Australian Federal Election 2010

[amb]

New Zealand goes to the polls tomorrow, it seems as if the right leaning party will win it by a country mile. That and the results in many other recent elections says that left leaning parties are on the nose throughout the world. You can only hug a tree for so long before you get splinters.

 

[wombatwal]

New Zealand goes to the polls tomorrow, it seems as if the right leaning party will win it by a country mile. That and the results in many other recent elections says that left leaning parties are on the nose throughout the world. You can only hug a tree for so long before you get splinters.

This is an Australian political thread, not NZ.
Do you think Abbott should fall on his sword?

 

[bit_pattern]

Any chance you could answer my question?

You mean that incoherent tangent you tried to divert the direction of the discussion with? No, I most certainly could not, I couldn't make heads or tails of it, let alone answer it, and tbh I didn't even realise it was a question. All I could tell was that it had sfa to do with what we were talking about.

 

[bit_pattern]

This is an Australian political thread, not NZ.

I'm pretty sure there's a dedicated NZ election thread, I've posted in it a few times already.

 

[amb]

For the good of the party, yes!

 

[amb]

This is an Australian political thread, not NZ.
Do you think Abbott should fall on his sword?

For the good of his party? YES!

 

[Wildy]

Are they going to keep them? I was unaware of that. Seems a bit odd to me if they are. Source?

That's kind of why I asked the question because I couldn't find anything. But since you don't know either than all I can say is that the Liberals plan to repeal it is a little vague.

And if they aren't, big deal. People receive tax cuts to compensate for higher costs that will be passed along and maintain the financial status quo for households. If those costs are then removed there is no need for the tax cuts anymore and the status quo is again retained. What's the problem?

And if the businesses don't drop their prices when the tax is removed?

But the other problem is the PR side of it. I wonder how many people would like to know that the Liberals are raising their taxes in order to give the money to big business.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You mean that incoherent tangent you tried to divert the direction of the discussion with? No, I most certainly could not, I couldn't make heads or tails of it, let alone answer it, and tbh I didn't even realise it was a question. All I could tell was that it had sfa to do with what we were talking about.

Your usual cowardice again noted.

That's kind of why I asked the question because I couldn't find anything. But since you don't know either than all I can say is that the Liberals plan to repeal it is a little vague.

I understood them to say they will repeal the lot. Not too diffcult to grasp I'd have thought.

And if the businesses don't drop their prices when the tax is removed?

I don't actually know if the coalition would legislate for anything, or simply allow market forces to determine price. You might not have noticed but there is a rather large scale competition in the sector to get your energy business. Competitive cost will attract many clients I'd have thought.

But the other problem is the PR side of it. I wonder how many people would like to know that the Liberals are raising their taxes in order to give the money to big business.

Source?

 

[bit_pattern]

Your usual cowardice again noted.

Sure, whatever you need to maintain that overinflated sense of self importance of yours

 

[Wildy]

I understood them to say they will repeal the lot. Not too diffcult to grasp I'd have thought.

If that's indeed the case then yes, that is very clear.

I don't actually know if the coalition would legislate for anything, or simply allow market forces to determine price.

Considering the ideology of the coalition I'm pretty sure it would be the latter.

You might not have noticed but there is a rather large scale competition in the sector to get your energy business. Competitive cost will attract many clients I'd have thought.

But like the previous sentence this doesn't really answer my question. What if none of the businesses remove the price increases incurred by the carbon tax?

Source?

Don't have a source because this is something I've been thinking about. If you repeal the tax cuts which are part of the carbon tax package you are essentially raising the taxes of the people who receive the cuts. The Liberal's "direct action" is basically the government paying big business to change their habits (which might not work). Now I think that people wouldn't be happy to hear that they're giving money to businesses that make large amounts of money each year. Perhaps you think differently.

 

[amb]

Australia does not need to bring in such draconian risky carbon tax while India and China including USA sit and wait. Kyoto is already forgotten it seems.

 

[bit_pattern]

Australia does not need to bring in such draconian risky carbon tax while India and China (...) sit and wait.

How many times does it have to be said??? India put a carbon price, plus it has a tax on coal, in place in 2010. China will have a trading scheme in place at about the same time as the carbon tax reverts to an ETS.

Kyoto is already forgotten it seems.

