http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-warn-labor-against-punishing-households-while-rewarding-big-business/story-fn59niix-1226033132019

BOB Brown has warned of further tensions between the Greens and the Gillard government if it rewards big business over households in the upcoming May budget.

The Greens leader acknowledged that his relationship with Julia Gillard had now changed, describing her criticism of his party last week as a “serious turning of events”.

He said the Prime Minister's attack on the Greens as extremists was deliberate, gratuitous and insulting to 1.5 million Greens voters.

Claiming mainstream status for the Greens, once again, Senator Brown said his party would take a stand against Labor if its budget punished households.

“One of the things that's coming down the line is a very harsh budget,” he told ABC.

“We are going to continue to tackle the government if its budgeting we think is unnecessarily harsh on average Australians, and that's a matter that is going to lead to some tension between the Greens and Labor in the coming months.”

Lets think about this logically.....

Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them

But he has not given an workable solutions

Here are some facts Bob Brown

(1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders

(2) So you are NEVER going to punish big business unless you can pass a law that stops them from passing on the additional tax


So on one hand you scream about helping households - but on the other hand you are doing everything you can to punish them!!

You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech.

You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

You do realise that households will be compensated, no?

The whole idea about a tax is to penalise an action thereby making these businesses change their actions

If businesses can pass on the costs to consumers and the consumers are then compensated for the additional costs then why would anyone change their habits?

So it's a meaningless tax that does nothing to change people's carbon habits

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech. You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture.

why invest more money when they can pass the additional tax costs to consumers?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders

Housholders, who will recieve COMPENSATION PACKAGES
In the form of tax cuts - and pension increases

A REALITY - you conveniently AVOID

what about the current increases in the price of petrol and electricity ??

no carbon tax need for that it's already happening :( what are you libbos going to do about it ??

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders (2) So you are NEVER going to punish big business unless you can pass a law that stops them from passing on the additional tax So on one hand you scream about helping households - but on the other hand you are doing everything you can to punish them!!

Idiots aren't they. Business is in it for a profit. They usually go for a steady % of profit compared to investment.

If they have set a target for 10% profit, then they will just change things to make the 10%.

They will either get rid of jobs, spend less on expenses (money out of the community) or they will up the prices.

Very rarely will they obsorb the cost unless they are making more profit than the set %

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:08pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:48pm: Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders (2) So you are NEVER going to punish big business unless you can pass a law that stops them from passing on the additional tax So on one hand you scream about helping households - but on the other hand you are doing everything you can to punish them!! Idiots aren't they. Business is in it for a profit. They usually go for a steady % of profit compared to investment. If they have set a target for 10% profit, then they will just change things to make the 10%. They will either get rid of jobs, spend less on expenses (money out of the community) or they will up the prices. Very rarely will they obsorb the cost unless they are making more profit than the set %

so what are you going to do about the current increases in the cost of petrol and electricity ??

how come you're not bitching about that ??

got any solutions to the rising cost of energy or does it only matter if it's a consequence of greens policies ??

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

what about the current increases in the price of petrol and electricity ?? no carbon tax need for that it's already happening :( what are you libbos going to do about it ??

the ALP wanted to install a Petrol Watch - how's that working out for lefties?

.

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:03pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:48pm: Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders Housholders, who will recieve COMPENSATION PACKAGES In the form of tax cuts - and pension increases A REALITY - you conveniently AVOID

I have already answered this question

if it's as you say then the price increase are compensated by compensations then why would anyone reduce their carbon footprint?

ie another useless Labor policy

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

what about the current increases in the price of petrol and electricity ??

I spend $6.00 a week on petrol
I don't KNOW about that ?


I get my water from "up above"

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders (2) So you are NEVER going to punish big business unless you can pass a law that stops them from passing on the additional tax So on one hand you scream about helping households - but on the other hand you are doing everything you can to punish them!!

I hope that didn't hurt too much Maqqa, slr, Mellie?

After all, it doesn't seem like you use those grey cells to much!

Sorry, I got diverted!

Ah yes, the Greens Party lack economic credibility?

I would agree with that Maqqa, slr, Mellie!

But, so to, do the Liberals & Labor!

It really is, pick the least worst, of the bad bunch?

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:26pm:

I hope that didn't hurt too much Maqqa, slr, Mellie? After all, it doesn't seem like you use those grey cells to much!

