SA Footy

Hoping some of the supporters of the Carbon Tax can answer this one!

If a company pays the Carbon Tax and then takes measures to reduce their carbon footprint such as installing Solar Panels and using Toyota Prius cars for their fleet and so on, do they then get the amount of Carbon Tax that they have to pay reduced?

I am pretty sure I read that Sanatarium were doing both of those things along with other measures to reduce their environmental footprint, will they be getting a discount on the amount of Carbon Tax that they are required to pay as opposed to their competitor Kellogg's for example?

No.

They won't pay any tax unless they're a large POLLUTER.

They will pay $23 per tonne of carbon they emit.

If they reduce their emissions, they'll pay less tax.

I have reservations about how "green" cars like the Prius and other hybrids are when you factor in the power and materials used in the battery manufacture.
It seems to make more sense to develop hydrogen fuel, as in Germany, since older cars engines can be converted to that fuel rather than cars replaced with new cars at higher environmental impact.

hang on, isnt sanitarium owned by a church (seventh day adventist i believe), and so is therefore tax free? or does a churches tax free status not extend to the carbon tax? oh woe them now they may finally have to start giving some of their profits to the government in the form of taxes.......

carbon tax is code for wealth distribution. Socialists time honoured mantra

Good that you're on the side of keeping the wealthiest owning more and more of the richest nations' assets. The distribution of wealth has been happening, but not the way you think.

The wealthiest few per cent own the bulk of the wealth and their share is getting bigger year by year. In the US, the wealthiest 1 percent own a huge portion of the total wealth, but while there are non-thinkers who slavishly follow the likes of Bill O'Reilly (one of the one percent), that will just continue.

Oh, Bill's boss is Rupert Murdoch (another of the one percent).

They like people who accept what they're told.

As for socialism, capitalists only like it when they make losses and need to be bailed out by the unwealthy.

Your comment about carbon tax shows a deplorable lack of understanding of what it is.

I'll give you one thing, though, you're good at vomiting out all the right slogans from the fifties.

Psyber wrote:I have reservations about how "green" cars like the Prius and other hybrids are when you factor in the power and materials used in the battery manufacture.
It seems to make more sense to develop hydrogen fuel, as in Germany, since older cars engines can be converted to that fuel rather than cars replaced with new cars at higher environmental impact.

The furphy re the Prius battery is an old one and is quite incorrect. This link may assist in explaining how cars like this can be beneficial.
http://andyduffell.com/techblog/?p=921

Cheers

tipper wrote:hang on, isnt sanitarium owned by a church (seventh day adventist i believe), and so is therefore tax free? or does a churches tax free status not extend to the carbon tax? oh woe them now they may finally have to start giving some of their profits to the government in the form of taxes.......

Sanatarium don't make any profits, any funds raised over their running costs go to various charities or to their third world feeding programme that they administer, hence why they invented Soy Milk and commercialised it. They can make much more soy milk out of the same amount of grass that a cow eats to make a much lesser amount of cows milk. Sanatariums profits have long gone towards that programme as they believe they can solve world hunger issues through what they are doing. Hence why they are a not for profit organisation. The same goes for the one in NZ as well.

bulldogproud2 wrote:

Psyber wrote:I have reservations about how "green" cars like the Prius and other hybrids are when you factor in the power and materials used in the battery manufacture.
It seems to make more sense to develop hydrogen fuel, as in Germany, since older cars engines can be converted to that fuel rather than cars replaced with new cars at higher environmental impact.

The furphy re the Prius battery is an old one and is quite incorrect. This link may assist in explaining how cars like this can be beneficial.
http://andyduffell.com/techblog/?p=921

Cheers

I have heard that only 6 Prius batteries have been replaced in Australia so far, all are for Taxi Cabs and all were "just in case" it may fail. Hence if someone has had a Prius from the day they were released they are doing pretty well so far on the fuel saving!

Many people promote hydrogen and state that Hybrid Technology is only a cross over and already old technology, yet Hydrogen cars still don't seem any closer than what they were when they first began talking about them. They had a Hydrogen powered Bus in Iceland and I did wonder if Trans Adelaide might give it a go here, yet I am told that its been a massive failure and that the running costs far exceed that of a standard bus because of all the additional servicing requirements and that the engine has a dramatic power drop making it difficult to run them on hilly terrain. Buses and Trucks can be Hybrid however and perhaps that is where Trans Adelaide should have a look next?

Sojourner wrote:

tipper wrote:hang on, isnt sanitarium owned by a church (seventh day adventist i believe), and so is therefore tax free? or does a churches tax free status not extend to the carbon tax? oh woe them now they may finally have to start giving some of their profits to the government in the form of taxes.......

