Do poor Canberrans drive cars?

chewy14 said :

JC said :

arescarti42 said :

Zero points for the Greens and Labor as well, who have shown massive hypocrisy by opposing what is also a de facto tax on carbon.

Their objection isn’t too the indexation, their objection is to the fact that the money raised will build more roads, which will lead to more vehicles and pollution. So no hypocrisy when some context is placed around their position.

Oh puhlease, anyone falling for the road “hypothecation” argument must have been born yesterday. The Greens are playing pure politics on this issue, Milne got rolled by the party’s wish to screw Abbott.

chewy14 said :

JC said :

arescarti42 said :

Zero points for the Greens and Labor as well, who have shown massive hypocrisy by opposing what is also a de facto tax on carbon.

Their objection isn’t too the indexation, their objection is to the fact that the money raised will build more roads, which will lead to more vehicles and pollution. So no hypocrisy when some context is placed around their position.

Oh puhlease, anyone falling for the road “hypothecation” argument must have been born yesterday. The Greens are playing pure politics on this issue, Milne got rolled by the party’s wish to screw Abbott.

I’m willing to bet that if the coalition said the money was going to something the greens would approve of, they have no issues with this. But there is a very valid point, raising fuel taxes to build more roads so more cars can use it does have an overall negative effect on the environment, which is right down Greens party line.

Interestingly, the focus on fuel excise and usage demonstrates why light rail is actually a sop for the hipsters in Civic, whereas with the same investment in existing buses you could greatly improve equity of access to those in more far flung areas (as well as Civic), simply by improving buses for everyone.

JC said :

arescarti42 said :

Zero points for the Greens and Labor as well, who have shown massive hypocrisy by opposing what is also a de facto tax on carbon.

Their objection isn’t too the indexation, their objection is to the fact that the money raised will build more roads, which will lead to more vehicles and pollution. So no hypocrisy when some context is placed around their position.

Oh puhlease, anyone falling for the road “hypothecation” argument must have been born yesterday. The Greens are playing pure politics on this issue, Milne got rolled by the party’s wish to screw Abbott.

John Moulis said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

While Labor and the mavericks in the Senate may think they are very smart in opposing most of Hockey’s budget reforms we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Labor was internationally recognised as having very successfully steered this country through the GFC. Their handling of the economy was very good.

By contrast, the new mob have a disastrous budget which is completely dysfunctional due to the large influence of their anti-economical ideology.

All they have is their lie about a non-existent “budget crisis” and a lie about “excessive debt”, both lies that has damaged the Australian economy and has put our credit rating under threat. The international economic reaction to Tony Abbott’s Liberals has been one of dismay and distrust.

As if that weren’t enough, Tony Abbott seizes on MH17 as a form of Thatcherian distraction, spends a few weeks beating his chest and aggravating Putin, the net result of which is an $800million hammerblow on the Australian economy in the form of Russian sanctions against Australian imports. Great work, Tony.
The budget just keeps getting worse.

The Liberals and their cheer squad are starting to reveal the truth about the budget and the economy. Hockey and the Murdoch press trumpeted about a “budget emergency” and that the welfare system is “unsustainable”. Treasury released figures stating that Hockey and the media’s claim of a “Welfare Nation” of 53% of Australians receiving benefits was false. Hockey told Australians there was a “budget emergency” yet told a meeting of business leaders in New Zealand that the Australian budget and economy were in good shape and healthy. Even fringe members of the conservative cheer squad are letting the facade slip. George and Paul on 2UE discuss politics with Dennis Shanahan from The Australian and this morning they bemoaned the fact that “the economy is in good shape but the government can’t get their message across”.

So John, you are totally comfortable with ongoing deficits and increasing debt? If you were you would have voted Labor which means you are in the minority because a majority of Australians can see that what Labor created is unsustainable.
If my household budget continually required more money to spend that I had coming in I would have an emergency as the bailiff would be at my door. As long as Australia can continue to get its people to underwrite sovereign foreign debt then we will survive until we catch up with some other countries that have already defaulted.
Most Canberra people and the ABC media have been cossetted by the Australian taxpayer forever and they have never experienced unemployment, debt, hunger etc. so they simply don’t understand what the ramifications of a “budget emergency” are.

