Just put this up on the site home page:

http://www.ozpolitic.com

First up, a big thank you to everyone who wrote to their local MP back in December 2010 when I put the word out (see below). At the time, the Labor party had signalled upcoming changes to their climate change strategy with a ‘review’.

Now that we have a temporary carbon tax written into law, it is time to send another email or letter to make it permanent. This needs to be done well before the next federal election, while the parties are still mulling over their strategy and before MPs go into ‘parrot mode’. Please make the following requests:
[list bull-blackball]

that the carbon tax be made permanent rather than replacing it with a cap and trade system in 2015;

that the carbon tax be applied to retail petrol sales.
Find your electorate here and follow the links for contact information:

http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/

Find your local representative in federal parliament here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

Please contact your senators also:

senators/homepages/index.asp

Green tax shift:

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

Note that your correspondence will be ignored if it does not include your name and address.

Remember to contact Liberal and Greens candidates as well as the Labor candidates, especially if you are in a marginal seat. Although the Liberal party is currently opposed to both a tax and a trading scheme, there are powerful groups within the party lobbying for change. I suspect that going into (or coming out of) the next federal election, the Liberal party will have the more rational approach of supporting the carbon tax, while Labor and the Greens may stick with their policy of switching to a cap and trade scheme. We may end up in a situation of having the best policy, despite none of our parties actually wanting it, thus allowing them all to blame each other (in the short term at least – they will all want to take credit once the public accepts the tax).

Excluding one sector of the economy (eg retail petrol sales) undermines the effectiveness of the carbon tax, which relies on encouraging emissions reductions where it is cheapest. We miss cheap and easy opportunities to reduce petrol consumption while relying on more expensive options in other sectors to reach our emissions reduction targets.

Switching to a cap and trade scheme will introduce great uncertainty for individuals and businesses considering investing in emissions reduction. So far the trend overseas has been for emissions reductions to be far easier than expected, causing the price under cap and trade schemes to fall, thus eliminating the incentive for any further reductions. The uncertainty introduced will favour short term ‘quick fixes’ over well considered long term changes.

A cap and trade scheme will eliminate opportunities to reduce the GST, income tax and other unnecessary taxes using the revenue raised by the carbon tax. Furthermore, a cap and trade scheme creates a huge economic liability for our society, as the government will be forced to buy back permits at inflated prices (as has happened with commercial fishing licences for example).

are you a Lobbyist for the Greens FD ?

I once handed out how to vote cards for them, but now I am trying to start my own party. I have too many issues with Greens policy. The carbon tax was kind of a standout for them. They went with mainstream economics while the major parties went with empty-headed populism.

blessings on starting a new party freediver

australia needs more parties

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 4:25pm:

blessings on starting a new party freediver australia needs more parties namaste

really!!!! to me that just adds to the confusion.

look what we have right now.. 3 independents that actually are basically running the place..ridiculous.

what we NEED  is to make them more answerable...

how we do that I am not sure.. but to keep giving them our vote isnt the right way I dont think..

as it is FD you may well be in a position to start a new party...like Katter...but all it will do is split up the votes that are already out there..

and thats all well and good but we are not all in that position..

lets get one thing quite clear...

NO ONE IS HAPPY WITH WHAT WE HAVE..

we are in a new age.. and WE WANT MORE SAY.

you say you are not happy with the way the greens are going....


shouldnt you and m yself be in a better position to get up them and stop them doing what they are getting away with???

guess this doesnt make a lot of sense..

but I am frustrated that they can get into POWER..by saying one thing.. then backing right away from that one thing..and doing either nothing or the complete reverse..


ITS WRONG.. I DONT CARE WHICH PARTY YOU BELONG TO ITS WRONG THAT WE ARE HOODWINKED...

AND THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT... for 4 years.....

good luck to you FD with a new party I dont have that privilege.. but dont you think my voice is just as important? and should be heard and not just at election time?..

watched a show on Saudi Arabia on TV... it was very interesting... just how every Saudi has the right to be heard.. and they have the right to be heard even by the King..

a damn sight more than we do.

Quote:

but all it will do is split up the votes that are already out there.

Fortunately we have preferential voting so this is not an issue. Except perhaps for some state elections that have compulsory optional preferential voting.


Quote:

what we NEED  is to make them more answerable...

