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

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

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


It only 'sounds' like that because that is what you want to hear. Because it'snot what Im saying AT ALL.




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.


Nonsense. The population continues to boom, and there is NO MAGIC BULLET for our levels of consumption. To claim otherwise is to live in a fantasy.


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.


name them




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


Again, nonsense. Smart meters are merely a more efficient way to track energy usage.
edit on 30-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Edit: Quoted the wrong person lol
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

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?



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

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?


Because Australia cant control what a man in China consumes, but they can affect the energy consumption in their own country.


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?


Like I said, i'm hardy defending carbon taxes. I'm merely illustrating the rationale behind them. Also, i think 'green tech' is a pipe dream



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

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.


And then consumers would think twice about using wasteful and unnecessary appliances.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

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.


It could very well do. But then, why call it a tax? I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, I agree, greener solutions are the way to go if we're ever going to evolve, but not everyone can afford solar panels or biofuels. I just look at the current economic situation, and people are stretched pretty thinly as it is. I just don't see how in the short term or even the long term punishing the people for a greener future justifies another price increase.

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.

Electricity is already overpriced, and people are already watching very carefully their usage. Not because they want to, but because it will financially hurt them if they are careless with it. The same goes for fuels, food and just about every other basic need. I can tell you I switched to a smaller car and ride to work most days, simply to save money. I turn off all non-essential items in the house at the plug, to try and keep costs down, even to the point of using blankets instead of the heater, and candles instead of lights.

The government should be heading up incentives like these instead of just outright dipping into our pockets to line their own, and line those of the corporations that basically own them.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

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?




Do you think you can just consume infinite amounts of energy at a relatively low cost for ever? Resources are finite. Costs will continue to increase, even without an added tax. Consume Less.

I'm not a fan of paying more for everything. Which is why I am very thrifty with the energy i consume.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


I wonder if the Australian greenies pushing this carbon tax are aware that by the time they retire, there won't be enough people working to pay their pension never mind their carbon tax?

By 2043, there will only be 2.5 people of working age (remember many of them don't work - students, mothers, disabled) compared to 5.3 people today.

Who exactly is going to pay the pensions?

Yet all the Greenies are interested in is taxing people more when Australia only produces 1.32% of all man made carbon emissions. China produces 23.33% and couldn't give a fig about green house gases.

Link


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


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



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:35 AM
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."




The election was not won on that promise.

That statement was the same as the opposition, so nobody who wanted the tax would have swung their vote in Tony Abbotts direction, nor would it make anyone switch the vote the other way.
It was however, the policy of the greens, so that statement may have send some votes to the greens, or if she'd told the truth then stolen some from the greens.

Either way, Abbott would still be in opposition.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
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)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

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. People can barely afford enough to live as it is. To me, the ultimate alternative is to go off grid, ie; live in a caravan or tent with no electricity, and grow and hunt your own food. It just seems to me this is a corporation driven tax grab, nothing more. If the Australian government was serious about reducing carbon emissions they would be spearheading incentives we could all benefit from, not attempting to line their own pockets with money we don't already have.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

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..


But, as previously noted, the increase in cost for food stuffs, etc, is extremely minimal. The real increase is in power consumption., which, for the average household, is not 'essential' items, but luxury ones.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


That's why we are being compensated in the short term. Businesses will start looking at ways to reduce costs i.e. carbon tax.

The example I gave earlier:

A can of *whatever* from Company A costs $5 including a carbon tax, a can of the same from Company B costs $4 due to utilising environmentally friendly methods of production. Which do you buy? I would assume the product from Company B. Company A realises they need to cut costs in order to price match and regain market share, so they look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint to reduce the burden of the carbon tax in order to sell the product at a similar price.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

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)


Let the major polluters pay for it out of their bottom line. Take a look at the top polluters in Australia. Not one of them has posted a loss in the last few years. If they suffer for it, then they need to get their act together and sort it out before they start losing money. The problem is these major corporations have their hands in the governments pockets and vice versa. I could see this, along with other taxes being worthwhile if the government was prepared to scrap something like income tax to make it happen. Not only would it make the sting a lot less, but it would stimulate the economy, giving these corporations ultimately more money to spend on new infrastructure.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by yizzel
 


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.


We've been paying more for everything for the last 6 months because of the carbon tax lol

So many things attributed to it before it's even come in to play.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

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.


I'd be checking that, there are laws in place to stop people who abuse the tax, especially considering it hasn't started yet.
And the GST was a different time to now, and just like now, they put in tax cuts to make us all shut up and think it's a good idea. Six months later we were back to paying 30% income tax and still had a 10% GST in place.

I do think you are right, life will go on regardless, but we are in a financial slump right now. People just don't have it to stretch any further than they do, and at the end of the day it's the luxuries, not the basics that stimulate the economy. If we only have enough for food, rent and electricity, then the economy will never move.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by yizzel
 


There are now updated laws to counter for businesses lying about their price increases.

Those who falsely raise their prices due to the carbon tax will get massive fines for doing so.

There was a thread here about it and of course the doom pornographers worded it to make it sound like the government was going to fine any company that puts up their prices due to the carbon tax...



Here it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 30/6/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


You Australians deserve it. You elect these crackpot Liberals.. you deserve the tax burden they will push on you.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Precisely!

I blame the Govt for not making it clear(educate) to the population about the carbon tax. At least Howard got Joe Cocker's 'Unchain My Heart' to talk up the GST for 'em.





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join