Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

That is not even close to a healthy democracy. You might like to think it is. I don't.

lol, So you don't think it's a healthy democracy because things aren't going your way and the tide of public opinion has turned against your cause. How unfortunate, poor you.

I think you chaps are both falling for the old trap of blaming the electorate, the media, mabo and the vibe without actually doing any navel gazing into your own parties shortcomings.

The Liberal party faithful were in the exact same position circa 2006/7 after Workchoices were introduced. There were howling cries of a biased media, the 'destructive and misleading campaigns' this time put out by the union boogeymen, a scaremongering opposition, Getup, you name it, all without acknowledging that the main reason people were against the legislation was because the legislation sucked. Like the carbon tax it went too far, left too many people worse off and it was introduced without it being a campaign policy. Now whether what the opposition was offering as an alternative would be any better proved to be largely irrelevant, KRudd campaigned on tearing it up and the rest is history. The parallels are uncanny. Peter Beattie offered some sound advice recently, but of course it fell on deaf ears and now this arrogant government is heading towards it's self destruction that it deserves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

PS. it's not a tax

Keep telling yourself that mate, if it makes you feel any better. But when the Prime Minister herself admits it's a tax, and if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, well you know the rest.

But the workchoices reform DID suck! It DID leave people worse off.

There is NO evidence to suggest that the same will occur with the ETS. Just a bunch of misleading stories.

Your comparison to workchoices is quite valid, particularly when it comes to the feeling of the electorate. The primary difference is that workchoices was going to strip people of their rights. This was written into the legislation. It was bad news.

The ETS is going to leave people better off than before, but the opposition campaign is midleading people into believing they will be worse off. They won't be. There is no stripping of rights. Just putting a price on a pollutant.

THAT is the primary difference. Otherwise, everything you said is pretty much on the money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

lol, So you don't think it's a healthy democracy because things aren't going your way and the tide of public opinion has turned against your cause. How unfortunate, poor you.

I think you chaps are both falling for the old trap of blaming the electorate, the media, mabo and the vibe without actually doing any navel gazing into your own parties shortcomings.

The Liberal party faithful were in the exact same position circa 2006/7 after Workchoices were introduced. There were howling cries of a biased media, the 'destructive and misleading campaigns' this time put out by the union boogeymen, a scaremongering opposition, Getup, you name it, all without acknowledging that the main reason people were against the legislation was because the legislation sucked. Like the carbon tax it went too far, left too many people worse off and it was introduced without it being a campaign policy. Now whether what the opposition was offering as an alternative would be any better proved to be largely irrelevant, KRudd campaigned on tearing it up and the rest is history. The parallels are uncanny. Peter Beattie offered some sound advice recently, but of course it fell on deaf ears and now this arrogant government is heading towards it's self destruction that it deserves.

Keep telling yourself that mate, if it makes you feel any better. But when the Prime Minister herself admits it's a tax, and if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, well you know the rest.

It's pretty weird that you gloat about this. It's not my cause, anymore than not killing children is my cause. I'm not going to be the person dealing with a totally fucked up climate in 50 years time.

Labor is not my party, OK. Coalition is less my party, but Labor is not my party either. It just happens to have better policies than the policy free zone of the Abbott lead opposition (apart from funding nannies - such a visionary man).

ETS was the policy Howard took to the election before last. The ETS was Coalition policy until Turnbull was fucked over to save the heads of redneck senators. Now somehow it is wrong, even though we all know half the Liberals want an ETS. That kind of thinking on major policy issues seems to be OK for you... good for you.

It won't affect me more than anyone else if Abbott decides to get rid a carbon pricing framework. In fact I'll probably be better off financially, and fortunately I don't live in a flood or bushfire prone area. But it's a stupid decision. If you are one of the majority (mainly in Qld and WA) who can't see that Abbott's carbon policy is ridiculous, nothing I can do about it (fact is I doubt the rednecks know what the coalitionn policy is - it's just not "Juliar"). I'm probably always financially better off under a coallition, most of the people who will be voting for the coalition are usually worse off under a coalition government. Seems Howard's battlers have already forgotten how he screwed them over. That's how it rolls now. I get that. I'm not looking forward to when the shit hits the fan though and deep cuts will be made, and they will be made. That pisses me off, but most people can't see that far ahead it seems.