That's why I am promoting voting by delegable proxy.


Quote:

shouldnt you and m yself be in a better position to get up them and stop them doing what they are getting away with???

I suspect we are not on the same side. The message that we are pissed off gets kind of lost is everyone is pissed off about something different.


Quote:

but dont you think my voice is just as important? and should be heard and not just at election time?..

Obviously I think mine is more important or I would not have gone to the trouble of making this website and trying to start a new party.


Quote:

and they have the right to be heard even by the King..

This sounds like Abu's take on 'rights'.

FD Good on ya, its a tuff slog to get a new party up and running. but good on you for trying all the best.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 11:57am:

This needs to be done well before the next federal election,

.......before the lying witch gets voted out. :(

suspect we are not on the same side. The message that we are pissed off gets kind of lost is everyone is pissed off about something different.




sounds fine but I was meaning BIG like the CARBON TAX backflip...  if they want to mess with the GST..it should be up to US to decide not a hung govt.. or any govt..that wants to change legislation to get something through that has already been thrown out.


so good for you you are in a position to start a forum like this.. and even a party to get your voice heard...

same with the guys that run Crikey and Getup...they have an advantage the majority hasnt got..

we dont know how fair you are FD  we have to take your word for it..that you allow all sides to have their say..

my experience is that everyone has a bias.... no matter what. and if you really couldnt stand someone you could have them banned for life..


I am not saying your would just that you could.

its POWER.. and the only power we mere mortals have is our vote.... and then its only them or the other guys...we really have no say in how they run the country... we just think we do.

I support your theory on a tax as opposed to market mechanism.  Usually when something becomes owned by the market, it gets controlled by the biggest and is used to drive out the smallest.

As for retail petrol, I simply cant support that unless there is greater compensation.

Taxis have got to make money, and families need to commute.  Its already expensive enough and has enough taxes on it already, families cant take another one on it.

Cods:


Quote:

so good for you you are in a position to start a forum like this.. and even a party to get your voice heard... same with the guys that run Crikey and Getup...they have an advantage the majority hasnt got..

It's actually quite easy (the website that is, not the party). I put up an article outlining how it is done. This isn't exactly in the same league as crikey and getup. They probably pay people for articles etc and run it a bit more like a newspaper.


Quote:

we dont know how fair you are FD  we have to take your word for it..that you allow all sides to have their say.. my experience is that everyone has a bias.... no matter what. and if you really couldnt stand someone you could have them banned for life..

Plenty of people have put it to the test and found out where I draw the line. If I can't stand someone I stop reading their posts long before I get to that point.


Quote:

its POWER.. and the only power we mere mortals have is our vote.... and then its only them or the other guys...we really have no say in how they run the country... we just think we do.

You really should look into voting by delegable proxy. There are some 'fundamental' tradeoffs at the heart of what you are describing, but I think new technology will allow us to get around those tradeoffs and have the best of both worlds.

Verge:


Quote:

I support your theory on a tax as opposed to market mechanism.

Just a technical point - both a tax and trading scheme are market mechanisms. In one the government sets the price, in the other they dicate the quantity.


Quote:

Usually when something becomes owned by the market, it gets controlled by the biggest and is used to drive out the smallest.

That is the real difference. Under a tax the ownership effectively remains with the community as a whole.


Quote:

As for retail petrol, I simply cant support that unless there is greater compensation.

You mean if it was revenue neutral?


Quote:

Taxis have got to make money

No they don't. Nothing has to stay the same. If having a few less taxis on our street turns out to be a cheap way to reduce emissions, then we should be willing to go there. Not that I think they would - I suspect we would end up using taxis more, not less.

Taxis and public transport, although creating emmissions play a large role in society.

Unless you are prepared to do something about night time revellers, having less taxis isnt the answer.

This in turn could create a whole other social issue that is already bad enough.

Verge wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 12:34pm:

As for retail petrol, I simply cant support that unless there is greater compensation. Taxis have got to make money, and families need to commute.  Its already expensive enough and has enough taxes on it already, families cant take another one on it.

Totally agree.  Petrol/Diesel is a co2 polluter, but there are no viable alternative technologies at present.  Plus these fuels are already taxed to high heaven. Adding a co2 tax will be insignificant, a pain, and achieve nothing.

co2 price on electric generation I am all for. There are many proven technologies already there.  There just isnt for transport.

