Kevin11+2 - Rudd's revenge | RIP JuLIAR

[itch]

A redefinition.

It worked for Julia on misogyny.

Now it's working for Kevin with 'tax'. Someone aught to call the Macquarie.

You're not still going to vote for these clowns are you?

[Hercy]

Me, and 50.5% of Australian voters.

[itch]

So are you glad that they're going to 'terminate' the carbon tax?

Wait... no

It's Kevin Rudd's promise to 'stop the boats' that really appeals isn't it?

Geez, stop the boats, scrap the tax....

I doubt it'd be possible to ape Abbott much more than this. (or John Howard, more accurately. Rudd's primary inspiration)

Nice to see he's appearing outside church every Sunday again too.

[BruceCamblzChin]

Voluntary voting. Please.

[Peppermint Lounge]

I'm voting for Rudd on the back of his Instagram feed. I hope Joe dropped 'Kevin Kardashian'. That one should've stayed in the room.

[Froggy]

Only took him 2 weeks or so and the old Kevin is back. He just completely fucked up today with the tax

[Megaman]

Two things we've learned from Kevin Rudd's vow to 'terminate' the Carbon Tax.

1. It was a tax. Even though every man and his dog would deny it in an attempt to protect Gillard from the title of 'liar'.

2. Apparently the supposed 'compensation' for any costs passed to consumers from the 'big polluters' didn't actually cover all of the costs. Other wise, why would scrapping it save any household any money at all?

You're forgetting that the carbon tax is a powerful tool used to modify the polluters' behaviour and has nothing at all to do with raising revenue for the Government. So when the price of the tax is halved, polluters will just double their pollution output

[BruceCamblzChin]

By polluters u mean power companies right?

[Froggy]

The conundrum is caused by the fact that the imprecise phrase 'carbon tax' is how the current policy is known. Funnily enough your first point was advocating the use of 'carbon tax'.

If what we have now is a carbon tax, then they can say that they have terminated it and brought in a floating market price. This is indeed what they are saying and they will get away with it because it gels with most people's understanding, who have heard 'carbon tax' said every day for the last 3 years.

If what we have now is the fixed price phase of an emissions trading scheme, then they have just brought the already-legislated move to the floating price forward by one year. This is what has happened but almost no-one cares or understands because they have had 'carbon tax' pummelled into their head for so long.

So Labor can say that they have terminated the carbon tax only because of the insistence of people like you to call the fixed price phase of an emissions trading scheme a carbon tax.

That's because it is a tax. No matter what weasel words you use it's a tax as even the people who legislated it said. You guys at Hawker Briton better work a lot harder on your spin to get out of this one.

[Twit]

Voluntary voting. Please.

Why do you say this?

[Twit]

Instead of taxing polluters, I think it would be better if the government just gave companies lots of money – let’s say a billion dollars a year to voluntarily reduce their emissions. Obviously that billion dollars of corporate charity would need to come from somewhere, so we’ll need to tax the boats.

[Hercy]

That sounds like a so-called government intervention in the non delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

[itch]

Well. that's basically what's happening.

A lot of these companies were getting compensation. Now they get the compo but there's no tax. Labor is literally about to start paying big polluters money.

There was a great article about it on leftwing blog 'The Conversation'

Labor keeps ETS compensation for big power users – why?

With the Rudd government announcing a faster conversion to a market-driven carbon price, it should be time to review the assistance provided to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries such as raw steel production and aluminium smelting.

...

Logically, a review of the assistance is needed this year. These industries were given unprecedented and largely unjustifiable concessions in the Gillard government’s Clean Energy Future policy. Concessions were provided in the form of free permits. For example, high emissions-intensive industries such as raw steel, cement clinker, and aluminium smelting received 94.5% of their carbon permits for free. Medium emissions-intensive industries such as alumina and oil refining, liquefied natural gas and coal mining received up to 66% of their permits for free.

http://theconversation.com/labor-keeps- ... -why-16120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Froggy]

why? Because they want votes. It's pretty clear, same as why they are keeping household compensation. To be truly believed on this one they should recall parliament and legislate it. I'm still waiting for KRudd to announce a new policy since he was remade PM, surely he thought up something in the 3 years he was scheming but it is starting to look like he didn't? I certainly thought he'd do something for the car industry but haven't heard anything there, being from SA we can't afford to lose Holden, people don't realise how many other manufacturers they indirectly employee and how big they are to our local economy so I'm not exactly thrilled about the coalition wanting to pull funding from an industry already struggling.

