Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Carbon Tax – How will your federal representative vote? For or Against?

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Sir Ride Alot, Jul 11, 2011.

  1. The following links list the federal representatives and allow people to search for their federal representative.

    43rd Parliament: Alphabetical list of Members
    http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/mi-alpha.asp

    Find my electorate
    http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/


    One phone call or email to ask them as your representative how they intend to vote on your behalf regarding the carbon tax should yield some interesting responses.


     
     Top
  2. It's pretty simple.

    ALP member: Yes
    Green: Yes
    Oakeshott: Yes
    Windsor: Yes

    Liberal: No
    Katter: No
     
     Top
  3. it's across party lines, kind of a useless post if you ask me.
     
     Top
  4. Julia Gillard on Q&A tonight. ABC1 9:30pm
     
     Top
  5. I ****en hate it...........................get on my back ladies and gentlemen, let my hard work pay for your carbon tax. Working night and day to end up where I was 5 years ago...................thats it im going on the dole and enjoy riding my bike 24/7.
     
     Top
  6. Well , it pisses me off.
    Not that I'm affected at all,but what about all the young fellas that want to bling their bike?

    They will be saying "**** the carbon tax".
     
     Top
  7. I'm all for it. Having said that I don't read Muroch's bollox excuse for a paper and I don't make big bucks so I must be in the minority!
     
     Top
  8. newspapers are for old people, I only ever read newspapers while waiting for my Jumbo Cappuccino or the free MX ones that they give out on train stations.....................everything else is done online for free :p
     
     Top
  9. Thankfully my representatives in the lower house and my choice in the upper house will have the common sense to vote for what seems to be a very intelligent reform. Shares in high polluting industries have already dropped while shares of sustainable industries have increased, it seems to already be working quite well. If only I had the common sense to invest.
     
     Top
  10. I hear that a lot. But I do wonder about the kind of information you're going to get when newspapers are gone and the only opinions you get are those offered for 'free'.
    (commercial current affairs opinion with your jumbo cappuccino, sir?)
     
     Top
  11. Oh yes, what exchange are you looking at?
     
     Top
  12. I think better. I dont just look at the local web news services but also other news services who have differing views, ive always found Al Jazeera pretty good, as well as BBC and reuters............................and whichever local newspaper that might have a more complete info on a story im interested in.

    Most of Australia's newspapers are honestly fluff peices. They either repeate word for word or show a very biased view.......................its pretty much the fast food equivalent............Dont even get me started on Australian Current Affair programs and their so called ground breaking study.
     
     Top
  13. Was on SBS news last night, cant remember the details about which companies but they attributed rises and falls in share values to the carbon tax announcment.
     
     Top
  14. Finance journalists (like most journalists) make shit up to sound like they know what they are on about, look for yourself and make your own mind up.:wink:
     
     Top
  15. Yes, but if I could make my own sensible conclusions about market mechanisms I would be too rich to be pro carbon tax.
     
     Top
  16. the shares market do have jitters, this i actually agree with. Weve seen them get jitters from what happens overseas with absolutely no connection to Australian companies.
     
     Top
  17. Markets are not sensible, they are a quantifiable description of a herd's emotional response to unquantifiable threats to perceived future profits. :beer:
    Simple really, predicting that response is the hard part.
     
     Top
  18. stick yr carbon tax up yr ars and blow it...my opinion. its a money grab. its typical labour handing out welfare and stopping the others who want to make something to be pulled back. its a typical communist rant that that red haired biatch is a member off and will do nothing until she turns this great country into a socialist state..mole
     
     Top
  19. If it’s so easy to identify the top 1000 polluters surely it would be far more effective and easier for the government to legislate for less pollution.

    Next they’ll be putting a carbon tax on all petrol powered vehicles most likely via registration. Then they will tax people for exhaling carbon. This is a tax on life.

    They want us to pay higher prices and more taxes so that the money can be given to some unknown fuk in another industry at the expense and hardship of our families.

    Let the fuking bludging green industry earn their money. If their products are too expensive and they can’t compete against the current industry then it’s their problem not ours. They can either lower their prices or just shut shop as their businesses are not viable.

    How much money will be given to BP? No tax on their so called polluting petrol products but massive benefits to their solar business. Is there something wrong with this picture?
    http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9061&contentId=7038243
    http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=9060&contentId=7038519

    Yet Julia Gillard hasn’t addressed the real issue. How will the carbon that has and continues to be emitted be removed? Slowing down emissions does not solve the so called problem as industry will continue to emit carbon even at a lower rate. Reduction is not removal.

    There are only two viable methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The first is trees and the second is population reduction.
     
     Top
  20. Couldn't agree with you more. I've been wracking my brain as to why you would take money off the lower income earners and then give it back. As opposed to just taxing the big polluters. Only thing I can think of is to get more and more people reliant on the state (welfare) Sound familiar?
     
     Top