Quote:

Unless you are prepared to do something about night time revellers, having less taxis isnt the answer.

This is why I am suggesting carbon taxes rather than less taxis.


Quote:

Petrol/Diesel is a co2 polluter, but there are no viable alternative technologies at present.

You don't have to look to technology for alternatives. You don't even need to look for alternatives.


Quote:

Plus these fuels are already taxed to high heaven.

The tax on petrol is not sufficient to cover the cost of road building and maintenance. Petrol taxes are also the most rational way to pay for roads, as they come closest to internalising the cost of the roads.


Quote:

Adding a co2 tax will be insignificant, a pain, and achieve nothing.

How will it be a pain? What makes you think it will achieve nothing?


Quote:

co2 price on electric generation I am all for. There are many proven technologies already there.  There just isnt for transport.

You are approaching the problem the wrong way. There is no need to switch to alternatives yet. The presence of 'technological' alternatives is not a rational argument against carbon taxes on petrol.

cods wrote on Jan 1^st, 2012 at 5:45pm:

watched a show on Saudi Arabia on TV... it was very interesting... just how every Saudi has the right to be heard.. and they have the right to be heard even by the King.. a damn sight more than we do.

you do yourself great harm by talking about the Saudi's 'rights'. like the total absence of right for women to be in public without a male family member. her inability to gt an education or a drivers licence. oh and lets not forget the right to be stoned for adultery - if you are a woman of course.

when people talk of 'rights' Saudi Arabia doesnt get a mention. There is good reason for this.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

cods wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 5:45pm: watched a show on Saudi Arabia on TV... it was very interesting... just how every Saudi has the right to be heard.. and they have the right to be heard even by the King.. a damn sight more than we do. you do yourself great harm by talking about the Saudi's 'rights'. like the total absence of right for women to be in public without a male family member. her inability to gt an education or a drivers licence. oh and lets not forget the right to be stoned for adultery - if you are a woman of course. when people talk of 'rights' Saudi Arabia doesnt get a mention. There is good reason for this.

well all right longy but you didnt see the show...the person they were documenting was high up... and he said what the west doesnt see is.. for instance cutting off a hand..nasty I know he said in all his years he hadnt seen it enacted... first of the the person has to steal 3 times..then it goes through a long court process. and as he said it hasnt happened in his lifetime..

women he said would of course be driving cars... but like most things.. it isnt high up on their list of wants..its sounds shocking to us but its the way they are..the burqa is another thing its their choice..things do change over there albeit slowly.

but they dont wish to live like Westerners..its their choice..

as for all the no education for women well thats all wrong as well..

I am not sticking up for them but really lets give them their due, they are changing...and if woman rattle their chains hard enough then they will get change..its up to them..

BTW what harm have I done to myself?????

is it illegal now to talk about a program on TV?

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 4:53pm: cods wrote on Jan 1st, 2012 at 5:45pm: watched a show on Saudi Arabia on TV... it was very interesting... just how every Saudi has the right to be heard.. and they have the right to be heard even by the King.. a damn sight more than we do. you do yourself great harm by talking about the Saudi's 'rights'. like the total absence of right for women to be in public without a male family member. her inability to gt an education or a drivers licence. oh and lets not forget the right to be stoned for adultery - if you are a woman of course. when people talk of 'rights' Saudi Arabia doesnt get a mention. There is good reason for this. well all right longy but you didnt see the show...the person they were documenting was high up... and he said what the west doesnt see is.. for instance cutting off a hand..nasty I know he said in all his years he hadnt seen it enacted... first of the the person has to steal 3 times..then it goes through a long court process. and as he said it hasnt happened in his lifetime.. women he said would of course be driving cars... but like most things.. it isnt high up on their list of wants..its sounds shocking to us but its the way they are..the burqa is another thing its their choice..things do change over there albeit slowly. but they dont wish to live like Westerners..its their choice.. as for all the no education for women well thats all wrong as well.. I am not sticking up for them but really lets give them their due, they are changing...and if woman rattle their chains hard enough then they will get change..its up to them..

the point is that you said about how good it is that they can go to the king. Firstly, it isnt anywhere near as simple as you suggest and it isnt possible at all if you are a woman and virtually impossible unless you ahve the right connections and of course you arent allowed to say what you want - only what you are allowed to say. So this 'right of appeal' is worthless. Our rights of appeal to the courts however is not. our rights are not hindered by gender, religion (non-muslims have lesser rights than muslims) or wealth.

