MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax.   :o

As the major political parties wrestled over proposed cuts to company tax, Mr Palmer last night turned his sights to the carbon tax, telling the ABC's 7.30 he had legal advice that it was unconstitutional.

Asked on what grounds it was unconstitutional, Mr Palmer said: ''The grounds are set out in legal advice and they'll be coming out in the High Court.''

"Our advice is that the carbon tax in its current form is unconstitutional" ... Clive Palmer.



His threat on the carbon tax, which is due to start on July 1, comes weeks after Treasurer Wayne Swan accused Mr Palmer and other mining bosses Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest of wielding too much power and being a threat to democracy.   :(

Last night, Mr Palmer hit back, saying: ''I've given away each year more than a hundred times the Treasurer's salary to Australians who are needy. I wonder how much of his salary has he given away to Australians who need that wealth.''

Mr Palmer denied that launching a High Court challenge would prove Mr Swan's accusation that he and other mining bosses were using their wealth to distort public debate. ''We've all got the right to go to High Court,'' he said.

The 57-year-old Queensland magnate, who has an estimated $5 billion fortune from iron ore, nickel, coal, oil and gas, threatened in November to launch a Federal Court challenge to an anticipated $30 million carbon tax bill.

Last night he told the ABC: ''You can't really tax carbon. The other thing about it, of course, is it's a joke. Of course the air moves right around the world. If you tax something in Australia, those emissions will go offshore, those jobs will go offshore.''

Mr Palmer's threat on carbon tax caps a busy time in the public eye. Yesterday it was reported he was looking at investing in media groups such as Fairfax, owner of The Age, in partnership with other wealthy Australians and running them through a ''blind trust'' arrangement.

Last week he vowed to sue Football Federation Australia unless he was given back his licence for Gold Coast United in soccer's A-League.

Mr Palmer has also been a prominent campaigner against the mining tax, which yesterday remained mired in controversy as Opposition Leader Tony Abbott dug in against the related proposal for a cut in company tax, despite calls from

business to pass it. Mr Abbott has also refused to recommit to the 1.5 per cent company tax cut promise that he took to the last election, saying he would give a ''modest'' cut.   :(

The Business Council of Australia said if implementation of the mining tax was inevitable, passing the company tax cut was ''essential for the strength of the Australian economy''.

Heather Ridout, head of the Australian Industry Group, said a cut in company tax was needed to make the economy more competitive - although the proposed reduction from 30¢ to 29¢ did not go nearly far enough.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard seized on the Coalition's vow to oppose the company tax cut - which is funded from the mining tax that it has promised to repeal. Ms Gillard said: ''I never thought I would see the day that the Liberal Party would join with the Greens to vote against a tax cut for business.''

But Mr Abbott said the tax cut was a con because it was paid for by a tax increase.

The Greens say they will pass the tax cut for small business, defined as those with an annual turnover of up to $2 million, but will oppose the cut for bigger businesses. Small businesses are due to get the cut from July and bigger businesses a year later.   :)

The BCA and the Australian Industry Group both attacked the Greens' plan to approve the cut only for small business. ''Businesses of different sizes are deeply interdependent,'' BCA boss Jennifer Westacott said.   :-?

The Baillieu government would not comment on Mr Abbott's vow to block the tax cuts, a move that could potentially deny Victorian businesses about $600 million in relief. ''It's a matter for the federal Coalition to consider the detail of Labor's bill, and the detail of any amendments proposed by the minor parties,'' a spokeswoman said.

With the Victorian economy under pressure from the high dollar, the mining boom and global uncertainty, state business groups have ramped up demands for tax relief.

Australian Industry Group Victorian director Tim Piper said businesses were particularly concerned about payroll taxes and WorkCover premiums. But he said an across-the-board company tax cut would be a sensible option in the current climate.



Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/palmer-hits-back-see-you-in-court-20120314-1v3kf.html#ixzz1p7eWDVyq

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

Palmer is starting to look like a real eccentric millionaire. Has all this money and uses it to keep his profile high. What a parasite. I wonder how many people he had destroyed to get there. He can pay tax, hell i would support a special palmer tax.

well she LOST the last High Court challenge didnt she???>..

it only costs us millions..

if he says its unconstitutional it wouldnt surprise me this lot wouldnt be aware of that...

after the MALASIAN challenge..nothing surprises me with this bunch.

Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens.

By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale.

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:46am:

Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale.

and its all thanks to people like you burning up the atmosphere on computers day in day out... are you not hanging your head in shame????

I bet you are not! anymore than booby is about the amount of time he spends flying everywhere..

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:54am:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. and its all thanks to people like you burning up the atmosphere on computers day in day out... are you not hanging your head in shame???? I bet you are not! anymore than booby is about the amount of time he spends flying everywhere..

I have reduced my footprint, and continual to.
Currently reducing my footprint on food.


Now stop deflecting and take responsibility.

People like you are planning on perpetuating mass murder via starvation.
Shame old women, shame.

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

well she LOST the last High Court challenge didnt she???>.. it only costs us millions.. if he says its unconstitutional it wouldnt surprise me this lot wouldnt be aware of that... after the MALASIAN challenge..nothing surprises me with this bunch.

Let us hope that the bit*ch loses again!

What a relief that would be!

