# Flood Levy - Do you agree?



## skc (27 January 2011)

FED:Gillard confirms one-off flood levy


> FED:Gillard confirms one-off flood levy
> 
> CANBERRA, Jan 27 AAP - The federal government will impose a
> one-off flood levy of 0.5 per cent for middle-income earners, Prime
> ...




So if you make $100K, it's extra $250.
If you make $200K, it's $1250.


----------



## nukz (27 January 2011)

Gillard dosn't want to go into a election with a deficit, this is just a political game.


----------



## matty77 (27 January 2011)

Not happy Jan... where am I meant to find over $1000 ??? 

I have no issue with paying a once off levy to help out the flood victims, the issue I have is they will raise how ever many billions of $ and end up wasting most of it anyway./..... If I was confident on the financial skills of the current government I would certainly have a different opinion.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2011)

I disagree with being forced to pay. There was a flood. So f'ing what!


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (27 January 2011)

matty77 said:


> Not happy Jan... where am I meant to find over $1000 ???



Same place you find the money for fuel, food, a roof over your head, electricity and the like - your hip pocket.


----------



## Calliope (27 January 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I disagree with being forced to pay. There was a flood. So f'ing what!




It's a disaster levy. The Gillard government is a disaster. It has wasted billions. The levy is to bail out the government.


----------



## sails (27 January 2011)

I agree with Costello and Hockey:

Julia Gillard attacked by Peter Costello, Joe Hockey over flood levy 



> But Mr Costello said the levy was ill-conceived.
> 
> “I'd say there's plenty of revenue bases there for the government,'' he said.
> 
> “There's income tax, company tax, the GST, there's excises - plenty of revenue bases there already for the government to balance its budget and engage in infrastructure spending.''




I think it simply highlights how fiscally irresponsible labor have been since 2007 with so much waste of their inherited surplus and seem unable to manage the revenue they already have from taxpayers. Now it appears there is nothing left in the kitty (except for NBN)...

PS:  there is a poll by the Herald Sun on the link above.  
With over 3000 votes, 82.55% so far are against the levy.


----------



## sails (27 January 2011)

As Noco mentioned in the Gillard Government thread, the levy will need to be passed by the senate.  Here's a bit more info:

Gillard's flood levy sets off wave of criticism



> A levy would be most likely to start on July 1 and last a year, expiring before the mining tax and potentially a carbon tax begin on July 1, 2012.
> 
> The levy would need the approval of the existing Senate, meaning the Greens, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding would have to support it.
> 
> The Greens have called for low-income earners to be exempt and want the mining tax to be ramped up to offer relief revenue.




I wonder how many Greens are low-income...


----------



## pedalofogus (27 January 2011)

What's the chances that it will end up being a 'one off' levy.  In 12 months time we will all be used to paying the extra tax, so she will come up with some reason that it needs to be extended for another year. Then it will end up being a 'full time' tax.  Just like the medicare levy.  Why don't they just can the medicare levy, can the flood levy, and adjust the actual tax rates so that people know exactly what tax rate they are paying.

Even better, why don't they just delay the building of the NBN and use the funds to do their flood rebuilding.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (27 January 2011)

How much revenue is generated through the coal mining royalties in QLD? And didn't they just sell half of a train-set recently? Surely there is money in the kitty for a bit of "rebuilding". It's not as if the WHOLE state was flooded!

From the bushfires in Victoria 2 years ago, was anything done about a fire levy for the uninsured? It's part of any insurance policy here in Victoria but those without insurance don't pay it and still expect the MFB or CFA to turn up!

If people can afford to own a home, surely they can afford to insure it? If you can't afford to replace an asset you insure it against damage / theft / fire / flood / locusts. Ok maybe not locusts.

Gascoyne Junction was wiped out last year by floods. Parts of Carnarvon also. WA survived. How far is this "levy" money going to go and what is it being spent on? Free home insulation... good grief... we know what happened last time that was attempted!


----------



## WaveSurfer (27 January 2011)

pedalofogus said:


> Even better, why don't they just delay the building of the NBN and use the funds to do their flood rebuilding.




Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I can't wait to download smut in under a second compared to 5-10 secs 

Are they going to ensure homes in flood prone areas are raised however many meters above sea level to ensure that they won't be flooded again? I highly doubt it.

I don't mind paying the levy if they try to fix the underlying problem, not just band aid it.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2011)

Warwick McCibbin was interviewed today (Reserve Bank member) and he was very clear about his disapproval of the levy.

Maybe a positive slant on it will be that it will be so overwhelmingly unpopular it will help ensure the eventual end of this wasteful bunch of idjits.


----------



## nioka (27 January 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I disagree with being forced to pay. There was a flood. So f'ing what!




:

Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.

I spent Australia day at Grantham. They worked all day there except for a half hour at midday when they held an Australia day MEMORIAL SERVICE. That's how a lot of good Australians spent anzac day.

In my long life I have seen many things that I would prefer to forget. the devastation there is way beyond anything I have ever seen.

The people there are the ones that normally sweat and toil to supply your supermarket with fruit and vegs. They dont earn much. They dont own much. Now they own less, in some cases nothing.

Thankfully they are not all like you. I took up a big load of donated goods. Donated by people that I know could not really afford to give. 

Our group is sending up 9 caravans GIFTED to flood victims with no strings attached. We also offered a car to one person. His answer was " I'm OK, A mate has lent me one, give it to someone that needs it more than I do".

We have only had to pay for 3 of the vans. The rest are donated. The three paid for are from donations. One van that was donated was one we looked at to buy but when the owner was told where it was going she told us that when she was a child her family lost their home in a flood. She remembers standing in the street after dark and asking her dad where were they going to sleep that night. She said she hoped no other child would ever have that problem.

Thank God there are still some with compassion.

Julia,
Woolworths offer dollar for dollar you say. Good. Was their offer of a better dollar for dollar than mine. Is theirs a better dollar. My dollar bought many many dollars worth of goods. Most times I try to spend it I get offered the goods or services gratis.  

Calliope,
Dont bother responding with your usual rubbishing post as I am logging off ASF and may or may not return. If I do it will only be to open stock threads.



Bring on a levy. At least it will make the mean heads help. Remember it is better that some get helped that did not need help than not help some that really need our help. It appears that some are more interested in saving a whale, a dog or a flying fox than helping some human being. That hip pocket nerve again!!!!!!!

Bye Bye


----------



## -Bevo- (27 January 2011)

skc said:


> So if you make $100K, it's extra $250.
> If you make $200K, it's $1250.




Shouldn't that read make $100K, its extra $500
If you make $200K, its $2000

All I can say is I'm glad I never donate any money, had labor not thrown money around like its confetti I wouldn't mind so much with a levy but then there probably wouldn't be any reason for one. :angry:


----------



## Uncle Festivus (27 January 2011)

Just another brick in the wall of moral hazard - don't need insurance now, just get a handout/bailout!

As long as they all get a new flat screen TV I guess?

That was the last nail in this gov's coffin for me!


----------



## prawn_86 (27 January 2011)

-Bevo- said:


> Shouldn't that read make $100K, its extra $500
> If you make $200K, its $2000




Its only on amounts over the 50k, not the entire 50k as far as i understand


----------



## -Bevo- (27 January 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Its only on amounts over the 50k, not the entire 50k as far as i understand




Yep your correct there, my bad.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/01/27/1225995/429057-aus-file-floodlevy.pdf


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (27 January 2011)

WaveSurfer said:


> Are they going to ensure homes in flood prone areas are raised however many meters above sea level to ensure that they won't be flooded again? I highly doubt it.



There was one guy interviewed during the flood (can't remember which channel it was on) that had been forced by local council to build the first floor (Queenslander) at a certain height. He didn't want to, but was forced to in order to get the building permit. During the flood it was only inches below the floorboards but nothing got wet. One council out of many doesn't fix the problem though.


----------



## nukz (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> :
> 
> Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.
> 
> ...




I think your confusing the disaster with the flood levy, i think everybody accepts its a huge disaster. 

What i don’t agree with is paying a tax so Gillard doesn’t have to cut programs like those promised to independents for example. If they had to cut programs then the Independents would want to come back to the negotiating table. 

This is much more a political game than anything to do with helping people.


----------



## Logique (27 January 2011)

Will flooded Vics and NSW get some of the money.

Labor inherited a hefty surplus, which in the eloquent words of Barnaby Joyce, they then proceeded to '..put up against the wall..'  They panicked during the GFC.

Now Labor comes to taxpayers cap in hand. The result of the poll is highly predictable.


----------



## prawn_86 (27 January 2011)

Yes i dont agree either. Those that have already donated are now being forced to 'donate' so to speak so essentially they will be giving a lot more. 

Governments should have funds set aside for natural disasters as we already pay high amounts of taxes that get wasted by inefficiencies anyway


----------



## matty77 (27 January 2011)

The old saying.... "put funds aside for a raining day" really seem to be quite suitable here, something the current government didnt do.....


----------



## pedalofogus (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> :
> 
> Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.
> 
> ...




ahahahaha.  Next time you want to get up on your high horse and say how much better than everyone else you are, how about you make sure that it actually relates to the topic of the thread.  This thread is about the FLOOD LEVY, not the actual flood itself.  No one here is debating the impact of the floods or the recovery action that should be taken by the various levels of government.  This thread is solely debating the blatant money grab that is being displayed by JG and her cabinet.

Maybe the anger you are feeling should be directed to Julia Gillard and her crew.  While everyone else was concerned about the impact the floods would have, she was sitting in her big office screaming 'you beauty!!! i have a scapegoat for my budget deficits'.  And the flood levy is just a way for Julia Gillard to avoid making some hard decisions.


----------



## sinner (27 January 2011)

What a ****ing joke! 

How can this be acceptable and Australia still called a capitalist economy?

As a product of what I thought was a capitalist economy, I was happy to distribute some of my "surplus deferred spending" in the form of donations and effort for many causes.

A number which was carefully crafted to give the maximum possible % of my monthly budget to those in need. 

Now I hear the Government wants to mess with *my* budget because they didn't get theirs right? Take money from my pocket and spend it on whose track record? Gillards? Rudds? Howards? Blighs?

No issue from me with showing compassion. As an Australian I would feel like a dog if I didn't. 

This is compassion at gunpoint. Way to show the whole country that *we don't have a single "rainy day dollar" saved up.*

Govt claims the levy will raise 1.85 bio AUD to pay approx 1/3 of the cleanup costs. 

For the record, they claim


> She said that for every extra dollar imposed on taxpayers, 2 dollars would be saved though scrapping or postponing spending.




all these "scrapping or postponing" is coming from the portfolio of green concepts that got this Government elected in the first place.

My opinion is that a levy is completely unnecessary, there are lots of places we could cut a little spending and probably do the world some good and no I don't mean cutting solar initiatives and green subsidies.

Maybe, just maybe, we would have a little money to spend if we weren't busy being Americas lapdog in the military-industrial front. 


> FIGHTING the war on terror has cost Australian taxpayers more than $20 billion since September 2001.
> 
> The Federal Government alone has spent or committed more than $11.5 billion on domestic and international counter-terrorism measures, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> ...




11 bio AUD! Enough to pay for the flood cleanup TOTAL, with 5bio left for balancing the budget, education, indigenous, healthcare and homelessness in that order.

Done. sinner for PM!


----------



## Logique (27 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Done. sinner for PM!



We could do worse.


----------



## Calliope (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> .........Calliope,
> Dont bother responding with your usual rubbishing post as I am logging off ASF and may or may not return. If I do it will only be to open stock threads...
> Bye Bye




Bye Bye he says as he departs in a high dudgeon, alone and unappreciated. He'll  be back after he takes a few aspros for his headache after all that head banging.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 January 2011)

Local councils and their buddies the property developers are entirely to blame.   They allowed people to build when they knew the lie of the land.  Nothing to do with Gillard.  She's picking up the pieces as best she knows how.  Turnbull will make some sort of move for top office soon and the whole country will sigh relief.  Men generally make better leaders, and the more old fashioned and blue-blood, the better.  :


----------



## Liar's Poker (27 January 2011)

So much for living on high ground in the hills of Adelaide. 

They should rename it Noah's Ark Levy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> :
> 
> Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.
> 
> ...



 Typical bleedin' heart response. 

There are people losing their possessions and lives all over the world every day due to being overwhelmed by nature. I wish the people of the floods all the best to recovery but assistance wise I feel "donations" of time, money or goods is the compassion due to anyone.

Most of us experience loss to a greater or lesser degree during one lifetime with "no expectation" of financial, physical or emotional help.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

Meh.....
 I thought the levy was going to be worse then what it turned out to be. Probably because of labors ramping the original levy cost, then scaling it back today so it didn't seem so bad.
I can live with it. I'm not happy about it considering I have already made large donations. If they keep the levy past 12 months I will be abusing labor in the streets. There is enough tax as it is in this country.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 January 2011)

The thing is, it has to be paid for somehow, so there's no choice.  No point complaining.

The only concern I have is that large scale natural disasters seem to be much more common nowadays, so we might need this as an ongoing levy.  May also need an additional levy for helping other countries with their natural disasters.

Meanwhile.... back at the Insurance company, the big shots are having a little chuckle about how to word the fine print for next years contracts.


----------



## nulla nulla (27 January 2011)

I am amazed and apalled at the level of selfishness displayed by many of the previous posters. So many of whom consider themselves to be expert traders making a fortune through the various markets. 
I am ashamed at the depth of selfishness and resentment expressed by some, in being expected to cough up what would be a pittance in the overall wealth they generate each year, for the purpose of fast tracking the rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas.
I find it contemptable, the finger pointing blame game for political parties not having a contingency plan in place to deal with a 100 year or 200 year flood as if this could be expected, planned for etc. 
The hypocracy, of those rabbitting on about their levels of generosity in tax deductable donations versus their willingness to contribute a levy  based on a sliding scale of their taxable income, is laughable.
In my opinion, your appalling carry-on is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves Australian. Maybe this site should be renamed "The mean-fisted tightarse forum"


----------



## sinner (27 January 2011)

moXJO said:


> Meh.....
> I thought the levy was going to be worse then what it turned out to be. Probably because of labors ramping the original levy cost, then scaling it back today so it didn't seem so bad.
> I can live with it. I'm not happy about it considering I have already made large donations. If they keep the levy past 12 months I will be abusing labor in the streets. There is enough tax as it is in this country.




Sounds incongruent.

Face it, Govt is asking us to tighten our belts a little to help out because there is nothing left in the pantry! Why don't they tighten their belts!







According to this chart, the Govt costs nothing. I mean, which slice does the maintenance of the lawns of Parliament fit under? Is the golden handshake pension+car service,etc we give all departing politicians a "general government service"? How many visits to facebook or ebay have we funded and where does that fit on the pie?

I put it to the crowd that there is without a doubt one section of this pie which is nothing but hidden fat and probably only a small % of it would be required to pay for the whole cleanup.


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> :
> 
> Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.
> 
> ...




Great work Nokia man of action 

As for the levy infrastructure needs rebuilding for QLD that will benefit of all Australians.

What we don't need is a opposition leader hinting not to donate because you will pay through tax.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Sounds incongruent.
> 
> Face it, Govt is asking us to tighten our belts a little to help out because there is nothing left in the pantry! Why don't they tighten their belts!
> 
> ...




Oh trust me I see the waste by government. There is enough fat there to cut more than a few billion out of. The amount of bureaucracy in this country is unbelievable. The amount I have to put up with in small business is BS. But I love QLD (don't trust the government waste spending to fix it) and want to see it back on track.



> I am amazed and apalled at the level of selfishness displayed by many of the previous posters. So many of whom consider themselves to be expert traders making a fortune through the various markets.
> I am ashamed at the depth of selfishness and resentment expressed by some, in being expected to cough up what would be a pittance in the overall wealth they generate each year, for the purpose of fast tracking the rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas.



These comments are made a lot, but at some point people say enough is enough. We still have to cop a carbon tax yet on a host of taxes we have already copped.
Like I said I can cop the flood levy, but like a lot of other people I have reached my fill over government taxes and waste.


----------



## Calliope (27 January 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Meanwhile.... back at the Insurance company, the big shots are having a little chuckle about how to word the fine print for next years contracts.




What's all this talk about "fine print." on insurance policies. Anyone who  can't, or doesn't, read and understand their policy is either a fool or a liar.


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I am amazed and apalled at the level of selfishness displayed by many of the previous posters. So many of whom consider themselves to be expert traders making a fortune through the various markets.
> I am ashamed at the depth of selfishness and resentment expressed by some, in being expected to cough up what would be a pittance in the overall wealth they generate each year, for the purpose of fast tracking the rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas.
> I find it contemptable, the finger pointing blame game for political parties not having a contingency plan in place to deal with a 100 year or 200 year flood as if this could be expected, planned for etc.
> The hypocracy, of those rabbitting on about their levels of generosity in tax deductable donations versus their willingness to contribute a levy  based on a sliding scale of their taxable income, is laughable.
> In my opinion, your appalling carry-on is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves Australian. Maybe this site should be renamed "The mean-fisted tightarse forum"




I agree Nulla stunned by the me me me response


----------



## explod (27 January 2011)

WaveSurfer said:


> Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> 
> I can't wait to download smut in under a second compared to 5-10 secs
> 
> ...