But you are right, it does piss me off that people would rather have an anti-abortion, sexist, creationist as a PM than lose a few dollars out of their hip pocket. What a shallow, greedy, racist, misogynist country we live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

It would only be a healthy democracy if the voters were acting rationally based on facts. Abbott's alternative plan for achieving the Coalition's commitment of 5% reduction in emissions is based on robustly discredited soil carbon emission reduction estimations and a centralised government funded approach well known to cause perverse incentives. The Colaition's policy is regarded almost universally as being more expensive to the taxpayer.

If Abbott gets in I'd be amazed if he actually tried to implement his plan, I reckon he'd drop any commitment to a reduction pretty quickly under the guise of 'we've had a look over the books and we can't afford it'.

The fucker should just be honest about it and make it coalition policy, that's what the bulk of the people who will vote for him want anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weinertron

But the workchoices reform DID suck! It DID leave people worse off.

There is NO evidence to suggest that the same will occur with the ETS. Just a bunch of misleading stories.

Agreed that workchoices left some worse off, but so will the carbon tax. The govts own estimates calculator puts me alone at almost $1K per year worse off, then there's stories like this:

Quote:

But Senator Milne struggled to convince when it came to questions about the carbon tax, although she said she would support measures to extend compensation to farmers highly dependent on energy.

Her remark that farmers could cover their "cool sheds" with masses of solar panels to become self- sustaining in energy, and sell the surplus to the cities, fell flat. Following the meeting with Senator Milne, Mr Darley took The Australian to his 22ha property Daydawn, where he is harvesting his best-ever crop of Pink Ladies. He said he had commissioned an electricity audit of his property, which found that solar panels at a cost of $150,000 would be impractical.

The carbon tax, he said, would increase his costs of electricity for pumping and keeping his apples cool in storage and fuel to run agricultural equipment by between $10,000 and $20,000 a year.

Misleading or true? I honestly don't know..

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

Agreed that workchoices left some worse off, but so will the carbon tax. The govts own estimates calculator puts me alone at almost $1K per year worse off, then there's stories like this:

Misleading or true? I honestly don't know..

That you inevitably use The Australian as your link to prove your points is retarded honestly. I've come to think that you actually believe they are some kind of centrist oracle of objectivity. Theu ain't.

Extra energy costs $15,000 a year. Doesn't actually say what his total costs are.

Cost of panels $150,000

Lifespan of panels 20 -25 years

So farmer saves $150,000 over the next 20 years by switching to solar in a worst case scenario.

If his energy costs are completely negated by the panels then he'd probably pay off the panels in 2 or 3 years then eliminate a major running cost of his company.

Not sure if farmer doesn't understand the word "impractical" or just can't do maths.

Same goes for the reporter who posted that story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baax

If Abbott gets in I'd be amazed if he actually tried to implement his plan, I reckon he'd drop any commitment to a reduction pretty quickly under the guise of 'we've had a look over the books and we can't afford it'.

The fucker should just be honest about it and make it coalition policy, that's what the bulk of the people who will vote for him want anyway.

Will it be in a scripted formal speech he states Coalition policy or in an off-the-cuff unscripted interview because then we'll know if we can trust it or not ay?

I forget, did Gillard say there would be no carbon tax under a government she lead, unscripted, on the Today show? Surely Abbott should be defending her right to be loose with the truth shouldn't he? Oh, I forgot, the fucker is just a beacon of light and truthyness innit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

He said he had commissioned an electricity audit of his property, which found that solar panels at a cost of $150,000 would be impractical.

The carbon tax, he said, would increase his costs of electricity for pumping and keeping his apples cool in storage and fuel to run agricultural equipment by between $10,000 and $20,000 a year.

