Welcome to what the media have dubbed “Carbon Sunday.” Today is the first day of the Gillard Government’s price on pollution.
This is the policy issue that has brought on a vicious campaign from the Opposition and seen a Government’s popularity plummet in the opinion polls. It is an issue that has divided a nation.
Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party, who promise to get rid of the carbon tax if elected to Government, have today launched a major advertising campaign against the tax and the Prime Minister.
If you’re not in the mood for any carbon chatter today, then do not touch the remote control, do not browse the news websites, do not buy a newspaper and do not turn on the radio. Because with both sides out there making their case to the Australian people – media coverage today will be at election campaign saturation levels.
No matter where you stand on pricing carbon, we can all agree that no debate is worth having without the facts on the table.
So we’ve revived our carbon tax cheat sheet just for the occasion.
What is a carbon tax?
This is the crux of it. There is a price on carbon of $23 per tonne, which will be charged on some of the biggest 500 polluters in the country. This price per tonne of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will increase by 2.5 per cent each year until the carbon tax becomes an emissions trading scheme on July 1, 2015. What this basically means is that for now, the Government sets a price on pollution. In three years, the market will decide what that price is worth and the Government will simply set a cap on how much pollution our economy is allowed to create.
What’s the aim here?
The carbon tax is supposed to – and only time will tell – cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and by 20 per cent in 2050. It is hoped this will be achieved by the cost incentives to big industry, forcing them to get creative in ways to reduce their impact on emissions released in to the air. These targets are modest. Some would call them pretty small and weak. Many have called them ‘an important first step’ in transitioning to a low carbon economy. Basically, it’s not much but it’s a start.
The scheme will apparently reduce carbon emissions in the air by about 159 million tonnes by 2020. That’s the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road, the Government says..
So will everybody be paying a lot more money now?
According to Treasury modelling – not really. The average household costs rise will be about $9.90 per week according to the Government but the average compensation directed back to those households in the form of tax cuts and other benefits will be worth $10.10. That means households will, on average, be 20 cents better off per week than before the carbon tax started. The Prime Minister says more than 50 per cent of the money raised from the tax will go back to households in the form of compensation.
What kind of compensation are we getting?
About $15 billion in tax cuts for low and middle income earners.
Let’s list:
The tax free threshold will be tripled to $18,200 in 2012.
1.7% increase to the pension and family assistance benefits and payments.
- Up to $110 per child for a family that receives Family Tax Benefit Part A.
- Up to $69 extra for families that receive Family Tax Benefit Part B.
- Up to $218 extra per year for single income support recipients and $390 per year for couples combined for people on allowances.
- Up to $234 per year for single parents in addition to the increased family payments they receive.
Tax cuts for workers earning up to $80,000 a year worth up to $300.
$300 annual low income supplement.
Some 8 million households are receiving some form of assistance and for 6 million this will mean they are able to meet cost rises. Another 4 million will be better off. So that’s 9 out of 10 homes that will get some assistance.
The Government has made this assistance calculator available so you can test your own carbon tax exposure, or lack thereof.
What does the tax cover?
The tax covers about 60 per cent of polluting industries but will not cover agriculture or petrol/light on road vehicles. Farmers won’t have to pay it, but they will receive incentives for every tonne of carbon they save from entering the atmosphere.
What help is there for industry?
About $9.2 billion is being made available to ‘emissions intensive, trade exposed’ industries such as coal and steel to help them make changes with out losing their competitive advantage.
A $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund new clean energy technology has also been set up.
What do you think of the carbon tax? Are you in favour of the Gillard Government’s scheme or would you have preferred a different course of action? Are you concerned about how your household will be effected by the tax? Do you think the compensation package is sufficient?
Comments
183 Comments so far
It has occurred to me that with the take over of News Limited, this page has attracted readers of the Daily Telegraph and Melbourne’s Herald Sun and looking at some of the comments to this article, it is definitely proof in the pudding. Thank you Mamamia for your interesting, unbiased articles, but you sold yourself to the Devil so to speak and it’s followers have landed here. So, I am out of here. If I want hate, whining and vitriole, I will pick up a Herald Sun.
loading...
Nice piece, MM Team.
loading...
Ms Gillard – hope you’ve had a great weekend?
It must have been very satisfying to witness the culmination of yet another one of your great big lies! CT here we come, huh!!
Of course, this policy will do nothing for the environment and devastate a fragile economy while doing irreparable damage to our international competitiveness – but that doesn’t matter, does it?
No, nothing does – just as long as you hang in there for as long as possible.
Shame on you.
If you had formulated a well thought out policy that would primarily benefit the environment, while not devastating the economy, I might even forgive you your lie.
Or if you had had the integrity to take your back flip to the electorate I might even be able to muster a fraction of respect for you.
But of course, you did neither, and instead, squandered another opportunity to do some good for our country, while negotiating a dodgy back room deal to grasp onto power until the last possible nano-second.
Start packing Julia… it’s only a matter of time.
loading...
Lies Lies & More Lies, Well said! Bravo! I salute you!
And Miss Gillard thought she could win over the mummy bloggers? How crude is that? The leftie loves on this blog already adore Julia and her great big new tax that will do nothing to change the climate. She doesn’t need to win them over. The rest of us who sometimes don’t manage to get our comments on will never be won over by Julia Gillard et al. We are just not so much into lies.
loading...
I wonder if it was core or a non-core promise?
loading...
Most simple reason for the carbon tax is they need the money – same as the mining tax.
When the libs get in they are going to have two problems about their promise to roll these taxes back.
1. They will need the money – unless they want to remove the increase in tax free threshold & other things that have come into play over last couple of weeks etc. Pretty hard for them to do that….
2. They won’t have control of the senate – well I don’t think they will anyway – and balance of power will still be with the greeens – I am sure everyone here is well aware only half the senate is up for election at each election unless there is a double disolution in which case its a full senate election. When its a full senate election then the thresholds for minor parties to get in is less – making it more likely that Libs / Nats won’t control the senate.
3. If there is an election before August next year then the senate will not be part of it – only House of Reps and in that case Greens won’t pass any reversal of carbon or mining tax.
Of interest… have a look at this article in The Australian (not Gillards friends thats for sure) http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/govt_jumps_the_shark/
If you can’t be bothered reading it all then just this snap shot below – Revenue DIED in 2008 and if Howard got reelected then he would have needed the money as well – remember the libs SUPPORTED the stimulus package version 1 and most of version 2 when Rudd put that out into the economy….. therefore when Abbot gets in assuming he has the remotest chance of getting a reversal of carbon tax through the senate, I don’t think he will. Why? See reason 1 above!
Snapshot of article starts here:
The result, according to the opposition (both official and extra-parliamentary) is tens of billions, going into hundreds of billions of debt, accumulated over deficits in the last four years.
John Howard and Peter Costello brought down surpluses until the very end; you’ve squandered the inheritance of their fiscal rectitude.
This simple, powerful message has resonated across the country.
Now, all but the most one-eyed of economists would agree that if Howard had won the 2007 election a Coalition federal government would also have gone into deficit and racked up debt of a similar magnitude (probably a bit smaller) to the current one’s.
loading...
Great idea. Support the tax and moving to a green economy. Looking forward to seeing the changes flow through…
loading...
Mia and team – This is the first time I have taken the opportunity to join the conversation, so hope you have a chance to read this. I was alarmed the other day to read your piece on Abbott and asylum seekers, because it appeared to be partisan attack on Abbott with no rebuttal from him. Now, I am dismayed to find this piece on your site. My husband and I are dairy farmers and Dairy Australiahas calculated that the impact of the tax on electricity, fuel and input costs will result in an increase in average dairy farming costs between $5000 – $7000 each year. Well above the figures being quoted for average households. This is obviously a big impost on our business, which provides so many Australians with their milk. I’d just like to add that you obviously have a big responsibility with your sites popularity amongst women. It would be a shame to lose readers like me, should partisan posts continue. I know you have had posts from Abbott himself, however, that has been trumped by the number of appearances from the government. Perhaps you could engage a female spokesperson from the opposition too?It only takes a quick look at the opinion polls to see that this government is not well placed to win the next election. which means there are a lot of women out there who, at this stage, do not plan on voting for the Government. All the more reason to engage both sides and uphold journalistic integrity. Food for thought. Thanks for reading.
loading...
Well done Jenny, your comment is lke a breath of fresh air. Thank you for taking the time to make your comment. I salute you for your measured and thoughtful words. I agree with everything you say.
I used to vote Labor. I voted for Kevin Rudd’s Labor. I did not vote for Julia Gillard’s Labor. I am shocked, distressed and appalled by Labor. I will never vote Labor again.
