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

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by daaskapital
 


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


Just to set the record straight, Australia did NOT vote in Gillard or even the Labour government.

No Carbon Tax

As an American I thought you would know about broken promises Rock.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Doesn't matter. You let it happen. Just like we let the travesty that is Obamacare happen. Now we have dumbasses thinking that buying insurance = universal healthcare, and you have dumbasses thinking taxing Carbon will curb pollution. Ultimately it will just make you middle and lower classes poorer.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hmmm so from 2008-2010 electricity rose 40%



The index of electricity prices in Australia has remained within a band of plus or minus 5% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the 22 years between 1986 and 2008. But since then electricity prices have increased by 40% relative to CPI. 1 This is shown in Figure E1:


www.euaa.com.au...

Have a look at the cost of electricity rising from 2008-2010 and tell me again that this is the end of the world. They didn't even have the carbon tax excuse then.



Following a series of decisions by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) in 2009 and 2010, distributors’ revenues in constant currency will increase on average by 7%3 per annum for the next four years, roughly double the rate of the last 10 years.


So prices were going to rise by 7% with or without the carbon tax.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 74Templar

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by daaskapital
 


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


Just to set the record straight, Australia did NOT vote in Gillard or even the Labour government.

No Carbon Tax

As an American I thought you would know about broken promises Rock.


What are you talking about? Labor ended up in power through a perfectly democratic process.

Would you be complaining if it were the Liberals that made deals with Independents? I should hope so. What would you have preferred to happen when it's a deadlock like it was?

If anything, it's more representative. Neither party has complete power to pass whatever BS they want.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Doesn't matter. You let it happen. Just like we let the travesty that is Obamacare happen. Now we have dumbasses thinking that buying insurance = universal healthcare, and you have dumbasses thinking taxing Carbon will curb pollution. Ultimately it will just make you middle and lower classes poorer.


Unfortunately I can't argue with that logic. And it will make the poor poorer. Problem is the Australian "she'll be right" attitude most people have. Those that stand up to the government are in the minority. They say the elections are compulsory here because if they weren't no one would vote, and I believe that. The problem is now, are we in too deep to get out? Not just Australians, but much of the democratic world? No matter which way we turn it seems there's always a new tax or a new system designed to keep the working class down. One thing I hope comes out of all this is it sparks people into action, instead of just accepting our governments know what's best for us.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Doesn't matter. You let it happen. Just like we let the travesty that is Obamacare happen. Now we have dumbasses thinking that buying insurance = universal healthcare, and you have dumbasses thinking taxing Carbon will curb pollution. Ultimately it will just make you middle and lower classes poorer.

Only thing is that it is not a result of voting for this party or that party like you claim.

It is a result of letting our political system be governed by money and not we the people.

Just like in the US the major parties in Australia are just as bad as each other and in reality virtually exactly the same however different they may appear.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HumanCondition

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Doesn't matter. You let it happen. Just like we let the travesty that is Obamacare happen. Now we have dumbasses thinking that buying insurance = universal healthcare, and you have dumbasses thinking taxing Carbon will curb pollution. Ultimately it will just make you middle and lower classes poorer.

Only thing is that it is not a result of voting for this party or that party like you claim.

It is a result of letting our political system be governed by money and not we the people.

Just like in the US the major parties in Australia are just as bad as each other and in reality virtually exactly the same however different they may appear.


That I can agree with. Long live the Pirate Party!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

What are you talking about? Labor ended up in power through a perfectly democratic process.

Would you be complaining if it were the Liberals that made deals with Independents? I should hope so. What would you have preferred to happen when it's a deadlock like it was?

If anything, it's more representative. Neither party has complete power to pass whatever BS they want


The we would just be bitching about the Liberal's new carbon tax, and Julia Gillard would be saying she will scrap it if elected.

What should we have done? Gone back to the polls. Decide again. Or let the party that actually WON represent us, not have the two-party-majority make deals for themselves to get into power.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital
This is it people. Australia's Carbon Tax is coming on the 1st of July.

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." This was eventually proven to be a lie when she forced it through with teh help of the Greens. The Australian public, for the majority have been against this move and our Prime Minister ever since she forced it in. Perhaps the reason as to why we are opposed is because we did not get a say. In fact, recently when Gillard (our PM) was asked about the fact that the public didn't get to vote, she responded with "It's already been passed, so there's nothing no one can do to stop it." Or something similar to that. This reply disgusted me, knowing that our PM does not care for the people, only for those in power.

