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