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

[spilota_variegata]

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]

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

 

[spilota_variegata]

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

 

[abnrmal91]

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

 

[spilota_variegata]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[spilota_variegata]

Whoops... I messed that one up.

 

[Naga_Kanya]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.