Carbon Tax

[bob dylan]

The media blow every thing out of proportion.

I hear Hadley going on about the PM saying there would be no carbon tax if she won government, Howard made the same promises about the GST. All politician are tarred with that same brush, maybe not Katter who is just mad.

Remember Labor saying we would all be living in the street because of the GST, and nothing much changed. The same will happen with this tax.

You always need to ask yourself would people like Hadley and Jones be carrying on if Howard/Rudd/ Abbott introduced this tax?

A major problem at the moment in Australian Politics is the Government have almost no power, and are ruled by Independents and Greens. But that's the way people voted so I am not sure why everyone is whinging.

My best guess is Turnbull will challenge for the Lib leadership closer to the next election, will get the nod (he only lost it by one vote) and win the election to become PM.

 

[Fluffy]

Most of the articles i have read from economists are saying something along the lines of the carbon tax is neither as good nor as bad as either side will make out.

About 80% of households will not be able to notice an effect, the other 20% will be 50/50 better off/worse off.

That being said if it helps encourage investment in better energy uses (and it has already in my business) then its a good thing.

For everyone worried about their costs then i suggest keeping a look out for CSR Bradfords electricity meter. Its a simple meter the plugs into your incoming and bluetooths to a diplay which gives you instantantious costs/hour of your current electricity use. It will allow you to accuratly see how much different things costs to run. It will be released in about a month and cost just over $100.

 

[Technical Coach]

The Carbon Tax true purpose is to encourage the development of more efficient cleaner power sources not for the prime concern of the environment but for "businesses" to be less reliant on non renewable sources.

Major inflationary rises are already being factored in due to the rarity of minerals in the future on top of price increases for fuel so if we choose to not push/encourage development in these sectors now we are going to be left with a fossil fuel powered economy that will be paying top dollar due to the demands from China, India and Brazil.

The by-product of increasing the use of more efficient forms of power is a cleaner environment but we have basically almost reached the tipping point where any reduction in carbon emissions will not cause any benefits in our generation due to a cumulative lag effect in the atmosphere. Global warming will always be around in our time with or without human activity--- we can only reduce the rate of change so that it is a prolonged slow change not a drastic upswing that we struggle to cope with.

Labor should be promoting the economic benefits for the future in simple to explain terms such as,

If Country A is using 100% non renewable forms of energy and Country B has more diversified forms of power sources where Country C is the provider of dwindling forms of minerals then Country B has a competitive advantage to produce goods at a cheaper price allowing Country B to compete with low per unit of labour costs of Country A in the future.

Now i know that sounds complex but in cartoon form advertising it would be easy to understand.

What is also hurting Labor is the ending of the drought leading to a change in mentality and a more relaxed "if its not broke don't fix” mentality where if this tax was introduced during the drought it would be easy to sell.

Global warming does not stop Floods or Droughts it increases the intensity and frequency of floods combined with longer more harsh droughts, in-between both extremes will be drier.

This Tax is aimed at changing "businesses" by subsiding consumers and allowing consumers to direct their income towards what will "eventually" be competitive priced greener products through increasing the prices of non green products(by a tax) its not about changing our consumption habits. "Eventually in time(i'm talking 10-15yrs) the carbon tax or ETS will make products made from inefficient forms of power less attractive to consumers due to increased prices.

We are using the top down tax other countries have chosen to use a bottom up tax meaning consumers are taxed more so than businesses to change individual consumption habits not the habits of business and their forms of production.

 

[Jethro]

A major problem at the moment in Australian Politics is the Government have almost no power, and are ruled by Independents and Greens.

Very true and I've been saying for a while now that Gillard and the Federal Labor Party are nothing but puppets for Bob Brown and the Greens.

And Dan, getting back to the subject of wireless broadband, it wouldn't work here in Hervey Bay. The NBN would have to be the way to go. We have enough people complaining about the lack of mobile phone reception already and then the NIMBYs fight tooth and nail if one of the phone companies try and put in a new tower as they're all scared that they are going to get fried by the microwave radiation and that their property valuations will decrease.

 

[Technical Coach]

It will have global rammifications,she is forcing the hands of the rest of the world with this bill

It said households under $100k will receive a tax cut while households over $100k will have a slight tax rise,Pensioners will get more money (however miniscule) to 20% over the price hikes that may happen,also that from the way she said it was more or less charging importers of high carbon waste goods higher and keeping strugging local high carbon industrys in business....or something to that effect

It could be worse,we could have Abbott and his Wifi interwebs lol

Wrong mate.

Households with 2 parents, one child, sole income on 60k+ will pay a little more tax.

I won't divulge how much I earn but it isn't over 100k.

It just astounds me that with what I get taxed, plus being in a household of 2 adults 1 child, I still don't get tax breaks. In fact a couple I know both work part time, earn less than me, however due to tax are better off than I am because of tax breaks and benefits. It is like I get punished for being a high income earner.