So you would agree that we need to do something about reducing global warming?


----------



## nulla nulla (27 January 2011)

moXJO said:


> These comments are made a lot, but at some point people say enough is enough. We still have to cop a carbon tax yet on a host of taxes we have already copped.
> Like I said I can cop the flood levy, but like a lot of other people I have reached my fill over government taxes and waste.
> Typical socialist BS opinion, pull your head out of your ****.




I wouldn't expect anything less from you. In the face of being unable to offer any justifiable moral or practical reason for there not being a levy to assist with the fast-tracked rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas, you resort to stereotypical responses like all the other Tony Abbott supporters. You should consider removing your head from his **** and having an objective look around.

Too slow on the edit, eh. Your true cololurs are out in the open.


----------



## nukz (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I am amazed and apalled at the level of selfishness displayed by many of the previous posters. So many of whom consider themselves to be expert traders making a fortune through the various markets.
> I am ashamed at the depth of selfishness and resentment expressed by some, in being expected to cough up what would be a pittance in the overall wealth they generate each year, for the purpose of fast tracking the rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas.
> I find it contemptable, the finger pointing blame game for political parties not having a contingency plan in place to deal with a 100 year or 200 year flood as if this could be expected, planned for etc.
> The hypocracy, of those rabbitting on about their levels of generosity in tax deductable donations versus their willingness to contribute a levy  based on a sliding scale of their taxable income, is laughable.
> In my opinion, your appalling carry-on is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves Australian. Maybe this site should be renamed "The mean-fisted tightarse forum"




You can save your shame, do you have any idea what this discussion is even about?

Ａｌｔｈｏｕｇｈ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ，　ｙｏｕ　ｄｉｄ　ｂｒｉｎｇ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｕｐ．　Ｍｙ　ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ　ｗｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ｗｈｙ　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｓｏｍｅｂｏｄｙ　ｐａｙ　ｌｏｔｓ　ｍｏｒｅ　ｌｅｖｙ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　ｔｈｅｙ　ａｒｅ　ｓｕｃｃｅｓｓｆｕｌ？you sound like a poli because they have such high morals....


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 January 2011)

An example of fine print would be "water damage" not being the same as "flood damage".

Perhaps you would have picked that up?


----------



## Tyler Durden (27 January 2011)

I'm speculating here, but I'm sure the government has enough money to help out the flood affected areas without imposing a levy. If I'm wrong, then it's kinda scary to know that the government cannot afford to help even a part of a state, it's not like it was the whole of QLD that was flooded.

Putting that aside, I agree that a levy should be imposed. However, what is unfair is that the levy doesn't take into account donations people have already made. Why should someone who has already donated $1,000 voluntarily be forced to pay the same as someone who's was too selfish to pay up in the first place?

Maybe if people knew about the levy earlier, they would'nt have made those voluntary donations.

Also, is the levy going to be tax deductible like donations are??? If not, doesn't that mean we're getting double ripped??


----------



## nulla nulla (27 January 2011)

nukz said:


> You can save your shame, do you have any idea what this discussion is even about?
> 
> Ａｌｔｈｏｕｇｈ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ，　ｙｏｕ　ｄｉｄ　ｂｒｉｎｇ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｕｐ．　Ｍｙ　ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ　ｗｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ｗｈｙ　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｓｏｍｅｂｏｄｙ　ｐａｙ　ｌｏｔｓ　ｍｏｒｅ　ｌｅｖｙ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　ｔｈｅｙ　ａｒｅ　ｓｕｃｃｅｓｓｆｕｌ？you sound like a poli because they have such high morals....




I hope it is better than sounding like a self absorbed parrot.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I wouldn't expect anything less from you. In the face of being unable to offer any justifiable moral or practical reason for there not being a levy to assist with the fast-tracked rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas, you resort to stereotypical responses like all the other Tony Abbott supporters. You should consider removing your head from his **** and having an objective look around.




I'm sorry there is enough money there in your beloved party’s waste without having to slug us again.


----------



## explod (27 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> I agree Nulla stunned by the me me me response




Absolutely with Nulla Nulla as well.   Everyone is take, the cupboard has to be replenished somehow and no matter how wealthy you become, and a bit to the kids is fine, but you cannot take a cent with you.

The poll result above makes me feel ashamed.


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2011)

Will a real Liberal / Australian please stand up......... Barnett defies Abbott over flood levy



> Liberal West Australian Premier Colin Barnett is at odds with Federal Liberal Leader Tony Abbott over the flood levy.






> "I believe most Australians, most West Australians, are willing to contribute a little bit more to help Queensland get back on its feet. So I think that is appropriate," he said.
> 
> Mr Barnett believes most Australians will not have a problem with the temporary measure.
> 
> "If it does mean some other infrastructure projects around Australia are delayed or put back for 12 months, I think we can live with that in the interest of helping out Queenslanders," he said.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Too slow on the edit, eh. Your true cololurs are out in the open.



 No I am happy to call you a high horse socialist wanker in a public forum. But it wasn't really called for at the time. And also out of respect for Joes forum rules.
Sorry Joe


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 January 2011)

Consider that the more generous and free you are with your money, the more flows in.
The tighter you are, the harder things become.

Sorry to be new-agey, but it's true.


----------



## nulla nulla (27 January 2011)

moXJO said:


> I'm sorry there is enough money there in your beloved party’s waste without having to slug us again.




I respectfully suggest that you stop to consider what it will actually cost you, come next July. Then ask yourself objectively "Is this really so much of a slug if it really does go to fastracking the rebuilding of damaged infratstructure in flood effected areas?"

I would be surprised if, after looking at the actual personal cost to you, that you considered it a "slug" and an innapropriate one at that. 

As for my "beloved party", I can fault find the labour party just as easily as the liberal party and the greens. However I can't quite make the connection for blaming Julia Gillard for trying to take some decisive action for cleaning up after the floods, quickly.


----------



## nulla nulla (27 January 2011)

moXJO said:


> No I am happy to call you a high horse socialist wanker in a public forum. But it wasn't really called for at the time. And also out of respect for Joes forum rules.
> Sorry Joe




Hmmm. I guess asking you to look at anything objectively is a waste of time when you debate on this level.


----------



## namrog (27 January 2011)

I don't know if it's been covered or not, because I haven't read every single post in this thread, but as Australia is so prone to natural disasters, floods, bush fires, hurricanes, earth quakes, etc, would it not be appropriate to set up a fund, funded by tax payers via the federal government, whether or not derived from existing taxes, or one off levies,  dedicated only to natural disaster relief.. not run by either state, or fed  government, but an at call volunteer committee , consisting of those respected by both sides of politics, and chaired by someone similar to the chair of the reserve bank for example, so that the funds go directly to those in need, eliminating the possibility of political interference ..? 

Or , does such a fund exist already...?

May not be workable, but has to be worth considering in some form or other..


----------



## ROE (27 January 2011)

Give and you shall received .. happy to pay the levy a little more is ok with me too


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I respectfully suggest that you stop to consider what it will actually cost you, come next July. Then ask yourself objectively "Is this really so much of a slug if it really does go to fastracking the rebuilding of damaged infratstructure in flood effected areas?"
> 
> I would be surprised if, after looking at the actual personal cost to you, that you considered it a "slug" and an innapropriate one at that.
> 
> As for my "beloved party", I can fault find the labour party just as easily as the liberal party and the greens. However I can't quite make the connection for blaming Julia Gillard for trying to take some decisive action for cleaning up after the floods, quickly.




Could you add up all those other taxes/ wasted money that labor has added to? Your right it is only a small sum, but they are all adding up. Add to this living in NSW and the absolute disgusting nature that state labor has governed (and no I don't have faith in the libs to do much better). 
Hmmm isn't there a childcare levy, ETS and then miner’s tax coming soon to top it off. At what point do you say "ok that’s enough"?
How about do away with some of the pork barreling / middle class welfare if you want to show some courage.
Like I said I don't have a problem paying the levy considering the reason. But I don't support levies, new taxes and wasted money in general for whatever reason when they are wasted in the manner they are.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2011)

matty77 said:


> The old saying.... "put funds aside for a raining day" really seem to be quite suitable here, something the current government didnt do.....



The floods are a disaster yes. I am more than happy to do my bit to help with this national disaster.

HOWEVER, a great many people have commented over the past few years that this government was failing to set aside money "just in case" something bad happened. That comment has been made on various threads on ASF over the years and elsewhere.

As anyone with a bit of sense knows, sooner or later something goes wrong. You just don't get a run of constant good luck.

If it hadn't been a flood in Qld then it could have been an earthquake in NSW, fires in Vic / Tas / SA, some sort of disaster involving key critical infrastructure, terrorism, drought or whatever. Sooner or later, something is pretty certain to go wrong and that is why you put money aside to be able to cope when it does.

I'm happy to help the people in Qld just like I would be happy to help the people in NSW, ACT, Vic, SA, WA or NT and hopefully the favour would be returned if something drastic ever happens here in Tas. But I object absolutely to being asked to bail out a government which failed to plan for the inevitability that sooner or later, some sort of disaster would happen somewhere in Australia.

Floods, droughts, fires and so on are things that we all know happens from time to time and for which money should already have been set aside.


----------



## Calliope (27 January 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> An example of fine print would be "water damage" not being the same as "flood damage".
> 
> Perhaps you would have picked that up?




As I said, even a fool or a liar could pick that up.


----------



## Solly (27 January 2011)

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We, ASFers, are amongst the richest people in the whole world, living in a remarkable extreme land. So what if we are slugged a once off $50-$200. I doubt if anybody here would really miss this amount. If JG's got it wrong, no big deal, at least it will go to restoring infrastructure, providing jobs, reducing the deficient, etc.

In my non-virtual world I have seen some of this destruction and human devastation first hand. I'm willing to pay to hopefully get the lives of those affected back to some sort of normality as soon as possible. You don't need a complete understanding of extreme value theory to realise that major events like these can happened at the most unexpected times.

Looks like it's going to cost me the price of a few caffÃ¨ lattes with some hangers-on and decent bottle of red. I'll survive.


----------



## Surly (27 January 2011)

The reason flood is typically excluded from insurance policies is only those that live in a flood prone area will ever benefit. Those that don't live in a flood zone are unlikely to ever claim. The many subsidise the few...just as they would with a levy.

Are those people that have suffered flood damage two years in a row going to be rebuilt at the tax payers expense to possibly go through the same again next year?

cheers
Surly


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Consider that the more generous and free you are with your money, the more flows in.
> The tighter you are, the harder things become.
> 
> Sorry to be new-agey, but it's true.




Ah yes. A friend with money is a friend indeed.


----------



## Lone Wolf (27 January 2011)

The question being discussed here is "Do you agree with the flood levy?". You can't tell anything about a person by their answer to that question. Just because someone disagrees with the levy in its current form doesn't make them a terrible person. Apparently, if something is done for a good cause it should be exempt from criticism... crap. If the situation has been handled poorly then people have the right to speak their mind without having to defend their character.

So before anyone else decides to tell the world how ashamed they are of people who oppose the levy, step back and understand that you can't tell anything about a person from a single poll on a forum. 

As for the usual comment of "So what if it's poorly handled, you can afford it." Sure, but just because you can afford it doesn't make it right. The topic for discussion here is "Do you agree with the flood levy?", not "Can you afford the flood levy". 

Yeah, I know, I'm a terrible person.


----------



## tech/a (27 January 2011)

Whats all the fuss about.
A couple of Hundred bucks.

I certainly supported the fund raising and Ill pay a levy.

But I do ask.
Where does the Govt. money stop flowing and the fund raising money start to be used?
What about over seas donations?

*WHO'S ACCOUNTABLE?*


----------



## So_Cynical (27 January 2011)

tech/a said:


> Whats all the fuss about.
> A couple of Hundred bucks.
> 
> I certainly supported the fund raising and Ill pay a levy.




Im with tech.

---------------------------------

I'm probably the poorest person on this forum (poorest 20% anyway) and i don't have an issue with the lousy 150 or whatever its gona cost me....and if the tables were turned id be more than happy to pay 2K if i had an income of 200K. 

What is it about money and perspective?


----------



## ROE (27 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The floods are a disaster yes. I am more than happy to do my bit to help with this national disaster.
> 
> HOWEVER, a great many people have commented over the past few years that this government was failing to set aside money "just in case" something bad happened. That comment has been made on various threads on ASF over the years and elsewhere.
> 
> ...




I used to think like that, you know all the charity and stuff they just use disaster and events like these to raise money and the 60 minutes program on red cross that just used the public sentiment to their advantages and a lot of cash go to waste on the CEO salary and whatever else but the actual cause.

One day it just struct me if people think like I do, who give to charity? 

so I change my way of thinking  if I give with good intention and if people like red cross or the government or any else go and wasted then it's not on my watch and it's not my dirty hand.. 

it is the person responsible with the money I given them and karma will come back one day and catch up to them if they don't do the right thing.

from that day on it doesn't bother me any more fairly happy to give whether it's a levy, pocket change or a cheque


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2011)

Solly said:


> I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. We, ASFers, are amongst the richest people in the whole world, living in a remarkable extreme land. So what if we are slugged a once off $50-$200. I doubt if anybody here would really miss this amount.




When I pay $25 000 in income tax per year (a percentage of money from my blood and sweat earnings) I believe that is sufficient contribution to a "system" in which I have no direct say in what happens with it.


----------



## Julia (27 January 2011)

-Bevo- said:


> All I can say is I'm glad I never donate any money, had labor not thrown money around like its confetti I wouldn't mind so much with a levy but then there probably wouldn't be any reason for one. :angry:



I think this sums up how many of us feel, i.e. we wouldn't object to the levy if it were imposed by a government who had been financially responsible.  Obviously the actual amount imposed is not the issue.
But it is essentially purely political in terms of fixing the damage but still allowing the government to climb toward its target of a surplus.




nukz said:


> I think your confusing the disaster with the flood levy, i think everybody accepts its a huge disaster.
> 
> What i don’t agree with is paying a tax so Gillard doesn’t have to cut programs like those promised to independents for example. If they had to cut programs then the Independents would want to come back to the negotiating table.
> 
> This is much more a political game than anything to do with helping people.



Exactly.




matty77 said:


> Not happy Jan... where am I meant to find over $1000 ???
> 
> I have no issue with paying a once off levy to help out the flood victims, the issue I have is they will raise how ever many billions of $ and end up wasting most of it anyway./..... If I was confident on the financial skills of the current government I would certainly have a different opinion.



Again, correct.




Uncle Festivus said:


> Just another brick in the wall of moral hazard - don't need insurance now, just get a handout/bailout!
> 
> As long as they all get a new flat screen TV I guess?
> 
> That was the last nail in this gov's coffin for me!



Yep, moral hazard again indeed.
However, I might be wrong but my understanding is that the flood levy is to go to the Qld & Vic governments to repair vital infrastructure, rather than being directed to individual home and business owners who, as far as I know, will stand to benefit from the donated funds.

Probably we should be clear about just what the flood levy is supposed to be paying for.




Gringotts Bank said:


> Local councils and their buddies the property developers are entirely to blame.   They allowed people to build when they knew the lie of the land.  Nothing to do with Gillard.  She's picking up the pieces as best she knows how.  Turnbull will make some sort of move for top office soon and the whole country will sigh relief.  Men generally make better leaders, and the more old fashioned and blue-blood, the better.  :



I don't think the issue is simply gender.  Rather the quality of the person.  Tony Abbott is male.  I don't think that automatically makes him more competent to lead Australia.  Turnbull had his chance and blew it dramatically.

 As far as the comments from the usual quarter about being ashamed of their fellow Australians for expressing disgust about the levy are concerned, for heaven's sake just for once acknowledge the flaws in your much loved Labor Party.

Those expressing anger at the imposition of a levy are not at all being uncharitable toward their fellow Australians, and many have already given generously, so just damn well get off your moral high horse.  The continual posturing is becoming tired and tiresome.

Can't you see that the objection is not at all about unwillingness to give to our fellow citizens, but a disgust at this political quasi solution to a government in trouble and without ideas?  Meantime, they continue to dole out the middle class welfare.

One thing that has happened today that has made me laugh is Christine Milne's fury about the scrapping of the various Green initiatives.  It's almost worth the imposition of the levy to see her so upset!  Just can't stand that woman.


----------



## Intrinsic Value (27 January 2011)

At the end of the day most of us wont notice a little bit extra going out in tax.

And of course it is for a good cause.

But it still irks in a way considering the wastage that is going on.

I wonder for the government if it is a very politically astutue move?

Judging by the response of many probably not.

The Labour party really are pretty dumb when you think about it.

They were hammered over the mining tax yet they are still dumb enough to come up with another tax for the QLD flood crisis.

They could have back doored higher taxes later on down the track and solved the problem without all the flak they are going to receive from this latest tax.

Dumb politics really.


