|
I'm going to be a little more specific because I'm getting kind of genuinely pissed off and I want to take it out on you.Freudian Slip posted:It is a regressive tax, because people who live in the outer suburbs and in rural/regional areas do need to drive as there are few, if any, public transport options. Freudian Slip posted:It will encourage people to drive less, look for public transport options or buy more fuel efficient cars. Freudian Slip posted:As Greens, increasing the cost of pollution should be one of our main policies. I've got a bunch more thoughts on this but I'm too angry to put them together coherently. I just want it to be known that you're poo poo.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
It's all very well saying it's a justified sin tax to drive down petrol use but you're just loving people over if you implement it without having implemented proper access to public transport beforehand. Also cigarette taxes are poo poo because they just punish addicts of one of the most addictive drugs going(who also happen to be overwhelmingly from lower SES backgrounds).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
I have absolutely no problem with pricing people out of cigarettes. Fuel excise is trickier. I think it probably makes more sense to earn money for public transport improvements by going after people that currently receive excise exemptions. As for encouraging people to use public transport, maybe. There are parts of Perth that are low-SES and have absolutely no public transport available (Ellenbrook, for one) meaning that you're actively loving people there. I don't know what's typical of other states. e; yes, the same Ellenbrook that Barnett promised to build a train line there twice and then a week after both elections retracted it (they voted for him both times)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
It's not just the poorer suburbs too, basically everyone living in rural areas where you have to drive for hours to get anywhere would get hosed
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
No worries, the Nats will protect the people from the countrahahahahahahah
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Murodese posted:I have absolutely no problem with pricing people out of cigarettes. That's not how addictive substances work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I have to agree with the people against increasing the fuel excise. In many areas there isn't the option of public transport, and alternative vehicles like electric vehicles are generally too expensive for the people a fuel excise hurts most, and not yet practical for many long distance rural travellers. That means increasing the excise doesn't give the results you'd want from a sin tax, such as cigarette taxes stopping people smoking or the carbon tax making alternative energy more competitive. From a standpoint of paying for infrastructure, it makes sense for the excise to be fixed at a set amount per km rather than increasing based on other costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:That's not how addictive substances work. Kids are unlikely to take up a habit that costs a massive fuckload, though (insert binge drinking comparison here). That combined with education programs has pretty much succeeded in wiping out smoking in Australia, and the diehards that are still smoking are going to die pretty soon anyway. There is a lot of help available out there for people addicted to nicotine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:That's not how addictive substances work. Nicotine is addictive, the habits that form around it are to a lesser extent, but nowhere near as much. Anecdotal I know, but I know people who've switched to vaping due in no small part to cigarette costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Murodese posted:the diehards that are still smoking are going to die pretty soon anyway Death's sweet embrace can't take me soon enough
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Skills you should praise in public: Skateboard skills working skills hobby skills politician skills cultural skills Skills you should not praise in public: Racist skills pollution skills World war 2 skills
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
The money from the fuel excise goes to fund more roads so any environmental argument is pretty much shot then and there. If it were to fund PT in rural areas or something it would be maybe be ok.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Do we get new roads that aren't tollways now anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I wonder how it will take before we get Coal rollers in Australia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF_8t94MgpM&t=216s http://www.businessinsider.com.au/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7 “I run into a lot of people that really don’t like Obama at all,” the salesperson said. “If he’s into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not. I hear a lot of that. To get a single stack on my truck — that’s my way of giving them the finger. You want clean air and a tiny carbon footprint? Well, screw you.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
xutech posted:I wonder how it will take before we get Coal rollers in Australia? I can't think of anything that screams, "I am a fuckhead that needs a penis extension." more than this does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Increasing the fuel excise may be able to work in reducing the use of cars on the road, but only if another option is viable. Those living outside economic centers, as others also found, generally have a higher population of poorer people, whom a fuel excise hits the hardest. If options already existed, such as an effective public transport system or an increased focus on cycling infrastructure, only then would it make sense. Otherwise, people will continue to drive regardless of how much you gut them and only make a bad situation worse. It doesn't help that the money raised will go into more roads, which mixes messages up a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
I am not inherently opposed to an indexed fuel excise. I think the question of the excise being tied to road funding is a deeper issue. Using it as a poor mans price signal on air polution and declaring it general revenue would give justification for tightening the conditions on the excise rebate for non public road use. I think setting the price at a percentage of the wholesale rather than a fixed indexed amount would be better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
