1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot?


2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions?

1 - it won't

2 - at the very least it will set an example for other countries to follow .. as an asthmatic it hopefully will reduce the crap in our air

It will raise much needed money for the government.

It will help to clear the air a bit.

Is suggest anyone worried about the cost of a hamburger with the lot should avoid the lot and just get lettuce and tomato.  You'll be doing yourself more good than not and save those pennies for something more worthwhile.

As for your latter question, it is so redundant.  For one, what is the scope of the carbon tax?  Secondly are you suggesting Noone should do anything unless everyone does everything?  If we had it your way we would still be working out how to build a wheel. 

Why wont my hamburger increase, the fish and chip shop says their electricity will go up, the bakery that makes the bread rolls electricity will increase as will the mill that makes the flour for the bakery, what about the farmers that produce the lettuce tomatoes cheese onions and sauce for example all of their operating costs will increase, so surely the hamburger shop is going to have to pay more for its ingrediants?

Won't that equate into a higher priced hamburger??

or is the hamburger shop not going to pass on the increased costs?

My local take away store said pirces may go up 20-40 cents an item?

Even if it does work out to what they say and its only 1c in the dollar - thats a lot. 1c in every dollar of everything going up.

SOB

Your local TA will be making a handsome profit then.
Probably from 30k net profit to $30005.

The owner of the F&C shop said what everyone is overlooking is the supply chain price increases, he used the humble bread roll as an example.

The wheat farmer will pay more for fertizer/pesticides as the chemical companies will have  ahigher cost, the tractors and freight will have  ahigher cost as the petrol refineries will have a higher electricity cost. The mill will have a higher cost, the transport company will have a higher cost, the bakery will have a higher cost. So it only seems logical that the end user that is the public will pay more for a bread roll??

That is how it works doesn't it? Now do that with every item on  ahamburger or pizza and tell me prices still wont rise??????????????

Yeah they were saying in question time that if a clothes shop puts up their prices to be suspicious. I immediately thought - but they pay for all the manufacturing of those clothes in the end.

SOB

it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 ....

Petrol directly is exempt yes, but what about the massive amounts of electricity they use from CT liable power companies who will pass on the increased electricity prices to the oil refinery, wont the oil refinery now have an increase in operating costs? thus inturn increasing the cost of petrol to the service station, who inturn will have a higher operating costs to operate the service station as their electricity costs will increase to run the business and as they sell petrol wont that have to go up a few cents a litre to cover THEIR increased operating costs?

Or don't these businesses use electricty???

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Petrol directly is exempt yes, but what about the massive amounts of electricity they use from CT liable power companies who will pass on the increased electricity prices to the oil refinery, wont the oil refinery now have an increase in operating costs? thus inturn increasing the cost of petrol to the service station, who inturn will have a higher operating costs to operate the service station as their electricity costs will increase to run the business and as they sell petrol wont that have to go up a few cents a litre to cover THEIR increased operating costs? Or don't these businesses use electricty???

Oh gawd another moronic poster

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? 2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions?

Answer 1. A hamburger with the lot will increase by no more than .7%. If you have sauce it will go up by :23 and a half cents.

Answer 2. On July 2nd world temperatures will reduce by 8.4357 degrees.

Here's one for you: Why wasn't petrol included in the carbon tax net given it is a big polluter?

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 6:46pm:

The owner of the F&C shop said what everyone is overlooking is the supply chain price increases, he used the humble bread roll as an example. The wheat farmer will pay more for fertizer/pesticides as the chemical companies will have  ahigher cost, the tractors and freight will have  ahigher cost as the petrol refineries will have a higher electricity cost. The mill will have a higher cost, the transport company will have a higher cost, the bakery will have a higher cost. So it only seems logical that the end user that is the public will pay more for a bread roll?? That is how it works doesn't it? Now do that with every item on  ahamburger or pizza and tell me prices still wont rise??????????????

Exactly - it's a snowball effect. Look at dairy farmers. They expect their electricity bill to rise by as much as 30% and they already pay tens of thousands of dollars a year. So they'll have to increase the price of milk to remain in business - or else go broke. That means it will cost milk distributors such as Dairy Farmers more to buy the milk and in turn, they will pass on the cost to supermarkets that buy the cartons of milk. Supermarkets will put up the price of milk because it costs them more to buy it and also because their own electricity prices have gone through the roof. Pretty simple, really. Gillard is either a liar in her assertions that the carbon tax will not be felt by anyone but big polluters or she has no freaking idea what the carbon tax will do to the economy.

petrol was exepmpted as it would have been political suicide, unlike the carbon tax which is um political suicide.

Today I saw some figure.

Come 2020 our goal is to cut CO2 by 20 million tonnes,

China will increase CO2 6 fold to 120 BILLION tonnes, our 20 miilion tonne savings represents 0.0045% of Chinas emissions, so what we save over an entire year, China will emitt 39 hours.

So tell me agian how will this benefit the worlds climate?


And what this 10% of CT revenue is sent to the UN, whats that about?

