Australia votes to repeal carbon tax

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by dumbest man on earth, Jul 17, 2014.

  1. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Caught this on the BBC today :

    - the ^^above quoted^^ from - and more at :

    Why must Governments make the citizens responsible for paying irresponsible industries?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Also released today :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from - and more at :
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Tony Abbott, is probably the most hated PM our country has ever had.
    He has in the past referred to climate change as utter crap, has given the QLAND state government the right to dredge the Great Barrier Reef, one of the natural wonders of the world and wants to mine state national forests.

    Elections in Australia occur at least every 3 years. If the Labor party can get their act together, we may be fortunate enough to see this bigoted chauvinistic buffoon swept from power.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Tony Abbott has shown himself to be an Environmental vandal of the worst kind.
    Our next elections are in 2016.
    Let's hope we as a nation and a people, can be sensible enough to throw this vandal out of office, and hope that the damage by then will be minimal.
    Although with regards to the Barrier Reef, and the stress it is already under, even then it maybe too late.
  9. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    paddoboy, I do not understand how or why you "Blame" the decision to repeal solely on Tony Abbott?
    The original article clearly states : "The Australian Senate voted by 39 to 32 votes to repeal the tax."
    Although I am not an expert on the Australian Senate, I find it hard to believe that the Prime Minister of Australia gets to Vote 39 times in any Issue brought up for a Vote in the Australian Parliament.

    If, and I repeat, IF the decision were to actually be traced back to the efforts of a single individual for the purpose of assessing any "Blame", then I would have to opine that Georgina Hope Rinehart would be far more likely to be that single individual, rather than Tony Abbott.

    paddoboy, may I respectfully refer you back to the question that I posed in the OP : Why must Governments make the citizens responsible for paying irresponsible industries?
  10. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    I'm not sure what your stance here is, DMOE.
    For those of us involved in calculating and distributing the costs associated with the Carbon Tax, it is readily apparent that the tax has exactly that effect.

    Surely you don't think the companies end up paying it themselves? When such a measure is introduced, regardless of the supposed nobility of purpose, who do you think ends up paying in the end?
    I'm not a fan of Abbott in the slightest, but all he's done here is removed yet another pointless measure which only ends in Joe Average paying more tax, indirectly or otherwise. No company is going to ask themselves how to reduce emissions when all they need do is pass down the cost. Introducing a tax for any reason on a company only ensures inflation by means of those costs being passed down.

    Besides which, Australia contributes almost nothing toward harmful global emissions by comparison with other developed nations. We are not a country which has any power to be an influence on those who do.
    It's a little like imposing a fuel tax on owners of Priuses and expecting Hummer drivers to say "what a wonderful idea!" and follow suit.
  11. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member


    What the hell has Rinehart got to do with it?
  12. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    The Marquis, a few minutes of honest and earnest research on your "question" produces the following possible "answer" :
    - the ^^above quoted^^ from - and more at : body link
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Let me explain....
    The laws, changes in laws etc are made in "House of Representatives". New legislation etc are formulated and debated in that chamber. Abbott's Liberal coalition government rules in that house.
    Tony Abbott has many times labeled climate change as crap.....He is, as I said, an environmental vandal.
    Hence the formulation of the repeal legislation for the Carbon tax.
    The Bill then goes to the upper house [senate] for ratification.
    The senate consists of 33 Libs [government senators] 25 Labor senators, 10 Greens, 3 PUP's, and one senator each for DLP, LDP, Family First, AMEP, and an Independent.
    Deals are often done to get legislation passed.

    Again, Tony Abbott has been known to identify climate change as crap, and was the driving force behind the repeal legislation.
    He is an extreme conservative, who has admitted to being "less then comfortable" around Gays, ignores all scientific advice on climate change, has given the OK to dredge the greatest natural wonder in the world, and wants to declassify some other national treasures.
    And you ask why I blame Abbott?
    He is afterall the PM.