So you lead with an insult rather than a coherent rebuttal - typical!

Last but not least I have never made my ID a secret ie I am known by slr and macca or maqqa - but I am not mellie

Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 6:26pm: I hope that didn't hurt too much Maqqa, slr, Mellie? After all, it doesn't seem like you use those grey cells to much! So you lead with an insult rather than a coherent rebuttal - typical! Last but not least I have never made my ID a secret ie I am known by slr and macca or maqqa - but I am not mellie

Well, there's not much in your posts that require a coherent rebuttal, but my follow up put things into perspective -
"Ah yes, the Greens Party lack economic credibility?

I would agree with that Maqqa, slr, Mellie!

But, so to, do the Liberals & Labor!

It really is, pick the least worst, of the bad bunch? "

Delivering the annual Gough Whitlam Oration in Sydney to Labor Party faithful, Ms Gillard tried to paint the ALP as being caught between the two extremes of the Greens and the Coalition.

"The Greens will never embrace Labor's delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation," she said.

"The differences between Labor and the Greens take many forms but at the bottom of it are two vital ones. The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture -- the people Labor strives to represent need work."

"We happily leave to the Greens being a party of protest with no tradition of striking the balance required to deliver major reform."

Last month, Ms Gillard described the Greens as an "extreme" party and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said they were "basket weavers".
Senator Brown's office said he was reading the speech carefully and would respond.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility.

This is an economic reform and you think there's an economic consensus?

It's a TAX! Calling it reform does not change the fact that its a TAX!

The only economic consensus is your hip-pocket.

Keneally took it to the polls and the economic consensus is NO CARBON TAX!

So after 90 views on this thread there are NO ONE from the left that can present a coherent argument against the points I made other than insults?!

;D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:56pm:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:53pm: You do realise that households will be compensated, no? The whole idea about a tax is to penalise

No it's not. It's little wonder you have such a Chicken Little view of the issue when you so fundamentally misunderstand it.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 9:03pm:

So after 90 views on this thread there are NO ONE from the left that can present a coherent argument against the points I made other than insults?! ;D

Considering the structure of the carbon tax has not been released, it's best to first wait for the detail, and THEN comment, rather then start commenting now and assuming things.

Also, don't forget it is meant to be an interim tax, designed to begin the transition into an ETS, in 2015.  I do hope you understand how ETS works, and if you do, you will know that with an ETS there may be an initial jump for consumers, which will be covered by the carbon tax, but overall costs can not be continually passed on as businesses will simply price themselves out of the market. That was the beauty of the market-based system, the ETS, which the liberals killed off as a "great big new tax" and now actually have got the debate ONTO a "great big new tax."  

Well done hard right nuffs.  Nuffed it once again.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:57pm:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:53pm: You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech. You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture. why invest more money when they can pass the additional tax costs to consumers?

Simple. The one factor that has motivated private capital since the dawn of time: profit.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech. You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture.

So big business is taxed and passes on the cost to the householder, and then householders are compensated.
Is that the 'big picture' that economic alarmists need to understand?
Where is that 'big stick' again, and how will this induce big business to do anything?
And how will this tax that isn't a tax change the air?
Looks like more Labor smoke and mirrors to me.

the greens have got NO credibility

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:53pm: You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech. You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture. So big business is taxed and passes on the cost to the householder, and then householders are compensated. Is that the 'big picture' that economic alarmists need to understand? Where is that 'big stick' again, and how will this induce big business to do anything? And how will this tax that isn't a tax change the air? Looks like more Labor smoke and mirrors to me.

I love how right wingers continuously try to spin the same crap and avoid addressing other points that are being raised:

Quote:

Considering the structure of the carbon tax has not been released, it's best to first wait for the detail, and THEN comment, rather then start commenting now and assuming things. Also, don't forget it is meant to be an interim tax, designed to begin the transition into an ETS, in 2015.  I do hope you understand how ETS works, and if you do, you will know that with an ETS there may be an initial jump for consumers, which will be covered by the carbon tax, but overall costs can not be continually passed on as businesses will simply price themselves out of the market. That was the beauty of the market-based system, the ETS, which the liberals killed off as a "great big new tax" and now actually have got the debate ONTO a "great big new tax."   Well done hard right nuffs.  Nuffed it once again.

