# Carbon Tax - Is your opinion based on how much you make?



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

I hear a lot about the proposed carbon tax - pros and cons, costs, compensation etc. I for one will not receive any compensation from the government due to my salary, something that doesn't come as a surprise due to the beliefs os the political parties - yes I did say parties- currently in power.

I'd be very interested to see if my thoughts are correct and see if those who support the carbon tax are those who feel they will be least affected - at least financially speaking.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 8, 2011)

What is the wage bracket that you don't receive compensation. I have a feeling I probably wouldn't get it either.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

From what I've heard, it will be $150k combined family income.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 8, 2011)

Well that's not much then. How about for singles is the same as private health inssurance 77000


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

Abnrmal91 - We'll find out on Sunday what the income caps are to be set at. The 150k amount I mentioned is a figure I have heard from a few sources but I'll find out for sure on Sunday.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 8, 2011)

Yer wait and see but it wouldn't surprise me if it was the same private health cover as that's what they seem to think a higher income earner is for someone single.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

Even the $150k amount that's being thrown around as a family income limit isn't high. I bet families making that sort of money who are paying a mortgage, a car and for food would disagree that they were wealthy.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Jul 8, 2011)

Why is there no answer for No and I make less than 50K


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

Whoops... I messed that one up.


----------



## Naga_Kanya (Jul 8, 2011)

Frankly, for a workable and genuine environmental solution, I'd be happy to pay through the nose, and I make less than $50k. I'm not sure this is that solution, but I'm saddened by people who are so hung up over the idea of contributing a measly amount of money to help reverse the damage they do (the biggest whiners I've heard seem to come from those suburbs full of huge McMansions, eat meat three times a day and drive *everywhere*). This is important, folks, and all some people can do is think of the luxuries they won't be able to spend their $1/week on. It's so...bogan.


----------



## Sezzzzzzzzz (Jul 8, 2011)

Naga_Kanya said:


> Frankly, for a workable and genuine environmental solution, I'd be happy to pay through the nose, and I make less than $50k. I'm not sure this is that solution, but I'm saddened by people who are so hung up over the idea of contributing a measly amount of money to help reverse the damage they do (the biggest whiners I've heard seem to come from those suburbs full of huge McMansions, eat meat three times a day and drive *everywhere*). This is important, folks, and all some people can do is think of the luxuries they won't be able to spend their $1/week on. It's so...bogan.



There are 3 of us in our family trying to survive on $800 a week. $400 goes straight on rent, then you have all the regular bills and costs. there isnt much left over for anything else...


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

newtolovingsnake said:


> There are 3 of us in our family trying to survive on $800 a week. $400 goes straight on rent, then you have all the regular bills and costs. there isnt much left over for anything else...


 
If that's the case, you should be better off once they compensate you for the carbon tax. This is of course so long as the PM keeps her word and doesn't reform the package once it has been implemented.


----------



## Darlyn (Jul 8, 2011)

Isn't the point that if you don't want to incurr the tax you do things like turn off lights
to save energy and $, if you make a good enough income and don't care about the extra cost, you pay?


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

Darlyn said:


> Isn't the point that if you don't want to incurr the tax you do things like turn off lights
> to save energy and $, if you make a good enough income and don't care about the extra cost, you pay?



Those who make good money don't neccesarily have greater disposable incomes than those who make less. Many people live within their means - 
they make more money but have greater debts.

I think indirect costs is where we'll be hit the hardest. If the carbon tax costs producers/suppliers extra, then it will be the consumers (us) that
will end up footing the bill. I know nothing about economics but it seems logical that that would be the likely scenario.

Turning off the lights sounds like a great idea. This would also have a positive effect on raising the population


----------



## Craig2 (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh well I hit the wrong one should have Been no Over 150,000
The australian government Are a pack of ****ers 
Why would Australia be the first to implement this when we have one of the lowest producer of greenhouse gasses per capita 

It's just Another way we are paying the government money to $$$$ everything up. They can't even insulate houses this will just be more income for them.
The GST was suppose to be the tax to end all taxes (that did not last long did it)

NSW has the highest priced road taxes and the worst roads 
They should be compensating every one who has to use them for damage to there vehicles.
I could go on all night 
End of day I think Ted bullpit had the right idear Tell them there dreaming.


----------



## swan91 (Jul 8, 2011)

i believe that we can all contribute to the environment, WITHOUT involving money and making it political!!! IM HAPPY to recycle/plant trees/walk to work etc.. but when money becomes involved it becomes political and i dont think that is fair. To tax carbon is preposterous! carbon is an organic molecule ESSENTIAL to life on earth.. and contrary to popular belief, CO2 is not the largest greenhouse gas, water is... Co2 is required for plants to photosynthesis and produce more oxygen. i dont by any means support deforestation and the destruction of habitats, but these things can be funded through donations and education, not taxation and politics.. and for those that believe that we can change the global temperatures with money, good luck.. i see the carbon tax as a way for the government to get some of the money it blew on OTHER stupid "investments".. and think about it, even if australia did cut our emissions... And poor farmers are hit with taxes for their cows bodily functions....what good is it going to do if the rest of the world isnt also contributing.. i think its just a tax they have decided to disguise as something that is helping the environment... and i doubt that any of it will...


