Household Assistance Estimator Calculates Impact Of Carbon Tax On Your Wallet

63 responses to “Household Assistance Estimator Calculates Impact Of Carbon Tax On Your Wallet”

1. 

   Corey

   July 11, 2011

   Why would I believe a website created by a government that does nothing but release spin and lies?

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      Lord Crumplebottom

      July 11, 2011

      You’re in for a world of shock if you think any government doesn’t spin and lie lol

      I’ve said all I need to say all over the internet, radio and print media (in my various incarnations) so I’ll just leave with one simple sentence.

      We done got screwed, again.

      Log in to Reply
   2. 

      Geoff Rutty

      April 25, 2012

      Gee!!! I hope you said the same about Howard and Reith during the children overboard episode, along with the comment by Howard (paraphrasing) that no Australian will be worse off under Workchoices.

      Log in to Reply
2. 

   Godfrey

   July 11, 2011

   What a load of rubbish. If you’re looking for a random number generator this might be useful.

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Dan

   July 11, 2011

   I believe it – I also believe it’s telling me I will pay $900 per week and $301 back. I’m moving to another country….

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      Greg

      July 11, 2011

      A single,with no children, earning $200,000 +,pays
      $18 a week. According to the calculator. So not sure
      were you get $900 a week.

      Log in to Reply
      1. 

         Tegzilla

         July 12, 2011

         Think that was meant to be ‘per year’.

         Log in to Reply
         1. 

            Bing Ji Ling

            October 24, 2011

            Yeah, whatever. Per week, per year.

            Whinge whinge whinge. The story and numbers are irrelevant. Just old people complaining about politics.

            Log in to Reply
4. 

   Sam

   July 11, 2011

   So once again, me stuggling to support my sick wife on a single income (being just above the amount for any assistance) gets totally screwed. So in the last two changes, I’ve been screwed twice.

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      Bing Ji Ling

      October 24, 2011

      You can’t add up. If you are truly on a medium or low income you will be ahead.

      But because your complaint is political and not financial, you will never accept this.

      Log in to Reply
5. 

   Mark B

   July 11, 2011

   ok, so my house would be about $20/year better off..

   so bring on the carbon tax i say.. let the rich get taxed more & us real aussie battlers (ie/low – average income earners) have a bit of a break.

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      Corey

      July 11, 2011

      So people who studied hard, worked hard and archived in their life’s should be punished? This is meant to be a capitalist country not communist where deadbeats continually get pay outs.

      Log in to Reply
   2. 

      wsDK_II

      July 11, 2011

      I worked hard for my income – i just got onto $81,000 a year and now i am being punished for it. why the hell should i bother, if i can bum about the place and get paid for it?

      Why dont we all pay a 5% tax for green investments? that way you “aussie battlers” get taxed the same rate as us “rich” people. Seriously, $81,000 is NOTHING these days, the ABS has the average income at $80,000.

      i cant afford a house, not even a $300,000 one!

      Log in to Reply
   3. 

      RobinHood

      July 11, 2011

      Your “let the rich get taxed more” comment deserves reply, without resort to name-calling or stereotypes.

      There is a widespread belief that ‘the rich’ are a bottomless resource to be called upon when any financial need arises.

      I won’t bore anyone with personal history or the sacrifices I’ve made to justify my income but would like to point out that ‘the rich’ are already disproportionately ‘doing their bit’.

      Take a look at the Simple Tax Calculator
      http://calculators.ato.gov.au/scripts/asp/simpletaxcalc/main.asp
      try plugging in some nice round numbers…
      ‘battler’ = $40K/yr –> $5550 tax = 14% of gross
      ‘the rich’ = $80K/yr –> $17550 tax = 21% of gross

      So ‘the rich’ pay an effective 50% more of their income in tax than ‘the battler’ but it doesn’t end there
      – the medicare levy is a flat % rate so ‘the rich’ pay double that of ‘the battler’ to support our health system yet are penalised further if they don’t also take out private health insurance,
      – ‘the rich’ are denied access to a range of rebates and schemes with ‘the battler’ can utilise.

      Perhaps it would be better if this “us vs them” mentality wasn’t used at every opportunity to take more money from those who are perceived to be ‘well off’.