The Greens disability policy is to reclassify most of the disabled people and cut them off welfare so they can use the productivity savings for illegal immigrant housing.  They will never get my vote. 8-)

What do you mean, 'economic credibility'.  They just lack credibility

Extreme people just don't have any potential in handling economic

bridonta wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:26pm:

Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic

explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee.

And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ...

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ...

It is history. What dont you like about the history?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ... It is history. What dont you like about the history?

Because it neglects the actual events that led to that statement. Want to try again, or doesn't the brain register past partisan based slogans? Shame :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ... It is history. What dont you like about the history? Because it neglects the actual events that led to that statement. Want to try again, or doesn't the brain register past partisan based slogans? Shame :(

Why dont you put the global ....... on record.

Still does not change history.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:43pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ... It is history. What dont you like about the history? Because it neglects the actual events that led to that statement. Want to try again, or doesn't the brain register past partisan based slogans? Shame :( Why dont you put the global ....... on record. Still does not change history.

It doesn't change ur baseless statement, I can agree to that.  But it definitely changes history.

And it isn't just the GFC I'm referring to.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ... It is history. What dont you like about the history? Because it neglects the actual events that led to that statement. Want to try again, or doesn't the brain register past partisan based slogans? Shame :( Why dont you put the global ....... on record. Still does not change history. It doesn't change ur baseless statement, I can agree to that.  But it definitely changes history. And it isn't just the GFC I'm referring to.

Well come on then. Tell me where the history is wrong and where my statement is baseless. You have the chance to re-write history or tell the truth.

The floor is yours.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 5:48pm:

Lets think about this logically..... Brown says he does not want to punish households but he wants to punish big business by putting a tax on them But he has not given an workable solutions Here are some facts Bob Brown (1) ANY tax you put on a business will be passed onto consumers ie the Carbon Tax will hit householders (2) So you are NEVER going to punish big business unless you can pass a law that stops them from passing on the additional tax So on one hand you scream about helping households - but on the other hand you are doing everything you can to punish them!!

I could frack up big business - just abolish the competition policy act, raise Tariffs and sup[port small business. 8-)

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 1:58pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:56pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:43pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:31pm: progressiveslol wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: bridonta wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 1:26pm: Extreme people just don't have any essential in economic explains Abbott and his right loon sidekicks to a tee. And yet liberals get us into record surpluses and labor gets us into deficits in record time  ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Once again I urge you, as a conservative nut, to preserve history properly. You'd think that is something you could actually do... ... ... It is history. What dont you like about the history? Because it neglects the actual events that led to that statement. Want to try again, or doesn't the brain register past partisan based slogans? Shame :( Why dont you put the global ....... on record. Still does not change history. It doesn't change ur baseless statement, I can agree to that.  But it definitely changes history. And it isn't just the GFC I'm referring to. Well come on then. Tell me where the history is wrong and where my staement is baseless. You have the chance to re-write history or tell the truth. The floor is yours.

1. As you brought it up: the GFC was the main reason why the government went into deficit.  I won't pretend to sit around and say that "had the GFC not happened" we'd have surpluses continually, because I am not into predicting something that can't be changed. But when stating your pathetic little slogan, at least explain WHY the government decided it was necessary to go into deficit.

2. Liberals would've gone into deficit too, had they been in power.  They admitted it and released their own policies showing it to be true.

3. Prior to the mass reforms that occured thanks to Keating and Hawke, what surpluses were the Liberals generating? I'm sorry... ... ... remind me of that blissful figure that Howard as treasurer left this country?  I forget it...

4. The mining boom occurred during Howard's time, and the debt was largely paid off by the simple sell of off Telstra, which led to the great period in our time where the telecommunications industry was competitive and giving us benefits like nothing else...;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

5. Coalition slashed and saved, and provided the surplus at the expense of things such as education (HECS going up), Health ($1 Billion dollar cut), low income welfare, skills investment, infrastructure,

6. The surplus was that important that each time Howard tried to actually do any reform we had levies imposed on us. "There isn't enough money for this, but we have a 22Billion dollar surplus."  Well done.

7. While government debt decreased, household debt went THROUGH THE ROOF.  From 3 x household income, to 6.8 times household income.  


Look forward to seeing you completely ignore this and go back to your partisan little slogan.   "Oh, uh, but, the Coalition always have a surrpllusss."  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Isn't it time you started to wave your fist in the air and grump, "What about me?"