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

Craig2 said:


> Oh well I hit the wrong one should have Been no Over 150000



Were you the one that voted yes and I make more than $150k? Just wondering as it surprised me that someone would vote yes in that category.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 8, 2011)

spilota_variegata said:


> Were you the one that voted yes and I make more than $150k? Just wondering as it surprised me that someone would vote yes in that category.


Why wouldn't someone in that category support it. I voted yes and I am in 100k to 150k and I support it. I will have to pay the tax.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 8, 2011)

abnrmal91 said:


> Why wouldn't someone in that category support it. I voted yes and I am in 100k to 150k and I support it. I will have to pay the tax.



I think $150k will be the amount that will be set - at least the family threshold. Single people might not be affected (I say might) until they reach the same limit. I hope so for your sake...


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 8, 2011)

It will cost me but hopefully it means we become a more sustainable community. Yes I understand not everyone around the world is cutting pollution. But we can't just do nothing. Evil prospers when good people do nothing.


----------



## cement (Jul 8, 2011)

Carbon pffft. That volcano just spewed out more carbon then we will make in the next 100 years


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 8, 2011)

More sustainable? :lol: For how long? Forever?? :lol: :lol:

Lets face the facts. Coal and oil aren't going to last forever. We'd be lucky if it lasts another 100yrs. The carbon tax will well and truly outlive it...and then what will they tax us on?

I'm all for sustainability and recycling and putting the right things in the right bins, and not throwing rubbish out the window of my car or allowing dolphins to choke on my beer stubbie holders :lol:.....but I shouldn't have to be treated by a little kid by Mother Gillard and Pappa Brown


----------



## cement (Jul 8, 2011)

Probably the gas that Shell are now sniffing around near Ningaloo. Yeah so what if its World heritage listed environment. That's just a bit of paper to a government. But not worth nearly as much as the waterproof folding kind.


----------



## Wally (Jul 8, 2011)

cement said:


> Probably the gas that Shell are now sniffing around near Ningaloo. Yeah so what if its World heritage listed environment. That's just a bit of paper to a government. But not worth nearly as much as the waterproof folding kind.



Precisely. Hard to cop when you hear of things like this.


----------



## DanNG (Jul 8, 2011)

It's a load of crap. The only reason behind it is to create a new commodity to trade on because the world economy is up the ****ter. It starts with Australia and will then spread, they are doing whatever is necessary to get it started but we will eventually have a full blown carbon offsets trading scheme.


----------



## Renenet (Jul 9, 2011)

AMS05 said:


> Contrary to popular belief, CO2 is not the largest greenhouse gas, water is...



I had to look this one up. According to this New Scientist article, you're right that water vapour contributes about 50% to the greenhouse _effect_, the natural system that keeps the Earth warm. It's done this for a very long time, long before humans discovered industry.



AMS05 said:


> carbon is an organic molecule ESSENTIAL to life on earth..



Yes, absolutely. The problem is that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are increasing rapidly. CO2 was around 300 ppm at the beginning of the 20th century and is now approximately 390 ppm. The Earth's natural systems are having trouble keeping up. There is more information in this article here.

That same article debunks the myth that volcanoes outdo us in CO2 emissions. 

As for the farmers, I don't think agriculture is included in the carbon tax, at least not yet. 

For the record, in general I support pricing greenhouse gas emissions. The current price of burning fossil fuels does not reflect the social and environmental costs. Renewables are left behind in such a system. My opinion would not change if my yearly salary was $2 or $200,000. I don't know yet if I support this particular policy. I'll look at it and let you know. 

I also agree that it would be preferable if the whole world moved to such a scheme as one. The Copenhagen conference showed that it's not likely to happen. My theory - maybe a fond hope - is that as more countries move to a carbon pricing scheme, pressure will mount on those which have not. Once a critical mass has been reached, the rest will follow.


----------



## wokka (Jul 9, 2011)

What i get out of the tax is not important. As a self funded retiree i will pay indirectly like everyone and possibly receive nothing. My opinion will be based upon the effectiveness of the scheme when proposed. I'd prefer a cardon trading scheme because the value is locked in the scheme whereas with a tax it can be used for other purposes.