----------



## Joe Blow (27 January 2011)

Ladies and gentlemen: I have noticed some insults creeping into this thread and I do not wish to see any more. It *is* possible to debate issues such as this one and disagree with others without resorting to insults and personal attacks. 

Thank you for your co-operation.


----------



## tothemax6 (27 January 2011)

nioka said:


> :
> 
> Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.
> 
> ...





nulla nulla said:


> I am amazed and apalled at the level of selfishness displayed by many of the previous posters. So many of whom consider themselves to be expert traders making a fortune through the various markets.
> I am ashamed at the depth of selfishness and resentment expressed by some, in being expected to cough up what would be a pittance in the overall wealth they generate each year, for the purpose of fast tracking the rebuilding of infrastructure in flood effected areas.
> I find it contemptable, the finger pointing blame game for political parties not having a contingency plan in place to deal with a 100 year or 200 year flood as if this could be expected, planned for etc.
> The hypocracy, of those rabbitting on about their levels of generosity in tax deductable donations versus their willingness to contribute a levy  based on a sliding scale of their taxable income, is laughable.
> In my opinion, your appalling carry-on is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves Australian. Maybe this site should be renamed "The mean-fisted tightarse forum"





IFocus said:


> I agree Nulla stunned by the me me me response



Typical 'shrieking ' responses. There is a difference between a donation, volunteering (which I did), and government expropriation with new taxes.
Do you think the government will outperform free men in helping flood victims? Do you think it is more efficient to pipe the money through the government, as it leaks out through bureaucratic and corrupt holes in the pipework, and hope it gets where it needs to go? 
This is nothing to do with the flood. This is about tax. They are using the word 'flood' to morally launder the new tax, which has arisen from their reckless spending spree that destroyed the surplus and made a big debt.
If we give the government ONE moral inch, they will take a mile and tax more and more and more. At the very least, every citizens moral duty is to oppose any even slight increase in tax, with all the vitriol he can muster, and then to demand lower taxes.


----------



## trainspotter (27 January 2011)

I gave a $1000 to the Premiers fund. Now I have to give another $1000 to the Guvmint as a "levy" ??? How is this equitable? Will stop me from donating anything further to any "disaster" just in case the Socialists decide to attract a further finger in my wallet.


----------



## Calliope (27 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> What is it about money and perspective?




It depends on whether you trust Gillard or not. Obviously you do. You are not so cynical after all.


----------



## moXJO (27 January 2011)

Joe Blow said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: I have noticed some insults creeping into this thread and I do not wish to see any more. It *is* possible to debate issues such as this one and disagree with others without resorting to insults and personal attacks.
> 
> Thank you for your co-operation.




Yeah fab four, so punch that up your ar... oh wait you’re talking to me. 
Duly noted


----------



## trainspotter (27 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> I find it contemptable, the finger pointing blame game for political parties not having a contingency plan in place to deal with a 100 year or 200 year flood as if this could be expected, planned for etc.
> The hypocracy, of those rabbitting on about their levels of generosity in tax deductable donations versus their willingness to contribute a levy  based on a sliding scale of their taxable income, is laughable.
> In my opinion, your appalling carry-on is a disgrace to anyone calling themselves Australian. Maybe this site should be renamed "The mean-fisted tightarse forum"




Hmmmmmmmm ........ You need to think about a few things here Nulla Nulla. This kind of "disaster" is NOT a once in a 100 - 200 year thing !!!!!!!!

1) 1979 - 1983 record droughts and Farmers got no assistance. No Levy
2) 1983 Ash Wednesday and 2003 Black Saturday ... No Levy
(While the 1939 'Black Friday' bushfires in Victoria killed 71 people, the accompanying heatwave - claimed *438 *lives and yet remains largely unacknowledged.)
3) QLD (Brisbane) 1974 FLOODED and Charlieville in 1990....... No Levy
4) Cyclone ADA 1970 and Cyclone Tracy 1974 as well as Cyclone Larry in 2006. (Which caused inflation due to the cost of bananas and Westpac to lift interst rates) NO LEVY !!!!!!!!
5) This is all in my living memory. I am sure there would be more predating what I have written ......... NO LEVY either.

It would appear to me that the current Guvmint has been caught swimming without any bathers on now that the tide has gone out !!!! 

Reminds me of this little gem ....... Old Mother Hubbard Went to the cupboard. To get her poor doggie a bone, When she got there. The cupboard was bare. So the poor little doggie had none.


----------



## IFocus (27 January 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Typical 'shrieking ' responses. There is a difference between a donation, volunteering (which I did), and government expropriation with new taxes.
> Do you think the government will outperform free men in helping flood victims? Do you think it is more efficient to pipe the money through the government, as it leaks out through bureaucratic and corrupt holes in the pipework, and hope it gets where it needs to go?
> This is nothing to do with the flood. This is about tax. They are using the word 'flood' to morally launder the new tax, which has arisen from their reckless spending spree that destroyed the surplus and made a big debt.
> If we give the government ONE moral inch, they will take a mile and tax more and more and more. At the very least, every citizens moral duty is to oppose any even slight increase in tax, with all the vitriol he can muster, and then to demand lower taxes.




How do you propose to fix the government built / controlled infrastructure damage then.........


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2011)

I disagree with the levy.

It's just more socialist crap from a government in bed with the Greens. The Coalition were not much better with some of their levy/surcharge nonsense in their early years of government.

In terms of tax reform, it's another step backwards, and, of course there will be another disaster in 12-months time of sufficient magnitude to maintain the levy.

Any government should live within it's means, not just slug taxpayers more when the going gets a little tough.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2011)

Julia said:


> Probably we should be clear about just what the flood levy is supposed to be paying for.



 Has anyone heard of what essential "community" infrastructure needs repair/rebuilding?


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2011)

What's Colin Barnett up to ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/27/3123384.htm


> He says some WA transport projects, especially the interchange and roads around Perth airport, would be one option as they could be delayed for a year or two without much of an impact.



It's not often that state governments throw away federal government infrastructure offerings.

The road projects around Perth Ariport have allready been delayed till 2014 and as an occasional user of those roads around the airport (Tonkin Highway), peak traffic is terrible.


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2011)

trainspotter said:


> 1) 1979 - 1983 record droughts and Farmers got no assistance. No Levy
> 2) 1983 Ash Wednesday and 2003 Black Saturday ... No Levy
> (While the 1939 'Black Friday' bushfires in Victoria killed 71 people, the accompanying heatwave - claimed *438 *lives and yet remains largely unacknowledged.)
> 3) QLD (Brisbane) 1974 FLOODED and Charlieville in 1990....... No Levy
> ...



Now it's just more and more bloody tax. Any excuse will do.

The Coalition started it though, but these economic mental midgits have taken it to a whole new level.


----------



## sails (27 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> How do you propose to fix the government built / controlled infrastructure damage then.........




It's called "living within your means".  It means not spending funds that should have been set aside for natural disasters.  Technically, I believe we are being taxed for something that we have paid for in our existing taxes.

I posted a link earlier in this thread where Peter Costello stated that Ms Gillard has plenty of revenue coming in to deal with this crisis without a further tax.

I don't think for a minute that anyone wants to see Qld infrastructure not get fixed.  It's simply another tax that is then up to the government on where and how it is to be spent. How do we know if it is actually going to get the job done or be spent wisely? Why are labor leaders looking so jubliant with this new pot of money?

Labor haven't given us much confidence in how they handle these major projects in the past.  What if this turns out to be another BER or pink batts disaster?  Will the levy be enough to cover typical waste as has been the case with other projects?


----------



## drsmith (27 January 2011)

Bob Katter should be taken out the back and shot.



> Mr Katter wants a smaller,* permanent levy *with all the proceeds to go to a national fund. He says farmers also need government grants for replanting crops.




Why not just have a smaller, permanent levy for every federal representative's pet issue.  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/27/3123429.htm?section=justin

And, the Greens won't be happy until where all "lights out" at 8pm.


----------



## skc (28 January 2011)

What would I do if my house was flooded and I had no insurance or money to repair my home? I guess I will have to do a combination of things below:

1. Leave certain things un-repaired
2. Rely on good will of others (e.g. get neighbours to help)
3. Make sacrifices in other spendings to save some money for repairs
4. Work extra hard for more income
5. Borrow money to get repairs done earlier

The government has done 2 (i.e. the donations) and 3, and they can impose a levy which the average individual cannot. 

They probably didn't consider 5 as an option, as debt is seen as some evil with unacceptable political consequences. But it seems that the political consequences now are probably just as bad.

I think the flood levy will turn people off from making a lot of in-kind donations. Like tradie who work for free helping people out - they are literally tens of thousands of dollar out of pocket in lost income. They should be exempted from the levy (although difficult to prove).

I wouldn't think raising debt to pay for disasters as a big negative come election, but I would view adhoc levies very negatively. For example, government can sell a 'flood bond' (like a war bond) to raise the necessary funds.

I am not against the idea of a levy, but I would like to see the other options explored before we jump to that conclusion.   




Tyler Durden said:


> Also, is the levy going to be tax deductible like donations are??? If not, doesn't that mean we're getting double ripped??




Tax deductible levy? You are dreaming! If that is the case, for every $1 the government collects in levy they lose ~30c in tax dollar. It would not make any sense.


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 January 2011)

Two questions

What happened to the Future Fund set up by Peter Costello when he was Treasurer?

Can anyone on ASF honestly calculate the total amount of the Rudd administration's $900 fiscal GFC stimulus hand-out and/whether or not this was greater than the 5.4 bill flood tax levy? 

DISC: Not a sycophant of any party


----------



## Liar's Poker (28 January 2011)

Just to clarify, I have no problem with having my money going to a cause. Ever since I earn't my first dollar, I have always donated a percentage of my salary to charity.

My problem with the levy, is the way it is being applied. 

*The levy is un-Australian. *

Australia is a country where people have a high degree of freedom and choice. It is Australian to donate out of the goodness of your heart. 

If I was sent a letter that asked if I wanted to participate, I would agree to - give people a choice to participate, to feel proud that they have contributed to a worthy cause. Don't just take away peoples right to make a decision.

Or at least let me choose where a portion of it goes so I feel a sense of ownership. For me, I would much rather have my levy go to the WSPCA.

I will be extremely dissapointed if my levy contributes to rebuilding on-grade housing next to rivers or flood plains. I can deal with tax, I can't deal with ignorance.

 

-Liar-


----------



## tothemax6 (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> How do you propose to fix the government built / controlled infrastructure damage then.........



That doesn't even make sense. You are implying that the governments expenditure is fixed and efficient, that they tax precisely this much to pay for it, and that the floods have disrupted the expenditure towards the upside. Clearly wrong. The government splurges money randomly on its various wasteful projects, and the spending frenzy (for which we have nothing to show) following the GFC was case in point.

They could privatize more, they could spend less on wasteful government projects, they could have retained the surplus. If you legitimize increased government tax, you give them moral sanction to ever-increase their spending, and in turn then saying 'we need more taxation to cover the bill'.


----------



## Sean K (28 January 2011)

I don't quite understand how they have come to a $$ figure so quickly. How do they really know how much the public infrastructure rebuilding is going to cost? When Victorias floods haven't even subsided? And the Gov does have a slush fund for these types of events around $5b I believe. Maybe that's paying for the War...

I am very happy to chip in, but I would have liked to have seen them wait and count the costs a little better to determine what's really required.

And I don't quite understand the $1.9b cuts in climate initiatives. The greatest crisis of our generation, or whatever, caused this didn't it? I'm confused...


----------



## Julia (28 January 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Has anyone heard of what essential "community" infrastructure needs repair/rebuilding?



Um, weren't you looking at the nightly TV footage of roads and bridges being swept away?   Schools and various other institutional buildings ruined.


----------



## nulla nulla (28 January 2011)

Julia said:


> As far as the comments from the usual quarter about being ashamed of their fellow Australians for expressing disgust about the levy are concerned, for heaven's sake just for once acknowledge the flaws in your much loved Labor Party.




If you read on you would see my post acknowledging the faults of the labour party. 



> Those expressing anger at the imposition of a levy are not at all being uncharitable toward their fellow Australians, and many have already given generously, so just damn well get off your moral high horse.  The continual posturing is becoming tired and tiresome.




My contempt for the tightfisted meanness displayed isn't "posturing" it is contempt. The generous donations to charities will mostly make their way to the needy people experiencing hardship. The charitable donations will not rebuild the roads, bridges, airports etc.



> Can't you see that the objection is not at all about unwillingness to give to our fellow citizens, but a disgust at this political quasi solution to a government in trouble and without ideas?  Meantime, they continue to dole out the middle class welfare.




I can see quite clearly the generosity of people in giving to our fellow citizens. It is something Australians are good at, locally and internationaly. Unfortunately we are also good at turning a fast track rebuilding effort into a political football for the hope of scoring a few political points. In respect of "middle class welfare".  I respecfully remind you that it was Tony Abbott that wanted to introduce a levy on bussiness of 1.5% to cover his plan to provide paid maternity leave for of up to $75,000 to people on high incomes to take 12 months maternity leave.



> One thing that has happened today that has made me laugh is Christine Milne's fury about the scrapping of the various Green initiatives.  It's almost worth the imposition of the levy to see her so upset!  Just can't stand that woman.




It will be interesting to see the extent of the greens re-action to cuts in their programs and whether they are affronted enough to bring down the government. I doubt it.


----------



## nulla nulla (28 January 2011)

Joe Blow said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: I have noticed some insults creeping into this thread and I do not wish to see any more. It *is* possible to debate issues such as this one and disagree with others without resorting to insults and personal attacks.
> 
> Thank you for your co-operation.




Noted. I will reframe from posting further in this thread. Wouldn't want to get banned for upsetting some pious, self-righteous, tightfisted posters.


----------



## tigerboi (28 January 2011)

pedalofogus said:


> What's the chances that it will end up being a 'one off' levy. In 12 months time we will all be used to paying the extra tax, so she will come up with some reason that it needs to be extended for another year. Then it will end up being a 'full time' tax. Just like the medicare levy. Why don't they just can the medicare levy, can the flood levy, and adjust the actual tax rates so that people know exactly what tax rate they are paying.
> 
> Even better, why don't they just delay the building of the NBN and use the funds to do their flood rebuilding.




I have an even better idea...how about stop giving $4b a year to people who hate our guts! foreign aid $4b a year we give away...should be scrapped asap & given BACK  to us the people who need it...done floods all paid for with a stroke of the pen...tigerboi


----------



## tech/a (28 January 2011)

Just saw a levy poll on TV

86% NO
14% YES

This shows to me that *very few* Australians actually give willingly to fellow Australians in need.

There are a Large majority who wouldn't give a cent to their struggling mother!


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 January 2011)

tech/a said:


> Just saw a levy poll on TV
> 
> 86% NO
> 14% YES
> ...




It's not about that. this levy is mostly for infrastructure.

It's about the government not being prepared for such situations.

I mean yes we have just had some floods, but befoe that it was bushfires, and before that a cyclone and before that more fires, floods and cyclones.

We will always have "disasters" and the government should have funding budjected for. I mean I have insurance the government should put a little aside each year as insurance rather than just spring a levy every time somthing happens.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (28 January 2011)

They have wasted so much money over the last 3 years, why should we now donated extra just because the coffers are empty. Surly they need some self examination of their failure to save for a rainy day.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (28 January 2011)

tech/a said:


> Just saw a levy poll on TV
> 
> 86% NO
> 14% YES
> ...



What was the Poll:
A) Would you agree with a flood levy?
B) Would you donate (money / labour / equipment) to charity?


----------



## Frank D (28 January 2011)

tech/a said:


> This shows to me that *very few* Australians actually give willingly to fellow Australians in need.
> 
> There are a Large majority who wouldn't give a cent to their struggling mother!




The majority of Australians do care, that’s why we give to charity and donate our 
time to good causes. We choose to do so.

But we hate when we are *told by governments that we must *give. (Tax)

People just don’t trust this government to implement it properly, simply because
 history tells us so.

When Gillard uttered those words…. *‘This is a progressive tax’*, I *immediately
 favoured the NO category.*


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> What happened to the Future Fund set up by Peter Costello when he was Treasurer?




I thought this myself. Isn't the FF for 'nation building'? Surely this would classify.



tech/a said:


> This shows to me that *very few* Australians actually give willingly to fellow Australians in need.




Tech,

As others have said, its not the money, it's the principle. I have already given to charity yet now am FORCED to give more. The government should know these things are going to occur and have a slush fund saved. 

What happens if there is a huge fire this summer in VIC/ SA, will they then up the levy and turn it into a permanent 'disater levy'?

What about all the irrigators in SA who didnt get any bailouts when they had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to purchase water when the government cut their allocations? Or the VIC fire victims who had to rely soley on donations and no extra tax etc etc


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 January 2011)

This is an Un-Australian Tax.

It is traditional for Australians to help each other willingly in disasters, via donations, help in kind, volunteering and work for no pay.

This pommy-origin  PM has brought from her home country, one of the rather evil socialist principles, of forced assistance via bureaucracy. 