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 7:02pm: Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility. This is an economic reform and you think there's an economic consensus?

Yes Maqqa. Every economist I have spoken to is on board. It is undergraduate stuff.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/economics-hopeful-science.html


Quote:

It's a TAX! Calling it reform does not change the fact that its a TAX!

Yes Maqqa I realise it is a tax. I am not trying to hide this.


Quote:

Keneally took it to the polls and the economic consensus is NO CARBON TAX!

No Maqqa. You obviously don't have your finger on the pulse of NSW politics. This was explained to you in the other thread.


Quote:

And how will this tax that isn't a tax change the air?

By changing prices. You do understand that prices affect consumption don't you chicken?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

astro_surf wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 5:53pm: You do realise that households will be compensated, no? And pricing carbon is more than just a stick to beat big emitters with, it's a price signal that will induce big emitters to look at ways to reduce emissions while stimulating capital investment into clean tech. You economic alarmists really do miss the bigger picture. So big business is taxed and passes on the cost to the householder, and then householders are compensated. Is that the 'big picture' that economic alarmists need to understand? Where is that 'big stick' again, and how will this induce big business to do anything? And how will this tax that isn't a tax change the air? Looks like more Labor smoke and mirrors to me.

Some businesses will pass on the costs, others will get smart and develop means of producing the same product at a lower cost and undercut the dinosaurs, hopefully pricing them out of the market. Meanwhile, by correcting the imbalance bewteen the price of renewables and fossil fuels will make investment in clean technology more attractive.

astro_surf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

Some businesses will pass on the costs, others will get smart and develop means of producing the same product at a lower cost and undercut the dinosaurs, hopefully pricing them out of the market. Meanwhile, by correcting the imbalance bewteen the price of renewables and fossil fuels will make investment in clean technology more attractive.

development requires capital investments
(1) they need to have enough assets as security to borrow the money
(2) they need to have enough cashflow to afford the loan but sales and profits are down because of the tax so chances are they can't afford the loan
(3) there are no guarantees cheap exports (not affected by Carbon Tax) won't flood the market so why borrow money to invest in ne technology

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 9:58pm:

By changing prices. You do understand that prices affect consumption don't you chicken?

and you do understand that cheap imports will flood the market to boost consumption back up again!

Maqqa wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

development requires capital investments (1) they need to have enough assets as security to borrow the money (2) they need to have enough cashflow to afford the loan but sales and profits are down because of the tax so chances are they can't afford the loan (3) there are no guarantees cheap exports (not affected by Carbon Tax) won't flood the market so why borrow money to invest in ne technology

Do you the slightest shred of evidence for those assumptions?

A good piece from Bernard Keane over at Crikey:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/05/where-does-a-carbon-price-fit-in-an-average-household-budget/


Quote:

Treasury modelled the impact of eight scenarios — carbon prices of $10, $20, $30 and $40 a tonne of CO2-equivalent, with a fuel rebate (as per the CPRS) and without. The impacts on households therefore varied widely. A $10 carbon price with a fuel rebate would be barely noticeable, costing $200 a year. The $40 carbon price, without any fuel concession, costs $1150 a year. The $40 price is the best one for comparisons, because even if Labor and the Greens opt for an initial low price, it’s going to have to rise significantly if we’re to have any chance of meeting anything higher than the government’s paltry 5% 2020 emissions reduction target. With a fuel rebate, almost certain to be included in the carbon price scheme, that’s $15.60 a week, or $811 a year, including $286 in increased electricity costs. As you’ll recall, Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt went through a phase of claiming that a $30 — not $40 — price on carbon would produce increased electricity costs of $1110 a year. This year, they quietly abandoned the $1100 figure and reverted to saying it would lift electricity prices by $300. They’re in the ballpark — but for a $40 carbon price, not a $30 carbon price, which would raise electricity prices by less than $220 a year, even without the fuel rebate. Well done to John Quiggin, who suggested a $30 price would produce an electricity price rise of $200 a year back in early February when he demonstrated what rubbish Hunt was talking. How do all these stack up against other items in the household budget? For starters, it’s far less than the GST. If a carbon price is a great big new tax, Tony Abbott must’ve had an absolute conniption contemplating the GST back in 2000. According to last year’s Budget figures, in 2012 we’ll pay about $51 billion in GST. That’s on average — and remember we’re only ever dealing here with a mythical “average household” — just over $6000 a year, or $116 a week. As Treasury noted in another document released last week, the GST had about 3.5 times the cost impact that a $20 carbon price would have. The Renewable Energy Target — the only climate change policy on which there is agreement right across the political parties — in its latest form increases electricity prices by $41 a year, according to Treasury. Ross Garnaut has argued that the RET should be dumped as soon as a carbon price is implemented. Garnaut also suggested continuing state ownership of electricity generators in NSW and Queensland was driving up network investment by much faster rates than necessary, although this wasn’t costed. But network investment costs dwarf the role the of the RET in rising power bills. Once you start playing this game, there’s all sorts of perspectives you can bring to the cost of a carbon price. The ABS’s Household Expenditure Survey is now a little long in the tooth — the most recent one was 2003-04 — but it gives a sense of where a $15.60 a week carbon price bill would fit. It’s well below what the average household spends on alcohol, in current prices about $30 a week. It’s just over what the average household spent in 2003-04 on tobacco, but you’d imagine that has fallen significantly since then. It’s about twice what the average household spends on gambling, but well below the $22 a week we spent on average on toiletries and cosmetics. It’s about half what we spend on fast food every week and about two-thirds what we spend eating out, and a couple of dollars a week more than what we spend on sweets and chocolate. According to figures quoted by AMP’s Shane Oliver, every $10 rise in the price of oil adds eight cents a litre to the cost of petrol locally, translating into an extra $3.60 a week for the average household Alternatively, you can cast it in terms of other government policies. The Productivity Commission found we spend about $1.3 billion a year propping up 50,000-odd jobs in the automotive manufacturing sector, which amounts to $151 per household of taxes. The private health insurance rebate costs, in its recently revised form, $3.5 billion a year, or $437 per household in taxes. A levy to fund the national disability insurance scheme proposed in early February by the PC would cost just under $600 per household a year. Or there’s Tony Abbott’s paid parental leave scheme, funded by a levy that, if passed through by businesses (the same way a carbon price would be), would have cost households on average $390 a year.

Some perspective beyond the "oh noes! economic armageddon" crowd's take on the issue.

[quote author=astro_surf]
Do you the slightest shred of evidence for those assumptions?[/quote]

So, I'll take your deafening silence as a resounding "no" then, shall I?

astro_surf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 11:23pm:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 10:34pm: development requires capital investments (1) they need to have enough assets as security to borrow the money (2) they need to have enough cashflow to afford the loan but sales and profits are down because of the tax so chances are they can't afford the loan (3) there are no guarantees cheap exports (not affected by Carbon Tax) won't flood the market so why borrow money to invest in ne technology Do you the slightest shred of evidence for those assumptions? A good piece from Bernard Keane over at Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/05/where-does-a-carbon-price-fit-in-an-average-household-budget/

we were referring to capital investment and the facts impacting that decision

the article you referenced refers to consumption based on 8 consumer examples

so you don't even know what you are talking about

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

1. As you brought it up: the GFC was the main reason why the government went into deficit.  I won't pretend to sit around and say that "had the GFC not happened" we'd have surpluses continually, because I am not into predicting something that can't be changed. But when stating your pathetic little slogan, at least explain WHY the government decided it was necessary to go into deficit. 2. Liberals would've gone into deficit too, had they been in power.  They admitted it and released their own policies showing it to be true. 3. Prior to the mass reforms that occured thanks to Keating and Hawke, what surpluses were the Liberals generating? I'm sorry... ... ... remind me of that blissful figure that Howard as treasurer left this country?  I forget it... 4. The mining boom occurred during Howard's time, and the debt was largely paid off by the simple sell of off Telstra, which led to the great period in our time where the telecommunications industry was competitive and giving us benefits like nothing else...;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 5. Coalition slashed and saved, and provided the surplus at the expense of things such as education (HECS going up), Health ($1 Billion dollar cut), low income welfare, skills investment, infrastructure, 6. The surplus was that important that each time Howard tried to actually do any reform we had levies imposed on us. "There isn't enough money for this, but we have a 22Billion dollar surplus."  Well done. 7. While government debt decreased, household debt went THROUGH THE ROOF.  From 3 x household income, to 6.8 times household income.   Look forward to seeing you completely ignore this and go back to your partisan little slogan.   "Oh, uh, but, the Coalition always have a surrpllusss."  ;D ;D ;D ;D Isn't it time you started to wave your fist in the air and grump, "What about me?" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I highlighted some of the more idiotic points - but the rest are just as bad

