Gruen Nation - Wil Anderson - Voice of Australia

jingle from the National Party of Australia

[@MisterSandman009]

best ad

[@8ellybelly8]

haha wil loved this jingle. but then again, how could you not?

[@patrickwright1]

No I am not going to admit money is being given away overseas because I have already explained that trade exposed industries are not particularly subject to the tax. This is not about punishing business, it is about rewarding businesses that don't pollute our environment, and making businesses which do pay for it. This is about corporate responsibility, and most businesses will have a great incentive to become cleaner.

[@patrickwright1]

No Labor policy, including tax policy, has seriously harmed private business. Further, the Labor government has increased spending on homeless, directly contrasting the pass efforts of the decade the Liberal government had to do it.

[@patrickwright1]

By making greener products/services an economic necessity, a relatively small tax has a big impact in reducing carbon emissions. I've already explained that the tax allows companies that trade overseas to remain almost exactly as competitive as before. They will only be subject to the tax over a far longer period, and then, only if other countries introduce carbon taxes. It allows us, the highest per capita carbon emitter in the world, to make a first step without compromising competitiveness.

[@patrickwright1]

The point of the carbon tax is to create an incentive for big business to invest in greener technology. Although this will obviously increase the price of certain goods, not only will consumers be fully compensated for this increase, there will also be a strong incentive for them to buy the cheaper, greener products- therefore making the production of greener product not just economically viable but a necessity of these big companies profitability.

[@patrickwright1]

In most cases, votes do get killed because candidates often win over fifty percent in many seats. However, as a representative democracy, members elected should best represent the political views of their constituents. Therefore, a candidate elected under preferences is more likely to representative of the political views of most of the constituents than a candidate they voted against. Of course, the preference system is a compromise- true democracy= proportional representation.

[@patrickwright1]

Right now, developing countries are negotiating the risk of a carbon tax and the impact of climate change- and largely, they recognise the serious impact climate change will have on their countries. Their basic request however is that high emission countries make the first steps on climate change. This is reasonable- and it is also reasonable that developing countries will be willing to make changes to protect their food security and social order.

[@patrickwright1]

So while I agree that the issues you mention are more important than the carbon tax, I also realise that Australia is capable of addressing both issues. The reality is that both issues are radically different- Australian governments I'm sure would legislate tomorrow a law if it could solve even a minority of the multiplicity and complexity of issues around homelessness and poverty.

[@patrickwright1]

Most of Australia's wealth does come from export, so that is why high emission, trade exposed industries will have 95.4 percent of their carbon tax charge covered, meaning they can compete with overseas companies that are from countries without a carbon tax. Obviously this doesn't apply to non-trade exposed industries because they will be competing on a level playing field with other carbon taxed companies, and not non-green foreign companies.

[@patrickwright1]

Competing overseas is not a priority for non-trade exposed companies The carbon tax will favour companies and products sold here made with less emissions, thereby increasing employment in cleaner companies. However, some companies will continue to produce high emissions and yet need to compete abroad, so the 'Jobs and Competitiveness Program' is to provide 9.2 Billion so companies can compete, and which will cover 94.5 per cent of the highest emitting trade exposed industries' tax burden.

[@patrickwright1]

As a Canadian, why exactly are you commenting on an ad for the National Party?

[@patrickwright1]

@Soundgarden8497 OK. BTW, are you even in Australia?

[@patrickwright1]

If the government were more committed to the issues of homelessness and wealth inequality, then it could have addressed those issues better by now, particularly during the pre 2007 period of immense prosperity. However, over ten years of liberal party policies cutting funding for Australia's most vulnerable and poorest citizens, the undermining of unions, and deregulation of the economy, the rich are allowed to become richer, the poor poorer, and greater numbers sent into destitution.

[@sultrypoultryness]

I sing this in class to annoy people :D

[@patrickwright1]

However, when more countries introduce carbon pricing, companies in those countries will be taxed for purchasing from high emitting Australian companies. Therefore, to ensure the companies adopt cleaner practices, the subsidy will reduce 1 percent each year, creating an incentive for consumers to purchase from greener companies, however, this reduction is totally dependent on the international adoption of carbon taxes.