I hope Miss Freedman takes your comments on board. I very rarely visit this site because of the bias I perceive. The way Tony Abbott is attacked by bloggers here is reprehensible.
loading...
Attack Tony Abbott? Clearly you have not been reading the comments below.
Visit this site, don’t visit this site. Your choice. But at least respect the rest of us enough to read the conversation.
loading...
I have zero sympathy for anyone who profits from animal cruelty. Bet those bobby calves and their grieving mothers would be pretty happy just to be taxed.
loading...
dafuq?
Do you understand the concept of anthropomorphism?
And the name- Diana the Huntress…. you too funny!
loading...
Jenny, what has been the impact of the deregulation industry for you and your husband? Genuine question. I ask because I know of dairy farmers who have had to give it all up after four or five generations on the farm – because of the impact of deregulation. Families that have divorced, men suffering from severe depression and facing financial ruin, farming being the only thing they know.
For me, that is one of the greatest evils that the governments of Australia have done to our farmers. The Nationals, who should have been representing our farmers’ interests, sold out to big business when they joined the Libs…and for what? What have they managed to get for rural and regional Australia in doing so?
Deregulation was done to help big business and soon we will all suffer. Our dairy farmers will be wiped out and we will have the choice between Coles milk and Woolies milk…and once they are the only two on the market, the prices will be jacked up. That is what I am angry about. That we are well on our way to a duopoly which has come at the expense of our farmers.
Agree with it or not, the carbon price has been introduced to begin to address the issue of AGW – as much as we can. Not to indulge corporate greed. If that financial modelling is true, then I really do feel for you and your husband. But most of my anger will be reserved for those that introduced deregulation which made the industry so unprofitable for the farmers in the first place. And I hope that if the modelling does prove true that the government can consider some compensation for those farms like yours which provide us with our milk…I wouldn’t hold my breath though as they seem intent on delivering us this surplus!
Rant over! And sorry to veer off topic slightly.
loading...
The Liberal party and the Country party (former name for the National party) joined forces back in the 1920′s.
You will find a long history of the benefits of this to farmers – out of all proportion to the rest of the population (happy to discuss but don’t want to get caught up in something that you may have used as a throw away line).
Of the many complex issues facing farmers, I don’t think that you can blame everything (or in fact anything) on deregulation.
loading...
They may have joined forces, but weren’t always an official coalition. Malcolm Fraser led a liberal govt. federally and Joh Bjelke peterson led a national govt in Qld, for example.
loading...
Apart from a few very short periods, my understanding that they have always been in a coalition. The change of name was a marketing exercise to minimise the rural focus.
They are just stronger at state level and stronger in Queensland but basicly the same party. And Joh, of course, was a force of nature.
Happy to be proven wrong. But the Coalition had a tight relationship up until a landslide change of government and the Coalition was nearly wiped from the landscape.
loading...
I have been trying to remember what government brought in deregulation. My husband was one of the people brought in to advise on this. He advised against it but they went ahead anyway.
I voted green last election.
loading...
It was started in 1999 (though there had been pushes for it since the 80s) under the Howard government. It has resulted in a ‘rationalisation’ of farms and processing companies (read: fewer) which has weakened competition.
loading...
Depends on your definition of deregulation.
Financial deregulation began in the 1970′s and is generally considered to having been a great success. It is one of the reasons given credit for the Australian economy being so strong and able to weather the GFC.
And the farmers around Wagga/Yass don’t seem to be adversely affected by rationalisation of farms (sheep farmers). So deregulation for farmers means ….? I have a gap in my head and I am surprisingly interested.
loading...
By deregulation I mean the removal of both state and federal legislation specific to the dairy industry (as my initial comment referred only to deregulation of the dairy industry, not of the farming industry). For the states this meant the discontinuation of regulated sourcing and pricing of drinking milk. Federally, support of manufacturing milk prices through the Domestic Market Support scheme ceased. This happened in 1999. Now, I’m not sure if, when you refer to the GFC, you are talking about the deregulation of the dairy industry (in which case I don’t understand how the deregulation of the banking industry helped us at all with the GFC) or, more generally, financial deregulation.
In actual fact, one of the reasons that Australia coped so well with the GFC was because of our more tightly regulated financial industry. This is acknowledged by many economists, academics and by OECD:
OECD analysis has found that banks in countries with stricter prudential regulation seemed to experience less of a run-up in share prices before the financial crisis but also less of a collapse afterwards with the net effect being positive overall (Ahrend et al., 2009).
However indicators of the level of financial regulation are an imperfect measure of the effectiveness of regulators and regulations. In particular, Australia and Canada had less ‘strict’ regulation than most other OECD countries and, as noted above, were among the few advanced economies whose banking systems did not require capital injection from the public sector. This highlights the importance of implementation.
Another explanation for the strong performance of the Australian and Canadian financial systems during the GFC is the restrictions on competition for corporate control in the banking sector in both countries (Macfarlane, 2009). Under this view, the effective protection from takeover or merger reduced the pressure on bank management to take bigger — and ultimately unsustainable — risks.
Nevertheless, it is clear that institutional and regulatory arrangements for the financial sector — following from both the implementation of the recommendations of the Wallis Inquiry and reforms following the collapse of HIH — were a key reason why the Australian financial system was better placed than those in many other advanced economies to cope with the global downturn.
Moreover, the sharp differences in experiences of countries with similar regulatory arrangements highlights the critical nature of supervisory practice and implementation, which in turn emphasizes the importance of the quality of financial regulators (Stevens, 2010). Australia’s experience during the global downturn strongly suggests that it has ‘benefited from years of rigid supervision by “better than world-class” financial regulators’ (Henry, 2011).
loading...
Oops, should have said ‘I don’t understand how the deregulation of the *dairy* industry helped us at all with the GFC.
loading...
I am now clearer. I wasn’t refering to the diary industry (a subject where my knowledge is limited to “milk comes from cows”).
And by financial deregulation, I meant floating the dollar, opening up the banking system to competition, privatising CBA etc. Things we now take for granted and are all good.
By no means was I suggesting that there should not be oversight and supervision. Hideous thought.
loading...
I was referring to the dairy industry.
loading...
Well done Jenny! So true!
loading...
I’m an Australian. I live in freedom, have the right to vote, can access free education, grow up in safety from wars and famine and live a comfortable life.
To this I add – whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, could only afford a 50 inch flatscreen TV instead of a 60 inch, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, may have to think about turning the lights out when we don’t use them, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge, whinge and whinge.
Sound familiar?
loading...
You have no idea what it’s like to to live from day to day wondering whether you have enough money to buy food for your kids. When electricity goes up it is a big deal. I don’t whinge. I cry. Shame on you Kate for your comment.
loading...
Leah, I’m sorry you’re going through that, but I don’t think the comment was directed at you. It was most likely directed at people who can’t distinguish want from need, not those who struggle to put food on the table. *hugs*
loading...
If you’re a low-income family then you’re first in line for additional assistance – you’re actually meant to be better off.
loading...
Yep, “I earn too much so the Government is not going to give me the $300 compensation – boo hoo” – that means you earn AT LEAST $30K more than me!! Are you that much of a whinger, really?>!
loading...
Go Tony Abbott. Can’t wait for this lie of a tax to be dumped. Julia Gillard, time to start packing.
loading...
You all need to watch this. There is some very dirty politics happening here. Tony Abbott is causing a huge fuss about this for his own personal gain and desire to be PM; If he brought in a carbon tax it would be a ‘simple’ tax that all of us could handle the burden of; when Julia Gillard brings in a carbon tax it’s Armageddon and is ‘destroying families’. It’s just deplorable politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74&feature=youtu.be
loading...
Dirty politics belong to Labor and Julia Gillard. There has never been such a bad PM and such a bad government. Lies and deceit and incompetence and grubby deals, that’s Julia Gillard’s Labor.
loading...
All governments lie. Can you recall Howard promising not to bring in a GST if he was voted in? Campbell Newman lied about not changing surrogacy laws if he was voted in. My post is about Abbott blatantly lying regarding his attitude towards a carbon tax for his own personal gain i.e. to get voted in.
loading...
Claire, John Howard took his change of mind about the GST to an election. Julia Gillard did not do this. Politicians change their minds. It’s how they deal with the consequences. Julia Gillard pretended that she didn’t lie and that she had not changed her mind. She said it was all semantics. And talk about blatant …. Julia Giilard blatantly lied before the last election about whether she would bring in a carbon tax. Now that is really dirty.
loading...
Julia Gillard did not expect to have to form a coalition minority govt. if Labor had been voted in as a majority, I doubt we would be facing this. I wonder what compromises the coalition would have offered to the greens and independents to attempt to form govt.
loading...
