more environmentally friendly methods therefore avoiding the carbon tax can sell it for $4. Which do you buy?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by deessell
 


Because I believe it will work and is not the end of the world. Before anyone claims otherwise, I am no fan of Labor or Liberal. They are as bad as each other!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Cost of living is rising fast regardless.

Liberal and Labor are both just as bad as each other.

We are to blame for letting our political system be governed by money and not we the people.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mainidh
 


Not when consumers are buying the cheaper alternative produced via environmentally means.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
Please. People routinely use FAR more power than they actually 'need'. No one 'needs' a dishwasher, or a plasma tv, or an electric dryer. Those are conveniences, not needs.

sounds like your a proponent for the government telling you what you need and don't need and driving masses down to third world standards, while they have their asses pampered 24/7



Consuming less energy is the ONLY way the population can continue into the century. "Green' energy is a pipe dream. Using less is the only solution Carbon taxes are implemented as a way to try and encourage consumers to consume less.

no it's not, that's the kind of propaganda you've been led to believe
we don't don't need to consume less, we need to consume differently.
The technologies have all been out there for decades, but suppressed by the very same elite lobbies who are now shoving carbon taxes down our throat. You know one of the major backers of smart meters are the rockefellers and zbigniew brzezinski ?




You know that smart meters are less dangerous than the wifi outlets in your vicinity, right?

I'm sure they are... All i've heard is they are blowing up all the time
edit on 30-6-2012 by seenavv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh
reply to post by aaron2209
 


That is exactly what I'm telling you. They are not in it for the benefit of society, they're in it to make a profit. They won't suddenly start thinking "Oh it costs us to do this. We better stop and find a more costly alternative." They will simply keep doing what they do and to cover their losses put it on the consumer.

Any good business model has a contingency for loss of profit. And it never involves reducing production.


This is exactly right. If there is a more efficient way to do something, it would have already been done by the major polluters in Aust, not because they want to be environmentally friendly, because it improves their bottom line profit. I remember a conference a year or so back and asked a senior executive why the company I worked for didn't consider things such as solar power for their stores and biodiesel for their trucks. It was two reasons, one, the government wouldn't subsidise them going to the alternatives, andf they would have to foot 100% of the bill, and two, the amount it cost them to go to these alternatives wouldn't reap them a massive profit for years, if at all.

In the end, the carbon tax is simply the governments way of trying to refill empty government coffers with money the people don't have. But just like the GST, if you wanna eat, have power or pretty much live, you pay. There's no escaping it. And for those who think Abbot is going to scrap the carbon tax, ask yourself this. Did Labour scrap the GST when it got into power? Did they not promise to?
edit on 30-6-2012 by 74Templar because: typos



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Looking at my electricity bill and the recent letter I have received regarding the carbon tax rise, my electricity will cost approx $80-$90 more a year.

Not quite the impact espoused by many.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


And now it will become more financially efficient to seek out environmentally friendly methods.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
Looking at my electricity bill and the recent letter I have received regarding the carbon tax rise, my electricity will cost approx $80-$90 a year.

Not quite the impact espoused by many.


Then again, your living conditions are different to many Australian families yes?

Everyone will be affected differently.
edit on 30-6-2012 by daaskapital because: sp



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by aaron2209
Looking at my electricity bill and the recent letter I have received regarding the carbon tax rise, my electricity will cost approx $80-$90 a year.

Not quite the impact espoused by many.


Then again, your living conditions are different to many Australian families no?

Everyone will be affected differently.


Of course but it is nothing like the apocalypse some are implying.

I'm in a 2 person house, desktop, 2 laptops, plasma TV, washing machine, tablet, 2 mobiles. Must be pretty close to average.

Certainly far from the $300 odd rise mentioned in that article lol
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)


Edit: My earlier post that said my electricity would be $80-$90 a year was meant to say "$80-$90 MORE per year".
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by 74Templar
 


And now it will become more financially efficient to seek out environmentally friendly methods.


But will it? Stock still needs to get to stores right? Diesel for trucks, registration, road wear, pollutants. $23 a tonne Carbon Tax for all those uses. Now multiply that by a fleet of say 500 trucks across Australia. Stock still needs refirigeration right? Again, increased use of carbon tax to pay for what we aren't paying for now. Then, multiply it by the 1000 or so major retail stores across Australia.

I can see where you are coming from, but you really don't understand big business if you think these people that run these companies are suddenly going to start lookig at alternatives to keep their carbon taxing to a minimum. Bottom line profit. The maximum return for the minimal outlay is the foundation of any business. Most of the major polluters in Australia would have already been at their accountants finding ways to both increase their costs as not to have any impact on their bottom line and cover the cost to them for the new tax. For them, it's just a major tax dodge, and another way to skim more money from the public, the ones who are really paying for this tax.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


I understand what you're saying too and short term, yeah there may not be many noticeable changes but long term I believe there will be. I believe it will accelerate the innovation and take up of environmentally friendly technology.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar


I can see where you are coming from, but you really don't understand big business if you think these people that run these companies are suddenly going to start lookig at alternatives to keep their carbon taxing to a minimum. Bottom line profit. The maximum return for the minimal outlay is the foundation of any business.


But the point is that the cost will impact consumers, who will have an obvious incentive to curtail their energy consumption levels.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join