Federal Government proposes a price on carbon.

[Sky Pilot]

Thankfully that's all over, won't even be an issue come election time.

Really G! Don't you think the Libs will make it a big issue - even a referendum as they are threatening to do? It is an advertising agents dream brief. Believe me!

Nup, it comes in mid-2012 next election isn't until late 2013. They might try and run it as a side issue but won't get any traction given everyone will be saying to themselves they're now better off financially and doing our bit to help the environment.

If the election was in late 2012 maybe but not almost a year and a half after it's come in.

Okay - I see that

[Psyber]

But the tragedy is that we won't be doing anything to help the environment, just running a form of wealth redistribution to buy votes for the scheme, and posing on the International stage.
A tax, or even a trading scheme, won't actually reduce our output of CO2 or any other pollutants, let alone the world's.

Some form of direct action on technology change would make more sense, as would the Greens idea of isolating the funds and using them to fund change.
(Unfortunately the Greens are only interested in relatively ineffective technology change as a matter of dogma.)

[redandblack]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

[Psyber]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

They've got to run a pilot programme first perhaps..
And they only need to buy a relatively few votes and get a little traction in the polls to put off the leadership spill...

[scoob]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

As a policy to reduce carbon emission, this doesn't rate above miniscule

[redandblack]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

As a policy to reduce carbon emission, this doesn't rate above miniscule

Yes, probably right on a world scale, but it's a start.

[redandblack]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

They've got to run a pilot programme first perhaps..
And they only need to buy a relatively few votes and get a little traction in the polls to put off the leadership spill...

I think the only ones talking about a leadership spill are the Libs and the media.

I think there's more chance of an Opposition leadership spill.

You might be right about the pilot program, though, Psyber, as I've just read Julia will support a large increase in the pay for low-paid carers and similar workers.

[Jimmy_041]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

Not according to Julia

She was interviewed after the vote and said that the lower income earners plus pensioners etc will see the benefit of the tax once they get their tax cuts.

I thought this tax was about taxing the biggest polluters - she obviously doesn't think so.

[fish]

A tax, or even a trading scheme, won't actually reduce our output of CO2 or any other pollutants...

Psyber I'm struggling to understand what you mean by this - can you expand on it?

[redandblack]

An overview of how the scheme will work:

http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer ... cle-bottom

[Sojourner]

Companies that pollute will simply outsource the pollution part of the works to China and lay off manufacturing workers in the process, yes our emmissions will be down, globally they will increase as China has nothing like the emission controls we currently have and the pollutive processes will simply be increased.

[Booney]

Quite simply, some processes to manufacture items we take for granted, produce carbon as a by product.

[Gozu]

Imagine you were professional journalists Gemma Jones and Nathan Klein, required by your editor to try to manufacture outrage that people on $150,000 a year – several times the average wage – might be maybe $700 a year worse off (So $149,300 instead) in order to help struggling families. To write a story burying the detail of the 4 million families who would be directly better off and instead trumpeting the “suffering” of the million fewer comparatively very comfortable families who’ll lose such a small fraction of their overall incomes that they will barely notice it.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... ir-sorrow/

[Sojourner]

Imagine you were professional journalists Gemma Jones and Nathan Klein, required by your editor to try to manufacture outrage that people on $150,000 a year – several times the average wage – might be maybe $700 a year worse off (So $149,300 instead) in order to help struggling families. To write a story burying the detail of the 4 million families who would be directly better off and instead trumpeting the “suffering” of the million fewer comparatively very comfortable families who’ll lose such a small fraction of their overall incomes that they will barely notice it.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... ir-sorrow/

Think the point that people are getting compensation cheques can often be forgotten, my understanding is that they are forward paying the compensation in the middle of next year.

The cynic in me does wonder though what the State Government will do in terms of increasing Housing Trust rents as they did on the last occasion that people on the pension got an increase from the Federal Government. I would not put it past them to have a go at getting a taste of their compensation cheques also and to use it as an excuse to ramp up other State Government charges.