      I’d like a thorough analysis of the stereotypical two households over a few years, factoring in eligibility for rebates, concessions and such – I’d suggest that the real difference in cash-in-hand is nowhere near so great as the gross taxable incomes would suggest.

      Log in to Reply
      1. 

         milfot

         July 11, 2011

         So Mr Hood.
         Sometimes people like you and I forget the issue with low incomes and believe that all incomings and outgoings are directly proportional.
         The thing is, it costs the same to live (ie stay alive and employed) on a 40k income as on an 80k income. My estimate is around 25-30k a year, feel free to make your own.
         For you and I that leaves a sizeable chunk left over for gadgets and other, less important, stuff. Someone on a 40k income, living by themselves, has maybe 100 a week left over for everything else.
         Funnily enough, that is about 7% of their wage. And you want them to spend that in tax…

         Log in to Reply
         1. 

            Tegzilla

            July 11, 2011

            I cannot agree more with you milfot!

            Log in to Reply
      2. 

         sparhawk0

         July 11, 2011

         I notice your analysis doesn’t include the “flat tax” of GST, under which your $80k a year person pays less tax as percentage of income on every (non-food) consumable they purchase. Assuming only half your post tax income goes on to be spent on non-luxury goods and services – and it is unlikely to be that low – you’re still coming out a long way ahead of your $40k a year person – of whose income nearly all of it will go on non-luxury goods and services.

         Seriously, people, it’s pretty much guaranteed that most of you are higher net contributors to emissions than most of the low-income people you’re vilifying (first clue – you’re commenting on a website). If you don’t wan’t to pay your share of what you use at the expense of your children and grandchildren, then run off to the US or Japan. I’d list other countries, but if you want to not pay a tax on carbon, I’d have to start listing countries outside the top 30 well off ones (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/).

         The “worst” affected high income earners – of which so many of you seem to belong or want to defend – will not starve, can sleep in a bed, aren’t being shot at, and can freely express your dissatisfaction with this tax. Quite frankly, if you’re that selfish and miserly that you can’t pay $20 a week more (that’s what I’m paying, because I’m in the top 1-2%, along with the rest of you), then I’ll take a leaf out of your own callous books, and tell you to take a spoonful of cement, and harden the f*** up!

         Log in to Reply
         1. 

            Ani

            July 11, 2011

            Wow. I wish you’d post after every infuriating comment such as that one 🙂

            Log in to Reply
            1. 

               cloe

               April 11, 2012

               I really like your comment I am on the benefit family tax a and b and disiblity i get 654 a week I have 3 kids 5 and under and one on the way my rent is 230 for 3 bedroom so that leaves me 424 week petrol is about 40 a week to run kids around so then that leaves me 384 I spend about 200 on groceries a week I can spend alot less but this pregnancy is real funny the other day I had 5 pieces of fried bread and 5 eggs that was only half of what i ate lol shocking and i only a size 8. so after the groceries and petrol and rent I need to by draws as me and my kids have all our clothes on the ground I also need to buy my kids stockings and get gas in our cylinders to use the oven I look in second hand shops find some stockings and one set of draws for 50 kids have no books i feel bad and they have no toys so i buy them some also from second hand shop. but cant afford a few hundred for gas so buy a cheap slow cooker instead got pay as u go power can only afford 20 so later in the week ill have to press the emergency button debts from my x to why he took my bond money i paid by myself and i guess my shoes will have to wait for another week still bare feet. And hopefully in 3 months i can go to just cuts and get a cheap 34 dollar hair cut style. But I am still happy i walk in my bare feet smile and say hello to business people and every one else and im just please my kids have got blankets and a few toys and books so sometimes we need to take a break from our lives and think of someone else i know there are alot more worst of people than me by the way I dont get maitenance for the children either they have been chasing the dad for a year now and i still get nothing he does painting cash in hand earns about a 1000 a week pays 90 a week for power but his income looks like he real poor when he not he took my car i was told i cant do a thing about it thats just the wasy the world is ive reported him for working for so much cash in hand still nothing happens

      3. 

         Steve

         November 22, 2011

         Here is an interesting anecdote that explains how tax works: http://www.mallarky.com/past_columns.asp?columnid=88

         Applies to Australia just as much as anywhere.

         Also FYI I find that http://www.taxcalc.com.au is a much faster way to calculate off the cuff figures

         Log in to Reply
      4. 

         Bek

         April 10, 2012

         Wsdk_II, my husband earns $50,000 a year, supports me my 18 year old and 16 year old! How can you not afford to buy a house when we have our own house and an investment property? We have just brought a $45,000 car and paid for our wedding last year which was $16,000 and we paid cash for the wedding!
         It you managed your money better you’d be able to afford more! I have a real problem when people who earn heaps more than us and they say they can’t afford to do this or that! We don’t miss out on anything, we took the kids to QLD last year which cost us $10,000 and all saved! We don’t believe in credit cards and don’t get loans unless they are for a house or car! And no, the rental property doesn’t pay for all our extras! The rent we get just covers the repayments!
         Even after you have paid your so called higher tax you will still be better off than us! And we have private health insurance so why can’t you have it?

         Log in to Reply
6. 

   nicky

   July 11, 2011

   this shows that my pensioner parents would be $200 better off…i can’t say no to that

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      nicky

      July 11, 2011

      $200 per year, that is 🙂

      Log in to Reply
7. 

   John Hamilton

   July 11, 2011

   Just ran my figures through.
   Great news… I get $3 assistance from the govt.
   Bad news… I lose $520 a year on a pointless carbon tax when BHP and all the real polluters will probably pay less than me
   What the ####ing hell have I done to deserve this. No air conditioners, fuel efficient car, well insulated home, careful re-cycler.
   Oh yes, here’s my environmental crime…
   I work, my wife doesn’t and my kids have grown up. And I’m too young to retire yet.
   I don’t call a tax of 0.5% of my annual gross insignificant!
   Not one gram of CO2 will be held back because of this rubbish – not one cent will be spent on greening the country – it’ll all go to those who can afford to trade carbon credits eventually.

   Log in to Reply
8. 

   Mac

   July 11, 2011

   Impact $737
   Assistance $109

   The Govt is gone.

   Log in to Reply
9. 

   James

   July 11, 2011

   Does this also correctly estimate the impact the carbon tax will have on the global climate? Hint: it’s zero.

   This is just socialism.

   Log in to Reply
   1. 

      Bing Ji Ling

      October 24, 2011

      Obviously you have no clue what ‘socialism’ is.

      Log in to Reply
10. 

    Graham

    July 11, 2011

    I work in IT and live in a single income household, where my income supports my wife and two children under 4.

    It says I will be out of pocket $12 week and after the government bribe (assistance I mean) I will be out of pocket $260 a year.

    This tax is as bad as Gillard television speech delivery – pure green vomit.

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Tegzilla

       July 11, 2011

       So you aren’t willing to spend $12 a week on the future of your children?

       Log in to Reply
11. 

    Chris

    July 11, 2011

    Wow, all we think about as a society is money, it frightens me. I’m not sure that the Carbon Tax™ is going to save the country from the imminent global crisis we’re about to face, but it sure as hell isn’t going to hurt.

    Here are some numbers for you. In 1930 the human population on earth sat at around 2 billion. At present we are at a hair below 7 billion. We’ve more than tripled our population in 80 years and we’re adding another 80 million people each year.

    If we were on a spaceship that had to plan ahead and take all the food/water/oxygen and energy with us to make sure we made it to the moon and back – we’d probably make it there, but we’d die on the way back. The planet has finite resources and the sooner Joe “show me the money” Average comes to this realisation, the more likely we are to salvage the mess we’ve made.

    For the record, I don’t care about the furry little animals that die as a result of our consumption, not directly anyway. I am selfish and want to see the human species stay at the top of the pecking order, but the longer we allow ourselves to be distracted with things like money, the less likely we are to prosper into the future.

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Clare

       July 12, 2011

       Don’t you realise that the more “little furry creatures” die due to our consumption, the less likelihood we have of surviving ourselves??

       Some of the attitudes expressed here really beggar belief!

       We have brought our world into imbalance because we believe ourselves to be “top of the pecking order” instead of only part of the whole.

       And now we still don’t see the writing on the wall and can only bicker about who’s better off amongst the families, battlers, DINKs and SINKs.

       Wake up Australians, wake up people everywhere – it will all become irrelevant if our world is so over-populated and exhausted of all resources that us and our children and grandchildren are clambering for survival.