Julia Gillard was going to introduce a carbon tax. When she saw the polls were against her and the public was moving towards Tony Abbott she made her now infamous declaration about ‘no carbon tax under the government I lead’. Wayne Swan backed her on this. Tony Abbott said that ‘as night follows day Julia Gillard will introduce a carbon tax’.He was right. Julia Gillard lied before the last election.
loading...
I think you’ll find that both sides have wanted to introduce some sort of carbon price. I’ve seen interviews with leaders of both parties where they’ve said it will happen.
Labor’s preference if for an ETS, as evidenced by Kevin Rudd’s attempt to pass legislation a few years ago.
loading...
I really can’t understand how you can continue to be so misinformed when constantly told the facts;
Fact – Julia promised no Carbon Tax if Labor won the election.
Fact – Labor had to negotiate with the Greens and Independents to secure a Minority Government.
Fact – Logic says she didn’t “lie” or “change her mind” – she did what she had to do.
Abbott likes to perpetuate this lie – I can’t work out if he is just stupid or if he’s evil.
loading...
So its ok for a Labor government to lie, but not a Coalition government? I am a bit confused by this. Gillard blatantly lied about the carbon tax for her own personal gain too. (i.e, to get voted in.)
loading...
Anyway what’s the big deal, only the big polluders will pay!
loading...
Howard also went to that election having run a smear campaign that interest rates would go up with a Labor government and guess what happened, rates went up anyway! How do people fall for this kind of politics?
loading...
Howard also went to that election having run a fear campaign that interest rates would go up with a Labor government and guess what happened, rates went up anyway! How do people fall for this kind of politics?
loading...
Sorry, not sure what’s happening there but that was a reply to Jasper’s comment above!
loading...
Just out of curiousity, what is the difference between the carbon tax and an ETS?
loading...
For the first three years the government is setting the price on carbon emissions at $23.00 per tonne to get the scheme started. In three years time the scheme will become market-based which means companies will have buy and sell their carbon emission permits, if they reduce their carbon output they can sell their permits to another company that has blown their quota (therein lies the incentive for polluters to reduce their emissions). In three years time the government will stop directly taxing pollution and leave it to the market (an ETS, emmissions trading scheme). The government will still be involved as they will reduce the amount of permits available each year, so permits should become more rare forcing up the price which will create even greater incentive to reduce emissions. That is the theory behind a market-based scheme, a very Liberal approach which is what makes this debate so bizarre.
loading...
So, just checking.
The carbon tax is an introduction to the ETS and the ETS will be phased in and the carbon tax will be phased out?
I thought we all went to an election wanting an ETS. And that is what we are getting.
If I understand what you are saying, yes, bizarre conversation.
loading...
yes
loading...
Climate Change is like a religion. It’s frightening how you get pummelled if you say you don’t believe in man made global warming. Scientology could not be any scarier than the forces of the climate brigade.
I’ve read a great deal in the area. I”m a scientist. I know the work that the IPCC has done is a terrible con.
In a few years time it will all come undone.
There are some wonderful scientists out there who are doing extraordinary work in this area.
It’s time the Fairfax Press and Julia’s Cheer Squad at the Abc and in the Canberra Press Gallery opened their eyes and took the cotton wool out of their ears.
loading...
You don’t sound like any scientist I know. No reasoned argument? No counter facts? Just saying that you are a scientist and you are not a believer doesn’t really add to the discussion.
The best discussions I have heard and read say that most reputable scientists agree that there is climate change. What they don’t agree on is how much is man made and how much is natural. And how do you measure the difference.
loading...
No Pollyanna you are wrong. Even the numbers on the reputable scientists has been fiddled to con people like you. The models are wrong too. It’s a giant hoax and a con. Like the South Sea Bubble. I don’t think Samuel was trying to write a thesis on global warming.
loading...
No, it’s actually you who are wrong.
loading...
No Daisy it is you who are wrong about Sienna being wrong. Absolutely! Completely! Sienna is right and you are wrong.
loading...
You are wrong. You are just a petal and I am a whole flower!
loading...
Go Petal, Think you’re great.
loading...
So let me get this right. It is all a giant conspiracy theory?
So I am to understand that a whole bunch of scientists have got to together and agreed to hoax the world? Given that I can’t even get three people into the same room to agreed on where to hold the Christmas party, I find this a little difficult to believe.
loading...
Straw man arguments will not get you anywhere. They will keep you in the dark and uninformed. Silly stuff!
loading...
Similar to linking climate change to scientology?
Or an argument simply based on, “I am a scientist and I read”?
I think you are confused about what exactly is silly.
loading...
The most simple way to contemplate ‘climate change’, or at least the impact of the industrial revolution, is this:
Oil and coal take millions and millions of years to create
It has been 262 years since the start of the industrial revolution and we are seeing the start of the end of oil.
Millions of years to create, 300 years to use.
That simple equation means that there MUST be some impact on the planet. The debate around the impact may continue, but we can’t ignore it completely.
loading...
A tax borne out of a lie inflicted on a country at a time when other countries have seen the error of their ways, and are now dumping their emission trading schemes, is truly reprehensible. The IPCC must be laughing all the way to the UN’s bank. When I am overseas on business, people ask me about Julia Gillard and what she is doing to Australia. They think we are fools for putting up with it. I say well we are going to have an election soon. They nod and say good luck. They also say a lot more. My daughter says I must be polite and not say anything too negative about Miss Julia Gillard on this blog or I will get us both banned. So I will leave it at that.
loading...
Sorry but the Liberals would have done no different! Abbott is a complete liar. Just 3 years ago he was saying that a carbon tax would be a burden we’d have to just deal with and now he’s saying it will wreck everyone’s lives. See the evidence for yourself. This is sour politics for the sole purpose of a personal desire to be PM, plain and simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74&feature=youtu.be
loading...
Oh, please Claire, Julia Gillard is the queen of engaging in sour politics purely for the desire to be PM. Who can forget, ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ And what about the Australia Day riot? And remember how she said she knew nothing about the migrant worker deal so that she could still keep her union mates onside. Her MP’s were horrified that she could have lied so blatantly.
loading...
I think once we see the flow on effect of the carbon tax in six months time, then we will really be feeling the effects. A 20c. compensation buffer is not something to boast about. That amount would not have paid for the power used to write this blog.
loading...
Doesn’t that just prove how little we can trust someone’s promises when they are only saying what people want to hear to get voted in? The way people are falling for Abbott’s nonsense is betond me.
loading...
I’m a huge fan of the carbon tax. The scare campaign by the opposition absolutely disgusts me, and their lack of action in tackling Australia’s high carbon emmissions makes me dislike them even more. People complain that Gillard shows no leadership qualities – when she finally does, people complain even more. She can’t win either way, so she might as well at least do what she can for our environment.
loading...
Leah18, are you very young? Or just very uninformed? Your comment makes me shake my head in disbelief. Truly the 27% who still would vote for Labor must be amongst the most ill informed people in the world.
loading...
I can’t say I’m sure what my age has to do with it, but yes I’m young, though certainly not uninformed. I just fail to see what the harm is in taking SOME action to decrease our emmissions. We are a hugely affluent country, and should be doing our part for the environment. I understand that some people are upset that the cost of certain things will increase, but I’m comfortable with how those who need the money will be reimbursed, and have no issue with the wealthy being hit hard enough to actually change some behaviours.
loading...
By all means take some action, Leah18, but Julia Gillard’s actions will do nothing to decrease our emissions. The carbon tax is just a great big new tax. And a great big lie. It came from ambition and vanity and will do nothing to change the world’s temperature or climate. It will hurt our economy at a time when the rest of the world is struggling. It’s a con Leah18. You have fallen for a con. if you don’t believe me just wait. You will become angry and embarrassed when you see how you’ve been manipulated.
loading...
If at the very least this is a tax that redistributes wealth to those who are more in need, and raises the price of energy consumption, then I’m okay with that. I don’t know anything other than making it more expensive to use electricity that will force Australians to change their habits. Education campaigns haven’t done so, rising electricity costs might.
loading...
People who make outrageous statements with no attempt to back them up with facts, cannot expect to be taken seriously. How clever you are to know how Leah18 will be feeling down the track.
loading...
I think Sisley is very clever. I don’t like your outrageous statements Daisy. Are you really a flower? How can anyone take you seriously.
loading...
Lexi below! Site won’t let me reply. It would be a good point if I actually made any outrageous statements. Being a mere flower, I can’t figure out how to prove my floral quals on here.
loading...
Dear Professor,
You really must keep your research up to date. The latest Roy Morgan poll put the ALP at 32.5%. It doesn’t do to exaggerate when trying to putting forward a learned opinion.