Wht about when it becomes an emissions trading scheme whereby a company has to buy carbon credits from an approved carbon bank, say a massive forest is Sth America.

Our companies send this forest millions of dollars of which they have done nothing to earn and have to do nothing to keep getting the money.

Now how will the government compensate ppl if the supposed revenue raised from the carbon permitts is sent overseas.

The government will be footting the compensation costs to householdes, but the money spent on permits is being sent obverseas.

How will the government balance the books if its paying billions in compensation, but isn't getting any money as it going overseas???

Please explain.

How much will everything come down if abbott gets into government and rips out the compensation, forces more people to pay tax and reduce the minimun wage rate ... yet not remove the carbon levy

where was tony abbott mentioned in this thread, this is about my CT questions, not your diversions and red herrings.

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:45pm:

where was tony abbott mentioned in this thread, this is about my CT questions, not your diversions and red herrings.

Once you post a thread, you lose control.

Abbott wants to remove the compensation, increase taxes and lower the minimin wage ... this will effect the hamburger shop since less people will be able to afford one.

Forcing a recession, while still having a carbon levy.

No wonder Costello thinks Abbott is an economic illiterate.

Guildford wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:06pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm: Petrol directly is exempt yes, but what about the massive amounts of electricity they use from CT liable power companies who will pass on the increased electricity prices to the oil refinery, wont the oil refinery now have an increase in operating costs? thus inturn increasing the cost of petrol to the service station, who inturn will have a higher operating costs to operate the service station as their electricity costs will increase to run the business and as they sell petrol wont that have to go up a few cents a litre to cover THEIR increased operating costs? Or don't these businesses use electricty??? Oh gawd another moronic poster

No, just the same moronic poster with a new pair of socks. By the fact that it declares itself female, I'd hazard a guess that it is one that wants to get into the Secret Womens Business forum but has been locked out.

hmmmm....

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot?

Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ...

Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye...

You really are a moronic poster.

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:45pm:

where was tony abbott mentioned in this thread, this is about my CT questions, not your diversions and red herrings.

By your own reckoning red herrings will go up


(I do recognise the moronic style)

woof woof wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 6:20pm:

1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? All costs from the farm gate to the plate will increase - petrol, electricity 2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions? CO2 makes up about 0.0314% of the atmosphere Everything that emits CO2 on earth is included in this figure - including humans There are current NO evidence of how much this 0.0314% represents in terms of tonnage and there are no evidence how much humans contribute to total carbon emission Lets assume humans contribute 1% of the 0.0314% Then Australia contributes 1.2% of the 1% Do the sums: 1.2% of 1% of 0.0314% = F#(K ALL!!!

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm

Gist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 8:19pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster.

Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:48pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself!

25% increase due to the carbon levy !

talk about exaggeration.

There again, that's all the neo cons have since time is running out for you lot.

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:52pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! 25% increase due to the carbon levy ! talk about exaggeration. There again, that's all the neo cons have since time is running out for you lot.

I am yet to see a coherent explanation by anyone in support of the carbon tax outlining what effect this tax will have on the environment, either nationally or globally. All I have seen thus far is ridicule of anyone who dares oppose this toxic (and what is sure to be short-lived) tax.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:55pm:

____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:52pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! 25% increase due to the carbon levy ! talk about exaggeration. There again, that's all the neo cons have since time is running out for you lot. I am yet to see a coherent explanation by anyone in support of the carbon tax outlining what effect this tax will have on the environment, either nationally or globally. All I have seen thus far is ridicule of anyone who dares oppose this toxic (and what is sure to be short-lived) tax.

Why are you diverting from your 25% increase claim, unless you knew it was a lie when typing.

____ wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 10:06pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:55pm: ____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:52pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! 25% increase due to the carbon levy ! talk about exaggeration. There again, that's all the neo cons have since time is running out for you lot. I am yet to see a coherent explanation by anyone in support of the carbon tax outlining what effect this tax will have on the environment, either nationally or globally. All I have seen thus far is ridicule of anyone who dares oppose this toxic (and what is sure to be short-lived) tax. Why are you diverting from your 25% increase claim, unless you knew it was a lie when typing.

Why hasn't anyone in the ALP, anyone in the Greens, any of the climate change "experts" or even that moron Tim "we'll never see snow again" Flannery told us by how much the carbon tax will change global (or even national) temperatures and when this supposed change will begin to occur???

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 10:18pm:

____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 10:06pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:55pm: ____ wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:52pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! 25% increase due to the carbon levy ! talk about exaggeration. There again, that's all the neo cons have since time is running out for you lot. I am yet to see a coherent explanation by anyone in support of the carbon tax outlining what effect this tax will have on the environment, either nationally or globally. All I have seen thus far is ridicule of anyone who dares oppose this toxic (and what is sure to be short-lived) tax. Why are you diverting from your 25% increase claim, unless you knew it was a lie when typing. Why hasn't anyone in the ALP, anyone in the Greens, any of the climate change "experts" or even that moron Tim "we'll never see snow again" Flannery told us by how much the carbon tax will change global (or even national) temperatures and when this supposed change will begin to occur???