       We might very well be modern-day dinosaurs – destined for extinction – but because we’re too stupid and irresponsible to fix the mess we’ve brought on ourselves.

       Log in to Reply
       1. 

          Chris

          July 13, 2011

          You seem to have missed my point, though to be fair I didn’t make it particularly obvious. The part where I say ‘well not directly anyway’ is essentially the short version of what you have written in your reply to me.

          So while I don’t care for the survival of any specific species – I do care if it impacts our ability as humans to maintain our position in the system. If polar bears die out, I doubt they’ll take the human species with them. We have no moral obligation to save any species that does not help prolong our existence. However, you are correct in saying that the more species that die, the more the system changes and the more we’ll have to adapt – though, if I recall correctly, this is called evolution.

          And there’s no such thing as ‘imbalance’. Everything is always in perfect balance, or else it would simply cease to exist in the way we know it. What you really mean is that the conditions on the planet are *changing* to such an extent, that it puts our species at risk of extinction. Life on Earth will still go on for a very long time after we’re gone…

          At the end of the day, we agree with each other. We both understand that the population size of our species and our current rates of consumption cannot be maintained indefinitely. We also understand that there is a system in place on the planet that can and does change – and that we are only one part of that system. Until the greedy majority realise this, we’ll keep slipping towards a bleaker future.

          Log in to Reply
12. 

    poedgirl

    July 11, 2011

    My situation: single, no children, average income.

    Result: NOT fully covered.

    How is my situation so extraordinary that I’m not one of the “most people will be fully covered?”

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       milfot

       July 11, 2011

       Single, average (australian) income, no kids?

       Your situation is so extraordinary that you are in the top richest 1-2% of people worldwide.

       Log in to Reply
    2. 

       Tegzilla

       July 11, 2011

       Single, no children, average income. I come out ahead.

       So I guess our definition of ‘average’ income varies quite a bit! 😉

       Log in to Reply
13. 

    Sam

    July 11, 2011

    Here’s the thing I don’t get. As a married man with a single income, I pay more than a couple with the same household income (who would also be paying less tax overall too).

    Log in to Reply
14. 

    Rick

    July 11, 2011

    Bring on the next election, get rid of this lying socialist .

    Log in to Reply
15. 

    Dave Lord

    July 11, 2011

    It seems to me that every single person who has commented here has missed the point of the Carbon Tax.
    It is designed to modify behavior in the same way that the excise on cigarettes has reduced smoking…. how fines for speeding has reduced the road toll…. etc.
    It is designed to make greener options more attractive to the big polluters. In the same way that it is easy to avoid speeding fines…. Don’t Speed…. these companies can avoid paying the Carbon Tax…. stop pumping greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere!
    Abbott is touting in his scare campaign that the Greens want coal companies to be taxed out of business. This is simply not true. They just need to switch their energy sources from coal to renewable energy. Many are already in the process of doing this!

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Chris

       July 11, 2011

       Hey, don’t lump me in with the rest of this rabble!

       I don’t actually agree that fines for speeding really do much to reduce the road toll – but your overall message is spot on.

       As a species, we need to learn to consume less and the only way to make people sit up and do that, is to use that which we currently hold most dear – money.

       The irony in all this is that most people won’t even be worse off financially, which is probably what will be the flaw in the plan. Until a leaky tap or an illuminated light globe looks like dollar signs to Joe “show me the money” Average, he’ll continue to waste until there’s nothing left. Of course, once that happens he’ll just blame the government anyway…

       Log in to Reply
       1. 

          Tegzilla

          July 11, 2011

          I often think this is the way we are headed Chris. When climate change starts to really negatively affect Australians (enough for Joe Average to notice, that is), it will be all “Ohhhh woe is me, why did no-one tell us about climate change, why didn’t the government do something?!”

          Log in to Reply
16. 

    Rob S

    July 11, 2011

    This Government is Joking. The break even point for single person with no children is only $50k. hardly Rich. There is no evidence that this tax will reduce carbon levels. It will cost even more over the proceeding 3 years and only serve to put pressure on wages and jobs…
    i have been out of work for 9 months (yes I have studied and am doing more study and have worked for 30 years)there are from 60 to 400 people applying for each job… yes that is right 400 applicants for entry level non skilled jobs. Who are applying for these jobs, Experienced managers and executives such as myself. who are willing to work in any job available.

    Log in to Reply
17. 

    JC

    July 11, 2011

    Wouldn’t corporate tax reductions for reducing Carbon achieve a better result without penalising everyone who doesn’t fit into the labour-voter demographic???

    It’s ok though, my partner and I will get $3 each. We will combine it and buy our dog a pack of biscuits. So one member of the family wishes to thank the red witch and the jolly green giant.

    Typical punitive approach of this nanny-state government…

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Bing Ji Ling

       October 24, 2011

       Summary: the carbon tax has no impact on you but you still manage to have a massive whinge.

       Log in to Reply
18. 

    Not happy

    July 11, 2011

    Thats another weeks pay this stinking government gets off me. First the flood levy for a state government that did not insure itself and now this.

    Getting pretty sick of this money grabbing money wasting government. Time to start thinking about moving to another country or getting sacked from my job and become one of the many in the hand out queue.

    Carbon tax is just another way of bumping up the GST and wait till the high street stores put their extra cut on top.

    Not Happy

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Ani

       July 11, 2011

       It seems that introduction of the price on pollution might have some wonderful and unforeseen consequences if it means that whinging complaining short-sighted people are deciding en masse to leave Australia for some place they will imagine they will be better off! The reality is, there is no place they can go that they will be better off, as Australia has the best economy and job market at the moment and is one of very few wester companies not suffering huge service cuts and lowering standards of living. You want the lucky country? You’re living in it.

       Oh and good luck on the dole ‘Not happy’, I guess the whingers will only figure out that it’s not a gold mine by experiencing it themselves.

       Log in to Reply
19. 

    AG

    July 11, 2011

    This is simply wealth redistribution. It’s a socialist government getting its fundamental principles of a socialist governed society through the parliment into law under the banner of environmetalism…!
    This will make no difference to global carbon. No difference to global temperatures but the rich will be able to avoid it and the poor will be better off ! All paid for by us..the poor bastards caught in the middle.. Mr and Mrs middle income earner who have no recourse to claim anything, do not qualify for any rebates and work their guts out to get where they have so far !!

    BRING ON THE ELECTION…AND LET MY VOTE DO THE TALKING !

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Chris

       July 11, 2011

       So you’re saying that you consume only water that you catch from rainfall, eat food you grow yourself, wear clothes made from materials you farm yourself and travel everywhere by foot or bicycle? Well that’s good, at least your only contribution is the CO2 you expel from your body.

       Everyone in this country (and indeed, the world) is responsible for our combined consumption of resources. You and the rest of the petulant mob here are clearly just too spineless to start taking responsibility for what and how much you consume.

       Yeah, it probably is wealth redistribution. Sadly, in order to tackle the insanely complex issues we’re facing as a species, money is required. Besides, if you really are a middle income earner, then you really aren’t out of pocket anyway. At the very worst, you might be out by $10 a week. Are you really that incompetent that you can’t budget around such a miniscule amount?

       Forget what the media pushes to you, do some research and be part of the solution.

       Log in to Reply
20. 

    Ben

    July 11, 2011

    Whats wrong with Australia, who voted these jokers into power. Sure the johnny/costello combo was a bit out of touch but damn we were all doing so well. For years everyone was cashing in (endless work, property, etc), and at the of the day for most people im sure thats all that matters, money in the pocket.

    Sure we needed a change but Kevin 07 and now Gillard. Damn Australia, cant you see past the spin?? For those that voted labour (hopefully not many on a site like this), you should be ashamed. Australia is going down the gurgler. I dont come accross many people that admit they voted for them. Its a shame the coalition has ended up the way it is. Abbott isnt the man for the job, maybe just the lesser of two evils.

    Hopefully the NBN makes it way up to Cairns. The one thing labour has going for it. Ill hold my breath on that one.

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       JC

       July 11, 2011

       >>Hopefully the NBN makes it way up to Cairns. The one thing labour has going for it.

       Umm, how does the NBN improve broadband speed to all those sites hosted outside of Australia?
       I don’t know about you but nearly all sites I use (yahoo, google, facebook, linkedin etc.) are all hosted overseas. The NBN will do nothing to improve my experience. Sure it’s ok for local-local filesharing. Does nothing for anything located outside of this island nation!