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:54am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. and its all thanks to people like you burning up the atmosphere on computers day in day out... are you not hanging your head in shame???? I bet you are not! anymore than booby is about the amount of time he spends flying everywhere.. I have reduced my footprint, and continual to. Currently reducing my footprint on food. Now stop deflecting and take responsibility. People like you are planning on perpetuating mass murder via starvation. Shame old women, shame.

you have reduced your footprint.. then it aint working is it??..LOL..but keep going we will see you living on a park bench eating grass...growing veggies need oxygen so stop growing.


oops sneaky with the "old.".. make you feel better does it???? of course it does..

people like me...yeah right.. good answer when your backs in the corner..


your little scare campaign has lost momentum..

now people are worried about their jobs instead of dying of thirst....funny that.

but I am sure people LIKE YOU are working on another scare PANIC campaign

olde.sault wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:39am: well she LOST the last High Court challenge didnt she???>.. it only costs us millions.. if he says its unconstitutional it wouldnt surprise me this lot wouldnt be aware of that... after the MALASIAN challenge..nothing surprises me with this bunch. Let us hope that the bit*ch loses again! What a relief that would be!

if the bloody govt doesnt understand the constitution what hope is there for the rest of us.

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:16am:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:58am: cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:54am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. and its all thanks to people like you burning up the atmosphere on computers day in day out... are you not hanging your head in shame???? I bet you are not! anymore than booby is about the amount of time he spends flying everywhere.. I have reduced my footprint, and continual to. Currently reducing my footprint on food. Now stop deflecting and take responsibility. People like you are planning on perpetuating mass murder via starvation. Shame old women, shame. you have reduced your footprint.. then it aint working is it??..LOL..but keep going we will see you living on a park bench eating grass...growing veggies need oxygen so stop growing. oops sneaky with the "old.".. make you feel better does it???? of course it does.. people like me...yeah right.. good answer when your backs in the corner.. your little scare campaign has lost momentum.. now people are worried about their jobs instead of dying of thirst....funny that. but I am sure people LIKE YOU are working on another scare PANIC campaign

Carbon dioxide is not Oxygen cods.

As for old, isn't that the reason you want to dam future humanity with starvation. Because you are old?

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:17am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:04am: cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:39am: well she LOST the last High Court challenge didnt she???>.. it only costs us millions.. if he says its unconstitutional it wouldnt surprise me this lot wouldnt be aware of that... after the MALASIAN challenge..nothing surprises me with this bunch. Let us hope that the bit*ch loses again! What a relief that would be! if the bloody govt doesnt understand the constitution what hope is there for the rest of us.

or the opposition, Nauru is illegal also yet Liberals still have the policy.

Gee Libs ignore their polices are illegal (nauru), are unable to achieve targets (carbon policy) and unable to fund there policies ($70,000,000,000 black hole)

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:46am:

Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale.

Yes if Australia does some ebatement, the temperature might just go down by 0.0084 degrees. Oh how cool we will feel.

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:46am:

Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale.

Sounds like crap to me.
They can't get the temperature right for next week.
Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad.

Quote:

MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax

Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on.

You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:37am:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Yes if Australia does some ebatement, the temperature might just go down by 0.0084 degrees. Oh how cool we will feel.

How come the Liberals don't have the same mindset with war. If Australia pulled their troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, it would not change the outcome loss.

Correct?

Also the Greens' carbon tax is the first step in lowering world climate heating.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:39am:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Sounds like crap to me. They can't get the temperature right for next week. Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad.

Crap to you because it politically suits you.

meanwhile


Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:41am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take.

I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way.

Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:50am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off.

Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind.

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:45am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:39am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Sounds like crap to me. They can't get the temperature right for next week. Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad. Crap to you because it politically suits you. meanwhile Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672

No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately.
Fact.
It's crap because they haven't gotten a prediction right yet.
Fact.
It's crap because this has nothing to do with what suits me politically.
Face it woody, your just gullable.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:53am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:50am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off. Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind.

I see that the law allows what it allows. Get it changed and stop your whining.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:53am:

____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:45am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:39am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Sounds like crap to me. They can't get the temperature right for next week. Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad. Crap to you because it politically suits you. meanwhile Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672 No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately. Fact. It's crap because they haven't gotten a prediction right yet. Fact. It's crap because this has nothing to do with what suits me politically. Face it woody, your just gullable.

Remember the fraud hockey stick and the climategate 1 "its a shame we cant account for the lack of warming"

There was zero predictions that temperature would stall. They dont have an ounce of a clue.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:45am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:39am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Sounds like crap to me. They can't get the temperature right for next week. Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad. Crap to you because it politically suits you. meanwhile Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672 No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately. Fact. It's crap because they haven't gotten a prediction right yet. Fact. It's crap because this has nothing to do with what suits me politically. Face it woody, your just gullable. Remember the fraud hockey stick and the climategate 1 "its a shame we cant account for the lack of warming" There was zero predictions that temperature would stall. They dont have an ounce of a clue.

Remeber this white elephant from your side a while back



Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Palmer has been making that threat for about 12 months - its about time that he either follows up on it or backs down but I for one am sick of hearing him flapping his gums.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:53am:

No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately. Fact.

Actually, they can. Next week in Sydney will be generally moderate temperatures with tops in the low to mid 20s. We know this because it is early autumn. It'll stay that way until around May or early June. By the winter solstice, temperatures will have dropped with tops in the mid teens to low 20s.

