Carbon Tax. Want it ?

Nissan Navara Forum

Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Are you for the Carbon tax ?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 9 8.2%
  • No.

    Votes: 101 91.8%

  • Total voters
    110
Treasury releases carbon tax cost estimates

Treasury documents predict householders could pay more than $860 a year under a $30 a tonne carbon tax.

However, the documents released under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws do not estimate the size of the promised compensation for businesses and households.

Many of the 29 documents are heavily censored; one 39-page Treasury minute about electricity pricing contains only a few sentences.

They show electricity prices would rise by $218.40 annually for the average household, gas by $114.40, petrol by $187.20 and food by $88.40.

Adding impacts to other goods and services, the total added cost per week of a $30 carbon tax would be $16.60, if fuel were excluded under the plan.

But if fuel is included in a carbon pricing scheme, the annual cost to households is $608.

A $40 per tonne carbon price would add more than $1,100 per year to a household budget.

The Federal Government has promised the money collected by the tax will be used, in part, to offset the price rises.

One of the Treasury documents suggests direct cash payments to households are best - in part because they would help counter community concern about cost-of-living impacts.

In a joint statement, Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet say it is too soon to speculate on cost-of-living impacts as the compensation package has not been finalised.

"No final decisions on the starting price or assistance have been taken and therefore it is far too early to speculate on any potential price impacts," the statement said.

"Until the final design and modelling have been settled, anyone who uses these figures to scare families about prices is engaging in a dishonest, misleading scare campaign.

"The Government has committed to use every cent raised by the carbon price, which will be paid by the biggest polluters, to support households, support jobs and tackle climate change.

"We will continue to consult with the community over the development of the carbon price."

No guarantees
But the documents also show a carbon tax will not guarantee that any emissions outcomes will be reached, possibly forcing the Government to buy international permits in order to meet its national commitments to cut carbon emissions by 2020.

One Treasury minute says the carbon pollution outcomes under a tax, or a fixed-price start, would be uncertain.

It goes on to say if carbon pollution levels exceed our national targets, then the Federal Government could purchase international units to enable Australia to meet its international commitments.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Treasury figures show the "extra burden" a carbon tax will be put on families.

"This just demonstrates that the Government has known all along that its carbon tax won't clean up the environment but it will clean out your wallet," he said.

"That's right and this is $863 a year in extra burden that the Australian people shouldn't have to pay. This is an $863 a year hit on families' cost of living.

"Families are doing it tough as things stand. They don't need a bad situation made much, much worse by Julia Gillard's carbon tax."

Meanwhile, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has formally adopted a position to oppose the carbon tax.

At their general meeting, all 30 member groups passed a resolution to reject the Government's carbon price plan.

ACCI chief executive Peter Anderson says they are concerned the carbon tax will disadvantage Australian industries.

He says business owners cannot afford the tax.

"Whilst those organisations are at the discussion table with the Government, they're not prepared to trade off the competitive interests of Australian industry," he said.

The price quoted I think are bullshit personally.

Everything in this country is transported by trucks.

Diesel goes up and we all pay more everywhere.
 
I really think diesel is going up because there are so many new cars that are running small-capacity turbo diesels and the new generation yuppy is buying them - so now the fuel companies have decided to cash in.

Diesel was easier to refine than unleaded but has become more complex with the emissions standards requiring a reduction in sulphur etc. Still, it shouldn't cost 15cpl more.

There are major variations between some companies too. Caltex at Sandgate (who have been thieves for a very long time anyway) are flogging their diesel at 162.9cpl today, while the Shell back near the Mater Hospital have it up for 139.9cpl.

Then Caltex are differentiating between trucks and cars, dropping 2cpl for trucks - or are they pocketing an extra 2cpl for the yuppies?

I don't like the way things are going. This carbon tax is going to throw another spanner in the works.
 
Apparently diesel is the fuel used in Asia, so if demand is going up there, aka massive cars sales in China, we get screwed. Not sure if that is the case behind this rise, but it was behind a previous diesel rise.

hmm, might have to start buying a few jerry cans and start a fuel dump at home for when prices are high.
 