    The citizens were always going to pay either way, at least though with a Labor government, some compensations were made for certain classes.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Tony Abbott’s plan to axe the carbon price this week has come in for some withering criticism from his own side of politics, with a former head of the UK’s Conservative Party declaring it to be an “appalling” move that “recklessly” endangers the future.
    Lord Deben, who served in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet and is now chairman of the independent UK Committee on Climate Change, said the Abbott government “appears to be more concerned with advancing its own short-term political interests” than dealing with global warming.
    “Australia’s actions are appalling,” Lord Deben said in a statement. “While the 66 countries that account for 88 per cent of global emissions have passed laws to address global warming, Australia is repealing them.”

    “Australia’s carbon price was already working. It was reducing emissions without any of the economic damage that people feared.''

    "Australia is changing Britain's climate as we are changing yours. It is not just a national matter. We are all in this together and Mr Abbott is recklessly endangering our future, as he is Australia's.”

    Read more:
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The carbon tax scam has peaked out, and now the tide is turning. The carbon tax is more about an extortion than solving the imaginary carbon problem. If I get to pollute, for the price of a tax, how does that add up to less carbon emissions? The extortion of tax money is said to help via the law of supply and demand by impacting supply cost. Say we assume this is true.

    How about all the carbon taxes on industries go directly to the tax payer as a tax rebate? Government gets nothing. That same laws of supply and demand will apply since the cost to business does not change. This approach buffers the economy, since it will allow the tax money to go back into the economy, as disposable income, thereby offsetting the cost difference that will be passed on to the consumer due to the business tax. The scam is not for the people which is why this is not an option.

    Governments are huge and have huge carbon footprints, How about a tax on the government for its carbon footprint. How can the biggest polluters who lord over everyone get exempted? Just the president campaigning for one party, and not doing his job for all, has a huge carbon footprint due to the large entourage. The tax on the government will go back as another tax cut to the people. The goal is reducing carbon, right, not filling the coffers of the inefficient who will then waste more carbon, so they can practice crony capitalism.

    The tax on business to offset carbon will lead to innovation because costs will go up in a tough market. They need to find ways to reduce costs. If we tax government maybe that will also happen with government learning how to do the same thing with less resources. The band of thieves can't always get exempted.

    Magic tricks are fun to figure out. The hypocrisy makes it easy.
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Johan Rudolf Kjellén:
    The state is a living organism, fed by taxes.
    His: "Regierung" was the form of government whose bureaucracy and army would contribute to the people’s pacification

    By their nature, governments have no internists in being lean. They will gorge themselves off of the backs of the working class for the benefit of those who can gain power within the state. When they are sufficiently fat and bloated, then they become weak, and eventually loose their source of strength from the pacified masses. Then, they die.

    (R.I.P. motherf-ckers)
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The "supposed" goal of the carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions. Nobody pitches it as a new method to extort money for politicians to play with. If the leadership is honest about their sales pitch, it should not matter who gets the carbon tax, since the main theory is a carbon tax on business will lower carbon footprints. That being said, giving the tax directly to the people, as a tax break, will not change the carbon dynamics at the level of business. However, the extra money in the pocket of the citizens will mean more ability to spend and grow national wealth, which is something the government can't do due to waste and inefficiency.

    If it is a scam, and the carbon tax is a con job excuse, the leadership will give exemptions to friends and use this tax to leverage campaign donations from enemies for limited exemptions. As such, they can't give the tax directly to the people, since they will lose the leverage that expands the tax extortion into crony capitalism that benefits themselves.

    Say we give the carbon tax to the people, so they collectively have the leverage through a wealth pool. Now business will seek the people for an exemption, so the people can trade for other things like cheaper goods for collective cost savings. Why should lawyers and politicians gets all the gravy when they already have all the power? Is it because they figured out the scam?
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    If the primary producers had a vote, they would vote NO on a carbon tax.

    All living things within this co-evolutionary biom were born into symbiotic contracts with all other lifeforms.
    It really doesn't matter what nonsense Dorothy Twittertwat is voicing today, it is up to each and every one of us to contemplate and recognize our inherited symbiotic relationships, and then act accordingly.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Hard to tell. Obviously, over half of all eligible voters voted for him and his government at the last election (on a two-party preferred basis). Whitlam was hated by many people. Probably Deakin was, too (I haven't checked). And Keating. And Howard. Are you really sure that Abbott is the most hated ever?

    The thing is: Abbott was Health Minister in the Howard government. People knew all about him before they elected him. What did they think they were voting for when they chose him? Why are they surprised that the Liberal Party is doing what the Liberal party always does?

