Australia's economy grew by 4.3% in the last year

Who said? Names please.

 

You bloody commo cat.

Greed and avarice is slowly destroying our wonderful land. No I'm not jealous of the wealthy, far from it, from what I have seen of most wealthy people I DON NOT WANT TO BECOME ONE of them.

So do I want more money, no not really, a little more would be better, it is hard to live on $500 a fortnight but I manage. I eat well, have somewhere warm and dry to sleep of a night.

What I want is a better society, not one where 90% of the wealth is in 10% of the people. I want better education, better health services, more forests, less crap in the air. ..... a reasonable society ... not a lot to ask for eh?

 

Firstly it's they're not their. Secondly, like lizard, I would love to know who they are?

 

When I moved into my town there were two primary schools, a couple of grocery shops, one bank/post office combination, roads were mainly unsealed, you had to drive 15 kilometres to do any serious shopping and the pub closed at 6pm.

Now there are four high schools, a dozen primary shools, two major shopping complexes, a cinema complex, roads are sealed and guttered, 10 or 12 banks, three post offices and three pubs, half a dozen clubs, all which stay open until 1.00 am.

What's your point?

 

No, they are not going to lose money.

Oh no they are going to do better than that.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-business/assistance-for-industry-2/

LOL..' carbon tax, mining tax.. the mining industry would appear to be the only sector growing at this time, boosting growth figures and jobs. Gillard is trying hard not to help it grow, by the looks of that. but the fact remains 40% of the carbon tax revenue will go to export companies along with many other government assistant programs already in place to insure that price of export commodities are not effected.

What is the magic figure of the assistance program, 50% of the carbon tax will go to assistance programs to help the people with this added cost. apparently, the real figure for the people is 10% with 40% going to export companies. Oh sure, you can claim that adding jobs is helping the people, but you also claim that it is the mine owners that are grubby little parasites just grabbing profits and this assistance package would mean that some will be far better off than before, which you detest.

The short sited stance of the government should be what is the problem here, not the next 12 months. For example, what is going to happen, once the government has achieved it's revenue grab and try and transition this tax to a ETS? Either they will have to find more money to subsidies the export industry to keep Australian export industry competitive, or they have to retain the TAX. Either way it is going to cost Australia far more in the end than this government cares about.

The funny thing at this time is that Gillard is trying to get child care in Australia. The drama is costs are growing far to high, even with subsidies. So, what does the union want? more money for the employees. Now, if this is not a greater cost for the child care centre, I do not know what is. But it is one of the things that has been touted as a way around the issue. Where is the money going to come from? the Government?* I just can not see that this government have any idea about what they are doing.

*I raise this only to show the short sightedness, of economic impact of the Labor base.

 

In the next paragraph:

So no, they won't be compensated 100% and the compensation will gradually be reduced. Keep in mind free permits are effectively subsidies.

Again, you seem to be saying that between the MRRT and the carbon tax, the mining companies somehow will not pay anything, which is pretty ridiculous. How much it will affect the price at which BHP and other companies sell their commodities is up to them, not the government.

Which mining company is going to be "better off" than before after the carbon tax, and by how much? Anyway, the carbon tax isn't supposed to kill off the mining industry, it's supposed to reduce GHG emissions.

The level of compensation will obviously depend on the revenue from the ETS after it's floated. I think there is some misconception here, an ETS also produces revenue. Which is why, for instance, the legislative package includes a permanent raising of the tax free threshold to 18k (1 million less people from the bottom of the income scale will have to file income tax returns) and increases to pensions. "Going to cost far more in the end than this government cares about", is that supposed to actually mean something?

I don't know why you're suddenly bringing up childcare, it is already subsidised by the government. And if child care employees want more money, that is just an issue that will have to be dealt with between the unions, and the employers (public or private).

 

I love it when people talk about things they know nothing about.

My partner is a child care worker, has been for nearly 20 years, this itself is a rarity as child care workers usually only last 4 or 5 years in the job. She gets approx $20 an hour for looking after 8 to 10 preschoolers, if you want to see if they earn their money, go have a look.

Who should pay, the people who use it, why not.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3520246.htm

 

You are either more lucky in your choices or more intelligent.
All I am asking or hoping for is to survive on my own, without goverment help....
With less tourists coming, and more people moving towards the big smoke (Perth), it looks like my days in that beautiful part of our country are limted!
In some ways, some of this enormous money created in the mining industry, should help or benefit country towns, the ones which are not so lucky as yours.

 

Hey vigilante you believe that?

Good on you my friend.

Then what do you think about Julia Gillard when she said,

"There will be no carbon tax under the government i lead"

Which is why i voted for her.

 

Well then probably after the first year when companies will have to buy their carbon cedits you better add that cost on too because its going to hit your hip pocket.

BHP billiton will still make another $25 billion this year carbon tax or no.

 

I can't remember the guys name but his was some kahuna from the commerce and retail.

And no i type fast and dont do a spell check, but i'm sure you get the picture.

 

I am not saying, they do not deserve the pay increases. And as matter of contention, no, I do know little about this. Only thing I know is, that some child care centers are not actually doing the job, as prescribed by Government. However, that does not detract from the fact, how can you increase wages and claim to reduce costs at the same time. WAGES are a COST. Nothing to do with earning their money or not.

Just a side note, I do believe they are worth more money as the training that they go through is significant, as well as the work load. But politically, the added costs this and several other governments have added to the centers will most likely make it impossible to get that greater income. Also, they do use it and should pay for it, but the government will pass this cost onto everybody, to help the families out. Fast becoming a welfare nation without incentive to do anything.

 

So tell me at those reductions how many years will it be before the export companies will not be subsidized for the added costs? And keeping in mind that free permits, which the government is going to give polluting companies is a subsidy however, is it part of the 40% package the government is announcing?

LOL... So BHP will make up a price to sell to the rest of the world and they will still buy their product. perhaps you should have said market forces depict the price of their product, as if the price is too high it won't matter what BHP puts on it, it won't be sold.

Some will be.

No, because once it is floated it will no longer be an income for the government, it will simply be income for speculators.

if it continually produces revenue it is also a tax. but please enlighten us all on how this is going to happen without being called a TAX as you proclaim it is not

It is not the case of if they want more money, it is the case of the short sighted bureaucratic government that Gillard is bringing, is a forcing issue of costs to these centers. and Gillard will bow to more subsidies to help reduce the rising costs.

 

Yes, permits = money, free permits = subsidies = assistance.

Yes, they "make up" prices when they negotiate contracts with buyers.

Which ones will be? And by how much?

Has no one read the legislation but me? Carbon permits don't last indefinitely, you buy a new one, from the government, for each tonne of carbon you emit. In a fixed price ETS the price is... fixed, in a floating price ETS, the permits are auctioned and can be traded. The initial seller for permits for emissions under the cap is the government, and then any carbon negative industries (like pine plantations for instance) produce their own permits that they can sell.

Not everything that produces government revenue is a "tax", it's an EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME. Who do you think sells the permits? Where do you think the money goes? What do you think an ETS is exactly? And anyway, the point of an ETS is to create a price incentive by putting the money back into the economy at the consumer end (income tax cuts and pensions increases, etc), so it should be revenue neutral.

Forcing more issues of cost onto childcare centres how?

 

Good article in the SMH - has Abbott blown it? Will we see through his doom and gloom rhetoric? Probably.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/merchants-of-doom-beware-20120608-201el.html

 

Yeah, Abbott is setting the bar a little too high.

 

I was skeptical at the time like everyone due to what was floating around from the media. I knew I had to investigate to get the real story and now completely satisfied with Gillard. I actually disliked her with a passion for moment in time. She's actually won me over with her tough grit and no nonsense approach. She is a great leader. There is good logic for why she didn't actually lie but it is a semantic argument about tax and ets. If she did lie, which I believe she didn't because a carbon tax is different to an ets, then she still has done the right thing. A tax gives certainty to the market whereas an ets gives certainty to a reduction in carbon pollution. Can't get anymore honest than that.

 

I smell a stooge among us. Lol.

Dad is that you ? Vigilante are you really my father. If so, dad how did you get your hands on a computer ?

I have heard this drivel time and time before by Labor staffers or union monkeys.

Give me a break. Bless their little red hearts for trying.

 

How the growth is measured and what does it mean to the ordinary people?

 

Most people in Australia have never been better off.

 

How is 'better off' measured?

 

Paid more, have more left over money, employed, etc.

 

Good. I am glad to see that.
Isn't it the unemployment now higher than before? They say so on the TV. If true how can people be better off with it?

 

It's at 5.1%. It slightly climbed after news of the economy doing so well was released. This was due to more people looking for work and not losing their jobs.