[Exuro]

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.ph ... Id/1039030

In general, when a business raises it's prices, it can't make false statements about the cause of the prices rise. E.g. it's illegal for me to raise my prices 10% and then say blame my suppliers for raising their prices 10% if that didn't really happen. The law is meant to stop business from using fraud to prevent customers from going to competitors. Seems like reasonable legislation to prevent price-gouging.

In my area, local business owners have been complaining that they will not be allowed to attribute price increases to the carbon tax unless they can prove the link. hey make it out like the government has imposed some sort of new Orwellian law to silence any criticism of their unpopular carbon tax. But haven't these business owners always been subject to this legislation, even before 1 July?

If anything I can certainly see the irony: In my opinion the carbon tax itself is based upon the bullshit notion that a eduction in greenhouse gas emissions will meaningfully affect the rate of climate change; no-one can sue the government for taxation based upon fraud. But that is not what business owners here have been complaining about; they just seem to be pissed off that they can't just raise their prices by x% and blame the carbon tax without having to substantiate that claim.

Thoughts? Is it Orwellian and hypocritical or perhaps a case of people bitching about nothing? I was only a teen when the GST came into effect, so perhaps someone else can find some parallels there.

[Swagman]

Sounds like a fine for lying.

Maybe the ACCC should have a look at Julia Gillard and how she told one of the biggest porky pies to impose the damned tax on us in the first place.

[youtube]ApCwoj35d3M[/youtube]

[GandalfTheGrey]

In my opinion the carbon tax itself is based upon the bullshit notion that a eduction in greenhouse gas emissions will meaningfully affect the rate of climate change; no-one can sue the government for taxation based upon fraud.

I think this is actually a cover story by the government. The real basis for the tax, in my opinion, is that the polluters are being taxed for polluting - the tax goes towards compensating the Australian public for the damage caused by the pollution. Admittedly the use of this tax is indirect compensation through the creation of a green-energy fund, but this will be the best compensation in the long run.

So why is the government running with the other line - that we are trying to contribute to global greenhouse reductions? I guess they can read polls and understand that action on climate change is still a very important issue for Australians - and they certainly will remember the hit Rudd took after he abandoned the "great moral challenge of our time". Its likely also that the government is still spooked (despite consistent opinion polls showing otherwise) by bashing big business - as seen by their backdown on the super profits tax.

Thoughts? Is it Orwellian and hypocritical or perhaps a case of people bitching about nothing? I was only a teen when the GST came into effect, so perhaps someone else can find some parallels there.

I'm struggling to remember too. All I remember is that there was some talk about possible risks of businesses price hiking, but thats about it

One key difference is that back then the labor opposition didn't run a blatantly dishonest scare campaign about why certain businesses were upping their prices, and that absolutely everything can be blamed on the tax.

To be honest I can't really see why its that much of an issue - its a fixed price, so businesses just need to add that to every invoice. Its a bit of extra paper work, but there's no reason I can see why it can't be seamless.

Maybe the ACCC should have a look at Julia Gillard and how she told one of the biggest porky pies to impose the damned tax on us in the first place.

or perhaps look at Tony Abbott and how he lied to everyone about why BHP was raising their prices

[Swagman]

The real basis for the tax, in my opinion, is that the polluters are being taxed for polluting - the tax goes towards compensating the Australian public for the damage caused by the pollution

Really?.........in my opinion they already pay their tax..... and what do they charge the Australian public for providing, product, jobs and income tax revenues to fund their lazy lifestyles?

The real agenda of the tax is wealth redistribution by stealth........and of course bending over for the Greens whose whole political agenda is not so stealthy wealth redistribution....

One key difference is that back then the labor opposition didn't run a blatantly dishonest scare campaign about why certain businesses were upping their prices, and that absolutely everything can be blamed on the tax.

...you're right about one thing being........ that you don't remember.

The labor opposition (and its overlord unions) ran a blatantly dishonest scare campaign about the GST every bit as nasty as the anti-Carbon tax campaign..........and promised to "roll it back"....but "never ever" did.