Well... solar won't look so impractical in a couple of years then will it?

edit: pipped by Griggle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

Agreed that workchoices left some worse off, but so will the carbon tax. The govts own estimates calculator puts me alone at almost $1K per year worse off, then there's stories like this:

Misleading or true? I honestly don't know..

A recent report suggest that the govt overstimated the price impacts. I can't remember where the reference is.

Well i think it is hard to know without knowing the details. A one off $150k investment could be too much for him.

The first error is that the farmer includes fuel in his extra energy cost, but agriculture is exempted from paying any increase in price on fuels. Energy is going to go up regardless of the carbon price, and a substantially higher increase than the carbon price. So the difficulty in doing a cost benefit analysis on the capital investment of the solar panels is knowing what the future price of energy will be. Also, the cost of solar panels is going down quickly.

Without knowing the details of his energy audit - it may have been a very simple one - it's hard to know whether a range of capital programs was considered. For example there could be scope for improving his watering system, improving his energy use behaviour, and also he needn't completely offset his extra energy cost with solar straight away, he could implement a phased capital investment plan. I wonder if the tax elements of capital were considered.

If I was a farmer, I'd be trying to get as off grid as possible as soon as I could afford to.

There's not enough infor to do any mumber crunching on thi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

A recent report suggest that the govt overstimated the price impacts. I can't remember where the reference is.

A Uni of Qld study is mentioned here:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...417-1x5op.html

Welcome to the New World Order everybody! mmm mmm, increased tax-free threshold thank you very much.

ACCC have been working hard to make sure that some ****s aren't ****ish about raising their rates. Tell your friends.

http://theconversation.edu.au/when-t...arbon-tax-7913











..... I don't think anyone cares anymore to be honest. This thread was on page 2!

I'd like to Python squeeze deez nuts into Tony Abbott's mouth

totes bewitched

i'm stocking up on candles, i can't afford to turn the lights on

yeah but the price of candles is going up and up and up Buffed

you should have bought candles before the carbon tax came into effect, silly.

doh, sniped.

my mobile phone is not working..........carbon tax must die

My balls are carbon tax itchy

O noes, the chicken 'n' cheese burger at McDonalds is no longer $2!!! And I think we all know where to apportion blame for that outrageous price hike

Today I got a higher price for my seed at the jizz-bank. Thank you carbon tax.

putting up the price of electricity so old poor people cant afford to create carbon by heating their home in winter.

facts never have been your forte have they abziie? they get 10.10 in compo and pay 9.90 on average, so they are better off?

Beers went up at my local by 20 cents a schooner.

The next ones on you Carbon Tax.

Apparently the mood is all good in Whyalla. (watch & cringe from 1:30)

Media Player

Craig Emerson Singing & Dancing - YouTube

This is the lovely fellow who was busy banging Gillard, while his wife and three young children were at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle

facts never have been your forte have they abziie? they get 10.10 in compo and pay 9.90 on average, so they are better off?

Did your electricity bill go up by 10.10?

not yet, but I will keep you posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitey1981

Beers went up at my local by 20 cents a schooner.

The next ones on you Carbon Tax.

report the pub to accc imo

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

Apparently the mood is all good in Whyalla. (watch & cringe from 1:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk

This is the lovely fellow who was busy banging Gillard, while his wife and three young children were at home.

after he had seperated from his wife i thought?

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

This is the lovely fellow who was busy banging Gillard, while his wife and three young children were at home.

Aren't you the lovely fellow outed for blatantl racism in the asylum seeker thread?
Everyone makes the odd mistake...

At a meeting with a builder today signing up to a seven figure house build contract I asked him what effect the carbon price would have on his tender....

"none"


When the gst came in an additional 10% got charged ON EVERYTHING, even on the cost of labour.

Australians are just bloody whingers...we are number 1 in the world at emitting carbon dioxide, and will still be up there on the dias even after our 5% target cut.

