Are they lying, or just stupid?

This from the department of propaganda ABC today.

Families will ‘be ahead’ under emissions scheme

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…


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)

At 30 June 2006 there were a projected 8.1 million households in Australia which were home to an estimated 20.2 million people, or 98% of the resident population.

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

Income share 2006 2009
Lowest quintile
Second quintile
Third quintile
Fourth quintile
Highest quintile
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.

25 Responses to “Are they lying, or just stupid?”

  1. eggz Says:

    Ole Aunty’s so busy spinning the Leftist line, she’ll likely trip herself up and her ‘ABC’s’ll go A-over-T …

  2. Nemesis12 Says:

    Are they lying, or just stupid?


  3. elsie Says:

    tfm, good post. I think you should forward it to Tony Abbott.

  4. Kaboom Says:

    I blame the Poles, and other stupid Europeans for this debacle.

    Especially the Poles, who are famous for being stupid:


  5. Carpe Jugulum Says:

    How, pray tell, does a new tax benefit anyone?? How can anyone with any sense of credulity even make such a claim.

    ALP, home of the incompetents, shonks & spivs.

    ABC, home of the mouth breathing cockwafts.

    • Rabz Says:


      You’re correct – but the dishonesty around this whole steaming pile of excrement is really starting to piss me off.

      It’s more than a new tax – it’s supposed to change behaviour.

      The reality will be somewhat different, however.

      Things like the collapse of the Victorian power industry for starters. Blackouts, denying people the right to heat and cool their homes, the list goes on.

      In fact this whole steaming load of shit makes me so furious that I find it difficult to discuss rationally. As usual, as a single middle class male, I’ll inevitably end up as one of the few who of course, mysteriously gets none of this mythical, ‘magic pudding’ compensation. But my tax bills, energy bills, water bills, food and petrol bills will inevitably skyrocket.

      These braindead evil criminals need to be removed from ‘government’ (forcibly, if necessary) and the sooner the better.

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      Visiting my family in Bundaberg with the Lady Jugulum (Here is a tip, never fly from Japan [-10] to Queensland [+32], this is a bad idea), now we lost power in Bundy from about 8pm to 9pm and i must say that when the whole shebang goes off life is most unpleasant.

      If this is the sort of disruption that an ETS can provide then they may feel free to bang it up their one way shit valve.

      PS – Hakuba was fantastic.

    • bingbing Says:

      Agreed with both of yas. One, just how can a new megatax help anyone but perhaps a few (namely KRudd and some sort of mechanism to reap back the billions he threw away after the election)? And that this is the first tax ever meant to not just change, but fundamentally change our behaviour pisses me right off, too. The drink driving campaign, one can understand. Using condoms, one can understand. Cut down on the smokes, one can understand. But this? Well, one could understand it if AGW were actually real and posed a threat. But since this is the biggest scam ever, KRudd can go get fucked.

      Alas we can only get rid of him by the vote. One, I don’t think it’s in the Aussie psyche to take up arms against the government, not anymore, not when cricket, footy, or for the younger pups, Australian idol is on. And besides, Johnny took away our guns. In an ironic twist, it’s almost as if the best we can hope for the the unions playing argy bargy.

      Yeck… and not too likely in any significant sense anyway with a labor bench stacked with union cronies.

      On a lighter note, Carps, hope the power stays on. Have never had any power disruptions in Korea. Go figure. Don’t miss ’em. It’s a balmy -1 here at the moment. Gotta love floor heating. Am wearing a T-shirt and bare feet ATM. Should be a even balmier -8 were I’m going tonight. I think I’ll take a sweater.

      Anyways, without naming names (in case I miss any!), everyone, have a Happy New Year! And if you’re a rightie, may it be safe and prosperous, too! 🙂

    • Carpe Jugulum Says:

      Bing, never had any power outs in Japan and as for heated floors……i’ll match that with a heated dining table and double down with the heated toilet seat (when it’s -10 at night there is nothing better)….god i love that place.

    • bingbing Says:

      When I home-stayed there as a kid (rugby tour – poor little blighters), they had a small dining table with a doona (double down?) and you could slide your feet under and there was a hole cut into the floor so your feet could hang down.