Maybe the ACCC should have a look at Julia Gillard and how she told one of the biggest porky pies to impose the damned tax on us in the first place.

or perhaps look at Tony Abbott and how he lied to everyone about why BHP was raising their prices

I don't see a lie there GTG. A tax will likely cause prices to rise across the board unless of course it also has a retardant effect and stifle both investment & enterprise where it just causes business, investment and jobs (and tax revenues) to move off shore. I think ( and many many others think likewise) that Julia's lies, spend and 'taxathon' has definitely had at least both these effects on BHP and industry in general.

[lucky]

A law that penalizes lying about the causes of your price changes is a bad law. That's because there is no direct link between, say, a tax change and the resulting consumer product price change. Prices depend on nothing other than supply and demand, and taxes change supply and demand in sometimes complicated ways. Regulators trying to enforce such a law will have to rely on a rather inaccurate model of what the price would have been in a hypothetical world without the tax. This is likely to cause more pain than gain.

After all, even if you're lying about the maths behind your prices (which companies always do if they talk about prices of their products in their ads, since the real pricing model is too complicated and too boring for advertising purposes), it's not something that really "prevents customers from going to competitors" (per OP), since customers are free to look at competitors' prices regardless of what you say in your ads.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Really?.........in my opinion they already pay their tax.....

they pay company tax just like any other company. However not all companies pollute our environment. This pollution tax should be over and above the normal company tax. The proof that this is really a tax on pollution, and not a tax for global greenhouse reductions, is the fact that only domestic emissions are being taxed. The only tax applied on exports is a tiny tax on the release of methane during extraction - which is damaging to the environment. Therefore the only tax is on pollution that directly affects the Australian environment.

Taxes shouldn't always be seen as a negative thing either. This particular tax should be seen as giving incentive to develop green energy. This is in the industries' long term interests anyway - tax or no tax - as oil and coal will not remain economically viable forever.

The real agenda of the tax is wealth redistribution by stealth

Based on what? Usually the most obvious answer is the correct one - and in this case its that the government has (once again) been spooked by a concerted chicken little campaign by the opposition, and in response have attempted to sweeten the deal for the people the coalition is trying to spook. Certainly the opposition is attempting to argue the exact opposite to your conspiracy theory - still trying to spook the lower income people that "they'll all be rooned!"

...you're right about one thing being........ that you don't remember.


The labor opposition (and its overlord unions) ran a blatantly dishonest scare campaign about the GST every bit as nasty as the anti-Carbon tax campaign..........and promised to "roll it back"....but "never ever" did.

You're obviously talking about the 1993 election campaign - you know before Howard promised "never ever" to introduce it again? Thats not what we were talking about:

I was only a teen when the GST came into effect, so perhaps someone else can find some parallels there.

There was no scare campaign by the opposition about price hiking or businesses going down the gurgler after the GST was introduced that I can remember. As for rolling it back, Beazley made a clear commitment sometime before it was introduced not to roll it back if it was introduced.

I don't see a lie there GTG. A tax will likely cause prices to rise across the board unless of course it also has a retardant effect and stifle both investment & enterprise where it just causes business, investment and jobs (and tax revenues) to move off shore.

Its not about the general economic landscape, its about a specific project and the reasons BHP cited for shelving it. Abbott cited the carbon tax as directly responsible, then when it was pointed out that wasn't the reason BHP themselves had given, he denied having read the report. He then told parliament the next day that he had in fact read the report. So its two lies actually - one that BHP had cited the carbon tax as the reason for shelving this specific project, and two that he denied having read BHPs press release in which they contradict Abbott's claim.

[Swagman]

There was no scare campaign by the opposition about price hiking or businesses going down the gurgler after the GST was introduced that I can remember. As for rolling it back, Beazley made a clear commitment sometime before it was introduced not to roll it back if it was introduced.

http://australianpolitics.com/1999/07/08/beazley-address-on-taxation-reform-gst.html

My friends, for the last two years, we as a nation have been bogged down in a debate about whether we should pay a new 10 per cent tax on just about everything.

The deal between the Government and the Democrats has produced this tax and we start paying it next year.

