a few questions for womble and afl

do you

1 live in the cbd and if not how far from it are you
2 live close to work,walk,public transport or car
3 live in an apartment or a house
4 live by yourselves
5 resent paying tax and seeing it go to parents raising the next generation

ta

hi womble ... now i'm really confused re your 3rd world scenario ... so we're NOT cleaning up the pollution ... we're giving cash compensation now ... that is ALL this tax is about finally now i see ... cheers ... the world will be no better off ... which was the contention from the start

do you think julia should admit to the nation exactly what this is abouty ... now that we agree  [;)]

did someone mention Andrew Bolt..... don't do it again please... i'm trying hard to get anger out of my life ffs...[>o] Does he still write for the hzrold or has he been promoted to sub editior for writing lies yet





this post deleted automatically for mentioning hzarold   1.01

if you lived in a 3rd world country that hasn't been pumping the pollution out at the same levels as the rest of the rest of the world for the last 100 years while progressing their economies, i'd suggest you would want some form of compensation - only fair i'd suggest

ffs wombleoz

Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir.

Baaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

SBS Insight is on right now...Carbon Tax....Garnoux was just on

This is the greatest fkn rort of all time....I love how no one can explain how it actually happens.

sorry i missed your post this morning Secong - i was on my way to work

1 live in the cbd and if not how far from it are you

5km

2 live close to work,walk,public transport or car

Public transport - just outside walking distance

3 live in an apartment or a house

apartment at the moment

4 live by yourselves

yep

5 resent paying tax and seeing it go to parents raising the next generation

not at all - taxes are essential, and parents play a vital role - however I don't support middle class welfare and strongly believe in means testing

Lazza - the world is warming but even if it wasn't we will be better off with less pollution

Thebas - the money going to third world countries will help them clean things up

Your right lazza, NO ONE explains how this Carbon Dioxide tax will work, because its a fundamentally flawed scheme - wombleoz talks about the environment - but he and the government are at pains to explain specifically how this Carbon Dioxide Tax will assist the planet and fend off climate change.

It won't.  Thats the brutal truth.  It won't.
Tim Flannery let the cat out of bag when he said if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, worldwide, it would take a thousand years for change to occur - even so, it would be microscopic.

I know there is compensation wombleoz, but its a by-product of my real argument, which is we should not need to compensate people for this shambolic, farcical and abomination of a TAX.  It's a TAX.  There's no environmental outcomes here - its wealth distribution and more gold to line the Gillard Labor coffers.

We're hearing, but have NO DETAILS (so you are only speculating also) suggesting LOW income earners are the targets of compensation, ie Centrelink customers.  Middle income earners up to $50,000 may receive a small tax cut.

As for your sweet dream of cash for third world countries - I'll tell you where the money will end up in these countries - it will land at the top of the food chain and I can guarantee it won't be spent on the environment

Your incredibly naive wombleoz and your Labor-Green blinkers seem to prevent you from asking any questions or from seeker more detail........

I have questions on "climate change" but I'm happy to pitch in towards a cleaner/greener environment, but I'm yet to hear any detailed analysis from any "expert" or the government to suggest this Carbon Dioxide Tax will do that.

The only side with a plan to TRULY clean up the environment (where we will see the difference) is the Coalition - and I think people are realising that - ie 2PP 55-45 yesterday in Newspoll.

Why Labor has to announce the compensation package sooner rather than later - a package that will go much wider than Jez predicts

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/carbon-tax-winning-voters-but-conditions-attached/story-fn7x8me2-1226034308351

Carbon tax winning voters but conditions attached

TWO-THIRDS of voters say they support a carbon tax if all the revenue is spent on compensation for households and business, according to a new Galaxy Poll.

The poll of 1036 people to be released today was commissioned by the Greens and reveals surprisingly strong support for the model being negotiated by the Gillard Government, the Greens and independent MPs.

Women, families and higher-income earners were the strongest supporters.

The poll, conducted a fortnight ago, found 66 per cent of voters in favour, 23 per cent were opposed and 10 per cent had no opinion.

