How much greenhouse gas does Cate Blanchett use per year and how much are increased costs due to a carbon tax going to hurt her compared to your average pensioner?

Discuss....

Her carbon footprint is pretty impressive. When she leads by example, and cuts down on all that air travel, I may be a bit more interested in what she has to say. There's no other way to look at it other than sheer hypocracy.

For further insight see 'Team America' and the group they sendup, the Film Actors Guild or F.A.G. which takes the mickey out of celebrities using their fame as a launchpad to express their broader opinions - which as it turns out, not a lot of people are particularly interested in.

I think as soon as any issue is promoted by a celbrity, there should be instant rejection of the idea by any sane thinking person. You see, if they need a celebrity to sell it, there must be something evil or fundamentally wrong with the idea.

I was all for a carbon tax, but now, since Cate is involved, I would do anything to stop it. Any seconders?

I cant see how being typecast in period dramas and generally being mawkishly wholesome and eternally pretentious qualifies one to speak about the greatest moral challenge of our time.

There's an excellent article by Anthony Sharwood on this topic:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/shoot-the-messengers-and-send-them-to-bonnie-doon/

Check it out.

I am all with you there, Houllie. Like Lexi, I bet she's never
even bothered to install solar hot water heating, but oh no, now
we are gonna save the planet. Hypocrites.

Very shallow thread, full of red herrings.

"I was all for a carbon tax, but now, since Cate is involved, I would do anything to stop it."

Very shallow indeed.

I can't see how being typecast as anything or anybody has got anything to do with it.

You make out as if only the down-trodden and lowly of this world can stand up to anything worth standing up for.

Surely you can do better.

There is only one reason for a carbon tax, it's the price we pay to buy little Julia the job as PM.

I agree you would have to be very stupid to have your opinion dictated by someone who spends most of their life in la la land, the home of most celebrities.

I wonder if these adds are the price these lobbying organisations are paying to avoid loosing their tax exempt status, as Greenpeace recently has in New Zealand?

It just shows that to become rich & famous you just need lucky genes & you can cruise through life in utter ignorance which I believe is bliss.

Speaking of being rich, famous and having "lucky genes", what's the difference between listening to Cate and listening to Gina Rinehart?

I guess one of them worked hard at being rich and the other worked really hard at not being poor.

Why not butt out Gina?

oh and:
"I was all for a carbon tax, but now, since Cate is involved, I would do anything to stop it"
Yeah sure.

I will tell you where I think the hypocrisy lies.

There were two Australian stars who fronted this ad. Besides Cate there was Michael Caton, but we hear no slur against his name from this lot. Why not?

"Well that Caton bloke starred in the Castle didn't he so he must be all right. Not stuck up like that rich bitch. He is as ocker as you and me mate. Won't hear a bad word said about him. Her on the other hand, bloody hell, her father was a Yank sailor on R&R after all, and what's with 'Cate' any way? Should be Kate for crying out loud! Reckon she must spend most of her time OS. She should stay there. Plus she is a bird. Tell her to nick off!" 

Hypocritical bunch aren't we.

Well someone was going to start a thread on this topic. Never thought it would be a Houlley wind-up though.

I'm more worried about tax-funded Ads than who is in it. Is there some irony in the fact that we vote in a government based on their policies (or the fact they are not as bad as the other lot), then they spend more of our money to convince us to support policies which they promised they would not introduce.

Are we all going mad?

Bugsy makes a good point about Gina Rinehardt," what sort of carbon footprint does she make" ?, " how much money is she prepared to spend upon servicing her point of view" ?.

Isn't Kate and Caton's view, simply an attempt for the other side of the argument to be heard ?, and a welcome relief from the the media barrage that portrays the view of the big end of town.

Let the debate begin I would say Houelle.

Cate can surely have her say on carbon taxes or any other subject, whether she is a rich, talented and beautiful actress or not, can't she?

Michael Caton is also a (probably less)rich actor, but we don't hear the same hoo-ha against his contribution to the ad do we?

Why is that do you think Houellebecq?

Is it perhaps the 'tall poppy syndrome' that is alive and well in this country?

It always seems to be a gender issue with Houellebecq though, no matter what the subject.

I am not a fan of a carbon tax, but I defend Cate's right to say she is a fan.

With quotes like this I'm off to the punch...

'I’m confused as to *when* we get to say yes.

Did we get asked a question? Was there a vote? Will there *be* a vote? '

'Read “just say yes” as “just shut up.”

That’s pretty much the thrust of it.'

Hahaha.

Suze,

Who mentioned gender?

'Is it perhaps the 'tall poppy syndrome' that is alive and well in this country?'

That and everything csteele mentioned.

'what's with 'Cate' any way?'
I second that! Stuck up theatre luvvie's not going to tell me what to do. I'd have the same reaction if it was that Huge jack-man. I think you're obsessed with gender suze, I give all prejudices a more even go and class warfare and antiauthoratarianism and an aversion to goody two shoes types are miles ahead in this case.

'Reckon she must spend most of her time OS. She should stay there.'
Yes!

PS: 'rich, talented and beautiful actress or not'
1 out of 3.

pelican,

Gold star. I am impressed as well that you remain consistent. You didn't even mention the Rodent's similar antics. I cant believe those here pining for American celebrity politics.

PS: This is not funded by the government, just Cate supporting the Arts funders. Knows what side her bread is buttered on.

'I am not a fan of a carbon tax, but I defend Cate's right to say she is a fan.'

No policy has been released? What are you basing this on? How will it work in practise?

'There were two Australian stars who fronted this ad. Besides Cate there was Michael Caton, but we hear no slur against his name from this lot. Why not?'

He's a one hit wonder, not a hollywood red carpet darling.

'Speaking of being rich, famous and having "lucky genes", what's the difference between listening to Cate and listening to Gina Rinehart?'

One is rallying for the government to control the money, the other is rallying for employers to control the money. Neither is appealing to me, but one is asking for a hand out for a 'good cause' (Not a good look for someone associated with the Arts) and the other is asking not to pay more tax, something all Australians can relate to.

BTW Steele, what's hypocritical about knowing whose side you are on, and shooting the messenger when the messenger has been chosen to obscure the issue and 'dazzle' us? When you make it about celebrity endorsement, you are making it about the 'brand'. I can legitimately dislike that brand. No hypocracy.

Oh, no policy yet released?

But you don't want it, that's for sure.

You just want Cate's butt out.

Houellebecq <"No policy has been released? What are you basing this on? How will it work in practise?"

Well if you don't know what she is on about, why are you so upset about her being on the advert then?

Maybe you are jealous of a fellow Aussie's success and the fact she was asked to do the advert and not you :)

Australia's richest person doesn't want to pay more tax?

Yes, I'm sure we can all relate to that.

I would be interested to see how much personal impact Cate and Michael expect the tax to have on their lives. I suspect that it will be a slight increase in costs but no real reduction in their ability to travel or otherwise go about their lives.

What's most interesting is how much the theme of "we need to do something" seems to dominate the yes case. I get the impression that few have any idea how the proposed something will actually help the world's environment but at least we will be doing something.

I've also been pondering the economics of what I understand the proposal to be. As I understand it the basic approach is to tax polluters, giving rebates to lower income people from the proceeds to soften the inevitable rise in prices with an overall goal of making cleaner energy sources less uncompetitive.

What happens when the big polluters are no longer big polluters and don't need to pay the tax any more but costs are still higher than they were? Where does the money to help the poor cope with the increased cost of living come from then?

R0bert

A Carbon Tax

An unquantified and undefined impost on free peoples incomes,
Designed to supposedly address the fact that modern societies and higher population numbers consume natural resources
Which in turn, produces an unquantified effect to the levels of a natural gas in the atmosphere which some, to support their own vested interests, have declared must be reduced or mankind will suffer- but they cannot tell you how reliable their reasoning is nor what will reallay happen if we do nothing (LIKE MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD)

A carbon tax which is really just an excuse for some moronic socialist leveling ( Julia & Co have said some of the poorer will be better off with a carbon tax)

A tax demanded by a minority green (watermelon) faction, well known for their political bastardry in any area which takes their fancy ,to be Imposed by a marginal government hell bent on losing the next election (lets face it Windsor and Upshott are “dead men walking”, in the political sense that they have no hope of ever being re-elected.

And all designed to address an elaborate theory …..

Getting an émigré actress is the perfect presenter for a soap opera…..

As someone who is trained in the topic and has some knowledge of tax, I promise not to don a frock and pretend to be an old queen, if Cate Blanchett, who did play HRH E1, admits she has no understanding of taxation (she has someone, organised through her business manager, to deal with it for her) and is thus, talking from a highly emotional state through her fundamental orifice

My misunderstanding. Was just told (and Houlley confirms) the Ad was not government sponsored.

In a free society anyone can put up an Ad. This one is no different from the mining industry ads and they used a celebrity too, or from the ACTU's Rights at Work Ads or from similar GetUp Ads.

The real question is does it matter who is in the Ad - it comes down to what people already believe. They could have Ghengis Khan in the Ad for all the difference it might make on this issue, people seem pretty entrenched on either side of the Carbon Tax proposal.

Will the presence of Cate B or Michael Caton have any effect on people's opinions? I reckon not.

Col
Nice to see an old stoushing partner back again.

Come on, Houellebecq. Surely there's some hyperbole here? Rejecting ANY idea promoted by a celebrity? By that logic, we should be installing minefields in suburban parks rather than clearing them; we should be rejecting gay marriage just because Angelina Jolie spoke in favour of it; we should petition for Aung San Suu Kyi to be locked up in her house again because Bono sang a song about her. Celebrities have passions, too, and have a right to share them with the public. Just as you're sharing your views with a wide audience in an online forum, they are using avenues available to them to share theirs.

As for being "eternally pretentious", I had always thought Cate Blanchett came across as pretty down-to-earth. It's also refreshing for a celebrity to be able to form words properly, too.

That said, she hasn't changed my opinion about the carbon tax, nor will she. The words coming out of our MPs' mouths suggest that they have no idea what such a tax will involve - just that they think we need one. I'm all for cleaning up our act, but they have yet to convince me that a carbon tax will achieve this - or that it is the best way of achieving this.

It's interesting that nobody has put forward the suggestion that Gina Rinehart's opposition of a carbon tax could be linked to the source of her considerable wealth.

Political debate need not channel the three wise monkeys.
But it does all too often.
Cate is no different than any actor in any ad campaign,she forces no one to follow her but has every right to do as she wishes.
Do we want an end to any celebrity in any ad.
Hasbeen appears to truly hold the view Global Warming is an Australian made conspiracy, put in place by our lost Prime Minister to benefit her.
Cate stay, this thread seems to prop up a view free speech is only for some.
And Cate, many of us are proud of you, more are concerned at the Abbott's teams ability to ignore truth.
And only if they are saying what some want them too.
How can contributors not understand Tony Abbott ,against the tax, intends to give us tax payers the bill for his scheme

Good on ay cate. Big business will pay for their damage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVheRw6KMNQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRumgJV0zxo

LEA

It occurred to me that I didn't respond to the initial point.

No don't think that Cate need's to but out. Especially as the add is not goverbnment funded. She is welcome to her say but others are also welcome to point out that Cate's ability to comment on the scientific or economic consequences of the tax are no greater than many others in the community and in terms of understanding how much government rebates actually shield the poor from cost of living rises maybe somewhat less qualified.

Her wealth will allow her to have a choice between additional spending and her greenhouse footprint.

I'm reminded of a parable I heard many years ago.

The chicken and the pig were discussing how good the farmer was. One suggested that they should do something nice for him. The chicken suggested maybe a nice breakfast of "ham and egg's".

I've not seen Gina Reinhart's comments but I'd have no problenm with the suggestion that her business activities would be impacting on her views.

R0bert

Can anyone explain how a carbon tax in Australia will save the planet ? Just because australians are so removed from the rest of the planet doesn't mean they're not part of it.

'Surely there's some hyperbole here?'

Nope. Only hyperbowl.

'It's interesting that nobody has put forward the suggestion that Gina Rinehart's opposition of a carbon tax could be linked to the source of her considerable wealth.'

Nobody has ever put forward the suggestion that birds can fly because they have wings either. The thing is Oto, the lefty Herald readers screamed blue muder at the mining adverts, considering it an affront to democracy, but are happy as larry about 'our Cate' putting forward her political beliefs. So surprising!

',she forces no one to follow her but has every right to do as she wishes.'
And as she does so, she INVITES critique. Why should she be immune from judgement?

'Cate stay, this thread seems to prop up a view free speech is only for some.'

See above.

'Australia's richest person doesn't want to pay more tax?'

And one of Australia's largest employers and investors.

Col,

My warmest welcome. It's like a ray of sunshine has been sent down from on high.

Suze,

'Maybe you are jealous of ... the fact she was asked to do the advert and not you :)'

True. I would love the money to make my own political advertisments. I'm sure many would, it's apposite to the topic. Inadvertantly, you have said something worthwhile.

pelican,

'In a free society anyone can put up an Ad. This one is no different from the mining industry ads and they used a celebrity too, or from the ACTU's Rights at Work Ads or from similar GetUp Ads.'

Is that free speach though, or freedom to interfere with the political process, and use third party proxy organisations to side-step responsibility for the content of advertising material. Is it a curtailment of free speach to ban political advertising? ie, you can say what you want, even use a megaphone on the back of a truck, just that you cant use mass media marketing campaigns.

Save us a lot of money during elections and ameliorate The Minister for Meriton, The Minster for Pubs NSW, the Minister for Tabacco, The Unions Bosses party.

its nothing to do with kate being rich or female
she is a hypocrite

guilt will do funny[sad]..things

blind us to even hearing the acusation
[im not infuring guilt..only quoting a sim-u-lie]

the big point today seems to be our
carbon dioxide..*creation..*
has hit an all time high*..*

considering the resession globally..[thats huge]
consider..the biggest new inDUSTry..is GOING GREEN
building a brandnew gren power system

take way that greening of INDUSTRY..
we wouldnt have the current..ALL TIME HIGH c02 being produced..

with industry producing them nice solar
and wind stuff..thats little supprising

thing is that we
collectivly...create too much

yet this tax/fix
is a blind instrument..

not targeting the big users
[in fact giving them..free solar cells...
and then extra income..on top..via a rebate...lol

?...how many
with free solar cells
have..*ACTUALLY used..*less power..in total..?

its the smoking scam..all over again
just like this attack on gamblers

guilt..[it works a treat]..
just like religion

if you pay for your 'indulgences'...
your not indulging...lol..guilty logic

unless your of the sort
who uses daytime power
from solar...
[which they with the free solar cells..[and overtly generouse rebaits..*arnt...!

YOUR solar/power...is on 'sold'
to electTRICK companies,..
and YOU still feed off.
.the coal power]..24/7...

[or else why pay you
for it...

[GET IT?]

you high and mighty
holier than thou kate blank/cheques of the world
still are using coal power...!..

[if your getting
*a feedback tarrif rate..!]

see..how proper solar
*would..*need to be..OFFLINE..*[off grid]..
would...*need to be..storing ALL..its own power..[on site]

*BUT IT DONT..!*!*!

[to wit..its a feel-good SCAM*]
so the big/users..get big offsets
..*WITHOUT REDUCING* THEIR over-use/abUSE..

ohhh soooo clever
the hide..of those
sharing collective guilt
then casting stones at smokers/or 'deniers'

talk about being in denial
lol

little wonder you want to leave
leave it..*for us paying for..*it all

replacing the infastructure..
WHILE PAYING YOU/cate/the arts
/greenies and the elites..*...a feed-in tarrif...TOO...!

lol

Houlley
It is freedom of speech no doubt, we can all make up our own minds on various issues.

