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."