----------



## damian83 (Jul 9, 2011)

spilota_variegata said:


> Even the $150k amount that's being thrown around as a family income limit isn't high. I bet families making that sort of money who are paying a mortgage, a car and for food would disagree that they were wealthy.



what about people making 50k pa? i hate when people that make top dollar think their poor, for crying out loud, try living a family on one small wage with bugger all help from centrelink.... i can almost afford paying off a mortgage now but im not going to till the wife is working again... its to hard living week by week on 20 bucks


stuff the tax we have too many as it is


----------



## wokka (Jul 9, 2011)

damian83 said:


> what about people making 50k pa? i hate when people that make top dollar think their poor, for crying out loud, try living a family on one small wage with bugger all help from centrelink.... i can almost afford paying off a mortgage now but im not going to till the wife is working again... its to hard living week by week on 20 bucks
> 
> 
> stuff the tax we have too many as it is


Dont worry about paying off the mortgage. There is no prze when you do. The only advantage of a mortgage is that you have long term tenure over the property. Eventually the principal in the loan becomes insignificant. if you have a 300K house now with a 200K loan and you only pay the interest of say $300 a week thats fair rent and on top of that in 20 years the house should be worth close to the million and youll still only be paying nominal rent.


----------



## damian83 (Jul 9, 2011)

getting a 300k loan and paying back 800k over 30 years is a fair bit effed i think, rent is 350a week and loan would be 450 a week
so its a big whack on one wage


----------



## wokka (Jul 9, 2011)

Damian, Ive been there done that and it ain't that bad. Someone will get in trouble for going off topic soon so pm or start a thread if you want to dicuss.


----------



## damian83 (Jul 9, 2011)

sorry was meant to be along the lines of taxes making it harder for living not just a rental mortgage debate


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 10, 2011)

So far the carbon tax seems really well setup. Alot of people will benefit financially from the tax breaks. Gets a thumbs up from me.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

I hope China was watching. After all, we are trying to save the world :lol: Sad, dumb day for Australia. All we've achieved today is empty people's wallets.

Ps: empty people's wallets..... further.

Does anyone else think she's an antidote for Viagra? 8)


----------



## Naga_Kanya (Jul 10, 2011)

Renenet said:


> As for the farmers, I don't think agriculture is included in the carbon tax, at least not yet.



Odd - didn't the UN study show that meat was the most damaging industry as far as climate change was concerned? Aside from that I do agree with you!


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

I think we need to put a nuclear bomb into India. We could get rid of a billion+ carbon-dioxide breathing pollution machines that way :lol: Someone send the red-terror an email and tell her about that scenario 

Although, that is a bit extreme. Not to mention nasty and un-neighborly  But that's right, we don't use the nuclear resources we have at our fingertips.


----------



## ianinoz (Jul 10, 2011)

I support it and I am a retired engineer (self funded < $50k pa) who may not be retired for much longer as I've been head-hunted and could soon find myself working again and back in the big money (> $180k pa base) - I'll still support it and hope to be able to make a real physical impact in helping my new employer stay viable and reduce their carbon footprint.

I made my home thermally efficient 20 years ago when it wasn't trendy and there were no tax incentives to do so or free schemes to do it. Been benefiting from my efforts ever since.

I do not support using the Uranium fuel cycle - for engineering, physics, safety, waste disposal and proliferation reasons. We have much more Thorium and this is much better and the Thorium fuel cycle is what Australia should be using as well ad UCC, NG fired trigen power gen and maybe some renewables and distributed micro power generation schemes.


----------



## Craig2 (Jul 10, 2011)

YES 

there are more trees now than there was previously due to plantation timber ect 
Its just something the government has found to give them more money 
to put the new (enviromentally friendly) cars into production produced 100 x more greenhouse gas than our fuel thirsty cars will in the next 100 years. YEP THE WHOLE THING MAKES SENCE TO ME





spilota_variegata said:


> Were you the one that voted yes and I make more than $150k? Just wondering as it surprised me that someone would vote yes in that category.





moosenoose said:


> I think we need to put a nuclear bomb into India. We could get rid of a billion+ carbon-dioxide breathing pollution machines that way :lol: Someone send the red-terror an email and tell her about that scenario
> 
> Although, that is a bit extreme. Not to mention nasty and un-neighborly  But that's right, we don't use the nuclear resources we have at our fingertips.



Forget India NUKE Parliment House 
That would fix alot of issues


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

:lol: I like it!


----------



## jack (Jul 10, 2011)

cement said:


> Carbon pffft. That volcano just spewed out more carbon then we will make in the next 100 years



an insidious urban myth. humans put out 150 times as much as volcanoes


----------



## Naga_Kanya (Jul 10, 2011)

moosenoose said:


> Does anyone else think she's an antidote for Viagra? 8)



I really do look forward to a day when our female politicians, regardless of how we feel about their policies, aren't spoken about in terms of their sexual attractiveness or lack thereof, but rather their efficacy in office, as our male politicians are.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

Well it'd help if she had something else to offer other than hot carbon dioxide flowing out of her trap


----------



## Radar (Jul 10, 2011)

spilota_variegata said:


> Those who make good money don't neccesarily have greater disposable incomes than those who make less. Many people live within their means -
> they make more money but have greater debts.