Freedom of speech forms part of democracy and a better democracy would ensure accountability for election promises and even better some form of participatory democracy. The cost would be minimal if it tied in with the electoral cycle.

You must be misreading my post. I am not proposing to ban political advertising only that the taxpayer should not pay for it. If a group of people want to get together and raise money for an Ad that is not intefering with the political process. Afterall what is the political process? Politicians and people form governments and politicians work for us not the other way around.

I agree there are many people out there pushing a barrow about something but there always has been, it is now just more visible, media is faster and more accessible. Now we have blogging and opinion sites. People have always lobbied politicians. In times past, once a week publishing and radio was the extent of news. Ironically the news at this time was often meatier and more in-depth because reporters had time.

Are you really that stupid Quantum, or are you just backing the greenie ratbag catch call?

"Big business will pay for their damage", is just so childish. No one with even half a brain could not understand that every cent of this tax will be passed on to the poor bl00dy public.

Not only that, with billions of dollars of the tax collected from the public by big business, on behalf of government, you can bet they will find a way of profiting from it. They would probably have full approval from the green rabble to do so. After all the greens want to see us less well off, that saves "pollution" , don't you know.

With people like you around, I have to wonder how we ever managed to get out of the caves.

It is interesting to note that the Greenies that implore everyone else to tighten their belts are often the worst offenders. For example Al Gore has a massive house that uses 4-10 times the average energy, drives large gas guzzling vehicles.

The inner city late sipping greens are also noted for having the greatest proportion of SUVs and 4WD that never leave the tar.

Another case of do what I say, not what I do.

Most 'greenies' I know are not like this SM but then where I live there is no inner city as such.

Greenie is a label it does not mean anything, actions are counts.

Anyone can call themselves a greenie, I could call myself a famous celebrity that looks like Elle McPherson, it doesn't make it true. (Although there is a remarkable resemblance. ;))

Bad editing on my part. Should have read "actions are what count".

I thought you'd be against political funding pelican. One dollar one vote and all that. These 'independent' get-up type lot are just another way of doing things.

Instead of Unions funding party which then launches TV campaign, or Miners funding coalition who then launches TV campaign, it's cutting out the middle men these days. So then the partys can wash their hands of the content of the propaganda, and there really are some people who have no idea they are just front groups for the party. Like most 'independents' on the tablecloth ballot papers. Democracy is very sick indeed; PPP and 'commercial in confidence', hiring 'consultants' to give supposed 'independence' to policy commissioned for party funding purposes. Pipers, tunes, accountability, transparency, the age of non-journalism and copy and paste from press releases.

I had you down for more of an idealist, or communist.

Do you really want the party with the biggest 'war chest' and the most celebrities to always be the winner? I never would have had you down as a fan of American style politics.

Is Cate clouding your normal moral compass? Or is she just the right kind of political interference. Are you a libertarian only when it furthers your political agenda, but a socialist when The Rodent and The Monk are involved?

Haha! Ends, means, it all sounds so deliciously machiavellian.

Define political funding? A group of people funding their own Ad is not anti-democracy and I don't even agree with the Carbon Tax.

"I had you down for more of an idealist, or communist."

Yeah right...stirring the possum again.

Libertarian Schlibertarian.

SM,

It is definitely - a case of "what I say, and what I do." Abbott and Hockey want it both ways - arguing that the government has been a profligate spender that will never return the budget to surplus - while simultaneously excoriating it for its minor cuts to so called "middle-class welfare." The refusal to use the budget reply to present a meaningful alternative to the government's policies makes it all the harder to take this Opposition seriously.

most actors are so morally bereft they can't help but to take up self righteous causes. Humans who think they control the climate are totally deluded by their own sense of importance. Cate would do a lot better to get her hands dirty and clean up some litter instead of trying to joing the foolish leftist íntellects'.

Are you really that stupid Quantum, or are you just backing the greenie ratbag catch call? I dont know exactly what you mean by greenie ratbag catch all, however stupid in regards to the human foot-print, I dont think so:)

Now! lets see what I have in my files...ha here we go, take a good look hassy and and tell with population growths, this my friend will only increase to levels were nothing will survive.

Question is, are you that stupid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ususQOvG5QQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU2bfYzPZTQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJZ67EMn2ew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy-n_qdRKtU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ususQOvG5QQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwM9_3thvss&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA8wHrQHn_A&feature=relmfu

Your on a sinking ship hasbeen:)

But like all the other older people that will be dead by the time the planet is a filthy sh!t-hole, its business as usual for people like you and many others and whats one of the great in-door industrial business meeting chants...( We'll be right! but God help the next generationals that will be stuck with it )

And that was heard by spies in one of the BIG OILS meetings:)

Yes! these polluters are really on your side hasbeen...lol.....:)

Would you like to see more evidents?

LEA

Lexi,

Exactly minor cuts. $2bn over 4 years, yet they are going to buy and gift NBN co $11bn worth of Teltra's lines and access, most of which they are going to scrap, in just this year. Let alone the additional 6% public servant bloat since 2007.

The cut to Middle class child benefits etc is small but simple payback to those that probably don't vote for them. That families earning $150k don't get any relief is not going to be forgotten, and is probably why the budget got such a poor response.

Cate and her Late sipping effetes have a huge carbon footprint, but choose to lecture the rest of us. What hypocrisy.

I reckon she'll follow in Maxine's footsteps, and be about as successful runner.

dear pelcian,

'A group of people funding their own Ad is not anti-democracy'

Really? Maybe we could even say it's the best democracy money can buy. huh? huh? So you think that as long as its not brown paper bags, but rather a more detached group with the goverment in their pocket it's all a-ok? I suppose discretion is to be encouraged.

So, pokies, pub trading hours, tabacco, development, all these policy areas are to be messed with by independent 'free speach' organisations, with government in their pocket, and huge advertising budgets. All tax deductable of course.

Interesting.

Is that just because tax dollars aren't being used?

Hey Cate, you know we're having trouble convincing New Idea readers about our carbon tax. Do you think you can give us a hand? We're an independent political action group, wink wink. Oh yes of course. No need for the paper bag of course, this one's on me, you know when Rudd put me in his 20Twenty vision, it helped my brand so much that I really am ready to serve. The Australian people. Hohoho. Hey did you just mention we should meet to review funding for the arts next week. Ah, my backs not ichy anymore, how 'bout yours. Ahhhh scratch.

I think it will still cost us.

'The refusal to use the budget reply to present a meaningful alternative to the government's policies makes it all the harder to take this Opposition seriously.'

I thought that was gold! Highly entertaining chutzpah! Keatingesque. Maybe they should have a budget-reply-reply. Then a budget-reply-reply-reply.

Well after that one Pelican, it's now almost obligatory you post a picture.

Thanks Quantum, you clarified that for me, you really are. Where did you catch the rabies?

Cate and Michael are just “Celebrity Advocates” representing the warmertariat, nothing new and there are plenty more of them. It’s just a job and anything that raises their profiles is good for them and their agents. They don’t have to agree with what they are “advertising” but it helps if you have form and lets face it both sides do it. Nor do you have to have the foggiest clue what you’re talking about, you just read the script.

It’s worth noting that taxpayer dollars are indirectly used. Of the $4.9m to environmental advocacy groups, $2.6m went to the ACF. Add to that a few wealthy celebrity donors and you have an Ad. campaign.

I have no problem with vulnerable citizens spending their money on proselytizing; I would however like them to pay any CO2 belief tax amongst themselves. Imagine how we would feel if asked to pay for a tax on alien defense systems because some whacko’s believed we are under imminent threat. We could call it the Scientology Tax.

Well I for one would think that our money would be better spent welcoming our alien overlords and adapting to their demands. After all, there would likely be some benefits to alien domination.

No point in adding to the debate on Cate. Without taking sides on the carbon tax, I think these sort of ads are counter-productive. I remember being unimpressed with Optus 'Yes' campaign - no info, no nothing, just a market labelling exercise. (Just curious - how many of you signed up with Optus on the basis of those ads? Anyone who did should refrain from complaining about this one).

On another issue (I know, it's been done to death), Shadow Minister wrote: 'That families earning $150k don't get any relief is not going to be forgotten, and is probably why the budget got such a poor response.' Do you really think that the votes of the 10-15% of families earning more than $150K is going to make a difference? I doubt that they live in swinging seats. I did a small poll (newsagent, garage etc.) in my small country town (extremely safe coalition seat) and we couldn't think of anyone we know who had that much income - all (and they are non-Labor votes) thought the cut-off was fair enough, but not a vote-changer. Anyway, if you get less than $50K are you going to change your vote in sympathy with the over $150K families?

Re: the additional 6% public servant bloat since 2007 = school-teachers, police, firemen, nurses, etc. Your don't want more of those? OK, there are too many bureaucrats but guess where the cuts will be.

Cate Blanchett is as entitled , as is any other person , to express an opinion about this subject . She may use more airline fuel than the average overseas traveller , because she has to fly more frequently in the course of her profession . That does not deprive her of her rights . Her opinion is worth as much as , but not more than , anybody else 's . It is the merit of an opinion that counts , not the identity of the person who expresses the opinion .

Shadow Minister,

You're absolutely right. It wasn't a budget with a vision that the government put forward. They will never achieve surplus. Tony Abbott is the answer to everyone's prayers. The Carbon tax is going to be a cost on virtually anything that moves - hospitals, medical clinics, The Royal Flying Doctor Service, pathology labs, funeral homes, What services will be cut as a result? Everything will cost more. Concert tickets, and theme park entry fees, rents in shopping centres, it will affect schools, restaurants and the pub. Food prices? It's like raising the GST above the current rate...

And don't even talk about the NBN - it's much better to cobble together yesterday's technology to give us what we need. Let's all support the "she'll be right" solutions. Why should we put Australia in a position to be a real technological powerhouse. Why do we need that type of forward thinking in government when we can remain a backwater - why should we be people to be reckoned with globally. After-all the NBN isn't better technology - is it? Nah, let's concentrate on the costs involved. After-all we don't really need it.

As for the carbon tax? How right you are. Absolutely! Don't let us put a cap on pollution - we need to pollute more - big business requires it - and we need to pay them to continue polluting. And by all means let's have an election so that it becomes crystal clear that
we get the government that we so rightly deserve.

cont'd ...

And who wants to hear from Cate Blanchett - when we've got Tony Abbott who's so in tune with average Australians. Is there anyone who doesn't find Abbott totally awesome and inspiring. What other politician can lay claim to having a "visions" for this country. Certainly not Malcolm Turnbull.

Thank You Shadow Minister for making me see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've nopw become - like you one-eyed and I can see through keyholes with both eyes.

Delighted to see you back on the beat, Col Rouge.

Sentence commuted? Thought so.

Agree with every word, by the way. The divine Margaret might not have done, though.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108237

But please, don't make promises you can't keep.

>>As someone who is trained in the topic and has some knowledge of tax, I promise not to don a frock and pretend to be an old queen...<<

We're a tolerant bunch here. And we know you want to.

Hasbeen:) your a riot. Well dumb dumb, all will come to light in this century, and your right pall, money is the only important consideration.

And hasbeen.....all that coal going to China will just fuel the links:) Then population hits 9 billion then 10 billion....wont that be fun:) and all these people like you will want what you want and so on. 75% of power now in Australia is coal fired stations, and its true we have the cleanest coal in world.

If the science is right, and it is, the world you wont be here for, well.....just use your imaginative powers if you poses such a thing, and think really hard about the bigger long term picture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3OLKsQ83k&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za438_pSkUw&feature=related

However, if people want to roll the dice, I'll just have to roll with it.

LEA

At the end of this debate, say in ten years, I invite all those still around to remember their words.
See both sides say the other is wrong.
That it is a conspiracy, in effect one side has been conned.
The hardest thing,well maybe the real problem is it is too easy, to say I got it wrong.
My view was wrong.
I am content to believe climate change deniers will eat their words, most will say I always knew it was true but.
Look please do at this, I believe in man made climate change.
I believe we should have an ETS not tax now.
And I know apart from those who export only we the tax payers will have costs passed on to us.
GST is about that we pay the rich find ways around it.
Throw it back in my face BUT BELIEVE Abbott's scheme is totally funded by tax payers.
He intends to REWARD big business tax middle and low income to pay for it.
In ten years,after Abbott and Gillard are selling hot dogs at the footy for a living.
Will you remember who it was that got it wrong?

Cossomby,

The 6% bloat in public service would have been OK if it had been teachers, nurses, etc, but it was almost exclusively bureaucrats.

As far as the 15% that get over $150k, when they have kids, their income drops and expenses increase just like everyone else. And some tax relief (which just about every other country in the world gives) is greatly appreciated and helps compensate for the drastic changes. While this may not be a big swing in votes, when the polls are close, a 1% swing in votes makes a major difference.

Lexi,

Unfortunately your attempt at sarcasm was actually actually hit the nail a few times:

Budget: uninspired, pork barrelling independents and punishing aspiring citizens - Tick
Carbon tax: raise cost of living across the board - Tick
Carbon tax: Does nothing to reduce pollution in Aus or globally until at $40/t - Tick
NBN: Fibre backbone (as per $6bn coalition plan) good, $36bn fibre to house, a complete waste of money - Tick
Juliar Gillard: "there will never be a carbon tax under the government I lead, with a voice like a dentist drill, to whom no one is listening anymore. - Tick

The ALP: who brought us Pink Batts, The BER rort, Grocery watch, etc, the Malaysian solution, a record public debt, and a new benchmark for incompetence. - Tick

PS.

Even in Tasmania, the ALP strong hold the ALP brand is selling as well as pork in Palestine.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8255530/giddings-alp-take-hit-in-tas-poll

Yes and it's not like Gerry Harvey ever had to go shopping on-line to save a few bucks or Gina Reinhart and Twiggy Forest ever had to worry about paying enough tax.

When you have no argument, shoot the messenger - as usual.

Belly,
You bet I will remember who was wrong, just like I remember who got multiculturalism wrong.

You claim to be non-religious yet you BELIEVE in human induced climate change without proof. That is the same attitude as the god botherers. You BELIEVE irrespective. Nothing will change you.

There are a number of things in our world we have no influence over and my common sense tells me climate is one of them.
As I said i am quite prepared to change when I see proof and i do not have to do research to establish that. I have faith Flannery will let us all know IF that happens.

Right now it is a con and has been shown to be as con. Now the alarmists are trying to make out that Carbon is a pollutant, which is crap, CO2 is a natural and vital element.

It is simply another ruse to impose yet another tax, which we the consumers will pay for.

Banjo "CO2 is a natural and vital element." - so is water but you can have to much of it.

I've been very concerned by the handling of the message and the fumbled attempts to try and make it clearer than it really is but that does not mean the whole is idea is disproved.

There is enough credible backing for the idea that the rest of it should be taking it seriously. There are enough reason's to try and move towards sustainable energy sources to make some measures worthwhile regardless of how you feel about climate science.

What's really up for grabs here is the relevance of the tax in terms of a transition to renewable less carbon intensive fuels. What's up for grabs is the credibility of a PM who when standing for office said that there would be no carbon tax and then reneged on that commitment. What's up for grabs is trying to find means of changing our energy sources which improve our future, not damage it.

R0bert

Wind back Belly, wind back.

A person can believe in climate change, not agree with the ETS, and not agree with Mr Rabbit's solution either.

You seem to have this habbit of putting words in everyones mouths and making grand conclusions based on your own imagination. There are many seperate issues

a) Is the climate changing
b) Are humans responsible, if so are they *significantly* responsible
c) Will an ETS have any effect on cutting our contribution to the problem, especially given the $40 a tonne figure
d) If Australia reduces its 1% of world emissions, will it achieve anything?
e) Will the economic damage of using more expensive fuel hamper efforts to deal with AGW if it exists
f) Is Mr Rabbits 'plan' even relevant considering any person with even the slighest powers of observation knows he doesn't even belive in AGW and most of his party don't either.
g) Is Cate a Hypocrite, and do you support the celebritisation of politics.

You seem to want to throw everything into a funnel of our team/your team ETS or TAX, when most people aren't cheering on a team like you and Shadow Minister. Wind Back! Wind Back!

Tony intends to do nothing about climate change, and Julia is only greedily anticipating the tax bounty.

Shadow Minister,

You won't get an argument from me. Why use the budget reply to present a meaningful alternative to the government's policies when you have a "vision" for Australia. It's not the privatisation of our utility and service industries that causes the cost of living to go up across the board - it's the carbon tax that's coming in next year on the polluters - and we know the government is lying when they tell us that we will be compensated cause that's what governments do - right.

I'm really looking forward to your next post.

Banjo I have developed a soft spot for you bloke but gee, you often sound like the proverbial old woman.
First junk comment about religion, no way it has any thing to do with the subject.
There is no God.
You say, goodness mate do you get your info from the paper hanging on the dunny door? it is unproved.
It is my view a combination of mans foot print and events like volcanic eruptions is behind climate change.
Abbott, bad example, says he thinks so too.
Look at the rednecks with in his party who tell us they do not think so.
The combined IQ would be less than any farms best cattle dog.
Now Houlie, no will not, see I post what I think.
And OWN MY MISTAKES do you?
Noted your bit about getting at me in another thread,easy bloke you did not ruffle a hair on my head.
I love a laugh but do not share your humor ok.
Good thread you started but has every one gone shy we need more input, please say something controversial so we can argue some one SM?

Belly,
You BELIEVE in human induced climate change, just like a born again christian BELIEVES in christ. That mate is religous fevor!

Now you say mans footprint. Where? and volcanos? Yep, now you are talking about natural causes and they do put out a fair bit of gasses, we cannot control. That is better than blaming it all on humans.

As i understand it, the vast majority of CO2 is produced by nature and humans only a small percentage, yet humans are to blame for climate change? Then Aus puts out only 1% of the humans part, so we are to be taxed on that? Where is the list of other countries the PM refers to? She claims we are dragging the chain.

I won't get into a slanging match with you about the IQ of either Libs or Labor as I don't think much of either. But I could quickly point to a few failed schemes in recent times that reflect poorly on Labor.

Anyway You have a right to your opinion and me to mine and Cate to hers, but I remain unimpressed and I now think a little less of Michael Caton, silly sod.

Why do Australian citizens have to pay tax when we are one of the smallest polluters in the industralised world. The Carbon tax will send our jobs overseas where they are not burdened by taxes. Australia will be the looser.

Philo I don't have the references but I saw material recently suggesting that we were one of the highest per-capita for CO2 emissions which in terms of the AGW debate is classed as pollution.

The size of the population vs the size of the continent, our physical distance from other countries, the lack of nuclear power, a generally poor public transport infrastructure, our relative prosperity etc all give that claim credibility.

R0bert

Philo,
Our relative emissions may seem low but that's also because most of our manufacturing has been outsourced to China and India and they have to wear the carbon they produce on our behalf.

Also, if our major trading partners go ahead and introduce limits, how long before they notice we are doing nothing in return?

I suspect they will have to apply economic sanctions against our exports until we fall into line with them and then we will be faced with a massive catch-up scenario which will be far more expensive to implement.

Rache,

That's the whole point. If our major trading partners put a price on carbon, that's when we do.

Australia will be the looser.
Philo,
A big YEP !

Each of us has every right to their views.
To be wrong and to be right.
To be uninformed or have an understanding of the issue.
We will always differ, on this issue we war.
Truth is the first victim.
Mud as much the weapon as blindness.
Banjo, Mate,it is your words, not my thoughts that I have religious zeal here.
Now retired,I run my own weather station as a hobby, read past DAILY rain fall documents extending back 55 years.
Have read 5 city and three local papers on line this morning.
Will read 3 international ones during my lunch break from the garden.
I HUNT for documentation from BOTH sides of this debate.
This is true, one side is wrong.
No half way we either are hurting our planet or lying to every one.
IF we lie why, if we are hurting why?
From the years we started to burn fossil fuels, to grow our population at 50 times its past growth rate.
From those days only 250 years ago man pollutes almost every thing we touch.
If you look at the history you will see big money hid its understanding Asbestos killed, to protect money,it is telling us smoking is ok it just maybe in fact they lie now.
Time will prove one of us wrong, if it is me , no hiding it,I will feel shame.
But mate the evidence is in you must one day sup on humble pie.

bellies reading papers
[not research papers mind]..
but spin wrapped up as 'news'...papers]

clicking on headings
is hardly 'reading the news/paper

i too can scan 5 news papers in a morning
treading them fully would take all day

but lets go away from the easy stuff
bells has a weather station...[plus his solar cells]

do you run a heater by chance belly?
what im getting at is there is a heat shadow from your home
if the wind blows just right..your measuring your own polution[your opwn heat shadow]

if its not automated its by your rooteen
reading at different times gives different readings
[ps have you noticed this year the wether cycle has turned?

recall the floods in usa
[you must have read that in the papers]
well they are the RESULT[fruit]..of the masive snow falls
[of last winter's fall's...

think how its taken till now..to melt...
as we face the 'first day of winter'..here
but its beenm winter for weeks..[even the snow fields have snow]

so mater guess what
warming is ccccrap

so the c02...needs now be upped,..,not reduced
govt got the tax so lets now pay only big users
[the world has gone nuts mate]

here we got compensation TO THE POLUTERS...!
[yet on the other hand...people been holding back..
from investing..cause of uncertainty...[lol]

germ/mans are getting rid of their uranium generators..[by 2022]
get rid is a relitive term...meaning

govt will be spending billions
dismantling them..for the NEXT 100 years...

[they decommisioned..just one in 64...
spent two billion so far..
and got 40 years..*more to go
to get it 'gone']

these only made 15%..of germaniac power need
the rest was coal...[its likely they will go gas]

but...BUT...IF THEY GET IT WRONG
their power grid spans europe/uk

if we get it wrong
we're..by ourselves

just TAX exports
give the tax to the poor

problem fixed

if YOUR party got it qwrong
were going to go broke

but mate you would have read
about the mobile phone radiation
causing CERTAIN brain cancer...get it

lol cancers that go into smoking statistics*
no wonder the kids appear brain dead

but then again its the 'mad cow' kicking in
from the big macs they had to have..as kids
all them lovely transfats..and msg..and asbestos...yum

booze is the 2de highest cause of cancer
so drink up bloke

did you see the yanki drunk on insight?

did you see the liar
on insight last night?

his most common reply was
i will answer that later
BUT LATER NEVER CAME..

thats the lying game...its such a joke

but he didnt refute
that man causing 3% only number
his reasoning said..we use x c02..in the cycle

[yet another lie...plants use more
if there is more]..SO HIS MODELS ARE BASED ON A LIE..!
he dont facter in..extra growth..*because of extra c02..ie HE LIES*]

only convinced 2
to change their opinion
lol

fool us onece sham on me
fool us twice shame on you

BOTH PARTIES LIE*!>!
believing one..to be better
is to have swallowed..the lie..

[the real problem
is public $ERVANTS
and the me-dia]

who stay!
after the po-lies go..
who subvert/train the new mob..of po-lies
[with traditional public sir-vice..decietes/teqniques]

Dear RObert,

The following website may be of interest to you (and others):

http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/31/carbon-tax-wont-blow-household-budgets

Ian McAuley tells us that:

"The reality is that for the last 20 years - annual inflation, (measured by changes in consumer prices) has been below 5% and is currently running at about 3%. At the same time incomes have been rising annually at about 1.2% ahead of inflation...
Australia should have little difficulty in managing any small increase in prices resulting from a carbon tax..."

There's much more- but read it for yourself.

im glad you found a site
that says we can afford the new tax
[yes i can aford it]

i dont care today the power price went up
[lol..because we didnt give them the money
ie BECAUSE we reduced the power we use..!]

thus we get 6% increase
ans will reduce more
needing them to increase its price again
because we reduced our power..!

see mate how the solar..FREE solar
didnt reduce the power YOU USE..!
[in time the feedback tarif too will go away]

thing is lexie
you havnt said...IF you reduced your TOTAL use*

[i suspect your silence confirms
your using [ab-using]..as much
or more power..than ever..!

but by clever trickery
got guilted into bying solar
[that hides the REAL FACTS]

you sell ALL YOUR FEED-IN..to get your feedin grant
BUT STIL USE the systems..power

[cause you sold your solar 'crdit
that THEY onsold.,.as ''green power'']
google 'greenpower'...why cant you see the LIE
is that we need the new tax..not that its 'AFFORABLE'

its not cheaper to do it today
if their lie re tomorrow is a LIE..!

yes we need to 'cleanup' the acts of abuse
but taxing us..not poluting ..isnt fixing the real problem

look 1000 pay the tax
THEY COLLECTED FROM US

how much will THEY charge us
the maximum they can get away with..!

your going to pay 26$
your kids will be paying..WHATEVER the bankers
want to charge you for the credit..they bought on the car'bon market

the science has changed*..during this year
thats why they are trying to move..with too much haste

before people like you or kate..
begin to really read the oppisite side info

[i used to oppose A/bolt..then realised he was right
and it was me who was wrong....mate you got a great mind
why arnt you using it to stop vile people from doing more bad vile

Lexi, do be careful there, you are very close to committing, [unintentionally I'm sure], the cardinal sin of lying with statistics. I am sure this is only because you have been conned by the writer of that article, Ian McAuley was it? I am a little surprised, I thought that you, with your training, would see through this rubbish.

The lie is in the time span & starting point, that many is meaningless.

My daughter has 2 kids, aged almost 2 & just over 3. She & her husband built their new home 2 & 1/2 years ago. As you can see they have made most their lifetime financial decisions in the last 4 years.

20 years ago she was 8, & not too interested in inflation at the time. It is only what was happening in the last 6 or 7 years that had any effect on their decisions. They were lucky. They bought a cheep house 5 years ago, for $160000, just at the start of a price escalation. Just 2 & 1/2 years later they sold it for $375000. Now that's a little over 50% a year, & I'll even bet that your Mr McAuley did not include the house price inflation in his figures, it would not fit in the barrow he was pushing at all.

So watch out for those conning you with their chosen time span, but also with what they chose to include, or perhaps more importantly exclude, in their evaluation.

So Lexy mate, do be careful who you quote, particularly if they are from the university of Canberra, there is a lot of biased rubbish coming out of some of its halls. Comparing the next few years cost of living with the last 20 years really is meaningless, even if done properly.

Anyone who claims a carbon dioxide tax will have little effect on those with recently made major financial commitments is not using much grey matter, or has a barrow to push.

Dear Hasbeen,

Thanks for a very fair response and for sharing the details about your daughter. I don't anything about the biases of the author of the article or the University of Canberra. I quoted the article because I thought that the author presented a fairly balanced viewpoint - pointing out both sides of the argument so to speak - and saying what would work and what wouldn't. To me at least, he didn't seem to be pushing any kind of barrow. He actually suggested what should be done if things were going to work. As a financial expert - I thought his article was worth reading - and would add another viewpoint to our discussions on this forum. Robust as they are.

The carbon tax is being spruiked “as us doing our bit to reduce CO2 emissions”.Sounds fair and reasonable. Who doesn’t want to reduce pollution and waste ? –count me in.

Except...

Even if Oz were to clean-up its acts –it would still be a climate villain.

Here’s a hint from Rache as to why:
“most of our manufacturing has been OUTSOURCED to China and India and they have to wear the carbon THEY PRODUCE ON OUR BEHALF.”

Implication: when we buy goods/services from overseas, we are ( rightly/morally/greenishly) responsible for the pollution produced in its manufacture.

A double whammy for places like OZ: First they lose the industry and with it jobs and export revenue to places like China & India. Then, they’re held accountable for OUTSOURCING their pollution --now that’s real progressive thinking!

PS: I propose that for phase two of the carbon tax campaign –and in keeping with the pro-tax sides high standards – they ditch Kate Blanchet and that other guy, and substitute Paris Hilton and Charlie Sheen..

SPQR,

The Opposition could also use an upgrade - how about Arnold Schwartzenegger and Sarah Palin - both look good in lycra - and are pro - "Direct Action."

Just to add some comic relief to the whole discussion

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/power-play-hits-struggling-families/story-fn3hskur-1226066795854

It appears that revenue must be retained so if we use less energy the Qld Government put's the power prices up to compensate. The good news is that we can get prices lowered by using more power - yeah.

R0bert

Information from the Garnaut report:

THE Government's top climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has belled the cat on Julia Gillard's false claims that only 1000 companies will be affected by her carbon tax.

Professor Garnaut had the honesty to say what Julia Gillard won't.

He said: "Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price" and that "for households, carbon pricing will raise the price of electricity".

Families across NSW are going to be hit hard by Labor's carbon tax.

Just for starters, a carbon tax at $26 a tonne would raise power bills by $500 a year. It will add 6 1/2c a litre to petrol prices and will raise grocery prices by 5 per cent.

A carbon tax may start between $20 and $30 a tonne but that won't be where it finishes.

SM,

A few clarifications - as given in The Herald Sun:

Here's what Professor Ross Garnaut actually said:

"Households should have their compensation for a carbon tax ramped up over time after the plan is introduced..." Professor Garnaut called for two rounds of tax cuts over time to provide more assistance to households... Prof Garnaut said 55 per cent of the $12 billion that would be raised by taxing big polluters in the scheme's first year will go to households through generous tax cuts and benefits payments.
And within 10 years assistance should increase to 60-65 per cent of the money raised by taxing polluters.

"It makes sense from equity and efficiency perspectives for households to ultimately receive the vast majority of the carbon pricing revenue."

Prof Garnaut says more money should go to low and middle-income earners, but recommended lifting the tax-free threshold to $25,000 so all workers get some benefits.

"Raising the tax-free threshold would have the effect of cutting tax for all taxpayers including high income taxpayers." This would drive more people into the workforce according to Prof Garnaut.

He also stated that, "Over time... there will be a further opportunity to provide more assistance to these households through a second round of tax cuts..." Prof Garnaut said there was a case for "structural adjustments" for workers and communities in coal regions or other high emitting regions that will be hit hardest by the new tax." He recommends about $1 billion over four years to be set aside to help these communities.

Lexi SM is fishing in a very dry dam, one that never held water or fish.
Yesterday in question time,recycling SM? this use of only part of a page was used.
It was soon rebutted by the understanding on the same page of the report it had been said Abbott's plan would not reduce emissions, it however would reward emitters.
And most importantly, we not polluters are to pay for it.
Abbott also intends, he is on record saying it, to refuse just and fair tax on miners,our one chance to get anything out of it, and to tax us here in carbon.
Who pays, who for middle to high income new mothers?
Who on high income tax breaks middle class welfare.
And did you see the silly old bloke referring to my old boss of bosses and a future Prime Minister Paul Howe's?
Paul made that statement months ago, in the slumber room that this opposition sleeps in some one needs to change the news papers.

Dear Belly,

I wonder how Barnaby Joyce's comments are going to be handled by Tony Abbott? Joyce stated on Lateline that the Coalition would repeal any proposed income tax cuts linked with the carbon tax if elected.
Interesting...