[itch]

I certainly thought he'd do something for the car industry

Car industry? Kevin Rudd has done something for the car industry. He changed the tax rules for company cars! Now, instead of paying FBT on 20% of your company car use, you have to log exactly how much of your usage is for company use and how much for personal use - and pay FBT on all personal use.

What kind of effect will this have on the local car industry? Just ask Toyota.

TOYOTA has warned the Rudd Government's changes to company car tax rules could cripple the automotive industry.


The biggest seller and manufacturer of cars in Australia hit out with an uncharacteristically blunt response to Kevin Rudd's announcement today he was changing Fringe Benefit Tax regulations to help pay for dumping the carbon tax. ''Our initial assessment is the proposed change has the potential to have a major impact on the new car market in Australia. As market leader, this would significantly affect Toyota and in particular our locally built vehicles which are heavily reliant on sales to business and government fleets,'' Toyota spokeswoman Beck Angel said. ''We strongly support the FCAI's (Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries) call to Government to reconsider this policy.''


Australia's peak automotive industry body slammed the overhaul of the tax on company cars. The new tax rules which come into effect immediately are expected to affect one third of all new cars on the road and could lead to job losses across the automotive retail sector due to an anticipated sharp drop in sales. It could also seal the fate of the manufacturing future of Holden which is in the middle of sensitive negotiations with unions and government to continue building cars beyond 2016.

http://www.news.com.au/business/compani ... 6680190385" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


And why is Kevin Rudd doing this? Because he desperately needs to find whatever funds he can to fill the many budget black holes created by poor economic management and constant backflipping, including 'axing the carbon tax'..

[Twit]

So you’re okay with our tax dollars propping up inefficient sectors because it keeps people employed?

[itch]

You say that like they don't pay a reasonable amount of tax anyway, and that the increases aren't just to cover up black holes that taint Kevin's image while he campaigns. And what about the suggestion that Labor keeps too many people employed in a completely uncompetitive public sector to do just that - inflate employment numbers as much as possible?

Seriously - Kevin would rather not have to do this - it's just that he has to because he's incompetent and desperate.

[Froggy]

Twit, this government wants to keep giving business carbon tax assistance even though they are cancelling the tax so why not expect them to continue to support an industry that would be net tax positive for the country. Holden turns over $5 billion a year and in SA there's 10's of thousands of jobs connected to it, its much bigger than Fords demise.

[BruceCamblzChin]

Voluntary voting. Please.

Why do you say this?

I say it coz I'm hopeful that with voluntary voting there would be less of the kind of people whose vote who is swayed by K Rudd's twitter antics.

'Oh check it out K Rudd chucked a footy!' or 'Look K Rudd cut himself shaving lol I vote Labor'

[Twit]

Twit, this government wants to keep giving business carbon tax assistance even though they are cancelling the tax so why not expect them to continue to support an industry that would be net tax positive for the country. Holden turns over $5 billion a year and in SA there's 10's of thousands of jobs connected to it, its much bigger than Fords demise.

Holden are in decline. Revenue is down to $4 billion and they made a loss last year of $158 million after being given $73.5 million of taxpayer money. Vehicle production is down, engine production is down, deliveries are down, and they've cut their workforce down to almost the same level as Ford. Every year the taxpayers are expected to keep pouring millions and millions into propping them up. Inefficiency is what's killing them, and chucking more taxpayer money at them doesn't fix the underlying problem. We'd be better off chucking $100 million at re-skilling everyone who works there and propping up other businesses that might have some sort of future. Perhaps they could all get jobs in the renewable energy sector? Kill three birds with one stone - better for the environment, jobs for the workers, and no more fucking Commodores on the road.

I don't really think that, but I'm amazed at the double-standards. You guys are all right wing and libertarian when it suits, but when it hits closer to home you're like everyone else expecting the government to jump in and save the day. I bet you don't have the same qualms about cutting 12,000 inefficient public service jobs. Nevermind all the others who will be affected by the fallout - the people who rely on the services, the other businesses engaged with them, even the peripheral businesses being supported by their spending. Y'know, similar to all those affected by a car maker's demise. Oh well, as long as there's someone left to write the cheques out to Holden.

I say it coz I'm hopeful that with voluntary voting there would be less of the kind of people whose vote who is swayed by K Rudd's twitter antics.

Right, so basically you would seek to exclude people who don't vote the way you want them to. There's evidence to suggest that compulsory voting results in better representation for the disadvantaged, increased political interest, less influence from wacky fringe groups, and even less disparity in living standards. But fuck all that if the commons don't vote right!

It's telling that you assume anyone voting against your preference must be doing so out of stupidity. Something about a beam and a mote might apply. I wonder if the standards were set sufficiently high to exclude the rabble from these here parts how you'd feel about the concept of deliberate exclusion?