[@patrickwright1]

I would suggest poverty itself is the greatest disincentive to work. Being forced to beg and receive charity, or worse, to see one's innocent children go without meals breeds immense contempt for society and anything they stand for- including working. Welfare is important- children have done nothing to deserve poverty, yet those who oppose welfare will condemn them to a life of disadvantage- and poverty. Adults, not wanting to work but unable to eat, and who distrust society, will turn to crime.

[@patrickwright1]

The definition of genocide is: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Where, in that definition of genocide, is mass immigration included?

[@patrickwright1]

BTW, and I don't like the subject, but most small businesses are not going to be effected greatly by the carbon tax. Small businesses do not have to pay the carbon tax, and the impact of the tax will be low. The government is providing compensation through asset write off, and by providing 240 million in advice to them on cleaner energy. Considering green technology may increase up to forty percent of the energy mix by 2050 because of the tax, business will actually be exponentially better off.

[@patrickwright1]

Do know, don't care. :) Obviously you take what you say seriously, but to most intelligent people its hilarious self satire. Making you rage and get worked up over any reason or rational statement presented to you is significantly epic unintentional trolling.

[@patrickwright1]

I have Australia's best interests at heart, It's just I happen to disagree with you on what they are. Apparently your opinion is so superior and authoritative, any critic is branded as a traitor. Yet, excluding yourself, who gave you the authority to dictate what views are correct? Why should I be penalised for believing that Australia will not be disadvantaged? Only in communist or fascist states were people ostracised for having dissenting ideas. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

[@patrickwright1]

???

[@patrickwright1]

Never knew you had the authority to decide who could or couldn't be in Australia. Didn't know having to agree with you was a condition of citizenship. If you were in Australia, you would have stated as such- why don't you stop dictating who should be an Australian and what it means to be an Australian or what Australian values are from your American armchair?

[@patrickwright1]

But don't you think that the wealthiest countries with the people who pollute most should make the first steps? They are in a far greater position than poor countries whose people pollute only to provide for the basics. Again, you don't seem to understand that trade exposed industries, aka, the companies that you claim will be disadvantaged, are not being taxed. By the way, you can't determine the long term effects of climate change according to the weather in your suburb.

[@patrickwright1]

Not very democratic of you to exclude members from a particular political party from having a say because you oppose their policies. The reality is that some governments become unpopular, but at the election, the government won a majority of votes. Further, preferences are not undemocratic, they have always existed and are an accepted part of Australian democracy. They actually stop candidates winning seats where the majority have voted for different candidates. BTW, how is she a communist?

[@patrickwright1]

How can you possibly know objectively that you posses the single, right solution? What makes you so special, or who gave you the authority for you to say that opinions held by you are necessary right? I believe as strongly as you do that I am right. The majority of scientists and economists back the carbon tax. Yet you believe that we are all traitors because we hold a different view, and your supreme insight allows you to know that our policies are wrong. Who exactly do you think you are?

[@patrickwright1]

You do know that Ad hominem is a logical fallacy? Does this suggest your argument has self- depleted?

[@patrickwright1]

@Soundgarden8497 Slight paranoia much?

[@patrickwright1]

And, try to avoid the homophobic insults- it makes it so patently obvious that you are either an adolescent or an adult stuck with an adolescent mind. I've always wondered though- what would somebody who is as homophobic as you, who is so readily patriotic and 'moral' when persecuting others, do if one of your children were gay? Would you express to that child the same morality and care you show to other gay people? Or are you to obsessed with patriotism etc to care about those around you?

[@patrickwright1]

Just because you have a personal opinion on the Labor party and hold a personal view that it is 'destroying the Australian way of life', as an equal citizen, I have as just as much right to hold a contrary view to you, and not be branded as a traitor. You are nothing other than fascist in that you conclude that your view is the only valid view, yet rather than mount a coherent argument, you brand people with dissenting ideas with labels such as 'traitor' so as to ostracise them.

[@patrickwright1]

Not pretending to be clever, every argument you have produced has systematically, calming been debunked by facts. You have used personal attacks, or ad hominem, to make your point. One one particular assertion, the idea that Australia will be 'disadvantaged', has been debunked by the fact that, overwhelmingly, the tax doesn't apply to trade exposed businesses. You are not angry in frustration at being right, you are profoundly upset that your unfounded beliefs are being exposed as fairy tales.