Lexi,

He also said what the herald reported. It does not diminish from what I posted.

The hard reality as I tried to indicate with my economics 101 post was that the consumer always pays eventually.

Below $40/t coal is still the cheapest generating power source, and there will be very little change in emissions, only in the cost of power.

Belly,

Your vacuous repetition of the party line does nothing to convince anyone.

The grim reality is that this will make no difference to the Global GHG levels without a global agreement. I as in Garnaut's words do not believe that Australia is a pissant country, but neither do I believe that Australia is in any way a world leader that anyone will follow.

In short, this tax achieves little at a great cost to everyone. I have yet to see anything even in the Garnaut report that even pretends to indicate otherwise.

A point to ponder. If as the greenies claim, the cost of renewable power is decreasing continually, why is it more expensive to change later rather than now?

SM,

Actually it does diminish what you posted, if you post merely a selective portion of what Prof Garnaut stated without adding the clarifications he also mentioned. It gives people the wrong impression. Although we realise it's not your job to give people the right impression - afterall you do have to push your party line. That's your job and we understand that because your party does not give you any latitude.

You state that "the consumer always pays eventually." Isn't that the case with everything - including the GST? But in this case the consumer will be compensated.

As for coal being the "cheaper" option. Nah, actually it isn't. It is getting more and more expensive to mine it and new technologies and renewable energy sources are in fact cheaper in the long run, once the technology is in place.

Telling Belly that his and I quote, "vacuous repetition of the party line" convinces no-one, made me laugh out loud. Do you think yours does?

As for Australia not being a "world leader that anyone will follow,"
I fully agree if you guys ever got into power that would definitely be true. You all obviously share the same tunnel vision as your leader. However, you should have heard our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Kevin Rudd's inspirational speech to the National Press Club the other day. Apparently Labor's "vision" for Australia differs greatly from that of your party - which so far has no policies or vision to speak of.

BTW - this tax does achieve a great deal - by forcing an incentive for the polluters to seek alternative technologies and stop polluting.
Which is a plus for us all.

Finally, you ask, "Why will it be more expensive to change later rather than now? Are you serious?

To put it simply - Are you still on the same cost of living that you were a few years ago? Is your motor car cheaper to run now? Has your salary gone up? Get real!

one of your better rebuttals lexie
but sadly flawed on all points

i helped get howard out
meaning i helped but rudd in

there are many ways to say things
but often its what we dont say..in politricks..that decieves

juliar said no carbon tax
jonny said no child left behind

now we got *only 1000 will pay
[yet refusal to name these thouasand BIG POLUTERS
[because its not 'them'..that will be paying..!..its us..their polution serves to feed/employ]

so are the big poluters refiners...concrete
manufacturers..tree killers..ocean/rapists..paying
or the chemical mining farming catle industries,,,[are they one og the 1000?

thing is we dont know
were told it will be CHEAPER*...lol
not if what they decide to spend it on isnt the right fix..!
[and its bankers/money men..who will decide..once govt gives them 'right's'..its their cash cow]

then govt will loose the tax..
plus the ability to sustain..the tax cut
yet your presuming..all the litle people still get theirs...[lol]

you say..""this tax does achieve a great deal
by forcing an incentive""...lol

an incentive tax on ONE polutant
not all grenhouse gassses..just one
an invisable one...we exhale with every breath
in our softdrink..in our bread

""for the polluters
to seek alternative technologies and stop polluting.""

when they stop poluting
your kids will starve

is that cheaper tomorrow?
will your food be cheaper..to morrow

why is govt keeping the real;numbers secret?

I COPULDNT CARELES WHAT GARNEU[the dreamer] say;s
whats important is what govt puts into law

AND THEIR SILENCE IS OBVIOUS
to those listening
for *detail's

we never even had a propper debate on the science
let alone..what the carbon traders..will be
giving their credits for...$$$

is govt creating the credit?
or the bankers?

who trades in them is clear
but who issues..!...and underwrites their legality?

will the 1000 be paying the bankers?
after we pay them?

We have just had an advert here in Australia - promoting a new bute, carbon tax - one which is designed to eqaulise economic resources which will - per Prime Minister Gizzard's own words - see the poor better off under a carbon tax regime

So what is thre real agenda - "save the world" or "economic equalisation and leveling"?

However, one shot from what will become a low point in socialist deception was a paid, third rate actor, preaching carbon tax in front of a picture

the picture was four factory chimneys belching out black smoke....

what the advert did not say was the pisture was one of something not even in Australia ....

it was Battersea Powerstation - and it closed down 30 years ago

So, why shoot a campaign with gross distortion of content...?

If it had been a commercial company, they would have possibly breached the advertising standards

but this was the "government" - which, when socialist, finds new lows in deception and new ways to treat the electorate with contempt

Shadow Minister.
I am not taunting you.
I claim the high moral ground.
And use your often used quote about my welded on Labor views.
As evidence that land is indeed mine, mate you may have the very highest educational qualifications, not the ability to get even close to common sense however.
Gillard flogged Abbott today, over the last week she has begun the long climb to get back public support for climate change tax.
Helped by Abbott, and tell me, is SM in fact Tony? word for word the same fear and lies stream fourth.
Yes Lexi the silly man said that ,it was debated in the house, and Gillard won hands down.
BODY LANGUAGE, it tells us much.
Abbott needs to watch his back, it is in the eyes of his front bench.
Also look if you wish, and see unsettling things in Labors body movements Gillard is being watched by interesting people.
We are getting an ETS sadly tax first but watch wait see who crosses the floor.

Col Rouge says:

"So, why shoot a campaign with gross distortion of content? If it had been a commercial company, they would have possibly breached the advertising standards but this was the government..."

Actually Col, it was NOT the government, despite your assertion to the contrary. But you knew that.

If you didn't know that, you too, are shallow - and just as hypocritical as the alarmists.

Col
The ALP stopped being a socialist party eons ago. Equalisation and levelling is hardly the trademark of the current lot mores the pity.

Sometimes equalisation and levelling is about reducing the gap. That is not socialism but smart thinking. It makes perfect economic sense from a community POV. We don't need slums just to remind us how well we are doing.

When the Libs propose implementing a new tax to pay for an overly generous paternity leave package or toss around ideas of raising corporate taxes are they socialists too?

Dear Pelly,

Spot on as always. And here's something interesting. The Minerals Council of Australia, Chief Executive, Mitch Hooke had these words for our Prime Minister:

"And it gives us great heart, great heart, to hear that our Prime Minister - we think we're pretty special, but it gives us, it really does a lot for our spirits to know that we figure so much in your day and so much in the Government's economic policy thinking. You can be assured ma'am that the respect is reciprocated."

Hi Pelican… nice to see you again (sincerely). We regularly disagree but with never the rancor of the lower orders (monbot please note)

Re “The ALP stopped being a socialist party eons ago.”

Yes, you are probably, right but I guess I do not reinvent myself with the regularity of Labor…. I believe in things with more consistency…. Like 10 years of Liberal/National government and progressive economic improvement (the good old days – only 4 years ago

So, if they are not as I describe what are they ? –

“Cynical, Power hungry Opportunists” springs to mind

Re tax increases by the liberal/national party… it seems to be cherry picking / out of context if we again look at the practice of the decade of conservative government

Re “Sometimes equalisation and levelling is about reducing the gap.”

That is supposed to be achieved by education –

So, when the indolent and incompetent waste / ignore their educational opportunity, how much more “leveling” should we impose on the rewards being earned by capable and diligent?

Bonmot “If you didn't know that, you too, are shallow - and just as hypocritical as the alarmists.”

I see you think you are good with the ad hominines, Bonmot…. But not very clever

Try and lift your game by rising above what seem to be some inherent limitations.

Interesting,

Col says it was the "government" when it clearly wasn't, can't say 'oops ... sorry, got it wrong' and apologise.