  6. eggz Says:

    ‘Ahead’ meaning one step back compared to others two steps back?

    This short-term spinning strategy’s gotta get these ‘tards in the finish, just as it did Tony Blair.

    • bingbing Says:

      And then came along Gordon Brown to save the day.

  7. bingbing Says:

    Anyway, gotta get on the train, folks, so until next year…

  8. Carpe Jugulum Says:

    I’m heading out for dinner troops, so until 2010, be good and play nice with the other children, and don’t eat yellow snow.

  9. Sandi Says:

    Happy New Year, all!

  10. ileum Says:

    And here is what a real economist has had to say on the consequences of not implementing an emissions trading scheme:

    It would mean that Australians would have to have much lower standards of living, would have to accept lower wages,…lower health services, lower education services, less defence commitment. I don’t know why Australians would choose that, but they could…

    • spot_the_dog Says:

      Australians would have to have much lower standards of living, would have to accept lower wages,…lower health services, lower education services, less defence commitment

      Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes! Volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together!
      MASS HYSTERIA!!11!!ONE!!!

      Who’da thunk that failure to implement the biggest, most useless tax in history would do all that!

      Meh. The “lower health services, lower education services, less defence commitment” bit sounds like the status quo you get under any Labor government anyway…

      Still and all, sorry your religion is falling apart at the seams, or at least your plans to force the likes of me & mine to tithe to it in order to support your High Priests. Must be a bummer to find out your prophets were just money-grubbing liars. But at least now I won’t have to explain to my grandchildren why we threw away their future on financing a weird cult’s deluded plan to avert their great Endtimes! fantasies.

  11. ileum Says:

    Sorry, didn’t realise that introducing an interview with one of Australia’s leading economists would make you hysterical, or should that be rabid?

    • thefrollickingmole Says:

      Well Ill point to a bit at the start of that speech.

      “So failure at Copenhagen will have large consequences for human beings, large consequences for Australians, and especially large consequences for rural Australians…”

      Copehagen failed. The games over…

      Time to stock up on baked beans and ammunition and head for the high ground if you believe the AGW stuff, leaves more costal properties for us drowners eh?

      (Speaking of which has Kevin sold his seaside place yet)

    • spot_the_dog Says:

      I was simply mocking the hysterical disaster-porn you all are getting off on:

      much lower standards of living,
      lower wages
      lower health services
      lower education services
      less defence commitment

      …all because we fail to implement a huge new tax?


      The factor most likely to cause those things is, as I pointed out, a Labor government.

      Oh, and with bonus Internet censorship thrown in “for free.” Hope y’all’re pleased with yourselves.

    • ileum Says:


      Not sure what your credentials are but I’m willing to go with a leading economists considered view. Although you have to be careful, Tony Abbott is a Rhodes scholar with a degree in economics and he has a few funny ideas.

  12. ileum Says:

    I think ETS will still be passed and there will at be at some point international cooperation, so the game is not over yet. In your post I believe you may be confusing low income earners with the lowest percentile. The link to the abc didn’t work but Rudd has said that low income earners are under $60 000 and those on $60 000 – 160 000 will still receive partial compensation on a sliding scale.

    This link says that 2.9 million households will be better off under the ETS legislation.

    • bingbing Says:

      So your link says 2.9. Garrett says 8. Hmm. Regardless, it’s a giant tax, a redistribution of wealth, and smacks of socialism. Yeck.

    • thefrollickingmole Says:

      Great, so that means the magic pudding will grow a bit bigger to provide that money?

      If I take $100 from you, give $10.00 to someone earning less, 70 for AGW, then give you $20 back Im not giving you anything. Im actualy removing $80 from you.

      The ETS is DESIGNED to make anything produced using energy, transported or stored (ie, frozen goods) more expensive so you consume less of it, thereby lowering emissions.
      It cant, by design, allow you to consume the same as now or else its just a wealth distribution shell game.

  13. bingbing Says:

    Ah, yes. Good ol’ socialism.

    Electricity rationing in that socialist paradise, Venezuela.

    LOL, didn’t that Chavez prick just end the year denouncing capitalism?

Well, SAY something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: