• Revealed: Cost of living under carbon tax
    21 replies, posted
[img]http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2011/07/06/1226089/345009-stressed-woman.jpg[/img] Economic modelling on the carbon tax seen by the Herald Sun shows the cost to the Victoria's economy will run to $2.5 billion. Picture: Thinkstock Source: [url]http://www.news.com.au/money/here-comes-the-tax-pain/story-e6frfmci-1226089408437[/url] [release]• Cost of living under carbon tax revealed • Small business to struggle under new tax • Carbon phone: PM's national conference FAMILIES will be forced to pay $200 a year more after the carbon tax hits day-to-day bills, new economic modelling by Victoria's Baillieu Government reveals. Everything from buying a parma-and-pot to having a haircut is tipped to rise as small business struggles under the new tax. Modelling seen by the Herald Sun shows the cost to the state's economy will run to $2.5 billion. This is based on the estimate of a $25 a tonne carbon tax. Annual electricity bills for families are tipped to hit between $1500 and $2000 - depending on running gas or electric hot-water systems - an increase of about $200 as a direct result of the carbon tax. And small-business operators will be hit with increases of between $220 for a suburban clothes shop and $875 for a country hotel. A pizza shop faces a $550 hike in its power bill, pushing it to about $5550 a year. Farmers also will be hit. The average dairy farm could get annual electricity bills of more than $10,000 - an increase of almost $1500. This modelling is based on the effect of the tax before Federal Government compensation. Hospital and transport systems are also forecast to face cost pressures with badly needed money being spent on the tax rather than operations and new trains. Energy Minister Michael O'Brien said the $2.5 billion carbon tax bill for Victorian families and businesses was only the start. The report warns Victoria's public hospital system will need to find an additional $13.6 million to cover higher electricity bills, the equivalent of almost 3000 fewer operations. The modelling also forecasts the state's strained public transport system will be hit with a $14 million bill by the carbon tax. Victoria will be hit "first and hardest" as a result of reliance on coal-fired electricity plants in the Latrobe Valley, which provides about 90 per cent of the state's electricity. The Hazelwood plant, which emits about 16 million tonnes of CO2 a year - about 3 per cent of national emissions - faces a potential bill of $400 million. The federal climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has admitted electricity prices would rise up to $5 a week, based on his suggested price of $25 a tonne. Prime Minister Julia Gillard will announce the rate of the tax on Sunday and has promised nine out of 10 families will get tax cuts or increased welfare, or both, to compensate and that three million people will be "better off". The State Government has not ruled out forming a coalition with the Liberal-led governments of NSW and Western Australia to oppose the tax. Victorian Council of Social Service acting chief executive Carolyn Atkins said unless there was a fair compensation package, ordinary families would struggle. She is calling for an increases in the pension, allowances and family tax benefits for low-income households to help compensate for the rise in energy bills. Ms Gillard has promised she will make a national tour to sell the carbon tax after it is made public on Sunday afternoon.[/release]
Somehow with the way the title was worded, I though it meant that the typical living costs were cheaper than a carbon tax. Maybe it should have been "Cost of living under carbon tax revealed" instead of "Revealed: Cost of living under carbon tax"
That's an odd name for 'tax everything' tax. Regardless, this sounds like a rather nasty hit to all Aussies.
its name suggests its taxing stuff that pollutes the air, but the article seems to make it sound like the name is a joke
Misread as "Cost of living under carton tax."
$200 a year per household? That's about $16 a month, per family. Hardly the end of the world, and in exchange you get less overall pollution and hopefully fewer environmental catastrophes in the future. $16 a month? That's one lunch at McDonald's for 3 people.
Why doesn't my house ever look that nice?