Next she will appoint a Labor grandee such as Kaiser to oversee the Reconstruction on a salary of $750,000 pa. 

What of all the donations, help and work that workers have contributed to flood victims already? then she taxes them. 

She just doesn't get it.

gg


----------



## Ruby (28 January 2011)

tech/a said:


> Just saw a levy poll on TV
> 
> 86% NO
> 14% YES
> ...




It shows no such thing.  On the contrary, Australians give very generously of their time and money to others in need.  What the poll *does *show is that people object to a levy.  Nothing else.  



tech/a said:


> There are a Large majority who wouldn't give a cent to their struggling mother!




Really?  Have you got statistical evidence to support this rather sweeping and arrogant statement?


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2011)

Its fascinating watching the anti political, anti tax, anti Labor, anti.......well basically anything giving attitudes in the thread.

The excuse list for not paying a miserable minor amount of money is really funny the repairs to infrastructure will directly affect the economy and the well being of *all Australians.  *

The RBA governor whats his name said the government should borrow the dough which of course is correct it has the least effect on the balances affects the economy and is more predictable.

Of course with the Wreak-er in full cry like his disciples here that's politically  impossible.

Personally I think a levy and keeping the budget to a surplus 12/13 is the way to go the world is a dangerous place and we should pay as we go.

And before the hanging posse turns up screaming stimulus waste blah blah it was borrowings repeat borrowings not normal revenue for gods sake there is no pot of gold it went to the middle class welfare.

The money has to come from borrowings or tax there is no frigging money tree this would apply to any government at any time should an amount of money on this scale be required for fixing *infrastructure* resulting from one of the *biggest* natural disasters in Australia's white history.

To QLD-ers  apologies for the mean spirited anti Australian attitudes expressed on the thread the aggressive nastiness dished out to Nokia and the absence of any support from others was / is particularly shame full (you mostly all failed this simple test) and really sums up many here.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This is an Un-Australian Tax.
> 
> It is traditional for Australians to help each other willingly in disasters, via donations, help in kind, volunteering and work for no pay.
> 
> ...






IFocus said:


> Its fascinating watching the anti political, anti tax, anti Labor, anti.......well basically anything giving attitudes in the thread.
> 
> The excuse list for not paying a miserable minor amount of money is really funny the repairs to infrastructure will directly affect the economy and the well being of *all Australians.  *
> 
> ...




IF, I'm a Queenslander and agree that we need infrastructure spending to recover. 

Its the method of collection, a one off quickfix that bothers me, the financial aptitude and the previous history of financial incompetence in delivering big ticket items by the minority Labor Federal Government.

Also the Un-Australian way of dealing with it. Volunteering and Donations will fall dramatically as a consequence of this rot. 

That is the crux.

Not the few grand on tax.

gg


----------



## pedalofogus (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its fascinating watching the anti political, anti tax, anti Labor, anti.......well basically anything giving attitudes in the thread.
> 
> The excuse list for not paying a miserable minor amount of money is really funny the repairs to infrastructure will directly affect the economy and the well being of *all Australians.  *
> 
> ...




I am against the levy, but I'm not unaustralian or against rebuilding qld or other places. I live in ipswich qld, so I know how much work is needed on infrastructures. But I don't think a levy is the way to go about it. Why not just stop some of the current infrastructure projects for a while, and use the funds to rebuild flood areas. The problem is that the government will be competing with itself to get contractors. With so many people already building those over priced school halls, there won't be anyone left to rebuild.

As normal Australians, we are expected to put aside money for a rainy day. Maybe the government should have done this rather than p***ing billions of dollars against the wall on insulation schemes and school halls. Now they need their parents to bail them out cause they spent all their pocket money


----------



## sails (28 January 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Noted. I will reframe from posting further in this thread. Wouldn't want to get banned for upsetting some pious, self-righteous, tightfisted posters.




Wow, that's below the belt for people who have already been generous in their giving of both time and money.  It is unbelievably rude.

However, many don't trust this government to use the levy funds in any sort of fiscally responsible manner.   If history repeats, it will be another bungle added to labor's list leaving Qld waiting for infrastructure repair while a few become rich from the scheme.

IMO, the strongly negative attitude over the levy comes down to a deep distrust of this government's ability to manage anything.


----------



## 3DT Velocity (28 January 2011)

The Government moans about the uninsured, isn't their infrastructure insured?

I don't mind paying a fee until the 5.9bil is covered, but neither Party has a good reputation for removing a tax once in place.

ie; Victoria with Pyramid debacle, Fuel Levy and the incoming Desalination Plant levy. 

The only way the Government knows how to fix anything these days is to increase Taxes.


----------



## sails (28 January 2011)

3DT Velocity said:


> ...The only way the Government knows how to fix anything these days is to increase Taxes.




And then what happens if the money gets spent on high salaries and then there's not enough left to fix it anyway?

So - further increase the tax?

No wonder Aussies are becomming increasingly untrusting.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> To QLD-ers  apologies for the mean spirited anti Australian attitudes expressed on the thread the aggressive nastiness dished out to Nokia and the absence of any support from others was / is particularly shame full (you mostly all failed this simple test) and really sums up many here.




And what qualifies you to take the high moral ground?  Nokia probably had you in mind when he said some people care more for whales than people.




> It appears that some are more interested in saving a whale, a dog or a flying fox than helping some human being.


----------



## sinner (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> The money has to come from borrowings or tax there is no frigging money tree




100% agree IFocus!

What happened to all the money borrowed as "we the people"?! All gone is it?

What happened to all the tax I pay? 

All spent on gourmet sandwiches and coffee for the Committee to Discuss Levies?

Govt is literally living paycheck to paycheck now, like much of the country, no buffer for anything unexpected.


----------



## sails (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> 100% agree IFocus!
> 
> What happened to all the money borrowed as "we the people"?! All gone is it?
> 
> ...




Yeah, seems that no money is left.  Gillard states it herself:

No magic pot of money for floods: Gillard 



> "It is not true to say to Australians that there is a big pile of money there that somehow I could just go and use," Ms Gillard told the Seven Network today.
> 
> "It doesn't just sit there, this is not a magic pot of money that can be rolled out in the face of an unprecedented natural disaster.




This is scary.  They are handling large amounts of public funds and yet appear to be spending like there is no tomorrow.  Is it possible that much of their incoming revenue is now being spent on interest payments?  Maybe they need to phone LifeLine financial counselling for advice.

Even to suggest this was an unprecedented disaster is irresponsible, IMO.   Wakey, wakey - it's happened before.


----------



## tech/a (28 January 2011)

> As others have said, its not the money, it's the principle. I have already given to charity yet now am FORCED to give more. The government should know these things are going to occur and have a slush fund saved.




I dont disagree with any of this sentiment.
Waste in government is beyond comprehension.
The waste saving alone would probably cover the costs.

Unfortunately most governments are incompetent and ours is no different.
Unfortunaltely choice of government in a democracy isnt much help either as they are all as incompetent as each other.

So choice here is not an option--- there isnt any. Sure they will waste some of it---there is NO accountability!!

With 60% of the people argueing over $50 and those on $100k or more a few hundered
I just think for the state of the country whether that be infrastructure or those directly effected its a small price to pay.

Christ I have a great friend in a Hospice dying of cancer---$50----perspective---its NOT the end of the world. 

_*"There are 2 biggies in life---Birth and Death---everything in between just fills in the time."*_


----------



## Surly (28 January 2011)

sails said:


> Yeah, seems that no money is left.  Gillard states it herself:
> 
> No magic pot of money for floods: Gillard




Do we know who was last seen with the $40bn for the NBN?

Swannie has it under his mattress right?

Or did they give it to Oakshot if he shut up for ten minutes?

cheers
Surly


----------



## trainspotter (28 January 2011)

Those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year would pay an additional 0.5 per cent tax, rising to an additional 1 per cent for those earning more than $100,000.

Average wage in Australia is say $75,000 ($72,532 to be exact) so therefore LEVY TAX is $375.00 AUD

Those fortunate to be above $100,000 a year would pay $1000 PLUS AUD per annum. Considering these people already shell out $24,950 in tax (assuming NIL deductions etc) IMO it is just another impost on the golden goose who pays the most taxes.

Has anyone considered that this LEVY TAX will only be applied to individuals or is it across the board taking in companies and Family Trusts? What happens then?

Why not simply run the budget further along and return to surplus a year later than promised? WHy not wait until JUNE 30th 2011 and see what revenue they have recieved from GST and mining taxes etc etc blah blah blah THEN introduce a LEVY !

HEY ........ here is an idea ........ whay not use the money they had set aside to buy back the water schemes from the cotton farmers in the Murray Darling Basin? Surely they would have enough water now ??? Hahahhah aha ah haaahh hehehhe eh heee

Just another knee jerk reaction IMO by a Guvmint that is running out of options.


----------



## Julia (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Of course with the Wreak-er in full cry like his disciples here that's politically  impossible.



IFocus, do you think you could generate the same level of objectivity as you did briefly last year and remember that those of us who despise the government are not ipso facto 'disciples' of the other side, or of Tony Abbott in particular.  Perhaps just actually consider that many people are utterly fed up with all the options, none of which are credible.  Please stop being insulting by assuming anyone offering criticism of the government is devoted to Mr Abbott.



Surly said:


> Or did they give it to Oakshot if he shut up for ten minutes?


----------



## skc (28 January 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 a year would pay an additional 0.5 per cent tax, rising to an additional 1 per cent for those earning more than $100,000.
> 
> Average wage in Australia is say $75,000 ($72,532 to be exact) so therefore LEVY TAX is $375.00 AUD
> 
> Those fortunate to be above $100,000 a year would pay $1000 PLUS AUD per annum. Considering these people already shell out $24,950 in tax (assuming NIL deductions etc) IMO it is just another impost on the golden goose who pays the most taxes.




That calculation is wrong. You only pay 0.5% on the amount between $50,001 to $100,000. And then 1% from $100,000 onwards.

So for $75K earner, it's $125. For $100K it's $250. For $150K it's $750. For $200K it's $1250.

For me it's ~$50K on my income of $5m.


----------



## trainspotter (28 January 2011)

skc said:


> That calculation is wrong. You only pay 0.5% on the amount between $50,001 to $100,000. And then 1% from $100,000 onwards.
> 
> So for $75K earner, it's $125. For $100K it's $250. For $150K it's $750. For $200K it's $1250.
> 
> For me it's ~$50K on my income of $5m.




LOL ,,,,,, my apologies for the inference that the Guvmint would try and take more than their fair share.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1949/XLS/Flood_Levy_Calculator.xls

For the real deal on what you will pay.


----------



## Mofra (28 January 2011)

Have the full scale of budget cuts been announced yet? 2/3 of the money for flood relief are from programs that have been cut - I note the unpopular Cash for Clunkers was one of the first to go.

I would have no problem with a deficit in 2012/13 however there is no party (state or Fed) that has the political capital to withstand deficits on the promise of surpluses. Sadly, economic intelligence is almost in as short supply in parliament as it is in society. 

I did have to chuckle at Abbott's reaction - of course he would oppose it, but with his election promises and support for levies under the Howard government, he's set to overtake Garrett as the biggest hypocrite in Parliament (if he hasn't already done so).


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

The rich can escape the levy if they received the government's $1000 flood relief hand -out.

Anyone whose residence was without power for 24 hours or more on account of the flood is eligible, irrespective of whether they sustained flood damage or were merely inconvenienced.


----------



## WaveSurfer (28 January 2011)

explod said:


> So you would agree that we need to do something about reducing global warming?




That was a cheeky swipe there explod  I won't get into that one, cause it's a bit off topic.

What also concerns me, is stuff like this:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/8726027/father-jailed-over-flood-relief-fraud/

Nice to know that my generous donation could well be feeding some scumbag's drug habit 



> Fogarty's lawyer Terry Fisher said his client claimed the money to feed his drug habit.




Little prick should be abolished from society for good. Or handed over to the people and we decide his fate (he'd better hope to god that I'm not given the privilege).



> The sentence starts in March after Fogarty serves the rest of a suspended sentence for *previous offences*.




Hang him, and hang him high. 2 strikes and you're out in my book.

As I said, it's not the levy that concerns me. It's how it will be used and abused by the scumbags of society and the incompetent political parties we are forced to vote for.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2011)

WaveSurfer said:


> we are forced to vote for.




We're not forced to vote for them. There are alternatives such as Senator Online, its just that few people know about them.

The biggest hurdle is compulsary voting.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (28 January 2011)

For those who disagree with the Flood Levy: 

The levy is *Optional* and requires consent by the governed.

However, you are made to believe you must pay the levy by the will of the government, hence, for your consent to be given a signature on the tax return (or similar legally binding documents) will do just fine​
The levy aside, why aren't the operators of the Wivenhoe dam being investigated as they are technically the ones that flooded Brisbane due to massive releases of water as the dam did not have spare capacity during a known wet season. The reason it's there in the first place is to assist as a flood mitigation strategy, which it failed to uphold.


----------



## sinner (28 January 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> For those who disagree with the Flood Levy:
> 
> The levy is *Optional* and requires consent by the governed.
> 
> However, you are made to believe you must pay the levy by the will of the government, hence, for your consent to be given a signature on the tax return (or similar legally binding documents) will do just fine​




Why make a vague post like this with no clarification.

The levy is optional requiring consent of the governed? But the governed don't know this and if they sign their tax return (which is mandatory) then they have given consent to be levied?

Hogwash, demand a link or retraction.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

Julia said:


> Please stop being insulting by assuming anyone offering criticism of the government is devoted to Mr Abbott.




Every time Abbott criticises  the flood levy he opens himself to charges of hypocrisy. He lost any credibility he had with me with his proposal to put a levy on business firms to pay for well paid women to retain their salaries during pregnancy leave. He didn't even bother to consult the party on this.

I have doubts on whether his mouth is wired to his brain.


----------



## WaveSurfer (28 January 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> We're not forced to vote for them. There are alternatives such as Senator Online, its just that few people know about them.
> 
> The biggest hurdle is compulsary voting.




Yeah actually I remember them now you mention it. Read glimpses of media coverage back in Kevin 07. Strangely nothing since. They could have cleaned up last year with all the uncertainty.

It's a long, long road to travel with only a 0.05-0.06% total vote in 2007. Gotta start somewhere I guess.

Realistically, it still only is a 2 horse race. At this point in time anyway.

So I see two choices, pick the lesser of the 2 evils or throw away your vote (or give it to someone who gives it back to one of the two majors anyway). Hopefully that will change. Hopefully...

I don't vote BTW. Well I do, I just give it to my wife


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Next she will appoint a Labor grandee such as Kaiser to oversee the Reconstruction on a salary of $750,000 pa.
> 
> What of all the donations, help and work that workers have contributed to flood victims already? then she taxes them.
> 
> ...




You've hit the nail on the head there gg.


----------



## wayneL (28 January 2011)

What I find interesting is the disparagement of those who disagree with a LEVY by those who agree with it. Why is that?

Last time I looked, Australia is still a free country (by thee skin of its teeth) and opinions should be freely sought and discussed. The emotive harassment of againsts by the fors has totalitarian overtones IMO.

Bear in mind that many against a LEVY would probably give far more voluntarily. Also, one off taxes (under the guise of the euphemistically titled "levy") tend to become permanent; there is a long history of this.

Australians are right to view this with suspicion.


----------



## Julia (28 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Every time Abbott criticises  the flood levy he opens himself to charges of hypocrisy. He lost any credibility he had with me with his proposal to put a levy on business firms to pay for well paid women to retain their salaries during pregnancy leave. He didn't even bother to consult the party on this.
> 
> I have doubts on whether his mouth is wired to his brain.



Agree absolutely on both counts.
Just watching him on the 7.30 Report last night, I felt quite sick thinking this is the best the Libs have to offer.  He's just abysmally devoid of any leadership quality.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2011)

Annual tax revenues project $348 billion for next year

Rebuilding task is estimated at $5.6 billion

Levy is $1.8 billion

The response still baffles me


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2011)

Michael Pascoe has a good summery

"Gillard's weak politics let canards fly "



> On one hand, the levy itself is painted by some as an economic disaster – by implication, middle-and-above Australians must still “be doing it tough”. On the other, it raises so little in the general scheme of revenue, you might wonder what the screaming is about.




Gillard needs to start kicking heads



> This damage though is only political and self-inflicted, Julia Gillard shooting the government in the foot through weak politics when presented with an opportunity to be strong. Contrary to some of the scare mongering, it's hard to find any other victim.


----------



## sinner (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Annual tax revenues project $348 billion for next year
> 
> Rebuilding task is estimated at $5.6 billion
> 
> ...




Really? Baffles you? Easily baffled you are. 

I am baffled that you are willing to front money that Govt could probably shake loose from it's pocket simply by cancelling all propaganda spending for 1 month. 

The attitude of some seems to be "Just lie down and accept it, because after all it's *only* a pound of flesh, who cares, right?". 

Fact is we already have politicians (Dubbo, this morning?) saying they want the levy to be permanent.