    I wouldn't bet on it.

    And when it comes to the carbon tax, obviously a lot of people are very glad it's gone. Some of them are right here on sciforums, posting in this thread.


    We have a party system, just like in the US. Tony Abbott is a proxy for his government and for his party, the Liberal Party (which is actually conservative rather than progressive in may ways, by the way). His party controls the lower house of Parliament, but doesn't have outright control of the Senate.

    The current government's alternative to the carbon tax is what it calls its "direct action" plan, whereby the government gives money to carbon emitting businesses in the hope that they will use it to combat climate change. This is like giving heroin to an addict in the hope that they will use it wisely for necessary pain relief.

    The Marquis:

    It is impossible to address climate change with no cost. Ultimately, societies need to agree to pay those costs and to distribute them appropriately. The carbon tax was a market mechanism that gave companies an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. It was not the best scheme - an emissions trading scheme is thought to be the gold standard - but it was better than the nothing that we now have.

    That's if you're interested in reducing emissions, of course. If you're only interested in boosting the share prices of the power companies, and thereby enriching yourself and the mining magnates in the short term, then of course you wouldn't like the carbon tax.

    That assumes that companies don't compete with one another. If you're a power company and you can cut costs by using renewable energy, for example, then you can maintain profits while charging your customers less than your carbon-hungry competitors. And that means you'll have more customers. See?

    We're the largest per-capita carbon emitter. As a first-world nation that can afford to address the problem, Australia should be a role model for other nations. It should take the moral lead. You're quite wrong to say that no other country cares about what Australia does.

    Besides, it's in Australia's own interests not to get left behind as other nations adopt emissions trading schemes.


    It's a market mechanism. See above.

    And can we take it that you're a climate change denier, or did you mean something else when you said "imaginary carbon problem"? If you're a denier, then we can write you off as unimportant in this conversation from the start.

    Taxes pay for government services that ultimately benefit the taxpayers. The money is returned to the taxpayers either way.

    The government is answerable to the electorate. The electorate won't elect a bunch of hypocrites (in an ideal world, anyway).

    The government is answerable to the electorate. And we have laws against bribery.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    If the payment for doctor's visits [as small as it is] goes ahead, I see this as Abbott's downfall.
    I feel the Australian populace in general, will not stand for meddling with Medicare.
    Medicare/Medibank was Whitlam's greatest legacy among many great legacies.

    PS: I had the great pleasure of meeting Gough Whitlam, along with Jim Cairns in Canberra in 1973.
    In my opinion, the greatest statesman this country has had.

    As an avid Labor man, I thought you maybe interested to know, that no one supported Howard more then I, when he brought in our Gun ownership restriction laws after the Port Arthur massacre.
  22. brucep Valued Senior Member

    The consensus would be YOU haven't figured out anything yet. You should have figured that out by the response you get from folks who have figured out something. You're pretty good at consistently spewing nonsense.
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    If the intent of a carbon tax is lower carbon, and is not just another tax extortion game, why not give the tax money as a tax break to the people, to help offset the cost increases that will be expected? Business will transfer the cost of the carbon tax into their products with the consumer getting screwed. In the end the consumers will pay this tax. The offset will make it easier on the average person, while inducing carbon use innovation. This makes more sense but will not be done because the scam is about something else.

    The government also has a huge carbon footprint. Why are the power elite exempt from what they impose onto others? As a parallel in USA, Obama Care is considered good, yet those in power get an exemption.

    Australia is reversing the mafia shakedown. Power needs money to grow, with the carbon tax shake down more about growing power under the guise of reducing carbon. Government wants the money to become more of a busy body in the affairs of everyone. If the money goes to the people, central power cannot grow. If we then shakedown the government, with a carbon tax, revenue is loss and power shrinks. The government would not want to be shaken down with a tax anymore than a business does and will rationalize its own escape, even if the worse offender. The president and his wife take two jets. A carbon footprint is only for the peons since the elite are above it all as long as they say they care.

    What is wrong with all carbon taxes on business going to the people? And why not carbon tax governments who are offenders? The goal is to reduce carbon, right and bot of these will do that. If it is about a power scam this may not work.

Share This Page