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