You know that we strongly disagree with them. The GST is a tax Australia doesn’t need, and Australians can’t afford. Let me briefly tell you why; what we intend to do about it; and then get on to the more important issues we face in the years ahead.
We know this GST will be a burden on families, especially those with kids;

The GST will hit those on fixed incomes the hardest – especially pensioners, as they face higher prices on their everyday needs;

And the GST is a burden on business – particularly small businesses – who will face on average $3,000 to set up the systems; all the extra paper work and hours more at the desk making sure they comply.

Despite all our efforts, however, we are now dealing with a new reality.

One of our tasks is to develop policies to deal with the worst aspects of this unfair Government/Democrats deal – to rescue the families, the pensioners, and small businesses who will be hurt the most.

One thing you should know is that the government deliberately refuses to record the GST on our sale dockets at the supermarket, the hairdresser, and everywhere else we pay it.

This is because the government wants to roll the GST forward.

You know they want it on all food, even if they tell you it will “never, ever” happen.

By now we have all seen what happened to John Howard’s promise “never, ever” to introduce a GST in the first place.

Labor’s commitment will be to roll-back the GST.

And as our first step, we will shortly announce details of our plan to monitor closely, and hold the government accountable for, price changes caused by its GST.

[GandalfTheGrey]

address given in 1999, GST was introduced July 1 2000

So, for the third time:

There was no scare campaign by the opposition about price hiking or businesses going down the gurgler after the GST was introduced that I can remember

[Salohcin]

I am pretty sure that Labor did try to rally on price increases and rolling the GST back the following election. I can't remember any concrete examples, but I am sure at the very least there would of been some exaggeration. However children overboard and 9/11 overshadowed the GST by the time the next election came around (saving Howard from political oblivion).

It is very possible that if those events did not occur and Beazley kept the popularity advantage he had 3 months out to the election then the GST might have been rolled back.

Not that the GST was really such a big deal. Prior to the GST coming in, it was supported at different times by both parties. However there was considerable political advantage in opposing it, so Labor did (and the Liberals did too back in the 80s but Labor backed down and didn't take GST to election).

Kind of like a carbon tax that will be gone within 2 years regardless of which government get's elected next - in practical terms it is not really a big deal. And both parties have expressed support for the policy at different times - the Liberals just oppose it now as there is political advantage to do so.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I am pretty sure that Labor did try to rally on price increases and rolling the GST back the following election. I can't remember any concrete examples, but I am sure at the very least there would of been some exaggeration. However children overboard and 9/11 overshadowed the GST by the time the next election came around (saving Howard from political oblivion).

Hmmm after reading more into it, it seems I somewhat misunderstood the term "rollback". Originally I was using it to mean a complete abolition of the tax - probably the right word is "rescind". However it seems that "rollback" merely meant applying a few adjustments. As Bob McMullan explains in a 2001 interview:

rollback is an important concept, but it's a bigger concept than GST tax cuts.

We're talking about simplifying the GST, about cleaning up the administrative mess the Government has made and about making GST tax cuts.

'Rollback' covers the three.

I was talking about how the surplus is spent, and in the GST that's about GST tax cuts.

But we'll still be talking about the other aspects of rollback -- the administrative reform and the simplification.

We've always said it's about making it fairer and simpler, but when you talk about how you'll spend the money, that opinion poll that I was quoting said there's two sorts of tax cuts -- Income tax cuts that the Government is offering, GST tax cuts that we're offering.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s347039.htm

Thus "rollback" in this case involved applying a few exemptions and making it administratively more simple, not abolishing the tax altogether. Thus to clarify my original point, Beazley at one point promised that he would not abolish or rescind the tax altogether (there was a specific announcement, I am sure of it), unlike what Tony Abbott is doing today with the carbon tax.

As for the scare campaign, the difference between the 2001 campaign and the current anti-carbon tax campaign should be obvious. Abbott is promising to rescind the tax altogether, and therefore can freely declare it as the root of all evil. Beazley on the other hand was committed to keep the tax, and only apply a few adjustments. So he couldn't exactly declare the tax per se as the cause of all our economic problems - he obviously gave implicit in-principal approval of the tax merely by declaring that it will stay.

