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.
Originally posted by seenavv
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.
Originally posted by seenavvno 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.
Originally posted by seenavvThe 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 that smart meters are less dangerous than the wifi outlets in your vicinity, right?
Originally posted by seenavvI'm sure they are... All i've heard is they are blowing up all the time
Originally posted by stanguilles7
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.
Originally posted by CrimsonKapital
reply to post by stanguilles7
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?
It is not only useless for Australia to do this but dangerous in these economic times of uncertainty. If she really wanted to encourage "Green" initiatives by big business then why did she end compensation for businesses who invest in Green technology?
Originally posted by deessell
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.
Originally posted by aaron2209
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.
Originally posted by daaskapital
Originally posted by stanguilles7
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.
And you don't have a problem in paying more for everything?
By 2042, Australia's population is projected to increase by around 30 per cent, to over 25 million. The number of people aged 55 and over will grow faster than the number aged under 55.
This will mean substantially fewer Australians of workforce age (15 to 64) compared to people aged 65 and over.
Currently, for every person aged 65 and over, there are about 5.3 people of workforce age.
By 2043, this will decrease to about 2.5 people of workforce age. This reduction in the proportion of workers has obvious implications for the Government's ability to raise revenues and provide services like health and pension benefits in the future.
Link
Originally posted by daaskapital
It all began with Australia's current Prime Minister winning an election on the promise that there would "not be a carbon tax under any government i lead."
What the government should be doing is inviting major polluters to adjust to greener ideas, and rewarding them for it, while disallowing them to raise prices to the consumer. That would effect the change you want to see, because then it would affect their bottom line if they didn't. If a major polluter went over to a green alternative, the government should be assisting with subsidisation, say 50% of their costs, which then they could claim back 100% as a tax rebate. The net cost to them is really nothing, and people continue to spend, which in turn garners more tax for the government.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
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.
Originally posted by 74Templar
Originally posted by stanguilles7
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.
I can understand that. But at the end of the day, when it impacts basic things like food and shelter, what is the alternative? Eat less? Live in a tent? It still takes the same amount of resources to get from market to store, then to your table, something the carbon tax will have a hand the entire way..
Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by 74Templar
What the government should be doing is inviting major polluters to adjust to greener ideas, and rewarding them for it, while disallowing them to raise prices to the consumer. That would effect the change you want to see, because then it would affect their bottom line if they didn't. If a major polluter went over to a green alternative, the government should be assisting with subsidisation, say 50% of their costs, which then they could claim back 100% as a tax rebate. The net cost to them is really nothing, and people continue to spend, which in turn garners more tax for the government.
Would the government not need to raise taxes in order to subsidise these major polluters? So we would all be paying instead of those that are just buying pollution intensive products?
Also, I don't know that allowing a government to dictate prices to a business is a good thing.edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by yizzel
reply to post by daaskapital
Apparently she was charged an extra $15 for her hair-do last week because of this tax, also her house keeper is demanding more money for the same reason...
You really got to watch out for those that will use this new tax as an excuse to rip people off.
Originally posted by yizzel
reply to post by daaskapital
We're all doomed!!!!!
Sorry to spoil all the 'doom porn' but come on now you don't really believe all that msm crap, do you?
The GST was a far greater burden on your average Aussie tax payer than this carbon tax will ever be and the sky didn't fall in then and it's not gunna happen with this new tax either.
I got a call today from my gran(87yo) who was panicking about this great big new tax, saying this tax is a python squeeze (wonder where she got that from) and she's fearing that she'll be destitute because of it.
Apparently she was charged an extra $15 for her hair-do last week because of this tax, also her house keeper is demanding more money for the same reason...
You really got to watch out for those that will use this new tax as an excuse to rip people off.