• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Myansie said:
Yes, the improvement is incremental and normally I'd be ok with that. The negative of this is we're hitting the lower income earners to do it. The tax is unfortunately regressive and being ideologically egalitarian I find this unfair. Particularly when the pay off is a cup cake. The reason I brought up in earlier posts both the mining fuel subsidy and the carbon tax is we can bring about much greater results pollution saving wise without hammering everyday people.

Again I'd be fine with the excise if it were being directed towards public transport. I concede you have an argument that the next government could redirect the subsidy for that purpose and that's gnawing at me.
Click to expand...

The way the hypothecation is directed probably prevents that redirection. At least without it becoming a political football. The excise being hypothecated (by legislation at the time) to road maintenance was one of the reasons it got frozen in the first place (because in practice it had gone to general revenue and roads were funded from that and the roads were being funded to a lesser amount than the excise).
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Elaugaufein said:
The way the hypothecation is directed probably prevents that redirection. At least without it becoming a political football. The excise being hypothecated (by legislation at the time) to road maintenance was one of the reasons it got frozen in the first place (because in practice it had gone to general revenue and roads were funded from that and the roads were being funded to a lesser amount than the excise).
Click to expand...
themoreyouknow.jpg

Seriously though wasn't aware of this, cheers.
 
S

senahorse

Member
YAY the toxic tax is going. What are you guise gonna spend your $550 on? I am thinking maybe a PS4!

Don't worry about the environment, Tones has a Green Army that will will be far more effective than anything the silly leftists and 'scientists' can conjure up. Tones is a conservationist, not some feeble minded person intent on hurting the environment.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Evidence based policy, I'm going to be a bit obtuse here but that's an incredibly loaded term. You can only ever measure the extent to which your policy might successfully further your specifically defined goals in certain areas. Sure, you can have some research that says that car headlights above 100w are distracting and lead to crashes, and therefore legislate the maximum wattage be 80w in line with their theoretical optimum, but you're only taking one part of the picture into account. What if making 80w globes is far more costly than 100w globes, while the difference in safety a meagre 0.010% leading to maybe one extra fatality a year? What if 80w globes caused rampant environmental destruction because it has to be made from different materials or in a different manner...Don't focus on the merits of lightbulbs here, it's merely here to exemplify that it's impossible to account for everything.

What about other values that we hold dear, that are basically impossible to quantify...can I have the social cohesion index for a particular piece of legislation? The freedom coefficient? The law and order quotient? Most of the time it's just reasoning from first principles and people on both sides of politics get things hopelessly wrong from time to time.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for evidence, or we should discount it, although I'm anticipating some people here will see it in such terms, but when it comes to certain policies...my mind usually starts thinking about how it will work given the greater context of all our other laws and whether it infringes on one of our deeply held values. After that I start thinking about its efficiency and efficacy.

Edit: I'm incredibly tired right now after a night of soccer so I apologise in advance for my insane ramblings.
 
H

hidys

Member
Myansie said:
Yes, the improvement is incremental and normally I'd be ok with that. The negative of this is we're hitting the lower income earners to do it. The tax is unfortunately regressive and being ideologically egalitarian I find this unfair. Particularly when the pay off is a cup cake. The reason I brought up in earlier posts both the mining fuel subsidy and the carbon tax is we can bring about much greater results pollution saving wise without hammering everyday people.

Again I'd be fine with the excise if it were being directed towards public transport. I concede you and Hidys have an argument that the next government could redirect the subsidy for that purpose and that's gnawing at me.
Click to expand...

Somehow I missed your earlier post.

I won't deny the tax is regressive but the best course of action would be for the Greens to negotiate with the libs to offset the cost to the poorest via tax-transfers. I think that this is two important to knock back on that basis but it would alleviate that concern.

Bernard Keane in Crikey today has also stated his views in this and he sides with Peter Martin. . The fact is that road use is a huge part of our carbon emissions and we need to do something about it if we are to really deal with climate change and repealing the diesel fuel rebate wouldn't be enough.

