lexi and others, you still have not answered my question.

Why are we taxing the generators and not the users?

Now as for the GST, it is not on most food items.
Having said this i have always maimtained the tax is unfair in its present state.

Like Poirot, I am always bemused by the options people assume sit before us - either rampant consumerism and greed or living in caves. What happened to options C,D,E and F. It is a human failing to exaggerate one side of an argument, we all do it, but this halts some real discussion on what it means to be human and what it is we want from our societies. Shouldn't the economy work for 'us' and not the other way around. The economy is not a living and breathing entity, it is a human construct and collectively we have the ability to shape it to best advantage.

Is there no happy medium? As a child of the 60s (peace and love man :P) my generation was raised with little luxuries, mum at home for the most part, discipline and (in my case) love, any treats were met with great excitment and enthusiasm.

In some ways, modern kids have missed out on this with too much too soon and no joy in 'stuff' because there has been too much of it.

I don't mean to sound like a 'in my day' old fogey, because I can also see the wonderful advantages of being born after this time. People are much less racist and bigoted, teachers can no longer by tyrants (there were a few doosies), technology has seen great improvements in medial science, etc. But wouldn't it be great to combine the two?

Rampant and elitist based capitalism will eventually implode, the GFC has already seen the beginning and the ongoing problems in Europe. There are numerous opportunities to focus on improving things so greed does not run amok and result in systems that benefit the few over the majority.

Certainly better democratic processes are a good start including on a Carbon Tax.

Pelican, i to am from that era and i agree with what you say. Kids today ave little to look forward to as they have it all.

As for the carbon tax, it appears a case of those who want it just dont want to pay for it.

Now if 60%' reduce their emissins by say 10%, surely that will make enough difference and negate the need for yet another tax.

This is assumming hat 60% is a vast majority, as madam PM says.

Same result, less pain, and those who really care can feel all warm and fuzzy.b

Now, do we have a problem with that?

Pelican,

"...wouldn't it be great to combine the two?"

That is the most sensible and well-reasoned post - I wish you were PM : )

Dear rehctub,

Kindly go back and re-read my posts.
I have answered your question.
You simply refuse to understand it.
Therefore - there's nothing more that I can say to you.
See you on another thread.

Pelican, Poirot

I can never understand those who turn all issues into basic black or white.

There is always a balance, compromise and negotiation. Products can simply be made to last longer, or be amenable to upgrading. New technology WILL provide new jobs - hopefully in third world countries not just we excessively replete western countries.

Whether corporations like it or not, they will not always be able to pay minimal wages in third world countries - there have been strikes in China, Korea, Thailand etc and the option of closing manufacturing in countries like Australia for the expediency of cheap labour will no longer be an option.