As for WIFI internet, it won't be long until wireless 3G (4G has been switched on in Sydney and Melbourne I believe) will be as fast as fibre optic. It actually is a more sustainable and future proofed way of rolling out broadband rather than a wired fibre optic solution that will be outdated by the time it is rolled out. 4g wireless internet is about the equivalent to ADSL2+ at full speed, maybe slightly slower. However they have already found ways to transfer data wirelessly that far exceed any wired solution we know, however it is still in experimental phase. As much as I dislike Abbot, he is 100% correct in that as an NBN option as being more cost effective and easier to update and roll out.

I also agree that this will get up and running and there isn't much we can do about it, however Liberals running a campaign of "We will roll back the carbon tax" should see them get to power.

I have worked bloody hard for years to get to where I am and the money I earn, and I find it absolutely ludicrous that I am essentially punished for my hard work, salary and skills.

You need to educate yourself about the limitations of wireless a little more--- in simple terms its not about speed but about latency, signal to noise ratios and clogged networks. Whatever advances wireless make will be exceeded 10x's by the advances of F/Optics in the same period--- its a no brainer to the educated.

"Australia would have to expand its current base of 16,000 mobile cell sites to around 80,000 in order to deliver a near-equivalent broadband experience to the proposed NBN" and guess what they would most likely be connected with F/Optics to maintain signal integrity.

Its just another case of the opposition taking an alternative view for the sake of offering a pathetic alternative and to stall the NBN. Most people in the know laugh at anyone who thinks having a wireless backbone for broadband is the future.

 

[Dan]

It will have global rammifications,she is forcing the hands of the rest of the world with this bill

It said households under $100k will receive a tax cut while households over $100k will have a slight tax rise,Pensioners will get more money (however miniscule) to 20% over the price hikes that may happen,also that from the way she said it was more or less charging importers of high carbon waste goods higher and keeping strugging local high carbon industrys in business....or something to that effect

It could be worse,we could have Abbott and his Wifi interwebs lol

Wrong mate.

Households with 2 parents, one child, sole income on 60k+ will pay a little more tax.

I won't divulge how much I earn but it isn't over 100k.

It just astounds me that with what I get taxed, plus being in a household of 2 adults 1 child, I still don't get tax breaks. In fact a couple I know both work part time, earn less than me, however due to tax are better off than I am because of tax breaks and benefits. It is like I get punished for being a high income earner.

As for WIFI internet, it won't be long until wireless 3G (4G has been switched on in Sydney and Melbourne I believe) will be as fast as fibre optic. It actually is a more sustainable and future proofed way of rolling out broadband rather than a wired fibre optic solution that will be outdated by the time it is rolled out. 4g wireless internet is about the equivalent to ADSL2+ at full speed, maybe slightly slower. However they have already found ways to transfer data wirelessly that far exceed any wired solution we know, however it is still in experimental phase. As much as I dislike Abbot, he is 100% correct in that as an NBN option as being more cost effective and easier to update and roll out.

I also agree that this will get up and running and there isn't much we can do about it, however Liberals running a campaign of "We will roll back the carbon tax" should see them get to power.

I have worked bloody hard for years to get to where I am and the money I earn, and I find it absolutely ludicrous that I am essentially punished for my hard work, salary and skills.

You need to educate yourself about the limitations of wireless a little more--- in simple terms its not about speed but about latency, signal to noise ratios and clogged networks. Whatever advances wireless make will be exceeded 10x's by the advances of F/Optics in the same period--- its a no brainer to the educated.

"Australia would have to expand its current base of 16,000 mobile cell sites to around 80,000 in order to deliver a near-equivalent broadband experience to the proposed NBN" and guess what they would most likely be connected with F/Optics to maintain signal integrity.

Its just another case of the opposition taking an alternative view for the sake of offering a pathetic alternative and to stall the NBN. Most people in the know laugh at anyone who thinks having a wireless backbone for broadband is the future.

Not at all, the fibre optic once laid will already be outdated, and the only way to update it will be to relay it, hence why wireless 4g and above technology, will provide far better future proofing.

 

[bob dylan]

What about the ridiculous front page article in today's SMH blaming poor retail sales on a tax that does come in for another year.

The poor retail figures coincide with major US department stores such as Macy's, Sears etc opening international shipping for online customers. I don't suppose this has had any effect. Lets face it would you rather pay $130 for your Levi's at DJ's or Myer or $50 (plus $20 freight) from the US.

Australia retailers have bled the public for years, I read where many items such as clothing and footwear are manufactured cheaper today than they were 30 years ago due to off shore production. Yet the continue to hammer us at the check out.

The ball is now in the consumers court and it has nothing to do with any future taxes.

 

[CussCuss]

Not at all, the fibre optic once laid will already be outdated, and the only way to update it will be to relay it, hence why wireless 4g and above technology, will provide far better future proofing.

Sorry, you are 100% wrong on that. Fibre is the very much future proof given that to upgrade it, all you have to do is change what is on each end, the medium has a current world record of 26 terabits per second. You dont think that is future proof?

Are you listening to alan jones a bit too much? (http://www.news.com.au/technology/shock-jock-impressed-by-laser-speed-breakthrough/story-e6frfro0-1226062824273)

Also, take a look at what happens to wifi speeds once you try and put say... the hundreds of thousands of people that are in the sydney CBD on it?

