thanks for answering my questions yesterday afl.........not
at least womble had the decency

you dont know if the low and middle will get FULL compensation , hell evern your local alp member doesnt know yet FFS lol!!!

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



obviously you live a minimalist existence womble couped up close walking distance to everything you want and need and clearly resent paying taxes to subsidise any other way of life other than your own.
the populace has predominantly been forced to go to the outer limits enforcing the need for cars as public transport is inefficient unless catching to train to the cbd , many people DONT work in the cbd nor near acceptable public transport!!

you dont care about the cost of living increasing as your as basically unaffected , you dont have a garden to nuture, this helps green the planet and helps the carbon cause but thanks to poor planning predominantly labor govts (up here is a prime example) the forgot to expand the infrastrtucture and SPENT the money although the population expanded , same goes for electricity, raped all the dividends. the people are paying through the roof for basic utilities and i suggest this in your apartment does not affect you.
the farkwit milne wants to tax petrol to the hilt seemingly forgetting that australia is a vast open country not a little place and the car use is a way of life, cars have got a lot more efficient nowadays and still improving
shame on the population for wanting 4 kids and having to have a big car in your eyes , these people are not looking for handouts they just want a fair go, both sides of the house have been guilty in throwing $$ at middle oz but the cold hard fact is the cost of living has more than taken the lot and then some

i believe in means testing too womble as plenty get within the system and are clearly undeserving but this is just a small minority and you cant put all in the same boat

imo you are selfish and unaustralian in your attitudes towards what makes this nation great, although foolya is trying her hardest too

wombleoz says:

" 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 "

Now we're taking Chinese Propaganda as gospel, ffs

Your right on your last point though........

It won't happen overnight, it'll take a thousand fkn years.



Your desperation in trying to defend the indefensible knows no bounds wombleoz.

This is a TAX that will achieve NOTHING for the environment, or for your previous "global warming" "climate change" theories.

All it will do is re-distribute a great deal of wealth, fill up government coffers and send money to third world dictatorships overseas.

I'm asking myself constantly.  What does this Carbon Dioxide Tax have to do with the environment - for if it was - surely it would have a real outcome attached.

59% of people opposed to a Carbon Dioxide Tax according to a poll commissioned by the Australian Chamber of Commerce.

I'm guessing you ignored this poll wombleoz and took stock of the Greens-commissioned-poll.

Why would I answer your questions when Womble does,and all you can do is insult him with your whinging dribble

You asked leading questions just to see if you could find some percieved bias in Wombles and my arguments for for action on Climate Change.

How fukcing arrogant can you be you to call him selfish and unaustralian because he disagrees with you.

Stick your leading questions up your are se and get over your self.

Womble answered them probably expecting what was to follow.  You and Jez have been letting the personal insults fly in your defence of your argument, go back and view this whole thread and count the digs and personal insults and where they have come from.

Womble has kept his arguments without the personal insults. I have let them through to the keeper, but I am not a punching bag and it is pissing me off that you can not stop having personal digs at people because the y dissagree with you.


I DO NOT OPPERATE ON HERE TO YOUR TIMETABLE.

UP YOURS

So AFL and Wombleoz don't have any bias on climate change action.

Thats why they dispise real action from Tony Abbott and Coalition - you know environmental action with results /  They'd rather embrace a great big tax that might yield a result in a thousand years.

If you can't answer simple questions on a carbon dioxide tax, AFL, yet your happy to dribble your continual nonsense in support of it - be prepared to cop flak, its as simple as that.

grrr correction!!

he is entitled to his lifestyle but LEAVE THE BS POLICIES ALONE and let the rest of us live without disgraceful decisions made by people with bias against middle oz

err i think i struck your nerve first..........

DESERVES TO BE AT THE TOP IMO


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.

nah afl this is what deserves top billing courtesy of jez

I heard Greens Senator, Christine Milne say last night on Insight that this "carbon tax is coming, it will be introduced on 1 July 2012 and we can debate the rest later".


what fkn loonies we have in the greens hope you are proud womble, with this performance they WILL go the way of the democrats YIPPEEEEEEEEEEE

i have seen the light brother amen

it just clicked....tax would work a treat in the afl caravan....all the stench from expelling the bs would collect a motza for foolya

As you’ll recall, [b]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.[/b]

ABBOTT is a liar that is pulling figures from his ar se to beef up his Scare Campaign.

Who is doing his costings? The same people that did the Libs Costings before the Election perhaps?

Remember that......

They lost the election because of their dishonesty with those costings, that the IND'S saw through.