Not that Im trying to start a fight here (seriously, I probably won't even look back at this thread :lol, but in my view as an average income earner in a relationship with an average income earner, living within your means -means- NOT taking loans. If you are living within your means, you don't use credit, you save till you have the money then you buy. If you life on credit cards and have an 800k debit on your house, you are living well outside your means and need to reign it in a bit. We run 2 cars, close to a hundred reptiles, a big dog and don't live too poorly, and will have the money to buy a house outright in 3-4 years saving as we are while paying rent. No credit cards and no loans, just budget and logic.


----------



## sesa-sayin (Jul 10, 2011)

ianinoz said:


> I support it and I am a retired engineer (self funded < $50k pa) who may not be retired for much longer as I've been head-hunted and could soon find myself working again and back in the big money (> $180k pa base) - I'll still support it and hope to be able to make a real physical impact in helping my new employer stay viable and reduce their carbon footprint.
> 
> I made my home thermally efficient 20 years ago when it wasn't trendy and there were no tax incentives to do so or free schemes to do it. Been benefiting from my efforts ever since.
> 
> I do not support using the Uranium fuel cycle - for engineering, physics, safety, waste disposal and proliferation reasons. We have much more Thorium and this is much better and the Thorium fuel cycle is what Australia should be using as well ad UCC, NG fired trigen power gen and maybe some renewables and distributed micro power generation schemes.


 ................... everything, everything, everything............. ultimatey comes from the soil . there is nothing material which does not. you are comfortably retired on $50,000 plus..............poor by comparison to me ... That you are prepared , at that level of comfort, to re-enter the work-force to earn even more money, when you do not need it, shows your level of genuine commitment which you have to the environment................NIL< NIX NACIMCIT, NONE ...... stay retired... let someone else have the money........


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 10, 2011)

Well I just worked out it will cost me approximately $520 in increased cost of living minus the $3 dollar tax break I get lol. So approximately $517 for the year. But I don't mind paying that, it's only 1 Saturdays overtime.


----------



## PimmsPythons (Jul 10, 2011)

at the end of the day,any carbon tax in australia will mean diddly squat for the pollution and global warming for the world. speaking from experience, unless these massively,over-polluted, over-populated countries like india,china, s.e.asia ect. make an effort on fixing their pollution issues, australia's effort wont mean anything. it will just be more money out of our pocket for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. australia is not the problem.
cheers
simon


----------



## ianinoz (Jul 10, 2011)

sesa-sayin said:


> ................... everything, everything, everything............. ultimatey comes from the soil . there is nothing material which does not. you are comfortably retired on $50,000 plus..............poor by comparison to me ... That you are prepared , at that level of comfort, to re-enter the work-force to earn even more money, when you do not need it, shows your level of genuine commitment which you have to the environment................NIL< NIX NACIMCIT, NONE ...... stay retired... let someone else have the money........



Hey. Back off mate. 

They contacted me, not the other way around. 

I retired early so if I decide to return to the workforce (if they make me an offer that is too lucrative to refuse) then why not. Not that I need the extra money. It'll mean I can buy some extra luxuries (big boat, mobile home, new 4wd to replace the trusty old beast, more camera gear, some expensive trips sooner).... if you have use it.

I'd be just as happy to stay retired and enjoy living for my family and doing as I please.

BTW - I don't appreciate being personally attacked by you.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 10, 2011)

Rednut, I never get upset over people expressing their opinions - you're not going to start a fight here.

Regardless of the amount you make, it is sometimes necessary to take out loans. If you're going to buy any reasonable house, close to say Sydney, it's going to set you back at least a million dollars. Hypothetically speaking, if two people on average incomes (your situation as stated), saved every cent they made, it would take about 15 years to save enough to pay cash for a million dollar house. In that 15 years, the house would probably increase in value by about 50 percent, meaning that you'd have to save for another 7 years to buy the house. In that time, the house would increase by another 25 percent which means you have to work for another 3 years..... This is assuming you haven't eaten anything, didn't have any cars and you got rid of all of your animals. I assume that the money you have saved thus far is a combination of savings and a handout or inheritance, considering you are 24 years of age.

Being an average wage earner, you probably pay little if any tax after government rebates etc. When all is said and done, average wage earners pay very little tax.

I do commend you for getting your life sorted out at such a young age. If you decide to have children, be prepared for all your plans to be turned upside down and inside out. 