[Swagman]

address given in 1999, GST was introduced July 1 2000

So, for the third time:

There was no scare campaign by the opposition about price hiking or businesses going down the gurgler after the GST was introduced that I can remember

..........that's because after it was introduced Labor saw that they had made a goose of themselves and in order for them to pork barrell the way they do they actually need it.....especially all the Labor State Premiers

Labor's 1993 campaign was simply "No GST" and even though Keating was a proponent of a GST he campaigned hysterically against it with the rest of his comrades in a successfull attempt to stay in power (sweetest victory of all ) and all sorts of stupid accusations about the tax were made at the time..... and I do remember. Ironically had the 15% tax of Hewson's fightback been introduced according to plan, arguably there would have been much more funding available for both public health & education given the massive consumer spendathon of the late 90s. The stupid left shot themselves in the foot there and still have the gall to whinge about the regressiveness of the tax.

Beazley's linked speech was Labor's response to the watered down deal with the Democrats that (finally) got the GST legislation thru Parliament that Labor and leftist Democrats (Tasha the Spoiler & comrades) had been blocking along ideological grounds (despite the Coalition having an electoral mandate for their tax reform policies by winning the 1998 election).

The GST/Tax Reform was taken to the 1998 election as policy by the Coalition. Howard may have backflipped on his previous well worn "never ever" comment yes, but he still had the balls to take the policy to the electorate in 1998 (which nearly cost the Coalition Govt after 1 term). He did not say before the 1998 election that there would not be a GST under any Govt he led. The GST was a clear election policy whilst the Carbon Tax has been imposed on us without electoral mandate.

[GandalfTheGrey]

He did not say before the 1998 election that there would not be a GST under any Govt he led.

Oh yes Swag, he absolutely did. Let me quote him directly during the 1996 election campaign:

Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.

and in case that wasn't clear enough:

No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/ ... 74312.html

It can be argued too that despite taking the GST to the 98 election, its introduction was every bit as sly and sneaky as the carbon tax. After promising the electorate that there would never be a GST under the government he led, he won one of the biggest parliamentary majorities in history. So he firstly lied about the GST which arguably won him a massive majority, he was then in a fairly safe position to take the GST to the electorate. With such a majority he knew it was very unlikely that such a blatant lie would deliver him electoral defeat.

[Swagman]

He did not say before the 1998 election that there would not be a GST under any Govt he led.

Oh yes Swag, he absolutely did. Let me quote him directly during the 1996 election campaign:

Ok I'll rephrase. Howard did not blatently comment that there would be no GST as part of his 1998 election campaign.

It can be argued too that despite taking the GST to the 98 election, its introduction was every bit as sly and sneaky as the carbon tax. After promising the electorate that there would never be a GST under the government he led, he won one of the biggest parliamentary majorities in history. So he firstly lied about the GST which arguably won him a massive majority, he was then in a fairly safe position to take the GST to the electorate. With such a majority he knew it was very unlikely that such a blatant lie would deliver him electoral defeat.

Ha that's a bit desperate GTG

You could possibly argue that with a smidgeon of credibility had Julia made the carbon tax clear policy as part of her 2010 election campaign and did not blatantly say as part of her campaign that "there will be no carbon tax under a Govt I lead".

Jeez that little line will be in everyone's face come the next election campaign....

The consequences of not taking the CT to the electorate in 2010 is going to result in unprecedented political upheaval in the next few years I'd predict should Abbott win with a sizable mandate to get rid of it and Labor & comrades ignore the mandate.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Ok I'll rephrase. Howard did not blatently comment that there would be no GST as part of his 1998 election campaign.

no, he blatantly said there would be no GST as part of his 1996 campaign Does that make it ok?

You could possibly argue that with a smidgeon of credibility had Julia made the carbon tax clear policy as part of her 2010 election campaign and did not blatantly say as part of her campaign that "there will be no carbon tax under a Govt I lead".