The price quoted I think are bullshit personally.

Everything in this country is transported by trucks.

Diesel goes up and we all pay more everywhere.

You have to remember that the cost of living increase only applies if you do not change your habits - which is the point of the tax - to reduce polluting habits.
 
You have to remember that the cost of living increase only applies if you do not change your habits

There are limits to economising. Usually it means regular showering and clothes washing. So you are going to get stung anyway.

FWIW, we just replaced a chest freezer that was now using about 800Kwhr/pa for one that claims 322Kwhr/pa, which should save us about $95pa and pay for itself in 6 years(Bing Lee had a good price on the weekend. The question is whether to update the refrigerator as well atm.
 
I really think diesel is going up because there are so many new cars that are running small-capacity turbo diesels and the new generation yuppy is buying them - so now the fuel companies have decided to cash in.

Diesel was easier to refine than unleaded but has become more complex with the emissions standards requiring a reduction in sulphur etc. Still, it shouldn't cost 15cpl more.

There are major variations between some companies too. Caltex at Sandgate (who have been thieves for a very long time anyway) are flogging their diesel at 162.9cpl today, while the Shell back near the Mater Hospital have it up for 139.9cpl.

Then Caltex are differentiating between trucks and cars, dropping 2cpl for trucks - or are they pocketing an extra 2cpl for the yuppies?

I don't like the way things are going. This carbon tax is going to throw another spanner in the works.

Ill second the Caltex at Sandgate. I honestly do not know how there still in business.

You have to remember that the cost of living increase only applies if you do not change your habits - which is the point of the tax - to reduce polluting habits.

Change your habits. How ?

Business needs fuel to get around.

The cost is going to be passed onto everyone who requires there services.

You happy to pay more for everything ?
 
Business needs fuel to get around.

The cost is going to be passed onto everyone who requires there services.

No really interested in the debate but that statement is true. Back in 06 when diesel really started to go up and companies used that as an excuse to increase their prices a certain bread company increased the cost of a loaf of bread 7 times in 18 months. Shelf price of bread at most major supermarkets went from about $2.50 to around $3.50 for a 600 gram loaf, all with gradual increases and with a small time span between each rise which meant people barely noticed.

This cost was also worn by the small supermarkets and milkbars and they could do nothing about it. Every few months a new blue letter went out with the drivers explaining how costs had to rise due to fuel prices and that the company had no other options.

7 times in 18 months boarders closely on law breaking rises but because they were done just far enough apart it was barely picked up on and until this last batch of price cuts by the major chains (Down Down prices are Down!) which saw bread as low as 2 for $5 those prices never came down despite the fact that fuel costs did come down for a period.

We will all pay extra whether there is a carbon tax or not but companies have the best excuse of all to raise the price if their is a tax introduced and there will be just as many companies out there raising costs despite not needing to just under the guise of a carbon tax

And the thing that really stunk with all those bread price rises is that said company continued to charge their preferred supermarket $1.12 per loaf of 600 gram "instore" bread while while constantly rising the cost of name brand bread by over a dollar a loaf.
 
So they are in till 2055? Atleast Tony will have racked off by them and Libs might have someone who can govern.
 
I don't believe this will reduce emissions. The average joe that runs a business, will just put up their charges to pay their larger electricy bill etc, which gets passed on to the next person down the food chain, who will in turn put up their charges. All will put it up further than the carbon tax effect and take a pay rise at the same time, but blame the carbon tax.

At the end of the day, the business owner will still have an airconditioned office, a 17l V18 car etc etc, the consumer will pay more, The current government will get less popular (Is that posible?) and eventually we will get a new government... who will not remove the carbon tax. Everybody will get used to it. Some people will end up out of work.. and the true huggers will smile thinking they have saved the world.

The government doesnt actually care about emissions.. they care about getting more money.

Note: I think reducing emissions is a great idea, just not via a tax.
 
I don't care about the NBN but I still can't see it happening here anytime soon and if Biscuits wants them in until the NBN rollout is complete then we are in for a long run.

