Carbon tax (houses, to buy, taxi)

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by artemis agrotera

FWIW, I'm of the idea, that we shouldn't be wasteful just because we can. I don't really need to be told that I should turn off electrical items when not in use, like some wasteful princess (although I understand that people are different, and yes, some do need to be reminded).

I think I'm a princess, or prince if you will. My house is usually lit up like a Christmas tree, heck I'm surprised I haven't had a couple of 747's try and land on it! I just hate the house being dark, but that's just me.

Originally Posted by artemis agrotera

Out of curiosity, what do like about a carbon tax?

Well the overwhelming opinion of scientists who work in this field seems to suggest that humans are causing the planet to warm. I'm not a scientist, so I really have to take them at face value. Conversely the overwhelming number of skeptics seem to attack everything except the science. When someone starts making ad hominem attacks on people it means they're either are a lousy debater, or they can't rebutt their scientific argument presented so it's easier to question the motives and morality of those oppose.

FWIW I'm not saying scientists are always right, I'd just rather give them, and the planet, the benefit of the doubt.

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by OZpharmer

Would a single-person "household" earning $65,000~80,000 per annum be financially advantaged or disadvantaged from Gillard's new plan?

NB) Not me, just someone I know as an e.g.

Single with no dependants makes you the whipping boy/girl of the tax system! To your question though, I think they would come out essentially neutral, or slightly ahead.

[artemis agrotera]

Originally Posted by BCC_1

I think I'm a princess, or prince if you will. My house is usually lit up like a Christmas tree, heck I'm surprised I haven't had a couple of 747's try and land on it! I just hate the house being dark, but that's just me.




Well the overwhelming opinion of scientists who work in this field seems to suggest that humans are causing the planet to warm. I'm not a scientist, so I really have to take them at face value. Conversely the overwhelming number of skeptics seem to attack everything except the science. When someone starts making ad hominem attacks on people it means they're either are a lousy debater, or they can't rebutt their scientific argument presented so it's easier to question the motives and morality of those oppose.

FWIW I'm not saying scientists are always right, I'd just rather give them, and the planet, the benefit of the doubt.

haha! well you're paying for it NOW

I've read a bit about it, (Tim Flannery makes some excellent points).... and the stats do show something....although I am not completely convinced either way. I guess my point was regardless of who is right or wrong, we probably shouldn't be wasteful

(I was paying for green energy, so I guess I'm a bit of a greenie ~)

Not a bad article with a few more details:

Gillard reveals carbon price scheme - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by artemis agrotera

haha! well you're paying for it NOW

I've read a bit about it, (Tim Flannery makes some excellent points).... and the stats do show something....although I am not completely convinced either way. I guess my point was regardless of who is right or wrong, we probably shouldn't be wasteful

(I was paying for green energy, so I guess I'm a bit of a greenie ~)

Not a bad article with a few more details:

Gillard reveals carbon price scheme - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I was in your camp, until I sat back and thought one side is presenting their arguments, the other side largely tries to discredit them not what they are saying.

Deary me, I sound like a Greens party stooge!

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by Vichel

When I was flying back and forth to Melbourne for work, the company always paid this indulgence to seem green. I did a bit of research on where that money goes. When I found out it goes to China to plant trees I almost spit. Poor China, needs our money to plant trees, and of course, nudge nudge, wink wink, that's exactly where it goes.

I've read about other cases about this tree-planting carbon offset money being used by tree-planting companies who were going to plant trees anyway, even without this money, because that's what they do: plant trees. So they happily take this extra money to make somebody feel warm and fuzzy.

But,

A number of years ago, there was a new coal plant that was going to be built in Queensland and they were going to plant 550 million trees as an offset in Australia.

The environmental weanies protested because those trees were "carbon bombs". That some day those trees would burn down and release carbon into the atmosphere.

It's amazing how stupid people are today.

[Pretzelogik]

Originally Posted by artemis agrotera

well. Its here.
What do we think?
I haven't had a real chance to go through it all... Apart from the idea that $10.10 in compensation, with a $9.90 tax increase... don't spend the 20c too quickly!

Also the tax change of increasing the tax-free threshold by a large amount.

I do agree with stopping the brown coal energy plants. It has annoyed me for some time that we burn brown coal here and export black coal

You will not be allowed to blacken that steak on the barbie.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by BCC_1

Well the overwhelming opinion of scientists who work in this field seems to suggest that humans are causing the planet to warm. I'm not a scientist, so I really have to take them at face value. Conversely the overwhelming number of skeptics seem to attack everything except the science. When someone starts making ad hominem attacks on people it means they're either are a lousy debater, or they can't rebutt their scientific argument presented so it's easier to question the motives and morality of those oppose.

FWIW I'm not saying scientists are always right, I'd just rather give them, and the planet, the benefit of the doubt.

But, the planet isn't warming, that's the problem.

Via Climategate, these scientists have already proven to be manipulators of data for financial gain.

There are a ton of "scientists" employed by the government here in the USA whose jobs are dependent on "global warming" which by the way has been changed to "climate change" since the warming that was supposed to happen by now hasn't.

There is tons of info out there available, it's up for people to unhitch themselves from the lamestream media and look beyond what the talking heads feed to them on the nightly news.

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

But, the planet isn't warming, that's the problem.

Via Climategate, these scientists have already proven to be manipulators of data for financial gain.

There are a ton of "scientists" employed by the government here in the USA whose jobs are dependent on "global warming" which by the way has been changed to "climate change" since the warming that was supposed to happen by now hasn't.

There is tons of info out there available, it's up for people to unhitch themselves from the lamestream media and look beyond what the talking heads feed to them on the nightly news.

Thank you for making my point.

Even the Christian Science Monitor agreed that the "Climategate" scientists had not misled anyone. Of course the tin-foil hat brigade will never be happy.

[artemis agrotera]

Originally Posted by Pretzelogik

You will not be allowed to blacken that steak on the barbie.

Blackened steak, whilst its the only way I knew it as a kid... is just wrong!

[BCC_1]

There's an interesting column in the Oz today about the coalition's direct action plan.

Coalition not fooling anyone with tax confusion | The Australian