If you're talking about dishonesty in the name of political expediency, you're not making much of a case. What Gillard did arguably put herself in a much worse position politically. I honestly can't see much problem for her politically had she promised a carbon tax before the 2010 election. The principle behind it is popular with the public as far as I can tell. Also the coalition had agreed on the exact same policy just a few months earlier, and not forgetting the fact that Rudd suffered a hammering in the poll after he abandoned the carbon tax. In fact what she did when she backflipped was a massive political sacrifice - and the fact is she did not try and obfusticate it in any way. She was perfectly upfront about it - thats what she said then, political realities had changed, she has changed her mind.

This is in stark contrast to what Howard did. The lie in 1996 arguably gave him enormous political advantage, after which he was very safe to do his backflip. While its pretty obvious that Gillard meant what she said at the time about the carbon tax, and was forced to change because of extraordinary circumstances (thus not a "lie" in any normal understanding of the word), the same cannot be said about Howard. He made his backflip on the back of an enormously advantageous political position - unlike Gillard who was literally forced to change her pledge (and was perfectly open about it) as a result of the parliamentary situation.

The consequences of not taking the CT to the electorate in 2010 is going to result in unprecedented political upheaval in the next few years I'd predict should Abbott win with a sizable mandate to get rid of it and Labor & comrades ignore the mandate.

I find this notion (which is surprisingly common), that the senate should be a rubber stamp for a HOR "mandate" nonsensical. Why have a senate at all? Instead of arguing that the senate doesn't have any right to do its job, you mob should be petitioning for a referendum to abolish the senate altogether.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

no, he blatantly said there would be no GST as part of his 1996 campaign Does that make it ok?

I think so. Political positions and policies change with time, it is unreasonable to assume that a politician will hold one belief and one policy stance their whole career.
Howard took the GST to the 1998 election. Yes what he said before 1996 was unfortunate, but by 1998 the political landscape had changed and he took advantage of it. He took the GST to the 1998 election and won a mandate for it.
I must say I partly agree with Swag here. If Gillard had said ‘no Carbon Tax under my government’ in an election campaign, didn’t do anything in her first term, then went to the 2013 poll say there will be a Carbon Tax, than that would be more acceptable, like Howard & GST. But in this instance, Gillard said one thing, then when the political landscape changed, did another thing without a mandate (or going to the polls) to do so, whereas Howard did for the GST.

I don’t think what Gillard did was wrong. I like the idea of the tax in principal, and I think that as political landscapes change, politicians need to adapt and that is what Gillard did. But to support Gillard and lambast Howard is hypocritical.

[GandalfTheGrey]

But to support Gillard and lambast Howard is hypocritical.

yet the differences I pointed out remain. The key difference was how each leader dealt with the "lie" after the relevant election. Gillard was open and honest about what she did and why. Howard obfusticated, and actually lied about the lie. As Allan Ramsay says:

And how did Howard rationalise his "never ever" pledge? He didn't. He simply lied again. Howard told Parliament in April 1998: "I went to the 1996 election saying there would not be a GST in our first term. I go to the coming election saying we are going to reform the tax system ... The Australian public are entitled to be told before an election what a government will do after the election. They do not deserve to be misled. They do not deserve to be deceived."

He said he only meant that there would be no GST in the first term - which is a blatant lie. He said (again)

A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia.

*at any time in the future - is worth repeating again.

Gillard said one thing, then when the political landscape changed, did another thing without a mandate (or going to the polls) to do so, whereas Howard did for the GST.

you make it sound like there was dishonest political expediency in one case (Gillard) and transparency in the other. Actually its the opposite. Gillard cannot be accused of being dishonest because she clearly meant what she said in 2010. When she backflipped, she again was honest about why she did it, and didn't shy away from the fact that she was backpedaling on what she previously said. Howard on the other hand may or may not have meant what he said about "never ever" GST (though there is less evidence to support the claim that he did compared to Gillard) but the key difference was that he was dishonest about his change of heart in 1998.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Gillard cannot be accused of being dishonest because she clearly meant what she said in 2010. When she backflipped, she again was honest about why she did it, and didn't shy away from the fact that she was backpedaling on what she previously said. Howard on the other hand may or may not have meant what he said about "never ever" GST (though there is less evidence to support the claim that he did compared to Gillard) but the key difference was that he was dishonest about his change of heart in 1998.