and the cutting off of the hand IS done same as floggings and stonings as has been reported many times. TV shows now wouldnt know investgative journalism if they saw it. I remember Jan Wendt intervieing Idi Amin at the hieght of his power. Do you see that any more? no we have interviews with nobodies or people 5 steps removed from an event or person. It is rubbish. and the same applies to people who think Saudis have 'rights' and try and say so on TV.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

Quote: Unless you are prepared to do something about night time revellers, having less taxis isnt the answer. This is why I am suggesting carbon taxes rather than less taxis. [quote]Petrol/Diesel is a co2 polluter, but there are no viable alternative technologies at present.

You don't have to look to technology for alternatives. You don't even need to look for alternatives.


Quote:

Plus these fuels are already taxed to high heaven.

The tax on petrol is not sufficient to cover the cost of road building and maintenance. Petrol taxes are also the most rational way to pay for roads, as they come closest to internalising the cost of the roads.


Quote:

Adding a co2 tax will be insignificant, a pain, and achieve nothing.

How will it be a pain? What makes you think it will achieve nothing?


Quote:

co2 price on electric generation I am all for. There are many proven technologies already there.  There just isnt for transport.

You are approaching the problem the wrong way. There is no need to switch to alternatives yet. The presence of 'technological' alternatives is not a rational argument against carbon taxes on petrol.[/quote]

You are talking about taxing an essiential commodity needed in a country as vast as ours.  Unless things can be done to neutralise the cost of living with housing, making petrol so expensive that people cant afford it does nothing to promote those who need to commute to work.

I dont think making it so expensive that things like the commute to the kids footy on a Saturday becomes prohibitive is the answer to reducing CO2 when there is little alternatives avaliable.

Come live out in the rural areas where large commutes are a part of life, and the commute for footy makes up the social fabric of these areas.  At $1.50 for fuel, I think we are already paying enough.

There is also businesses that play a very important part in the community which shouldnt be dimissed as just Co2 emitters.

Its easy to point and say take public transport but the avaliability of that is virtually  nil outside of the cities.

There has to come a point where you say "alright, enough tax is enough".

Which method is the better at reducing greenhouse gases Freedriver?

And which would be easier to link in with a world effort.


Wouldn't an ETS be better for both aims?

Quote:

Its easy to point and say take public transport but the avaliability of that is virtually  nil outside of the cities.

and even that doesnt answer the questio about the practicality of public transport. while its value in transporting people to and from the CBD is unquestioned, in virtually every other function it is pitiful. For example, you can take your family of 4 kids on a bus for 2 hours to get to a destination your car could take you in 20minutes. only a fool takes the bus. THATS the real problem.

Quote:

Which method is the better at reducing greenhouse gases Freedriver?

Carbon taxes - see the links I posted.


Quote:

And which would be easier to link in with a world effort.

Again carbon taxes. They avoid the need for governments to cede economic soveriegnty to an international regulatory body. We do not have to set up a trading scheme. We merely have to agree on a minimum price (tax) on CO2 emissions. Countries can then do what they want with the proceeds. With taxes, the entire scheme does not fall apart just because one country undermines it, as could happen with a trading scheme. We have seen over the last 20 years how it is virtually impossible to set up an international trading scheme.


Quote:

Wouldn't an ETS be better for both aims?

No. I creates enourmous uncertainty in the price and hence the return on investments in reducing GHG emissions. This favours investments with quick returns over more fundamental changes that are cheaper in the long run. They also miss the opportunity to lower other taxes.


Quote:

For example, you can take your family of 4 kids on a bus for 2 hours to get to a destination your car could take you in 20minutes. only a fool takes the bus. THATS the real problem.

But it is not a problem. If you take the train to work and the car for the family trip, you have almost completely eliminated your transport emissions. A tax encourages such rational outcomes by maximising choice.


Quote:

You are talking about taxing an essiential commodity

News flash - most things that are taxed are essential. It is actually a well established economic principle that taxes do less economic harm if applied to essential commodoties.

CO2 emissions however are not essential. I bet you have never bought CO2 emissions in your life. What you have bought are goods and services that can be derived from CO2 emissions, in hugely varying quantities.

