Labor's Ruddy Quandary

The new poll from Australia shows that the ALP is just 2% behind the coalition and Rudd has a fair chance of keeping his current job. Julia Gillard was forced out by a palace coup within the party, which was exactly how she became the party leader three years ago, and this may be how Aussie politics works and you have to grin and bear it after getting roughed up. Tony Abbott is an unpopular figure and the Aussie voters are likely to vote Labour just to keep him out of the country's top job in September.

 

Carbon Pricing is only an economic policy, they're based on Garnaut's (an economist) reports.

What do you think the difference between an ETS and a Tax is then? Why is Hunt wrong?

 

True, but many ignore the economic consideration and state it is an environmental issue. This is the only way the entire policy was sold and considered measure of success is not inclusion of economic impact.

What? You don't know by now the difference?

As stated previously (to you) A tax is an amount of money levied by a government on its citizens and used to run the government, the country, a state, a county, or a municipality. This supposed carbon price you continue to tout is simply a tax.

The transition to Environmental Trading scheme will make the change from government tax to a market based system were price will be adjusted by demand and not by Government coffers. I also disagree with that policy as it continues to strain the trade disparages of the Australian industry upon the global market. But I also assume that the government will need to tax the ETS, to pay for welfare commitments over this policy, if not where will the money come from.

Sure, everybody wants to claim the coalition direct action plan is so expensive, but the truth they want to ignore the fact that Howard introduced measures that found real 7% reductions in emissions at no cost to the public purse. Eventually it may become necessary to bite the bullet to achieve real gains, but under the current system even the modelling of the policy show the increases and not reductions as the ALP would have us all to believe. All reductions are made by deference and not real cuts. It is sheer suicide to introduce a major cost to industry when you’re not competitive with your customers already.

 

Got an example of Abbott indulging in gutter politics? As for Rudd, people are relieved to see the end of Gillard, Rudd`s honeymoon will be short.

 

As much as I usually agree with you, I'm not sure I can here. People are stupid and ignorant. They care about personalities and have no time at all for policy.

Abbott is on the backfoot because Rudd is the more popular leader. The Coalition should replace Abbott with Turnbull.

 

G`day SP. I`m not sure about Turnbull, he is a smooth speaker, and has television appeal, but I`d need to see more of him in a leadership role. He may grow into the job. Although not a leadership quality, the way Abbott has risen above the slime thrown at him in the past few years, has done him proud. As for Rudd, he comes across like a B grade used car salesman. Some people go for that type, apparently. .

 

Most Australians do. 55% in fact.

I don't think he's a good leader with good policies, but most Australians like the guy. They think he's someone you could sit down and have a beer with.

Turnbull has liberal ambitions. He wants to do away with the totalitarian wing of the Coalition. He wants an Australian Republic. He's a good leader on policy, and most Australians would adore to see him replace Abbott.

It's the right move both politically and for the people.

 

But these days it is about being right for the party........ Stuff the people !

 

What do you mean "I also assume that the government will need to tax the ETS, to pay for welfare commitments over this policy, if not where will the money come from"? The money comes from the same place, selling permits.

And it's "Emissions" Trading Scheme, not "Environmental".

 

Would it not be privy to GST ? Or is it exempt ?

 

Sorry about that, had a brain fart over the name.

So you say that it will not be a market based system at all??? For this to be a market based system the Government needs to grant the permits (as the policy states).

As stated, I assume that government will need to tax the permits, any other system will artificially inflate the trading market allowing speculation and investment destroy the final remanaints of business in Australia.

However, you proclaimed point is taken but from the government itself

http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/...ustralian-governments-climate-change-plan.pdf

As this would assume that the government is going to sell the permits is reasonable for the first three years. but

http://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/cps/...ustralian-governments-climate-change-plan.pdf

So in fact majority of permits for existing business will be granted assessed on expectation of expansion and previous history. However, permits are available from other sources to cover increased emissions. The question is who is eligible? Obviously not new business, as their will be further red tape adding to introduction fees.

Obviously you do not consider the government intend to grant permits, as majority of permits are granted to existing business, how do you suggest the government continue spending the money they no longer receive from their tax? Do you suggest the government will have increased income from a market based system? Do you consider that a market based system will not be taxed for speculation?

The ALP has demonstratively made the blunder of not being able to calculate the results of their own policy, why do you think this to be any different?

 

I still have no idea what you mean when you say "I assume that government will need to tax the permits".

The government sells the permits, and they get 100% of the revenue from the sale of the permits, not with standing any of the "free" permits allocated as part of the "compensation".

 

Perhaps you do not understand that the government intend (according to their own site) Grant permits based upon historic emissions. Thus even if they sell remainder, there will be short fall of money, committed to compensation, welfare and energy investment. Where do you consider this money will come from?

Fact is after the three years only 50% of the carbon credits will issued by government, while further 50% will be brought from overseas sources, Were is the government going to get the short fall from that to cover its commitments it has made on this.?

The government will need to form some sort of tax to meet the expenditure it has committed. If not a tax on the permits, then it will have to be a direct tax on the people. What will be the cost???

 

If they can't fully cover the cost of the house assistance/tax cuts, they can either put in a price floor, absorb it into the budget, or lower the household assistance.