Wireless is awesome in the bush so you dont have to lay cable to 1 person, completely useless in populated areas.

 

[Dan]

26Tb was possible at short range, as of yet, i don't know how that application would work long range and how cost effective it would be.

That is the real issue here, the NBN I don't think is cost effective and sustainable.

The fine print shows it won't cover large chunks of people as well. Any housing development with less than 100 homes will not get it unless the developer forks out the extra cash for it. Most regional towns, Hervey Bay for example, has a lot of housing developments and many of those certainly don't reach the 100 home limit.

I do see the need for a better quality of internet in this country, our current is so outdated and behind the times and we are per capita some of the heaviest users of the internet globally, I am just not sold on the NBN as it stands.

 

[The Eagle]

I will never use wireless internet,if 4g is anything like 3g its a joke and a half

Also theres perfectly good power poles unless we are getting rid of them

 

[CussCuss]

Just because you don't know how the very peak of experimental fibre technology currently works today doesnt mean it will fail miserably in the future, there is plenty of other fibre equipment running at blisteringlly fast speeds. And of course it will not stay static. How fast is wireless at the moment?

When I look around the data centre I dont see a lot of wireless dongles hanging out of the racks, I see fibre.

I do think its costs effective, 46bn over several years with infrastructure to last 50+. Its a public infrastructure service, it doesnt have to make a massive profit, its only goal is to break even, and even then, it should even be that much. Do you question if our roads are cost effective or our public transport?
Adding to that, there is also all the additional benefits you get from having properly fast broadband.

Not sustainable??? just.. WTF?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-26/thousands-to-be-stuck-in-nbn-limbo/2667774
< 100 houses in a development by the looks of this is Telstras problem by the look of it, and also a Temporary one. As I read it they are not prepared to lay out more copper but will lay out fibre once they can connect, so wont be a problem in the future. Yeah its not great, but if this best thing you can come up with as to why the NBN is no good without having any viable alternative well...

 

[Technical Coach]

Its impossible to have a Cost Benefit Analysis on such projects as the benefits will not take into account future ideas not even thought of or in use yet for example----while laying out the copper network i doubt anyone would have factored in data transfers and the future internet in a CBA back then.

Too much right wing influence in our media dumbing down the masses---basically all commercial radio and tv stations influence public opinion---the ABC the only left wing alternative.

 

[Fluffy]

agree that the media love to infuence and in general are ring winged byassed but abc cannot be taken as gospel either.

as Dan and Cuss cuss work in very simaler industries that rely heavily ion the web (no, not porn) its interesting to see such differing opionions.

looking at the small town scenario (<100 houses) the short answer is **** yas, price you need to pay for peace and quiet.

 

[The Gronk]

The scientists all say the problem is real, the economists all say the carbon tax is the cheapest way of fixing it. Everyone disagreeing with this has just been taken in by the cheap political tactics of Abbott and the Telegraph.

 

[bob dylan]

The scientists all say the problem is real, the economists all say the carbon tax is the cheapest way of fixing it. Everyone disagreeing with this has just been taken in by the cheap political tactics of Abbott and the Telegraph.

Add radio 2GB to that.

 

[Fluffy]

only the unwashed herd believe this will have any major effect on them.

 

[Canteen Worker]

I laugh that the tax as given is basically allowing Market forces to determine prices of various commodities - a Liberal philosophy and yet the Liberals oppose it.

Also that Abbott opposes the price Labor has put on Carbon but the Libs have the same policy for the Price on Carbon!!

 

[Fluffy]

oppose everything

its the same ploy that useless chickenovski used, got her no where

 

[The Eagle]

oppose everything

its the same ploy that useless chickenovski used, got her no where

Lol i dont think its a deliberate act,this moron doesnt know his own policies as it is,he opposes because she said something

 

[bob dylan]

My best guess is Turnbull will challenge for the Lib leadership closer to the next election, will get the nod (he only lost it by one vote) and win the election to become PM.

And he started last night, from ABC news

Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has denied a speech he made last night urging Liberals to accept the science of climate change was a dig at current Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Mr Turnbull lost his leadership of the Liberals to Mr Abbott over the climate change issue, but remains a passionate supporter of taking action to limit global warming.

In a speech last night he said a war was being waged on scientists by "those opposed to taking action to cut emissions, many because it does not suit their own financial interests".

He also argued it was embarrassing to keep referring to Chinese and Indian emissions when Australia's are much higher per capita, and issued a vigorous defence of climate change science.

"Normally, in our consideration of scientific issues, we rely on expert advice [and] agencies like CSIRO or the Australian Academy of Science, are listened to with respect," he told a Sydney audience.

"Yet on this issue there appears to be a licence to reject our best scientists both here and abroad and rely instead on much less reliable views.

"So in the storm of this debate about carbon tax, direct action and what the right approach to climate change should be, do not fall into the trap of abandoning the science."

Mr Abbott has previously called the science of climate change "crap" and said the "crazy thing" about his own party's emissions cuts targets was that they would be cancelled out by rising emissions from industrial powerhouse China.