With the introduction of the cabin tax, one has to ask, have the right people been taxed.

It has always been my opinion that if we, the consumer, did not switch on that light, or toast our bread, or heat/cool our homes, the coal, which is burned to produce the electricity, which causes the emissions, would not have been burned in the first place.

So I ask this question, is the tax directed at the right end of the scale?

Would it not have made more sense to offer incentives for consumers to cut down on their energy consumption, as this would have helped reduce emissions, without the tax.

I would suggest the admin costs alone would have gone a long way towards funding such a program.

you can be sure Government workers won't be paying the carbon tax to sit in airconditioned offices thinking up the next reason to strike.

8.5 degrees maximum in Melbourne today. THe carbon tax sure is working in bringing down temperatures.

rehctub,is this some sort of a satire? " Cabin Tax?'

<<8.5 degrees maximum in Melbourne today. THe carbon tax sure is working in bringing down temperatures>>

Yep, I'm with Runner.

As soon as they introduced a Carbon Tax the whole southern half of OZ was swept by a cold chill ...surely it can only be due to reduced CO2 emissions!

"15:13 EST Melbourne has pulled a cold one from the Antarctic fridge on Sunday, potentially the coldest day in many years.
12:50 EST Brisbane heading to coldest nights in four years"
http://www.weatherzone.com.au

rehctub, Sunday, 1 July 2012 1:37:04 PM
"With the introduction of the cabin tax, one has to ask, have the right people been taxed". I believe a similar tax was introduced in England in the 18 th century when homes were taxed on the amount of glass in the windows. At least glass lets in the sunlight and wampth and helps to keep down carbon emmissions. I am assuming cabins are a second dwelling at the beach in summer or in the mountain in winter, where one has a smoky log fire

your right..the top abusers..should pay double
minimum users get it half price..[or at a minimum or free as bonus]

the big users..must pay more

OUG, had we been offered a scheme whereby if you could demonstrate you cut your usage by at least 20%, you received a substantial discount, the end users would have fought tooth and nail to get that discount and, the generators, the emitters, would have cut their emissions as they would not have burned as much coal. The result being a reduction, with no tax, which, by the way will simply be passed on to the millions of families that don't qualify for hand outs.

Of cause, such a scheme can not be mentioned prior to implementation, as may would simply increase their prior usage.

Always better to reward good practice, that to punish bad I say.

Spell check please Josephus!

Who is responsible for carbon emissions?

Firstly, the consumer.

Secondly, well ahead of any business, or any sector of commerce: our Federal government!

It is they who should be taxed to the hilt… for imposing record high immigration upon us!

The increase in carbon emissions generated by this huge increase in our population every year just completely overwhelms any gains that might be made from the carbon tax.

So it makes sense that the responsible (read: irresponsible) party for this rapid increase in our national carbon emissions should be taxed much more so than any business!

But then… it makes no sense to tax the government!!

Go figure!

That is; go figure out this enormous duplicity that our government is imposing on us!!

rehctub,
Just a little play on your "cabin" tax. "With the introduction of the cabin tax, one has to ask, have the right people been taxed".

"Use less electricty ?" Well for a start we might start thinking smart instead of harder. this link - "https://www.dropbox.com/s/m789alqgq3hoywg/power-saver.doc" is worth a ponder even if it saves you power until we scrap this obscene tax. At the least, some idiots in power supply might get the hint as well as people understanding how we GET power.

Rechtub you actually do not do too bad at emissions your self bloke.
See no one wants to talk football, so lets forget my team dead in the water again.
But watch those blues go!
Keep away from the plane door need to see you home safe!

J, you're such a toss a joke is quite often funny, but only the once.

Belly, You are right, I do create a few emissions, however, I also provide materials that store carbon for decades.

As for the footy, just goes to show how good Benny was. He took Canbera to the finals, then the bronks, then your beloved dragons, now he's making inroads with the nights.

He truly is a super coach, up their with the late great Jack Gibbson.

Mate, I will have a great trip, have been advised the max temp will be minus 3Dc, so I may not leave the room yet.

As for the origin, I hope I get to see a replay at least, but either way it is sure to be a cracker and the blues will win or loose it in the first 20 min.

Cheers

We are definitely slugging the wrong culprit. Bloody Mother Nature produces and cycles through 750 gigatons of co2 each year without our help.

Humans produce 29 gigatons of co2 each year.

Tax nature, change natures habitual production and use of co2, then we would have nothing to worry about….we will be dead and gone. No co2 no life. Horrible bloody stuff, as bad as oxygen.

Well, sonofgloin, it's really all about balance - and tipping points.

sonofgloin, I heard somewhere along the line that a single volcanic eruption, emits the equivalent of years of human emissions in anyone eruption.

