Analysis by NATSEM shows that by 2017-18 – once all grandfathering arrangements are removed and the budget deficit levy is removed – low income couples with children (bottom 20 %) are worse off by around 6.6% while single parents are worse off by around 10.8% on average. High income families are marginally better off as a result of the removal of the carbon price.

The treasurer has tried to frame the debate around the fairness of the welfare system where an average worker has to make a significant contribution towards the welfare of others:

“In other words, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?”

While Hockey has not revealed how he arrived at these figures, I presume it was derived by dividing the estimated total welfare payments mostly for 2014 by the estimate of GDP for 2014, which would yield approximately 9%; one month is 8% of a year.

Putting aside the fact that this is not really a particularly accurate statement – for example, GDP is not a measure of labour income – it is worth then asking how many days an average working Australian would have to work to support tax concessions, where the government gives up revenue, that mostly benefit the rich.

Using the budget’s tax expenditure statements, an average working Australian would have to work around two full weeks a year to fund the capital gains tax and superannuation tax concessions.

While this comparison does not invalidate the Treasurer’s argument that the welfare system needs reform, it creates a problem for his narrative as it provides no reason to focus exclusively on welfare payments, of which roughly 40% are in the form of assistance to the aged, instead of, or in addition to, tax concessions.

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/class-war-claims-cant-change-unfair-budget,6571

Note: if you think that my toons of Abetz and Truss look very similar, it's simply because they look the same and often (all the time) blurt the same inanities... They look like twins except one wears bicycle clips with glasses over his nose and the other is deputy PM.

By HENRY M. PAULSON Jr.JUNE 21, 2014

THERE is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.

For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nation’s financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.

We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate bubble that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked.

This is a crisis we can’t afford to ignore. I feel as if I’m watching as we fly in slow motion on a collision course toward a giant mountain. We can see the crash coming, and yet we’re sitting on our hands rather than altering course.

We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. They’re right to consider the economic implications. But we must not lose sight of the profound economic risks of doing nothing.

The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response. We can do this by putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax. Few in the United States now pay to emit this potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere we all share. Putting a price on emissions will create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.

It’s true that the United States can’t solve this problem alone. But we’re not going to be able to persuade other big carbon polluters to take the urgent action that’s needed if we’re not doing everything we can do to slow our carbon emissions and mitigate our risks.

I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think it’s fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-solving. Looking back at the dark days of the financial crisis in 2008, it is easy to see the similarities between the financial crisis and the climate challenge we now face.

read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Henry Merritt "Hank" Paulson, Jr. (born March 28, 1946) is an American banker who served as the 74th United States Secretary of the Treasury. He had served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, and is now chairman of the Paulson Institute, which he founded in 2011 to promote sustainable economic growth and a cleaner environment around the world, with an initial focus on the United States and China.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

This is a clear lesson in reality that our little Turd-in-Chief, Tony Abbott, should pay attention to... But he won't. His catholic-selfish self told him to destroy the Carbon Tax and like a stupid man he will fight against proper solution to ward off climate change, because he said so... Idiot. Meanwhile according to Piers Ackerman, The "reasonable" Federal senate in Australia is soon to be invaded by clowns on July one...

There’s no better evidence of how much the Republican Party has changed on the environment than this: The fact that Environmental Protection Agency administrators who served under Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all think global warming is real and we should do something about it.

On Wednesday, this quartet – William Ruckelshaus, who served under both Nixon and Reagan; Lee Thomas, who served under Reagan; William Reilly, who served under George Bush Sr., and Christine Todd Whitman, who served under George W. Bush – testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee. But as the Huffington Post’s Kate Sheppard reports, the Republican senators present “mostly ignored” their testimony.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/jon-stewart-explains-how-to-make-gop-senators-care-about-climate/

The Greens have decided not to support the Abbott Government's bid to increase the fuel excise, effectively killing off the $2.3 billion budget measure.

Treasurer Joe Hockey announced in the May budget that the Government wanted to bring back twice-yearly indexation against the CPI for the fuel excise, with the first increase to kick in on August 1.

The Government said "every dollar" would go towards new roads.

Until now, the Greens had said they would support the fuel excise increase, but only if the money were to go towards improving public transport.

But the ABC has learned that the Greens have decided not to enter into any negotiations with the Government, judging that any talks would be "useless".

Labor's position is to vote against the measure, and last week the other potential source of votes in the new Senate - the Palmer United Party - made clear that it would not support the measure.

"We won't be voting for that for sure in the Senate," PUP leader Clive Palmer said last Monday.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/greens-to-vote-against-fuel-excise/5546148

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkz0n3mmkus