People were asked if they supported or opposed a price on carbon that would tax the biggest polluting industries and return all the money to compensate households and business and provide investment in climate change schemes such as renewable energy.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said Galaxy's specific question showed people had seen through Tony Abbott's scare campaign.

"Australians clearly recognise that building a cleaner, healthier economy means we need to put a price on pollution and make clean, renewable energy cheaper rather than prop up the old polluting economy," Senator Milne said.

Galaxy found 70 per cent of women supported the plan compared with 62 per cent of men and seven out of 10 people earning over $70,000 were in favour compared with just over six out of 10 people earning less than that amount.

In Victoria 64 per cent of people were in favour while 70 per cent of people with children backed it compared with 64 per cent support among those without.

It comes as the latest Newspoll shows support for Labor and the Greens has dropped since the carbon tax plan was announced in February. The Coalition holds a 55-45 per cent two-party lead over the ALP.

Jez will spin it and say it was a rouge poll.

but if 1 tonne of carbon pollution costs you $50, more like $20 - $25 - it makes it less competitive against the cleaner alternatives - that's the whole idea.  The electricity producers will then move to the cleaner althernative

it's not rocket science Lazza

China also has emission free cities popping up, they know they have to make changes as well

Sure it won't happen overnight - but it will happen

And 1 more article before I head off to work - kind of puts things into perspective I'd suggest

Taken from - http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/05/where-does-a-carbon-price-fit-in-an-average-household-budget/


Checking the docket on a carbon price
by Bernard Keane

While, typically of this government, Friday’s release of Treasury modelling on the impact on households of various carbon prices was unaccompanied by any apparent plan for explaining it, it provides some data around which to contextualise the effect of introducing a price on carbon.

Treasury modelled the impact of eight scenarios — carbon prices of $10, $20, $30 and $40 a tonne of CO2-equivalent, with a fuel rebate (as per the CPRS) and without. The impacts on households therefore varied widely. A $10 carbon price with a fuel rebate would be barely noticeable, costing $200 a year. The $40 carbon price, without any fuel concession, costs $1150 a year.

The $40 price is the best one for comparisons, because even if Labor and the Greens opt for an initial low price, it’s going to have to rise significantly if we’re to have any chance of meeting anything higher than the government’s paltry 5% 2020 emissions reduction target. With a fuel rebate, almost certain to be included in the carbon price scheme, that’s $15.60 a week, or $811 a year, including $286 in increased electricity costs.

As you’ll recall, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt went through a phase of claiming that a $30 — not $40 — price on carbon would produce increased electricity costs of $1110 a year. This year, they quietly abandoned the $1100 figure and reverted to saying it would lift electricity prices by $300.

They’re in the ballpark — but for a $40 carbon price, not a $30 carbon price, which would raise electricity prices by less than $220 a year, even without the fuel rebate. Well done to John Quiggin, who suggested a $30 price would produce an electricity price rise of $200 a year back in early February when he demonstrated what rubbish Hunt was talking.

How do all these stack up against other items in the household budget?

For starters, it’s far less than the GST. If a carbon price is a great big new tax, Tony Abbott must’ve had an absolute conniption contemplating the GST back in 2000. According to last year’s Budget figures, in 2012 we’ll pay about $51 billion in GST. That’s on average — and remember we’re only ever dealing here with a mythical “average household” — just over $6000 a year, or $116 a week. As Treasury noted in another document released last week, the GST had about 3.5 times the cost impact that a $20 carbon price would have.

The Renewable Energy Target — the only climate change policy on which there is agreement right across the political parties — in its latest form increases electricity prices by $41 a year, according to Treasury. Ross Garnaut has argued that the RET should be dumped as soon as a carbon price is implemented. Garnaut also suggested continuing state ownership of electricity generators in NSW and Queensland was driving up network investment by much faster rates than necessary, although this wasn’t costed. But network investment costs dwarf the role the of the RET in rising power bills.