When the initial backlash destroyed her credibility, she defended the decision, stating that there would not be any affect on the people whatsoever. The majority of the people however were smart enough not to fall for those false claims. It is obvious that the big companies who will get taxed do not want to lose money. So, what are they going to do? I know, raise their prices so consumers must pay more. That is a way to not lose any money from the tax. Reviewing this, it is evident that the tax will not do anything but raise the prices of consumer available products and essentials.

The government has finally acknowledged this and is attempting to give out tax benefits to families...



This is where it gets interesting

The government has stated that it will provide tax cuts for the public as a result of the Carbon Tax:


Singles on low and middle incomes will get tax cuts to help them with the expected increase in living costs. Some low-income households might not receive enough assistance through tax cuts or Government payments to offset their average expected cost impact under a carbon price. These households will be able to apply for an annual, tax-exempt Low Income Supplement of $300.


The Government will introduce legislation to ensure that those Australians that need help the most, particularly pensioners and low and middle income households, will get assistance to help manage increases in the cost of living from the carbon price. On average, households will see cost increases of $9.90 per week, while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week.


From 1 July 2012, all taxpayers with incomes of up to $80,000 will get a tax cut, with most receiving at least $300 per year. This means around 60 per cent of taxpayers will get a tax cut of at least $300. No one will pay more income tax as a result of the carbon price package.


www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...

We will get tax cuts of at least $300...


That is pathetic...

When you compare the following with the tax cuts, it is evident that the public is getting shafted:


Treasury estimates for the average Australian household electricity will rise by $3.30 per week, gas by $1.50, and food by 80 cents under the carbon price.

www.abc.net.au...

The average Australian household spends much more money than the estimated amount that we will receive through tax cuts. $300 is nothing compared to the...thousands that the average household spends on essentials (food, electricity, fuel etc), yet all those aspects are rising as a result of the Carbon Tax.

Here is an interesting table (which, by the way, only estimates the future costs of goods and essentials):

archive.treasury.gov.au...

The Carbon tax will lead the Australian public down a path of ruin, and for what? For the elite to get more power...?

Regardless, it is quite evident that the public is getting shafted by this Carbon Tax/ The Government's planning is flawed and their tax cuts will not be of significant help at all. The Australian public will be doomed.

This all starts on Sunday, the 1st of July...



Not for nothing, but do they think the people of Australia are stupid?

I'm not Australian, but I know this. It's a fact proven by 1st grade level math.

Check it out, they are proposing the cuts will actually net the average household +0.20 cents.

So, if the carbon tax is going to cost them 0.20 cents on average, why have the new tax?

I guess what I'm saying is, if that were true, they would be making more money before the new tax... so if the intended result was to give the citizens more money, then why wouldn't they just cut the existing taxes by the proportional amount to achieve the desired effect?

Why would they go through the process to undercover ram through a new tax, then provide cuts on the new tax and give you assistance?

Basic math. .20 cents more in your pocket, is .20 cents LESS in theirs. A tax is to INCREASE what is in their pocket.

So essentially if it were true, it would be the dumbest legislation of all time. Hence, it's obvious it's not true. The intelligence required to figure out how to balance the new tax and the amount of money you would have to provide in assistance is much greater than the intelligence required to see that this would be costing them money.

It's like Electric Current. The path of least resistance... it would be much easier to just provide a cut then it would be to purposefully drive up the value of products and then offer assistance that actually exceeds the value the products went up, wrapped up in a super complicated tax rhetoric and code that is sure to necessitate the need for new forms and exemptions.

It's simply illogical.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Liberal/Nationals = 6,185,918
Labor = 6,216,445

en.wikipedia.org...

What's the problem? The party that got more votes won.

I do agree that if it was the other way, the discussion would be the same.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: forgot a link
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: Damn this scotch


With those numbers, if the Liberal/National Party were in power, your argument would stand.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by 74Templar
 


Liberal/Nationals = 6,185,918
Labor = 6,216,445

en.wikipedia.org...

What's the problem? The party that got more votes won.

I do agree that if it was the other way, the discussion would be the same.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: forgot a link
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: Damn this scotch


And here I always read the Greens had the majority vote in the last election. Oh well, I stand corrected, I concede.

But it is true, a carbon tax would be coming regardless of who got into power. I agree life will go on regardless, and people are simply scared because they are uneducated. Insert the word "tax" into anything and people feel their pockets burn. But at the end of the day, all these subsidies and bonuses we're getting now mean squat because big enough companies will be able to charge whatever they want and then hide behind their own armies of lawyers and loophole laws and even the government to overcharge people and increase their bottom line profit and blame it on "another government tax."



