Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Canberras newest Healthy Lifestyle Centre, Form Fitness. Transform.

More cost of living woes for parking and leccy

By johnboy - 18 April 2012 17

The Liberals are on a cost of living tear.

First up is Shadow Minister for Cars Alistair Coe bemoaning the rising cost of parking which is largely policy to encourage public transport use, but Alistair’s not a fan.

Zed is also arcing up about electricity prices. It turns out for families of five the electricity price rises will be higher than for smaller families. Anyone surprised?

“What we are actually going to see is a much higher increase in electricity bills for many families than the estimated $244,” ACT Opposition Leader Zed Seselja said today.

“Using figures based on South Australia modelling, a price increase of around $480 is much closer to the cost that families of five will face.

“This potential $480 cost of living hit for larger families comes after water bills have tripled and rates have doubled rates in many suburbs under the ACT Labor Government.

“The government should be giving Canberrans as much accurate information as possible to prepare them for cost pressures they will be facing as of 1 July 2012.

“Averages only tell part of the story. I have a family of six as do many others in the ACT and many of these larger families will feel these huge increases.

We suspect few in the current crop of Liberals favour birth control, but in wider society having children you can’t afford is generally thought to be irresponsible.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
More cost of living woes for parking and leccy
chewy14 11:12 am 19 Apr 12

johnboy said :

Fallacious thinking.

After receiving compensation the punter is still faced with choices as to how to spend their available resources and the carbon intensive choices are more expensive than the less carbon intensive.

So the pricing signal survives the compensation.

Now whether any of this matters when the chinese and indians are commissioning masses of new coal stations is a totally different argument.

But with no compensation the price signal is also there and is in fact stronger than with the compensation. The compensation reduces it’s effectiveness because they have more disposable money.

As well as this, you’re assuming that the price signal will be effective when elasticity of demand for things like water and electricity have been shown to be generally weak particularly during more extreme weather (hot or cold).

FioBla 11:11 am 19 Apr 12

Because without compensation, a price on carbon is a regressive tax, which worsens as the price of carbon is raised.

I don’t quite understand how the tax is a vote buyer—support for it seems evenly split, and it continues to be very contentious.

johnboy 10:53 am 19 Apr 12

chewy14 said :

Not even close.
If the stated purpose of the carbon tax is to reduce GHG emissions then compensation only serves to defeat that purpose.
The only reason they would add the compensation is to try and buy votes (or not lose them) from “working families” whilst increasing taxes for those who already pay the most tax.

Sheilding people from the effects of their carbon use does nothing to enact change.

Fallacious thinking.

After receiving compensation the punter is still faced with choices as to how to spend their available resources and the carbon intensive choices are more expensive than the less carbon intensive.

So the pricing signal survives the compensation.

Now whether any of this matters when the chinese and indians are commissioning masses of new coal stations is a totally different argument.

chewy14 10:48 am 19 Apr 12

arescarti42 said :

Erm, I hope the reason you’re thinking of is so that the living standard of most people is not as greatly affected by reducing our GHG emissions.

Because that is it.

Not even close.
If the stated purpose of the carbon tax is to reduce GHG emissions then compensation only serves to defeat that purpose.
The only reason they would add the compensation is to try and buy votes (or not lose them) from “working families” whilst increasing taxes for those who already pay the most tax.

Sheilding people from the effects of their carbon use does nothing to enact change.

Velveteen Rabbit 12:55 am 19 Apr 12

*Sarcasm alert* Truly heartbreaking, that the average family of 6 or 7 will have to think about downsizing to only one two plasma screen tvs, three computers, four mobile phones and a few Gameboys to cut their electricity bills. Obviously smaller households can squander vast amounts of electricity as well – in this technological age having loads of electricity-guzzling appliances is seen as ‘normal’. ‘Wants’ have been confused with ‘needs’.

No household ‘needs’ giant tvs, multiple computers, huge home entertainment systems or a mega fridge with an LED screen in it. If you choose to have all that, then you shouldn’t expect to be subsidised for it. A lot of these families also rake in childcare subsidies, FTB A and /or FTB B, baby bonus etc. Hey Zed – single people without kids pay bills too!

arescarti42 11:14 pm 18 Apr 12

chewy14 said :

Yes and if you don’t compensate people the effect of the tax will be even greater because people will have to make smarter decisions with what they purchase.

The compensation makes the tax less effective and I can only think of one reason they would do that and it has nothing to do with lowering peoples carbon footprint.

Erm, I hope the reason you’re thinking of is so that the living standard of most people is not as greatly affected by reducing our GHG emissions.

Because that is it.

chewy14 9:52 pm 18 Apr 12

arescarti42 said :

chewy14 said :

So what do you think about the compensation under the Carbon tax scheme?

I think if we’re going to have a Carbon tax (although I still think it’s a bad idea) there should be minimal compensation. The whole point is to reduce usage, so why give compensation at all.

The compensation will simply mean that most families don’t change their behaviour at all.

The effect of putting a tax on carbon and then compensating people for it seems to be widely misunderstood by most people (probably understandably).

Pricing carbon works by increasing the relative price of carbon intensive goods. What it means is that even if you fully compensate people so they can consume exactly the same way as they did before the tax, they will still consume fewer carbon intensive goods as the relative price of these goods is higher.

As for tax payer subsidising of large families, I fail to see why everyone else should have to share the burden from people who choose to have big families. Most people are smart enough to figure out that children are expensive, which is why the total fertility rate in Australia is just under two.

Yes and if you don’t compensate people the effect of the tax will be even greater because people will have to make smarter decisions with what they purchase.

