Fuck yeah Rudd is *OUTTA HERE* (3 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Can you explain this thoroughly please.

Nah I'd like to hear his take on things

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Nah I'd like to hear his take on things

No, I would prefer to hear your objective, well thought out, non-party driven view point on this matter actually.

 

[Kwayera]

No, I would prefer to hear your objective, well thought out, non-party driven view point on this matter actually.

I really don't care about what you would prefer.

But if it makes any difference, I originally supported the ETS until I actually read the legislation, and realised it was functionally useless with regards to ACC, and that using a stick instead of a carrot is not going to produce positive economic outcomes. There was no party-influence involved, since I am well suspicious of anything the Liberal Party has to say on climate change.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

so can you tell us exactly what it is about the ETS that would fuck up the economy and "do nothing" for climate change please?

also, what exactly are the limits on signature sizes because i'm pretty sure the file was shorter than yours is.

 

[jellybelly59]

Rudd won't lose - newspolls are not the greatest indicators of who will government - or else howard would've been voted out ages ago.

 

[Kwayera]

also, what exactly are the limits on signature sizes because i'm pretty sure the file was shorter than yours is.

200px for non-premium members, 220px for premium. This is all clearly listed in the board FAQ.

Mods are not beholden to this restriction.

 

[Lentern]

Latest Newspoll shows him getting SLAUGHTERED for being the do-nothing Prime Minister we've all told you he was.

Do nothing on Global Warming

Do nothing on Insulation (EXCEPT MURDER FOUR YOUNG AUSSIES)

Do nothing but turn us into a fascist state with internet filtering

Do nothing but spend our money and increase taxes on the miners that saved us from the GFC

Do nothing

Ugh good riddance who is with me

I would have thought that from the perspective of an Austrian school adherent, it was the governments job to do nothing as much as possible.

 

[aussie-boy]

- You mean the ETS that would have fucked our economy and done nothing for climate change?

That's pure speculation, especially considering that independent modelling showed that the ETS would have moderate effects on economic growth (which would have remained positive)

Of course impacts on climate change would have been extremely small - it's about setting a global precedent for action and setting up an economic structure in which you can easily adjust targets by purchasing/revoking carbon credits

- You mean the mining tax that will send all of our future mining investment to Brazil?

You've swallowed the spin hook, line and sinker.

Natural resources are finite and prices are rising

1.The resources in Brazil, Canada... will either run out or become so difficult to access that the NPVs of projects overseas will start to fall below the heavily taxed NPVs of mining in Australia.

2. the Henry review board determined supply of resources/mining services to be quite inelastic - i.e. perfect for increased taxation

3. It is in every country's interest to prolong its supply of resources for as long as possible. Other countries who actually care about the long term will soon follow our lead and impose their own increased taxes.

It's you who's completely swallowed the mining companies' spin and managed to completely ignore the advice of Australia's best economists and finance professionals

 

[Kwayera]

That's pure speculation, especially considering that independent modelling showed that the ETS would have moderate effects on economic growth (which would have remained positive)

Of course impacts on climate change would have been extremely small - it's about setting a global precedent for action and setting up an economic structure in which you can easily adjust targets by purchasing/revoking carbon credits

Just like Sorry Day, eh?

While you consider the economic effects debateable, the fact is that the ETS would have cost a lot of money for not much benefit, especially considering the most-polluting nations would (and did) laugh at it. While we may have the highest per-capita emissions, in real figures it's something like 1.45% of global emissions. We may have been able to afford our schemes, but other higher emitting-countries could not, so at best it would be an expensive stepping stone to nothing.

Natural resources are finite and prices are rising

1.The resources in Brazil, Canada... will either run out or become so difficult to access that the NPVs of projects overseas will start to fall below the heavily taxed NPVs of mining in Australia.

Now that is pure speculation, considering that Australia does not have a source monopoly* on most resources. I'm sure Canada is very happy about this tax.

2. the Henry review board determined supply of resources/mining services to be quite inelastic - i.e. perfect for increased taxation

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's not a tax on the resources/services themselves, but the profits. Given that the profits a) go to funding new initiatives and b) go to shareholders, companies would be prompted to go elsewhere where they are not taxed on such gains. This ain't rocket science..

3. It is in every country's interest to prolong its supply of resources for as long as possible. Other countries who actually care about the long term will soon follow our lead and impose their own increased taxes.

This is true, but it also doesn't do that country much good if those resources are sitting in the ground not being mined because the tax makes it cost ineffective.

It's you who's completely swallowed the mining companies' spin and managed to completely ignore the advice of Australia's best economists and finance professionals

idk about that, I read the fin review

* I'm not an economist so I may be using the term wrong but I'm basically trying to say that we have world's biggest supplies in some resources (i.e. uranium) but not in others.