Fact is Govt is saying today that rather than tighten their own belts they would rather hit the most fragile and overleveraged section of the Australian economy (household spending) with a tax slug on precisely those with the disposable income required to restart domestic consumption demand! 

Fact is, it rained and Govt doesn't even have a measly *0.5% of tax revenues from last year* to pay for umbrellas.

EDIT: IFocus selectively quoting Michael Pascoe, why don't you link the article so readers can make up their own minds and read the links that Michael has provided to Jessica Irvines article?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/gillards-weak-politics-let-canards-fly-20110128-1a7g5.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-come-hell-or-high-water-20110127-1a6s4.html


----------



## OzWaveGuy (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Why make a vague post like this with no clarification.
> 
> The levy is optional requiring consent of the governed? But the governed don't know this and if they sign their tax return (which is mandatory) then they have given consent to be levied?
> 
> Hogwash, demand a link or retraction.




It was plenty clarified on this thread --> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21087&pagenumber=

Australia is a Common Law country. Statutes and Acts are not laws, but are simply "company" rules and are given the force of law - provided you have consented. Consent is usually automatically obtained (without your knowledge in most cases) in many unique and colourful ways.

Sinner, it's interesting that you screamed "hogwash" without the slightest investigation yourself - sorry that this knowledge isn't front page to make it more obvious for people like yourself.

So I'll re-state what I said before, for those who do not wish to pay the levy you don't have to.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> So I'll re-state what I said before, for those who do not wish to pay the levy you don't have to.




So hypothetically, how does one not pay for it if they wish to receive the rest of their tax refund? Or should we just ask our employer to not tax us and then not submit a return?

I am actually interested in this side of things, because apparently it is similar in the USA although of course the govs wont acknowledge it


----------



## sinner (28 January 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> It was plenty clarified on this thread --> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21087&pagenumber=
> 
> Australia is a Common Law country. Statutes and Acts are not laws, but are simply "company" rules and are given the force of law - provided you have consented. Consent is usually automatically obtained (without your knowledge in most cases) in many unique and colourful ways.
> 
> ...




Of course why I examined your totally unrelated thread from 2 months ago in depth before claiming your statement was hogwash.

Didn't scream, saw an unfounded statement and challenged it.

Well aware of the bunch of kooks all over the Anglo world who think they can use Common Law to circumvent a system that has been set to break people of exactly that ilk.

Having been involved in multiple *actual actions in actual courtrooms* of attempted use of Common Law in relation to Australian and International Law across a variety of issues and jurisdictions, I am happy to ignore blather from those without evidence.

Wake me up when you have proof that you avoided paying the levy by withholding consent. I bet you don't pay GST either. 

Hell I would be interested to see any proof you have of *any successful personal application* of Common Law.


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Really? Baffles you? Easily baffled you are.
> 
> I am baffled that you are willing to front money that Govt could probably shake loose from it's pocket simply by cancelling all propaganda spending for 1 month.
> 
> ...




Oversight on my part about the link

I thought the whole lot was very good as it covered all the points from most angles.........still baffled about the squealing.

Fact is the levy approach is conservative.


Any way need to start talking about the second levy.............LOLROTF


.


----------



## Happy (28 January 2011)

If flood levy was collected to increase dam size to prevent future floods or to fund re-location of possible future victims it is not bad. 

But giving handout to those affected will do few bad things:

1. Less and less possible that future victims will decide to insure their property. (Why bother if will be helped anyway?)
2. Many people will take this as incentive to stay where they are.
3. Government might “forget” what the levy was introduced for and play silly buggers for yonks and use funds for whatever.

I think petrol 3+3 levy is one on-going example.


----------



## sinner (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Oversight on my part about the link
> 
> I thought the whole lot was very good as it covered all the points from most angles.........still baffled about the squealing.
> 
> Fact is the levy approach is conservative.




Conservative compared to what? Just printing the money out of thin air and spending it? After all, it's only 1.8bio like you said!



> Any way need to start talking about the second levy.............LOLROTF
> 
> 
> .




That is the point, exactly 100%!

Can we expect a new levy every disaster now? What happened to the money I pay in taxes which is supposed to be put aside for rainy days? Or don't we have that anymore? Do we really as a country with 1 trillion a year GDP have not a single dollar saved up for national emergency? Need to cut spending and increase taxes every time? 

Fine, let's streamline the whole process and have "just in time taxing" where the Government taxes you right when they need to pay a bill. 

How come they don't decrease taxes when times are good then?


----------



## IFocus (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Can we expect a new levy every disaster now? What happened to the money I pay in taxes which is supposed to be put aside for rainy days? Or don't we have that anymore? Do we really as a country with 1 trillion a year GDP have not a single dollar saved up for national emergency? Need to cut spending and increase taxes every time?
> 
> Fine, let's streamline the whole process and have "just in time taxing" where the Government taxes you right when they need to pay a bill.
> 
> How come they don't decrease taxes when times are good then?




You may have missed this bit from Michael Pascoe talking about taxes



> Much of the commentary (and certainly reader comments) are symptomatic of another canard constantly in the air, that Australians are heavily taxed. We're not – we consistently score in the lower third of the OECD when it comes to the tax burden. And those paying less than us to their government also tend to get a lot less.




http://www.smh.com.au/business/gillards-weak-politics-let-canards-fly-20110128-1a7g5.html


The rainy day thing a number of people raise where in the budget papers is this?


----------



## Happy (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> ... Do we really as a country with 1 trillion a year GDP have not a single dollar saved up for national emergency? ....




Good start would be single Government for whole Australia.

No 7 Governors, 7 Premiers and 7 sizeable State Parliaments


----------



## prawn_86 (28 January 2011)

Happy said:


> Good start would be single Government for whole Australia.




Only way this would work imo is with "weighted votes" otherwise smaller country and rural areas would be totally forgotten about to grab city votes. Unless government is still formed on the basis of certain seats in each area of course but then areas may need to be re-adjusted to include similar populations.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

Ms Gillard says that a soldier called Mick Slater will chair a committee that decides how to spend the levy. Slater seems like a nice little fellow and says all the right things, but no matter what the committee decides it will be bureaucrats who decide how the money is allocated.

Labor bureaucrats have a shocking history of project management. They should co-opt someone from the waste management business.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> Ms Gillard says that a soldier called Mick Slater will chair a committee that decides how to spend the levy. Slater seems like a nice little fellow and says all the right things, but no matter what the committee decides it will be bureaucrats who decide how the money is allocated.
> 
> Labor bureaucrats have a shocking history of project management. They should co-opt someone from the waste management business.




I'd agree with you on most of the above, C, however Mick Slater served some years in Townsville and I know for a fact he does not suffer fools gladly, an example being how he flagged to the media, a hands off approach to the Floods. 

Let us see which Labor flunkie is appointed to "deliver" all the tax revenue. Probably someone who has resigned from the NSW Parliament.

gg

gg


----------



## Market Depth (28 January 2011)

I disagree with the levy, because the floods in QLD is a State Matter. Julia is just playing politics.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'd agree with you on most of the above, C, however Mick Slater served some years in Townsville and I know for a fact he does not suffer fools gladly, an example being how he flagged to the media, a hands off approach to the Floods.
> 
> Let us see which Labor flunkie is appointed to "deliver" all the tax revenue. Probably someone who has resigned from the NSW Parliament.




He is punching way above his weight . Afghanistan  would be a cake walk compared to the political minefield he has been thrown into.

I noticed on the ABC news that Gillard has included an uncomfortable looking Mick Slater in her travelling entourage to sell the levy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 January 2011)

How big is the tribe? 

Our family including relations, our suburb, our town, our state, our country or the worldly population? Usually human tribe members help each other out in times of distress as do other herding animals. However, when the floods in Brazil struck recently did Australians care? When the Victorian fires destroyed property and took lives did everyone care beyond feeling a passing sad thought for that event? Did anyone have a passing thought for the Carnarvon victims of flooding? 

To me, if a cyclone, fire or flood directly affects my family or town I would give freely but the further away emotionally or geographically these events happen then I feel less affinity to those "experiencing" them.

Does that make sense.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> How big is the tribe?
> Does that make sense.




Yes it does. Last years's floods in Pakistan were  so devastating as to dwarf the Qld floods in loss of life, and destruction of property and hope for the future. It was largely ignored by posters on this forum and Australians in general. Their Indian neighbours offered no help...different tribes I guess. 

As I posted at the time;



> The huge swing to the Greens in the election was supposed to show we are a caring nation. Sure, we care for a handful of boat people who are rich enough and lucky enough to become economic refugees. So we pat ourselves on the back.
> 
> But the enormity of the Pakistan tragedy is beyond our comprehension. Money is not the answer. Billions were poured into New Orleans with little noticeable effect.
> 
> I admit there is nothing we can do except apply small bandaids. We have to resign ourselves to the fact that the ultimate winners will be the Islamic radicals. Revolution thrives on despair. And they will have nuclear weapons.


----------



## RandR (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> Conservative compared to what? Just printing the money out of thin air and spending it? After all, it's only 1.8bio like you said!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and for the latest figures on national debt ..

http://www.debtclock.com.au/index.html

It appears you are correct, Australia doesnt have a dollar to its name ... just a lot of debt.

There are arguments for and against the levy, myself, i think taxpayer money (our money) that is currently being used on other projects can be redirected for the rebuilding effort. I think rebalancing the budget for the flood rebuilding can surely be done without missing too much. For example: Maybe the military will just have to do without the F35's for awhile ........ what a pity that would be


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (28 January 2011)

RandR said:


> and for the latest figures on national debt ..
> 
> http://www.debtclock.com.au/index.html
> 
> It appears you are correct, Australia doesnt have a dollar to its name ... just a lot of debt.



I love how Tasmania is ticking down at $3 every 5 seconds - every other state is whizzing down! And no, I'm not picking on our Tasmanian relatives.

It's not entirely correct though - I just paid off my credit card bill (it is due at the end of the month).


----------



## noco (28 January 2011)

Senator Cory Bernadi has a message for the people of Australia with a petition to stop the levy.

http://www.stopthelevy.com/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 January 2011)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I love how Tasmania is ticking down at $3 every 5 seconds - every other state is whizzing down! And no, I'm not picking on our Tasmanian relatives.
> 
> It's not entirely correct though - I just paid off my credit card bill (it is due at the end of the month).




Thanks zz for reminding me, I must go online and pay mine.

Why can't the ole Jools let the people sort this out, go into budget deficit for a few years and we come out stronger at the end.

And get rid of the bloody NBN.

gg


----------



## RandR (28 January 2011)

noco said:


> Senator Cory Bernadi has a message for the people of Australia with a petition to stop the levy.
> 
> http://www.stopthelevy.com/




actually, that link has the following information ...

Stop The Levy is a project of Menzies House, a grassroots, independent online community for thinkers, writers and activists. We are not affiliated with any political party.

I cant see any message from Senator Cory Bernardi ... do you think the dear Senator is bandwagoning on what appears to be a popular cause ?


----------



## noco (28 January 2011)

RandR said:


> actually, that link has the following information ...
> 
> Stop The Levy is a project of Menzies House, a grassroots, independent online community for thinkers, writers and activists. We are not affiliated with any political party.
> 
> I cant see any message from Senator Cory Bernardi ... do you think the dear Senator is bandwagoning on what appears to be a popular cause ?




So what?


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Its fascinating watching the anti political, anti tax, anti Labor, anti.......well basically anything giving attitudes in the thread.
> 
> The excuse list for not paying a miserable minor amount of money is really funny the repairs to infrastructure will directly affect the economy and the well being of *all Australians.  *
> 
> ...



None of which changes the fact that we have *already* paid more than enough to cover this which was simply wasted on school halls we didn't need, faulty insulation and so on.

It is not about anyone not wanting to help people in Queensland. It is about a government having wasted a fortune of our taxes now wanting more money the moment a problem which they should have saved for arises. If it wasn't a flood in Qld then it would have been a fire in Vic or whatever. Sooner or later, something is sure to go wrong and any sensible person knows that.

It is comparable to someone who spends everything they earn and more, who then wants a bail out as soon as the car breaks down. Why not put some money aside each week like any sensible person does?


----------



## Julia (28 January 2011)

sinner said:


> EDIT: IFocus selectively quoting Michael Pascoe, why don't you link the article so readers can make up their own minds and read the links that Michael has provided to Jessica Irvines article?
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/gillards-weak-politics-let-canards-fly-20110128-1a7g5.html
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-come-hell-or-high-water-20110127-1a6s4.html



 Thanks for the links, sinner.  IFocus, you could just as easily have quoted the following from Michael Pascoe's piece:


> There is real damage though in the opportunity cost – the government's failure (again) to deal honestly with the population, to put in the hard kilometres necessary to progress the nation's economic understanding against the headwinds of its own populism and the opposition's mindless obfuscation. In a worst-case scenario, you have to begin to wonder if Wayne and Julia simply don't know any better. It's a worry.
> 
> First and foremost is the government's ineptitude in continuing to worship at the altar of the surplus cult, of endorsing the economics-by-slogan mindlessness of Hockey and Abbott, of letting the all-deficits-are-evil canard fly. In the context of the federal election, Swan might have thought he was being clever by occupying the sloganeering high ground through promising an early end to the reasonable and not-all-that-big deficit. It was certainly easier than building the credibility to cut through the anti-Labor cheer squad.
> 
> Now, that tactic is just plain dumb, a straitjacket of the government's own making if ever decision must be viewed through the prism of surplus worship.



Sadly, though, you wouldn't be up for drawing attention to anything which in any way derides your government.   Can't help wondering if you are really too obtuse to see what a disaster they are, or whether pride just won't allow you to admit you've backed a losing horse.



Wysiwyg said:


> To me, if a cyclone, fire or flood directly affects my family or town I would give freely but the further away emotionally or geographically these events happen then I feel less affinity to those "experiencing" them.
> 
> Does that make sense.



Sadly, yes, it does make sense.  Amongst the floods here I was aware of the events in Brazil which were much worse.  I briefly thought "oh, how awful" and switched off.




noco said:


> Senator Cory Bernadi has a message for the people of Australia with a petition to stop the levy.
> 
> http://www.stopthelevy.com/



Hah, noco, Senator Bernadi may not need to worry.  With the massive public opposition, the Greens' fury with the elimination of the various Green initiatives, the opposition's implacable determination to vote against the levy, and now the resistance from Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, it's hard to see that the bill will get through.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 January 2011)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I love how Tasmania is ticking down at $3 every 5 seconds - every other state is whizzing down! And no, I'm not picking on our Tasmanian relatives.



On closer inspection...

Queensland and Tasmania are the only states where the debt is going DOWN. Tas might only be going down rather slowly, but at least it is going down (though I have doubts this is really the case, but anyway that's what the figures say).

Meanwhile NSW, Vic, SA, WA and ACT are all going UP.

NSW - $1486 per person and rising. NSW has already privatised many key assets and is selling more.

Qld - $2460 per person but at least it is falling. But then they are selling assets and have just been flooded.

Vic - $1726 per person and rising. With so much already sold off, the state has very litte in terms of physical assets that could be sold to raise cash.

WA - $1426 per person and rising. But at least they've still got some public assets.

SA - $1135 per person and rising. Like Victoria, they've got little left to sell.

NT - $4342 per person and rising. They never did have much that could be sold.

ACT - $1276 and rising. Not sure what they've got in terms of assets.

Tas - $932 and falling. And the state still has most of its public assets in state ownership.

There doesn't seem to be much of a trend that can be drawn from all of that, other than perhaps to say that there is a correlation between higher debt per person and faster economic growth over recent years. The two states with the lowest debts are clear economic under-performers over the longer term. 

Public debt boosts the economy? Seems the only real conclusion that can be made from those figures.


----------



## drsmith (28 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Oversight on my part about the link
> 
> I thought the whole lot was very good as it covered all the points from most angles.........still baffled about the squealing.
> 
> ...



We can't have a super-duper La-Nina plus without the Lake Eyre fill-her-upperer.


----------



## Calliope (28 January 2011)

The elephant in the room is the Qld coal industry, which has taken a massive hit from the floods. The Qld economy is dependent on coal exports, and so is Australia's to a large extent. It would make economic sense to pour taxpayers money into getting the coal exports back to normal.

This can't happen because it would enrage the Greens who blame the coal industry for the floods.


----------



## drsmith (29 January 2011)

The economic visionaries that are the Greens are against a coal industry full stop.

They're not too keen on iron ore either, judging by the extent to which they want to tax it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 January 2011)

Calliope said:


> This can't happen because it would enrage the Greens who blame the coal industry for the floods.



Believe me there is greater demand for coal from overseas than ever before. The Aust. government now have to play a juggling act between meeting carbon emissions control responsibility and hefty tax income from coal extractors and the large employment base both direct and indirect. Jobs is money is jobs. It's a vicious circle.

Light and heat???


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2011)

drsmith said:


> We can't have a super-duper La-Nina plus without the Lake Eyre fill-her-upperer.




Levy 3? would be nice to get some rain

.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

I saw Tony Windsor and a fly being interviewed on the 730 Report last night and for once the fly made less sense than poor ole Tony.

