The Carbon Tax - Debate

Once again, this is what she said:

But, OK! So John Howard took a "Carbon Tax" to the 2007 election, and he, and every single Coalition MP of the time lied when they called it an ETS, got it!

"Effectively a tax" is not the same as actually being a tax. Speeding fines are "effectively a tax", but they're not a tax, they're a fine. An ETS with a fixed price, is... an ETS with a fixed price, it's not a "tax", and I'm completely sick of this ridiculous argument that she "lied". She said she did not rule out a putting a "price on carbon", she said she would view the election as a mandate on carbon pricing, which always referred to an ETS and there was no argument that a fixed price ETS was a "Tax" when Howard took it to the election. But now it's suddenly become a "tax" so it can be claimed retrospectively that Gillard lied. 13% of Australia voted for the greens, and so it was negotiated that the fixed price would be 3 years not 1 like Howards to raise a bit more revene for things that the Greens wanted. It's all entirely logical, the process was completely open, no one "lied" and an ETS with a fixed price is still an ETS with a fixed price.

 

She also said,

And her deputy said

LIARS the quicker the next elections come around the better.

 

Irrelevant, if you are saying that a fixed price ETS is a "carbon tax", then you're saying that every single Coalition MP under Howard lied when they called it an ETS. No one before the election ever considered a fixed priced ETS a "carbon tax", it's just ridiculous spin that has been applied retrospectively as a cheap, but apparently effective, political stunt.

 

I just cant be bothered, i have told you so many times all you have to do is scroll back on this thread.

I'm not repeating myself again.

Take those blinkers of dude and see!

 

Please provide source. But once again this is what she said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ys-julia-gillard/story-e6frg6xf-1226012682698

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3258103.htm

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8217002/yes-i-vowed-no-carbon-tax-gillard
So, when are you going to stop your own delusion? when are you going to admit your lie to the forum? OR do we have to wait for somebody to continually show your deception?

Really? what was his ETS you proclaimed he lied about? what was his carbon tax he took to the election?

As you can see from my quotes, your own PM owns this debate.

then stop trying to defend the lie she admits. You are deluding yourself to think that anyone is going to swallow your lies

No, that is also another lie by yourself as this is not the policy she took to the election, is it?

She admits it, why can't you?

LOL...No it was not open at all. and Gillard herself admits it is not. your proclamation does not make it so. The people voted for examination of policy which if introduced would be no earlier than 2013, that Gillard stipulated. It is your contention it was open and elected for.

Owned by your own PM.

 

Er, yes, a Carbon Tax does have a fixed price, that still doesn't make it an ETS with a fixed price.

No where did she say that she would not negotiate on the timing of a carbon price if they LOST THE ELECTION.

Howard's ETS had a fixed price period of 1 year, so did Nelson's, so did Turnball's, ALL OF WHICH TONY ABBOTT SUPPORTED.

Tony Abbott's scheme puts a fixed price on carbon, he estimates that the government will buy carbon offsets for something between $8-15. The only difference is the government is buying carbon offsets directly.

 

Quoted for truth. This is the salient point that right-wingers seem to forget.

 

She said there would be no tax & therefore no tax price & the qualification was the government she leads - not weather or not she wins the election.

 

Hey Freddy dont bother these alarmists are so radical they would go to any extreme to convert someone.

Thank goodness they're the minority.

The global warming religion is truly frightening.

 

Yeah, it's a religion of pseudo science being driven by money & self interests.

 

Eh, I don't think I can be bothered discussing this anymore. How many hundreds of threads has dumber made about climate change and the carbon tax? None of them get anywhere at all. Let's just wait until July 1st, and see if the sky falls in. Nothing anyone can do to stop it now anyway.

 

Okay, ziggy should have said "No where did she say that she would not negotiate on the timing of a carbon price in the case of a hung parliament"

 

Thanks Lepper, even I fumble over the semantics sometimes.

I wonder how many planes are going to fall out of the sky on July 1st? Do you think I should start stockpiling food and water, just in case?

 

OK lets be straight about this "Carbon Tax". It has very little to do with the environment. It has just been spun that way. This government thinks very lowly of Australians and their intellect. They believe by calling it an environmental tax it will in some ways be easier to digest. Thats the first mistake. This tax is simply a revenue raising exercise to bring the economy back to surplus. Raising the fighting fund.

The funny thing is that if they said we need to put some money back in the fighting fund most people could and would of accepted it. We all know we have come through some tough economical times, and decisions had to be made quickly. In fairness Rudd did this however the implementation was poor. That is for another thread.

Eventually this Tax will evolve into an ETS and perhaps that will in some way help the environment, not sure how much it will help, this again is for another thread. The fact remains that if the government didn't have their heads up their backsides and delivered the actual truth to the public instead of spinning the tax as an environmental saviour they would of taken away the fire power of the conservative side. Sure Abbott might of played the money wasting card, but most people realise that the money had to be spent quickly to avoid an economical collapse.

Once again this is political paties out of touch with the voting public.

 

Explain how the net spending of about $4 billion over 3 years is a "revenue raising exercise to bring the economy back to surplus"?

It is always an ETS, it just moves from a fixed priced ETS to a floating price ETS.

Abbott was not opposition leader during the stimulus negotiations, that all happened before he stabbed Turnbull in the back.

 

You know I've never heard Julia Gillard anounce that the Carbon Tax will become the ETS. She may of I don't know as I don't prescribe to the environmental debates a great deal.......so much misinformation on both sides and all that.

The only place I have heard this view is in here.

As for Abbott not being the opposition leader at that time. Maybe not in name, but he was certainly the leader of the Liberals, or should I say conservatives.

 

She's explained many times, that there will be an ETS with a fixed priced period of 3 years, which will then move to a floating price ETS. I mean, she announced the policy live on television, she must have given hundreds of interviews about it, and all the information is published on the web.

No Abbott certainly was not "leader of the Liberals" in any shape or form, before he stabbed Turnbull in the back and won the spill by ONE VOTE.

 

I must of missed those interviews where she aligned the carbon tax with an ETS. I was under the assumption that she and the government were trying to differentiate them. One being a tax on heavy carbon polluters and the other as a sustainable means of controlling and reducing emmisions. I have only ever heard the government try to distance one from the other. Things must of changed, I should watch more TV.

In regards to our old friend Budgie Smuggler.......I must of confused you with what I wrote. You see I was alluding to the fact that Abbott has controlled the Liberal scene since the demise of Howard and Costello. I was merely stating the view that even though he was not the actual leader by name he in every way controlled the larger of the two factions in that party, effectively making him the leader behind the scenes. He always had an image problem, and this was seen to be his disadvantage. Nonetheless he was the boss with big political aspirations. Problem was the public shunned him. Nothing seems to of changed a great deal. When it became apparent that Turnbull would not be the puppet this larger faction wanted, they were left no choice but to install Abbott. Much like Gillard, Rudd, and the many factions of the Labor party.

 

What do you think the difference is between an ETS with a fixed price, and an ETS with a floating price? Apart from the fact, obviously, that in one the price is fixed and in the other it's floating.

Nothing has "changed", the information was clearly presented when the policy was announced, it was broadly outlined months in advance by progress reports from the multi-party committee on climate change, there's a whole dam dedicated government website with info about this legislation, not to mention garnauts reports and probably thousands of articles and interviews about it.

I know what you wrote, and it's absolute rubbish. Again, Turnbull lost by ONE vote after a particularly disastrous political humiliation involving Godwin Gretch and fabricated emails. All politicians have "big political aspirations" for god's sake, that's why they're politicians.

 

So let me get this straight, because Abbot supported or said something does not mean Gillard lied? She admits the lie.

Tell me, where did she say she would negotiate?

No, she lied and admits it, you continue to defend something that is in your own mind.

 

When was this? After she claimed that there would be 'no carbon tax in a government she leads'? funny she admits it but you can not. spin it like you wish (because that is all it is SPIN) she is still introducing a carbon TAX.

Relevant how?

 

Firstly I have seen the website that you are reffering to and I still can't see where they have said that the Carbon tax is an emmissions trading scheme.

Perhaps you have misinterpreted, as you have my post.

 

Are you serious?

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...e-clean-energy-legislative-package/#content02

I really don't know how it could possibly be any clearer than that.

Again, what do you think the difference is between a fixed price ETS (aka carbon tax), and a floating price ETS?

 

I think you are just playing silly buggers slippery!

 

How am I playing silly nuggets. I have sted that i have not heard nor seen at any time where Julia Gillard has said the carbon tax is the ets. If she has done so, and you lot have proof that she has said this, I'm all ears. Shemay of said it and i have missed it so please post the evidence so i can see it. That way it is undeniable and unrefutable. If you have no proof of such things stop trying to feed it to everyone

If Julia Gillards lips say it, i will believe you. Unless you have this proof i will take it that you are all talking (*)(*)(*)(*) and making it all up to serve your own arguement.

Simple really, she either said the carbon tax is really an emmissions trading scheme or she didn't. To me why would you bother calling it a tax on carbon emmissions when you could just implement an ets. This not only would save money and time in regards to implementation, it would be far better recieved by the public.