I saw some of the Greens debate going on about this as well. I think the best move would be to not vote for the fuel excise unless the money's all going into developing better alternatives to more roads. And the Greens need to push that hard as their bargaining chip that would get them to vote. Cause otherwise it's a lose-lose: vote for the excise and you're loving over people who don't have alternatives yet, but don't vote for it and the Greens are "betraying their principles" by not putting a higher price on emissions whenever possible. But if there's those conditions there that would get the Greens to vote for it, we can make the message clear while avoiding that issue of loving over rural people. Cause I'm pretty sure the government would never agree to the Green's conditions when Abbott's got such a hardon for roads roads roads and more roads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
I'm torn. I'm a Greens member that lives in a rural area, so actually decently built roads are one of the things we genuinely need, as well as the public transport options to use them. Making fuel more expensive here would just penalise people, as there's no real alternative than a car to travel more than 15 minutes from wherever you are - and there are communities hours apart from each other that only see a connecting bus route once or twice a week. Obviously cycling from Mudgee to Dubbo isn't really viable, but we do have shitloads of abandoned railway infrastructure that's constantly being ignored and touted as 'the next big thing to bring back!' but is invariably again abandoned when the costs are tallied to revive it. I don't even think a single ROADS ROADS ROADS project is happening within a couple hundred kilometres of here - and even then it'll just be the highways, not the local town roads that have in places gone decades without maintenance. It now seems to be standard Nationals policy to just collect as many pensions as possible hoping for rural Australia to collapse so they can stop pretending to care about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:What do other people think? Did I make the right call? While I agree there needs to be far more investment of public transport (gently caress the East-West link that's being pushed so hard by the both the Victorian and Federal Liberals), raising the price of petrol is only going to piss off voters in developing suburbs who are looking at the Greens as an alternative to the two party system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
The trouble with the fuel excise is that petrol is a highly inelastic commodity. It doesn't respond well to price signals at all, so the fuel excise doesn't really cut consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:06
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
CrazyTolradi posted:I can't think of anything that screams, "I am a fuckhead that needs a penis extension." more than this does. A few years ago there was something called "carbon debits". Basically, you gave them some money and they cut down some trees and mailed you a smug bumper sticker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:The trouble with the fuel excise is that petrol is a highly inelastic commodity. It doesn't respond well to price signals at all, so the fuel excise doesn't really cut consumption. Yeah. Price signals don't really work to cut into the baseline of fuel that people NEED to use to keep their job and live their life. Those who use petrol for fun (boats, 4WDing, touring etc) - theyll be able to afford it regardless, so all you'll be doing is digging the boot in without a realistic alternative for a high percentage of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
If public transport is to be the carrot it should be built first and with borrowed money, then the fuel excise could be increased to pay off the loan. You'd have to be a special type of sucker to actually believe that the money would go into improving public transport if it didn't have to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
 http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/paralympic-soccer-teams-funding-cut-to-zero/5579498
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Thanks all for the debate. I was getting fairly depressed about the constant updates of how poo poo we are regarding refugees. Apart from a couple of posters we are all disgusted by our treatment of them. This is why I wanted to chat about the only budget measure that I am torn about (that's what cognitive dissonance is Jonah - that horrible feeling when you get when there is no "correct" choice) Just to be clear, I think the most ideal solution is for the Greens to negotiate and say that they will only pass it if at least half the money raised goes towards public transport around Australia. Jonah Galtberg posted:Cognitive dissonance worthy of an ALP member! Both those beliefs are valid. Not everyone is poor or in a regional area. I believe the majority of Australians will have some agency in being able to reduce their fuel consumption. I am also very concerned that this will impact the large minority that doesn't. As for Gough, yeah, Sin taxes also effect the poor more. That said, I have no qualms as a Public Health researcher in using price signals to stop people from smoking. Over the past decade they have been the most effective way to get people to quit. This of course is tied to free access to medical services and subsidised patches etc. Senor Tron posted:Yeah, I have to agree with the people against increasing the fuel excise. Depends what your point is, I think my main point is to reduce the use of petrol. Charging people by Km won't encourage people to get more efficient cars. Also you end up with the same issue regarding people living in outer suburbs and rural areas as they have to travel greater distances. Big Willy Style posted:The money from the fuel excise goes to fund more roads so any environmental argument is pretty much shot then and there. If it were to fund PT in rural areas or something it would be maybe be ok. As far as I know, at the moment, we only spend about 25% of the current fuel excise on roads. Most of it will be going into general revenue. I believe the same will be happening for the increase. This is why there is room for the Greens to negotiate that half the increase goes towards public transport. You Am I posted:Let me take a guess, you live in an inner city suburb and never ventured more than 5kms from the CBD. Nah, I have always lived in Western Sydney, between Blacktown and Parramatta. When I was growing up, we lived on my dad's pay, he was working as a truck driver for life line (they had a second hand shop like Vinnies). For most of my childhood we were always just above the poverty line. I am the first on my dad's side to ever go to Uni. So yeah, when I say I am deeply torn, I really am. Thanks for all the feedback, I thought it would be an interesting topic. I was just kind of annoyed that we were only given an option to vote for "support" or "reject" through the quick decision making system. I just wish there was an option which had accept only with amendment to tie funding to public transport.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Gag motion on debate of carbon tax repeal passes 35-33, vote to be taken at 11:50am