 

[aussie-boy]

Firstly, this is a dumb argument... I think the fact that you only took issue with two of my initial points shows that Rudd has done a whole lot of really good things for this country and will be re-elected.

In light of that, I'm only going to deal with one thing here:

This is true, but it also doesn't do that country much good if those resources are sitting in the ground not being mined because the tax makes it cost ineffective.

As the tax is on profits, as you have pointed out, it does not change any NPVs of mining projects from + to -.

Therefore, it only makes projects "cost ineffective" in that international projects may have higher NPVs in the short term.

However, as I explained previously, these NPVs decline over time as resources run out and diminishing returns set in. And at that point, the Australian projects will again become viable. (Consider the drilling of oil in places which were deemed "cost ineffective" only 10-20yrs ago)

 

[Kwayera]

However, as I explained previously, these NPVs decline over time as resources run out and diminishing returns set in. And at that point, the Australian projects will again become viable. (Consider the drilling of oil in places which were deemed "cost ineffective" only 10-20yrs ago)

Meanwhile, our resource economy suffers because it's been taken elsewhere. It's comforting to know it'll "eventually" come back to Australia, though. Wonderful!


I didn't take issue with the rest of them because the list is selectively biased, and I cbf'd.

 

[bazrah]

Rudd is a bigger dirtbag than Abbott, although I don't like Abbott either. Abbott has atleast a little bit of honesty about him. Rudd is and was always a fake.

 

[aussie-boy]

Meanwhile, our resource economy suffers because it's been taken elsewhere. It's comforting to know it'll "eventually" come back to Australia, though. Wonderful!

You have 2 choices:

1. Mine the shit of Australia right now, use up all the resources and hope that in a few decades the future fund and miraculously appearing new industries will save us from economic decline

2. Keep mining as a stable industry that can continue for the next century at least - use a tax to restrict growth and invest the additional revenues into new more sustainable industries

Also, most mining projects aren't going anywhere - no-one has ever claimed that the mining industry will decline in the short term; rather that it will not grow as fast as it would have otherwise (which is fine by me)

 

[Optimus Prime]

Kway your understanding of economics is simplified and sounds like regurgitated liberal party spin. The fact of the matter is that the mining industry currently has an effective tax rate significantly lower than that of the manufacturing or retail industries. In particular multi-national mining companies have an effective tax rate of only 13%, purely domestic companies it is 17%. FYI in canada it is 17% for both.

 

[emilyo]

as much as I really really do hate rudd, the alternative is not much better. But internet censorship is a huge mistake that will never work, i wasnt aware that we had moved to china... I agree with the mining tax though. Provisions to protect the employees should be put in place though. But still those companies deserve to pay their share!

 

[badquinton304]

Kway your understanding of economics is simplified and sounds like regurgitated liberal party spin. The fact of the matter is that the mining industry currently has an effective tax rate significantly lower than that of the manufacturing or retail industries. In particular multi-national mining companies have an effective tax rate of only 13%, purely domestic companies it is 17%. FYI in canada it is 17% for both.

I was looking for that.

I doubt Rudd will negotiate the mining tax down as the budget figures depend on it.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

Kway your understanding of economics is simplified and sounds like regurgitated liberal party spin. The fact of the matter is that the mining industry currently has an effective tax rate significantly lower than that of the manufacturing or retail industries. In particular multi-national mining companies have an effective tax rate of only 13%, purely domestic companies it is 17%. FYI in canada it is 17% for both.

only according to labor party propaganda you dolt

The ATO data said miners paid an effective rate of 27.8 per cent, which rose to 41.3 per cent with the inclusion of state royalties.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Actually it's from a study quoted in the henry review, and royalties aren't a tax. Or do you count electricity and water bills as tax too?

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

a study

wow irrefutable evidence

The ATO on the other hand is a bastion of impartiality

 

[Slidey]

Latest Newspoll shows him getting SLAUGHTERED for being the do-nothing Prime Minister we've all told you he was.

Do nothing on Global Warming

Do nothing on Insulation (EXCEPT MURDER FOUR YOUNG AUSSIES)

Do nothing but turn us into a fascist state with internet filtering

Do nothing but spend our money and increase taxes on the miners that saved us from the GFC

Do nothing

Ugh good riddance who is with me

I don't know if this is the end of Labour, though. Gillard might step in and win it for for them.

There's also the curious matter of the Greens, who're polling very high and in what research from the polling companies suggest is a sustained bounce (not merely a protest vote). I say they're curious because the preference breakdown has gone from 80%-20% Labour-Liberal to about 65%-35% Labour-Liberal, meaning Labour can no longer rely on the Greens for preferences.

It's entirely feasible, though maybe not probable, that we'd see a Coalition government which had to negotiate in good faith with the Greens in the Senate to pass legislation.