There ya go. How hard was that? And I'm not even a weather forecaster!

Tides can be predicted many, many years in advance. Are you saying the tide charts are wrong?

____ wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:56am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:45am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:39am: ____ wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 6:46am: Predictions are for a temp rise of 1 to 5 degrees within the next 58 years. 4 degrees is seen as around the warming level where world agricultural happens. By rejecting AGW action, one is promoting starvation on a global scale. Sounds like crap to me. They can't get the temperature right for next week. Back under your bed woody, and tighten up your Molycare pad. Crap to you because it politically suits you. meanwhile Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672 No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately. Fact. It's crap because they haven't gotten a prediction right yet. Fact. It's crap because this has nothing to do with what suits me politically. Face it woody, your just gullable. Remember the fraud hockey stick and the climategate 1 "its a shame we cant account for the lack of warming" There was zero predictions that temperature would stall. They dont have an ounce of a clue. Remeber this white elephant from your side a while back Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

And your point being. Elaberation is needed on your part.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:06am:

Palmer has been making that threat for about 12 months - its about time that he either follows up on it or backs down but I for one am sick of hearing him flapping his gums.

Fat Clive is also taking FFA to court.  His lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. Fat Clive is their biggest cash cow.

Gist wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:11am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: No, it's crap because they cant predict next weeks temp accurately. Fact. Actually, they can. Next week in Sydney will be generally moderate temperatures with tops in the low to mid 20s. We know this because it is early autumn. It'll stay that way until around May or early June. By the winter solstice, temperatures will have dropped with tops in the mid teens to low 20s. There ya go. How hard was that? Tides can be predicted many, many years in advance. Are you saying the tide charts are wrong?

Tide prediction is not from pseudo science, which can't be said for AClimate Change.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Tide prediction is not from pseudo science, which can't be said for AClimate Change.

Really? So it is real science? Can you explain the difference?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:50am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off. Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind. I see that the law allows what it allows. Get it changed and stop your whining.

I see your co bludger Palmer is trying to change the law by whining, well supported by bludging whiners like you.

I heard the interview and everything he said is right, this Government is p!ssing this revenue up against the wall in Middle class welfare handouts when the benefits of our resources should be fueling local manufacturing & industries, value added processing, jobs and exports - instead, its wasted as welfare.  If you really want to help small business, you abolish the GST, the Government is a con and needs to stay out of the economy and kee its hands off the money  Stop sabotaging us and Australian jobs. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

I'm rather looking forward to the tax free threshold being tripled.

That is going to provide more incentive to people to work harder, increase productivity and spend money in the economy.

Some prices may go up slightly, but the overall effect will be beneficial.

rumpole wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:26am:

I'm rather looking forward to the tax free threshold being tripled. That is going to provide more incentive to people to work harder, increase productivity and spend money in the economy. Some prices may go up slightly, but the overall effect will be beneficial.

Spot on. I expect it will also create more jobs .

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on.

Don't be so sure skip, I personally would be worried. Palmer is no dill. Expect the same type of lawyers at his disposal as those who challenged the malyasian solution.

As much as you may not like him he is no fool.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:21am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:54am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:50am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off. Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind. I see that the law allows what it allows. Get it changed and stop your whining. I see your co bludger Palmer is trying to change the law by whining, well supported by bludging whiners like you.

So Palmer is doing what he should be doing then. Is this just more jealousy from the left?

Anybody have any idea what grounds he will challenge on?

You can't just go to the high court because you do not want to pay tax?

But then this isn't really a tax is it?

You dont cut taxes by bringing in new and bigger economy destroying taxes.

Scrap the Carbon Tax, the GST, the Mining tax and the socialists in Canberra get out of the way of the competition between unions and employers and mind your own business and the environmentalists all get cut off Government handouts... 8-) 8-) 8-)

The challenge is on the constitutional grounds to charge taxes on Carbon obviously. 8-)

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Anybody have any idea what grounds he will challenge on? You can't just go to the high court because you do not want to pay tax? But then this isn't really a tax is it?

Don't know for sure but the media information is along the lines of

Abbott
Normally the Commonwealth can't tax the states, for instance and this is going to be a tax that's paid by state governments."

State governments would be the obvious candidates to challenge the constitutionality of the tax cut, Mr Abbott said.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archives/old-news-pages/carbon-tax-may-be-unconstitutional-abbott/story-e6frf7ko-1226300055525

''The grounds are set out in legal advice and they'll be coming out in the High Court.''
In other words, he is not showing his hand

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/palmer-hits-back-see-you-in-court-20120314-1v3kf.html

The last thing we need is those parasites in Canberra getting any more money or interfering in our lives - especially the environmentalists - they get nothing!  No free lunch - nada, zippo! ;D ;D ;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:21am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:54am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:50am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off. Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind. I see that the law allows what it allows. Get it changed and stop your whining. I see your co bludger Palmer is trying to change the law by whining, well supported by bludging whiners like you. So Palmer is doing what he should be doing then. Is this just more jealousy from the left?

Yes we expect you and other conservatives to not pull your weight and avoid paying taxes, thats what you do after all,expect the middle and working classes to run the country while the rich avoid paying their way at all costs..

