This from the department of propaganda ABC today.
Now I understand the ABC is reporting what theyve been told, but would it be to much to ask they get off their well padded taxpayer funded fat arses that they do some actual investigative reporting and poke a few holes in this rather obvious lie?
The Federal Government says the average low income household will be just under $200 better off under its proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS).
Apparently the government hasnt released the underlying data (and assumptions) for scrutiny, nor anywhere is mentioned just who will be worse off under an ETS…
ANYONE NOT CONSIDERED LOW INCOME.
Who will that be? God knows, it could be 90% of Australians will be worse off for all the fuzzy newspeak of “low income households”…
Oh wait here it is…
But Environment Minister Peter Garrett says many households will be financially better off under the Government’s plans.
“A significant portion – some 8 million households – will receive some assistance,” he said.
“Low income households will receive significant assistance and be ahead by some $190 per year under the scheme.”
Note the weaselspeak, “many households” a non defined number is linked by the magic of weaselspeak to the 8 million “households receiving assistance”. Thats not to say 8 million households will be better off, only that 8 million will receive something….
Now to use the Australian Beurau of statistics own data (2006 data, its a bit clearer)
So is chrome dome Garrett seriously trying to say that 95% of Australians will be better off? Or is he mixing figures to lie to Australians?
Again from the ABS (2009 data) heres the breakdown of incomes
|Second and third deciles||
Given low income should mean those receiving the lowest percentile is it safe to assume Mr Garretts announcement should have read
“7.6% of you will be up to $190.00 a year better off, the other 92.4% of you will go backwards even if we do return some of the money we take from you back to you”.
So in a round about way is Mr Garett announcing over 90% of the Australian population is going to be worse off under an ETS??
Again, for an emissions trading scheme to work it has to retard demand for goods and services by pricing them higher, this is cloaked by referring to “increasing the price of energy”. Since everything you dont make yourself requires energy expenditure to manufacture/grow/transport/store/refine/anything, then it is effectively a consumption tax on every stage of a purchased items life. This has to mean people consume less of what they could previously afford, lowering the quality of living for millions of people in Australia.
If by magic it didnt affect the price of goods and everyone could afford the same items they do now, they there is no underlying reason to introduce it.
If the stated goal is to reduce energy consumption (by taxing it) so people use less/have less, then it is a lie to claim they will be better off.