Nazi!

[Megaman]

But Krudd is doing nothing to change how much taxpayer money is wasted on our inefficient car manufacturers. He's increasing taxes which will impact all aspects of the industry. Especially those that rely on people buying cars rather than on Government handouts.

[BruceCamblzChin]

Twit, this government wants to keep giving business carbon tax assistance even though they are cancelling the tax so why not expect them to continue to support an industry that would be net tax positive for the country. Holden turns over $5 billion a year and in SA there's 10's of thousands of jobs connected to it, its much bigger than Fords demise.

Holden are in decline. Revenue is down to $4 billion and they made a loss last year of $158 million after being given $73.5 million of taxpayer money. Vehicle production is down, engine production is down, deliveries are down, and they've cut their workforce down to almost the same level as Ford. Every year the taxpayers are expected to keep pouring millions and millions into propping them up. Inefficiency is what's killing them, and chucking more taxpayer money at them doesn't fix the underlying problem. We'd be better off chucking $100 million at re-skilling everyone who works there and propping up other businesses that might have some sort of future. Perhaps they could all get jobs in the renewable energy sector? Kill three birds with one stone - better for the environment, jobs for the workers, and no more fucking Commodores on the road.

I don't really think that, but I'm amazed at the double-standards. You guys are all right wing and libertarian when it suits, but when it hits closer to home you're like everyone else expecting the government to jump in and save the day. I bet you don't have the same qualms about cutting 12,000 inefficient public service jobs. Nevermind all the others who will be affected by the fallout - the people who rely on the services, the other businesses engaged with them, even the peripheral businesses being supported by their spending. Y'know, similar to all those affected by a car maker's demise. Oh well, as long as there's someone left to write the cheques out to Holden.

I say it coz I'm hopeful that with voluntary voting there would be less of the kind of people whose vote who is swayed by K Rudd's twitter antics.

Right, so basically you would seek to exclude people who don't vote the way you want them to. There's evidence to suggest that compulsory voting results in better representation for the disadvantaged, increased political interest, less influence from wacky fringe groups, and even less disparity in living standards. But fuck all that if the commons don't vote right!

It's telling that you assume anyone voting against your preference must be doing so out of stupidity. Something about a beam and a mote might apply. I wonder if the standards were set sufficiently high to exclude the rabble from these here parts how you'd feel about the concept of deliberate exclusion?

Nazi!

Oh dear.

[BruceCamblzChin]

You guys are all right wing and libertarian when it suits, but when it hits closer to home you're like everyone else expecting the government to jump in and save the day.

I don't.

I think its a disgrace that they're propped up and I wish the govt didn't jump in and save the day.

Right, so basically you would seek to exclude people who don't vote the way you want them to.

No, I seek to give people who don't like the options or dont care, an option NOT to vote. Thats all. A right not to vote if a person wishes.

There's evidence to suggest that compulsory voting results in better representation for the disadvantaged, increased political interest, less influence from wacky fringe groups, and even less disparity in living standards. But fuck all that if the commons don't vote right!

You're putting words in my mouth here and making pretty big assumptions about my world view.

The system you're advocating forces everyone to vote whether they want to or not. I believe people ought to have a right NOT to vote if they wish. You believe they should not have that right.

It's telling that you assume anyone voting against your preference must be doing so out of stupidity.

I didn't say that. I wonder what you think my preference is though.

Something about a beam and a mote might apply.

Haven't read the bible. Not intending to.

I wonder if the standards were set sufficiently high to exclude the rabble from these here parts how you'd feel about the concept of deliberate exclusion?

The only standard I'd care about is whether a person cared enough to register to vote. That would be the only hurdle, filling in the form. You could have it in all languages etc. so anyone could come in to their local electoral office and exercise their right to vote.

We're one of a small number of countries in the world that still has compulsory voting.

Your post assumes that I think a conservative government would be swept in to power with glorious non compulsory voting.

I don't. Obama is evidence enough that that wouldn't necessarily happen.

Its about rights.

[itch]

I think the number of Labor voters who only vote that way because of a superficial understanding of the personalities involved is way higher than the number of Liberal voters and yes I think voluntary voting would result in more voters lost for the Labor party than the Liberal party mainly for this reason combined with Liberal party voters being more passionate/motivated and less of a 'I don't really care I just hate Tony Abbott' style of viewpoint. There would have been a few 'I don't really care I just hate Julia Gillard's out there, but overall I'd say it'd be less than the left-wing counterpart.

[itch]

Holden are in decline.

...

The biggest car manufacturer in Australia is a Japanese company, it's called Toyota. They build cars that people actually do want. And they hate Rudds new tax plan.