The working class and business dont need a parasitic environmentalist middle class living on free handouts, subsidizing foreign industry and jobs and sabotaging our success at every opportunity.  We can compete without any interference from the Government and the environmentalists,   8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:34am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:21am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:54am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:53am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:50am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:46am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:41am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. You lefty nutjobs do deserve a win, I mean how many losses can so many nutjobs take. I'm not surprised the likes of you think its ok for rich mining magnates to screw this country and avoid paying their fair share,after all, its the conservative way. Its the lefty way to be jealous. Its the lefty way to think that everyone can be rich, which in reality everyone would be poor and worse off. Yes, I see you're still supporting him avoiding paying his fair share, we expect that from your kind. I see that the law allows what it allows. Get it changed and stop your whining. I see your co bludger Palmer is trying to change the law by whining, well supported by bludging whiners like you. So Palmer is doing what he should be doing then. Is this just more jealousy from the left? Yes we expect you and other conservatives to not pull your weight and avoid paying taxes, thats what you do after all,expect the middle and working classes to run the country while the rich avoid paying their way at all costs..

So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law.

Would be an interesting read im sure.

Go Clive!

So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law.
No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands.

Miners pay royalties based on tonnage not profits.....Profits have risen to record levels whilst the money miners pay for minerals has remained low......The price the miners pay for our minerals has not increased while the price they receive for our mineral has.....Pure Greed from the miners on one hand the Greens on the other and self interest from the Coalition....The ALP are fighting vested interests on behalf of all Australian's!!!

>:( >:( >:(

It is the sign of a weak mind to be unable to bear wealth.
Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:19am:

So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands.

So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you.

The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though.

Bye bye Greens, I can see all those bullshite high end high tech green clean energy jobs of the "New Economy" going up in smoke - nice try bludgers - get real jobs.... :P :P :P :P

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Bye bye Greens, I can see all those bullshite high end high tech green clean energy jobs of the "New Economy" going up in smoke - nice try bludgers - get real jobs.... :P :P :P :P

like you, you mean? I didn't know sitting on your butt all day eating buckets of lard was a job.

Clive Plamer is very good in court.
He is excellent in contracts

I just suppose this will encourage groups like GetUp to challenge just about everything Abbott does thru the high Court.

Not having bothered to read anything but the last post of Skips, I may be wrong ;), but can assume our right leaning Abbott supporting friends will do nothing but back GetUps right to do this as I assume they are with Palmer.

Hell I might even get a few local business mates in the area together & challenge his Paid Maternity Scheme tax if he gets in.

Govt confident carbon tax constitutional
March 15, 2012


AAP

The Gillard government is confident its carbon tax will survive a High Court challenge from mining magnate Clive Palmer.   :)

Mr Palmer first threatened the move last year and says he now has legal advice the carbon tax laws passed in November are unconstitutional.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who guided Labor's Clean Energy package through parliament, believes the government is on strong legal ground because the legislation relies on a number of powers under the constitution.


"I think this is another foray by Mr Palmer who's got more money than sense really," he told Sky News on Thursday, adding the mining magnate had listed litigation as one of his hobbies. "He seems to be exercising all of the wealth that he's acquired out of the resources boom and elsewhere just to pay lawyers."   :( 

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says there are some constitutional issues surrounding the tax.

"Normally the Commonwealth can't tax the states, for instance and this is going to be a tax that's paid by state governments."

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown is unconcerned by Mr Palmer's legal challenge.

"If he's digging a big hole in the Galilee Basin to export millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the global atmosphere I can't see why he can't dig a big hole at the High Court," he told reporters in Canberra.   :)

Senator Brown does not believe the carbon tax is unconstitutional.   :)

"I've got no doubt that the High Court recognises the power of this parliament over the plutolatry of Mr Palmer," he said.

The possibility of a legal challenge comes as climate scientists say Australians should not be fooled into thinking the world is not warming just because much of the country has experienced a relatively wet and cool summer.

The years 2010 and 2011 set a record of 1409mm of rain averaged over Australia. That tops the previous two-year high set in 1973 and 1974.

The global average temperature for 2011 was also lower than all but two of the years between 2000 and 2010.

But a new report from the government's climate commission warns that it's wrong to be blinded to the long-term trend of global warming by year-to-year variability.

What's more, the recent heavy rainfall and flooding could actually have been caused by climate change.

"Climate change cannot be ruled out as a factor in recent heavy rainfall events," the commission's report, released on Thursday, states.

The commission, established by Labor to spruik the case for tackling dangerous climate change, said there was a need for Australia to do its part to drive rapid and deep reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases.

© 2012 AAP

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:35am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:53am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you. The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though.

So tell us where he is breaking the law and dont forget to tell us your story of paying more than the law says you have to.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

I just suppose this will encourage groups like GetUp to challenge just about everything Abbott does thru the high Court. Not having bothered to read anything but the last post of Skips, I may be wrong ;), but can assume our right leaning Abbott supporting friends will do nothing but back GetUps right to do this as I assume they are with Palmer. Hell I might even get a few local business mates in the area together & challenge his Paid Maternity Scheme tax if he gets in.

