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?