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by 74Templar
 


You may be thinking of the fact that The Greens and Independents hold the power. Both major parties have 72 seats so everything relies on the support of Green and/or Independent representatives. That's why I kind of think it's a good thing that neither party has full control.

The rest of your post I agree with
although as consumers we allow them to have the control
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 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
If those costs are all per week, then that equals $291.20 per year. If I'm getting a tax cut of $300 per year, I'm actually ahead.

The world will not end tomorrow because of the carbon tax.


And you... you really think a single person is going to see a net gain? This is called political framing. They frame a legislation that is a detriment to the population in such a way that the population momentarily believes they will see gain instead of loss.

If this was the truth, and people really saw a net gain... what is the purpose, pray tell, of mandating a new tax?

Wouldn't you just be more prone to CUT existing taxes?

You would. It's a scam, you will NOT get a net gain, you will take a net loss as a result of this.

Again, if you were to gain -- why hide it from the people and push it through in secret?

You make no sense. You fail critical thinking.



tax

Pronunciation: /taks/
noun

1a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions


Tax by definition is to put MORE money in their pocket and less in YOURS. That's what "Tax" means.


I'll help you out here... The reason for the tax cuts, is to get you to support the carbon tax. The tax cuts will inevitably be cancelled and you will be liable to cover the extra 300 a year.

As time progresses, they will raise this tax as people don't actually start conserving.

Then the $300 you are responsible a year goes up to an additional $1,000 in taxes.

1,000 x 22 million = 2.2 trillion a year.

So yeah, you aren't penny wise, you are a dollar short.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin


Originally posted by aaron2209
If those costs are all per week, then that equals $291.20 per year. If I'm getting a tax cut of $300 per year, I'm actually ahead.

The world will not end tomorrow because of the carbon tax.


And you... you really think a single person is going to see a net gain?


Looking at the figures thrown around and utilising my power as a consumer....yes.

Although I do concede that if I wish to continue on in the same way using/consuming whatever I wish without a thought like an everyday sheep then no I won't.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by 74Templar
 

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)


So who's buying the $5 can? If you don't you're only enforcing the positive effect of the carbon tax
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209

Originally posted by Laokin


Originally posted by aaron2209
If those costs are all per week, then that equals $291.20 per year. If I'm getting a tax cut of $300 per year, I'm actually ahead.

The world will not end tomorrow because of the carbon tax.


And you... you really think a single person is going to see a net gain?


Looking at the figures thrown around and utilising my power as a consumer....yes.

Although I do concede that if I wish to continue on in the same way using/consuming whatever I wish without a thought like an everyday sheep then no I won't.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)


Do you not acknowledge that tax cuts can be removed? Do you not acknowledge that people were against carbon tax?

Do you not acknowledge that the best way to convert somebody who is against carbon taxes is to get them to think they will actually GAIN from having this tax?

Do you not understand what the word "Tax" means?

Do you not realize the tax cut was employed as a tactic to quell dissent about the mandated carbon tax?

Do you not realize that if people can make a net gain from not really changing their behavior, that they won't?

Do you not realize that carbon tax is being pushed to try to get people to conserve?

So when conservation doesn't happen, you do realize the cuts will be removed?

I mean.... this is simple stuff really.

Stop being a cheerleader for the looters of your money. You will regret it when you realize their "Estimates" aren't even close to correct.

You'll regret it doubly so when the cuts are removed.

You'll remark it as being the dumbest decision you ever made when the carbon tax is subsequently raised.

People of the globe will hate Australians for being stupid enough to prove to other countries that the scam works.

I promise you, when we get Carbon Taxes in America, there will be no love here for you.

Oh and the most important piece of this puzzle. Carbon Tax is a result of Global Warming. Global Warming doesn't exist and was invented by an American politician by the name of Al Gore. There are documents showing his support for a carbon tax from before he "Discovered" Global Warming.

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



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
Do you not acknowledge that tax cuts can be removed?


Of course they can.


Do you not acknowledge that people were against carbon tax?


Of course there were/are people against it.


Do you not acknowledge that the best way to convert somebody who is against carbon taxes is to get them to think they will actually GAIN from having this tax?


That goes for any tax. Like I said, from what I can work out, I will gain.


Do you not understand what the word "Tax" means?


I do.


Do you not realize the tax cut was employed as a tactic to quell dissent about the mandated carbon tax?


and I am going to benefit as will approx 90% of consumers.


Do you not realize that if people can make a net gain from not really changing their behavior, that they won't?


They can increase that gain if they do so why wouldn't you?