[fish]

Companies that pollute will simply outsource the pollution part of the works to China and lay off manufacturing workers in the process, yes our emmissions will be down, globally they will increase as China has nothing like the emission controls we currently have and the pollutive processes will simply be increased.

Electricity supply companies will find it very difficult to move offshore.

For other companies there is assistance available.

[fish]

Imagine you were professional journalists Gemma Jones and Nathan Klein, required by your editor to try to manufacture outrage that people on $150,000 a year – several times the average wage – might be maybe $700 a year worse off (So $149,300 instead) in order to help struggling families. To write a story burying the detail of the 4 million families who would be directly better off and instead trumpeting the “suffering” of the million fewer comparatively very comfortable families who’ll lose such a small fraction of their overall incomes that they will barely notice it.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2 ... ir-sorrow/

Think the point that people are getting compensation cheques can often be forgotten, my understanding is that they are forward paying the compensation in the middle of next year.

I believe there won't be compensation cheques - as I understand it we'll pay less tax and get more pension/payments etc as of 1 July next year.

[Mad Mat]

As wealth redistributions go, this doesn't rate above miniscule.

They've got to run a pilot programme first perhaps..
And they only need to buy a relatively few votes and get a little traction in the polls to put off the leadership spill...

I think the only ones talking about a leadership spill are the Libs and the media.

I think there's more chance of an Opposition leadership spill.

You might be right about the pilot program, though, Psyber, as I've just read Julia will support a large increase in the pay for low-paid carers and similar workers.

Sheesh, one minor surge in the polls for the ALP and it's all doom for the opposition

Bob Brown last week demanded that Australian troops in Afghanistan be withdrawn from the conflict because that's what the majority of Australians want. On that basis, does he now call for the scrapping of the carbon tax because that's what the majority of Australians want? Or, is Brown just a hypocrite?

[redandblack]

MM, I support the PM, not Bob Brown, although I have a lot of respect for him, so your point about what the majority want is fair enough.

I've previously posted about the polls being terrible for Labor, including when they first jumped for Mr Abbott. The narrowing in the polls isn't my main reason for saying that Mr Abbott might need to look over his shoulder, but just a confirmation of my opinion about the political winds ATM.

Some reasons to back up why I'm saying it's possible:

He's tried to destroy the PM, but hasn't succeeded (yet?)

He's showing many signs of inconnsistency. eg: His statement saying that supporting the IMF was "throwing good money after bad". He has now changed his mind. He does this regularly. If the PM does it, she's lying or backflipping. If Mr abbott does it, he's recalibrating or has had a re-think

His extraordinary stand on increased superannuation, supporting the extra expenditure, but rejecting the mining tax that will pay for it.

His decision to leave his Finance Shadow Minister out of the discussions about this.

His failure to harm the PM over the Qantas situation. While supporting Qantas and Mr Joyce might have played well with his conservative base, I don't think it went down well with most people. It gave the PM a chance to sound strong on 'Labor values' (whatever that is),

His relentless negativity can't be sustained for another 2 years.

His rejection of all revenue raising policies, but committing to vastly increased expenditure will (IMO) leave him very vulnerable on the economic front. His promise to sack 12,000 public servants to make up more than $70 billion is just a bit short of what's needed.

Most of all, his 'pledges in blood' to repeal the carbon tax, etc have backed him into a corner in the future.

I could go on, but I think the above points are reasonable to debate. I'm sure many will disagree, but I think some of Mr Abbott's colleagues are starting to ask some questions.

Just as the PM's colleagues will do if she can't continue improving.

[Sojourner]

So R&B if given the choice, who do you believe would be a the best option for the Liberal Party outside of Tony Abbott?

[Sojourner]

Companies that pollute will simply outsource the pollution part of the works to China and lay off manufacturing workers in the process, yes our emmissions will be down, globally they will increase as China has nothing like the emission controls we currently have and the pollutive processes will simply be increased.

Electricity supply companies will find it very difficult to move offshore.

For other companies there is assistance available.

True, is there a list of the total companies that are paying the tax? - I want to see if mine is on it or not!