What Hockey actually said was that poorer Australians “either don’t have cars or don’t drive very far in many cases”
The ABC reported the comment without “in many cases” which totally changes the meaning of what was said.
No further discussion required I think.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

While Labor and the mavericks in the Senate may think they are very smart in opposing most of Hockey’s budget reforms we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Labor was internationally recognised as having very successfully steered this country through the GFC. Their handling of the economy was very good.

By contrast, the new mob have a disastrous budget which is completely dysfunctional due to the large influence of their anti-economical ideology.

All they have is their lie about a non-existent “budget crisis” and a lie about “excessive debt”, both lies that has damaged the Australian economy and has put our credit rating under threat. The international economic reaction to Tony Abbott’s Liberals has been one of dismay and distrust.

As if that weren’t enough, Tony Abbott seizes on MH17 as a form of Thatcherian distraction, spends a few weeks beating his chest and aggravating Putin, the net result of which is an $800million hammerblow on the Australian economy in the form of Russian sanctions against Australian imports. Great work, Tony.
The budget just keeps getting worse.

The Liberals and their cheer squad are starting to reveal the truth about the budget and the economy. Hockey and the Murdoch press trumpeted about a “budget emergency” and that the welfare system is “unsustainable”. Treasury released figures stating that Hockey and the media’s claim of a “Welfare Nation” of 53% of Australians receiving benefits was false. Hockey told Australians there was a “budget emergency” yet told a meeting of business leaders in New Zealand that the Australian budget and economy were in good shape and healthy. Even fringe members of the conservative cheer squad are letting the facade slip. George and Paul on 2UE discuss politics with Dennis Shanahan from The Australian and this morning they bemoaned the fact that “the economy is in good shape but the government can’t get their message across”.

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

While Labor and the mavericks in the Senate may think they are very smart in opposing most of Hockey’s budget reforms we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Labor was internationally recognised as having very successfully steered this country through the GFC. Their handling of the economy was very good.

By contrast, the new mob have a disastrous budget which is completely dysfunctional due to the large influence of their anti-economical ideology.

All they have is their lie about a non-existent “budget crisis” and a lie about “excessive debt”, both lies that has damaged the Australian economy and has put our credit rating under threat. The international economic reaction to Tony Abbott’s Liberals has been one of dismay and distrust.

As if that weren’t enough, Tony Abbott seizes on MH17 as a form of Thatcherian distraction, spends a few weeks beating his chest and aggravating Putin, the net result of which is an $800million hammerblow on the Australian economy in the form of Russian sanctions against Australian imports. Great work, Tony.
The budget just keeps getting worse.

I’m getting the usual pro-Labor spin but still no one knows the name of Labor’s shadow treasurer. I know it doesn’t really mean anything but they do have one, don’t they?

dungfungus said :

While Labor and the mavericks in the Senate may think they are very smart in opposing most of Hockey’s budget reforms we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Labor was internationally recognised as having very successfully steered this country through the GFC. Their handling of the economy was very good.

By contrast, the new mob have a disastrous budget which is completely dysfunctional due to the large influence of their anti-economical ideology.

All they have is their lie about a non-existent “budget crisis” and a lie about “excessive debt”, both lies that has damaged the Australian economy and has put our credit rating under threat. The international economic reaction to Tony Abbott’s Liberals has been one of dismay and distrust.

As if that weren’t enough, Tony Abbott seizes on MH17 as a form of Thatcherian distraction, spends a few weeks beating his chest and aggravating Putin, the net result of which is an $800million hammerblow on the Australian economy in the form of Russian sanctions against Australian imports. Great work, Tony.
The budget just keeps getting worse.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Just like how when the Liberals were in opposition you never heard anything about their alternatives either. I also recall many right wing leaners on here saying that it wasn’t the roll of the opposition to present alternatives. What hypocrisy to now demand the same.

Now that said considering Labor have been out of power for just one year and budget projections go for at least 3, there is a sense of what would have been if Labor had stayed in power or in other words an alternative budget of sorts.

Two interesting facts. This FY both Labor and Lieberal had identical spend projections ($415b if I am not mistaken), but the Liebrals with a lesser tax take, that is despite cuts to services and tax increases. Just goes to show that their budget is about reorganising spending towards their benefactors rather than actually cutting the budget as a whole, yet they still call it a budget emergency fixing budget.

The second fact the Labor budget had the budget repaying the debit and returning to surplus 1-2 years before the Liebral party budget. Hmmm. Now I know what your going to say.

