Thread: Australia's economy grew by 4.3% in the last year

Originally Posted by garry17

No, they are not going to lose money.

Oh no they are going to do better than that.
http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/...or-industry-2/

In the next paragraph:

The most emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities will receive assistance to cover 94.5 per cent of industry average carbon costs in the first year of the carbon price, with less emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities to receive assistance to cover 66 per cent of industry average carbon costs. Assistance will be reduced by 1.3 per cent each year to encourage industry to cut pollution.

So no, they won't be compensated 100% and the compensation will gradually be reduced. Keep in mind free permits are effectively subsidies.

LOL..' carbon tax, mining tax.. the mining industry would appear to be the only sector growing at this time, boosting growth figures and jobs. Gillard is trying hard not to help it grow, by the looks of that. but the fact remains 40% of the carbon tax revenue will go to export companies along with many other government assistant programs already in place to insure that price of export commodities are not effected.

Again, you seem to be saying that between the MRRT and the carbon tax, the mining companies somehow will not pay anything, which is pretty ridiculous. How much it will affect the price at which BHP and other companies sell their commodities is up to them, not the government.

Originally Posted by garry17

What is the magic figure of the assistance program, 50% of the carbon tax will go to assistance programs to help the people with this added cost. apparently, the real figure for the people is 10% with 40% going to export companies. Oh sure, you can claim that adding jobs is helping the people, but you also claim that it is the mine owners that are grubby little parasites just grabbing profits and this assistance package would mean that some will be far better off than before, which you detest.

Which mining company is going to be "better off" than before after the carbon tax, and by how much? Anyway, the carbon tax isn't supposed to kill off the mining industry, it's supposed to reduce GHG emissions.

Originally Posted by garry17

The short sited stance of the government should be what is the problem here, not the next 12 months. For example, what is going to happen, once the government has achieved it's revenue grab and try and transition this tax to a ETS? Either they will have to find more money to subsidies the export industry to keep Australian export industry competitive, or they have to retain the TAX. Either way it is going to cost Australia far more in the end than this government cares about.

The level of compensation will obviously depend on the revenue from the ETS after it's floated. I think there is some misconception here, an ETS also produces revenue. Which is why, for instance, the legislative package includes a permanent raising of the tax free threshold to 18k (1 million less people from the bottom of the income scale will have to file income tax returns) and increases to pensions. "Going to cost far more in the end than this government cares about", is that supposed to actually mean something?

Originally Posted by garry17

The funny thing at this time is that Gillard is trying to get child care in Australia. The drama is costs are growing far to high, even with subsidies. So, what does the union want? more money for the employees. Now, if this is not a greater cost for the child care centre, I do not know what is. But it is one of the things that has been touted as a way around the issue. Where is the money going to come from? the Government?* I just can not see that this government have any idea about what they are doing.

*I raise this only to show the short sightedness, of economic impact of the Labor base.

I don't know why you're suddenly bringing up childcare, it is already subsidised by the government. And if child care employees want more money, that is just an issue that will have to be dealt with between the unions, and the employers (public or private).

Originally Posted by garry17

The funny thing at this time is that Gillard is trying to get child care in Australia. The drama is costs are growing far to high, even with subsidies. So, what does the union want? more money for the employees. Now, if this is not a greater cost for the child care centre, I do not know what is. But it is one of the things that has been touted as a way around the issue. Where is the money going to come from? the Government?* I just can not see that this government have any idea about what they are doing.

*I raise this only to show the short sightedness, of economic impact of the Labor base.

I love it when people talk about things they know nothing about.

My partner is a child care worker, has been for nearly 20 years, this itself is a rarity as child care workers usually only last 4 or 5 years in the job. She gets approx $20 an hour for looking after 8 to 10 preschoolers, if you want to see if they earn their money, go have a look.

Who should pay, the people who use it, why not.

PM meets key players in childcare sector

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...2/s3520246.htm

Originally Posted by lizarddust

When I moved into my town there were two primary schools, a couple of grocery shops, one bank/post office combination, roads were mainly unsealed, you had to drive 15 kilometres to do any serious shopping and the pub closed at 6pm.

Now there are four high schools, a dozen primary shools, two major shopping complexes, a cinema complex, roads are sealed and guttered, 10 or 12 banks, three post offices and three pubs, half a dozen clubs, all which stay open until 1.00 am.

What's your point?