Elaugaufein said:
The way the hypothecation is directed probably prevents that redirection. At least without it becoming a political football. The excise being hypothecated (by legislation at the time) to road maintenance was one of the reasons it got frozen in the first place (because in practice it had gone to general revenue and roads were funded from that and the roads were being funded to a lesser amount than the excise).
Click to expand...

Apparently 75% of the tax goes to general revenue anyway.
 
M

Myansie

Member
Unfortunately I can't get past crikey's pay wall. If you can prove to me that the excise will have a measured drop then maybe I can be swung on the issue. Fuel prices have doubled in the last 10 years, but the amount of traffic has actually increased. Roads are expanding and so to the number of vehicles on them. I don't see fuel price increases by a couple of dollars on a tank are going to be a big enough driver to move people away from cars. Especially when there is no alternative. Most driving is through necessity. You're also constricting the economy by reducing the ability of people to travel. Even if it's only pleasure trips to the restaurant or even on a holiday to the beach. That kind of restriction is directly bad for the economy.

If public transport is part of the excise it makes sense.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
So apparently at 5.30 Clive Palmer is going to solve global catastrophic climate change and Al Gore is going to be there along side him!

I have no words.

SMH
 
H

hidys

Member
Arksy said:
Evidence based policy, I'm going to be a bit obtuse here but that's an incredibly loaded term. You can only ever measure the extent to which your policy might successfully further your specifically defined goals in certain areas. Sure, you can have some research that says that car headlights above 100w are distracting and lead to crashes, and therefore legislate the maximum wattage be 80w in line with their theoretical optimum, but you're only taking one part of the picture into account. What if making 80w globes is far more costly than 100w globes, while the difference in safety a meagre 0.010% leading to maybe one extra fatality a year? What if 80w globes caused rampant environmental destruction because it has to be made from different materials or in a different manner...Don't focus on the merits of lightbulbs here, it's merely here to exemplify that it's impossible to account for everything.

What about other values that we hold dear, that are basically impossible to quantify...can I have the social cohesion index for a particular piece of legislation? The freedom coefficient? The law and order quotient? Most of the time it's just reasoning from first principles and people on both sides of politics get things hopelessly wrong from time to time.

I'm not saying we shouldn't look for evidence, or we should discount it, although I'm anticipating some people here will see it in such terms, but when it comes to certain policies...my mind usually starts thinking about how it will work given the greater context of all our other laws and whether it infringes on one of our deeply held values. After that I start thinking about its efficiency and efficacy.

Edit: I'm incredibly tired right now after a night of soccer so I apologise in advance for my insane ramblings.
Click to expand...

For your example it would be quite easy. We do a cost-benefit analysis to find out. Given the information in your example it would be very easy to weigh up whether or not the regulation should be implemented based on lives lost/environmental damage/ cost to car manufacturers. The Productivity Commission does this all the time.

When it comes to infrastructure it is pretty easy to perform cost-benefit analysis but you are correct in that it doesn't work for everything and their are other elements at play. But to outright ignore it as the Libs have been doing (abolition of Infrastructure Australia) is atrocious and signifies this shift.
 
H

hidys

Member
Omi said:
I assume everyone has caught this video of Morrison?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-or-face-very-very-long-detention?CMP=twt_gu


(sorry for distraction from economic matters onto humanitarian ones).
Click to expand...

That was chilling. He has no humanity.

Myansie said:
Unfortunately I can't get past crikey's pay wall. If you can prove to me that the excise will have a measured drop then maybe I can be swung on the issue. Fuel prices have doubled in the last 10 years, but the amount of traffic has actually increased. Roads are expanding and so to the number of vehicles on them. I don't see fuel price increases by a couple of dollars on a tank are going to be a big enough driver to move people away from cars. Especially when there is no alternative. Most driving is through necessity. You're also constricting the economy by reducing the ability of people to travel. Even if it's only pleasure trips to the restaurant or even on a holiday to the beach. That kind of restriction is directly bad for the economy.

If public transport is part of the excise it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Didn't realize I linked to a pay-walled article (I've gotten used to having a subscription). Here I shall cite a non-paywalled crikey article .