For interests sake, did you vote yes or no for the carbon tax?



rednut said:


> Not that Im trying to start a fight here (seriously, I probably won't even look back at this thread :lol, but in my view as an average income earner in a relationship with an average income earner, living within your means -means- NOT taking loans. If you are living within your means, you don't use credit, you save till you have the money then you buy. If you life on credit cards and have an 800k debit on your house, you are living well outside your means and need to reign it in a bit. We run 2 cars, close to a hundred reptiles, a big dog and don't live too poorly, and will have the money to buy a house outright in 3-4 years saving as we are while paying rent. No credit cards and no loans, just budget and logic.


----------



## wokka (Jul 10, 2011)

slimebo said:


> at the end of the day,any carbon tax in australia will mean diddly squat for the pollution and global warming for the world. speaking from experience, unless these massively,over-polluted, over-populated countries like india,china, s.e.asia ect. make an effort on fixing their pollution issues, australia's effort wont mean anything. it will just be more money out of our pocket for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. australia is not the problem.
> cheers
> simon


Why do poeple try to find the worst situation to set their standards by, rather than doing the best that they are capable of?. I cant imagine that India or China produce near the per head pollution, or consume the per head energy that Australians do. If they did there would be nothing left!


----------



## FAY (Jul 10, 2011)

Naga_Kanya said:


> I really do look forward to a day when our female politicians, regardless of how we feel about their policies, aren't spoken about in terms of their sexual attractiveness or lack thereof, but rather their efficacy in office, as our male politicians are.



Here here.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 10, 2011)

Actually thinking about it I am already paying 1/2 what the carbon tax will cost me a year supporting ACF (Australian conservation foundation). That should make me nice and unpopular with everyone that said no to the carbon tax. I increased how much I was donating so that ACF could campaign for it.  have a nice day lol. It may not be much what Australia is doing but it's a start.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

slimebo said:


> at the end of the day,any carbon tax in australia will mean diddly squat for the pollution and global warming for the world. Speaking from experience, unless these massively,over-polluted, over-populated countries like india,china, s.e.asia ect. Make an effort on fixing their pollution issues, australia's effort wont mean anything. It will just be more money out of our pocket for next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Australia is not the problem.
> Cheers
> simon



bingo!!


----------



## junglepython2 (Jul 10, 2011)

sesa-sayin said:


> ................... everything, everything, everything............. ultimatey comes from the soil . there is nothing material which does not. you are comfortably retired on $50,000 plus..............poor by comparison to me ... That you are prepared , at that level of comfort, to re-enter the work-force to earn even more money, when you do not need it, shows your level of genuine commitment which you have to the environment................NIL< NIX NACIMCIT, NONE ...... stay retired... let someone else have the money........



People like ianinoz who command the big dollars and pay the big taxes are the reason lower income earners receive all the tax breaks and refunds that they do. You should be glad he is going back to work.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 10, 2011)

junglepython2 said:


> People like ianinoz who command the big dollars and pay the big taxes are the reason lower income earners receive all the tax breaks and refunds that they do. You should be glad he is going back to work.



Probably the most truthful comment I've seen for a while.


----------



## ianinoz (Jul 10, 2011)

"can command", yet to decide if I want the job and the inconvenience.

A general observation if I may.
It's my experience on a wide variety of message boards and on facebook discussions that those who 
= don't know what they are talking about and know it often resort to personalising it, making personal attacks
= and those who have a very weak case do the same.

This is why I tend to avoid political discussions, people who don't know squat enter them and regurgitate BS they've read or heard that comes from others who also know nothing, and they spread misinformation and engage in scaremongering, and they have no interest in having an informed discussion of the facts, the science or the engineering (as is appropiate here). I've seen a lot of this in this thread.

Having said that, I'm bailing from this thread.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 10, 2011)

But why??? :lol: This is a fun thread about a crappy decision the red setter has barked about and is about to involve us all in


----------



## Mayo (Jul 10, 2011)

Well now that all the info has been released we can see just how big of a joke it really is.


----------



## PimmsPythons (Jul 11, 2011)

wokka said:


> Why do poeple try to find the worst situation to set their standards by, rather than doing the best that they are capable of?. I cant imagine that India or China produce near the per head pollution, or consume the per head energy that Australians do. If they did there would be nothing left!


i accept the fact that per person, australians use more energy.we also have a much higher quality of life.but that isn't the problem. we have 23 million people in a country that is 7687 sq km.india is less than half our size at 3288sq km and has 1.36 billion people crammed into it full of old, unefficient ,high polluting cars,trucks, ,industries etc.they are also joined alongside other large polluting countries. australia is a big country with a small population surrounded by big oceans.i was in india in febuary and it was the first time i have seen a white plane get stained brown while landing in new delhi from pollution.their air is as thick as mud.i could stare at the sun at midday without sunnies.if these countries arent fixed up first then the little bit we do wont change anything in the long term


----------



## FusionMorelia (Jul 11, 2011)

where's the no and i earn nowhere even close to 50k a year? 
taxes happen i dont even care any more, if you vote no(GST) they put it in anyway you say no to selling telstra and power they do it anyway , you cant complain you cant change it as soon as a new tax is proposed it passes regardless if we want or need it, its in its here for good deal with it.. im in a category thats forgotten in Australia so im already dead in the water i just float with the current 

