A classic case of history repeating itself.
This is the GST all over again. Any PM who tries to introduce a new tax in this country is committing political suicide. A tax on pollution is necessary and inevitable. When the coalition eventually come around to introducing their own version, you can bet it won't be as worker friendly, and this time we don't have the Democrats to mitigate it. The Greens will be howling that it doesn't do enough.
An Australian politician standing defiant against world (American) opinion?
Yeah right.
When the inevitable tax comes in, the important thing will be to ensure that the tax makes it possible for low income earners to buy (get) energy alternatives necessary to make a difference.
Question 1 in the Courier Mail poll asks:
“Will the carbon tax change your energy consumption?”
How can low income earners rush out and buy an energy efficient hot water system to replace their (ultra cheap to buy) instant hot water system? How can they rush out and buy solar panels? Should they rush out and buy an oil heater, to replace their $20 electric heater?
The rich can afford to make changes to be more energy efficient, and end up saving money in the long term.
The poor can't afford those changes, even when they know it would save them money long term.

Of course it's a redistributive measure - that's what taxes are for. The real question is to do with how the whole thing is to be funded and whether the Treasurer's bold predictions of surpluses in years to come are at all reflective of the reality in those years.

If the surpluses do not prove any more real than Gillard's "no carbon tax" promise, then will the country be forced to borrow to fund the bri...compensation? Somehow, I think we already know the answer to that...

Has anyone else noticed that personal income tax collections are significantly less than the money paid as benefits, rebates and allowances to individuals? To the tune of nearly $10 billion at the moment, I understand. Thank god for China, eh?

Grim, Howard put the GST to an election to obtain a mandate.

I have been reading about the trading of emission permits.
The following is from the appendices to the document.
Quote:
Any permits purchased at the fixed price will be automatically
surrendered and cannot be traded or banked for future use.

Permits freely allocated may be either surrendered or traded until
the true-up date for the compliance year in which they were issued.
They cannot be banked for use in a future compliance year.
Unquote:

I understand the trading part of it, but what do they mean by "Banked" ?

Does it mean that permits can be passed into derivatives ?
As I understand it the permits given by the government for free can be
put into the trading and derivative system, but those purchased by
the "polluter" during the fixed period cannot be traded.

It appears that the appendices have reealed the purpose of the whole
scheme.

The Euro trading is at E13 at present so you would not want to buy
them at $23 and sell them for E13. You could of course do the reverse
if there is a mechanism to do so.

How much CO2 will emission trading permit derivatives save ?
No wonder Malcolm Turnbull was in favour of it, its right up his alley.

I for one am sceptical of the introduction of the carbon tax as it will financially effect all of us Australians especially the majority that can least afford it.
Labour and the Greens realized the larger percentage of the people were against it so they resorted to put in place incentives to bribe the people and guaranteed the bribe for up to 3 years but failed to guarantee it further.
Last night on pay tv I watched a panel of economists giving their opinions which had both good and bad points on the carbon tax.
The said Hazelwood coal mine in Victoria would be closed, this is at the cost of hundreds of jobs which ultimately will effect hundreds of families. Hazelwood supplies a lot of the power for Victoria.
Why was the Labour and Greens afraid to put a REFERENDUM to the People for us the people to vote?
Hazelwood will be put on the market and sold! Its not hard to guese who will buy it. One of the BIG foreign investors like China.
Our taxes and GST is going to increse to absorb the bribes so there is less impact on government coffers.
Not one of the members of the panel could fathem a guese of any guarantees after the first 3 years of the carbon next when it changes to the E.T.S.

Graham,

"I thought I hadn't heard straight at first. Was it true that the government is applying a tax on carbon where the compensation will be worth more than the income from the tax?"

This is the old bait and switch technique. The voters take the cash up front and later are stuck with rapidly increasing prices.

The modelling covers the cost per family of the carbon tax only, but conveniently neglects the cost impacts of the renewables drive, which is probably going to drive prices up nearly as much as the carbon tax.

By the time Joe public has realised he has been tricked it will be too late.

i can only agree grayhm
its like adding 10.10 cents of straw to your cammel
then telling the cammel your going to let 500 only take off 9.90 cents

[and trusting these 500 most vile poluters
to only take back 9.90]

think of it like stealing just one lolly
from the lolly shop..[times 500]

then the joke of attacking phoney tony
[for making unfunded promises]..yet as you point out

they 'promise' to pay more..
than these UNKNOWN..unnamed 500 will/can..take

if it wasnt so sad allready
alp is WILLING TO RISK..phoney tony getting back in..IN A LANDSLIDE
[after all he neds to get in to stop it..ie needs the NUMBERS
and once he has 'the numbers'..is workchoices all over again]

even worse is the bundeling of raising
the thesh-hold needing to pay wage tax
being linked to this...[we wont even kep the reform]

but we will lose the increase of rate
and we will loose this tax..[maybe]

it all hooks on the numbers
[and numbers based on modeling..lol]

just like the proof that doing it now
is cheaper..[but what if its the wriong thjing to be doing

lets face it..the models have come home to roost
the fear[beginning]..was based on modeling...just like the end..was based on modeling

if only the 3 million families...paying the 500
knew the modeling was just alp/green bling
based on a financial taxation scam
concieved by thatcher...
modeled by john howard
and was sold by juliar

there is no saying
she is doing it for the 'kids'
and bob seems likely to be childless too

its a sceme from the not never ever likely..to be mother
and the not likely..ever to be father

heck they really got nothing to risk..do they?

this INDEXED tax
will cost us our camel
[after-all its only one last straw]

this wont hurt a bit
but then the cammel bit back