Key part "Nevertheless the excise tax is a serious deterrent to driving. The Productivity Commission’s recent report, Carbon emission policies in key economies, calculates that “in 2009-10, fuel taxes reduced emissions from road transport by 8 to 23 percent in Australia at an average cost of $57-$59 per tonne of CO2-e”. Although not put in place with the purpose of abating emissions, the excise already has a much more significant effect on driving than any level of carbon price that’s been seriously touted in the political debate. Based on the CSIRO’s estimates, it could be argued its effect is equivalent to a carbon tax of over $100 per tonne (the relationship isn’t linear – there’re diminishing returns from a marginal increase as the fuel tax gets bigger)."

bobnowhere said:
So apparently at 5.30 Clive Palmer is going to solve global catastrophic climate change and Al Gore is going to be there along side him!

I have no words.

SMH
Click to expand...

That actually sounds interesting. Maybe Palmer will have an epiphany and realize that climate change is serious and the only way to stop it is through a price on carbon.

But I doubt it.

Regardless I will watch it.
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
hidys said:
That actually sounds interesting. Maybe Palmer will have an epiphany and realize that climate change is serious and the only way to stop it is through a price on carbon.

But I doubt it.

Regardless I will watch it.
Click to expand...

He hate's the "Carbon Tax" because he has to pay it and it's just another impost against his mines which are let's face it low quality and very very speculative, but he hates the LNP more.

I can see him only voting to repeal the tax if, and only if, the LNP come on board he and Al Gore's solution. He's a grade A bullshit artist, but damn he knows how get attention!
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
So basically
  • Removal of Carbon Tax
  • Keeping CEFC
  • Keeping targets
  • Legislating a framework for an immediate ETS at $0 rising when others come on board, China, USA etc...

All in all a win for Abbott really.
 
H

hidys

Member
bobnowhere said:
So basically
  • Removal of Carbon Tax
  • Keeping CEFC
  • Keeping targets
  • Legislating a framework for an immediate ETS at $0 rising when others come on board, China, USA etc...

All in all a win for Abbott really.
Click to expand...

It is an absolute clusterfuck for Abbott. He now has to negotiate with 3 parties all with 3 completely different policy positions. 2 & 3 are now definitely staying. The last is a huge bummer but it is better than what Abbott seeks to propose. Repealing the carbon tax is going to be a very uphill battle for Abbott.
 
W

wonzo

Banned
George Megalogenis ‏@GMegalogenis 3m
A prime minister cedes authority to a Qld mining baron and a US Democrat. That's some price to pay for playing politics with climate change.
Click to expand...
lmao
 
B

bobnowhere

Member
hidys said:
It is an absolute clusterfuck for Abbott. He now has to negotiate with 3 parties all with 3 completely different policy positions. 2 & 3 are now definitely staying. The last is a huge bummer but it is better than what Abbott seeks to propose. Repealing the carbon tax is going to be a very uphill battle for Abbott.
Click to expand...

Carbon Tax is gone. The Libs only need 6 extra votes and they have them now. Four from Palmer/Muir, One from FF and One from the all taxes are bad in all cases LDP guy. Palmer's ETS proposal was linked to the CEFC not he Carbon Tax. If he had linked his ETS to the removal of the carbon tax, it would be game on.

The whole CEFC removal was purely political on the Libs behalf, part of the meme that everything that the Labor party did was bad so absolutely everything had to go. Hence the ridiculous beatdown they got at the UNESCO conference from trying to buy votes in rural Tasmania. I suspect the whole CEFC thing will be pushed aside and Palmer's ETS will be ignored.

To Abbott once the Carbon Tax is gone, he can spend the next 2 and bit years running around the country saying he's the hero that axed the Tax, the rest will be quietly forgotten. Get ready for constant we axed the tax, we stopped the boats and not much else really.
 
D

Dryk

Member
A dormant ETS is the policy we should've introduced years ago. It satisfies the people that don't want us to do anything for now and it eliminates the trade problems with a slow global rollout. What are the odds the Greens will try to vote it down for not being in-line enough with their policies?
 
W

wonzo

Banned
wn35-20140625185718383ak11.jpg


Is your opposition to an ETS a deal breaker? If Clive Palmer insists on an emissions trading scheme, you won't accept his amendment?