Sanatarium don't make any profits, any funds raised over their running costs go to various charities or to their third world feeding programme that they administer, hence why they invented Soy Milk and commercialised it. They can make much more soy milk out of the same amount of grass that a cow eats to make a much lesser amount of cows milk. Sanatariums profits have long gone towards that programme as they believe they can solve world hunger issues through what they are doing. Hence why they are a not for profit organisation. The same goes for the one in NZ as well.

Nothing to do with the carbon tax but what about that Mercy Ministries mob (Hillsong) propped up by Gloria Jeans that performed exorcisms on young disadvantaged girls/women and making them sign over their entire welfare cheques.

A SECRETIVE ministry with direct links to Gloria Jean's Coffees and the Hillsong Church has been deceiving troubled young women into signing over months of their lives to a program that offers scant medical or psychiatric care, instead using Bible studies and exorcisms to treat mental illness.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the ... ntentSwap1

Sojourner wrote:

tipper wrote:hang on, isnt sanitarium owned by a church (seventh day adventist i believe), and so is therefore tax free? or does a churches tax free status not extend to the carbon tax? oh woe them now they may finally have to start giving some of their profits to the government in the form of taxes.......

Sanatarium don't make any profits, any funds raised over their running costs go to various charities or to their third world feeding programme that they administer, hence why they invented Soy Milk and commercialised it. They can make much more soy milk out of the same amount of grass that a cow eats to make a much lesser amount of cows milk. Sanatariums profits have long gone towards that programme as they believe they can solve world hunger issues through what they are doing. Hence why they are a not for profit organisation. The same goes for the one in NZ as well.

my point was not what they do with the money they make, they could use it all to make paper aeroplanes for all i care, my point was that they currently have a tax free status (happy to be corrected), allowing them to possibly undercut other companies, and therefore gain a larger market share, and even more money, through that status.

if they are actually going to be included in the carbon tax (which is a question in itself, i wouldnt know one way or the other if their "religeous" ties extend to the carbon tax, but i personally think they shouldnt be exempt), i dont see the problem in that at all. it wil be the only tax they pay, and surely they want to help the environment too? or are religeous groups somehow exempt from helping the planet?

Tipper, the only ones who willpay the carbon tax are the 500 or so largest polluters in the country.

No one else pays it, although prices are predicted to rise 0.7% pa as a flow-on.

redandblack wrote:Tipper, the only ones who willpay the carbon tax are the 500 or so largest polluters in the country.

No one else pays it, although prices are predicted to rise 0.7% pa as a flow-on.

Oh Dear.... Everyone will pay for the Carbon Tax.

Do only the oil companies pay the petrol tax...??

Do only the alcohol producers pay the alcohol tax...???

Tobacco...?

Name one tax that is not passed onto the consumer.

This tax includes a handout for no other reason than low income, or do the low income earners emit a lesser no. of black balloons than those earning more?
I still believe that one can become wealthier if he or she tries hard to better themselves by either education or just working harder.
Govt redistribution of wealth just makes everyone poorer

Jimmy_041 wrote:This tax includes a handout for no other reason than low income, or do the low income earners emit a lesser no. of black balloons than those earning more?
I still believe that one can become wealthier if he or she tries hard to better themselves by either education or just working harder.
Govt redistribution of wealth just makes everyone poorer

I disagree, I think an emphasis should be made to provide more money to those that require it.

Just because you work as a nurse, child carer or bus driver doesn't mean you don't work hard or are uneducated or need to "better" yourself.

We all can't be, or have available contacts to be day traders for a merchant banker, or take over the family business.

o_w_w I dont disagree with you
What I do not agree with is to use the Carbon Tax as wealth redistribution
Tell me something - how many times have you heard "I wont do overtime because I get taxed more"?

Jimmy, you seem to have been quiet about the wealth redistribution that's been happening for years which has increased the share of wealth to the richest few percent.

Presumably you think the carbon tax will operate the other way?

If so, do you support the current increasing distribution of wealth to the top end of town?

Jimmy_041 wrote:o_w_w I dont disagree with you
What I do not agree with is to use the Carbon Tax as wealth redistribution
Tell me something - how many times have you heard "I wont do overtime because I get taxed more"?

I think you should explain how you see it as wealth redistribution?
As I understand it, the majority of people will get compensated for the anticipated increase to their cost of living, whether it is enough is yet to be seen.
The 20% that don't, get the rough end of the pineapple but it is hardly Cuban economics 101.

In regard to overtime , I hear it often. Unfortunately its the way it is for weekly wage earners. Over taxed during the year and then receive it back on submission of the tax return. However I don't know how else the Government can do it, mind you I am not an accountant.

The overtime thing might have been true years ago, but isn't any more.

The tax rates are quite different now.

If you want to talk about wealth distribution, you should have looked at the superannuation tax laws during the Howard years. The rich had a picnic.