Do you not realize that carbon tax is being pushed to try to get people to conserve?


and conserve is what we must do in a world of finite resources.


So when conservation doesn't happen, you do realize the cuts will be removed?


Conservation has to happen.


I mean.... this is simple stuff really.


Indeed.


Stop being a cheerleader for the looters of your money. You will regret it when you realize their "Estimates" aren't even close to correct.


I guess we'll find out when we wake up tomorrow.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209

Originally posted by Laokin
Do you not acknowledge that tax cuts can be removed?


Of course they can.


Do you not acknowledge that people were against carbon tax?


Of course there were/are people against it.


Do you not acknowledge that the best way to convert somebody who is against carbon taxes is to get them to think they will actually GAIN from having this tax?


That goes for any tax. Like I said, from what I can work out, I will gain.


Do you not understand what the word "Tax" means?


I do.


Do you not realize the tax cut was employed as a tactic to quell dissent about the mandated carbon tax?


and I am going to benefit.


Do you not realize that if people can make a net gain from not really changing their behavior, that they won't?


They can increase that gain if they do so why wouldn't you?


Do you not realize that carbon tax is being pushed to try to get people to conserve?


and conserve is what we must do in a world of finite resources.


So when conservation doesn't happen, you do realize the cuts will be removed?


Conservation has to happen.


I mean.... this is simple stuff really.


Indeed.


Stop being a cheerleader for the looters of your money. You will regret it when you realize their "Estimates" aren't even close to correct.


I guess we'll find out when we wake up tomorrow.


No, you won't. You'll find out at the end of the next fiscal year, when you realize you made NO gain, only LOSS.

You will find out the next year when the cuts are removed, which will take your loss and double it.

You will find out the next year, when the tax is raised.

By then, it'll be indoctrinated into the people and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Hell, they already TOLD you there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Pray tell, why would people consume less for a tiny, tiny gain? 300 a year? I can make that in a day mowing lawns.

People won't conserve because there won't be a noticeable difference. You can spend 300$ in bandwidth overage fees in one day in Australia. When the cost of living goes up, the value of your currency goes down. $300 won't buy as much then as it does now even, making it disappear even faster. The cost to go to the movies with 4 people and get everyone a large drink a popcorn and 1 box of candy each is approximately 100$. So you'll conserve, live less luxurious than you do for 3 trips to the movies?

When they don't conserve, and the tax that was designed to "make people conserve" is proven to not be effective, it will raise.

You seem like an intelligent bloke, you really do.... Do yourself some good and study history of taxes.

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



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


Takes me back to my example earlier regarding the $5 can of *whatever*. What would you do?

If you choose to ignore the cheaper $4 can and continue with your usual purchase of the $5 can, who is to blame?

Consumers are always going for the cheaper alternative.
edit on 30-6-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by Laokin
 


Takes me back to my example earlier regarding the $5 can of *whatever*. What would you do?

If you choose to ignore the cheaper $4 can and continue with your usual purchase of the $5 can, who is to blame?


....It's a bad example. That's not how consumer goods work.



What you'll notice is the market is quite the opposite when compared to your $4 $5 can analogy.

Those prices are by now standards. After the tax is instated and the price of the $5 can has to raise, lets say it goes to $6... What do you think the company with the $4 can is going to do?

It's not going to stay $4, it's going to go to $5.

Prices don't always get driven down, the producer of the $4 can, if he was making profit at $4, is going to sell his product for $5. Why? Because it gives him a whole dollar of extra profit that the $6 can does not get, while still being the more affordable product. The $6 can is going to be making less profit than it did at $5, the $4 can is going to increase an entire dollar's worth of profit by bumping up to $5, and it will still be market competitive.

The $6 can company, MAY go green, if they do, they will still price at roughly $5.67. The now $5 can is still making more profit than they were at $4 and still has the market advantage. This is okay with the now $5.67 can, since they are now making more money off their new green product than they ever were not selling their green product.

Prices can very easily be driven up, and if I'm undercutting my competitor, I'm going to undercut by just enough to get you to purchase my product and MAXIMIZE my profit at the same time.

Mark my words, green products will increase in value as well as regular products.


P.S.
People will pay the extra dollar because the product is the one they like.

Because these people will pay the extra dollar is precisely why you will pay an extra dollar for the green stuff.



If you are really the type of person who cares about an extra measly $300 a year, then tell me what YOU would do if you owned the $4 can company when the $5 can gets forced to $6 just to break even (relative to before the tax.)

If you owned the $4 can, it would be a MISTAKE for you to not raise it to $5.
edit on 30-6-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join