Johnny is calling the election

[Dän]

And if you can't see that the ecomony would survive, if not boom, if the market were to concentrate on clean, CHEAP fuels, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote either. You don't need China or India to sign Kyoto, you just need to sell them clean fuel; the impact this will have on their pollution output will be similar to if they signed Kyoto and turned to clean fuels on their own, except if a commercial market was focussed on selling the fuel to them then it'd happen sooner than if it was left up to the Asian markets to make the switch.

What happens when the coal runs out, or China/India/Whoever switch to clean fuels, and Australia hasn't invested in new fuel generation? Our economy will be super-fucked. Who will be to blame? Conservatives like you who take a short-term view based on old-time thoughts and analysis ("it's been this way forever, ergo it will be this way forever").

Nuclear

 

[Dän]

Mark,
conservatives should stand for conservative and economic use of resources.

But as we've seen, conservatives seem to stand for pissing it up the wall while it's cheap, until it becomes expensive and the market determines the next cheapest fuel to be pissed up the wall.

Problem is that they never figure in the hidden costs.

Global warming is a hidden cost of using fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.
The Iraq war is a hidden cost of fossil fuel. It's value is nothing.

Conservatives are playing with a partially filled balance sheet.

Actually liberal economists are the ones who come up with the most efficient source of reducing pollution, carbon trading, where by the market sorts it out as caps are set and those who value pollution higher pay for it and those who dont then have incentive to decrease emmitions.

 

[Dän]

Oh, a Rudd said he was a conservative economist, so at you dumb cunts for bagging cons and you're voting for one...even though he probably doesnt know what conservative, and hence right, and hence the ideology that has dominated for the last 250 years, stands for. He's just pretty much a johnny wannabe, only johnny actually understands shit, were as rudd is just a PR mastermind. Notice how no Labour dumbarses are talking, as when they do they begin talking about stuff they don't know (tax, Rudd) (IR, Gillard) (Environment, Garret) and make idiots of themselves.

 

[Goreripper]

How does $30billion in tax cuts, on top of the $34b they promised only three months ago, affect the economy? I'd really like to know the answer to this. Also, is this $64b in total, or have they already delivered $4b of the previous lot they dished out? Because I went into a higher tax bracket recently, so I'm paying more tax than ever before.

 

[Shannow]

well according to a thread only a few days ago, the Govt know best what to do with our money, and to release the surplus into the market would be an inflationary move, and economic disaster.

Interested in how Dan works with this one.

 

[phlogiston]

Because I went into a higher tax bracket recently, so I'm paying more tax than ever before.

Wouldn't you also be paying more tax even if you got a pay rise to just under the tax bracket?

 

[Stonewall]

And Sign Kyoto; so you can say good bye to jobs, exports and the economy. If you can't understand the implications of signing Kyoto you don't deserve the right to vote.

Ok, so if we understand and accept that it *might* be a disastrous move economically to put the terms of the Kyoto treaty into law, then we are all good to vote? Are we allowed to vote aspirationally and not rationally?

Or, does it mean that we only deserve the right to vote (I would actually argue that it is a privilege) if we accept and believe in the policies of the government already in power.

Because that is fucked, and John Howard is a patronising shit.

Kyoto is significantly flawed, and I'd argue that a new agreement needs to be made that includes developing nations, regardless of how unfair they think this is on themselves. This is only justifiable if the economies with the capacity for change (and I don't want to hear any bullshit about disastrous implications, because it is bullshit) begin this process in an extensive, meaningful way.

Kyoto won't save the world, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. The world needs consensus, and it needs the highest polluters to legislate real change. I would consider Kyoto a bridging agreement.


And maybe I have never understood it properly, but I think carbon trading is the most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. It seems to me it creates very few situations where there are meaningful reductions of emissions.