I would also suggest that we have a huge increase in food animals, globally, that all produce CO2.

I would also like someone to explain what caused the ice age and, is what we are seeing just another phase of the planets cycle.

But back to topic, if the end users were to achieve an average reduction of just 10% of our usage, which is generated through the burning of fossil fuels, I am sure that would make a more substantial difference than a tax that has to first be calculated, then collected, then redistributed.

Free, or next to free public transport would be one area to start, instead, we see increases in the order of 15%. that's after a multi million dollar camp to get people to use the services.

Quite simply, most people have lost trust in most governments.

rehctub>> But back to topic, if the end users were to achieve an average reduction of just 10% of our usage, which is generated through the burning of fossil fuels, I am sure that would make a more substantial difference than a tax that has to first be calculated, then collected, then redistributed.<<

I have said this before and it still stands. The globalists who are at the core of the worlds geopolitical manipulations are also the corporate moguls and bankers.

They have deftly moved the blame the cost and the guilt of modernity onto the consumer with their puppet like manipulation of the global green movement, one that every sixteen year old sees as our saviors. They have got us taxing co2 while they exploit resource and defile the environment without one protester standing vigil at their factory gates. They manufacture from factories with outdated and cheap emission technology pumping bile into our seas and waterways every second of the day all over the world again no protesters. This is saving them BILLIONS upon BILLIONS on R&D and real environmental rehabilitation because the global green movement has targeted the consumers and not the polluters. God isn’t that good luck.
TBC

In the 1960's and 1970's every large oil company and petro chemical company had protesters nipping at their heels over this environmental travesty or that environmental travesty. Then it stopped and we were made aware of being green through the mass media, they even market the concept on T shirts from $10-99 to $whatever. I think I preferred the green movement who had to silk screen their own T shirts, the ones who did not have the first world media helping them direct their focus to the consumer.

Our environmentally aware governments, worldwide, have got us dobbing in a neighbour if they use the water hose, or dobbing them in if they cut back a single tree, while telling the farmers that they use too much water and do not know how to manage their land and legislate to run it for them because the government is environmentally aware. But they let corporate dig CSG wells all over our aquifer s and water tables and draw as much water as they like to further pollute our environment for the sake of filthy money.

They have got most of us looking at the little circle going round and round while they manipulate the big circle that controls the true outcome.

Co2, bah humbug.

See one's been caught out already. The head at Brumby Bakeries put the word out to the 'gang' hike up your prices now, and blame it on the carbon tax! The CT could have been a bit of a 'bakers delight' for that mob. We had, and still have business wroughting the GST to the tune of billions, will the carbon tax suffer the same fate?

Paul, the main problem wit the tax is that nobody, even the government themselves can tell us just what effect on pricing it will cause.

It is this uncertainty that causes much of the confusion.

It is yet another example of passing a bill, but not knowing the details of implementation.

Another problem is the fact that businesses have to first fund the increases.

So, for every dollar they need for funding, funding costs, admin costs and margin costs have to be added.

Therefore, a dollar in, turns into more than a dollar out.

So just how much prices have to go up, nobody knows, so it is simply a guessing game.

sonofgloin
Never a truer word spoken.

its funny how no one is mentioning..'that time'
[before which alp must go to election]..to wit before the tax hits fuel!

not rated any mention apparently

but most upsetting is the way of...electicity prices
not rating a mention as it steadilly increased[but wasnt an issue..cause of this tax destraction...]..fed has taken all the media wind..whilst the states reap and plunder

3 out of every 10 dollars raised state
is directly from services..[we built modern society on cheap energy]
now in a few terms..its become odious debt..[lol infastructure cost is that buy back/subsidised solar wind pipelines to gas wells ports..to no where]

its funny how govt does this magic
now libs come in and promise a freeze[lol]
yet this next increase stands..

the whole thing stinks
[but no methane/nitrogen/sulpher dioxide isnt taxed]
polution is much more than just any attributable polutant...

oh well wait till they tax all carbon*
then you just might see its not going to stop
just make carbon traders wealthy..[that year before we got market]
will be interesting [one year 25$..next 15$.year after 8%]..

and we got all that banked carbon..invested in a falling asset*

its the lies juliar
sack kev..limit damage/fix 3 issues..
rush to election when they appear resolved..

the tax on fuel wil soon be resolved for you
those banking on carbon cash cows..aint heard about traders bonus*

For the record, I had best make my position clear.

For the benefit of the T2's out there, I don't want a return to work choices, although it didn't bother me, but what I do want is some middle ground as we are simply dying a slow death out there.

I have employed over 200 people in my business years and simply refuse to employ anyone now. Contractors only. No ABN no work. It's simply not worth the risk to offer a job anymore.