The word “emergency” as applied to government finances was first used by then Labor treasurerer Wayne Swan (you know, the one that promised 5 consecutive budget surpluses) when the RBA cash rate hit a record low. Since then it has gone lower and Swan never amended his call. Therefore we still have an emergency and indeed it is for a lot of retired superannuants.
Your spell checker needs an overhaul as well as the spelling of Liberals is incorrect. In fact, you should be referring to the current government as the coalition. The last government/s was/were the Gillard/Rudd Labor minority government/s (just to remind you).

dungfungus said :

we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

Just like how when the Liberals were in opposition you never heard anything about their alternatives either. I also recall many right wing leaners on here saying that it wasn’t the roll of the opposition to present alternatives. What hypocrisy to now demand the same.

Now that said considering Labor have been out of power for just one year and budget projections go for at least 3, there is a sense of what would have been if Labor had stayed in power or in other words an alternative budget of sorts.

Two interesting facts. This FY both Labor and Lieberal had identical spend projections ($415b if I am not mistaken), but the Liebrals with a lesser tax take, that is despite cuts to services and tax increases. Just goes to show that their budget is about reorganising spending towards their benefactors rather than actually cutting the budget as a whole, yet they still call it a budget emergency fixing budget.

The second fact the Labor budget had the budget repaying the debit and returning to surplus 1-2 years before the Liebral party budget. Hmmm. Now I know what your going to say.

arescarti42 said :

Zero points for the Greens and Labor as well, who have shown massive hypocrisy by opposing what is also a de facto tax on carbon.

Their objection isn’t too the indexation, their objection is to the fact that the money raised will build more roads, which will lead to more vehicles and pollution. So no hypocrisy when some context is placed around their position.

KB1971 said :

You will need to help me here, neither the report or XLS spreadsheet in that link show km travelled per person per yeat………….I must be missing something.

Just a bit of simple maths:

Victoria Total: 46.3 billion vehicle km per year
Melbourne: 29.2 billion vehicle km per year

Subtract second from first, Vic non-capital: 17.1 billion vehicle km per year

Population of Victoria 5.7 million, Melbourne 4.3 million. Non-capital 1.4 million.

Divide vehicle km by population.

Let’s not forget that 18 months ago, many left-skewed commentators were demanding Abbott stand aside for Hockey as leader.
The same mob are now demanding Hockey resign.
While Labor and the mavericks in the Senate may think they are very smart in opposing most of Hockey’s budget reforms we haven’t heard a whisper from Labor about their alternative budget plans.
I don’t even know who the shadow treasurer is. Does the opposition actually have one?

davo101 said :

KB1971 said :

The majority of people who live in country communities tend to live in the same town that they work. They tend to far less extravagant with their vehicle use than people who live in cities.

Hmm…if we look at the statistics it would appear that per capita car usage is higher in non-capital city areas. To take Victoria as an example, car and motor-bike usage in Melbourne is 6700 km/year/person and the rest of Victoria 12500 km/year/person. As to which is being extravagant…

You will need to help me here, neither the report or XLS spreadsheet in that link show km travelled per person per yeat………….I must be missing something.

Chart 4.7 is the only chart that I could see the proportion of city km travelled to county km and it shows the city km travelled to be over half of all the km travelled in the sample years.

You did miss my point a bit. I narrowed my point down to commuting, which is a necessity for everybody with a job, rich or poor.

KB1971 said :

The majority of people who live in country communities tend to live in the same town that they work. They tend to far less extravagant with their vehicle use than people who live in cities.

Hmm…if we look at the statistics it would appear that per capita car usage is higher in non-capital city areas. To take Victoria as an example, car and motor-bike usage in Melbourne is 6700 km/year/person and the rest of Victoria 12500 km/year/person. As to which is being extravagant…

KB1971 said :

Yass is just west Belconnen isnt it?

It probably is now, haha, but 20-plus years ago it wasn’t. There was no Gungahlin even!

Holden Caulfield said :

KB1971 said :

Source?

Me!

When I lived in Yass and travelled to Canberra 5-7 days a week I was racking up 45,000km/yr easily. In fact one year I did around 80,000kms. I now live less than 4km from my work and am lucky if I do 10,000km/yr, it’s only long interstate drives that take me beyond that figure now.

So, in conclusion, people shouldn’t really make sweeping statements. Both you and Masquara are correct. Sometimes.

I would hardly call that rural, its just a city person with a long commute.