       The other thing that irks me about Labour’s NBN is that it requires Telstra to decommission their copper network, Optus to can their Hybrid-Fiber coaxial network (i.e. Cable).

       Imagine our forefathers 100 years ago, saying great we have Motor vehicles. Now we will build you a road, provided you agree to tear up the railway lines. We’re worried nobody will use motor cars unless we scrap all trains!! Why remove infrastructure to impose a monopoly wholesale network provider (NBNCo) on us all over again.

       And what motivation is there for NBN to continuously improve the network once it becomes the only game in town? This is like creating Australia Post, but then saying you can;t have retail outlets or services. Without a reason to stay competitive, well there simply is no reason.

       Log in to Reply
    2. 

       Tegzilla

       July 12, 2011

       ‘Hopefully not many on a site like this’ – what makes you think the readership of this site would be more from one political leaning than any other?
       Or do you desire a future where only Liberal voters can find the best Android deals (lol)?

       Log in to Reply
21. 

    Sean

    July 11, 2011

    The Household assistance estimator said i would be better off $378 per year, sounds good.
    But you have to remember that the hand out will stop after a few years, but the tax wont stop, it will keep going up every year.
    I say bring on an election, so i can say no

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       Greg

       July 11, 2011

       If you think the Coalition will reverse the tax,you may be wasting your vote.All the excuses will come why they can not get rid of the carbon tax,that will become an ETS any way.

       Log in to Reply
22. 

    Whatever

    July 12, 2011

    Nothin’ surer than death and taxes! Get over it and get on with your lives. We have one planet only, and somebody has to start taking responsibility for it.

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       JC

       July 12, 2011

       >>Nothin’ surer than death and taxes! Get over it and get on with your lives.

       And if paying more taxes made the world greener, we’d be living in the Garden of Eden right now. Now excuse me while I go feed my purple unicorn. 😉

       Log in to Reply
23. 

    Scott

    July 13, 2011

    Just a note to all the guys in the high income category saying they should quit there job and live on the dole.

    You have no real world perceptive I just lost my job I was only earning 42,000 a year but going from 3,000 in my pocket a month to 800 a month isn’t all fun and games(I can barely find the $29 for the one gadget I still own my HTC Legend).

    And stop complaining about the dam tax under tony abbot we would pay $720 a year flat rate… no assistance from the government so the ones who are going to be paying more then $720 a year… I think you shouldn’t be to concerned with that little money.

    PS Still looking for work 😉

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       ben

       September 12, 2011

       I agree with you mate, the people who seem to be jumping up and down the most are the ones with the most money. But what is the problem with trying to do something to encourage the big polluters to cut emissions. Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution. Maybe it might make them get rid of their suv’s and start thnking of what impact they actually have on our world.

       Log in to Reply
24. 

    Phil Hempel

    July 13, 2011

    I’m a self funded retiree, I missed out on the stimulous payment, I don’t receive a pension and now I have to register for a Govn Health Card at Centrelink to get a chance at a Carbon tax rebate. I’ve put in the hard yards and now I want to be left alone. Bring on an election.

    Log in to Reply
25. 

    sparhawk0

    July 13, 2011

    Look, just quickly on “the real reason for the tax”: it’s to introduce a market mechanism for pricing atmospheric emissions. Previously, all the environment was considered an inexhaustible dumping ground for the non-usable by-products of consumption. We first noticed this wasn’t apparent with garbage (which is why you pay for garbage collection and pay to put things in landfill). So you pay for putting by-product in land.

    We kinda pay for it at sea, though as large tracts of it are “unowned”, this is tricky. Thankfully, the same things that make cost ineffective to own “ocean” affect dumping stuff in it. Still, for most Australians, you sewage goes out to sea, and you pay to be connected to the system that does this. So, you pay for putting by-product in the water.

    With the introduction of the tax, we are establishing a mechanism to cater for the one area that isn’t covered – air. Just like land and sea, we are realising (slowly) that after a certain point, the supply of “clean” air is exhaustible. There’s a lot more usable air than land or water, so its taken us longer. Because air is the hardest thing to “own”, existing models for cost of storing by-product in it don’t work. The tax puts a price on storing by-product (in this case, a specific by-product: carbon emissions) in the air. Once the market is set up, then it just becomes a cost of production, and the government can pull back.