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950595]$200 a year per household? That's about $16 a month, per family. Hardly the end of the world, and in exchange you get less overall pollution and hopefully fewer environmental catastrophes in the future. $16 a month? That's one lunch at McDonald's for 3 people.[/QUOTE] It's money and it doesn't grow on trees.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;30950630]It's money and it doesn't grow on trees.[/QUOTE] You're a fucking nut if you think $16 a month is going to cause some kind of widespread economic misery to families. If your monthly budget is so close that $16 is going to make you miss a mortgage payment or something, then you deserve what you get because you have no clue how to manage your own finances. And if you are legitimately that poor, then: [quote] She is calling for an increases in the pension, allowances and family tax benefits for low-income households to help compensate for the rise in energy bills.[/quote] Seems like a fair deal to me, as opposed to the American method of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we're dead before our emissions catch up to us.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950595]$200 a year per household? That's about $16 a month, per family. Hardly the end of the world, and in exchange you get less overall pollution and hopefully fewer environmental catastrophes in the future. $16 a month? That's one lunch at McDonald's for 3 people.[/QUOTE] The Herald Sun has never been good with hiding their conservative agenda, nor are they known for their ability to make things legit without misrepresenting numbers (for example, [url=http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/05/20/herald-sun-exclusive-if-you-send-your-kids-to-private-school-the-fees-will-cost-you-money/]here[/url]) [editline]7th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950737] Seems like a fair deal to me, as opposed to the American method of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we're dead before our emissions catch up to us.[/QUOTE] also it's proposed that the tax won't tax people who earn (doesn't include pensioners) less than $80,000 a year (doesn't include low-income households either)
[QUOTE=ReLak;30950797] also the tax won't tax people who earn (doesn't include pensioners) less than $80,000 a year (doesn't include low-income households either)[/QUOTE] I thought they arrived at the $200 number based on increased rates for electricity. It's a tax on industrial carbon emissions, right? Not a direct tax on citizens?
Well the article was obviously biased. It made it seem like the cost would be much higher then it was.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950595]$200 a year per household? That's about $16 a month, per family. Hardly the end of the world, and in exchange you get less overall pollution and hopefully fewer environmental catastrophes in the future. $16 a month? That's one lunch at McDonald's for 3 people.[/QUOTE] For some $16 is a rather large difference, especially if you aren't middle class.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950843]I thought they arrived at the $200 number based on increased rates for electricity. It's a tax on industrial carbon emissions, right? Not a direct tax on citizens?[/QUOTE] the govt basically offered rebates to refund the difference for those groups incase the price does go up. it isn't exemption, but it's stopping people from being "taxed" by the tax
wow I am glad I don't live in austrailia
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30950933]For some $16 is a rather large difference, especially if you aren't middle class.[/QUOTE] Low income takers won't be able to consume so much to accumulate $16 in carbon tax.
I don't think I would trust a newspaper on this.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;30950843]I thought they arrived at the $200 number based on increased rates for electricity. It's a tax on industrial carbon emissions, right? Not a direct tax on citizens?[/QUOTE] Yeah, it's a tax on industrial emitters, but industry (and the liberals) are threatening to increase prices on everything if it passes. But that's relatively normal, they threaten to raise prices all the time when forced to pay for things (Increase in minimum wage? We'll raise the prices of everything!)
They debated this in Canada, and it's one of the reasons why the Liberal party lost the 2008 election. The carbon tax being "revenue-neutral" is bullshit, and it would undoubtedly raise the cost of living while wages would not increase to compensate. All around I think a carbon tax at that time would have pushed Canada into a near depression due to increased costs of living, and i think it's a terrible idea no matter where it's implemented.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;30955360]Yeah, it's a tax on industrial emitters, but industry (and the liberals) are threatening to increase prices on everything if it passes. But that's relatively normal, they threaten to raise prices all the time when forced to pay for things (Increase in minimum wage? We'll raise the prices of everything!)[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's nothing new. They'll use it as an excuse to raise prices, and probably come out with a little bit fatter profit margin than they already had. Unfortunately the government can't do anything without getting into direct price controls, which is a whole can of worms itself. Of course, the government could deregulate and cave to everything business wants like in the US, but that's how you wind up with the near-monopolies and skyrocketing prices we have to deal with.
If Labour don't lose the next election there's no hope for this country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.