Are you happy with reducing CO2 emissions, just no taxing them? Or are you trying to walk backwards towards the point you are making?


Quote:

Unless things can be done to neutralise the cost of living with housing

Did you get the 'revenue neutral' bit?


Quote:

making petrol so expensive that people cant afford it

Who here has suggested that? Do you have any idea how much difference it would make to the price at the bowser?


Quote:

There is also businesses that play a very important part in the community which shouldnt be dimissed as just Co2 emitters.

If they really are that important then the tax will not put them out of business. It will only put out of business those companies that were not so important after all.


Quote:

Its easy to point and say take public transport but the avaliability of that is virtually  nil outside of the cities.

Perhaps you should start with what I did say then. No need to make up statements to argue against.

Okay then FD, three questions for you;

- How much would you add to the bowser to apply the carbon tax?

- How much more does one increase the tax free threshold in order to offset this expense?

- Would there be any kind of concessions avaliable to rural communties where public transport is non existant and alternatives are just not avaliable?

Quote:

How much would you add to the bowser to apply the carbon tax?

This table gives approximately 3c/L for a carbon tax of $43 per ton of carbon (I think ours is about $23).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax


Quote:

How much more does one increase the tax free threshold in order to offset this expense?

You'll have to figure this one out yourself.


Quote:

Would there be any kind of concessions avaliable to rural communties where public transport is non existant and alternatives are just not avaliable?

Not if I was in charge. This would effectively be another subsidy for rural communities.

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2012 at 3:55pm:

Quote: How much would you add to the bowser to apply the carbon tax? This table gives approximately 3c/L for a carbon tax of $43 per ton of carbon (I think ours is about $23). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax [quote]How much more does one increase the tax free threshold in order to offset this expense?

You'll have to figure this one out yourself.


Quote:

Would there be any kind of concessions avaliable to rural communties where public transport is non existant and alternatives are just not avaliable?

Not if I was in charge. This would effectively be another subsidy for rural communities.[/quote]

Your carbon tax on fuel would be a direct burden on rural communities.  If you are going to impose a tax that directly disadvantages people just because they live outside the urban sprawl, why shouldnt they be compensated?

Last time I checked rural communites played a pretty important role in the ongoing sucess of this country.  Your tax on fuel is a direct attack on them.  The NSW government is trying to get people to move to these areas and offerring subsidies to do so because even they understand how important it is to have workers out here.

If your tax is going to lead to a direct increase cost of living on a sector in the country with no other alternatives available, be wary of what future impacts to things such as your cost of living.

Quote:

If you are going to impose a tax that directly disadvantages people just because they live outside the urban sprawl, why shouldnt they be compensated?

It only disadvantages people with higher GHG emissions. It disadvantages them because they are harming the rest of society, not because of where they live. It does not make sense to subsidise harmful lifestyles at the same time as trying to reduce the harm.

I suspect you have it backwards anyway. People in the major cities tend to spend far more time commuting to work every day than those in rural areas. All those hours add up. Wherever you choose to live, there are many simple choices you can make to reduce your emissions.


Quote:

with no other alternatives available

There are plenty of options.


Quote:

Last time I checked rural communites played a pretty important role

If their role really is important then it will not stop because of the tax.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

Quote: If you are going to impose a tax that directly disadvantages people just because they live outside the urban sprawl, why shouldnt they be compensated? It only disadvantages people with higher GHG emissions. It disadvantages them because they are harming the rest of society, not because of where they live. It does not make sense to subsidise harmful lifestyles at the same time as trying to reduce the harm. I suspect you have it backwards anyway. People in the major cities tend to spend far more time commuting to work every day than those in rural areas. All those hours add up. Wherever you choose to live, there are many simple choices you can make to reduce your emissions. [quote]with no other alternatives available

There are plenty of options.


Quote:

Last time I checked rural communites played a pretty important role

If their role really is important then it will not stop because of the tax.[/quote]

I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas.

Their options include:

paying the tax
passing on the cost
driving less
getting a more fuel efficient vehicle
switching to gas
riding a bike
living closer to work
public transport
carpooling
shopping around

etc

Still not sure why you are playing the class politics on this one. The choices faced by rural people are the same choices faced by everyone else, except that they tend to have much shorter commutes and spend far less on fuel. 2c a litre is hardly a lifechanging event. It happens every day.