Bottom line is you have no proof other than regurgitating the rhetoric from the ALP website

Maqqa wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 2:11pm: 1. As you brought it up: the GFC was the main reason why the government went into deficit.  I won't pretend to sit around and say that "had the GFC not happened" we'd have surpluses continually, because I am not into predicting something that can't be changed. But when stating your pathetic little slogan, at least explain WHY the government decided it was necessary to go into deficit. 2. Liberals would've gone into deficit too, had they been in power.  They admitted it and released their own policies showing it to be true. 3. Prior to the mass reforms that occured thanks to Keating and Hawke, what surpluses were the Liberals generating? I'm sorry... ... ... remind me of that blissful figure that Howard as treasurer left this country?  I forget it... 4. The mining boom occurred during Howard's time, and the debt was largely paid off by the simple sell of off Telstra, which led to the great period in our time where the telecommunications industry was competitive and giving us benefits like nothing else...;D ;D ;D ;D ;D 5. Coalition slashed and saved, and provided the surplus at the expense of things such as education (HECS going up), Health ($1 Billion dollar cut), low income welfare, skills investment, infrastructure, 6. The surplus was that important that each time Howard tried to actually do any reform we had levies imposed on us. "There isn't enough money for this, but we have a 22Billion dollar surplus."  Well done. 7. While government debt decreased, household debt went THROUGH THE ROOF.  From 3 x household income, to 6.8 times household income.   Look forward to seeing you completely ignore this and go back to your partisan little slogan.   "Oh, uh, but, the Coalition always have a surrpllusss."  ;D ;D ;D ;D Isn't it time you started to wave your fist in the air and grump, "What about me?" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I highlighted some of the more idiotic points - but the rest are just as bad Bottom line is you have no proof other than regurgitating the rhetoric from the ALP website

Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility.

A) it is only 'the biggest economic reform of our generation' in your mind and that of a few other silly people. a lot of economists are dead against it

B) choosing to push a 'reform' that has been tried and failed elsewhere is not a praiseworthy policy

C) ONE POLICY does not grant anyone credibility in a particular area

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 7:15am:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 7:02pm: Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility. A) it is only 'the biggest economic reform of our generation' in your mind and that of a few other silly people. a lot of economists are dead against it B) choosing to push a 'reform' that has been tried and failed elsewhere is not a praiseworthy policy C) ONE POLICY does not grant anyone credibility in a particular area

The reform is that they can tax the rich and buy poor peoples vote. Carbon tax is about politics and the dirty politics these days are to buy poor peoples vote.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 10:22pm:

Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  ;D ;D ;D

The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised

Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric

Point 1
You have no proof

Point 2
You have no proof

Point 3
You have no proof

Point 4
You have no proof

Maqqa wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm: Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  ;D ;D ;D The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric Point 1 You have no proof Point 2 You have no proof Point 3 You have no proof Point 4 You have no proof

Wow, talk about a nut.

OK.

Point 1: If it wasn't the GFC, what was it? You nut.
Point 2: I distinctly recall our fat old friend Joe Hockey admitting that the liberal party was voting against the 2nd stimulus package because of the 20B in handouts; and when they produced their alternative policy it was EXACTLY the same other than 20B in handouts. I know it's hard for you to remember past 2 days, heck it's just hard to use your brain I'm sure, but don't sit there trying to hide from fact.
Point 3: budget.gov.au has the 1983 budget - feel free to have a look.
Point 4: budget.gov.au has the budgets from 1996-2007.  Feel freeto have a look.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Seriously, I've seen some nutter right wingers on this forum.  But you are definitely the most hilarious! And redundant.

 ;D ;D maqqa ~  'the Green Party lack economic credibility" , REALLY. Well read this, and weep, and may your joker smile become a frown.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Where Gillard gets the Greens wrong
Just about everywhere. Wednesday column:

Never has it been more important to understand the Greens. Never has a prime minister had less of a clue.

From July the Greens will decide which bills become law and which don’t. The prime minister says they "will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of every day Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation”. Maybe, but that’s not what they will be called on to do.

They will be asked to vote on tax bills, on corporate regulation and on all manner of measures relating to economic management.

There are clues as to how they will vote, and if we are to believe her, the prime minister has missed every one.