So your 25% price rise was a lie?

Guildford wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:06pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm: Petrol directly is exempt yes, but what about the massive amounts of electricity they use from CT liable power companies who will pass on the increased electricity prices to the oil refinery, wont the oil refinery now have an increase in operating costs? thus inturn increasing the cost of petrol to the service station, who inturn will have a higher operating costs to operate the service station as their electricity costs will increase to run the business and as they sell petrol wont that have to go up a few cents a litre to cover THEIR increased operating costs? Or don't these businesses use electricty??? Oh gawd another moronic poster

What a brilliant argument

SOB

Dont you ppl remember the GST? When it came in every greedy bastard and his dog took advantage of the excuse and put their prices up by more than they had to. Its what ppl do. And this one is worse because its not on your docket so you cant call them to account for it.

SOB

John Smith wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 6:56pm:

it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 ....

Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300.
The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.
Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:48pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself!

Really? $20-30K electricity bill? And how much money are they making from this dairy farm? What's the turnover? $20-30K? I don't think so. $100K? Millions? Are you suggesting that a major cost component of your milk for your morning wheaties is the electricity to run the milking machines? The labour costs, fuel costs to deliver it, lease or interest on the farm costs, profits, yadda, yadda, all these other costs are as nothing compared to the electricity to run the MILKING MACHINE???

Ladies and gents we have another moronic poster!

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 8:50am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas. Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax.

But for some reason petrol excise and GST don't send jobs overseas? Care to explain why?

Gist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:00am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! Really? $20-30K electricity bill? And how much money are they making from this dairy farm? What's the turnover? $20-30K? I don't think so. $100K? Millions? Are you suggesting that a major cost component of your milk for your morning wheaties is the electricity to run the milking machines? The labour costs, fuel costs to deliver it, lease or interest on the farm costs, profits, yadda, yadda, all these other costs are as nothing compared to the electricity to run the MILKING MACHINE??? Ladies and gents we have another moronic poster!

You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:04am:

You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself?

So if you know, how about you educate us? If you KNOW how much it costs, tell us. It's a fairly simple question -

In percentage terms, what component of the price of milk does the electricity cost make up?

80%? 30%? 1%? Next to bugger all?

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 8:50am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax.

the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:04am:

Gist wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:00am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:48pm: Gist wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 8:19pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? Hey moronic poster bitch ... out of your $5 for a hamburger, how much of that do you reckon goes to pay for electricity? Given that it costs mebbee 10c per kilowatt hour ... and it takes them 10 minutes to cook it ... and their cooker is probably 1200 watts ... that's 1/6 of 12c ... Wow! 2 whole CENTS! They can DOUBLE the cost of electricity and it still isn't going to make you blink an eye... You really are a moronic poster. Consider someone like a dairy farmer, whose annual electricity bill is easily $20,000-$30,000 and will increase by as much as $5,000 once the carbon tax comes into effect. Can you see milk prices rising by only a couple of cents given this? I wouldn't go around calling people morons when you're not exactly a bright spark yourself! Really? $20-30K electricity bill? And how much money are they making from this dairy farm? What's the turnover? $20-30K? I don't think so. $100K? Millions? Are you suggesting that a major cost component of your milk for your morning wheaties is the electricity to run the milking machines? The labour costs, fuel costs to deliver it, lease or interest on the farm costs, profits, yadda, yadda, all these other costs are as nothing compared to the electricity to run the MILKING MACHINE??? Ladies and gents we have another moronic poster! You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself?

maybe the dairy industry can look at ways of converting all that mehtane from the cows to clean energy  instead of whining .. lower their costs and reduce pollution .... isn't that the whole point of the tax?

Gist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:03am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas. Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. But for some reason petrol excise and GST don't send jobs overseas? Care to explain why?

Petrol excise has similar imposts in the vast majority of countries. So imports have this as a factor in their cost.
The GST applies at the point of purchase by the consumer and this applies equally whether the goods were made here or overseas when bought here. So there is no differentiation with the major exception of online sales and this is impacting significantly and increasingly in offshoring jobs.
The carbon tax impacts only on domestic production and it is apparently of no significance that imported products do not have this cost or the same standards of production, working conditions and environmental protections.
Rudd said something along the lines of he did not want to see an Australia that did not make things anymore. It seems evident that not only does Gillard not share this view but she is intent on this as an outcome.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:09pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? All costs from the farm gate to the plate will increase - petrol, electricity 2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions? CO2 makes up about 0.0314% of the atmosphere Everything that emits CO2 on earth is included in this figure - including humans There are current NO evidence of how much this 0.0314% represents in terms of tonnage and there are no evidence how much humans contribute to total carbon emission Lets assume humans contribute 1% of the 0.0314% Then Australia contributes 1.2% of the 1% Do the sums: 1.2% of 1% of 0.0314% = F#(K ALL!!! http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm

Where are the carbon Zealots to take on my post!!!!!!