Apparently (according to Claire Moore's office) the carbon price will be incrementally applied to all fuel from 2013. The exclusion of fuel was only temporary.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

Quote: Last time I checked rural communites played a pretty important role If their role really is important then it will not stop because of the tax.

Nice,  ;) ,... you realy shot him down with that one making him explain his no-doubt-dippy ideas on how market forces are supposed to work at the same time!

You got some style freediver!  :D :D :D

  ;D

(I need to go and change my pants now ..  :o :o :o :o :-[  ;D ;D ;D ;D)

Verge wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2012 at 9:14am: Quote: If you are going to impose a tax that directly disadvantages people just because they live outside the urban sprawl, why shouldnt they be compensated? It only disadvantages people with higher GHG emissions. It disadvantages them because they are harming the rest of society, not because of where they live. It does not make sense to subsidise harmful lifestyles at the same time as trying to reduce the harm. I suspect you have it backwards anyway. People in the major cities tend to spend far more time commuting to work every day than those in rural areas. All those hours add up. Wherever you choose to live, there are many simple choices you can make to reduce your emissions. [quote]with no other alternatives available There are plenty of options. [quote]Last time I checked rural communites played a pretty important role

If their role really is important then it will not stop because of the tax.[/quote]

I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas.[/quote]
Business is business!

Face facts, you have been made to look like an amateur!

  :o :o :-[ :-[ :-X ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 4^th, 2012 at 3:11pm:

Verge wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:34pm: As for retail petrol, I simply cant support that unless there is greater compensation. Taxis have got to make money, and families need to commute.  Its already expensive enough and has enough taxes on it already, families cant take another one on it. Totally agree.  Petrol/Diesel is a co2 polluter, but there are no viable alternative technologies at present.  Plus these fuels are already taxed to high heaven. Adding a co2 tax will be insignificant, a pain, and achieve nothing. co2 price on electric generation I am all for. There are many proven technologies already there.  There just isnt for transport.

Yeah. Do you know how lucrative the carbon trading will be for some companies that can adapt to new technology? One example that I'm familiar with has a return on investment within 6 weeks, and the revenue will increase the bottom line for that company to the tune of about 30% (every year). 

muso wrote on Jan 11^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 4th, 2012 at 3:11pm: Verge wrote on Jan 2nd, 2012 at 12:34pm: As for retail petrol, I simply cant support that unless there is greater compensation. Taxis have got to make money, and families need to commute.  Its already expensive enough and has enough taxes on it already, families cant take another one on it. Totally agree.  Petrol/Diesel is a co2 polluter, but there are no viable alternative technologies at present.  Plus these fuels are already taxed to high heaven. Adding a co2 tax will be insignificant, a pain, and achieve nothing. co2 price on electric generation I am all for. There are many proven technologies already there.  There just isnt for transport. Yeah. Do you know how lucrative the carbon trading will be for some companies that can adapt to new technology? One example that I'm familiar with has a return on investment within 6 weeks, and the revenue will increase the bottom line for that company to the tune of about 30% (every year).

This I am very interested to hear about.  Are you able to share more on this?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Their options include: paying the tax passing on the cost driving less getting a more fuel efficient vehicle switching to gas riding a bike living closer to work public transport carpooling shopping around etc Still not sure why you are playing the class politics on this one. The choices faced by rural people are the same choices faced by everyone else, except that they tend to have much shorter commutes and spend far less on fuel. 2c a litre is hardly a lifechanging event. It happens every day.

paying the tax - Used to that
passing on the cost - Not sure how a salary earner does that
driving less - Lets all stay at home and sit in front of a computer all day.
getting a more fuel efficient vehicle - Already done, well, done as best to still suit the needs of a growing family.
switching to gas - No point, nearest servo with gas is 70kms away
riding a bike - Wow, wish I already thought of that.  Bit hard when I was commutting 70kms each way.
living closer to work - Already doing
public transport - Dont make me laugh
carpooling - Done again, bit hard to car pool with a full car already
shopping around - How many servos do you think are in rural towns?  Most cases one, maybe two.

We already get raped with higher fuel prices as it is.  It just gets a bit frustrating when everyones typical answer is the same trotted out lines.  Rural communities dont have the same options avaliable to them as their city counterparts in reducing the impact of the tax.