Get right away from your major centres, thats what I am talking about. Areas such as the Bega Valley or say Cowra. Yep there are going to be people who will still do long distance and short distance commutes in either scenario but on the whole, for the majority, country commuting is shorter than city commuting.

Yass is just west Belconnen isnt it?

KB1971 said :

Source?

Me!

When I lived in Yass and travelled to Canberra 5-7 days a week I was racking up 45,000km/yr easily. In fact one year I did around 80,000kms. I now live less than 4km from my work and am lucky if I do 10,000km/yr, it’s only long interstate drives that take me beyond that figure now.

So, in conclusion, people shouldn’t really make sweeping statements. Both you and Masquara are correct. Sometimes.

Masquara said :

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The last household expenditure survey is five years old. Also doesn’t tell you how much of that is discretionary. Obviously rich people spend more money on petrol than poor people, but that’s not the point. Rich people are in a position to stop driving Jusinta to pony club, poor people are stuck in western suburbs where they have to drive to work and have less discretionary spending to cut.

Diggety said :

2. Read/watch the full interview first.

What? Listen to more Joe Hockey whining, no thanks.

Rural people whether poor or not spend more on petrol than the urban rich – by far!

Source?

I grew up in a country town. I lived 5km from work. I now live in Canberra and live 30km from work……..you do the math.

Even if I had to travel to Bega from home it was still shorter than what I do now.

The majority of people who live in country communities tend to live in the same town that they work. They tend to far less extravigant with their vehicle use than people who live in cities.

Diggety said :

Riiiight, ABS 2010 or martin75 on RiotACT? davo101, if you’ve got a more pertinent set of reliable stats – I’m all ears.

In fact, let everyone else know.

I’m sorry do I look like the ABS? Here’s the numbers courtesy of the Treasurer. As I said it’s obvious that rich people spend more on petrol than poor people. If you look at household expenditure, at each step up the household quintiles of income households spend more on every* category than the households below them.

*Except tobacco products where the highest income households spend less than everyone except the lowest quintile income households (Hmm interesting that).

Masquara said :

chewy14 said :

I can’t actually believe that anyone would whinge about what Joe Hockey said, its completely obvious.
In other breaking news, rich people also spend more on fancy dinners and overseas holidays than poor people do.

Except that rural poor people actually need to have cars and drive. Hockey should have thought of that before he opened his mouth!

“Rural Poor People?”
Is this a new social class like “Werking Families”?
Give me a break!.

HenryBG said :

The surreal nature of one-term-Tony’s government took a new twist when Cory Bernardi was caught saying something that was more thoroughly sensible than his colleagues:

“those in the lower social economic group tend to spend more as a percentage of their income on transport and the basic necessities of life than those who are wealthier.”

Hockey is simply saying what has to be said.
I realise that it is a bit too much to ask for a small percentage of Australians to comprehend.
And don’t kid yourself that Abbott is a one term PM.

Do poor Canberrans drive cars?

Yes, that’s why God invented white Commodores.

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The last household expenditure survey is five years old.

Riiiight, ABS 2010 or martin75 on RiotACT? davo101, if you’ve got a more pertinent set of reliable stats – I’m all ears.

In fact, let everyone else know.

You know what really kills me with this whole debate? The projected cost increase for an average family is 40 cents per week. 40 frickin’ cents. I can’t walk into Woolies and buy a bread roll for 40 cents!

I honestly don’t get it. I have absolutely zero love for our current government, but even I’m sitting here thinking ‘why the hell don’t they just press home the message that you can’t even buy a banana with the increase they’re proposing!!’

chewy14 said :

I can’t actually believe that anyone would whinge about what Joe Hockey said, its completely obvious.
In other breaking news, rich people also spend more on fancy dinners and overseas holidays than poor people do.

Except that rural poor people actually need to have cars and drive. Hockey should have thought of that before he opened his mouth!

davo101 said :

Diggety said :

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The last household expenditure survey is five years old. Also doesn’t tell you how much of that is discretionary. Obviously rich people spend more money on petrol than poor people, but that’s not the point. Rich people are in a position to stop driving Jusinta to pony club, poor people are stuck in western suburbs where they have to drive to work and have less discretionary spending to cut.

Diggety said :

2. Read/watch the full interview first.

What? Listen to more Joe Hockey whining, no thanks.

Rural people whether poor or not spend more on petrol than the urban rich – by far!

