Carbon Tax (3 Viewers)

[Blastus]

so much welfare

so much welfare

govt institutes tax

loses money

WELFARE

 

[jack93]

oh im glad australia with its 1% of emissions world wide is going to make this big leap forward. never mind china/US.

nah but the greenies have to feel good about themselves when they are going to bed at night regardless of the fact that this is going to do nothing.

Yeah, just blame it on everyone else, ignore the fact that we are the biggest polluter per head of population, and focus on the fact that airfares will increase by 3 FUCKING DOLLARS, you won't be able to buy mineral water on the return flight

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah, just blame it on everyone else, ignore the fact that we are the biggest polluter per head of population,

Dude the absolute amount of pollution is literaly the only thing that matters

 

[SylviaB]

and chemical ali you still haven't explained what benefit this will have on the environment

 

[cosmo kramer]

what the fuck no mineral water

fuck this tax

 

[Graney]

I don't understand why it's first a tax and then later it becomes an ETS

 

[jack93]

why stop at taxing carbon? why not tax water vapour? you know a green house gas that actually has noticeable effects on the climate. WE GOT TO STOP EVAPORATION ITS WARMING THE CLIMATE GUYS!!!!!

disagree with 96% of scientists if you will

 

[jack93]

No, if we want to minimise air pollution it needs to be a global effort, we can't blame countries like China because they have a high population, and consequently push the problem onto someone else otherwise nothing will be done. As individuals we all need to pull our weight.

 

[SylviaB]

No, if we want to minimise air pollution it needs to be a global effort, we can't blame countries like China because they have a high population, and consequently push the problem onto someone else otherwise nothing will be done. As individuals we all need to pull our weight.

oi fuckhead, you still haven't explained why relative emissions are of any signifigance

 

[SylviaB]

Support: Aquawhite chewy123 cosmo kramer example15001 Existential funkshen funnytomato gurmies jack93 kaz1 Lentern Lolsmith LoveHateSchool mirakon ralua Slidey The Derivative TheChairman


wtf

you guys are dead to me

 

[cosmo kramer]

its not a big deal mang

im still voting liberal even if they dont support it

 

[Existential]

its not a big deal mang

im still voting liberal even if they dont support it

because?

 

[Rafy]

First post-announcement poll:

#Galaxy Poll Price on Carbon: Support 29 Opposed 60 #CarbonTax #auspol

 

[writer'sblock]

There might have been a change in the debate

Discuss?

 

[Rafy]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

Nah. Nothing's changed as today's Galaxy poll shows:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/to...rbon-tax-package/story-e6frf7jo-1226092715231

AUSTRALIANS have given the carbon tax the thumbs down, with 68 per cent saying it will leave them worse off and 63 per cent calling for Julia Gillard to bring on an early election.

The exclusive Galaxy Poll for the Herald Sun - the first major survey since the release of the carbon tax package on Sunday - also found 60 per cent of voters opposed the tax, 29 per cent were in favour and 11 per cent undecided.

The nationwide telephone poll of 500 people conducted on Monday night suggests voters believe the personal cost of the carbon tax outweighs the environmental benefits.

Voters have not accepted Ms Gillard's promise that more than six out of 10 households would be fully compensated or better off after compensation for the rise in the cost of living.

Only 10 per cent of voters said they would be better off and only 28 per cent believe Ms Gillard has a mandate to introduce the tax without holding another election.

The poll reveals 62 per cent of people think the Greens, who negotiated the package with Labor and the independents, have too much influence over the Government, while 30 per cent say the Greens are working effectively.

It finds 81 per cent believe the carbon tax will have little or no impact on the environment and 67 per cent believe it will be bad for the economy compared with 22 per cent who think it will be good.[...]

 

[Lentern]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

Oh the Herald Sun, how cute.

 

[SylviaB]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

god, lentern, you're so pathetic.

How long until you admit that Australians don't support this tax, and that you only support democracy when it suits you?

 

[Azure]

Re: There might have been a change in the debate

Nothing's changed - just one big giant political stunt. I'd bet good money this tax would never have gotten this far if the greens didn't have such power.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Friedman's Law: The intentions of government policy is almost always never the outcome.

 

[jack93]

Friedman's Law: The intentions of government policy is almost always never the outcome.

Well Friedman, Greenspan and Reagan's idealogies are what got us into this mess in the first place: Friedman believed all drugs should be free from regulation by government scrouge as they don't harm anyone (supposedly.) Greenspan believed having interest rates at 1% and allowing the economy to self regulate would benefit everyone, until he admitted he had a, "flaw." Reagan believed that providing massive tax cuts to the rich would enable wealth to magically, "trickle down," yet it was found that in his era the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of America increased by 180%, and the poorest 20% only grew by 3%.