    Eventually, you’ll pay for the production of carbon emissions generated by your consumption. Pretty much exactly like the GST, but whereas that IS a revenue exercise, this is a pricing mechanism, that is (currently) revenue-neutral. So calm down, and wait for one side to make it revenue-generating before you say the government is stealing your money. Otherwise, what you’re arguing for is stealing your descendant’s air, which is a LOT meaner than anything either side of politics is likely to do to you at the moment.

    Log in to Reply
    1. 

       JC

       July 13, 2011

       This is a fixed price per tonne Carbon tax. Do not confuse it with an emissions trading scheme because it is *not a trading scheme*. It is a flat rate per tonne tax, and that is all. It will maybe one day, if you believe them, become an ETS. Everything you have described above does not align with the current scheme.

       Boot out Abbott and bring back Turnbull because he is the only leader of either party in recent history that wanted a “true” ETS based on targets and total emission caps. It was political suicide at the time because the rest of the world (especially the developing world) doesn’t play fair.

       If you think this is about the environment, why would this system penalise singles/retirees and those without children but reward breeders with nxCarbon footprint, provided they meet an effective means test (i.e. under a certain dollar cap per household)

       An ETS runs on the premise that you have a finite limit of carbon allocated per nation, and that if you are running out of credits you buy some from an organisation who is not using theirs. It is a bartering principle.

       This is taxation, pure and simple.

       It does nothing to save the environment, but it does fill the communist party of australia (Labour+Green alliance) coffers.

       If you’re capitalist vote blue = Liberal

       If you’re naive vote pink = Labour+Green

       If you’re communist vote green = Green

       If you’re a realist = well, you’re out of luck. Maybe offshore is the answer..?

       Log in to Reply
26. 

    Vanessa

    July 21, 2011

    As I am a single, non working parent, I will be fully compensated, or even profit from the new tax. That out of the way, I would encourage people to consider the bigger picture…the future of our children, yours and mine. I would be all to happy to pay the $10 extra if it would help to change our ay of life for the better. Money is useless if we don’t have a planet.

    Log in to Reply
27. 

    george

    April 3, 2012

    Dear Ausies if people complaining that this government is unfair then you haven;t learned the real mean of life.
    Now listen you guys on 100k plus if you will pay extra few dollrs to support pensioners or even low income earners to compensate maybe your father or mother or also maybe one day you may fall in this category also to have clean energy then what i shall say just wakeup

    Log in to Reply
28. 

    Martin

    May 9, 2012

    The eventual objective of the carbon tax is to create a viable carbon trading market. The poluters will still pollute and pass on the cost of buying carbon credits to the consumer. The collecting authority will have huge amounts of cash to spend on renewable energy (even if it it not carbon neutral in the case of solar panels). The collecting authority has to invest in any poterntially viable program. At the end of the fixed price period then real market forces shape the price. The experience from Europe shows that carbon trading is a failed concept. It resulted in very stupid investments in very shaky programs. Of course the entrpreneurs amongst us will see this as an opportunity to maske lots of money getting funding for wild fanciful low emission systems. The solar panel debacle actually contributed to further greenhouse gasses by creating massive demand for solar panels requiring more emissions to manufacture than they will ever offset. Power prices have shot up to compensate those rich enough to pay for the installation. Yes the middle class can afford to pay, but a simple compensation for the increase in power cost will not compensate low income earners from the increase cost in food and goods due to transortation cost increases. To be sensible we should be investing in reduced carbon tecnologies, electrifcation of trains and vehicles etc. – Not just imposing a tax paid by few.

    Log in to Reply
29. 

    Whatever – Yes I hate that word too

    May 14, 2012

    Tried the rate calculator and yes, does look a tad unhelpful; guess we will have to wait and see as always. Single pensioner (carer, not aged, circumstance means not working) with teen son (disability payment, so no Family Payments although still at school) that means he is not a “dependent.” He does not qualify until 2014 and does not even qualify on the grounds of requiring any extra assistance on medical grounds. Appears screwed again. We always seem to fall through the loops; carers the forgotten ones. Just saying…

    Log in to Reply