households MUCH better under Labor

[skippy]

An independent study has found households will be much better off under Labors carbon price. While electricity generators say Abbotts plan WILL COST Aussie families at least 10% more.Why do you rightards hate Aussie families so much? why do you want us to pay more and at the same time put our childrens future at risk? you truly are despicable.

THE average household will be much better off than the Gillard government has calculated after pocketing carbon tax compensation, according to independent modelling.

The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has found that tax cuts and higher government pension and family payments will leave households an average of $2.40 a week ahead after the carbon tax, rather than only 20¢ as estimated by Treasury.

Using more recent household expenditure data, the study found the average household would pay $8.50 a week in higher prices because of the tax (lower than Treasury's estimate) but gain $10.90 in tax cuts and benefits (more than Treasury assumed).

Unlike the Treasury modelling, the study reveals which households are winners and which losers.

It shows that low-income families with children (the bottom 20 per cent) are on average $6.30 a week ahead, middle-income families $1.30 ahead and high-income families (the top 20 per cent) are $6.30 a week worse off.

All single parents with children come out ahead, low-income earners by $5.60 a week, middle-income households by $11.80 and high-income families by 50¢.

In total 69 per cent of households will be better off, 16 per cent worse off by less than $5 a week, almost 10 per cent worse off by between $5 and $10 a week, and almost 5 per cent worse off by more than $10 a week.

According to NATSEM, pensioners will be on average $4.70 a week better off and 80 per cent of self-funded retirees will also come out ahead.

NSW households will be on average $2.60 a week in front, less than the average $3.40 gain for Queenslanders who have lower heating costs, but more than higher-earning residents of the ACT, who will be 60¢ behind on average. Victorians will benefit by $2.30 a week.

The Coalition has said that repealing the carbon tax would be its ''first order of business'' in government, and the compensation would therefore not be needed, although the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has also promised as yet unquantified personal tax cuts.

But the Coalition's warning to business not to buy forward-dated pollution permits has drawn criticism from electricity generators, which say the inability to hedge against price uncertainty could add 10 per cent to domestic power prices.

And the Coalition's pledge to abolish the proposed $10 billion clean energy finance corporation dismayed some investors.

A spokesman for Pacific Hydro said the Coalition ''seemed intent on creating a sovereign risk for investors'' and the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council, Matthew Warren, said the proposed corporation was ''a necessary and logical institution''.

Late yesterday the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey, seized on comments by officials from the Finance Department in a Senate estimates hearing to claim that the fund would blow a $10 billion hole in Labor's plan to return the budget to surplus.

But the officials said loans issued by the fund would hit the budget bottom line only to the extent that they were offered at a less than commercial rate of return. They had estimated about a third of the loans would be concessional, and this cost had already been factored into budget calculations, which include $944 million from the fund over the first four years.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, accused the Coalition of wanting to ''destroy clean energy jobs … and see power prices go up''. But the opposition spokesman on finance, Andrew Robb, said the proposed corporation was ''a Bob Brown slush fund''



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... z1bAgFwivu

[mellie]

I only had to read the words "independent study" (source unknown and no longer required according to GALPS new media laws) and "SMH" to know this was garbage on stilts.

Get it together Skippy, thats two SMH articles in the last two days whereby you have failed to pick this up.




Basically, Gillard prefers the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, which claims to have found (though has not provided a source or any proof re- their claim) that tax cuts and higher government pension and family payments will leave households an average of $2.40 a week ahead after the carbon tax, rather than only 20¢ as estimated by Treasury.

Hint: Read the Red and Blue books from treasury, Skippy then contact the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling and request they make available the report.

Skippy, have you seen the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling?

Do you even know what it is?

NATSEM

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/natsem/

Who funds NATSEM Skippy?

Thus I conclude, how can this be truly an independent study, when in fact, this centre receives it's funding from both government and big corporations, those who want this carbon-tax more than Gillard herself.

[mellie]

Honestly, when are you going to learn to stop spamming and start researching, this opposed to deriding those who do?

Sorry, near enough isn't good enough....when it's clear, Gillard prefers to shop around when it comes to purchasing/funding research to support her own carbon-tax.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/natsem/

Skippy, you need to brush up on your research skills.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... tively.cfm

Skippy, had Gillard used this http://www.ecprnet.eu/ as a source, what would be your reaction?

Now read the following very carefully, this and understand "The Guard" is in fact Gillards preferred source.

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... ile_id=748

[skippy]

It is clear that fuckwits like mellie have an agenda to push their lies, lucky we have independent inquiries to show the likes of mellie up as lying assholes.
Next mellie will be telling us the electricity providers are making up their claims we will be 10% worse off under an Abbott government. Your lies are exposed mellie, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to convince people they will be better off under a gov that independent studies clearly show is a lie.