He is against a one off knee jerk reaction and seeks a permanent Disaster Fund. He further pointed out that revenue from the levy tax would not land in Treasury coffers for another 18 months. So he argued that a deficit strategy may be worthwhile considering.

gg


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2011)

RandR said:


> There are arguments for and against the levy, myself, i think taxpayer money (our money) that is currently being used on other projects can be redirected for the rebuilding effort. I think rebalancing the budget for the flood rebuilding can surely be done without missing too much. For example: Maybe the military will just have to do without the F35's for awhile ........ what a pity that would be




The non levy portion contains delays to infrastructure projects already ironically some of those will affect WA the place that currently picks up the bills for all the eastern states free loaders / welfare recipients. 

The reality is the tax payer will pay for the repairs to QLD and other states infrastructure levy or no levy and in QLD case is required to start sooner rather than later.

So the question of the levy is mostly political / emotional.

Fact is I doubt Gillard will get it through the lower house so it will come from further cut backs and it will impact no doubt those who can least afford the hit unlike the levy.  

Given that the $5 plus bil is an treasury estimate you would have to assume that the eventual cost will be more as is generally the case and that's not a government thing its just engineering reality.

And while I am here

The waste thing that keeps coming up is interesting in that the stimulus was handled by a set of bureaucrats not suited to the task for a whole bunch of reasons and yes that's the labor governments responsibility haste = waste.

Rebuilding the states infrastructure is different in that it will mostly be handled by departments all ready in place that do that sort of work and have decades of experience although they will be under pressure.

I am surprised that this is not realized but then if you want to be political then it wont be the out come being delays to the lives of the good people of QLD.


----------



## DB008 (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I saw Tony Windsor and a fly being interviewed on the 730 Report last night and for once the fly made less sense than poor ole Tony.
> 
> He is against a one off knee jerk reaction and seeks a permanent Disaster Fund. He further pointed out that revenue from the levy tax would not land in Treasury coffers for another 18 months. So he argued that a deficit strategy may be worthwhile considering.
> 
> gg




I agree with a disaster fund. Everyone who pays tax, pays something in the order of 50 cents per week. Done. People who whinge at that, tough luck, bugger off to another country!


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks for the links, sinner.  IFocus, you could just as easily have quoted the following from Michael Pascoe's piece:
> 
> Sadly, though, you wouldn't be up for drawing attention to anything which in any way derides your government.   Can't help wondering if you are really too obtuse to see what a disaster they are, or whether pride just won't allow you to admit you've backed a losing horse.




Alright I am the leader of a left wing conspiracy and my mission is the conversion of the entire ASF forum to becoming sleeper agents for the eventual take over of..........

The article was negative about the government but contained points from all directions which you all seemed to have missed.

But then

The frigging headline I posted was wait a moment negative about the government ( made it bold this time you may have missed it) 

Then the second paragraph I posted is shock horror negative about the government  ( made it bold this time you may have missed it also) 

Have to go the secret phone is ringing my Russian controller may have read this thread..........I could be in trouble.........

The baffling goes on




> Michael Pascoe has a good summery
> 
> *"Gillard's weak politics let canards fly "*
> 
> ...


----------



## sails (29 January 2011)

Wow, has power gone to her head?   It seems she learnt nothing of voter disgust at the gang of four.  

The reality is that she is an unelected PM who was only finally put in place by a couple of independents and has no mandate for anything let alone deciding on taxes in defiance of her own party, IMO.

More here: Labor MPs revolt over Julia Gillard's flood tax levy



> ... senior Labor figures were shaking their heads at the lack of consultation with Cabinet.


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2011)

Interesting this is a trading site yet this seemed to have been missed


*"Financial markets applaud Gillard’s flood package"*



> For the last few years every man and their dog, including the Opposition and a Reserve Bank board member, have called on this government to tighten its fiscal belt given the original stimulus was sized for a recession that never materialised.






> So the Prime Minister prudently does exactly this. Instead of allowing the deficit to blow-out, which was what most economists expected, she surprised by funding two-thirds of the Commonwealth’s $5.6 billion tab via spending cuts or deferrals, and the remainder through a tiny, once-off levy on higher-income earners unaffected by the floods. She also liberated stretched labour supply by expediting the processing of 457 visas and doubling the number of places in the job seeker relocation program. This all sounds like sensible stuff.




*



			The response of financial markets was emphatic: the probability of future interest rate hikes was instantly cut. Investors with real cash in the money markets decided that the government’s package was anti-inflationary, and would relieve some of the monetary policy burden on the Reserve Bank.
		
Click to expand...


*
Spot the west aussie in the comments section 




> WAlian :
> 
> 28 Jan 2011 11:13:28pm
> 
> ...





http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43308.html#m617796

Maybe Mike Calton is right

*Whinger! Salute to another great Australian trait *



> One of our grand national delusions is that we are a stoic people, unflinching in the jaws of hardship and disaster, unique in all the world. Knock us down and we dig into bottomless reserves of character to dust ourselves off and get back at it. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi Oi Oi.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...er-great-australian-trait-20110128-1a8an.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

IFocus said:


> Interesting this is a trading site yet this seemed to have been missed
> 
> 
> *"Financial markets applaud Gillard’s flood package"*




ASF is a Trading Site, mate, not a Financial Markets' site.

It always interests me when Big Capital and the Lost Left get in to bed with one another IF.

Usually the workers miss out, labourers, artisans, traders, teachers and other working professionals. 

I dare say Financial Planners would probably agree with both you, IFocus, and the Financial Markets.

gg


----------



## IFocus (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It always interests me when Big Capital and the Lost Left get in to bed with one another IF.
> 
> Usually the workers miss out, labourers, artisans, traders, teachers and other working professionals.
> 
> ...




To true


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

I have never seen a "political" poll on ASF, so overwhelmingly voting against an incumbent's proposed legislation, over 70% agin, to just over 20% for, with just under 10% fence sitters. 

Poor Jools.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have never seen a "political" poll on ASF, so overwhelmingly voting against an incumbent's proposed legislation, over 70% agin, to just over 20% for, with just under 10% fence sitters.
> 
> Poor Jools.
> 
> gg




I don't see any reason why the Canberrians couldn't have secret talks again with the major miners like they did with the Super Profits Resource Rent Tax. Maybe the major miners could pitch in and resolve the funding problems associated with the damage caused by the flood. Maybe their own current Force Majeure contracts are restricting them from providing any financial solution/help to rebuild infrastructure?

If Rio or BHP's railway lines in the Pilbara got hammered by a cyclone would they expect the public and/or the likes of Fortescue to pay for the restoration of rail infrastructure?

I'd hate to be a QRN shareholder now. What awful timing for a float.


----------



## Slipperz (29 January 2011)

My answer to the question posed by this thread is an emphatic NO.

The government has no right to impose this tax on us.

The federal labor government are incompetant and dysfunctional as evidenced by their disgraceful and dangerous home insulation scheme and their incredibly wasteful school hall building program.

And now they are demanding more money to chuck about.

It's not a bottomless pot they can constantly keep tapping they need to be held accountable for their actions. And listening to Joooolia talking at the nation like we're all ten years old makes my blood boil.

Leadership is about strong constuctive policy implementation not " give me more money and I'll spend it for you".

Watching her waddle around the recent APEC meeting talking about an offshore refugee processing centre made me feel ill.

Here's an idea Joooolia. Spend some defence dollars on a small fleet of fast patrol boats supported by aeriel surveillance and defend our nations borders like your useless red government is supposed to. 

And make it abundantly clear to any vessel interdicted at our maritime border that they will be denied entry to Australian territorial waters.

Then go to APEC and tell every regional leader that's what we're going to do whether they like it or not.

Oh and for rebuilding Queensland well there needs to be some serious thought given to where we are going to rebuild. If the oceans are warming which most empirical evidence seems to point to extreme high rainfall events in la nina cycle are going to happen again.

Do we just suppose to throw a few billion dollars to rebuild on settlement points based on 1880's logic to see them washed away again in ten years time or have a total rethink before we spend the money on flood mitigation schemes and residential housing zoning approval.

Oops my bad I used think and spend money in the context of a labor governemnt.

Silly me.

Back on track to the new flood tax. 

I would of preferred to have seen a government bond issuance to the general public for QLD flood relief after a comprehensive costed analysis of the urgent works to be carried out.

Not federal labor demanding another blank cheque.

If interest payments from the debentures were made tax deductible you would probably have seen a river of cash pouring into a fund from all Australians keen to help out for a two or three year term.

Just my thoughts anyways


----------



## So_Cynical (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have never seen a "political" poll on ASF, so overwhelmingly voting against an incumbent's proposed legislation, over 70% agin, to just over 20% for, with just under 10% fence sitters.
> 
> Poor Jools.
> 
> gg




Short Memory GG?

Take out the fence sitters from the ASF 2010 Election support poll and the result looks very similar to this flood poll....coincidental that the voters in the election poll overwhelmingly got the result wrong there too  perhaps we can draw the conclusion that the flood poll result is also politically skewed.
~


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Short Memory GG?
> 
> Take out the fence sitters from the ASF 2010 Election support poll and the result looks very similar to this flood poll....coincidental that the voters in the election poll overwhelmingly got the result wrong there too  perhaps we can draw the conclusion that the flood poll result is also politically skewed.
> ~




Sorry SC, your figures only add to my impressions, the agin on this thread is closer to 75% , way over the 59% on the election poll, the for's (ALP) are only just over the 20% and the fence sitters are closer to 6%. 

Jools is not a happy camper, and she's lost her bottle, anyone who can be outsmarted by Koshie is a loser.

Many swinging voters have shifted from left to right, including me..

gg

gg


----------



## tigerboi (29 January 2011)

no one else prepared to talk of foreign aid??? way too touchy id say.
well asf trendsetters get this figure.by the year 2015/2016 this country will
be handing out around $8-$9b...what a complete joke.here check it out.
$4.3b this year...flood levy already paid for.simple task imo...tb

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/makediff/default.cfm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

tigerboi said:


> no one else prepared to talk of foreign aid??? way too touchy id say.
> well asf trendsetters get this figure.by the year 2015/2016 this country will
> be handing out around $8-$9b...what a complete joke.here check it out.
> $4.3b this year...flood levy already paid for.simple task imo...tb
> ...




Possibly the expenditure needs to be examined, however we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves. 

We are a very rich country, just not rich in political nouse and governance over spending under this mob of jackasses in power at present.

gg


----------



## Julia (29 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Short Memory GG?
> 
> Take out the fence sitters from the ASF 2010 Election support poll and the result looks very similar to this flood poll....coincidental that the voters in the election poll overwhelmingly got the result wrong there too  perhaps we can draw the conclusion that the flood poll result is also politically skewed.
> ~



So Cynical:  just a simple question, if I may.  Could you please tell us if you are actually completely happy with the government, and comment on the performances of Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan in particular.
Do you actually believe they have thus far wisely spent taxpayer funds?
Do you actually believe they have a credible and sustainable plan to take Australia forward?
If so, what do you consider to be the essential constituents of this plan and how will it benefit this great nation?

Do you sincerely believe that all criticism of the government and the Prime Minister and Deputy PM in particular is totally unjustified?

With thanks.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Jools is not a happy camper, and she's lost her bottle, anyone who can be outsmarted by Koshie is a loser.



Not to mention how Neil Mitchell made total mincemeat of her in his interview.


----------



## skc (29 January 2011)

Slightly off topic but I have an idea.

Some commentators have said that this flood levy will have a similar impact to a 25bp interest rate raise.

So, RBA instead of raising interest rates to slow the economy in good times, the govn't should raise a 'levy' and put those money away into a disaster / future fund. The 'good times' levy will apply to individual and corporates, and will have the same effect as raising interest rates economically. The difference is that the cash is retained for the future in time of need. Raising interest rates on the other hand, does no good for the country, penalises only those with debt, and gives the big banks more excuses to make more money.

It's a bit like a big dam. Store the money to prevent both flooding and drought.


----------



## drsmith (29 January 2011)

skc said:


> Some commentators have said that this flood levy will have a similar impact to a 25bp interest rate raise.



Deosn't that though depend on whether they save it or spend it ?

Those with too much debt will ultimately be penalised by economic gravity in any case.

Disaster levies, medicare levies, Ansett levies, Gun levies, Superannuation surchages, they are all nonsense.

Any government should look at the most efficient taxes from which to provide it's services with provision for emergencies as they arise. Such provision could be in the form of reserves and/or a reprioritisation of spending. It is, in principal, no different to a household budget.


----------



## tothemax6 (29 January 2011)

skc said:


> Slightly off topic but I have an idea.
> 
> Some commentators have said that this flood levy will have a similar impact to a 25bp interest rate raise.
> 
> ...



The difference is that a dam just sits there and does a good job with almost total certainty. If you were to somehow replace a dam with a politician, there would be flooding when it was dry and drought when it was wet. 

FYI Australia already has a 'Future Fund', which was set up under the howard government. 

Also, the question is: what good does allowing the government to accumulate our money actually do? We don't want them to have more of our money in good times. It would be best if they took no money whatsoever.


----------



## tothemax6 (29 January 2011)

tigerboi said:


> no one else prepared to talk of foreign aid??? way too touchy id say.
> well asf trendsetters get this figure.by the year 2015/2016 this country will
> be handing out around $8-$9b...what a complete joke.here check it out.
> $4.3b this year...flood levy already paid for.simple task imo...tb
> ...



Aye, we are the ones needing aid at the moment. Africa can give standing on it's own legs a go.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 January 2011)

skc said:


> Slightly off topic but I have an idea.
> 
> Some commentators have said that this flood levy will have a similar impact to a 25bp interest rate raise.
> 
> ...




Brilliant idea...thought i doubt the ASF right will see it that way, i mean GG cant even take the "candy" options out of a poll and see it for what it is.

--------------------------------

This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.


----------



## RandR (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant idea...thought i doubt the ASF right will see it that way, i mean GG cant even take the "candy" options out of a poll and see it for what it is.




I agree it's definitly an interesting idea ! Would the RBA and Federal Government really be able to come to the party on establishing something like this though ?



> This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.




This thread is not too bad, you must understand as soon as the Government decided to go down the levy path it was always going to become a political issue.

If you want a comparison on how embarrasing it is compared to other threads ive found on this forum ... go have a look at the "fanatical groups trying to take over the world" thread ... that thing is nothing but laughs all round. That thread reminds me of my dear old 80yr old crazy grandma who still believes the japanese are evil and trying to invade aus  bless her heart


----------



## startrader (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Short Memory GG?
> 
> Take out the fence sitters from the ASF 2010 Election support poll and the result looks very similar to this flood poll....coincidental that the voters in the election poll overwhelmingly got the result wrong there too  perhaps we can draw the conclusion that the flood poll result is also politically skewed.
> ~




The voters in the election poll didn't get anything wrong at all.  The question was:  "Who do you support?" and people voted according to their views.  So similarly with this poll people are answering the question:  "Flood levy - Do you agree?"  If you mean that the result of this poll is not representative of the larger population, well that's your opinion and you could very well be wrong.


----------



## Logique (30 January 2011)

You mean there's another point of view IF? 


IFocus said:


> Interesting this is a trading site yet this seemed to have been missed *"Financial markets applaud Gillard’s flood package"*http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43308.html#m617796



Taken in isolation, yes govt spending cuts and a smaller, progressive levy are much better than say more debt or a bigger levy. For many of the levied though, it's about track record and economic management credentials. 



> Maybe Mike Calton is right *Whinger! Salute to another great Australian trait *http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...er-great-australian-trait-20110128-1a8an.html



Pretty much know what to expect from Mike Carlton. How dare rich folks have an opinion on how the country should be run, despite the jobs and economic activity they create. Mike would do better to actually think on the issues they raised. As for: 







> ..Just a few weeks ago there was a gaggle of women playwrights bitching..



Mike is entering dangerous waters there!

Truth is, when it comes down to it, Australians will pay this levy without demur. If the Rudd/Gillard govt are copping political heat over it - they have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## startrader (30 January 2011)

tigerboi said:


> no one else prepared to talk of foreign aid??? way too touchy id say.
> well asf trendsetters get this figure.by the year 2015/2016 this country will
> be handing out around $8-$9b...what a complete joke.here check it out.
> $4.3b this year...flood levy already paid for.simple task imo...tb
> ...




Yes, I think it's ridiculous!  The Labor Government has doubled the amount we used to give for foreign aid and will double this amount again in the next couple of years taking it to $8-$9b per year.  They have up to now been throwing money around like there is a bottomless pit.  Yes, why not open an Embassy in Ethiopia so that we can get a seat on the UN Council.  I'm sure it's something that most Australians really want and well worth the money.  Who cares if we just waste some tens of millions implementing their wonderful ideas - it's keeping people in work isn't it and doesn't really matter surely.  (That seems to be their logic). They have been borrowing the money to fund everything and as at 4th October last year had increased the gross Federal debt to $163.152 billion.  

Now we need to rebuild from the floods and there is no money!  What a joke.  In my opinion they could easily find the amount needed by scrapping a multitude of their ridiculous ideas, or maybe even just stopping the incredible waste that goes on in the bureaucracy.