Nope, he baits and switches instead.

btw: that other post of yours, Col... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12116#208936

No ad homs?

Look in the mirror, snort ... and take a pill to soothe your nervies.

Dear Col

At the risk of going over old ground :), education does not change the nature or demands of the employment market. Raising education standards by insisting coffee makers have a certificate and lowering standards so anyone can obtain a Degree, or commercialising tertiary education is not improving education, it just looks that way, but rub the gloss off and...

Even manual labour require some skills base even if only minimal training required and manual work is hard work. Education can increase ones options but a 'Claytons' over-educated society also devalues roles that may be seen as too unworthy and employers have trouble filling some jobs.

IMO the better approach is in reducing the pay gaps and respecting the work people do in all jobs.

A friend was discussing this with me the other day and stated "well a doctor should get more than a pot-hole fixer because he/she saves lives". To which I said yes the doctor should earn more their work is more valuable and requires ongoing education, but if the pot-hole fixer is not competent the doctor may find he has more work caring for road victims. Not everyone can be a doctor but the work people perform is worthy.

Yes it is a bit of a stretch but the point being if the market and 'worth' is skewed to middle and higher salaries, access to goods and services (including essential ones) may be restricted for those on lower incomes (beyond what is considered reasonable).

It is a fact that there are many necessary roles that are not valued if measured by income alone and there are some highly paid roles which are dealing with funny money and at the end of the day don't produce anything at all.

As for Labor they have been a great disappointment all round. The failure of the ALP is because they have moved too far from being a workers' party and there is little to distinguish them from the Coalition.

Nice to see Col back, like an easy win.
While the diatribe about this ad and Cate's involvement can I highlight some people.
Alan Jones, former Liberal script writer unloved by as many who actually like the bloke.
That bloke from channel ten who posts his junk here now and again.
Shock jocks and some truly are shocking.
My list could be ten posts long.
Yet we never hear conservatives try to stop their bigotry.
Free speech see,for them,is only if they agree with what you are saying.
COL! dreadful to put that ad down as government.
Knowing as you do it was not using the truth well.
I can not spell it right but Winston Churchill once said of an opponent this,he is subject to using terminological inexactitudes!

Winston Churchill was the biggest piss-head of them all. He never made a decision with-out a scotch on his breath. Col has the right to his opinion how ever he wants:) I enjoy his strait to the point approach.

"Free speech see,for them,is only if they agree with what you are saying."

Yes like everyone else....Next:)

Socialists will show the way for all the one,s thats lost control of the country.

I hear wall streets doing well:) Capitalist pigs. lol

LEAP

Belly,

Still blinkered I see. Juliar is very good at personal attacks, but I have yet to see her in question time actually answering a question. If school yard taunting is what you judge debates, then yes she does well. If reasoned response to the argument, then she fails miserably.

If Juliar passes the tax, it will be the lightning rod for every cost of living increase and job loss, and Juliar will be reduced to trying miserably to rebut every claim.

Having blindly supported Labor on every policy, you are in no way able to claim the moral high ground.

SM you are a one tracked person, you know better but insist I am one tracked.
Look in to your mirror.
We will get the tax on the way to an ETS and not starve to death, you understand that but your every word is a weapon for your team.
QL sorry but like many I give up on you.

lol...Yawn!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE

I swear thats you on banjo:)

Your a cranky little man when you dont get your own way. SM is just better at it than you:)

LEA

Belly,

With the Malaysian solution, the carbon tax and the NBN, this is all Tony's Christmases coming at once.

With the Malaysian solution, he is driving a wedge between the Greens and the ALP, and painting Juliar as worse than John Howard.

With the Carbon Tax, he has painted Gillard as dishonest, a liar, and a puppet of the greens. On top of that, with the treat to the manufacturing sector, he is eating Juliar's lunch by touring the union heartland and getting a rousing welcome from previously rusted on Labor members.

With the noise from the above issues, the NBN has been quiescent, but with the Silcar order, and the acceptance of all risk by NBN Co, any hiccup, delay, State interference etc will result in an invoice to the government, providing endless fodder for the coalition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG82h3DY4fA&feature=player_embedded

SM,

Despite his relentless attacks on the government's policies Tony Abbott has taken a hammering in the latest Newspoll. Labor is ahead of the Coalition 51-49 in the two party preferred stakes. The Prime Minister is also ahead as the preferred PM polling 50 to Tony Abbott's 36.

This must be causing some serious concern for senior Libs - Hocky, Brandis, Turnbull - whose leadership aspirations may not lie dormant much longer.

Perhaps its time for them to re-evaluate whether Tony Abbott is electable.

The polls consistently suggest not.

Lexi,

Are you reading the same papers I am?

The latest newspoll showed labor's 2pp at 48%, the rise being mostly due to the greens, and the Coalition still in an election winning position, and that is after a terrible week for the coalition.

Perhaps it is time for the ALP to re evaluate whether Juliar is electable. Her preferred status as PM is still only just above TA's at 44 to 37 and her approval rating is deep in the red.

SM,

I got the Newspoll figures from The Australian (your favourite newspaper). Go back and re-check yours.

I love Cate as an actress but feel that she has no comprehension of reality and should keep her opinions to herself. She is taking the high moral ground on something that will have zero financial impact on her or her family. It is a bit like telling starving people in Third World countries that they should recycle and buy green.

I also think it would be an interesting exercise to examine Cate’s carbon footprint. Sure she has installed a fortune of solar panels on her home (something we would all love to do if we could) but what carbon is she expending. We should look at:

• How many homes does she maintain?
• The size of those homes and resources needed to run them.
• Staff required to service them
• Airline travel.
• Private jet travel.
• Helicopter travel.
• Limousines and town cars.
• Worldwide luxury hotels and resorts.
• And much more

Even if she paid a huge levy for her carbon use it would be nothing more than pocket change to her. It shouldn’t be about paying more but about using less.

I am committed to our planet and doing what is needed to protect the future for our children and future generations. I don’t begrudge Cate her lifestyle, I just think that she should realise that her reality is so far removed from the real world and this tax will not impact on her life at all.

I couldn’t help but notice that the others in the ad weren’t in a position to suffer too harshly from the extra costs involved either. Even the “stay at home mum” was an accountant married to a dentist. It is hardly representative of the people who will suffer under this tax.

I am a mother committed to doing whatever is needed to preserve our planet for our children’s future. I just don’t think this is the right way to do it. I think Julia’s plan is more about Julia’s ego and wealth redistribution plans than it is about a real solution to climate change

Lexi,

So did I. You posted a porkie.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110508%20Federal%20Voting%20Intention%20&%20Leaders%20Ratings.pdf

Try looking at this year's results.

well said 'our future'

i feel a bit put upon..by the whole advert
[its like that mug..that says not so smancy...in his other advert
its like the advert people..are aiming adverts at simpletons]

those more able to be swayed by emotive bull
than sit down and study the true facts

who wouldnt know the difference
between ozone/methane..or nitrouse oxides..or c02
many far worse polutants..but emitted by big business exclusivly
or by the protected miners and farmers..and not just the bread/softdrink makers

but those who know the science
are so few and far between..that accountants and bankers and other authority figures are inserted to add to the drone...till we give in to the big new tax

think how much our fuel usage has gone down
by the fuel tax
on a few of us..

while 12 billion of fuel/subsidies
is gifted to the big poluters..

emmiting the other 'greenhouse' gasses

recall the ozone scares?
well ozone has finally gone away

so they are trying to make hay...
while *its affects..dwindle away...
out of the hot periods...into the cooling period

as the lies only go
to making things worse..for your kids
laden with hex debt..and c02 tax..

taking their subsidised meds
in recycled sew/..sue-rage waters..
eating poisen called processed transfats msg...and lard

well done..con-sumers
sub-suming your own kids future
cause you wanted 'smancy'..right there on your roof