These are the same tax cuts and welfare that Abbott is going to pay for after abolishing the carbon tax, and the mining tax, as well as paying for his "direct action" policy, remember.

"Energy investment" and business "compensation" are negligible.

And yes there will be taxes on trading permits, same as in any other market, but the overwhelming bulk of revenue is from permits.

 

LOL... like to see anybody reduce welfare... LOL That would be electoral suicide.

Yes, Abbott needs to explain the sources of his funding for keeping the welfare payments. Nobody can dispute that, But as the direct action policy has not been brought forward so cost of that policy is subjective to interpretation. BUT remember, Howard used a direct action plan to find 7% real reductions in emissions at no cost to the tax payer, so it is not so much more expensive but unknown.

Negligable? Is this because the income from these taxes Gillard introduced never showed up???


On a side note, are you sure Abbott promised to repeal the mining tax? I thought he only promised to restructure it. Could you clarify?

 

Well Combet already announced plans to scrap the 2015-16 tax cuts that were part of the carbon tax compensation, so clearly it's on the cards.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/we-would-scrap-mining-tax-abbott-s-budget-reply

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency (about $13 billion together) are paid for during the fixed price period, so they're irrelevant. And the "business compensation" is mostly just free permits, also irrelevant. So do you actually have anything specific that the government has to pay for in these areas under the ETS?

Evidence for Howard reducing Australia's emissions by 7% at "no cost to the tax payer"?

 

Ziggy should all of these pitfalls been thought through before the introduction of this plan ? I am not right into this as you lot are, but to me perhaps this was not as thought out as it should of been, a rush job to meet the Greens deadline maybe. Why should we have to absorb the costs into the budget if this scheme was all it was said to be ?

This was modelled of Europe as I understand ? How are they dealing with the shortfalls ? Or is theirs not linked to welfare promises as ours is ?

Like I said I am not up to date with the financial side of this, so these are legitimate questions.

 

Abbott will rely totally on increased taxes IMO. Labor reduced taxes into the billions from predecessor levels, so you would think that Abbott would follow idealistic lines and increase taxes to meet expenditure and back to levels of the Howard government.

 

I have to admit that I'm a bit lost here. LOL.

Ziggy, if the CEFC and the REA will of already paid and the business compensation is basically free permits, how do the government make money out of this going forward ?

Is the CEFC and REA only required to pay once or is it ongoing ?

After the fixed price period, who exactly will be buying these permits ?

 

All government revenue is uncertain until it actually rolls in, no one really knows what the carbon price will be in 2015-16.

All the EU countries do different things with their revenue, but most of them just add it to the general revenue "pool" of their government.

There's no real reason the compensation can't be adjusted, other than political ones. As I said Combet was going to put off the further tax cuts and compensation that was supposed to come into effect in 2015-16. But who knows what Rudd will end up doing.

 

It is far easier to scrap something that has not been given than to scrap something in place. Could you not imagine the outrage if welfare was cut?

So what you are saying is that free permits are irrelevant because you consider to part of the ETS? As pointed free permits reduce the income the government can expect. So they are not irrelevant. Further, there are supposed to be other clean energy investments that the government has promised of the money that are ongoing, such as the government abatement scheme with India and Vietnam, Oops... I should say Gillard stated.

Look to vehicle manufacturing, something you as an advocate would be aware of the regulation to reduce heavy transport emissions by regulating the vehicles sold. As stated before, have a look at the trucks on the road displaying EURO5 due to change to EURO6 on the side of them. Also look to the light commercials for the EURO4 standard (at present Euro5 standard cannot be reached due to feasibility of equipment). We have discussed this somewhere on the forum but I could not be bothered chasing the details (not you and me but others). All you need to do is to witness these things yourself. This was a direct action policy that regulated that diesel engines sold in Australia must meet the highest standards of emission control (being the European standard) and transitioning as the technology progresses. Introduced by Howard, and not refuted by the ALP or the Greens. Again I could not be bothered chasing it, so believe it or not, I care little.

 

Do you actually have something to contribute other than your own diatribe?

 

Why, what's wrong with my opinion? I did consider historical factors didn't I?

 

Well they cut the baby bonus and the private health insurance rebate too, so it's still not out of the question.

Free permits are cost neutral, and the number of free permits given out is reviewed every time permits are auctioned. There is no fixed "cost" to the government from free permits.

I don't know what scheme you're talking about, but it's more likely to be part of foreign aid rather than anything to do with the ETS.

So that's a "no" then is it?

Because hey, if we can reduce our emissions by %7 at "no cost", I'd be all for that. But even Tony doesn't think he can do that.

 

Zig, that is the point isn't it? It would be fair enough if the government had waited to spend the money. The ALP nailed a figure to the wall and decided to spend it with welfare payments and other budget measures. Now the taxes did not raise the money they needed to pay for what they spent the government needs to find it from somewhere.

This is a serious lack of economic management and short sighted policy, can the country continue to suffer these major mismanagement of the economy with policy that they obviously cannot handle?

I would like to say that Rudd will be different, but he was just as bad in government with the waste that can be contributed to his first term. Imagine, if his GFC policy was better managed, if he listen to his fellow party members no raise of taxes to fund NDIS and maybe far more nation building.

Instability and lack of attention grossly mismanagement of policy, can the country continue in that manner? No. Will Rudd be any different than before? In my opinion NO.