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:34am:

Gist wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:03am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas. Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. But for some reason petrol excise and GST don't send jobs overseas? Care to explain why? Petrol excise has similar imposts in the vast majority of countries. So imports have this as a factor in their cost. The GST applies at the point of purchase by the consumer and this applies equally whether the goods were made here or overseas when bought here. So there is no differentiation with the major exception of online sales and this is impacting significantly and increasingly in offshoring jobs. The carbon tax impacts only on domestic production and it is apparently of no significance that imported products do not have this cost or the same standards of production, working conditions and environmental protections. Rudd said something along the lines of he did not want to see an Australia that did not make things anymore. It seems evident that not only does Gillard not share this view but she is intent on this as an outcome.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion .... PETROL IS EXEMPT

Gist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:13am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:04am: You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself? So if you know, how about you educate us? If you KNOW how much it costs, tell us. It's a fairly simple question - In percentage terms, what component of the price of milk does the electricity cost make up? 80%? 30%? 1%? Next to bugger all?

I have no idea, but it is common sense (yes, I know - not a phrase you're familiar with) that if electricity prices rise for dairy farmers, they will seek to recover that cost through selling milk at a higher price. Obviously only they would know by how much it would effect milk prices.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:44am:

Gist wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:04am: You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself? So if you know, how about you educate us? If you KNOW how much it costs, tell us. It's a fairly simple question - In percentage terms, what component of the price of milk does the electricity cost make up? 80%? 30%? 1%? Next to bugger all? I have no idea, but it is common sense (yes, I know - not a phrase you're familiar with) that if electricity prices rise for dairy farmers, they will seek to recover that cost through selling milk at a higher price. Obviously only they would know by how much it would effect milk prices.

that will never happen ... with COles and Woolies dictating prices to dairy farmers, the farmers will just have to wear the extra cost

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:29am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ...

Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports.
Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market.
The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere.

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:41am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:34am: Gist wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:03am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas. Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. But for some reason petrol excise and GST don't send jobs overseas? Care to explain why? Petrol excise has similar imposts in the vast majority of countries. So imports have this as a factor in their cost. The GST applies at the point of purchase by the consumer and this applies equally whether the goods were made here or overseas when bought here. So there is no differentiation with the major exception of online sales and this is impacting significantly and increasingly in offshoring jobs. The carbon tax impacts only on domestic production and it is apparently of no significance that imported products do not have this cost or the same standards of production, working conditions and environmental protections. Rudd said something along the lines of he did not want to see an Australia that did not make things anymore. It seems evident that not only does Gillard not share this view but she is intent on this as an outcome. Not sure how you came to that conclusion .... PETROL IS EXEMPT

Not from excise or GST it isn't, which was the aspect I was addressing from Gist's question. It is exempt from the carbon tax though which makes the whole outcome based reasoning shambolic.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:58am:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere.

Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:44am:

Gist wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:13am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:04am: You have never been to a dairy farm, have you? I have about 100 of them within ten minutes of my house. You have no idea how much the electricity costs to run the milking machines, or the lights that must be on when they start at 4-5am every morning, do you? How about doing some research before making a complete dumba$$ of yourself? So if you know, how about you educate us? If you KNOW how much it costs, tell us. It's a fairly simple question - In percentage terms, what component of the price of milk does the electricity cost make up? 80%? 30%? 1%? Next to bugger all? I have no idea, but it is common sense (yes, I know - not a phrase you're familiar with) that if electricity prices rise for dairy farmers, they will seek to recover that cost through selling milk at a higher price. Obviously only they would know by how much it would effect milk prices.

...and so going back to the hamburger example, if it amounts to an increase of 2c in $5 (that's a 0.4% increase by the way) then you ain't going to notice it are you?

It'd be nice if you got some actual information and perspective for once before you started on your constant Chicken Little routine.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:40am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 9:09pm: woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? All costs from the farm gate to the plate will increase - petrol, electricity 2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions? CO2 makes up about 0.0314% of the atmosphere Everything that emits CO2 on earth is included in this figure - including humans There are current NO evidence of how much this 0.0314% represents in terms of tonnage and there are no evidence how much humans contribute to total carbon emission Lets assume humans contribute 1% of the 0.0314% Then Australia contributes 1.2% of the 1% Do the sums: 1.2% of 1% of 0.0314% = F#(K ALL!!! http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm Where are the carbon Zealots to take on my post!!!!!!

Is 0.0314% F##K ALL?? I'm using your numbers by the way... I've not bothered to check if they are correct or not.

Anyway, as I was saying...

Is it nothing? Would you be happy if 0.0314% of the atmosphere was arsenic? Cyanide?

The point being (for the dummies) that you can pick a number and say it's tiny so it doesn't matter. But that ain't necessarily so because even tiny quantities can be deadly. So you have to know the point at which the concentration becomes an issue.