And I would have been heavily criticised at my university for baseless assumptions *chin on hand, sad look on face*. I am not young, nor uninformed or ill-informed (have you decided which?) and I support the carbon tax.
loading...
Good for you Leftie. The carbon tax is a giant con. Your university sent you out into the world older but no wiser. And if the latest for Labor is 32.5% then isn’t Labor lucky? It’s still Death Zone for Labor. And it will be obliterated at the next election. You can fool some of the people, some of the time etc etc and all that jazz. Keep supporting Labor. They need people like you.
loading...
Again, more assumptions. Where did I say that I was a Labor voter? Tch Tch, your bias continues to shine.
I, on the other hand, am merely trying to keep this to a discussion on the issue. Remember the carbon tax?
loading...
Oh Leftie keep upright or your halo might slip.
loading...
Methinks you are no professor at all.
loading...
But of course you are a flower Daisy?
loading...
Touche! Of course flowers aren’t necessarily suggesting that they are terribly bright, apart from in colour.
loading...
Three lines by Proffesor Henry and so much chatter and consternation. I think Prof Henry is allowed his 3 lines without having to write a thesis to prove his credentials. Good on you Prof Henry. Like what you have to say.
loading...
But I think he does have to prove his creditials. He made a nonsensical statement with no support and got offended when this was pointed out.
There are many people on this site with education and qualifications and it is only mentioned to support facts that they might put forward to correct misinformation. It is generally not used in silly statements.
loading...
I just love it how it’s always the young people who are happy to make changes and the older folks oppose it. Well guess what? You’re going to be dead when us younger generations are dealing with the consequences of the messed up situation we were born into. If you’re going to be dead when millions of people are displaced from their homes due to rising waters and we are starving as a result of drought, you have no right to oppose positive action regarding this matter at this time.
loading...
Oh dear me Claire, I’m 18 and I’m not buying the global warming, carbon tax, hoax, con. I will sit by the ocean and watch the world change like it always has and I will remember how there were some dills around who got sucked in by all the alarmist nonsense. And be a bit more respectful about older folk please Claire.
loading...
Love Julia Gillard. Love the carbon tax. Love Tim Flannery. Love Wayne Swan. Love Labor. Believe in man made global warming……. Let’s see how many more ways I can prove that I’m an idiot?
loading...
By saying you think global warming is a hoax you’ve immediately lost your credibility in this argument. It is scientific consensus that our pollution is changing the environment. How am I being distespectful? Is it not fact that older people will be dead when we are dealing with the most severe consequences of climate change? Older people who oppose action are sentencing their grandkids to a lot of suffering but apparently they care more about money.
loading...
I love Jilly!
loading...
Miss Gillard we all know that the carbon tax was the only way you thought you were going to get the Greens on side after the last election. Silly you. They we’re never going to support Tony Abbott. You could have just asked them to guarantee supply. And you were meant to be the great Negotiator? You sold your soul for nothing. You went downhill 18 months ago when you broke your promise to the Australian people. ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.’ Miss Gillard you made that promise to the Australian people in August 2010. And then in February 2011 you told us we were going to have a carbon tax. How does that work? You should have taken your carbon tax to the next election like John Howard took his GST.
I’m a mummy blogger who used to vote Labor. Shame on you Miss Gillard and shame on you Labor.
loading...
Superfluous comma, yo…
loading...
It’s a scam and a lie. It’s a fraud too. Time is a wonderful antiseptic. Little by little, Julia Gillard’s big lie on the carbon tax is coming back to bite her. And the hoax of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is slowly being revealed. Hello Tim Flannery, it’s raining and pouring in Melbourne
Governments are addicted to taxes. Hello carbon tax. And some very influential people want to redistribute the wealth of the world. Hello carbon taxes and let’s give the UN pots of money and let’s have a One World Government. Hello Bob Brown.
Come on mummy bloggers tell Julia Gillard that you’re not as silly and gullible as she would have her fellow MP’s believe.
loading...
Many companies have already developed innovations in response to this tax. That cannot be a bad thing.
loading...
No more bagging…we need to change our excessive consumption of everything….what about carefully looking at how you as individual lessen the amount of power you use? The idea is behaviour change at an individual corporate level.
loading...
Really Leon I think you might be a little confused. Firstly whether or not you believe in the Ma-made Climate Change Theory (not sure of official title) you can’t deny that we are one of the top polluters in the world. I believe that one of the major climatic advocates, I think the WWF, counted Australia as the world’s 8th highest polluter. I’m happy for the carbon tax if it can get us out of the top 10 and even toward the lowest polluter in the industrial world. Further it’s not a direct tax on us, it’s a tax on the largest polluters. Really most of these companies can absorb the tax and take a reduction in profit, but due to cooperate greed they won’t and pass it onto us…so really who is the “bad guy” in that scenario?
loading...
Carbon Sunday? More like black Sunday! As someone who bothered to get 3 tertiary qualifications and a decent paying job, this government has done nothing but take, take, take since they came to power. Last year it was the Flood Levy, this year Fringe Benefit Tax on my lease vehicle rose, I lose on Private Health Insurance because “I earn too much” and now the Carbon Dioxide Tax. It’s all about wealth re-distributio, don’t believe it’s about the environment. No wonder our kids don’t won’t to learn and get ahead, they’ll just get penalised for rising above the pack!
loading...
Yep, it’s tough growing up in this country. Kids gets publicly funded education, free secondary healthcare, affordable primary healthcare, access to publicly funded parks and libraries, well maintained beaches, school dental care, publicly funded arts and festivals, sporting facilities…yes, really tough.
I too have a decent paying job. In fact one in the highest tax bracket. How was the possible for a kid growing up as one of four, a waitress mother who worked 5am – 2pm so that she could be there when we got home from school, a taxi driving father who worked through the night then made us breakfast, ironed our uniforms and got us off to school? It is possible because of the opportunity we were afforded by the state – you know, that places where our taxes go to.
If I was sick, my parents didn’t need to toss up between paying the rent or my medical bill. They scrimped and saved for uniforms, books, petrol to fill their 20 year old Falcon to drive me to debating competitions. They saved for a second hand violin so that my sister could take music classes – offered at her public school. They saved so that they could pay for swimming training for another sister so that she could go on and represent her country – which she did. Apart from some sound parenting, decent, working class values and a bit of hard work, we are where we are today because other people’s taxes made this possible for us.
Now my taxes are hopefully making this possible for someone else’s kids. Before you think about having to contribute too much, perhaps you’d like to consider where other people’s taxes were spent on you…
loading...
Anon, I get how great Australia is and I’m thankful that I was able to migrate here from Africa. But why must I now be worse off when Labour cannot tell me what benefits my extra taxes will bring. They cannot tell me by how much the earth’s temperature will drop because as Australians we contribute so little green house gases it doesn’t make any difference.
loading...
The point of your post seemed to be a general issue with paying another tax. I specified why I think that taxes are important. As someone living in Queensland, I am also grateful that there was a national tax to assist with the rebuilding of Queensland after the floods. But I would have been equally happy to pay it should I live in NSW or Tasmania…because it is the right thing to do. Because Queensland contributes enormously to this country’s economy but, more than that, because we should help each other out when natural disasters happen, not bitch and moan that we’re having to pay without getting anything out of it. I just imagine those what those people in the Lockyer Valley, people who lost their family, friends, homes and jobs – all in one – think about attitudes like that.
And no, of course the government is unable to tell you by how much the earth’s temperature is going to drop. Chances are that it won’t, despite whatever action Australia (and China and India – the two most populous countries – and all the other countries that have carbon taxes and ETSs) take – the best case scenario is probably that we limit the rising.
Despite the brilliant scientific brains working on this issue around the world, there is no consensus. So of course the government doesn’t know. What they do know, to more than reasonable surety, is that the cost of AGW is likely to be significantly more.
And the argument regarding the Australian contribution on a global scale doesn’t hold, either. Firstly, many other countries around the world have carbon taxes or ETSs and many others are looking to introduce them. Secondly, just because my neighbour drops all his cigarette butts on the pavement, does it make it right if I only drop one?
loading...
What a selfish attitude. They “can’t tell me by how much the earth’s temperature will drop”, is a bit simplistic. It doesn’t matter how much. You can’t expect other countries to contribute and not us especially when Australians are the highest carbon emitters per capita.
Plenty of us are happy to have this tax .
loading...
Daisy, firstly, carbon dioxide is not pollution, but a harmless, colourless, odourless trace gas necessary for all life on earth.
Australians are not the highest carbon emitter (or carbon dioxide emitter) per capita. Unless you factor in the export minerals (including coal) we supply so that China can enjoy cheap coal fired power that we are taxing ourselves at home.