Nato


----------



## wokka (Jul 11, 2011)

slimebo said:


> i accept the fact that per person, australians use more energy.we also have a much higher quality of life.but that isn't the problem. we have 23 million people in a country that is 7687 sq km.india is less than half our size at 3288sq km and has 1.36 billion people crammed into it full of old, unefficient ,high polluting cars,trucks, ,industries etc.they are also joined alongside other large polluting countries. australia is a big country with a small population surrounded by big oceans.i was in india in febuary and it was the first time i have seen a white plane get stained brown while landing in new delhi from pollution.their air is as thick as mud.i could stare at the sun at midday without sunnies.if these countries arent fixed up first then the little bit we do wont change anything in the long term


From little things big things grow. We have to start somewhere!


----------



## Radar (Jul 11, 2011)

Some people get a bit uppity about opinions, lmfao. 

I realise it is usually (not always, but usually) necessary to take loans. And it's not a bad thing, but I find too many people living far outside their means on credit and wondering why it all comes undone so easily. If you do it with a level head is isn't a big deal, too many people just get the $$$ signs in their eyes. 

I guess it comes down to lifestyle and location. We don't live in Sydney, we live in Townsville, and not in the CBD, although the commute for my partner who works there is only 25 mins of easy driving in the morning and the parking is free  We don't want for a mansion, a nice reno'd queenslander on a decent chunk of land with plenty of potential to make it 'ours' rather than like all the others would be great. To pay a million bucks for a house around here you'd have to be a total nutter. 

No inheritence or handouts for me, just work. I started out mowing lawns with my dads ute as soon as I could drive and was making $600 a weekend cash in hand as a 17 year old with the only outlay being a bit of fuel, every weekend for 3 years, then work through uni while living at home, and now living in a very low rent house (but a very nice one at that, the owner has lost her marbles I think). This plays a big part of it, paying little rent certainly helps. We cook meals that will last a few nights out of fresh foods, I hunt ferals for sport but they also fill the freezer (and helps the environment). Cut meat out of a shopping bill and it becomes quite cheap, my breakfast, smoko and lunches costs me $30 a week 

I don't pay loads of tax, but the 15 to 20 K a year that do go to tax would be good to have in my pocket 

Kids. Ha. Don't even go there. There's probably enough people on the planet already. 

In this pole I voted yes. It's a bit broader than that though. I agree with it in principal but the way it is implemented could do with a shake up (as could most things in politics). 
http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/member/abnrmal91-26757/
Australia is not the root of the problem, but you have to start somewhere. If I never started saving my first grand, I'd never buy a house, as far away as that seems when you start out. 

And I don't have my life in order, trust me, far from it. Im just lucky


----------



## wokka (Jul 11, 2011)

rednut said:


> And I don't have my life in order, trust me, far from it. Im just lucky


You'll find the harder you work the luckier you get!


----------



## Radar (Jul 11, 2011)

Eventually that usually works out, lol. 
Should also mention I drive a work car so only use a tank of fuel in my 4cyl ute every couple of weeks, so that cuts that out of the bills...


----------



## MatE (Jul 11, 2011)

So what they tax big companies that make all the carbon,they make billions in profit anyway.Then they pay the tax still make money and palm of the higher prices to consumers?


----------



## sesa-sayin (Jul 12, 2011)

Rednut...i am totally sure that when u were such a wonderful/energetic young man doing all that lawn-mowing, with $600 per weekend,,,,u paid all ur due income taxes thereon. i have no doubt about it whatsoever....may u continue to work hard


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 12, 2011)

There goes any thought of me getting cremated! Look at how much pollution that would cause! :lol:


----------



## JackTar (Jul 13, 2011)

There are a few things that drive me absolutely mental about this country, and quite a few of them are littered right throughout this thread, starting with taxes. We are the most overtaxed country in the western world, why? Because our politicians are greedy and we are a welfare state. My next gripe, the more you do, the harder you work and the longer you go to school the more you get punished. I am fed up with being told that I should be paying more taxes and getting less handouts and paying more for so many things just because I earn more. You want to earn more then bloody work harder or go to school longer and please no one give me the I didn't have a chance rhetoric lest I bring up my crap childhood.

Why is everything indexed to work against the people who earn the most? We are the ones keeping this country floating and we suffer it is a disgrace. Why should I get less of a baby bonus than someone on the dole? I should get more than them, you know why? Because I pay more bloody taxes that's why. 

As for the carbon tax well it is just those Labor retards trying to dig us out of the debt hole that they threw us in to start with.


End rant........for now.


----------



## Squinty (Jul 13, 2011)

Anyone see the old bird on the news having a spit at Julia Gillard?? Funny as!