I support my right to condem an organisation that tries to use its membership numbers (dodgy at best) that have mostly overseas members and use that to make waves in our political environment.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:43am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:58am: I just suppose this will encourage groups like GetUp to challenge just about everything Abbott does thru the high Court. Not having bothered to read anything but the last post of Skips, I may be wrong ;), but can assume our right leaning Abbott supporting friends will do nothing but back GetUps right to do this as I assume they are with Palmer. Hell I might even get a few local business mates in the area together & challenge his Paid Maternity Scheme tax if he gets in. I support my right to condem an organisation that tries to use its membership numbers (dodgy at best) that have mostly overseas members and use that to make waves in our political environment.

Do you have any proof of this?
Or do you just assume that Australians are to apathetic to care about issues other than what's in it for them at election time?

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:35am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:53am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you. The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though. So tell us where he is breaking the law and dont forget to tell us your story of paying more than the law says you have to.

When you read my post for the first time you will see I said he is trying to AVOID paying his fair share.Get a 7 year old to explain that to you, though I doubt your comprehension skills will lend you to understanding.While you're at it look at my post that says we should only pay the tax we a required to, but I expect you have to be above retard level to comprehend that,but give it a shot anyway.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:39am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:35am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:53am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you. The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though. So tell us where he is breaking the law and dont forget to tell us your story of paying more than the law says you have to. When you read my post for the first time you will see I said he is trying to AVOID paying his fair share.Get a 7 year old to explain that to you, though I doubt your comprehension skills will lend you to understanding.While you're at it look at my post that says we should only pay the tax we a required to, but I expect you have to be above retard level to comprehend that,so you're excused.

I avoid as well. As long as I am not breaking the law, that means I am following the law. I would have to assume he is as well.

If he is following the law, then it would be he is also paying the required amount set out by law. You have to stop hanging around those 7 year olds. Not doing you any favours.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:56am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:39am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:35am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:53am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you. The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though. So tell us where he is breaking the law and dont forget to tell us your story of paying more than the law says you have to. When you read my post for the first time you will see I said he is trying to AVOID paying his fair share.Get a 7 year old to explain that to you, though I doubt your comprehension skills will lend you to understanding.While you're at it look at my post that says we should only pay the tax we a required to, but I expect you have to be above retard level to comprehend that,so you're excused. I avoid as well. As long as I am not breaking the law, that means I am following the law. I would have to assume he is as well.

I'm not surprised you avoid your fair share, we already established that to be the conservative way. As for lard ass, well he is trying to avoid paying his fair share by taking the gov to the high court, do keep up, it just makes you look even more inept than you already do.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:03pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:00pm: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:56am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:39am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:35am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:53am: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 9:19am: So tell us your story about you paying more taxes than you have to according to law. No one should pay more taxes than is the law. Just like no one should avoid paying their fair share,as Palmer is doing ,and you being a sponge on society are condoning. Palmer is aiming to avoid the LAW as you put it, get a 7 year old to explain it to you, you seem unable to grasp Palmer is trying to avoid his share as the law stands. So the law allows it. You like going in circle. Jealousy will do that to you. The law says the fat p r ..k has to pay his fair share, which he is trying to avoid and YOU ARE condoning, no surprises there though. So tell us where he is breaking the law and dont forget to tell us your story of paying more than the law says you have to. When you read my post for the first time you will see I said he is trying to AVOID paying his fair share.Get a 7 year old to explain that to you, though I doubt your comprehension skills will lend you to understanding.While you're at it look at my post that says we should only pay the tax we a required to, but I expect you have to be above retard level to comprehend that,so you're excused. I avoid as well. As long as I am not breaking the law, that means I am following the law. I would have to assume he is as well. I'm not surprised you avoid your fair share, we already established that to be the conservative way. As for lard ass, well he is trying to avoid paying his fair share by taking the gov to the high court, do keep up, it just makes you look even more inept than you already do.

So what do you expect I do at tax time. Make up my own numbers or follow the law. Really, 7 year olds advise you. It shows.

So all we need to do to balance the budget is get the conservatives in this country to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else does. This mining tax looks like a great idea, if it forces these bludgers to pull their weight like the rest of us.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

So all we need to do to balance the budget is get the conservatives in this country to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else does. This mining tax looks like a great idea, if it forces these bludgers to pull their weight like the rest of us.

How about they do the moral thing and look at the loopholes in the tax policy. They probably wouldn't do that because then all their mates would be caught up in it. No, lets just do a target tax.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

I just suppose this will encourage groups like GetUp to challenge just about everything Abbott does thru the high Court. Not having bothered to read anything but the last post of Skips, I may be wrong ;), but can assume our right leaning Abbott supporting friends will do nothing but back GetUps right to do this as I assume they are with Palmer. Hell I might even get a few local business mates in the area together & challenge his Paid Maternity Scheme tax if he gets in.

Let the government govern with whatever laws and rules they want, and the courts enforce those rules.

Its undemocratic that an unelected judge can overrule an elected government.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:20pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:12pm: So all we need to do to balance the budget is get the conservatives in this country to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else does. This mining tax looks like a great idea, if it forces these bludgers to pull their weight like the rest of us. How about they do the moral thing and look at the loopholes in the tax policy. They probably wouldn't do that because then all their mates would be caught up in it. No, lets just do a target tax.