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.




You completely miss the whole point of the objections to the levy on this thread. The impost is fairly trivial and will hurt nobody. Most on the "right" that you denigrate would have donated well in excess of that amount already.

The "politicising" that you object to, is the result of the Rudd/Gillard government's abysmal record in managing projects they have initiated. Most who object to the levy do so in the almost certain knowledge that most of the money will be wasted in the same way that billions have gone down the drain already.

If you can allay our doubts on this issue feel free to do so.


----------



## trainspotter (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant idea...thought i doubt the ASF right will see it that way, i mean GG cant even take the "candy" options out of a poll and see it for what it is.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.




Ummmmmmmm ......... why do we pay taxes then? If this hopeless Government can't balance the books for a lousy 6 billion or so to rebuild flood ravaged areas what hope do we have for the 43 billion for the NBN ??? HUH ??? How is it they can project budgets for 4 years in advance but cannot tell us how much revenue they will have from the 10/11 Fiscal Year to see if there is an upspike in revenue from exports etc? HUH? How is it we can commit to spending billions of dollars on laptops in schools (which blew out by 1.2 billion) and GROCERYchoice, FUELwatch, the 2020 Summit, stimulus advertising and tax bonus payments that NEVER actually did anything??? HUH????

Not wanting to rant on here BUT wasn't this Guvmint left with a healthy SURPLUS in November 2007 when it came to power? Does anyone find it strange that we are being slugged a levy when it was not that long ago the mantra of this Govt was to borrow as much as it could on the National credit card and *spend spEND SPEND *like a drunken sailor on shore leave? And just like the drunken sailor now that the sun has come up and the wallet is empty, "Help me ........ I need a loan" is the cry. Pathetic.

Me thinks Joolya Gizzard is doing a wonderful job of politicising the Flood Levy all by herself without our help.

Don't get me wrong .... I am all for helping the Eastern States mob. Not just QLD. NSW and VIC flooded as well. Oh yeah ........ Carnarvon in Western Australia was damaged pretty bad too. I wonder if they will get any flood levy money?? Naaahhhh ......


----------



## prawn_86 (30 January 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Oh yeah ........ Carnarvon in Western Australia was damaged pretty bad too. I wonder if they will get any flood levy money?? Naaahhhh ......




Exactly. Irrigators in SA had to suffer through a huge drought over the last decade and what was the gov's response? Cut their water entitlements (IE income) by 75% with no compensation. Isn't a drought classed as a natural disaster?


----------



## sails (30 January 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ...Me thinks Joolya Gizzard is doing a wonderful job of *politicising the Flood Levy all by herself* without our help....




I agree TS.  I don't remember any politicising about the flood disaster until Ms Gillard started this nonsense about a levy.  

Labor remind me of little kids where one pushes the other when no-one is watching, then the other hits back.  The original hitter then dobs...lol  

Can't believe the stupid propaganda that can be seen on forums and comments on news sites blaming Abbott for politicising the disaster when Gillard did it all on her own.  She must think Aussies are terribly stupid.

But then, it seems like some sort of organised propaganda to me...


----------



## sails (30 January 2011)

And here's another reason to not let current Labor governments get their hands on any sort of relief funds.

In the Sunday Mail today it tells of over $700,000 donation funds that the Qld government still hasn't distributed to the 2006 cyclone Larry victims...

Anna Bligh did a great job during the disaster and was well commended for it by both sides of politics (no politicising). But then Anna started to show her true colours again it by terribly stringent means testing before people could apply for donation fund.  

Haven't Labor woken up yet that the large percentage of Aussies who oppose this levy simply don't trust current Labor's ability to manage any sort of money?  It isn't about not caring or being stingy.  It's the worry that the funds may not necessarily reach their destination and then possibly be followed by further tax increases fueled by "excuses" why the initial amount wasn't enough. 

If the government gets around $350B in annual revenue and the levy is only going to raise $1.8B, surely that can be sourced simply from current waste or perhaps a small cutback on Rudd's overseas spendings.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2011)

sails said:


> And here's another reason to not let current Labor governments get their hands on any sort of relief funds.
> 
> In the Sunday Mail today it tells of over $700,000 donation funds that the Qld government still hasn't distributed to the 2006 cyclone Larry victims...




And as they say in tennis, game, set and match.

gg


----------



## Logique (30 January 2011)

Sails, 
try this from Chris Berg (IPA),
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/drowning-in-gillards-flood-levy-spin-20110129-1a8yr.html

- All up, the government will spend $5.6 billion on flood reconstruction in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria [..WA?..SA..?]; $1.8 billion of that will be raised by the flood levy. The rest, certainly, will come from budget cuts.

- However, this month Minister Kim Carr quietly announced the start of the government's Automotive Transformation Scheme. This scheme packages up $3.4 billion of taxpayers' money and wires it directly to the dilapidated (but very well connected) car industry.

- The full New Car Plan for a Greener Future totals $6.2 billion.

- It may sound like Gillard has made hard decisions cutting $250 million out of carbon-capture research and $160 million from the solar hot-water rebate scheme. But simply trimming a couple of the most embarrassing programs - such as the ''cash-for-clunkers'' election promise - is hardly aggressive budget cutting.

- Rudd's ''kitchen cabinet'' decided that crisis was the GFC:  $90 billion worth of spending commitments between September 2008 and May 2009 plunged the federal budget into deficit. 

- Treasury admitted last year there was no statistically significant correlation between the size of an OECD country's stimulus package and its economic recovery.  Some countries - Japan, for instance - spent more than us and yet suffered worse than us.

- If there are really no government programs left to cut, no funds to spare and no alternatives to a tax hike - then the decisions taken over the past few years, which have placed the Commonwealth budget in such a dire fiscal situation, need to be scrutinised more than ever.

- I would add,  what's the current estimate on the NBN - $20Bill, $40Bill, $80Bill...?


----------



## drsmith (30 January 2011)

> - If there are really no government programs left to cut, no funds to spare and no alternatives to a tax hike - then the decisions taken over the past few years, which have placed the Commonwealth budget in such a dire fiscal situation, need to be scrutinised more than ever.



If this goes ahead and there's another unexpected significant drawdown on the budget (another natural disaster for example), the ALP will be crucified at the next federal election as there will be no alternative but to extend the levy or sacrifice the 2012/13 surpless.

As it is, it's hard to justify politically. I suspect that the ALP figure they will get away with it as John Howard did with the levies of his early years. The difference for the ALP though is that they have to defend the levy in the context of allready wastfull spending programs.

It could also be that the ALP are idiologically against some of the income tax cuts of the last parliment. These were essentially Peter Costello's, only modfied slightly to suit the ALP's "me too" 2007 election campaign. They are allready trying to claw some back by means testing the private health insurance rebate.

To add to the levy discussion, there's this fine piece of economic ingorance from the walking dead NSW Labor Premier Kristina Keneally,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...ey-says-keneally/story-fn7iwx3v-1225996144523


----------



## wayneL (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.




...and once again the left, faced with the utter failure of its own non-logic, indulges in futile attempts to claim the high moral ground.

Play the ball SC.


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

wayneL said:


> ...and once again the left, faced with the utter failure of its own non-logic, indulges in futile attempts to claim the high moral ground.
> 
> Play the ball SC.




I think this captures to non-logic of the left;



> The Prime Minister claimed that "the great majority of Australians are ready to contribute". As she was specifically excluding that very same majority from contributing a single dollar.
> 
> This was perfectly if unwittingly captured by *The Age's political correspondent* Michael Gordon, who wrote that it was a levy most punters would be happy to pay. Quite so: most people would happily pay nothing.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...he-budget-stupid/story-e6frg9if-1225996388543


----------



## Atomic (30 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The floods are a disaster yes. I am more than happy to do my bit to help with this national disaster.
> 
> HOWEVER, a great many people have commented over the past few years that this government was failing to set aside money "just in case" something bad happened. That comment has been made on various threads on ASF over the years and elsewhere.
> 
> ...




Tend to agree with you also smurf, my question is, where is the future fund now ?


----------



## Julia (30 January 2011)

sails said:


> And here's another reason to not let current Labor governments get their hands on any sort of relief funds.
> 
> In the Sunday Mail today it tells of over $700,000 donation funds that the Qld government still hasn't distributed to the 2006 cyclone Larry victims...



Sails, Ms Bligh responded to this on the radio lunchtime news.
She said that $700K represents interest on the donated funds and by law cannot be paid out until all claims are settled.  She said one claim remains to be settled and when that occurs all remaining money will be dispersed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 January 2011)

prawn_86 said:


> Exactly. Irrigators in SA had to suffer through a huge drought over the last decade and what was the gov's response? Cut their water entitlements (IE income) by 75% with no compensation. Isn't a drought classed as a natural disaster?



Indeed.

And if the creek near me flooded a dozen houses, then you can be pretty sure that the Australian Government won't be introducing a flood levy to help a dozen families in Tas. No, they'll be left completely to themselves apart from any help from locals.

It all comes down to politics. Yes the situation in Qld is a disaster that is for sure. But how many of those same people have lived through personal disasters over the past few years? Individual houses burnt or flooded, loss of income and so on? No doubt there's quite a few and yet nothing was done to help them. 

But when you've got a million people affected, then something gets done. That's because it's not about helping people per se, it's about politics. We can't leave a million people to fend for themselves, but governments are quite happy to see smaller numbers suffer.

Either we are socialising losses, in which case there is no point in anyone having any insurance whatsoever, or we are not. End this nonsense where sometimes the loss is socialised, other times the same loss is not. It reeks of politics and game playing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant idea...thought i doubt the ASF right will see it that way, i mean GG cant even take the "candy" options out of a poll and see it for what it is.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> This thread is an embarrassment to the whole forum....you people should be ashamed of yourselves....politicising a disaster relief levy.




Below is a poll I came across on Yahoo7. 

It's not just ASF members, and the numbers are similar over 77% against the levy, 23% for, with the "candy" taken out. I do like "candy", but can have too much of it. Then I'm a cynical bastard.



> Today's Poll
> 34267 votes since Jan 26 2011 Are you prepared to pay a flood levy?
> Yes 	23% 	7995 votes
> No 	77% 	26272 votes




gg


----------



## sails (30 January 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, Ms Bligh responded to this on the radio lunchtime news.
> She said that $700K represents interest on the donated funds and by law cannot be paid out until all claims are settled.  She said one claim remains to be settled and when that occurs all remaining money will be dispersed.




Thanks Julia - I had only read the article and hadn't heard her response.

I remain somewhat skeptical as 5 years later is a long time even for the last claim.  I wonder what happens to the interest on those donations - hopefully they also go to help those that needed it rather than being used to prop up whatever else Ms Bligh feels like.

Have posted the link to the story below from the Courier Mail and there are 95 comments at the time of posting.  Many are becomming very wary of donating to government relief funds due to the red tape of getting it distributed to those to whom it was intended.

$700,000 in Cyclone Larry donations sitting unused in government accounts


----------



## Calliope (30 January 2011)

I wonder what CBA's customers who have paid higher premiums for flood coverage think of this "compassion"?



> THE Commonwealth Bank is offering $57 million to assist with Queensland flood relief, with most of it going to insurance holders.
> Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris, joined by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, was in Brisbane today to announce the measures, which includes a $50 million "compassionate fund".
> It will be directed to the bank's CommInsure home insurance customers, particularly those who were not covered for riverine floods under its policy.




http://www.news.com.au/money/bank-offers-57m-to-flood-victims/story-e6frfmci-1225997007883


----------



## Julia (30 January 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> And if the creek near me flooded a dozen houses, then you can be pretty sure that the Australian Government won't be introducing a flood levy to help a dozen families in Tas. No, they'll be left completely to themselves apart from any help from locals.
> 
> ...



Exactly right.  Along these lines in the cyclone thread I quoted Bob Katters's comments on this amongst his insistence that we need a permanent disaster fund from which people experiencing catastrophic loss, wherever they are, and no matter how few the numbers, can draw.

But if this happens, should it be expanded to simply cover everyone who experiences loss in flood, cyclone, fire etc?  Thus eliminating any need for insurance for these events, especially given the apparent inability of some people to properly understand whether they are fully insured or not?

My basic instinct is no, that rather we need to encourage people to take personal responsibility, but then if they just won't and we continue to have Appeal after Appeal to fund those without insurance, shouldn't we just perhaps give in and establish one main fund on which anyone can claim given meeting certain criteria?

It's the same sort of principle as that which applies in NZ with their Accident Compensation Commission.  Anyone who is injured or damaged via any accident under any circumstances is assessed by the Commission and all their medical and rehab expenses, plus compensation for work missed etc. is paid by the Commission.

GP's for minor stuff simply bill the Commission and the patient pays nothing, a bit like bulk billing of Medicare here.

It stops arguments, eliminates anyone suing, (preventing lawyers from getting rich in the process) and has all up been a thoroughly successful scheme.

How would it be if the same principle were used to set up a Disaster Fund here in Australia where everyone paid roughly what they would pay for normal home and contents insurance, and the fund was then available for everyone to draw on given meeting set criteria of loss?

One thing it would prevent which I think we're all pretty conscious of at present is the resentment felt by those who have been responsible and insured fully whilst others are going to be the ones who will benefit from donated funds purely because they are considered "most in need" because they were not insured.  





sails said:


> Thanks Julia - I had only read the article and hadn't heard her response.  I wonder what happens to the interest on those donations



Ms Bligh has today stated that interest will be transferred to the flood fund.



Calliope said:


> I wonder what CBA's customers who have paid higher premiums for flood coverage think of this "compassion"?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/money/bank-offers-57m-to-flood-victims/story-e6frfmci-1225997007883



Yes, exactly the moral hazard I referred to above.


----------



## Tink (31 January 2011)

No, I dont agree with a Levy

Unbelievable, says it all.


----------



## Calliope (31 January 2011)

Tink said:


> No, I dont agree with a Levy
> 
> Unbelievable, says it all.




Wayne Swan says that most people support the levy. Of course... most people don't have to pay the levy.


----------



## Mofra (31 January 2011)

sails said:


> Anna Bligh did a great job during the disaster and was well commended for it by both sides of politics (no politicising). But then Anna started to show her true colours again it by terribly stringent means testing before people could apply for donation fund.



I'm sure if any handouts in any state (regardless of who is in power) weren't means tested, there'd be a thread on here in a heartbeat.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 January 2011)

Tink said:


> No, I dont agree with a Levy
> 
> Unbelievable, says it all.



I needed to remember why we are taxed in the first place. From the Aus. Gov.


> Why we pay tax
> Tax is money that people and businesses pay to the Australian Government. The money we collect helps pay for services including:
> # health
> # education
> ...




One would think with 

- Goods and Services Tax
- Income Tax
- Stamp Duties, Excise Duties and other "Duties" 
- Capital Gains Tax
- Land Tax
- Superannuation Taxes and Levies

the bank balance would swell exponentially.


----------



## sails (31 January 2011)

Mofra said:


> I'm sure if any handouts in any state (regardless of who is in power) weren't means tested, there'd be a thread on here in a heartbeat.




I have no problem with sensible means testing, but in this case, eligibility has been set extraordinarily low. Mr Langbroek estimtes that less than 10% of flood affected families will be eligible. Apparently Victorian fires were set at $100,000 pa per couple which is twice the amount set by Anna Bligh.  Here's more on it from the Courier Mail:

Means tests hitting families in need 



> The income test has been set at $930/week for couples plus $51 for each dependent or $704/week for individuals plus $51 for each dependent.
> 
> Asset tests are also likely to rule out people whose earnings alone may qualify them.


----------



## Julia (31 January 2011)

Ms Bligh may be in a bit of trouble with her decision to put the $700K interest from the Cyclone appeal into her Premier's flood appeal.  A mayor from the affected cyclone area is protesting that they still have damage up there for which the money could be used, and further that he should have been consulted about what should happen with the $700K.

Seems entirely reasonable.


----------



## Dunger (31 January 2011)

I disagree with the levy to rebuild infrastructure.

Gillards only reason that she's given so far is to ensure the 12/13 budget in surplus. Governments aren't here for budget surplus/deficits, they're here for the people and only for the people.

The floods haven't really worried the financial markets - the Egypt turmoil is causing more concern.


----------



## gav (31 January 2011)

An interesting article in yesterday's SMH:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/drowning-in-gillards-flood-levy-spin-20110129-1a8yr.html

Unbelievable that the govt quietly announced the start a $3.2B "Automotive Transformation Scheme" on the very same day that this flood levy was announced.


----------



## IFocus (1 February 2011)

Everyone remember this

Milk Levy

http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2008/09/25/milk-levy-to-be-abolished-prices-to-fall-11c-per-litre.html

Introduce 2000 by the Howard Government abolished 2008 by the Rudd government.

11 cents per litre for 8 years

$240 million a year for 8 years

1.92 Billion dollars

Paid to around 13000 businesses.

Who paid? every Australian who drinks milk, young and old, rich and poor, sick and healthy.

Who gained? 