Quote:

FROM FD: But it is not a problem. If you take the train to work and the car for the family trip, you have almost completely eliminated your transport emissions. A tax encourages such rational outcomes by maximising choice.

I am staggered that you think this is some kind of radical solution. Are you even aware that the vast majority of CBD workers do pretty much exactly that already? And how about the MAJORITY of workers who dont work in the CBD and therefore need to private transport to get to work?

you comment about a 'tax maximising choice' was a joke, right? surely you dont think that making on option more expensive in any way maximises choice surely?

Your post is lastnail-esque.

Verge wrote on Jan 9^th, 2012 at 12:58pm:

I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas.

There is always biodiesel. If you have your own paddock you can grow your own. An acquaintance of mine in Slovakia does exactly that, but he runs his old Skoda on pure vegetable oil instead of FAME.  Incidentally, he's also a climate change denier, but ironically his carbon footprint is negligible.

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

Verge wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas. There is always biodiesel. If you have your own paddock you can grow your own. An acquaintance of mine in Slovakia does exactly that, but he runs his old Skoda on pure vegetable oil instead of FAME.  Incidentally, he's also a climate change denier, but ironically his carbon footprint is negligible.

You can be a climate change denier and still do environmentally responsible things....... if there is a bob to save.

Verge wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Their options include: paying the tax passing on the cost driving less getting a more fuel efficient vehicle switching to gas riding a bike living closer to work public transport carpooling shopping around etc Still not sure why you are playing the class politics on this one. The choices faced by rural people are the same choices faced by everyone else, except that they tend to have much shorter commutes and spend far less on fuel. 2c a litre is hardly a lifechanging event. It happens every day. paying the tax - Used to that passing on the cost - Not sure how a salary earner does that driving less - Lets all stay at home and sit in front of a computer all day. getting a more fuel efficient vehicle - Already done, well, done as best to still suit the needs of a growing family. switching to gas - No point, nearest servo with gas is 70kms away riding a bike - Wow, wish I already thought of that.  Bit hard when I was commutting 70kms each way. living closer to work - Already doing public transport - Dont make me laugh carpooling - Done again, bit hard to car pool with a full car already shopping around - How many servos do you think are in rural towns?  Most cases one, maybe two. We already get raped with higher fuel prices as it is.  It just gets a bit frustrating when everyones typical answer is the same trotted out lines.  Rural communities dont have the same options avaliable to them as their city counterparts in reducing the impact of the tax.

That's because they don't need those options. How bad is rush hour where you live?


Quote:

Are you even aware that the vast majority of CBD workers do pretty much exactly that already?

Making up stats again eh longy? Lets not let facts get in the way of a good whinge.


Quote:

And how about the MAJORITY of workers who dont work in the CBD and therefore need to private transport to get to work?

Do you want me to post the list of options again? Are you aware that trains and busses also stop outside the CBD? How else do you think people get on them? People who live outside the CBD usually have it easier. It is very expensive to live within walking distance of work if you are in the CBD.


Quote:

you comment about a 'tax maximising choice' was a joke, right? surely you dont think that making on option more expensive in any way maximises choice surely?

Actually it does, because it adds the option of paying the higher price. Most alternative mechanisms involve even higher prices and less range of choice.

Verge wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 10:39am:

muso wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 10:29am: Verge wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas. There is always biodiesel. If you have your own paddock you can grow your own. An acquaintance of mine in Slovakia does exactly that, but he runs his old Skoda on pure vegetable oil instead of FAME.  Incidentally, he's also a climate change denier, but ironically his carbon footprint is negligible. You can be a climate change denier and still do environmentally responsible things....... if there is a bob to save.

you can also be a CC sceptic and still want to keep the environment clean. I for example teach environmental scientists in our water courses and also in sustainable methods. im still a CC sceptic.

Quote:

you comment about a 'tax maximising choice' was a joke, right? surely you dont think that making on option more expensive in any way maximises choice surely? Actually it does, because it adds the option of paying the higher price. Most alternative mechanisms involve even higher prices and less range of choice.

that is truly idiotic. The logic of a lastnail at best.

how is making one alternative more exspensive 'maximising choice'. It has at the very best the effect of no change at all to choice but certainly does not make it better. It is that kind of logic in support of a carbon tax that makes us so dubious of it. If the best argument you can proffer is a silly one then you simply confirm what the majority beleives - that it is a stupid (and ineffective) tax.