You have been convincingly conned into thinking that CO2 poses any danger to the climate, or that we can do anything about it.
loading...
Hugh, I may or may not be a humble flower, as some other commentors have suggested but nor am I an idiot. No doubt some people will want to debate that as well. However, I am fully aware of what carbon is. I used to teach science.
I have been unable to find any tables that say I am wrong. On the 13th June this year, it was accurate.
Virtually all scientists recognise climate change. The only debate is the cause.
loading...
Go Hugh, glad to have your comment. Daisy, it’s not about whether scientists recognise climate change. Of course they do. It’s the part that man plays in it that is the issue. The climate of the world has always changed. It’s about the modelling now being shown to be wrong. It’s about the way you’ve been conned.
loading...
YOU are not paying extra taxes. You’ll actually pay less taxes – because the tax-free threshold is raising from $6000 to over $18000. This should more than make up for the electricity and other associated price rises.
loading...
Well said. I always say how lucky we are in this country, esp in comparison to the USA which is also a developed country but many live like they are in a third world country because of the lack of services made available.
You have to come from a rich family to even have a shot at being something.
Complaining about the carbon tax ;which isn’t going to cost anyone as much money as Abbott will have people believe) is such a first world problem. At least no one in australia has to pay $2000 to visit an emergency department just to have blood tests & X-rays….
loading...
Leon, good comment. It’s all a con. Governments want taxes. It’s as simple as that. Can’t debate bleeding hearts. They take the moral high ground but do so with very little scientific information, plenty of red herrings, a load of straw man arguments and lots of emotional manipulation. Wealth distribution is also part of the con. ‘There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’? Why did you say that Julia? What did you believe in then?
loading...
Excuses me but what pays for your healthcare, education, public transport, roads, clean water and gives you benefits if you lose your job???
That’s right taxes!!!!!! We might pay a lot of taxes here but we living in paradise in return!
loading...
Don’t be silly Al, the carbon tax is about saving the planet. It’s not about taxes. Julia told us it’s not a tax. It’s a price. It’s a carbon price. You see it’s not a tax.Taxes are important but in this case only the big polluders will pay. So iIt all makes sense. You only hear about compensation now. So it’s not a tax. No way.
loading...
And if you are sick you have access to one of the best health care in the world, you want to drive somewhere we have relatively well maintained roads, you have a choice with regards to your children’s education. You turn on a tap and out comes clean potable water. And if your job falls through and you hit hard times, well lucky you, we have a social security system that may save you and your family from begging on the streets. Yep my heart bleeds at how hard done by you are by living in this country.
loading...
The news tonight was a litany of First World Problems. Right wing voters complaining about a carbon tax and how they’re not gettin nuffin to compensate DOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOOM! Seriously, if you can’t save a bit somewhere along the line in your spending and energy consumption, there’s something wrong.
Next story was about the hard done by commuters of Sydney. You know, the ones driving one person to an air-conditioned car from their homes to their jobs that pay for them. Finally addressing the INJUSTICE of the F4 or something.
I’ve just got off the phone to the UN making sure they were up to date on these terrible injustices and human rights violations.
loading...
To Emily,
It is not an incentive to use less carbon. It never can be! The payers of the tax will all simply pass it on to the consumer of the product. The next user will pass on more and so on until the end user is paying more for every single item and service they spend money on.
While they can pass it on how will there be any incentive to reduce carbon emissions? A better solution would be to not have a tax and not have tax cuts to low income earners, but instead help businesses move to greener methods with subsidies. This would make green alternatives more attractive to consumers thereby increasing the viability of these companies. Suddenly, we have a market that is demanding green companies. Done!! No tax, lower emissions, win/win.
But that would be silly. The Labor way has always been and will always be lose/lose!
loading...
Jason, by raising their prices they price themselves out of business. That is why it is in their interests to find other ways to produce the product.
loading...
Daisy, I understand the purpose, however with most of te competition also paying the tax and passing it on this just will not work. I don’t disagree with reducing the carbon output but I do disagree with a wealth reallocation. tax that will do nothing but cost jobs. At a time when we should be using our strong economy to build a robust foundation we have chosen to hamstring ourselves and reduce our GDP (by tr treasury admission).
This is a sad sad day for Australia. I hope everyone who voted for Labor and Green hang their rads in shame when the jobs losses increase.
loading...
I agree with you. Jobs will be lost. Hopefully in the mining sector and other big carbon emitters. New jobs will eventually be created in other cleaner areas however, which is the idea. It is going to cause some pain for some people in the short term but don’t forget that it is the high Australian dollar caused by the mining industry that is causing job losses already in the manufacturing and tourism sectors, to name but two.
loading...
Daisy, the replacement for the current base load power generation (coal, gas or nuclear) has not yet been invented. Sunbeams and sea breezes are no substitute for reliable coal-fired power stations. Wind turbines are so inefficient that they require a coal fired power station running on standby ready to ramp up when the wind drops. Turbines are 3 times more expensive per kilowatt hour than coal only made possible by massive taxpayer subsidies, and solar is 5 times more expensive. We’ve ruled out the only other affordable base load technology – safe and efficient nuclear power stations, so that leaves us with what? Currently only coal and gas!
loading...
I know. We have a problem. Some people are trying to fix it.
loading...
Dear Jason
This works for me. I have starting turning off lights when I am not in the room, lowered the termperature on my water heater, turn off the stand by switches, walk more, thinking of going solar (will do so when I buy my next home). I am certainly more conscious and aware.
Funny? That seems to be part of what the Government wanted. Translates to working for me.
Never say never – just never for you.
loading...
We are outside of the income bracket that will benefit from the government payments. I’m definitely in favour of the tax – I voted Green because Labor had ditched it – and I just can’t wait for this to be implemented so that we can stop hearing Abbott, Hockey, Brandis et al blaming anything and everything on it.
I will be honest – I think part of he tax *is* a wealth redistribution exercise and I’ve got no problems with that. We are taxed at a relatively low rate in this country, despite what most people think, and I think that many people can afford to pay more. The issue is that we have developed an expectation of our lifestyles based on entitlements going back to Howard’s time and, for the most part, people are consuming much, much more than before.
I live in an upper working class/lower middle class suburb and it is amazing the number of new cars in the driveways, the overseas holidays every year or two, the boats and renovations being done. Go back a generation and this was not possible for the working class or lower middle class. Many of my neighbours are receiving government support – certainly in the form of baby bonuses (which lack the return-to-work incentive of paid maternity leave) and often in the form of child tax credits – yet they can still afford to buy not one brand new 4WD but two! When I come home at night I can see multiple rooms lit up in their 4 and 5 bedroom houses by plasma screen TVs. Is it no wonder a tax on energy consumption is going to hurt them?
I understand that there are people genuinely doing it tough and I hope (and feel confident) that the compensation will be enough. For those that are above the threshold, though, will an increase of around $500 per year really be enough to sink you? If the cost for the average household will be up less than $10 per week (less than $520 per year) and the household is earning $150,000 (which I think is the cut-off for compensation payments, though households can still save $300 or so on their tax bill), that is around 0.3% of your total income.
loading...
I agree with you anon and am also happy to have this tax.
The reason that electricity prices have been going up and up is because the system is under so much strain thanks to all those people wanting their tvs, pools, air con etc. The electricity providers have been pouring millions into upgrading the infrastructure so that it can cope with the strain at peak times and we don’t have blackouts etc.
loading...
Anon ,it so refreshing to read your post .I am tired of hearing how hard some people are doing it and how this government has made life soooo difficult for them . I have compassion for those that are genuinely finding it difficult to pay the rent or modest mortgage(even though interest rates are the lowest in 50 years ) ,buy the groceries and pay the electricity fo tthe one fridge one television they have and pay the rego and repair bills on their 10 year old car . However I don’t have a huge amount of sympathy for the “aspirationals “as our former leader called them (indeed blatantly fed them) The reality is that the Howard government presided over some of the biggest rises in revenue for this country during the mining boom (that is mining boom without GFC fallout) and in fact the surplus they brag about is quite meagre to what it could ahve been But rather than invest in infrastructure, education , technology and any foward thinking vision (wich would have also boosted the building industry etc that the 7000 first home buyers did)chose to bribe the electorate through socially an financially irresponsible payouts such as the first home buyers scheme and baby bonus which in many ways became synonymous with the “buy now pay later” attitude of the noughts (remember all the television adverts Harvey Norman and others ..pay in 48months ) The previous government may go on about all their savings and no debt but we were as a nation of individuals and still are a nation with one of the highest levels of personal debt in the orld..am not sure but think its in top 5.it was encouraged both by Howard and the banks (irresponsibly so) and that bubble could never have gone on.Every economist will tell you people are now suffering a spending hangover . It is not the government now that has caused you to suffer ..the whole world is coming down form a time of unnatural and unsustainable growth based on borrowing (individual borrowing I mean) .So for those e having trouble paying up credit cards etc I understand its hard but you cannot blame the government of today *and the almost perfect economic conditions we currently enjoy ) for your hardship. It was greed that got us here and yes there is now pain. So $9.00 dollars extra etc will not be the end of the world I suspect . And lastly it is not wrong to aspire but like all goals it has risks involved and you cannot blame others when things don’t work out as planned . It is ironic but I suspect those that yell the loudest about how Ms Gillard has wasted money ,put us in debt etc are probably those with incredibly high debts themselves ..on houses much bigger then they need and at least one tv and/or computer
per person living there .
loading...