 

[phlogiston]

Aside from the fact that analysits predict our emmission levels to be 109% greater than in 1990 by 2012, which is only 1% greater than the ratification of kyoto would allow, the impact on Australian jobs and export market, and on the global economy would be immense. Our energy is largely generated from coal, we export it also, to countries that are booming like China and India, who have not and will not sign or ratify the agreement. So if you cant see the negative impact this will have on many workers, our export market, which is also being hurt by a weak US market with low interest rates, driving our exchange rate up, and the implication that this will have on China dn India, which, in turn, will trickle to other area's of the world, and then make its way back to us...then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I have never argued that this is ideal, but if you leave it up to socialists, who do not understand the way things work, then the country will be worse off. If you give me an argument detailing how signing Kyoto won't have a negative impact on out Domestic economy, then I'll change my stance, until such time I will never change my opinion, and maybe some of you should wise up to the real life implications these things have.

I'm with Shannow on this one. While I was reading up on Kyoto yesterday (I thought I'd better educate myself of this so I'm allowed to vote and all) I came across all of the economic arguments and kinda thought, yeah well, that's sorta fair enough, but then a few lines later I read what you just posted (word for word, almost) and thought well hell, if we're that close then we might as well do and just shut the nay-sayers up for a while. It obviously hasn't had all that much of an economic impact.

Now I'm not saying signing Kyoto is the bestest thing we could do, or even necessary (because I'm not sure it's any more than another bit of paper with words on it). I also don't think that it will magically bring about the clean fuel economy that Mark is arguing for, as that will take different guidelines. But it seems to me that if you're arguing for not signing based on economic terms, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with your statement up there.

 

[phlogiston]

And maybe I have never understood it properly, but I think carbon trading is the most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. It seems to me it creates very few situations where there are meaningful reductions of emissions.

Sign me up in that register too! A carbon *tax*, now that I understand, as everyone would be effected. Carbon trading sounds to me like blame shuffling.

 

[Goreripper]

Give people enough rope, and they hang themselves.

What's the interest rate again, Mr. Howard?

Meanwhile, $141m has been blown on IR ads no one believes. Economic genius!

 

[Goreripper]

Carbon trading sounds to me like blame shuffling.

Typical conservative politics.

 

[Goreripper]

I am just listening to Costello arguing his tax cuts on TV right now, and witnessing some of the best obfuscating and circular arguing I've ever come across.

"There are 2.2 million more Australians in work than when I became Treasurer." You've been Treasurer for 11 years so I'd fucking hope so. All this talk about "experience" is bogus. Why not just change the Constitution and make the government a one-party dictatorship? Then we'd never have to worry about an inexperienced new Government.

 

[Goreripper]

Wouldn't you also be paying more tax even if you got a pay rise to just under the tax bracket?

Well obviously. But the percentage has increased, so it's significantly higher than it would have been had I received a few hundred less.

 

[Stonewall]

Are there actually that many more? The figures they use are fairly bogus. I'd suggest that a significant proportion of that figure includes people who are underemployed.

 

[Bucko]

Called it on my Sister's, My son Sam's and a cousins birthday...

 

[Sydo]

Because I went into a higher tax bracket recently, so I'm paying more tax than ever before.

But the percentage has increased, so it's significantly higher than it would have been had I received a few hundred less.

You only pay the higher tax rate on the dollars you earn over the bracket. So it's not like you're paying a higher percentage on your entire wage. Please don't fudge the facts.

 

[Goreripper]

Thanks for clearing that up. It still works out to me paying more tax. Now, can someone answer my question about tax cuts?

 

[Sydo]

Yes. What was the question?!

 

[Goreripper]

Are there actually that many more? The figures they use are fairly bogus. I'd suggest that a significant proportion of that figure includes people who are underemployed.

Of course it does. As do the figures they announce proclaiming WorkChoices to be a success. The 450,000 "new" jobs that were created by this arse-fuck of a legislation are mainly unskilled casual workers doing 12 or 14 hour days once a week and making just enough to be cut off the dole. 4% unemployment means nothing unless it only includes people who work a significant number of hours a week. Including skilless migrants and single mums who can only manage 12 - 14 hours a week or less is fudging the figures.

 

[Goreripper]

Yes. What was the question?!

How does giving people tax cuts affect the economy? If you tax people less, they can spend more, but if the cost of living is rising, the tax cuts are eaten up by inflation, aren't they?

BTW, I don't care about paying higher taxes as long as the money is being funnelled into social programs or infrastructure. But spouting about a $15b surplus while offering piddling amounts to fix things and then blowing millions on useless ad campaigns is not how I like to see my taxes treated.