It must grate on him every day....If only we were honest with our costings and put them to the people before the election, I'd be P M now.

i did see it coming AFL - answer a few questions and watch Secong jump to all sorts of incorrect conclusions [smiley:crazy]

as a single person that works in the city, why would i want to live anywhere further away then i do now?  i will eventually move back to the country (where i grew up) but for now being where i am suits me better

i have socialist leanings - why on earth would i be opposed to taxes - taxes which should be used to improve infrastructure in the outer burbs, or better yet off incentives to business to move out there - i have nothing at all against families, we'd be screwed without them - however, as i said, support needs to be means tested and we shouldn't be paying for people's 3rd cars and 4th tvs etc

Lazza - electricity company has to pay carbon tax, passes it on to the consumer, consumer needs to pay more so looks for alternatives, electricity company loses market share so looks at alternatives - it's not rocket science

yes the world will warm and the world will cool, however we are having an impact and should do what we can to address our impact

just hasn't been explained properly Jez - we need to see more of this

from here - http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/jokes-on-us-if-we-dont-read-the-fine-print-on-carbon-tax-20110405-1d2s7.html

Joke's on us if we don't read the fine print on carbon tax

There's an old economist joke: an economist is walking with a friend when they both notice a $100 note lying on the footpath. As the friend bends to pick it up, the economist shakes her head and says: ''Don't bother! If it were a real $100 note, someone would have picked it up already.''

The joke is a neat expression of the ''efficient markets hypothesis'', the idea that market pricing already reflects all publicly available information. To the economist's mind, it would be a rare thing to find stray money lying about. So fundamental is the human desire to make a profit, the chances that some profit-maximising individual hadn't already snaffled it up are so low as to be negligible.

But the joke is also instructive in what it reveals about the instinctive behaviour of non-economists. You see, most regular people, like you and I, would indeed stoop to pick up a $100 note if we saw one.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Irvine

Which brings me to carbon pricing. Perhaps the biggest furphy being bandied about by radio talkback hosts and others about putting a price on carbon is the assertion that, because the scheme will compensate households for any increase in costs, there will be no incentive to reduce consumption of carbon-intense goods and services, such as electricity.

''At best it's a giant money-go-round,'' Tony Abbott told one radio interviewer this week.

Sorry Tony, but good economists know better.

Economics students learn pretty early on that there are two important ways that changes in prices influence consumption. First, a price increase on a certain good has an ''income effect''. By reducing a consumer's real income, it makes them feel poorer and prompts them to consume less of that good.

It is true the government intends to shield low- and middle-income households from this income effect by compensating them with tax cuts or cash payments for the full impact of any price increases on energy or food.

But there is a second way that higher prices influence consumption. Economists call it the ''substitution effect''. A higher price for carbon-intense products, such as electricity, encourages consumers to switch to consuming less carbon-intense goods and services.

For households this may mean simply consuming less electricity, by unplugging that second fridge or not heating the pool year-round, meaning they have more money for other things, such as ice from the servo to cool their drinks or a bicycle for exercise instead of swimming in winter.

Raising the price on a particular good gives households the signal to reduce their consumption of that good. And here's the happy news for those households: because the government has decided to assume no change in household energy consumption in response to higher prices, paying people for their current consumption levels, households that reduce their energy use after a carbon price is introduced will end up financially ahead of where they would be with no carbon price.

Treasury noted this effect in a confidential executive minute to Treasurer Wayne Swan on October 11, released under freedom of information laws last Friday. ''A feasible assistance package assists people with the higher prices of goods and services they currently consume, even though the higher prices will encourage them to switch to cheaper or less carbon-emitting products. Therefore, some overcompensation should be expected.''

For all the bleating about rising cost-of-living pressures, the fact is low- and middle-income households will be no worse off with a price on carbon and to the extent they change their behaviour to reduce their consumption, they will be better off.

The government is, in effect, laying a $100 note on the ground - all households have to do to pick it up is switch to consuming less carbon-intense sources of energy or use less energy. What would you do?

One caveat to this is that it can be relatively hard for households to reduce their energy use. In fact, most of the reduction in emissions coming from a carbon price are likely to come from businesses responding to price signals by switching to less carbon-intensive inputs, such as moving from coal-fired electricity to LNG. By lowering their costs of production they can can boost their profits. But exposing households to higher prices on carbon-intense products should also help at the margin.

If the former prime minister Kevin Rudd's simple admission this week that he made a mistake delaying the push for a price on carbon proves anything, it is that simple statements on this complex issue are hard to come by. The whole carbon pricing debate involves mastering some complex economic jargon. It is one of the reasons advocates have found it so hard to prosecute their case, and why opponents have found it so easy to sow seeds of doubt. But you've made it this far, so I reckon you can take it.

At heart, putting a price on carbon is about pricing an ''externality''. An externality is any benefit or cost incurred by a third party and which is not priced in the production process. When it comes to pollution, it is hard to calculate the cost to the environment. But make no mistake, there are costs associated with carbon pollution and climate change, such as the impact of more severe weather events.

High-income households and carbon-intense businesses are finally being told to wear some of that cost. But for most households, the carbon price will be pain free and, if they are clever, there might even be a $100 note or two in it for them.

you are a clown afl read the question again...why do they change there tune once off the payroll???
any scientist can get figures to produce a result their employer wants....when no longer employed strangely change their tune..why is that so
and no comment to the original opening post.. about the tempo stations incorrectly positioned..therefore giving false temp reading...photo evidence to prove it as well.....

You notice, secong, when in doubt, AFL and wombleoz turn to pasting and bolding of articles that are stretched to support there opinion.  Can't think for themselves or argue for themselves -

They are mere puppets of this Labor-Green government - clearly afraid to scratch the surface and realise the great big furphy that is, this Carbon Dioxide tax.