Gillard thinks the Greens don’t get economics. They “wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy,” she told the Whitlam Institute.

Her sidekick Anthony Albanese says they “tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up”.

Her resources minister Martin Ferguson says they want to “sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”.

Its a forgivable impression until you examine what their supporters actually think...

Asked to rate issues in order of importance in an Essential Media poll in January more Greens rated economic management number one than rated protecting the environment number one.The gap was closer amongst Greens voters than other voters, but the point is there was a difference - Greens put the economy number one.

Polled in November about a specific issue - regulation of the banks, Greens voters were on every measure more closer to economic orthodoxy than Labor voters.

Asked if banks should be restricted to lifting rates only in line with Reserve Bank, 87 per cent of Labor voters said yes. Even amongst Coalition voters 82 per cent said yes. But amongst Greens voters the result was 73 per cent, suggesting they are more likely to have studied economics.

Asked if bank fees should be kept to the cost of providing the service, 93 per cent of Labor and also 93 per cent of Coalition voters agreed. Only 90 per cent of Greens voters thought so.

Asked about a cap on bank salaries 88 per cent of Labor voters were for it. Coalition voters were far less keen at 83 per cent. In the middle, less in favour of hobbling the market than Labor voters although more so than Coalition voters, were the Greens at 86 per cent.

The views of Greens supporters are not outside the mainstream, except that they are likely to be more in touch with orthodox economics than the mainstream.

Greens voters are far more likely than either Labor or the Coalition to support higher taxes on mining profits, a view in line with the International Monetary Fund, the Henry Review and the Australian Treasury.

They are less likely than the majors to be fussed about a return to a budget surplus by exactly 2012-13 (as are orthodox economists although interestingly slightly keener than labor voters on spending cuts in the budget to come.

They are more likely than Labor voters to act against self interest. Only 17 per cent of Labor voters would accept a tax on products purchased online form overseas. A higher 19 per cent of Greens voters would.

And they know more.

An astonishing 10 per cent of Labor voters and 12 per cent of Coalition votes are deluded enough to think half our migration intake is boat people. Only 6 per cent of Greens voters think so.

They are accepting of the mainstream scientific position on climate change - that it is happening and caused by human activity; far more accepting than supporters of either Labor or the Coalition.

And they believe market mechanisms rather than regulations are the best way to get emissions down.

Their tax policies echo those of the Henry Tax Review. Tax breaks for high income earners would go, fringe benefits tax concessions that encourage the needless driving of cars would be scrapped and capital gains would no longer be tax-preferred over other returns from saving.

All income received in whatever form would be taxed at the standard rate and the scales would be rejigged to remove the high effective rates faced by Australians trying to get off welfare.

Henry would do this by flattening the scales and making the first $25,000 earned tax-free.

The Greens aren’t so sure about that, but neither are Labor of the Coalition. The point is that on nearly every area where the Greens diverge from Henry, the Coalition and Labor do too.

On most of the areas where then Coalition and Labor are reluctant to embrace Henry the Greens are keen to.

The big parties won’t touch the Private Health Insurance Rebate. The Greens would kill it, as would Henry.

The big parties aren’t attracted to a death duty. The Henry Review is, and the Greens would bring it in with a threshold of $5 million and an exemption for the family home, farm and small business.

The big parties are grudging about making the mammoth superannuation tax concessions more progressive. Henry isn’t, and the Greens would do it, after a “full review”.

This isn’t an argument in favour of the Greens policies, although as it happens I find them attractive. It is an argument that they fit within the economic mainstream. They are coherent, readily available on the web, and far more than a grab-bag from a “party of protest” that sits “under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”.

If the Greens have got it wrong on economics, then so too have the economics text books they seem to have read and so too has Ken Henry.

Their real position is important because it is their real position that will determine what gets passed into law in the two to three years ahead, not the misleading dumbed-down characterisations of a prime minister and ministers who should know better.

Published in today's SMH and Age

can we assume this artical was written by a greeny veg?...I dont know about you but I find economics rather difficult these days.. I mean no two days are alike when it come to every day cost of living.. I can only presume all those that "understand" economics dont live in the same world that I do.