Do you know that concentration for CO2 macca? I'm guessing not.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 9:09pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:20pm: 1. How much will the carbon tax increase the cost of a hamburger with the lot? All costs from the farm gate to the plate will increase - petrol, electricity 2. How will the world benefit in real terms from Australias proposed CO2 reductions? CO2 makes up about 0.0314% of the atmosphere Everything that emits CO2 on earth is included in this figure - including humans There are current NO evidence of how much this 0.0314% represents in terms of tonnage and there are no evidence how much humans contribute to total carbon emission Lets assume humans contribute 1% of the 0.0314% Then Australia contributes 1.2% of the 1% Do the sums: 1.2% of 1% of 0.0314% = F#(K ALL!!! http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/aircomposition.htm

Dont make assumptions.  Humans dont contribute, they add previously stored co2 to the cycle. It aint being absorbed, so its a cummulative impact. 1% per year over 100 years = a  lot. Over 1000 years, a whole lot.

Anyway, we all know from basic physics that the small amount of c02 in the air has a massive  influence on our climate (and making the world habitable).  So obviously only a small variation of it will have a big impact on our climate.  So in effect, the smaller the % of the earth atmosphere that is co2 the more influence our releasing stored co2 is.  (This is bad for deniers like yourself, in case you dont get what Im saying).

Its all basic physics. Deniers shouldnt try to use science to discredit global warming, because they will lose every time. Deniers should stick to saying "its just wrong" and stuff like that.

Milk is a highly processed product. After it is milked….

It needs to be kept cold at all times = power consumption.

Filtered = Pumps to pump it = power.

Homogenisation = power

Pasteurisation = power and gas

Fill/label/lid = power

Make the bottle/label/lid = power

Factory lighting etc = power

Cold storage = power

Storage at the shop/supermarket = power

I don’t think anyone has any idea just how much this carbon tax will effect every day items.

FriYAY wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Milk is a highly processed product. After it is milked…. It needs to be kept cold at all times = power consumption. Filtered = Pumps to pump it = power. Homogenisation = power Pasteurisation = power and gas Fill/label/lid = power Make the bottle/label/lid = power Factory lighting etc = power Cold storage = power Storage at the shop/supermarket = power I don’t think anyone has any idea just how much this carbon tax will effect every day items.

And what % of the price at the checkout is paying for all that? Certainly it is some percentage, you're right. Do you know how large though? I don't. I'd bet you don't either.

BUT

Given that there have already been LARGE price hikes in electricity over recent years AND the price of milk hasn't changed significantly over that time, I'm willing to bet that the proportional cost of electricity in milk is tiny.

Gist wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 11:55am:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Milk is a highly processed product. After it is milked…. It needs to be kept cold at all times = power consumption. Filtered = Pumps to pump it = power. Homogenisation = power Pasteurisation = power and gas Fill/label/lid = power Make the bottle/label/lid = power Factory lighting etc = power Cold storage = power Storage at the shop/supermarket = power I don’t think anyone has any idea just how much this carbon tax will effect every day items. And what % of the price at the checkout is paying for all that? Certainly it is some percentage, you're right. Do you know how large though? I don't. I'd bet you don't either. BUT Given that there have already been LARGE price hikes in electricity over recent years AND the price of milk hasn't changed significantly over that time, I'm willing to bet that the proportional cost of electricity in milk is tiny.

The milk price has actually come down due to the supermakets dominance and price wars. This has had devastating effect on the farm price of milk.

All is was doing is highlighting the indirect costs.

The % of cost of power would be low – compared to say wages.

But at a time when manufacturing in OZ is on a knife edge, every little bit extra will be felt.

Our power bill is app’ $200,000 pa. (wine bottling)

Pervious to this I was at Oz’s 4th biggest crush winery with a yearly power bill of over $1,000,000.

All we can do is hope the treasury models are accurate – I’m a bit too skeptical for that. :-/

Welcome to the board, Woof Woof. It's marvellous to see a lady like youself contribute to our political discussion here. You have a unique take on politics and I hope we hear more from you.

On another note, you haven't been to any Greens meetings, have you?

Ryde? Hornsby?

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 10:14am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell?

I'm type real slow.
Electricity is a very good example.
Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax.
This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price.
Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it.
But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any.
Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on?
Because if it is your wrong.

FriYAY wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 11:47am:

Milk is a highly processed product. After it is milked…. It needs to be kept cold at all times = power consumption. Filtered = Pumps to pump it = power. Homogenisation = power Pasteurisation = power and gas Fill/label/lid = power Make the bottle/label/lid = power Factory lighting etc = power Cold storage = power Storage at the shop/supermarket = power I don’t think anyone has any idea just how much this carbon tax will effect every day items.

Stop being such a drama queen.

Weve seen electricity prices rise by 60% in NSW before the carbon tax, yet the price of hamburgers has remained steady.