Although it's not like Toxic Tony would stop the NBN even if he did get in tomorrow, he might have been all gung ho about it around election time last year but his party is signing off on things now. Just look at the plain packaged smokes debate, Tony said something needed to be done but green packets wasn't the answer and then this week his party signed off on two out of three legislations to sell smokes in plain packaging, the only one they didn't sign off on was one that makes little difference anyway.

Victorians spent years bitching about the Brumby government so they vote in Big Ted and Little Ted. These idiots spent 18 months slamming the previous government on speed cameras and how they need to be removed, as soon as they are in power they install more and say it was because the deal was signed by the previous government.

The same deadshits just canned a government funded state wide youth music program which has helped thousands of kids get off the streets and off the drugs by giving them something to do. (Although that's a personal issue for me because we set that up and pushed the government for the funding in 97 and since then most regional centers have benefited from it).

Everyone has their favourite pollies and believes what they want to believe but the truth is they are all the friggen same. Full of piss and vinegar until election time then sweet as pie sucking up to whoever will listen to convince them they know best.
 
Climate change is not about belief- the science shows that we are clearly capable of emitting enough CO2 to affect the atmospheric composition, and we are in fact doing so. The ultimate result is a little unclear still, but there will be impacts.

That said, a government that wants to bring in a new tax to reduce CO2 emissions, and then states it will have no impact on the coal industry is not going to get my vote. They obviously think I'm dumb This tax is just going to churn cash through the public service rather than private industry.

Rudd could have had the ETS in 2008, but decided to use the issue to kill Turnbull's political career instead. Result? Abbott got the opposition job instead.
 
The whole idea of a carbon tax is absolute shit and anyone who thinks it will benefit the climate and our environment has there heads buried very deep in the sand.

Bigger companies arnt going to look at ways to reduce there carbon footprint to save on being taxed, they will simply pass the cost on to us as this is a much easier for them, and they know we will pay it as we have no choice as most of these products are necessitys.

And why are we getting hit with tha worlds biggest carbon tax when you have countrys like india with millions of people and you cant even see the sky through smog who arent paying a cent. Or the UK where the population of london alone is bigger than our entire country.

Volcanoes and other natural occurances submit far more sulfar and CO2 into our atmosphere than we have ever done, what we submit is a very small percentage.

Its simply another way for the government to make money.
A perfect example of this is the Solar scheme, it was very popular and everyone jumping on board to slash there power bills and reduce there carbon footprint, but the government in all states went and slashed the rebates and the network feed-in tariffs. why?......because there losing money. Despite the fact of how much of a benefit these provide to our environment.
Some has to pay to run these massive plants to produce electricity and if everyone is getting electricity for free or half price, the government stands to lose money.
Its shits me to tears when that red haired witch preaches about how shes only doing this to benefit our planet. Your not fooling anyone Julia. I never trusted the wench after she stabbed one of her own in the back anyway.
 
I never trusted the wench after she stabbed one of her own in the back anyway.

She didn't. She was offered the job as the rest of the pollies were fed up with Rudd's continual cock ups. Rudd was going, it was just a question of who to replace him with. The fact that the top job wnet to her(& Tony) just shows how bad the party is(parties are).
 
Working in the Oil and Gas industry myself this is a pretty big topic around the traps. With my job on the line due to projects being postponed and what not.

But beside all that, I voted yes. Simply because 95% of the mining companies raping our minerals are foreign companies, so why should these wogs, ragheads and gooks make hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars each year from our country virtually for free?
Then sell the processed goods back to us, to make more money.
Then as soon as the mineral deposits have been depleted (leaving our lands flogged out),bye bye mining companies, bye bye aussie exports, bye bye economy.

So why not try to make a buck off 'em while we can. The mining boom isn't goin to last forever.

I do agree that calling it a 'carbon tax' was a f-ing cop out, surely could have been many other ways around it. But in saying that, why shouldnt mining be taxed?

Edit: Flame on
 
^ Cant say I agree with you there.

Thats what the Mining Super Tax was mean't to do.

The Carbon Tax is just going to make banks richer.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top