[mellie]

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/nats ... ExJmFsbD0x


It's contract research, this is what Gillard meant by "Independent" a better term would have been cheque-book/private , because as you can see, NATSEM have not included their "contract" research findings among their publications, or that with specifically supports Julia Gillards Carbon-Tax.

And note how the SMH fail to name the NATSEM study and publication to which they refer?

Well, I took the liberty of doing this for them.

http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/nats ... YWxsPTE%3D

Clean Energy Future Plan: Household Modelling
Document Information:

Author: Ben Phillips and Matthew Taylor

Published: October 2011

Reference: Research Notes - RN2

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1219 (<---Download research notes)

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1220 (<---The Media release SMH were given)

Anything else Skip?

How are you off for sox'n'undies?

It's you who should be feeling embarrassed right now, like always.

[IQS.RLOW]

middle-income families $1.30 ahead and high-income families (the top 20 per cent) are $6.30 a week worse off.

So the govt was wrong skip? You admit that they have no clue as to what they are doing?
If they are wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?

You also know that your fucked up carbon tax for nothing not only increases 4+% every year, the compo only increases in line with CPI...who knows what will happen when you get your fucked up ETS.

And the end result? A $4bn hole in the govts bottom line anyway and to do what?
Abosolutely fucking nothing- you ideological fucktard dipshit
Treasonous scum

[mellie]

What was the basis for the SMH's happy clappy carbon-tax spool?


October 18th 2011
Media Release

HOUSEHOLDS $2.50 PER WEEK BETTER OFF UNDER CARBON PACKAGE


Independent analysis by the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling
(NATSEM) shows that Australian households will be an average of $2.50 per week better off under the
Federal Government’s carbon package.
“The assistance package is shown to be generous enough to provide an average net benefit to
households from the current carbon price and the expected higher carbon prices up to 2015-16”, said
NATSEM Principal Research Fellow”, Mr Ben Phillips.
The NATSEM modelling shows that households gain an average of $6.40 per week from tax cuts and
$4.50 per week from increased government payments. The carbon price impact is $8.50 per week on
average for households.
“The overall net gain to households is $2.50 per week compared to just 20 cents in the Treasury
modelling”, said Mr Phillips1.
In a new research report Clean Energy Future Plan: Household Modelling, NATSEM provides an
independent household sector analysis of the Federal Government’s carbon price plan2. The report
estimates that 69 per cent of households will be better off under the plan and that the gains of the
package are targeted towards low income households and those on government benefits. On average,
all households except the richest 20 per cent are better off under the plan.
Treasury estimates that the carbon price adds around $7.7 billion in revenue in 2012-13.
“This relatively small tax adds around 2 per cent to total tax revenue but is heavily targeted at high
pollution expenditure such as electricity and gas”, said Mr Phillips.
A key difference between the NATSEM and Treasury modelling is that this report uses updated ABS
expenditure data (2009-10 rather than the previous Treasury updated 2003-04 survey). The lower
carbon impacts in this report are explained by the use of the new expenditure figures showing a decline
in average household energy consumption and a change in the mix of expenditure towards lower carbon
intensity expenditure items.
The NATSEM modelling confirms that the Government household assistance package provides an
adequate buffer for low and middle income households to the cost impact of the carbon price during
the initial fixed price phase of the plan.

The report can be viewed at http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/natsem

http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au
________________________________________________________________________________


Refer to...

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1220 (NATSEM media release)

and....

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1219 (NATSEM research notes)

Fact-- Our government appoints government funded contract research centres ie NATSEM to support it's Carbon-Tax agenda, this and discriminatingly instructs our media to publish half-truths and lies, without so much as providing a source to the 'actual' study in which they refer.

[skippy]

Its good the gov were out on their figures isn't it IQ? but also proves we will be better off,and that the LIBS have been lying, like mellie does,she is a fool for falling for the lies, but hey, she is a fuckwit after all. This also proves the likes of mellie as a liar just trying to push an agenda.She must hate being exposed as the liar she is, but its very funny watching her try to discredit the independent findings.

[IQS.RLOW]

If the govt were out on their figures, the NATSEM would have also been given shit data by the govt

We all know this govt couldnt get a thing right. This will just be another notch on their bedpost in the fucking of Australia.

It's only dickheads like you that enjoy the rodgering...and beg for more.
I reiterate. C unts like you should be fucking shot for treason

[mellie]

You know you have lost the debate when all you can do is regress to petty name-calling and mud slinging.


Dont give up your day job, Skip.

Why did the SMH omit this part of the NATSEM media release from their spool?

""""In a new research report Clean Energy Future Plan: Household Modelling, NATSEM provides an
independent household sector analysis of the Federal Government’s carbon price plan2. The report
estimates that 69 per cent of households will be better off under the plan and that the gains of the
package are targeted towards low income households and those on government benefits. On average,
all households except the richest 20 per cent are better off under the plan.""""""- NATSEM media release Oct 18 2011



https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1220


Then read the research notes...

https://guard.canberra.edu.au/natsem/in ... le_id=1219