"I am not being drawn on those issues," says Hunt.
Click to expand...
 
D

Dryk

Member
They can't get the repeal legislation through the senate without the ALP, Greens or PUP, and if they don't get it through we end up with a worse ETS (from their point-of-view). Stubbornness is going to get them absolutely nowhere.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
Clive Palmer is somehow a political genius. This is really what the Libs should've wanted from the beginning, but their take no prisoners anti everything stance will fuck them.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
I think Abbott would be over the moon about getting rid of the ETS. "But we kept the CEFC!" won't cut through to the voters as much as "We axed the tax."
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Fredescu said:
I think Abbott would be over the moon about getting rid of the ETS. "But we kept the CEFC!" won't cut through to the voters as much as "We axed the tax."
Click to expand...

It might be problematic when the spruiked savings don't appear. The only industry groups committing so far are power and they aren't offering anywhere close to $550 per hhousehold (more like ~8% on a power bill). The others claim they absorbed the costs due to competitive pressure.
 
D

Dryk

Member
Elaugaufein said:
It might be problematic when the spruiked savings don't appear. The only industry groups committing so far are power and they aren't offering anywhere close to $550 per hhousehold (more like ~8% on a power bill). The others claim they absorbed the costs due to competitive pressure.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many scapegoats we'll go through before we get to the boring truth
 
R

roosters93

Member
A follow-up to the Honour Killings talk at Festival of Dangerous Ideas topic.

“The suggestion that I would advocate for honour killings, as understand in the west, is ludicrous and something I would normally not deem worth of dignifying with a response. Rather, this is about discussing the issue at a deeper level, confronting accepted perceptions, assumptions and presumptions and seeing things from a different perspective.”

While he consented to the title, he claims, he did not choose the topic. “In fact, I suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism … but the organisers insisted on this topic.”
Click to expand...

Gotta love inflammatory titles.


edit: New First Dog

TheNewSenate.jpg
Click to expand...
 
D

Dryk

Member
Arksy said:
I think I can get behind a dormant ETS.
Click to expand...
I think everyone can, even if I think it's a step back I'll take it over most of the alternatives. I just hope that it can get Green/Labor support. It's exactly the sort of thing that the Greens will refuse to compromise on on principle though.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Dryk said:
I think everyone can, even if I think it's a step back I'll take it over most of the alternatives. I just hope that it can get Green/Labor support. It's exactly the sort of thing that the Greens will refuse to compromise on on principle though.
Click to expand...

And Labor refuse to support because reasons. Fucking Labor are useless. Feeble minded, poll watching, musheads.
 
A

Arksy

Member
Dead Man said:
And Labor refuse to support because reasons. Fucking Labor are useless. Feeble minded, poll watching, musheads.
Click to expand...

Didn't the ALP say they'd help repeal the Carbon Tax if it were replaced by an ETS? I mean, they're in opposition so I'm expecting them to oppose absolutely everything ever but still...I feel like the other parties should come on board because this is ACTUALLY meaninful action on climate change and not direct action bullshit. As far as I can tell the commodification of emissions is inevitable throughout the world so we're going to have to get on the bandwagon at some stage.
 
D

Dead Man

Member
Arksy said:
Didn't the ALP say they'd help repeal the Carbon Tax if it were replaced by an ETS?
Click to expand...

I have no faith they are any more likely to keep their word than the LNP. I am really hating Labor at the moment, just spineless shits who represent a slightly less awful alternative. Not actually a good alternative, just a watered down version of the shortsighted and fear filled policies of the libs.

They won't even support getting trained counsellors and mental health professionals into schools instead of fucking chaplains.

Just utterly disappointed with federal Labor. They are not providing any leadership at all, just taking LNP positions and softening them somewhat.

Edit: Re your edit, I don't want the tax repealled, but if it is I want as much kept as possible. Labor will just fucking fold and not fight for the rest of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
983
mansoor1980 replied
What actually happened to Warren Ellis?
14
2K
CGNoire replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
23K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
211K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Top Bottom