You can only conclude from that that the price of hamburgers has little correlation with electricity prices, and therefore a much lower increase in electricity prices due to the Co2 tax, will have no impact.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:20pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:46pm: The owner of the F&C shop said what everyone is overlooking is the supply chain price increases, he used the humble bread roll as an example. The wheat farmer will pay more for fertizer/pesticides as the chemical companies will have  ahigher cost, the tractors and freight will have  ahigher cost as the petrol refineries will have a higher electricity cost. The mill will have a higher cost, the transport company will have a higher cost, the bakery will have a higher cost. So it only seems logical that the end user that is the public will pay more for a bread roll?? That is how it works doesn't it? Now do that with every item on  ahamburger or pizza and tell me prices still wont rise?????????????? Exactly - it's a snowball effect. Look at dairy farmers. They expect their electricity bill to rise by as much as 30%

It may well DO - but despite the planned "carpet bombing" propaganda campaign by Tony Abbott, carbon pricing is NOT the culprit



buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 2:32pm:

Big Donger wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:00pm: Well well well. It wouldn't have anything to do with the infrastructure upgrade, would it? The reason electricity prices have risen by about 60% in the last year alone? Australian Energy Market Commission last year estimated nationally there would be a 37 per cent increase in household electricity prices over three years to 2013-14. It found more than a third of the rise would be due to network costs - upgrading poles and wires. A fifth would be due to the carbon price, and a tenth to other green schemes including solar. But Mr Brazzale said green energy schemes would also help lower the wholesale price of electricity from generators by reducing the demand for power from the grid. ''In the next few years the savings on wholesale prices are expected to be greater than the cost of the small-scale green schemes,'' he said. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/solar-panels-linked-to-lower-power-usage-20120619-20m42.html#ixzz1yOmpDugk

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 12:46pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 11:47am: Milk is a highly processed product. After it is milked…. It needs to be kept cold at all times = power consumption. Filtered = Pumps to pump it = power. Homogenisation = power Pasteurisation = power and gas Fill/label/lid = power Make the bottle/label/lid = power Factory lighting etc = power Cold storage = power Storage at the shop/supermarket = power I don’t think anyone has any idea just how much this carbon tax will effect every day items. Stop being such a drama queen. Weve seen electricity prices rise by 60% in NSW before the carbon tax, yet the price of hamburgers has remained steady. You can only conclude from that that the price of hamburgers has little correlation with electricity prices, and therefore a much lower increase in electricity prices due to the Co2 tax, will have no impact.

What drama is that? Keep your panties on.

Thought I’d just put it up there as people were talking about.

I made no assumptions or statements, other than being unsure and hoping treasury modeling is correct.

Now settle down before you do a gasket.

::)

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 12:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong.

so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 3:05pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong. so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do

No it will be an incentive to shift by those who can because of the greater cost of doing business and producing products including the cost of electricity and the other costs of the carbon tax to be absorbed by the economy.

Your already on Pluto having a quiet little tug.

Are you mentally challenged, I wrote Australian electricity is going up but I would be delighted if contrary to what has been announced (not by me)  electricity prices do not rise come the 1st of July. So you are disputing a price rise...is that it?...what a relief to everybody.

Yes all end users here, a proportion of which (manufacturing) are useful to the economy and make products and provide employment these business have to compete with products that as you already helpfully point out are already cheaper.

So if we both are unsure of the impacts of the carbon tax I take it you will send any money meant to compensate you back because there is nothing to compensate.

Your a dimwitted steaming pile aren't ya?.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 5:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 3:05pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong. so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do No it will be an incentive to shift by those who can because of the greater cost of doing business and producing products including the cost of electricity and the other costs of the carbon tax to be absorbed by the economy.those that are going to shift will do so anyway ... considering we;ve lost 80%of manufacturing already to overseas scab labour, its highly unlikely the carbon tax is the reason companies move ... think about it ...save $5000 in electricity  ... save $5 000 000 in wages ... i wonder what the real reason is Your already on Pluto having a quiet little tug.you'd  love to watch wouldn't you? Are you mentally challenged, I wrote Australian electricity is going up based on what? but I would be delighted if contrary to what has been announced (not by me)  electricity prices do not rise come the 1st of July. So you are disputing a price rise...is that it?...what a relief to everybody. I think any rise in the cost of electricity will be so negligiable that it won't affect anyboy ... except for maybe some of the smelter operators Yes all end users here, a proportion of which (manufacturing) are useful to the economy and make products and provide employment these business have to compete with products that as you already helpfully point out are already cheaper.so your worried about something thats already on the way dieing? a bit late, why didn't you complain BEFORE howard signed the free trade agreements So if we both are unsure of the impacts of the carbon tax I take it you will send any money meant to compensate you back because there is nothing to compensate. I'm going to use it to buy another laptop to annoy you stupid liberal monkies with ... Your a dimwitted steaming pile aren't ya?. and yet compared to you I'm a shining light ....