----------



## veenarm (Jul 13, 2011)

It's a bit of a joke..

I get like a $3 rebate so they can say 90% of the population will get rebates .. makes them look slightly better..

I don't mind if it goes back into the community into it's own funded projects etc, but if it goes just into the main revenue stream like speed cameras (which should go into the roads and safety) then it's a joke.

Extra tax breaks should go for those people who choose to help the environment (on purpose or not) etc the extra effort people put into there house light ratings etc.. and those who get diesel cars or those that have far lower emissions, OR make it so people driving larger V8's etc pay more (I know lots of people may rant at this)... but what evs, if you own a V8 now adays you know your already going to be paying through the nose for the luxury..

It is a huge gamble on Labors part, it could cost them in the next election.


----------



## junglepython2 (Jul 13, 2011)

JackTar said:


> There are a few things that drive me absolutely mental about this country, and quite a few of them are littered right throughout this thread, starting with taxes. We are the most overtaxed country in the western world, why? Because our politicians are greedy and we are a welfare state. My next gripe, the more you do, the harder you work and the longer you go to school the more you get punished. I am fed up with being told that I should be paying more taxes and getting less handouts and paying more for so many things just because I earn more. You want to earn more then bloody work harder or go to school longer and please no one give me the I didn't have a chance rhetoric lest I bring up my crap childhood.
> 
> Why is everything indexed to work against the people who earn the most? We are the ones keeping this country floating and we suffer it is a disgrace. Why should I get less of a baby bonus than someone on the dole? I should get more than them, you know why? Because I pay more bloody taxes that's why.
> 
> ...


 
Summed up perfectly!



veenarm said:


> It's a bit of a joke..
> 
> I get like a $3 rebate so they can say 90% of the population will get rebates .. makes them look slightly better..
> 
> It is a huge gamble on Labors part, it could cost them in the next election.



It will cost them the next 3 elections at least.


----------



## fugawi (Jul 14, 2011)

I seriously cannot believe that sooooooo many people have been conned so easily by the government, they must be peeing themselves laughing at just how gullible some of the Australian people are. They have effectively added a useless tax, hidden behind the word "green", and soooo many people are saying "Please tax me some more, its good for me".

S T U P I D...............


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 14, 2011)

I can't believe they are wanting to tax the very thing plants turn into oxygen :lol: Don't they like trees anymore?


----------



## SYNeR (Jul 15, 2011)

JackTar said:


> My next gripe, the more you do, the harder you work and the longer you go to school the more you get punished. I am fed up with being told that I should be paying more taxes and getting less handouts and paying more for so many things just because I earn more. You want to earn more then bloody work harder or go to school longer and please no one give me the I didn't have a chance rhetoric lest I bring up my crap childhood.



Indeed. I worked my butt off studying an Engineering (Software) degree for four years. Why should I be penalised?
Also, I don't think my carbon footprint would be any larger than the average John Doe. Possibly smaller, if anything.


----------



## wokka (Jul 15, 2011)

SYNeR said:


> Indeed. I worked my butt off studying an Engineering (Software) degree for four years. Why should I be penalised?
> Also, I don't think my carbon footprint would be any larger than the average John Doe. Possibly smaller, if anything.


 If the world comes to an end you will have so much more to lose than those of us who are unqualified so shouldn't you pay more?


----------



## guzzo (Jul 15, 2011)

I will have to buy a new toaster!


----------



## SYNeR (Jul 15, 2011)

wokka said:


> If the world comes to an end you will have so much more to lose than those of us who are unqualified so shouldn't you pay more?



I don't follow your line of logic. Please elaborate.

I would have thought if the world comes to an end, humanity would descend into nihilistic anarchy (personally I think we're three quarters of the way there anyway - I never claimed to be an optimist).

So in what regard do I have much more to lose?


----------



## Jeannine (Jul 16, 2011)

*personally i wanna shop were JuLIAR is going to shop where the food is only going up by 80 cents a week in total

oh and hubby and i are on DSP and while we might be compensated for the tax i doubt we will be compensated every time there is a price rise on electricity, gas, food, fuel (eventually), and everything else that will go up 

so i expect to see NOTHING from our compensation and in fact almost guarantee we will be worse off

i honestly feel sorry for anyone on low incomes who are trying to raise a family, pay off their homes or pay rent and generally try to survive as it seems every time you turn around the government kick you guys in the teeth with a new tax

nice of politicians who in reality dont have to worry about how much things go up after all if they cant have their fillet steaks every night they can just vote themselves a nice big fat juicy pay rise which is much higher then everyone else cause they work oh so hard *


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 16, 2011)

I looked up the last pay rise MP's made in August 2010. It was 4.3 percent. I'd like to make a bet that few people got a pay increase in excess of the CPI like they did.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 16, 2011)

spilota_variegata said:


> I looked up the last pay rise MP's made in August 2010. It was 4.3 percent. I'd like to make a bet that few people got a pay increase in excess of the CPI like they did.