The compensation makes the tax less effective and I can only think of one reason they would do that and it has nothing to do with lowering peoples carbon footprint.

arescarti42 8:27 pm 18 Apr 12

chewy14 said :

So what do you think about the compensation under the Carbon tax scheme?

I think if we’re going to have a Carbon tax (although I still think it’s a bad idea) there should be minimal compensation. The whole point is to reduce usage, so why give compensation at all.

The compensation will simply mean that most families don’t change their behaviour at all.

The effect of putting a tax on carbon and then compensating people for it seems to be widely misunderstood by most people (probably understandably).

Pricing carbon works by increasing the relative price of carbon intensive goods. What it means is that even if you fully compensate people so they can consume exactly the same way as they did before the tax, they will still consume fewer carbon intensive goods as the relative price of these goods is higher.

As for tax payer subsidising of large families, I fail to see why everyone else should have to share the burden from people who choose to have big families. Most people are smart enough to figure out that children are expensive, which is why the total fertility rate in Australia is just under two.

chewy14 4:08 pm 18 Apr 12

pajs said :

chewy14 said :

I think if we’re going to have a Carbon tax (although I still think it’s a bad idea) there should be minimal compensation. The whole point is to reduce usage, so why give compensation at all.

Because the whole point is not just to reduce usage (and ghg emissions). The point is to both reduce those and increase uptake of alternatives. The package is intended to make lower emissions energies, products and activities more attractive than those with higher emissions. If you put a price on carbon, which changes the differential pricing of low carbon to high carbon goods, and compensation puts money in the hands of consumers, they can make the choice to pay more and stick with high carbon, or pay less for less carbon, having some extra money to then spend on other things.

LOL, and who pays the compensation? Well off comsumers. In reality, its just a way for the goverment to try and buy more votes whilst increasing tax rates for people who already pay the most tax.
The compensation will simply mean that most families don’t change their behaviour at all.

pajs 1:18 pm 18 Apr 12

SigmaOctantis said :

‘why give compensation at all’.

I think it’s commonly known that the main reason for the carbon tax is not to reduce the amount of pollution or try to halt global temperature increase, but to redistribute wealth. To tax the rich and then give it to the poor is not increasing Government income one jot, but is a method to simply allow them to act as a gang of modern day Robin Hoods.

The carbon tax is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme, wrapped up in the shiny attractive packaging of ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’, which hopefully gets the chop as soon as this gang of clowns is kicked out.

Sounds like you get your ‘common knowledge’ from Alan Jones. I wonder what your thoughts are on how much of a wealth redistribution a ‘direct action’ approach to reducing emissions would be?

p1 1:11 pm 18 Apr 12

SigmaOctantis said :

I think it’s commonly known that the main reason for the carbon tax is not to reduce the amount of pollution or try to halt global temperature increase, but to redistribute wealth. To tax the rich and then give it to the poor is not increasing Government income one jot, but is a method to simply allow them to act as a gang of modern day Robin Hoods.

How, exactly does the (Great Big New Shiny) Carbon Tax™ redistribute wealth to the poor? Doesn’t it redistribute wealth from those who gain advantage from polluting to those who don’t?

SigmaOctantis 12:51 pm 18 Apr 12

‘why give compensation at all’.

I think it’s commonly known that the main reason for the carbon tax is not to reduce the amount of pollution or try to halt global temperature increase, but to redistribute wealth. To tax the rich and then give it to the poor is not increasing Government income one jot, but is a method to simply allow them to act as a gang of modern day Robin Hoods.

The carbon tax is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme, wrapped up in the shiny attractive packaging of ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’, which hopefully gets the chop as soon as this gang of clowns is kicked out.

pajs 12:45 pm 18 Apr 12

chewy14 said :

I think if we’re going to have a Carbon tax (although I still think it’s a bad idea) there should be minimal compensation. The whole point is to reduce usage, so why give compensation at all.

Because the whole point is not just to reduce usage (and ghg emissions). The point is to both reduce those and increase uptake of alternatives. The package is intended to make lower emissions energies, products and activities more attractive than those with higher emissions. If you put a price on carbon, which changes the differential pricing of low carbon to high carbon goods, and compensation puts money in the hands of consumers, they can make the choice to pay more and stick with high carbon, or pay less for less carbon, having some extra money to then spend on other things.

chewy14 11:51 am 18 Apr 12

EvanJames said :

It is truly scary that a major party is pumping the idea that peoples’ lifestyle choices must be subsidised by taxpayers. Howard started it with his baby bonus, but it seems the local and federal conservatives want to run with the idea.

The idea of carbon taxes and prices and whatnot is to tag costs to the producers of the problem. Large families would seem to fit that bill. What is the point of trying to modify peoples’ behaviour, such as use of fuel, power and water, if you then subsidise the biggest users?

What you end up with is the people who are being frugal with their consumption of resources and production of pollution are then taxed so the offenders can be subsidised with the proceeds.

This is idiocy.

So what do you think about the compensation under the Carbon tax scheme?

I think if we’re going to have a Carbon tax (although I still think it’s a bad idea) there should be minimal compensation. The whole point is to reduce usage, so why give compensation at all.

EvanJames 11:26 am 18 Apr 12

It is truly scary that a major party is pumping the idea that peoples’ lifestyle choices must be subsidised by taxpayers. Howard started it with his baby bonus, but it seems the local and federal conservatives want to run with the idea.

The idea of carbon taxes and prices and whatnot is to tag costs to the producers of the problem. Large families would seem to fit that bill. What is the point of trying to modify peoples’ behaviour, such as use of fuel, power and water, if you then subsidise the biggest users?

What you end up with is the people who are being frugal with their consumption of resources and production of pollution are then taxed so the offenders can be subsidised with the proceeds.

This is idiocy.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site