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 7:05pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 3:05pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong. so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do No it will be an incentive to shift by those who can because of the greater cost of doing business and producing products including the cost of electricity and the other costs of the carbon tax to be absorbed by the economy.those that are going to shift will do so anyway ... considering we;ve lost 80%of manufacturing already to overseas scab labour, its highly unlikely the carbon tax is the reason companies move ... think about it ...save $5000 in electricity  ... save $5 000 000 in wages ... i wonder what the real reason is Your already on Pluto having a quiet little tug.you'd  love to watch wouldn't you? Are you mentally challenged, I wrote Australian electricity is going up based on what? but I would be delighted if contrary to what has been announced (not by me)  electricity prices do not rise come the 1st of July. So you are disputing a price rise...is that it?...what a relief to everybody. I think any rise in the cost of electricity will be so negligiable that it won't affect anyboy ... except for maybe some of the smelter operators Yes all end users here, a proportion of which (manufacturing) are useful to the economy and make products and provide employment these business have to compete with products that as you already helpfully point out are already cheaper.so your worried about something thats already on the way dieing? a bit late, why didn't you complain BEFORE howard signed the free trade agreements So if we both are unsure of the impacts of the carbon tax I take it you will send any money meant to compensate you back because there is nothing to compensate. I'm going to use it to buy another laptop to annoy you stupid liberal monkies with ... Your a dimwitted steaming pile aren't ya?. and yet compared to you I'm a shining light ....

Julia giving you a laptop for putting her hand up your shorts.

Lab stooge...

BTW Howard was a kunt so you two have a lot in common.

John Smith wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 7:05pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 3:05pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong. so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do No it will be an incentive to shift by those who can because of the greater cost of doing business and producing products including the cost of electricity and the other costs of the carbon tax to be absorbed by the economy.those that are going to shift will do so anyway ... considering we;ve lost 80%of manufacturing already to overseas scab labour, its highly unlikely the carbon tax is the reason companies move ... think about it ...save $5000 in electricity  ... save $5 000 000 in wages ... i wonder what the real reason is Your already on Pluto having a quiet little tug.you'd  love to watch wouldn't you? Are you mentally challenged, I wrote Australian electricity is going up based on what? but I would be delighted if contrary to what has been announced (not by me)  electricity prices do not rise come the 1st of July. So you are disputing a price rise...is that it?...what a relief to everybody. I think any rise in the cost of electricity will be so negligiable that it won't affect anyboy ... except for maybe some of the smelter operators Yes all end users here, a proportion of which (manufacturing) are useful to the economy and make products and provide employment these business have to compete with products that as you already helpfully point out are already cheaper.so your worried about something thats already on the way dieing? a bit late, why didn't you complain BEFORE howard signed the free trade agreements So if we both are unsure of the impacts of the carbon tax I take it you will send any money meant to compensate you back because there is nothing to compensate. I'm going to use it to buy another laptop to annoy you stupid liberal monkies with ... Your a dimwitted steaming pile aren't ya?. and yet compared to you I'm a shining light ....

Come on climb down of your mother and lets play.

OK back on track kids.

So by your reckoning businesses wont pass on any extra charges, that seems to be the drift of your responses.

If thats the case, then why the compensation?

Where can I find out how much my weekly city rail pass will rise, a trip to a night footy match or one day cricket match under lights, what about a trip a theme park etc?

woof woof wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 8:45pm:

OK back on track kids. So by your reckoning businesses wont pass on any extra charges, that seems to be the drift of your responses. If thats the case, then why the compensation? Where can I find out how much my weekly city rail pass will rise, a trip to a night footy match or one day cricket match under lights, what about a trip a theme park etc?

Well government at all levels certainly will and businesses will probably try to.
Yes why the compensation indeed.
How much...well John Smith is probably right in that you probably won't know exactly until it fully works through the system...but otherwise he's off with the fairies if he thinks the cost will be zero. It will depend on how much the inputs are impacted by the carbon tax. Things you would not think of like cement require a lot of power because it needs to be heated to 3,500 degrees F. So building costs will go up if the cost is passed on. Street lighting uses a lot of power and there has been some talk by some councils in turning off street lighting because of the added cost. Some like Smith will tell you that it has no impact outside the 300 companies themselves but for me the true effect is as a broad based consumption tax. Time will tell but I'm betting you'll be digging deeper into your pocket.

Guildford wrote on Jun 21^st, 2012 at 7:06pm:

woof woof wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 7:01pm: Petrol directly is exempt yes, but what about the massive amounts of electricity they use from CT liable power companies who will pass on the increased electricity prices to the oil refinery, wont the oil refinery now have an increase in operating costs? thus inturn increasing the cost of petrol to the service station, who inturn will have a higher operating costs to operate the service station as their electricity costs will increase to run the business and as they sell petrol wont that have to go up a few cents a litre to cover THEIR increased operating costs? Or don't these businesses use electricty??? Oh gawd another moronic poster

Don't you mean another moronic sock ? There can not be this many stupid people in the world, let alone Australia.

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2012 at 12:56am:

woof woof wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:45pm: OK back on track kids. So by your reckoning businesses wont pass on any extra charges, that seems to be the drift of your responses. If thats the case, then why the compensation? Where can I find out how much my weekly city rail pass will rise, a trip to a night footy match or one day cricket match under lights, what about a trip a theme park etc? Well government at all levels certainly will and businesses will probably try to. Yes why the compensation indeed. How much...well John Smith is probably right in that you probably won't know exactly until it fully works through the system...but otherwise he's off with the fairies if he thinks the cost will be zero. It will depend on how much the inputs are impacted by the carbon tax. Things you would not think of like cement require a lot of power because it needs to be heated to 3,500 degrees F. So building costs will go up if the cost is passed on. Street lighting uses a lot of power and there has been some talk by some councils in turning off street lighting because of the added cost. Some like Smith will tell you that it has no impact outside the 300 companies themselves but for me the true effect is as a broad based consumption tax. Time will tell but I'm betting you'll be digging deeper into your pocket.