I dont have a chrystal ball either and to tell the truth I am glad if we had any inkling as to what we have to look forward to I feel like leemings quite a few of us would be heading for the clifftop.

dont tell me this hideous Tax will make my life better or anyone elses to be quite frank.its the biggest scam any govt has perpetrated and to tell us its all about economics.. well come in spinner!! thats all I can say . maybe the greens are linked to Nigeria...lol.. I believe aussies are still falling for that con.. we must be a race of gullible twits.

wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 1:31pm:

On most of the areas where then Coalition and Labor are reluctant to embrace Henry the Greens are keen to. The big parties won’t touch the Private Health Insurance Rebate. The Greens would kill it, as would Henry. The big parties aren’t attracted to a death duty. The Henry Review is, and the Greens would bring it in with a threshold of $5 million and an exemption for the family home, farm and small business. The big parties are grudging about making the mammoth superannuation tax concessions more progressive. Henry isn’t, and the Greens would do it, after a “full review”. This isn’t an argument in favour of the Greens policies, although as it happens I find them attractive. It is an argument that they fit within the economic mainstream. They are coherent, readily available on the web, and far more than a grab-bag from a “party of protest” that sits “under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”. If the Greens have got it wrong on economics, then so too have the economics text books they seem to have read and so too has Ken Henry. Their real position is important because it is their real position that will determine what gets passed into law in the two to three years ahead, not the misleading dumbed-down characterisations of a prime minister and ministers who should know better. Published in today's SMH and Age

Just wondering what the economic text books and ken henry would say to the greens policy of shutting down all of the PCI and coking coal mines in QLD and effectively cutting the world's steel production by 50%.

The greens will latch on to anything that sounds good but have zero understanding of what it means, much like their voters.

Firstly Hi cods and bigol

Cods , I dont think Peter Martin is a Greenie...but like you economics is difficult as it 'relies' on so many issues.

Bigol said
"down all of the PCI and coking coal mines"

Talking about that , today on the radio the NSW mining companies are threating to withdraw any interest in NSW due to Ofarrells  new development policy which is causing massive uncertainly . who would have thought ~ O'farrell, the new Greenie.  :-*

wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 2:50pm:

Firstly Hi cods and bigol Cods , I dont think Peter Martin is a Greenie...but like you economics is difficult as it 'relies' on so many issues. Bigol said "down all of the PCI and coking coal mines" Talking about that , today on the radio the NSW mining companies are threating to withdraw any interest in NSW due to Ofarrells  new development policy which is causing massive uncertainly . who would have thought ~ O'farrell, the new Greenie.  :-*

Hi yourself veg..you would have to explain that to me veg I have only heard him on the road links. to be honest and not living in Sydney they hardly interest me.. as I am sure its the same with most NSW people..

they have made such a mess of Sydney the now have to spend all their time on trying to get it right..hohum.. is anyone surprised..since they built that awful Cahill Expressway. and the monorail they have done so much harm to that city.. it just gets worse..

from what I have read a lot of NSW mines are now in the hands of the Chinese!!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 8:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:19am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm: Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  ;D ;D ;D The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric Point 1 You have no proof Point 2 You have no proof Point 3 You have no proof Point 4 You have no proof Wow, talk about a nut. OK. Point 1: If it wasn't the GFC, what was it? You nut. Point 2: I distinctly recall our fat old friend Joe Hockey admitting that the liberal party was voting against the 2nd stimulus package because of the 20B in handouts; and when they produced their alternative policy it was EXACTLY the same other than 20B in handouts. I know it's hard for you to remember past 2 days, heck it's just hard to use your brain I'm sure, but don't sit there trying to hide from fact. Point 3: budget.gov.au has the 1983 budget - feel free to have a look. Point 4: budget.gov.au has the budgets from 1996-2007.  Feel freeto have a look. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Seriously, I've seen some nutter right wingers on this forum.  But you are definitely the most hilarious! And redundant.

I wouldn't bother about anything that Maqqa (alias slr, alias Mellie) says, as she is just a Liberal mouth piece, who has little to no knowledge of what actually drives Economics, now!

Now that the old system is collapsing!

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 7^th, 2011 at 5:59pm:

I wouldn't bother about anything that Maqqa (alias slr, alias Mellie) says, as she is just a Liberal mouth piece, who has little to no knowledge of what actually drives Economics, now! Now that the old system is collapsing!

I love how the old brigade of buzz and perception seems to think that since there's no Yahoo archiving access proving they've been slapped by me many times before so they make wild accusations

c'est la vie