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
The senate ejected protestors for "interfering with debate" immediately after voting that debate would be forcefully ended 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
You know what we should do? Commission a report into legislation and then vote on the legislation four loving days before the report comes in. Four. loving. Days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
And now after voting to gag debate Clive Palmer is claiming his party won't vote to pass the legislation today because schizophrenia as performance art is a fun and worthwhile hobby. Then again he could just be saying that so the opposition don't work other crossbenchers so hard and then vote yes to pass it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:Dilema. There needs to be some pricing signal for all road users. In my area (deeply rural) there are lots of people making really bad vehicle choices. Fuel Excise might not be the thing that makes them choose sane cars/trucks/utes but there needs to be some signaling. In the UK they alter your registration costs based on pollution and economy. Unfortunately some people are buying 'bad' cars because that's all they can afford. This is typical lower SES catch 22. Can't afford to pay for something with lower ongoing costs. Public transport isn't ever going to be fully viable in many areas of our wide brown land. Coupling public transport to the measure is likely to be painted as naive. Speaking of: politically the Greens are probably best off abstaining from any vote. There is no 'winning' Greens position here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
Abstaining from the vote is effectively supporting it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
 Found in the bag of a Labor Right hack after EdCon. Yes, Labor, tell me more about how trots talk too much about the working class and neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
In regards to the fuel issue.. can we look into the government maybe adding an incentive towards people wanting to buy an electronic vehicle? It would cut out a whole heap of pollution, and while I know that at this point, the distance of these cars isn't that great, this won't always be the case. Or one could end up with an infrastructure with multiple charge points along the way.. I'm dreaming. (And I would really really like to own an EV, however the current price tag is slightly out of my reach)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Lata jie posted:In regards to the fuel issue.. can we look into the government maybe adding an incentive towards people wanting to buy an electronic vehicle? It would cut out a whole heap of pollution, and while I know that at this point, the distance of these cars isn't that great, this won't always be the case. Or one could end up with an infrastructure with multiple charge points along the way.. I'm dreaming. (And I would really really like to own an EV, however the current price tag is slightly out of my reach) EVs are unfortunately just not quite where they need to be to replace ICEs. Of course, not doing anything about it isn't going to help that shift at all, but I think we'll be seeing a huge benefit after the new Tesla megafactory in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Lata jie posted:In regards to the fuel issue.. can we look into the government maybe adding an incentive towards people wanting to buy an electronic vehicle? It would cut out a whole heap of pollution, and while I know that at this point, the distance of these cars isn't that great, this won't always be the case. Or one could end up with an infrastructure with multiple charge points along the way.. I'm dreaming. (And I would really really like to own an EV, however the current price tag is slightly out of my reach) Someone at the meeting wanted this also. I don't think it helps balance the biggest problem with the excise (the regressive nature of it) as you will only be encouraging the relatively affluent to purchase one of these vehicles. At least with increase PT funding you would be giving some people a choice that don't currently have one. Quantum Mechanic posted:EVs are unfortunately just not quite where they need to be to replace ICEs. Of course, not doing anything about it isn't going to help that shift at all, but I think we'll be seeing a huge benefit after the new Tesla megafactory in the US. Yeah, if the new Tesla's get under the 30K mark, I think that will shift things faster than any incentives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Palmer's giving a press conference saying his senators are going to vote against the repeal of the carbon tax. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/10/carbon-tax-repeal-gets-senate-vote-politics-live
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Palmer, you mad mad bastard
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:Palmer's giving a press conference saying his senators are going to vote against the repeal of the carbon tax. quote:Palmer is lauding former Liberal leader John Hewson, for his courage in trying to do the right thing (Fightback) and helping John Howard become such a successful leader. Reporting on Clive must be a fun job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 02:36 |
|
|
norp posted:Palmer, you mad mad bastard This. He is doing everything he can to spite them. He has made following parliament interesting when I expected it to be dreadful post July 1st. I just hope he ends up keeping most of the previous Government's measure to help tackle climate change just to thumb his nose at Abbott. Edit: I never thought that I would want to give a self-serving, Billionaire, Coal miner a hug Freudian Slip fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:57
|
|