Most aussies think rich miners should have to pay a tax on removing what is essentially OUR minerals from the ground. It doesn't surprise me someone like you  see fit to let them go on avoiding paying THEIR FAIR SHARE though.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:20pm: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:12pm: So all we need to do to balance the budget is get the conservatives in this country to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else does. This mining tax looks like a great idea, if it forces these bludgers to pull their weight like the rest of us. How about they do the moral thing and look at the loopholes in the tax policy. They probably wouldn't do that because then all their mates would be caught up in it. No, lets just do a target tax. Most aussies think rich miners should have to pay a tax on removing what is essentially OUR minerals from the ground. It doesn't surprise me someone like you  see fit to let them go on avoiding paying THEIR FAIR SHARE though.

What is the difference to you avoiding talking about closing loopholes. Oh thats right, others will be caught up in that.

Back on topic, even Abbott is running away from clives legal threats.


Seems Abbotts only opposition to the carbon tax is that its "unethical".    What a glorious ivory tower he must live in.

All power to this bloke we cannot let these environmentalist bludgers steal our prosperity with a mining tax when what we need is manufacturing jobs and industeries to capitalise on the boom.  The government is unconstitutional, our economic rights to create industry and prosper on this continent are clear and the Government does not have any right to sabotage that for self interest parasites creating middle class welfare at the expense of good manufacturing industry and jobs.  Take these traitors apart in the high court!  Get the environmentalists out of Canberra and Canberra out of our homes, lives and wallets... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Abbott as usual changes his story depending on who's listening.


Quote:

Latika Bourke @latikambourke Tony Abbott says his concern with carbon price is not that it is necessarily unconstitutional but that it's 'unethical.'

Quote:

Latika Bourke @latikambourke That's a change from a few hours ago on 2UE when Tony Abbott said he shared concerns about the constitutionality of the carbon price.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-pulse/politics-live-march-15-2012-20120315-1v52k.html

But Gillard's a liar so it doesn't matter eh?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 2:29pm:

Abbott as usual changes his story depending on who's listening. Quote: Latika Bourke @latikambourke Tony Abbott says his concern with carbon price is not that it is necessarily unconstitutional but that it's 'unethical.' [quote] Latika Bourke @latikambourke That's a change from a few hours ago on 2UE when Tony Abbott said he shared concerns about the constitutionality of the carbon price.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-pulse/politics-live-march-15-2012-20120315-1v52k.html

But Gillard's a liar so it doesn't matter eh?[/quote]


concern with carbon price is not that it is necessarily unconstitutional but that it's 'unethical.'

How does this lack of ethics line up with the period when Abbnott was recomending a carbon tax as the best option if you are going to put a price on carbon.

That is the problem when you support every option and also oppose every option.

Is Tnoy really saying that he has no ethics?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 2:43pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 2:29pm: Abbott as usual changes his story depending on who's listening. Quote: Latika Bourke @latikambourke Tony Abbott says his concern with carbon price is not that it is necessarily unconstitutional but that it's 'unethical.' [quote] Latika Bourke @latikambourke That's a change from a few hours ago on 2UE when Tony Abbott said he shared concerns about the constitutionality of the carbon price. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-pulse/politics-live-march-15-2012-20120315-1v52k.html But Gillard's a liar so it doesn't matter eh?

concern with carbon price is not that it is necessarily unconstitutional but that it's 'unethical.'

How does this lack of ethics line up with the period when Abbnott was recomending a carbon tax as the best option if you are going to put a price on carbon.

That is the problem when you support every option and also oppose every option.

Is Tnoy really saying that he has no ethics?[/quote]

How does this also stack up against Toxic Tony's own policy of a tax on carbon? Is that ethical? Since that one will tax you and I and give the money to people like Clive I'm taking it as a given that Clive won't mount any court challenges on that one.

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

well she LOST the last High Court challenge didnt she???>.. it only costs us millions.. if he says its unconstitutional it wouldnt surprise me this lot wouldnt be aware of that... after the MALASIAN challenge..nothing surprises me with this bunch.

If Clive Palmer wins this case, he'll be an instant hero and should have a statue made in his image.

That would put our present scumbags out of action, but we are not savages and that's as far as we can do as punishment.

I hear Craig Thompson landed in hospital. . .

Anxiety must be eating at his gizzards.

Verge wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:31am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 7:40am: Quote: MINING billionaire Clive Palmer has escalated his campaign against the Gillard government, vowing to mount a High Court challenge to the carbon tax Soooooooooo funny,I cant wait to see Palmer fall on his fat ass,along with the congo line of numnuts cheering him on. Don't be so sure skip, I personally would be worried. Palmer is no dill. Expect the same type of lawyers at his disposal as those who challenged the malyasian solution. As much as you may not like him he is no fool.

I have no qualifications in science but when I heard that our "professors of something else" blamed our emissions of carbon dioxide for the warming of the globe, I laughed.

Looking out the window I saw that the sun was also laughing.

rumpole wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:26am:

I'm rather looking forward to the tax free threshold being tripled. That is going to provide more incentive to people to work harder, increase productivity and spend money in the economy. Some prices may go up slightly, but the overall effect will be beneficial.

You are an idiot!

olde.sault wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

You are an idiot!

http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/202450945718748086_YLpCDEqW_c.jpg

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

Clive Plamer is very good in court. He is excellent in contracts

I'd reckon that he knows what his chances are of winning the case.

He looks after his money.

I wonder why the liberal party havent taken it to court earlier.  They are the ones most opposed to it, and Abbott staked his life on stopping it.


Seems odd that they get someone outside government to do their bidding .