Once you start playing this game, there’s all sorts of perspectives you can bring to the cost of a carbon price. The ABS’s Household Expenditure Survey is now a little long in the tooth — the most recent one was 2003-04 — but it gives a sense of where a $15.60 a week carbon price bill would fit. It’s well below what the average household spends on alcohol, in current prices about $30 a week. It’s just over what the average household spent in 2003-04 on tobacco, but you’d imagine that has fallen significantly since then. It’s about twice what the average household spends on gambling, but well below the $22 a week we spent on average on toiletries and cosmetics. It’s about half what we spend on fast food every week and about two-thirds what we spend eating out, and a couple of dollars a week more than what we spend on sweets and chocolate.

According to figures quoted by AMP’s Shane Oliver, every $10 rise in the price of oil adds eight cents a litre to the cost of petrol locally, translating into an extra $3.60 a week for the average household

Alternatively, you can cast it in terms of other government policies. The Productivity Commission found we spend about $1.3 billion a year propping up 50,000-odd jobs in the automotive manufacturing sector, which amounts to $151 per household of taxes. The private health insurance rebate costs, in its recently revised form, $3.5 billion a year, or $437 per household in taxes. A levy to fund the national disability insurance scheme proposed in early February by the PC would cost just under $600 per household a year.

Or there’s Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme, funded by a levy that, if passed through by businesses (the same way a carbon price would be), would have cost households on average $390 a year.

Lower-income households would plainly find it more difficult to find a lazy $800 a year than others. There’s a strong case for compensation for such households, given the incentive isn’t to raise revenue but change behaviour. But, based on these numbers, as household incomes rise, the case for compensation falls away. Middle income households face a non-trivial but hardly significant rise in household costs from even a $40 carbon price. The policy question is, is using carbon price revenue to compensate middle-income households the most effective use of that money, or would it be better directed at minimising the first-mover disadvantages facing investors  in renewables technologies, or even at compensating industry rather than households?

Such a question isn’t likely to be answered. The case for compensation of middle-income households is mostly political, and therefore entirely compelling for politicians.

For starters, it’s far less than the GST. If a carbon price is a great big new tax, Tony Abbott must’ve had an absolute conniption contemplating the GST back in 2000. According to last year’s Budget figures, in 2012 we’ll pay about $51 billion in GST. That’s on average — and remember we’re only ever dealing here with a mythical “average household” — just over $6000 a year, or $116 a week. As Treasury noted in another document released last week, the GST had about 3.5 times the cost impact that a $20 carbon price would have.

wombleoz
05 Apr 11 23:03 Joined: 15 Feb 03 | Topic/replies: 2,968 | Blogger: wombleoz's blog
but if 1 tonne of carbon pollution costs you $50, more like $20 - $25 - it makes it less competitive against the cleaner alternatives - that's the whole idea.  The electricity producers will then move to the cleaner althernative

Why???..When it doesn't cost the electricity producers anything....That cost has been passed on to the consumer Womble ffs

AFL ..Gas still creates Carbon..That's the part that burns lol

So the GST is costing the average houshold $116 per week,(WITH NO COMPANSATION)  and the CARBON TAX AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL IS GOING TO COST $15.60 WEEK (WITH FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE POOR AND MIDDLE INCOME EARNERS)

SO WHY DIDN'T ABBOTT RUN A SCARE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE GST, IF HE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT AUSTRALIAN FAMILIES?

LAZZA,

LPG is environmentally-friendly energy. By using LPG fuel, you help protect the environment and preserve the quality of the air. LPG is a pure, lead-free product that is virtually devoid of sulphur and particles. LPG does not produce sulphur dioxide (SO2), and only generates a limited amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone. It also generates very limited quantities of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), unburned hydrocarbons and particles. When burned, LPG is odourless and the noise level is very low. Thus LPG is an environmentally friendly energy and by using LPG fuel you help protect the environment and preserve the quality of the air.

[;)]

So run everything on Gas then AFL ..problem solved by what ur saying!

Same thing with diesel..it's the cheapest form of fuel..it takes the least amount of treatment to create....so why isnt it the cheapest ....It use to be!!

Ah thats right China gets the majority of our Gas...I think they pay about $0.02 a litre for it ffs