Quote:

Are you even aware that the vast majority of CBD workers do pretty much exactly that already? Making up stats again eh longy? Lets not let facts get in the way of a good whinge.

well at least my facts make sense which is more than you can say. Why do you think people drive into the CBD now? because it is cost-effective? Unfortunately I am going to have to answer that for you because it is more than obvious you dont know. IT IS FOR CONVENIENCE or because all other options take too long. Making fuel marginally more expensive will raise money but change not one persons decision on how to commute.

I obviously need to ask this. CAN YOU DRIVE? do you ever drive? do you have a job requiring you to commute? your position on the carbon tax would suggest not.

Quote:

that is truly idiotic. The logic of a lastnail at best.

It is a logic shared by mainstream economists.


Quote:

It has at the very best the effect of no change at all to choice

It is a lot better than all of the alternatives being considered. Trust me, things can get a lot worse if you start to discard economics in favour of empty populism.


Quote:

well at least my facts make sense

Usually when it comes to facts people prefer 'true' ahead of 'makes sense'.


Quote:

Making fuel marginally more expensive will raise money but change not one persons decision

You think this 'makes sense'? Since when do changes in price not influence the market? This is economic fairyland, to put it politely. If this is the way you think you really should refocus on what is true rather than what makes sense to you. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - this is never more true than when the economic illiterate attempt to dictate economic policy based on what makes sense after a few minutes thought.


Quote:

I obviously need to ask this. CAN YOU DRIVE? do you ever drive? do you have a job requiring you to commute? your position on the carbon tax would suggest not.

My position on the carbon tax is based on what is best for the economy as a whole, not trying to second guess all the direct impacts on myself or minimise the impact on myself and maximising it on everyone else instead. And yes I drove to work today.

I thought people would be more aware in Australia regarding the Carbon Tax.
Do you realise that this is a mere scam, controlled no other then by the Rothchilds, Al Gore & the Queen of England & Charles of course, under the guise of the Wilderness Society and others.
So Australia has given the keys to the country to these rotten globalists.
The truth is the planet is carbon deficient and it is not a pollutant.
The real pollution is actually created by these people and the rest of the globalist cabal.Being the chemical toxins in both the water, soil- through chemical farming, industrial pollution, uranium mining, coal seam gas, chemtrails etc.
They seem to have totally hoodwinked most people into believing a complete lie, and through lack of knowledge and awareness, have pulled at your heart strings to save the planet.
They have no intention of saving the environment this is but a mere tool , to gain full control of it and taking land as they so choose. Leaving the majority of people without a livelihood, without land & charging you for a natural process, called breathing. Next will be a tax on your inhalation of oxygen.
Really it is but a total and utter scam which will allow them to take over every industry, allow them to put into place draconian measures to take your land your god given right to live.
Look what is happening here and every other part of the globe where this is implemented.
Then they let Monsanto in to really pollute you, not to mention the fracking of these globalist companies.
That is where the real pollution is.
So I say wake up do not believe the propaganda and do your own research.

I read in the Weekend Australian how Bob Hawke is representing the Chinese in the acquisition of prime land in the Kimberleys so the Chinese can harvest sugar.

Then I read how our prime dairy herds are running down because the Dairy Farmers are selling off their stock to the Chinese.

They are like fleas. Good work by Labor through. It's one way of Gillard planting her red flag in every corner of the Country.

bump

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2022 at 6:35pm:

bump

From 2012 ...... why?

There is an election coming up.

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2022 at 6:43pm:

There is an election coming up.

There was one 4 years ago too. ::)

muso wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

Verge wrote on Jan 9th, 2012 at 12:58pm: I will be delighted to see what the alternatives are to using petrol for people living in rural areas. There is always biodiesel. If you have your own paddock you can grow your own. An acquaintance of mine in Slovakia does exactly that, but he runs his old Skoda on pure vegetable oil instead of FAME.  Incidentally, he's also a climate change denier, but ironically his carbon footprint is negligible.

Sure nuff!  I'll just duck out and buy a few acres and put in a crop.....

https://c.tenor.com/RqVUTaqGrL8AAAAM/cute-baby.gif