No one gives a shit about this planet anymore. Its all about the dollar and how making an attempt to save this big ball in the universe doesn’t even factor in. We will adjust, hey maybe some of us will end up slightly better off, who knows? Low and behold, carbon emissions may decrease and as a result the environment might even benefit for a change. Habitats may be saved and animals that were facing extinction may have a slight chance of survival. As a great man once said:”" Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed”, and we as human beings, have allowed these big polluters to exercise their greed and we have been sucked into that lock stock and barrel. So so sad.
loading...
Gina, do you care at all about the third world. The aims of the UN IPCC are to deny the poorest countries, like Africa, access to the same cheap power that has taken western nations out of poverty and created comfortable decent lifestyles for the majority of the population. It is all part of the UN aim to reduce population numbers worldwide (see Agenda 21) and keep the third world poor and dependent. It is a proven fact that when you lift poor countries out of poverty and provide them with decent housing, sanitation education and power, you see a drop in their average birthrates, a decrease in infant mortality, a increase in their average lifespan and decrease in easily preventable diseases.
Why do you wish to deny the 3rd world the benefits we have enjoyed for decades because of our abundance of cheap coal and coal-fired electricity generation?
loading...
Hugh, I care more about the third world than you will ever know. But Australia is not the third world – we are the first world and our country of just under 22 million people, yet we are the 7 highest country in the world when it comes to CO2 emissions, putting us behind Russia, India, Japan, Germany US and China…Not a figure to be proud of exactly. Funny thing is, about 10 years ago my father noted how much pollution was in the air and quoted: “they really should make these big companies pay for the pollution they spew out.” Now that it has been done, he amongst many others are crying foul. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t – got me scratching my head.
loading...
Mia, why are you repeating government talking points. I have never seen in my life a media that is so in the bag for this government… Journalism used to hold governments accountable, ask the hard questions and get the right answers for the public… Now these “journalists” just repeat their leftist mantra provided by endless photos with Sporst Ministers and Prime Ministers. Mia, you worked for this government as Chair of the Federal Government’s National Body Image Advisory Group… Why do you not alert people to your brazen conflict of interest as a government worker in this terrible government. This is a tragedy to the art of journalism or which you clearly now do not belong…
loading...
I don’t understand your point. No, seriously.
This looks like a repeat of the facts as I have seen them and nothing more. An opinion piece normally has a name attached and then we get to comment on the opionion. A factual piece allows us to have our own opinion (just what I want from a journalist).
Please list for me those points in the article are not true (with references).
loading...
Did you read the article – of course its opinion, take for example whent the statement is how much does it cost – not that much really…… blah blah The most true fact is that the writer did indeed work and recieve money from this government, this was not explained in the article and therefore is a hit piece for the goernment – shame.
loading...
You obviously haven’t read Murdoch’s media lately.
loading...
I’ve noticed increasingly over the last 12 months the web site has become so pro Labor / Julia Gillard it almost needs a disclaimer stating its a sponsored post. 3 years ago I was a daily visitor drawn by the well written posts about Mia’s daily musings about her life and friends lives now it’s stories with a couple of lines written by a member of the Mamamia team followed by content taken from another outlet or a Labor press release.
loading...
How odd. I would have said completely the opposite.
I suppose it depends on whether you want to read something that totally reflects your views or whether you would like to read a variety of opinions that make you think and reflect.
loading...
Seoul? You misunderstand what being on an advisory board means. In my case, it was an unpaid role that involved consulting with the community and providing recommendations to the govt who them decide what to do with that non-partisan advice.
So you’re wrong. I haven’t ever “worked” for the govt and even if I had, this post does not have my byline on it.
loading...
Unpaid is still work – are volunteers of the ALP considered non partisan because it isnt paid… This is specious reasoning. You had a choice to work for a government plus all the photo ops with ministers, or listen to the real community and say no to a governemnt that has increased taxes on an already unstable job market. Your involvement with this government must be acknowledged by you when you write any article re governement decisions. You are complicit… Its on your blog and you dont referrence any other writer – you are responsible for your blog… So no by line and no referrence, you condone it. And yes thank you for the racist inference “Seoul?” Are you saying I have no say due to my race? Please xplain the Seoul? remark…
loading...
What? Seriously, what?
loading...
*head, desk*
loading...
You’re an odd one – what on Earth has being Chair on a National Body Image Advisory Board got to do with any other Government policies??
Your argument appears to be claiming Mia is an elected member for Labor or something???
Bizarro!
loading...
Seoul Survivor, I so agree with what you have said. Couldn’t put it any better myself. Am glad to see a few bloggers here not being hoodwinked by Julia Gillard and Labor propaganda. It’s very disappointing to see the direction that Mamamia has taken when it comes to politics. It’s all about the love for Julia. If you say something horribly negative about Tony Abbott it seems you’re okay but if you were to say the same kind of thing about Julia Gillard you would get banned from the blog. It’s ironic that Julia Gillard who uses language like ‘snivelling grub’ to describe Tony Abbott is a protected species on Mamamia. The left is so hypocritical. It described John Howard in the most disgusting and vile way.
loading...
Gina, it’s obvious that you haven’t read the Murdoch press lately. Try reading that Lefty George Mega…. ( sorry can’t remember his surname) or Peter van Onselon. They’re both in the Australian. And as far as bias goes, that red rag called The Age is a joke.
loading...
I am not sure what papers you are reading but it couldn’t possibly be the Australian or Courier Mail or the other News limited papers because you would be hard pressed to find one story in each paper that implies anything positive about this government ..to the contrary, the total miss-representation of Julia Gillard’s presence at at the G20 summit (when reading overseas papers describing the same incident re EU president’s anger ) passed straight by biased journalism and strait into being fiction writing and blatant politicized anti-Giillard propaganda …the real tragedy is your lack of self awareness re your obvious biases
loading...
My family will be worse off under the tax, we live in a mining town in WA and both my husband and I work in the mining industry. We will receive no tax cuts and will receive no compensation, but before you sit back and say well you are probably very well off consider this, the price of petrol has just dropped from $1.59 to $1.53 per L, Perth who is 600klm away from us pays $1.23, we pay $2 for a lettuce, we have limited shopping, medical & specialist services, we pay a premium rate for our electricity and water for being in a regional centre as it is for being regional, the cost of house & rental is on a par with Sydney. It’s costs $65 to visit a Dr – no bulk billing and 50% refund from Medicare, coupled with that today we lose 20% of our private medical rebate and pay an extra 1.5% on the Medicare levy. We actually don’t have any private medical centers here so we pay $4500 per year to minimize tax and to claim back my contact lenses and the odd dentist visit. My husbands employer is facing a 400% increase to the chemicals it purchases to extract the gold from the ore which may make the future of the particular processing plant he works at unviable and would see 80 jobs lost if it closed down – this particular company has revegetated the bush surrounding town, donates 100′s of thousands of dollars to community groups in town, has assisted with the construction of roads so they aren’t a big greedy mining company that needs to be taxed to the enth degree. I guess what I’m trying to say to say is that big incomes don’t necessary equal big wealth, it can vary greatly depending on where you live.
loading...
Simone, while I feel your pain – we will get no assistance to combat the rising costs either, I have to correct you on a few things
I filled up this morning, in Perth and paid $136.9 per litre, which I know isn’t $153.0 but it’s also not $123.0
I bought a lettuce yesterday, cost me $2.98.
My Dr also doesn’t bulk bill and I get charged $60 per visit, most other Drs in the area charge a similar amount.
I get that living regionally is expensive but city living isn’t cheap either.
loading...
Try living in the city.
Sorry, I earn too much to get many of the rebates too. But I support the carbon tax because of what it aims to achieve, and I understand that not everyone can win all at the same time.
You really need to be thinking about the greater good of the collective, and compare that to the sacrifice you are making.
loading...