Kyoto ALLOWED India and China's emissions growth to continue. You obviously don't have a clue about Kyoto OR the post Kyoto reality.

 

[amb]

At $23 per ton?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sure, whatever you need to maintain that overinflated sense of self importance of yours

You sound angry again. I guess it's because - once again - you don't know the answer? I really do start to see where you have a problem with this. Did you know that I am qualified in anger management therapy? Send me a pm and I'm almost certain I can assist.

I'm pretty sure the morons Greens haven't thought that far ahead either; and that's why they are morons.

But like the previous sentence this doesn't really answer my question. What if none of the businesses remove the price increases incurred by the carbon tax?

Then they lose business don't they. All it takes is one to take their prices back and they all will. It's called competition.

But let's assume they don't (which would seem highly unlikely if not impossible in the country we live in), then the government of the day can legislate, but even before that there are industry watchdogs, ombudsmen etc on top of the usual market forces.

At this stage I really don't see this as an issue.

Don't have a source because this is something I've been thinking about.

He he
So when I challenge the specifics of others' claims and with a question or two follow through a natural, systematic and logical process you call it "JAQing off". When you idly speculate you call it's "thinking about".

If you repeal the tax cuts which are part of the carbon tax package you are essentially raising the taxes of the people who receive the cuts.

Wrong. They were compensated for an increase in costs. With those increases gone, the compensation is not required.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How many times does it have to be said??? India put a carbon price, plus it has a tax on coal, in place in 2010. China will have a trading scheme in place at about the same time as the carbon tax reverts to an ETS.

Please show us some details on China's scheme.

That aside, a reduction in carbon intesnsity and putting a $23 per tonne price on carbon is not the same. How many times do you need to be told?

 

[bit_pattern]

That aside, a reduction in carbon intesnsity and putting a $23 per tonne price on carbon is not the same. How many times do you need to be told?

You're right. China making a 40% reduction in their emission intensity is more of a commitment than Australia's 5% cut on 2000 emissions, in overall terms. But all of a sudden per capita emissions matter, right?

The main difference is that Australia's bipartisan target is amongst the weakest in the world. Which completely contradicts your Noalition/News Ltd propaganda. Let's face it, until I arrived to correct you, you didn't even know China and India were doing anything. Amb still doesn't know, apparently. You two are victims of an information deficiency, because you only get information from within the bubble.

 

[lionking]

Alfie, how many times do you need to have your arse handed to you in this thread? You confidently predicted the demise of Gillard months ago. Sylvia Browne-like that one.

The year ends with a raft of major reforms. Good show Julia. Two more years. Brilliant.

 

[bit_pattern]

At $23 per ton?

No, on the global market, I'd imagine, which Australia's price will be as of 2015, a year after China's scheme starts trading.

You guys are pretty ignorant considering the level of you anxiety about this legislation, one suspects there's more than a casual relationship between the levels of anxiety compared to ignorance.

 

[Wildy]

Then they lose business don't they. All it takes is one to take their prices back and they all will. It's called competition.

But let's assume they don't (which would seem highly unlikely if not impossible in the country we live in), then the government of the day can legislate, but even before that there are industry watchdogs, ombudsmen etc on top of the usual market forces.

At this stage I really don't see this as an issue.

As I understand it the increase in electricity prices for example is apparently $3.30 a week. Are you saying that when the tax is removed that the price of electricity will drop by the same amount?

He he
So when I challenge the specifics of others' claims and with a question or two follow through a natural, systematic and logical process you call it "JAQing off". When you idly speculate you call it's "thinking about".

Firstly, I've outlined how I've come to the conclusion that I came to, so compared to you my "idl[e] speculat[ions]" are already far superior to the drivel that you so generously call "challeng[ing] the specifics of others' claims". In fact considering both your actions in this thread and my actions this entire paragraph is just laughable.

Wrong. They were compensated for an increase in costs. With those increases gone, the compensation is not required.

You say "compensation" I say "tax cut". Will you at least admit that under the Liberal's policy of repealing the carbon tax they will also be taking money away from ordinary Australians?

 

[amb]

Most of you guys are taking politicians at their word. I think you will all be left with egg on your faces if you are. When was the last time a pollie made a prediction that we would all be better off and it came to pass?