What was the CPI at. I got a pay rise of 4% in april. Then 3.5% for the next 3 years. Which is good because Mr Barry ofarrel wants to cap public sector to 2.5%. I am sure all the nsw pollies will get more then 2.5%.


----------



## sesa-sayin (Jul 16, 2011)

it might well be that, in a short time, the least of the worries of many of the NSW public sector employees turns out to be the capping on their salaries....It might well be that they become FORMER NSW public sector employees..................it just might well be


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 16, 2011)

sesa-sayin said:


> it might well be that, in a short time, the least of the worries of many of the NSW public sector employees turns out to be the capping on their salaries....It might well be that they become FORMER NSW public sector employees..................it just might well be


Yes and No. Our EBA has no forced redundency in it. So they can't get rid of me. If it goes private they still have to abide by the EBA as it legally binding. Plus our EBA ends just before the next state election.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 16, 2011)

abnrmal91 said:


> What was the CPI at. I got a pay rise of 4% in april. Then 3.5% for the next 3 years. Which is good because Mr Barry ofarrel wants to cap public sector to 2.5%. I am sure all the nsw pollies will get more then 2.5%.



It was running just below 3% - 2.9 from memory. I could be off by a very small amount.

Why is Julia going around selling the carbon tax when regardless of what people think or say, she's going to push the bill through anyway? I think that's a great waste of money. BTW, how is she travelling to all the venues that she's speaking at? Is she going by bicycle or is she traveling in that gas guzzler of car that's provided to her?


----------



## Sir_Hiss (Jul 17, 2011)

I just came from a thread where people were posting what they kept in their collections, and I must say that there are people on this site that should be terrified at even the smallest possibility of a slight increase in power bills


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 17, 2011)

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple math’s and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

· If you had a room 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

· Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

· By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

· Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004%.

· Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

· Of that - because we only contribute 1% - our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%.

· Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin – Yes, a small pin

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that?

Some other important facts:

· Coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economizers and re-heaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

· The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

· Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.

· The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

· China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

· We have, like the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. No one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

· The maximum size of a wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind.

· Most windmills only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

· The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts.

· Only small parts of the energy comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System, because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain.

· Australia would require over 33,300 wind generators based on an average output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power).


----------



## Sir_Hiss (Jul 17, 2011)

It's a bit like 200 snakes in a big enclosure with a large water dish. And the snakes are crapping in their water dish. One snake (possibly with red markings around its head) turns to another and says, "This isn't going to be very healthy for us if we keep doing this, but if you and I work together we can reduce the amount of times we crap in our water dish by 20%." "What about the other 198 snakes?" "Don't worry about them, snakes don't like working together anyway. They prefer to fight over resources in a struggle for enclosural economic supremacy."


----------



## wokka (Jul 17, 2011)

It is logical that if you keep digging up something and destroying it, eventually that something will run out. What do we do when we run out of coal and gas? A lot of people say it will never run out. Well, considering the rate that consumption has increased over the last few decades, if that rate continues resources will run out. Great for the companies and individuals reaping the benefits now, but not particularly fair or sustainable for those in the future.


----------



## jack (Jul 17, 2011)

spilota_variegata said:


> Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple math’s and see for yourselves.
> 
> According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.



you seem to be arguing that such a small % of something can do no harm, in that case why not add 0.007% heroin or 0.00002% plutonium (as % total body mass) to your body...


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 17, 2011)

jack said:


> you seem to be arguing that such a small % of something can do no harm, in that case why not add 0.007% heroin or 0.00002% plutonium (as % total body mass) to your body...



I'm talking about a small percentile increase of a naturally occurring gas, not a foreign substance. I' m sure if plutonium and heroin naturally occurred in the human body, such a small increase would have no adverse impact on your health.

Both lead and mercury are found in trace amounts in the human body. A .007% increase in either would not be a measurable amount, probably within the "fudge factor" of the method of measurement and definitely not a concern to your health.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jul 17, 2011)

jack said:


> you seem to be arguing that such a small % of something can do no harm, in that case why not add 0.007% heroin or 0.00002% plutonium (as % total body mass) to your body...


 
I think you would have a nice green glow if you added plutonium. 
I know exactly what you mean, little changes can make a big difference.


----------



## angie90 (Jul 18, 2011)

Spilotavariagata, I get where you are coming from. It is all very 'minute'. But I think conservationists don't just think about the next 50 years, but more the next 20,000. I don't think I agree so much with the taxing part, unless the money goes towards rebates on solar, insulation etc to ensure sustainability. But i doubt it will. However I do think that any kind of hype (be it the climate change debate etc) that results in us being more eco minded is a good thing, regardless of whether it is true or not. My 2c


----------