Yeah, but it is always those that work hard to get ahead, those that put their houses on the line to build businesses, those that earn little for years as they either study or build businesses, that are hammered by Labor every time funds are needed for anything. It gets tiring, and makes you wonder why you jump through hoops to get a few steps ahead, when the government just pulls you back all the time.
loading...
Oh rubbarb.
I put myself into the category that you just described and yet the Government was there for me when I was a sole parent, I have just come out of hospital having had an operation and wasn’t slugged exorbidant amounts of money (God bless America), and I get many tax breaks for investing funds into both my superannuation accounts and those for my family. These are Labour initiatives.
I also get tax breaks for running many of my expenses through my business and I can own a property and negatively gear. These are Liberal initiatives.
And bargain, when I retire and I am over 60, I will not have to pay tax on my pension but I will pay sales tax.
What world are you living in that you don’t remember these things. Or perhaps you choose not to remember.
loading...
Sorry Simone, but is someone forcing you to live there?
I also don’t receive any compensation and I totally support the tax. Why? Because i am damn lucky to live in this country & it’s for the greater good of the country.
Also, we wont have to pay tax on the first $18k earned. Damn lucky I think.
loading...
Sorry Al, what greater good are you talking about. Australia contributes so little to the earths green house gasses that its lke, you know, urinating & wind! Until someone can say by how much this tax will reduce the eath’s temperature, I’m not buying it. All it will do is make Australia worse off while we export our resources overseas to countries who can’t believe how stupid we are. We are blessed with cheap power, we should be exploiting it to our benefit, not punishing ourselves.
loading...
Per capita we are one of the highest. And guess what? We’re not the first country in the world to be putting a price on carbon.
China is planning a carbon tax on big energy consumers by 2015.
In July 2010, India introduced a nationwide carbon tax.
South Korea introduced a national carbon tax in 2008.
The EU enacted an ETS in 2005.
Several European countries have enacted a carbon tax. They include: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.
Finland introduced its carbon tax in 1990 and is one of the strongest and most well-educated economies in Europe.
Costa Rica enacted a carbon tax in 1997.
By the way, in terms of exporting overseas, we are not in a position where our exports are massively threatened. It is not as though China has a whole heap of other options for minerals from countries that are politically stable and, for the most part, lack corruption. Our natural resources are not unique to Australia but on the other hand there are not so many countries where these can be mined. Of those that are, not so many have the same strong governance that makes investment an attractive option.
loading...
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how this tax will benefit me, our country or the planet! Because it won’t…..and Labour can’t tell us how by how much it will reduce the earth’s temperature by, because as a country we contribute so little. And i’m not interested in per capita, it means nothing when we only total 22 million. Instead, I have less disposable income, and so do many like me.
loading...
I just responded to this in my reply to your post above.
loading...
As anon below told you, we are not the first country to have this tax. It is an inevitable tax & where are you getting your so called facts from? Wikipedia? The daily telegraph? You right wing friends?
Look at the real facts please.
loading...
Hi Simone,
I do plenty of work for the mining industry (especially gold), helping them out with energy efficiency and carbon management. If your husband’s site is getting a 400% increase in reagent costs due to carbon then it sounds like a job for the ACCC. With the industry assistance package, no suppliers should be putting their prices up by more than about 2%. So called Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries receive a number of free permits so they’re not unfairly disadvantaged when competing globally. They’re not paying for the carbon price so neither should the purchaser.
The ACCC has power to investigate and stop price gouging.
loading...
Simone, I understand your point and the carbon tax will affect people in the mining industry more than others. That is what it is designed to do. Jobs will be lost in some areas and new jobs will be created in other areas as companies have to change their ways and greener ways of doing things are developed. It is going to be harder for some people that others and I feel sympathy for people such as yourself. I do however, support this as it is a”big picture” issue. Hopefully, we will all benefit in the end.
loading...
$2 is a cheap lettuce.
loading...
The one thing that seems to not get much oxygen in this debate (as most of the media coverage is like yours MM) is the impact on small and medium business. There is squat compensation for these businesses. And who do you think employs a significant proportion of Julia’s ‘working families’?
Business are already suffering given the tough climate for business. In addition, promised tax cuts were withdrawn. And all this while other business costs just grow and grow (like increases in super contributions etc). As a business owner, this all hurts and increases pressures and margins.
Take a small manufacturing firm in Australia for instance. Their energy and logistics costs will sky rocket, but competitive goods from overseas have no such competition and so get an unfair advantage.
As usual, Labor (and the Greens) ignor business, and assume that by compensating low and middle income households, everyone is ok – happy days. Hello. Lower profitability in business will result in job losses – simple economics.
loading...
Further to this point, the hypocrisy in Australia shipping as much coal as we can overseas (to be burnt in powerstations in China) is ridiculous. If the government really care about emissions, forget penalising local business and stop the growth in exporting coal. Madness.
loading...
I’ve never been concerned…I’m still not concerned…anyone who coped with the introduction of the GST by the Howard Government (which is a MUCH bigger tax than the carbon tax) will cope.
loading...
I’m with you John. The introduction of the GST by Howard back in 2000 (who also promised he wouldn’t introduce it) had a much greater impact on our household bills than the Carbon Tax ever will. However there wasn’t as much scaremongering or political rubbish over it as there is now.
loading...
To Cant be bothered logging in, you are incorrect and at best showing your true colours. Please recognise the difference between the GST and this terrible tax. John Howard did say he would not introduce it, but when the policy changed HE TOOK IT TO THE ELECTORATE AND HE WAS ELECTED ALONG WITH THE GST. This current leftist carbon tripe was NOT TAKEN TO THE ELECTORATE – IT WAS LIED ABOUT! and NO VOTE WAS EVER OFFERED TO THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR IT! Let me simplify it for you… When you go to work tomorrow your company say that they want to reduce your wage. You say to them, you cant do that… We had an agreement when I signed the contract. Your company then says you are not involved in this issue and they will deicde how much they will deduct and when. You have no say about your money! And they can do it again and again and agin….. And if you complain about it they will fine you millions for having the AUDACITY to dare confront the Dear Leader
loading...
That argument has nothing to do with the benefits of the carbon tax. You are angry because you were lied too, fair enough. But the fact is that the right thing is happening now so get over it?!?! Geez.
Also – it wasnt just Labor that was voted in. Many people voted for the Greens, so they deserve to be able to influence the government.
loading...
The Australian voters are the only people that should have decided this. In their opinion backed by polling by Gallup and Nielsen both say its not supported. I am not angry because Gillard lied – that was to be expected after the knifing of Rudd, but because the Australian Taxpayer was NOT involved whereas the GST was. See who I replied to please, you will find the point was to argues against the “John Howard did it with the GST lobby”
loading...
Hi Seoul
Just out of interest I assume you are protesting about the lie as you did actually vote Labor and one of the reasons you voted for did vote for them was because of this promise?
Just curious, that’s all…. do agree with you about how the GST was introduced though!
loading...
Of course I was happy with how the GST was introduced – it was a policy that was voted on and voted in by the Australian public… Howard went to the election with it. Gillard went to the electorate and said there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead – big difference. It is not just a lie – it is deceptive, the Australian people whether they voted for her or not were decieved financially. This is a travesty.
loading...
Seoul Survivor, you’re clearly very unhappy about this but taking an aggressive stance with other posters is not helpful.
We’re all pissed off at having to use our money to fund things we don’t agree with. Try being single, having no children and earning a reasonable – but not brilliant – amount of money. What’s in it for me? Nothing. Well, nothing now, but hopefully my taxes are contributing to making the country safer and more ethically sound.
I have to tell myself that so I don’t end up ranting in capital letters at complete strangers on the internet on a Sunday afternoon.
loading...
Im so tired of people going on about the LIE! As far as I see it, Gillard broke a promise. She is not the first to do so (remember Howard’s core and non core promises.?) and will not be the last. With the mix of politicians that WE elected, anyone that managed to pull together a minority govt. would have had to make some compromises to satisfy the minor parties/independents. Unless, of course the country wanted to go back to the polls straight away.
I believe that the carbon tax will eventually give way to an emission trading scheme anyway.
loading...
Seoul let me take that soap box of yours and recycle it. You too are showing your true colours here, but I don’t need to resort to shouting but instead shall use logic. Firstly all politicians lie, the day one doesn’t the universe will probably implode. you say it was voted in by the electorate, so tell why when Dr Hewson first announced it in 1995 the electorate voted against it? Further the GST was a direct tax on goods and services, all goods and services. Yes some taxes were removed simplifying things, but also previously untaxed items suddenly were taxed e.g. some food stuffs and utilities. Also unlike the GST, the carbon tax is not a direct tax on the populace…something that both Abbott and the media neglect to tell people. Most of the industries being taxed are large enough to be able to absorb the tax, mining being a good example, by taking a slight reduction in profit. They don’t have to pass it on to us, but they choose to do so, possibly because of greed. I honestly fear the day Abbott comes into power, but maybe then people will realise how good we actually have it now.
loading...