Take away mining or manufacturing from this country lowkey and what'd you think the emissions per capita figure would be like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude

At a meeting with a builder today signing up to a seven figure house build contract I asked him what effect the carbon price would have on his tender....

"none"


When the gst came in an additional 10% got charged ON EVERYTHING, even on the cost of labour.

Australians are just bloody whingers...we are number 1 in the world at emitting carbon dioxide, and will still be up there on the dias even after our 5% target cut.

you constantly whinge about mcmansions and carbon emissions yet you have no problem building yourself a million dollar house?

he drives a hybrid its alright

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Take away mining or manufacturing from this country lowkey and what'd you think the emissions per capita figure would be like?

Pointless exercise, but 7% lower without mining and another 6% lower without manufacturing, approx. Still very high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

you constantly whinge about mcmansions and carbon emissions yet you have no problem building yourself a million dollar house?

maybe he is one of those lowlife property developers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle

maybe he is one of those lowlife property developers?

I was thinking it was a 2br semi with its own geothermal plant

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

you constantly whinge about mcmansions and carbon emissions yet you have no problem building yourself a million dollar house?

i am but a simple architect buffed...the house is for a couple of lawyers. Its not a Mcmansion and its pretty modestly sized for a family of 4.

but that doesnt change the fact that the carbon tax has affected fcuk all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude

Aren't you the lovely fellow outed for blatantl racism in the asylum seeker thread?
Everyone makes the odd mistake...

Negative. I called for a lot more Latino migrants, and a bit less fucked up religion. I think your comprehension skills are worse than your spelling

Everyone does make the odd mistake, few have those mistakes rewarded with a ministry position in parliament.

shut up racist

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowkeyandnude

i am but a simple architect buffed...the house is for a couple of lawyers. Its not a Mcmansion and its pretty modestly sized for a family of 4.

but that doesnt change the fact that the carbon tax has affected fcuk all.

i don't begrudge anyone a living, but i think it's a bit hypocritical that you make your living from designing the type of house that you so vehemently oppose with your carbon and environmental views

Ah yes personal attacks the cornerstone of any "good" political debate

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i don't begrudge anyone a living, but i think it's a bit hypocritical that you make your living from designing the type of house that you so vehemently oppose with your carbon and environmental views

i like how you are able to assess the carbon footprint of this house with such little information. brilliant work.

well i think it's symptomatic of the whole debate. People take a strong view but then don't back it up with their actions. supporters of the carbon tax will criticise opponents who make claims that their jobs and businesses will be negatively impacted, yet they won't risk their own livelihood by standing by their own views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

i like how you are able to assess the carbon footprint of this house with such little information. brilliant work.

how much analysis about the carbon footprint of the mcmansions that you always criticise do you do before you attack them? why be a hypocrite now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well i think it's symptomatic of the whole debate. People take a strong view but then don't back it up with their actions. supporters of the carbon tax will criticise opponents who make claims that their jobs and businesses will be negatively impacted, yet they won't risk their own livelihood by standing by their own views.

Energy / resource efficient homes can be very expensive to build, have you ever considered that being the case here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well i think it's symptomatic of the whole debate. People take a strong view but then don't back it up with their actions. supporters of the carbon tax will criticise opponents who make claims that their jobs and businesses will be negatively impacted, yet they won't risk their own livelihood by standing by their own views.

Well as far as I can tell not too many people support Labor's clean energy policy and Abbott is going to repeal it anyway. So there's not much use in me pointing out that criticising an architect for supporting an economically rationalist low carbon policy is a classic Lord Monckton strawman, because your forward thinking coalition has won the propaganda war anyway, and we can look forward to Abbott's central-government managed, tax funded, more expensive, low carbon policy with all its perverse incentives instead. Yay for the clever voters in our country, what a victory! You must be so proud of your fellow geniuses.

the criticism is because the claims are bullshit

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoneyhuh

Energy / resource efficient homes can be very expensive to build, have you ever considered that being the case here?

no

people with big, inefficient houses will pay for it through their electricity bill

they're not getting away with anything