You are either more lucky in your choices or more intelligent.
All I am asking or hoping for is to survive on my own, without goverment help....
With less tourists coming, and more people moving towards the big smoke (Perth), it looks like my days in that beautiful part of our country are limted!
In some ways, some of this enormous money created in the mining industry, should help or benefit country towns, the ones which are not so lucky as yours.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

I was actually trying to say that the increase predicted is 0.7% as opposed to the 30% you parrot Abbott with. Of course the consumer is going to pay, but as I was also alluding to was that these corporation could very easily absorb this cost, based on the huge profits they make. It would be price gouging if prices rose beyond this. It simply won't happen, it is scaremongering to lowest degree regarding consumer confidence, and you and others who were drowned out by Abbott's mantra fell for it.
The CSIRO-AECOM research shows impacts on households are likely to be smaller than anticipated. It calculates Australia’s carbon pollution price will add 0.6% to inflation in 2012-13. This is less of an impact on the economy than estimated by Treasury modelling, and may be even smaller as the modelling assumes a 100% pass-through of costs by businesses to consumers.

The CSIRO-AECOM research underpins the figures used in the new online savings calculator at yourcarbonprice.com.au, as well as a national information program available to councils, schools, faith groups, business groups and other organisations.

“Communities are looking for real information about their day-to-day costs and savings. For example, the carbon pollution price initially translates into 2 cents extra for bread and a litre of milk, 11 cents for a leg of lamb and 14 cents for a weekly spend on fruit and vegetables but once you factor in ongoing government assistance, those weekly costs are largely covered and most people end up with money in their pocket,“ said ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie.#

“Energy efficiency can put households even further ahead. The latest estimates* show most people could be another $12.75 better off per week ($663 per year) by making just 4 small changes in the home,” said Climate Institute CEO John Connor.

The CSIRO-AECOM study also compares the effect of the carbon pollution price with other inflationary events such as the introduction of the GST, Cyclone Yasi and the mining boom. It finds that the impact on prices of the 2001 GST was more than 4 times bigger (2.5%) than the carbon price, while fruit prices, led by bananas, spiked by a massive 70% after the damage of Cyclone Yasi.

The study reports that without domestic and global action to slow down climate change, the impact on basic food prices is likely be 20 times greater than the carbon price impact by 2050 because of extreme weather events.

“Potentially, Australia can cut up to 1 billion tonnes of pollution by 2020 with a carbon price and limits on pollution. This report demonstrates that the nation will continue to prosper while achieving an environmentally strong outcome to help manage the risks of climate change,” said Mr Connor.

Hey vigilante you believe that?

Good on you my friend.

Then what do you think about Julia Gillard when she said,

"There will be no carbon tax under the government i lead"

Which is why i voted for her.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Have you read this article thorougly Dumb. Please see the following snippet from this site:

Including the impact of the Carbon Price, the rising electricity cost can be attributed to two sources:

Rising cost of wholesale electricity 40% nationally
Rising cost of distribution 33.6% nationally
On a smaller scale, the electricity cost for transmission has also increased to meet a growing demand nationwide. Additionally, electricity retail prices are anticipated to rise in order to supply more power to residential customers for the same reason - to meet increasing needs for power throughout Australia.

You and the others opposing the carbon pollution price are being hoodwinked by Abbott and these greedy companies. It's funny how they use the carbon price but not it's actual costs, but go on to mention the real reason for the massive increases. You have to stop yourself from being disorientated by Abbott and his mantra. Media outlets have a vested interest in political parties. Who do you think they back. The party of the working man or the party of the corporate world?

Well then probably after the first year when companies will have to buy their carbon cedits you better add that cost on too because its going to hit your hip pocket.

BHP billiton will still make another $25 billion this year carbon tax or no.

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

Firstly it's they're not their. Secondly, like lizard, I would love to know who they are?

I can't remember the guys name but his was some kahuna from the commerce and retail.

And no i type fast and dont do a spell check, but i'm sure you get the picture.

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

I love it when people talk about things they know nothing about.

My partner is a child care worker, has been for nearly 20 years, this itself is a rarity as child care workers usually only last 4 or 5 years in the job. She gets approx $20 an hour for looking after 8 to 10 preschoolers, if you want to see if they earn their money, go have a look.

Who should pay, the people who use it, why not.