All politicians lie – ok then thanks – that makes everything ok then..
loading...
John Howard’s GST replaced the former Wholesale Sales Tax – a tax on everything that was added to the cost of goods and services before you ever paid the retail price. The GST got rid of this tax, plus a host of other taxes on business, and provided a growth tax for the states, replacing many state taxes and charges in the process.
You may not like paying it, but at least it is in the open, not hidden in the cost of things you have to buy.
loading...
Except with the GST existing taxes were abolished to be replaced with one tax, the carbon tax is a new tax which will only add to the cost of living
loading...
Also simone you forget that items that previously had no tax were suddenly taxed, e.g. utilities.
loading...
And insurance policies….
loading...
Insurance policies are taxed?
loading...
I am a lawyer who has recently done a lot of work advising clients on the “carbon tax”. My clients are are in the E&R industry, and are among the most affected by it.
What has become increasingly apparent to me is that there are so few people who actually understand it. There is so much misinformation and propaganda around (much of it courtesy of Abbott).
What people don’t realise is that all of Tony Abott’s talk about repealing it is actually really damaging industry. Before the carbon tax was announced, a lot of investment decisions for critical infrastructure was being delayed because industry knew that it was inevitable that some sort of carbon scheme would come in – they just weren’t sure what. So decisions about building power stations etc were put off because of the uncertainty. A carbon scheme wasn’t the issue – once known, it can be modelled and factored in. It’s the uncertainty that’s an investment killer.
When the carbon tax was announced, and it gave some measure of certainty so that companies could start making investment decisions again. And then Tony Abbott started ranting about repealing it, and everything ground to a halt again.
All the delays in investing in infrastructure will cost us sorely in the future – more than the carbon tax is costing. And even if it gets repealed, it will be a temporary reprieve – it is inevitable that some form of carbon scheme will exist in the future.
loading...
It must be lonely at ALP HQ.. If Tony Abbott in oppostion can apparently (as you suggest) damage the tax, does this not mean that the Government with full funding behind it has failed to sell the tax. Imagine that – an incompetent government wasting tax payers money on a tax we dont need and theystill cant even sell it – useless… Couldnt organise a ro*t in a brothel, unless Craig Thompson is involved of course…
loading...
I think that you are missing the point (typical of a liberal voter).
Good, bad or indifferent, Tony cannot repeal the legislation in total without creating more havoc. He can change it, alter it, bring in something different, call it something different but something along the lines of the carbon tax will be there.
It is his constant noise which is the problem, creating uncertainty and making it difficult (if not impossible) for industries to make sensible decisions and therefore, and by definition, impacting the economy badly.
And as an aside, being for the carbon tax does not make be a labour voter. It just makes me someone that thinks that carbon is an issue that needs to be addressed.
And perhaps a little concerned that some owners of very large companies that send their profits overseas are spending an awful lot of money trying to counter act any rational conversation on the subject.
loading...
Yes I agree.
As I understand it he cannot repeal the tax if he gets in next election anyway because he won’t have control of the senate.
Also if he is going to get rid of the carbon tax does that mean he is also going to get rid of the tax cuts that go along with it?
I am sick of the media giving Tony so much air time and his views so much weight. I can’t believe how biased the media is currently.
loading...
Tax for Carbon and then tax cuts, who pays for the tax cuts, who makes up for the shortfall in the budget – oh thats right tax payers – double whammy, you sir or madam are no economist…
loading...
I am very concerned about this tax. I am still stunned that something like this has been implemented without a vote being held on it. Due to our income we won’t be receiving any of the compensation. My husband is a soldier, I work in the public service and we have 3 kids – we’re hardly high flyers. The average household, I am learning, is based on 2 people. We have 5. That $9 a week cost will easily double for us just because we are a family not a couple. Middle income families like ours will bear the brunt of this tax and we never even got to vote on it. I can only hope that the coalition are elected and can find a better solution.
loading...
So you are saying you would vote against it?
What would you vote for? How would you construct a carbon reducding scheme where no one was effected?
The fact is – it is an incentive to use less carbon. This applies to the planet. Carbon is running out so we will have to pay more for it, no matter what. It is incredible that the government is compensating anyone.
loading...
We didn’t vote on GST.
loading...
We sure did vote for the GST. It was the Howard Government’s main policy platform heading into the 1998 election which they won.
loading...
You are right. Thanks.
loading...
Bec, the $9.90 estimate was based on an average household, not a couple, which is about 2.5 people at the moment. That does not mean as a family of five that you will be charged about twice as much. For example, when you talk about electricity usage, you are talking primarily about things like TVs, fridges, appliances, lights etc – things that are used as much, or almost as much, by a couple without children as they are with children. Just because you have three children it doesn’t mean your fridge costs much more to run or that you have to have more televisions than what a couple has. In terms of food and groceries, yes, you’ll probably pay a little more but I can’t imagine double – there aren’t too many kids that eat as much as their parents…unless they’re teenage boys!
Finally, you should still be eligible for a tax break of $300 per year even if you don’t get the compensation.
loading...
Thanks Anon. I have 3 boys the oldest is about to become a teen. As a consequence we have a bigger house, bigger fridge, bigger car, bigger hot water system etc. We pay the extra for green energy, I am a nazi when it comes to lights left on and turning tv’s off at the wall. We are so careful with everything and I don’t know where else we can reduce. I thinks it’s time I reduced my working hours and enabled our family to receive some carbon tax bribes. Sure I won’t have enough super but hey I won’t have the $600 out of pocket expense for childcare and after school care each fortnight.
Emily I will happily vote this govt out. They have taken $17 billion from the dept I work for since they were elected in 2007. At every turn they are making my life difficult. Who knew that our first female PM would be such a let down.
loading...
Hi Bec
Hopefully with the energy saving measures you’re using, the increase will be a little less than expected. Without trying to tell you how to suck eggs (you seem pretty clue-y on this anyway!), here are some things that we do to save energy:
* Running any appliances that we can outside of peak hours e.g. dishwashers (we don’t have one now but did previously), bread maker (we can’t live without it!), washing machine (if it isn’t too noisy!) so that we pay the reduced rate
* Energy saving bulbs and plugs – a bit of an initial investment but they pay themselves off very quickly
* TVs – we still have the old-style cathode-ray TV – you know, the one that is about 1m deep! But, for newer style TVs, LCD and particularly LED TVs are so much more energy efficient than the plasmas. LED TVs typically use about 50% of the energy that a plasma of the same screen size will.
* Solar lighting outside – these are pretty cheap and, unless it has been cloudy for a few days straight, we usually have enough light from when it gets dark until about midnight
We also got solar electric and solar hot water but these were initial big investments that have not yet paid off – we’ll probably be waiting 5-7 years to see the returns on these so I wouldn’t necessarily recommend these unless it is something that you’re passionate about doing, as opposed to doing it for financial reasons.
Best wishes, I hope that you don’t experience significant cost increases!
loading...
Thanks Anon we have done as much as we can (setting the washing and dishwasher to come on overnight etc) but as we live in Defence housing solar hotwater and electric panels would have to be installed by our landlord – the goverment. Funnily enough they don’t practice what they preach.
loading...
oh, so you don’t pay rent or a mortgage?
loading...
Bec, I live in Qld and we’ve just had an election which brought in the coalition in a big way and they are cutting costs. Every govt department is copping it atm. Govts do that when they’re trying to save money, no matter what side of politics they come from.
loading...
I live in Queensland too. The worst thing is the false economies associated with many of Can-Do’s cuts. We’ll cut $125,000 from a program which has probably saved multiple times that in terms of costs to the state. Then we have the asset sales that aren’t asset sales – selling the government buildings in the CBD to developers who will then rent out the office space to government departments. Arrrrgh! It is frustrating living in Queensland right now…beautiful one day, cultural backwater the next!
loading...
Sorry to burst your bubble Alyssa but yes we do pay rent. After moving 4 times in the last 5 years it is not practical or financially wise to buy at the moment. Every time we move (at the Army’s request) I have to find a new job, buy new school uniforms and so on. We moved in Jan this year and I started a new job in Feb. Last week I was told my job is being moved to Canberra due to budget cuts. Due to my husband’s career I won’t be able, nor would I want to move with it. So no Alyssa we don’t have a mortgage to pay but yes we do pay rent along with everything else.
loading...