;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

I wonder why the liberal party havent taken it to court earlier.  They are the ones most opposed to it, and Abbott staked his life on stopping it. Seems odd that they get someone outside government to do their bidding . ;D

Because the mad monk is betting that labor will introduce it then he can cry about how it is all their fault and he cannot undo it even though he promised to with the deepest parts of his soul in blood and only if the budget is in surplus maybe no definite answers sort of.

vote one mad monk for great big head

olde.sault wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:54am: Clive Plamer is very good in court. He is excellent in contracts I'd reckon that he knows what his chances are of winning the case. He looks after his money.

His money? What part of Clive's business will end up paying this tax?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 4:40pm:

I wonder why the liberal party havent taken it to court earlier.  They are the ones most opposed to it, and Abbott staked his life on stopping it. Seems odd that they get someone outside government to do their bidding . ;D

Abbott is not silly. He would want the carbon tax lie to come to fruition. Once that happens, it is set in stone and branded in the peoples minds for decades.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:40pm: I wonder why the liberal party havent taken it to court earlier.  They are the ones most opposed to it, and Abbott staked his life on stopping it. Seems odd that they get someone outside government to do their bidding . Abbott is not silly. He would want the carbon tax lie to come to fruition. Once that happens, it is set in stone and branded in the peoples minds for decades.

I think almost a certainty that once it comes in nobody will notice and people may realise just who has really been telling the biggest lies.

It can only work in Abbnott's favour to stop it.

This tax, like the mining tax and the GST is socialism and an attack on free enterprise and the right to work, the right of the homeless to work in stable secure jobs.  Australians right to work is more important than the socialist middle class welfare state. 8-) 8-) 8-)

The Carbon Tax, The Mining Tax & The GST made this bloke hungry, cold, jobless and homeless - gee, thanks Greens, thanks JuLIAR...bring in some more skilled migrants... 8-) 8-) 8-)
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/190237/190237,1254773477,14/stock-photo-will-work-for-food-isolated-38301271.jpg :(

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:20pm: skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 12:12pm: So all we need to do to balance the budget is get the conservatives in this country to pay their fair share of tax like everyone else does. This mining tax looks like a great idea, if it forces these bludgers to pull their weight like the rest of us. How about they do the moral thing and look at the loopholes in the tax policy. They probably wouldn't do that because then all their mates would be caught up in it. No, lets just do a target tax. Most aussies think rich miners should have to pay a tax on removing what is essentially OUR minerals from the ground. It doesn't surprise me someone like you  see fit to let them go on avoiding paying THEIR FAIR SHARE though.

They pay royalties, payroll tax, company tax, GST.

Introducing another tax and calling it their "fair share" implies they arent contributing at all, which we know is hog wash.

Introducing a carbon tax is not about miners paying their "fair share", I thought it was about the environment.

I say newcomers to Australia should not have to pay any taxes to support Lazy Middle class environmentalists who wont work and contribute to their super.  Each immigrant should keep 100% of the wealth that they generate for themselves and we should all mind our own business...Taxing hard working wealth creating migrants is a sin...
:D :D :D :D

I say, the only fair way is to abolish taxation and get the Government out of the way, thats the only way we are going to get the Middle class off handouts, get industry going again ect...Migrants should not have to pay taxes to support Australia's Middle class welfare.  These people are not useful. 8-) 8-) 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 10:56pm:

I say, the only fair way is to abolish taxation and get the Government out of the way

So you are an anarchist?

Frances wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:06pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 10:56pm: I say, the only fair way is to abolish taxation and get the Government out of the way So you are an anarchist?

No, I believe in Government, I just dont believe in the kind of big intrusive interventionist Government we have now.  It would ideally be decentralized, small and regional and more of an honorary council than anything, transitioning through regular elections and only concerned with local issues..rubbish collection, roads essential services maintenance and the like. 8-)

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:15pm:

It would ideally be decentralized, small and regional and more of an honorary council than anything, transitioning through regular elections and only concerned with local issues.sp@mbbish collection, roads essential services maintenance and the like.

That may not work for every government function though.  How would that type of government handle foreign affairs or national defence?

Frances wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:15pm: It would ideally be decentralized, small and regional and more of an honorary council than anything, transitioning through regular elections and only concerned with local issues.sp@mbbish collection, roads essential services maintenance and the like. That may not work for every government function though.  How would that type of government handle foreign affairs or national defence?

If everyone minded their own business we would not need national defense and foreign affairs are necessarity tainted by big government concerns - Bob Carrs comments on PNG are frankly an embarrassment of diplomacy, since in the model I am proposing these sort of intrusive and presumptuous comments would not be made foreign affairs would only be dealing with intra regional consular maters and nothing else - no grand plan or global politicking... ::) ::) ::)

Congratulations to Clive Palmer for proving Wayne Swan right. What a di*khead.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 15^th, 2012 at 9:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 8:58pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 15th, 2012 at 4:40pm: I wonder why the liberal party havent taken it to court earlier.  They are the ones most opposed to it, and Abbott staked his life on stopping it. Seems odd that they get someone outside government to do their bidding . Abbott is not silly. He would want the carbon tax lie to come to fruition. Once that happens, it is set in stone and branded in the peoples minds for decades. I think almost a certainty that once it comes in nobody will notice and people may realise just who has really been telling the biggest lies. It can only work in Abbnott's favour to stop it.