I am not saying, they do not deserve the pay increases. And as matter of contention, no, I do know little about this. Only thing I know is, that some child care centers are not actually doing the job, as prescribed by Government. However, that does not detract from the fact, how can you increase wages and claim to reduce costs at the same time. WAGES are a COST. Nothing to do with earning their money or not.

Just a side note, I do believe they are worth more money as the training that they go through is significant, as well as the work load. But politically, the added costs this and several other governments have added to the centers will most likely make it impossible to get that greater income. Also, they do use it and should pay for it, but the government will pass this cost onto everybody, to help the families out. Fast becoming a welfare nation without incentive to do anything.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

In the next paragraph:

So no, they won't be compensated 100% and the compensation will gradually be reduced. Keep in mind free permits are effectively subsidies.

So tell me at those reductions how many years will it be before the export companies will not be subsidized for the added costs? And keeping in mind that free permits, which the government is going to give polluting companies is a subsidy however, is it part of the 40% package the government is announcing?

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Again, you seem to be saying that between the MRRT and the carbon tax, the mining companies somehow will not pay anything, which is pretty ridiculous. How much it will affect the price at which BHP and other companies sell their commodities is up to them, not the government.

LOL... So BHP will make up a price to sell to the rest of the world and they will still buy their product. perhaps you should have said market forces depict the price of their product, as if the price is too high it won't matter what BHP puts on it, it won't be sold.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Which mining company is going to be "better off" than before after the carbon tax, and by how much? Anyway, the carbon tax isn't supposed to kill off the mining industry, it's supposed to reduce GHG emissions.

Some will be.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

The level of compensation will obviously depend on the revenue from the ETS after it's floated.

No, because once it is floated it will no longer be an income for the government, it will simply be income for speculators.

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I think there is some misconception here, an ETS also produces revenue. Which is why, for instance, the legislative package includes a permanent raising of the tax free threshold to 18k (1 million less people from the bottom of the income scale will have to file income tax returns) and increases to pensions. "Going to cost far more in the end than this government cares about", is that supposed to actually mean something?

if it continually produces revenue it is also a tax. but please enlighten us all on how this is going to happen without being called a TAX as you proclaim it is not

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I don't know why you're suddenly bringing up childcare, it is already subsidised by the government. And if child care employees want more money, that is just an issue that will have to be dealt with between the unions, and the employers (public or private).

It is not the case of if they want more money, it is the case of the short sighted bureaucratic government that Gillard is bringing, is a forcing issue of costs to these centers. and Gillard will bow to more subsidies to help reduce the rising costs.

Originally Posted by garry17

So tell me at those reductions how many years will it be before the export companies will not be subsidized for the added costs? And keeping in mind that free permits, which the government is going to give polluting companies is a subsidy however, is it part of the 40% package the government is announcing?

Yes, permits = money, free permits = subsidies = assistance.

Originally Posted by garry17

LOL... So BHP will make up a price to sell to the rest of the world and they will still buy their product. perhaps you should have said market forces depict the price of their product, as if the price is too high it won't matter what BHP puts on it, it won't be sold.

Yes, they "make up" prices when they negotiate contracts with buyers.

Originally Posted by garry17

Some will be.

Which ones will be? And by how much?

Originally Posted by garry17

No, because once it is floated it will no longer be an income for the government, it will simply be income for speculators.

Has no one read the legislation but me? Carbon permits don't last indefinitely, you buy a new one, from the government, for each tonne of carbon you emit. In a fixed price ETS the price is... fixed, in a floating price ETS, the permits are auctioned and can be traded. The initial seller for permits for emissions under the cap is the government, and then any carbon negative industries (like pine plantations for instance) produce their own permits that they can sell.

Originally Posted by garry17

if it continually produces revenue it is also a tax. but please enlighten us all on how this is going to happen without being called a TAX as you proclaim it is not

Not everything that produces government revenue is a "tax", it's an EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME. Who do you think sells the permits? Where do you think the money goes? What do you think an ETS is exactly? And anyway, the point of an ETS is to create a price incentive by putting the money back into the economy at the consumer end (income tax cuts and pensions increases, etc), so it should be revenue neutral.

Originally Posted by garry17

It is not the case of if they want more money, it is the case of the short sighted bureaucratic government that Gillard is bringing, is a forcing issue of costs to these centers. and Gillard will bow to more subsidies to help reduce the rising costs.

Forcing more issues of cost onto childcare centres how?