I do not see how you can be certain that Gillard wasn’t dishonest and Howard was may have been dishonest. That is pure speculation. I’m not going to argue about who is more or less honest, but that is a pretty bias comment. Yes there are slight differences but the fact is both said something they’d never do in their governments and both did the exact thing they said they wouldn’t. Gillard and Howard are equally as guilty or innocent in that fact alone.

I agree with you in what you said about explaining the change, and this is the grey area. Gillard was more honest about her change of approach (being the different political climate of a hung parliament) whereas Howard added an ex post facto caveat of ‘not in my first term’. But it seems that the justification for either person falls on your own political leaning more than anything.
But the clear fact remains that despite this, the voting public had an opportunity to vote on the GST in a transparent manner whereas they did not for the Carbon Tax.

I don’t but this ‘Howard fooled the public into voting for in him in the first place, then slugged them with the GST’. If the voters really cared about the GST they would have voted Howard out in 1998, or again in 2001 once the affects of the tax had been felt by the voting public. But in 2001 people realised the GST was negligible, much like the Carbon Tax is now.

In my opinion, I think Gillard would have won the election had she made the Carbon Tax part of her policy. I can remember the day Gillard announced the Climate Change Committee policy to form a ‘consensus’ rather than the standing ALP policy from the Rudd days. It was such a copout and made many ALP voters totally disenfranchised as it is a key policy platform for them.

[Swagman]

no, he blatantly said there would be no GST as part of his 1996 campaign
Does that make it ok?

No but taking it to the 1998 election as a policy mitigated it.

The lie in 1996 arguably gave him enormous political advantage, after which he was very safe to do his backflip

Howard didn't need to even mention GST in 1996. Labor was doomed much like it is now.

If you're talking about dishonesty in the name of political expediency, you're not making much of a case

I think the average Joe Public has made up their minds on that one.

But the clear fact remains that despite this, the voting public had an opportunity to vote on the GST in a transparent manner whereas they did not for the Carbon Tax.

Exactly this is why the positions are so different and what makes Julia Gillard's actions look so wrong even from the eyes of those that agree with the policy and I can't see why GTG can't see this?

What about the view that the Greens had a gun at her back to introduce the CT without a mandate and even though it would trash her integrity it would also gurantee the keys to the Lodge for another term. That was Keating's motive in 1993 too. Power at all costs without integrity. And I think maybe the recent public spat between Labor & the Greens might be evidence of this....

[GandalfTheGrey]

Exactly this is why the positions are so different and what makes Julia Gillard's actions look so wrong even from the eyes of those that agree with the policy and I can't see why GTG can't see this?

Introducing legislation after the election after you promised not to before the election - looks bad, yeah I get that. She's certainly not the first leader of a government to promise one thing before an election, win that election, then renege on that promise without taking it to another election. She won't be the last either - though its almost certain that she will be the one who is most harangued for it

But there are other things to look at though when comparing it to Howard's stunt. His dishonesty about what he says he promised before 1996, compared to Gillard being upfront to the electorate about why she backflipped for example.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Power at all costs without integrity.

I hope you’re not that naive, and realise that this cuts both ways. LNP are about power at all costs without integrity. Recent evidence is Abbots ‘BHP did this despite the fact I haven’t read why the reason why BHP did it’. There is no integrity in the LNP either.

Howard didn't need to even mention GST in 1996. Labor was doomed much like it is now.

Questionable. Given the hysteria about the GST in the previous election campaign, it probably was necessary for Howard to mention the GST (or lack thereof) in the 1996 campaign. Similar to the Work Choices situation for Abbott in 2010.

She's certainly not the first leader of a government to promise one thing before an election, win that election, then renege on that promise without taking it to another election. She won't be the last either - though its almost certain that she will be the one who is most harangued for it

Exactly. People are very quick to criticise and yet forget when their party did something similar. It’s always happened, will always happen.