That is what you are hoping I'm sure. To me it doesn't matter if it is felt in the hip pocket or not. If it is there, it is a reminder of what a lying deceiving government labor were/are

Palmer claims discrimination
David Wroe and Peter Ker
March 16


MINING billionaire Clive Palmer claimed yesterday the federal government was discriminating against his company Queensland Nickel as he vowed to press ahead with his High Court challenge against the carbon tax.   :'(

His remarks came as legal experts confirmed there were constitutional grounds on which the carbon tax could be challenged, though it was not clear whether any such case could succeed.

Mr Palmer told The Age yesterday that his legal advice would be finalised by the end of next week and the Queensland Nickel board would probably lodge documents with the High Court by April.



Prime Minister Julia Gillard, along with several senior colleagues, insisted that the carbon tax was legally watertight.   :)

Mr Palmer said his lawyers had advised him there were several avenues under which the carbon tax was unconstitutional. But one particular issue was that his company was getting less compensation under the carbon tax than rivals BHP Billiton and Glencore.   :'(

''You can't treat citizens that way,'' he said. ''You can't discriminate. I guess a company is like a person. You can't discriminate based on race, based on colour, based on ethnicity.

''You can't be discriminated [against] based on what you actually do either. If you're a doctor or a lawyer, you pay the same tax.''

He declined to say who was giving him legal advice, except that they were ''all senior counsels with experience in the High Court''.

His lawyers told him the tax was unconstitutional and ''we've got an obligation to those families [employed at Queensland Nickel] to act on that legal advice'', he added.

Ms Gillard said the government had ''taken careful constitutional advice and legal advice at every stage'' as it developed its legislation.

A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet rejected Mr Palmer's claim that his company would get less compensation, and the government was still awaiting audited data from nickel producers that would then be included in the compensation regulations.   ;)

Greg Craven, a law professor and vice-chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, said the carbon tax was ''inherently complicated'' and ''was always going to end up in the High Court''.

It raised questions about the scope of taxation power, the rights of the states, the Commonwealth's power to make laws binding the states, and the compulsory acquisition of property.

''If you were looking for a law that was born to be challenged, this is it, because there are billions of dollars at stake.''

Roland Burt, a principal at Macpherson and Kelley Lawyers, singled out three potential avenues for a challenge, involving Commonwealth external powers, the federal government's power to impose taxes on the states, and the issue of whether tax law could be bundled up with other legislation. ''Clive Palmer will have some of the best legal minds in the country at his disposal and they will certainly put a powerful case,'' he said. ''But my guess is the government has thought about it all carefully enough to design it in a way that will probably - but by no means certainly - survive the challenge.''   :)

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/palmer-claims-discrimination-20120315-1v89f.html#ixzz1pDYbPCwP

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 5:35am:

That is what you are hoping I'm sure. To me it doesn't matter if it is felt in the hip pocket or not. If it is there, it is a reminder of what a lying deceiving government labor were/are

And of course you have absolutely no partisan reason for saying this.  :P

Gist wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 8:22am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:35am: That is what you are hoping I'm sure. To me it doesn't matter if it is felt in the hip pocket or not. If it is there, it is a reminder of what a lying deceiving government labor were/are And of course you have absolutely no partisan reason for saying this.  :P

I do now, since labor have been wasteful, incompetent and icing on cake, lied to me to get into power. Am I the only one who thinks/feels this way. Not on your life.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 9:11am:

Gist wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 8:22am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:35am: That is what you are hoping I'm sure. To me it doesn't matter if it is felt in the hip pocket or not. If it is there, it is a reminder of what a lying deceiving government labor were/are And of course you have absolutely no partisan reason for saying this.  :P I do now, since labor have been wasteful, incompetent and icing on cake, lied to me to get into power. Am I the only one who thinks/feels this way. Not on your life.

So you voted Labor based on no carbon tax?

I doubt it - in fact the promise probably cost them votes at the time.

So Labors position was to support a price on carbon Gillard promised it would not be a tax, So you are saying that you support any other price mechanism to be put on carbon emissions?

The net difference to costing carbon via a trading scheme compared to a fixed price is about zero to anybody who posts here.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 9:11am: Gist wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 8:22am: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 16th, 2012 at 5:35am: That is what you are hoping I'm sure. To me it doesn't matter if it is felt in the hip pocket or not. If it is there, it is a reminder of what a lying deceiving government labor were/are And of course you have absolutely no partisan reason for saying this.  :P I do now, since labor have been wasteful, incompetent and icing on cake, lied to me to get into power. Am I the only one who thinks/feels this way. Not on your life. So you voted Labor based on no carbon tax? I doubt it - in fact the promise probably cost them votes at the time. So Labors position was to support a price on carbon Gillard promised it would not be a tax, So you are saying that you support any other price mechanism to be put on carbon emissions? The net difference to costing carbon via a trading scheme compared to a fixed price is about zero to anybody who posts here.

And yet Labor's internal document states that Julia Gillard "has a credibility problem with the electorate"

Care to tell us why then if she was keeping her word according to you?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 16^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

And yet Labor's internal document states that Julia Gillard "has a credibility problem with the electorate"

Peoples perceptions are not always driven by fact.

In fact a big media push can have a dramatic impact in this area.

We will see what happens when it all turns out be be a fizzer and the publics perception has no option but to work out just who has been lying.