I never said it would be zero you stooge ... it will be negligiable .... it won't be anywhere near the effect the GST had ...

tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 7:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 7:05pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 5:42pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 3:05pm: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 12:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 10:14am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:58am: John Smith wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 9:29am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jun 22nd, 2012 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Jun 21st, 2012 at 6:56pm: it's only the top (approx) 300 polluters that pay the tax ... your local baker most likely wont be using them, or if he is he'll look for a cheaper alternative (whatyaknow, the tax works), petrol is exempt .... the guy that butters the bread certainly doesn't fall into the top 300 .... Unless those 300 are prevented from passing on the cost then the cost is not confined to those 300. The cheaper alternative will end up being an import that does not have this cost as a component of it's price. So thank you for advocating the relocation of Australian jobs overseas.Petrol already has excise/tax on it and there is GST on this as well so you have a tax on a tax. the whole point of the tax is to force companies to change their methods .... if the top 300 start loosing market share to smaller companies because of the carbon tax, they are more likely to invest the millions required in updating or researching their production methods .... if we don't do anything, there is NIL incentive for them to do so ... if the larger company decreses it's workforce because of a downturn in market share, the smaller company will more than likely increase its workforce because of the extra demand for its services ... Power generators fall into that list of top 300. Which is rather ironic since until recently were all  government owned. These government owners are not only are responsible for the considerable rundown of infrastucture but of loading these companies with debt by demanding dividends not connected to any profits but to funding budget wishlists in a manner that would have done any pirate proud. These generators are all in the same boat so there is little alternative other than to pay the increase. A major flaw in your argument is confining the impact to only those 300 companies. Other companies will be unable to avoid these increased costs that accumulate across the production chain. This is not the case with imports. Another flaw is that you assume that the only alternative for companies is to change their methods. This ignores an already growing readiness to move production offshore where labour and compliance costs are also much less and where there is no penalty to put those products back into our market. The whole point of this is to address a global problem it makes no difference if those same activities are carried out elsewhere. Considering most of your argument has been about electricity generation and the flow on effect, I have to say it will be a good trick if they can move electricity generation overseas ...I'd like to see that ... how will they import it? Duracell? I'm type real slow. Electricity is a very good example. Goods and services use electricity from electricity generators that have to pay the carbon tax. This cost to business is passed on to consumers including businesses that make stuff for consumers or other businesses and so on. These are the subsequent tiers of businesses that can relocate and will have to compete with imported products that do not pay higher production cost attributable to the carbon tax being paid by others supplying them with power and products that have power as a component of the price. Of course the generators can't relocate and so is unavailable without the passed on carbon tax component to everybody else who uses it. But your right, imported batteries will not have this cost so will be cheaper than those produced here...if there are any. Unless your argument is that those who pay the carbon tax cannot legally pass it on? Because if it is your wrong. so you think everyone will move overseas because they don't want to pay for Australian electricity ... thats about as likely to hapen as me moving to Pluto ...if all electricity is going up (your claim), that puts all end users in the same position and doesn't disadvantage anyone... and guess what, imported batteries have been cheaper than Australian made batteries for a long time now... the facts are that you have no idea on the end result of the carbon tax... stop pretending you do No it will be an incentive to shift by those who can because of the greater cost of doing business and producing products including the cost of electricity and the other costs of the carbon tax to be absorbed by the economy.those that are going to shift will do so anyway ... considering we;ve lost 80%of manufacturing already to overseas scab labour, its highly unlikely the carbon tax is the reason companies move ... think about it ...save $5000 in electricity  ... save $5 000 000 in wages ... i wonder what the real reason is Your already on Pluto having a quiet little tug.you'd  love to watch wouldn't you? Are you mentally challenged, I wrote Australian electricity is going up based on what? but I would be delighted if contrary to what has been announced (not by me)  electricity prices do not rise come the 1st of July. So you are disputing a price rise...is that it?...what a relief to everybody. I think any rise in the cost of electricity will be so negligiable that it won't affect anyboy ... except for maybe some of the smelter operators Yes all end users here, a proportion of which (manufacturing) are useful to the economy and make products and provide employment these business have to compete with products that as you already helpfully point out are already cheaper.so your worried about something thats already on the way dieing? a bit late, why didn't you complain BEFORE howard signed the free trade agreements So if we both are unsure of the impacts of the carbon tax I take it you will send any money meant to compensate you back because there is nothing to compensate. I'm going to use it to buy another laptop to annoy you stupid liberal monkies with ... Your a dimwitted steaming pile aren't ya?. and yet compared to you I'm a shining light .... Come on climb down of your mother and lets play.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, it was your mother I was on ......