I’d love to see an update from Andrew Leigh. He has previously come out fully in favour of restoring the tax. No-one of Leigh’s economist bent could say otherwise – other than when nobbled by shadow cabinet of course!

miz said :

The point is, petrol costs at a flat rate and people with less money pay proportionately more (even if they pay less in dollar terms). {/quote]
That’s true of everything else you can buy, too. The less you earn, the more everything costs compared to your income.

It’s not a “regressive tax”, it’s how life works.

The point is, petrol costs at a flat rate and people with less money pay proportionately more (even if they pay less in dollar terms). This is called a regressive tax.
Me Hockey’s statement also conveys a snobbery not seen in politics in a long time …

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Regional areas blows Joe Hockeys theory out of the water. People in regional areas have to travel a lot further, with less public transport infrastucture and generally on much lower wages than the cities. Are they all poor? not by world standards, but relatively poor by Australian standards.

Can you back that statement up?
Canberra is a “regional area”; actually still defined as “rural” by some Federal agencies.

I’m no expert, but I think the preferred comment you wanted was … source?

Actually, we aren’t missing that yet, are we?

The surreal nature of one-term-Tony’s government took a new twist when Cory Bernardi was caught saying something that was more thoroughly sensible than his colleagues:

“those in the lower social economic group tend to spend more as a percentage of their income on transport and the basic necessities of life than those who are wealthier.”

I can’t actually believe that anyone would whinge about what Joe Hockey said, its completely obvious.
In other breaking news, rich people also spend more on fancy dinners and overseas holidays than poor people do.

watto23 said :

Regional areas blows Joe Hockeys theory out of the water. People in regional areas have to travel a lot further, with less public transport infrastucture and generally on much lower wages than the cities. Are they all poor? not by world standards, but relatively poor by Australian standards.

And have significantly cheaper house prices offsetting those negatives.

The comment may be supported by official figures, but it was not the smartest thing to say.

For the “working poor”, car travel is often the only practicable option if not, in fact, the only option because they simply cannot afford to live anywhere near where they work (or anywhere near public transport routes) and may be required to work hours and days when public transport services are poor and/or quite unsafe.

The irony of this fracas is that some of those who are enjoying themselves by poking fun at Hockey for being out of touch are quite happy to take an equally out of touch and elitist attitude when it suits – “we must get people out of cars and encourage walking/cycling/public transport use” – sounds OK when you work regular hours and live five or ten minutes from where you work (if you do, in fact, work) in areas well-served by public transport.

From a policy perspective, indexation should never have been removed from fuel excise in the first place, and re-indexing it is an absolute no brainer.

It’s one of a handful of sensible changes in an otherwise terrible budget , and yet Hockey still manages to f%$k it up.

Zero points for the Greens and Labor as well, who have shown massive hypocrisy by opposing what is also a de facto tax on carbon.

What a joke.

watto23 said :

Regional areas blows Joe Hockeys theory out of the water. People in regional areas have to travel a lot further, with less public transport infrastucture and generally on much lower wages than the cities. Are they all poor? not by world standards, but relatively poor by Australian standards.

Can you back that statement up?
Canberra is a “regional area”; actually still defined as “rural” by some Federal agencies.

CHackett said :

Hockey also says taxes on cigars fall disproportionally on the rich

Well, that will mean former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke and former Labor opposition leader Kim Beazley would be also paying as they were regular cigar smokers.

Regional areas blows Joe Hockeys theory out of the water. People in regional areas have to travel a lot further, with less public transport infrastucture and generally on much lower wages than the cities. Are they all poor? not by world standards, but relatively poor by Australian standards.

Of course we cannot afford to drive, we’re all waiting for the light rail to come and give us the experience of visiting other suburbs.

Diggety said :

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics.

The last household expenditure survey is five years old. Also doesn’t tell you how much of that is discretionary. Obviously rich people spend more money on petrol than poor people, but that’s not the point. Rich people are in a position to stop driving Jusinta to pony club, poor people are stuck in western suburbs where they have to drive to work and have less discretionary spending to cut.

Diggety said :

2. Read/watch the full interview first.

What? Listen to more Joe Hockey whining, no thanks.

Hockey also says taxes on cigars fall disproportionally on the rich

1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics.
2. Read/watch the full interview first.

Is that like when John Howard said that every one can afford the vehicle he was standing in front of, a SUV a while back?