During this period the Howard government had the opportunity to use surpluses or debt to fund the programs this levy funded or cut the programs all together. 

The reduction in milk price would have been beneficial to all Australians equally.

But they kept the levy whilst handing out tax cuts to middle and upper income earners; they also doled out middle class wealth fare at a rate of knots.

Really a Levy that lasts just one year, has a start and finish dates and is used to reconstruct the infrastructure of one of the countries economic powerhouses makes much more sense than this Howard/Abbott era National Party Vote Catcher.


----------



## moXJO (1 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Everyone remember this
> 
> .




Grocery watch
Petrol watch 
Skill training centers
2020 summit
Taxes up 
IR stuff ups
GP Super Clinics
screw it I'll google a list


> 1. 2020 - 1,000 B&B; minds, $2+m = 9 useable ideas.
> 
> 
> 2. Save the whales – FAIL
> ...



The reason more people are more pissed at labor then the libs is simply from mismanagement or pretty idiotic policy ideas. It only takes a few acknowledgements from the lists above for people to begin to form ideas that they are getting ripped off. Howard made plenty of mistakes but kept a pretty firm handle on things.
And I'm sorry but I don't support taxes from either side. In fact Abbott lost my vote from his attempted paid maternity leave (simply to outgun labor). Well that and Hockey as treasurer. 


And I noticed Gillard has the jitters about how the carbon tax will be recieved 



> PUTTING a price on carbon is crucial to ensure the nation prospers beyond the latest mining boom, Julia Gillard has declared in a major economic speech today.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/julia-gillard-says-a-carbon-price-will-be-the-key-reform-to-drive-economic-transformation/story-e6frg6xf-1225998138895


----------



## drsmith (1 February 2011)

Julia Gillard will have more immediate concerns than a carbon tax such as the tropical cyclone from hell bearing down on the north Queensland coast. 

Then there's the amount of rain it could subsequently dump over central Australia and possibly southeastern Australia.

The flood levy might well be doubled by this time next week.

Wain Swan said during the election campaign that a carbon tax would not be levied during this term but that did leave open the option of legislating it for introduction beyond the next election. Labor will thus have to survive an election campaign before it's introduction. Assuming the Coalition are not foolish enough to attempt a great big new tax of their own a second time, I suspect the ALP will dump the policy for electoral survival. This was, after all, the fate of the greatest moral challenge of our time.


----------



## Julia (1 February 2011)

moXJO said:


> Grocery watch
> Petrol watch
> Skill training centers
> 2020 summit
> ...



Wow, moXJO, how quickly we forget.  Thank you for the long reminding list of all they have ****** up.

Abbott also lost me totally with his ridiculous tax on business to fund his maternity leave proposition.  But even if he hadn't come up with that, he's just in pretty much all other respects simply not a leader.

Here we have an abysmally incompetent government totally ripe for being thrown out.
But as long as Abbott and Hockey are the lynchpins of the opposition, Gillard  & Swan could even hold onto their jobs.

Any chance they could be brave enough to give Malcolm Turnbull another chance?
His demeanour, appearance etc is that of a leader.  It's something Tony Abbott will never achieve.


----------



## sails (1 February 2011)

Julia said:


> ...Any chance they could be brave enough to give Malcolm Turnbull another chance?
> His demeanour, appearance etc is that of a leader.  It's something Tony Abbott will never achieve.




Agree his speech is better articulated and definitely more of a statesman than we have in Abbott, Gillard or Rudd.

But the nagging questions IMO are:  is Turnbull another Windsor who came from a conservative background and yet now seems to be labor to the core?  Why was Turnbull so willing to side with labor over the awful ETS which was clearly being rejected by many conservative voters?  

Isn't there anyone else in the LNP ranks that could to a good job as a future PM or are the pickings really this lean?


----------



## Logique (2 February 2011)

sails said:


> Agree his speech is better articulated and definitely more of a statesman than we have in Abbott, Gillard or Rudd.
> But the nagging questions IMO are:  is Turnbull another Windsor who came from a conservative background and yet now seems to be labor to the core?  Why was Turnbull so willing to side with labor over the awful ETS which was clearly being rejected by many conservative voters?
> Isn't there anyone else in the LNP ranks that could to a good job as a future PM or are the pickings really this lean?



Sorry getting a bit off thread topic, but I have to say I agree. Too many view MT through the rose-coloured glasses of wishful thinking.  And it's about more than just dropping the carbon tax. Malcolm has an inner city electorate, close your eyes and throw a stone, you'll hit a  Green. And I doubt he would be any less generous on paid maternity leave.  He was out-manouevred by Howard on the republic.

Simply put, he belongs in the Labor party. I would never voluntarily accept him as leader of the Libs. 

Abbott's achilles heel was that he came off as the tough straight-talker, which many conservatives responded to, but then came the bizarre one-upmanship on maternity leave policy.


----------



## Mofra (2 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Any chance they could be brave enough to give Malcolm Turnbull another chance?
> His demeanour, appearance etc is that of a leader.  It's something Tony Abbott will never achieve.



Cath 22. Turnbull is a leader with vision and a proven record of success in the private sector, intelligent and capable - but he hasn't got a campaign record.
Abbott is a head-kicker campaigner, speaks entirely in the sort of soundbites the media love as it's easy to edit snippets of his speaches.

The choice is - do the Libs go for someone who could actually lead the country but doesn't play the political game with enough "venom", or stick with someone who enjoys the cut and thrust of the poltical game but has zero vision and is a social luddite?


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2011)

WA Nationals MP Tony Crook backs Gillard flood levy plan 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-flood-levy-plan/story-fn59niix-1225998889949



> Mr Crook agreed to support the plan after learning infrastructure projects in WA would not be delayed as a result of the floods response.



Me thinks poor old Tony doesn't have a clue.


----------



## sails (2 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> WA Nationals MP Tony Crook backs Gillard flood levy plan
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-flood-levy-plan/story-fn59niix-1225998889949
> 
> ...




And methinks he will be out on his neck at the next election...

Could there be a bit more pork barrelling going on to buy his vote on this that is kept under wraps?  Ms Gillard seems hell bent on getting this tax through.


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2011)

sails said:


> Could there be a bit more pork barrelling going on to buy his vote on this that is kept under wraps?



Tony Crook has given the government the government a reason to renig on WA infrastructure as that will make him look like a fool.

As for the more well known Tony, it seems he's lost the plot alltogether bearing in mind a somewhat large tropical weather system bearing down on the north Queensland coast. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/02/3128336.htm


----------



## Sean K (2 February 2011)

Will the rest of Australia have to pay a Cyclone Levy now that Nth Queenslanders have taken a hit?


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2011)

kennas said:


> Will the rest of Australia have to pay a Cyclone Levy now that Nth Queenslanders have taken a hit?



Julia being quick off the trigger with the flood levy now has one less option should Yasi be a major disaster.

Politically, the farce is very much with us, from both sides.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 February 2011)

moXJO said:


> Grocery watch
> Petrol watch
> Skill training centers
> 2020 summit
> ...




And yet the greatest political accomplishment of all was winning the last election....the only accomplishment that's actually worth a dam, because if your not in power your a side show....a footnote in history while others are making that history.



----------------------------------------

Also good to see the pretence of this thread being about the levy has finally been abandoned by the ASF right and there supporters...and this thread is finally just about whinney liberals...winging and complaining.


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet the greatest political accomplishment of all was winning the last election....



That was hardly a political accomplishment.

More like a political failure on the Coalition's part.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> That was hardly a political accomplishment.
> 
> More like a political failure on the Coalition's part.




Its a brilliant political achievement...politics is about winning, second place in a 2 horse race is last.  moXJO listed 60 reasons why they should of lost (according to him, the author and about 80% of ASFers) and yet its Julia sitting in the lodge, its Julia enjoying the NYE fire works from the front lawn of Kirribilli House.

Julia is making history while the whinny Liberals lead by one vote Tony sit and watch and pretend to be relevant...in a political reality that has passed them by.

lets look at the political achievements of one vote Tony....well he won the coalition leadership by 1 vote and err he lost the election.....lol cracking stuff hey.


----------



## drsmith (2 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Its a brilliant political achievement...politics is about winning, second place in a 2 horse race is last.



And being in government is about competent management and leadership. On many aspects of this, the ALP has failed abysmally. 

In saying that, I'm not saying that the Coalition would have been any better under Tony Abbott. The majority of voters obviously didn't think so, even though the ALP couldn't manage their own party during the campaign.

The election result is more a reflection of the sorry state of politics in Australia than anything else.


----------



## moXJO (2 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> And yet the greatest political accomplishment of all was winning the last election....the only accomplishment that's actually worth a dam, because if your not in power your a side show....a footnote in history while others are making that history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is it a prerogative of all lefties to be emotive trolls
God talk about precious. :


----------



## Julia (2 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> The election result is more a reflection of the sorry state of politics in Australia than anything else.



That says it all.  So cynical, if you genuinely believe Gillard & Co "won' the election, you are utterly naive.  What it came down to was which side had to cope with the greatest level of pre-existing bias from the independents who actually made the decision as to who would govern.

The political and personal baggage of loathing carried by Windsor, Oakeshott, and Katter, plus the Green affiliation of the other two made it a slam dunk for Labor.

But again, as others have observed, Tony Abbott has yet to demonstrate that he would be an adequate leader.  If your PM survives, it will alas be no testimony to her personal or political charms, but rather a reflection of the inadequacy of the opposition.


----------



## IFocus (2 February 2011)

moXJO said:


> Howard made plenty of mistakes but kept a pretty firm handle on things.




I really like John Howard....... I had to after all he spent $100s mil telling us how good he was with overt political advertising using your money.

Then of course there was the minor matter of $9bil of give always for his last election.

Surely you mean Costello kept a firm handle on things........


sorry for being off topic


----------



## IFocus (2 February 2011)

Ross Gittins take on it

Floods expose national loss of loyalty and respect for leaders 



> It's a pity Julia Gillard announced her flood levy after Australia Day rather than before it. Instead of spending the day telling ourselves what wonderful people Aussies are, we could have reflected on our darker side - why we're developing a Jekyll and Hyde personality.





http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...y-and-respect-for-leaders-20110201-1acbw.html


----------



## moXJO (2 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> I really like John Howard....... I had to after all he spent $100s mil telling us how good he was with overt political advertising using your money.
> 
> Then of course there was the minor matter of $9bil of give always for his last election.
> 
> ...




No I meant once he made a decision he shafted you up the backside with it whether you liked it or not. He stood pretty firm by his decisions once he made them. Not saying they were always good.


----------



## moXJO (3 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Ross Gittins take on it
> 
> Floods expose national loss of loyalty and respect for leaders
> 
> ...




First few replies sum up what a lot of people are thinking. 


> Labor has trashed its own brand by itself with no help from anyone. The PM who said she never wanted to be PM sits in Canberra. The Keanelly still gang runs loose in NSW raiding whats left in the public purse. Backflip Bartlett has gone home to look after the kids in Tassie ten months after being elected premier. Even Anna the heroine of the floods in Queensland has only recently finished selling off the family silver after a calling a sneaky election. The list of failures, backflips and looney schemes goes on and on. And yet we're meant to believe throwing away all of this political capital is Mr. Abbott's fault. Give us a break Ross.
> 
> 
> SteveH. - February 02, 2011, 7:23AM
> ...




Same sentiment that has crept in now, was the same that kicked the Keating government out all those years ago. 

Politics aside, QLD will need a hand to get back on its feet after this latest disaster.


----------



## Logique (3 February 2011)

Great post moXJO,
another press apologist called on his insular, _'Golden Book Stories'_ view of the world. We're smarter than that Mr Journalist.


> My 'pathological objection to paying more tax' is because our governments seem to have a pathological need to waste more money.
> Child care rebates, first home buyer grants, BER, insulation schemes, paid maternity leave for $150K per year mums, failed submarine programs, useless secondhand US helicopters for the navy, funding programs for whatever vocal minority takes the news of the day....Get your hands out of my pockets nannies. When you've stopped wasting what you have, THEN and only THEN do you get to ask for more...
> ...Allan | Monaro - February 02, 2011, 7:29AM


----------



## Mofra (3 February 2011)

moXJO said:


> Is it a prerogative of all lefties to be emotive trolls
> God talk about precious. :



It was a response, rather than a precipitor. 
Who's a bit precious?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 February 2011)

The government could easily make the money be removing negative gearing from existing homes and having it only on new stock. it doesn't even have to be backdated.

Many people are screaming for this in the letters columns of newspapers and by economists as 1st home buyers can't get into the market but funnily no politician, whatever the colour, will entertain the idea.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Im with tech.
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
> ...




Well SC, it looks as if the Gumnut clan will now be eligible for the bikkies.

During Yasi the three ex Mrs Gumnuts and a gaggle of misanthropes and children of mine, fled back to casa Gumnut, which is built better than the bloody Pentagon. 

We had 24 here for Yasi, and at the height of the blow, I managed to convince them to allow me collect the money from Centrelink on Monday, when it opens. 

There were 18 over 18 and 6 under.

That is $18000 plus $2400, which I believe is $204000.

I'm still against it in principle.

As Groucho said.



> "Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others."




gg


----------



## Julia (4 February 2011)

What is the allowance from Centrelink actually supposed to be for?
I wouldn't have thought, given your earlier post about how well you survived the cyclone, you really had a need to claim anything from the taxpayer, gg?

Perhaps I haven't properly understood your situation.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 February 2011)

Julia said:


> What is the allowance from Centrelink actually supposed to be for?
> I wouldn't have thought, given your earlier post about how well you survived the cyclone, you really had a need to claim anything from the taxpayer, gg?
> 
> Perhaps I haven't properly understood your situation.




Exactly my point Julia, and I agree.

According to Gillard's guidelines, moi and the motley queue are entitled.

p.s. Sorry the previous post overestimated my windfall, it should be $20400

gg


----------



## trainspotter (5 February 2011)

Where is the money coming from for the cyclone relief to pay the Garpal Gumnuts of QLD? Now before all the bleeding hearts begin the FLAME ON about me being uncaring and not wanting to help the esteemed GG's of the world. 

Wasn't this the same government that was crowing how well Australia was doing on the global macro economic front and implementing all these wonderful schemes to keep us "moving forward" (billion here, billion there, pretty soon we will be talking in real money)

Now we find out the tin is empty and we have to have a "flood levy" to assist in rebuilding QLD. This was announced BEFORE cyclone Yasi. Me thinks this "flood levy" will turn into a "natural disaster fund" to get through parliament and will become a permanent fixture of taxation ........ "moving forward" that is.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 February 2011)

Julia said:


> That says it all.  So cynical, if you genuinely believe Gillard & Co "won' the election, you are utterly naive.  What it came down to was which side had to cope with the greatest level of pre-existing bias from the independents who actually made the decision as to who would govern.
> 
> The political and personal baggage of loathing carried by Windsor, Oakeshott, and Katter, plus the Green affiliation of the other two made it a slam dunk for Labor.




That's a very long winded way of saying she won ... matters little how that was achieved.

-------------------------------



Garpal Gumnut said:


> p.s. Sorry the previous post overestimated my windfall, it should be $20400
> 
> gg




Ok now that upsets me a little.


----------



## trainspotter (5 February 2011)

Are these insured ?? Or is it "flood damage" and not "water ingress" ?? HUH?


----------



## Julia (5 February 2011)

What's noticeable in that photograph is, despite the pile up of water craft, the adjacent buildings seem quite unharmed.  Says a lot about the force of water.


----------



## Tink (6 February 2011)

I get annoyed with these things, when people should be insured. Isnt that what its there for?

People have donated money and now they get told they have to donate again through levy -- thankyou very much.

What happens if the house was rented, do the owners still get this help even though they werent there?


----------



## IFocus (6 February 2011)

Tink said:


> People have donated money and now they get told they have to donate again through levy -- thankyou very much.




Tink the donations go to people (hopefully) levy to rebuild roads bridges etc (hopefully)


----------



## -Bevo- (7 February 2011)

Well I could be wrong but apparently because I lost power for more than 48hrs (actual loss was 60 hours for me) due to cyclone yasi all I have to do is go to centrelink and collect $1000 dollars and don't have to pay the flood levy either, the food I threw out from the fridge was probably about $50 I rent and suffered no damage to personal items, during cyclone tessie 10 years ago lost power for 5 days and got nothing.


----------



## Tink (7 February 2011)

Yep, I understand that IFocus.

When we had the fires here in Vic, we had quite a few trying to rort the system, unfortunately.

I just dont understand why people dont insure themselves, bottom line.


----------



## Calliope (7 February 2011)

Tink said:


> Yep, I understand that IFocus.
> 
> When we had the fires here in Vic, we had quite a few trying to rort the system, unfortunately.
> 
> I just dont understand why people dont insure themselves, bottom line.




A lot of those who *did* have insurance are complaining loudly that "they" didn't cover me for "flood", "tidal surge'" etc. What they mean is "I didn't cover myself".   

They don't seem to understand that you get what you pay for. If you pay for an inferior product, that is what you get.


----------



## Calliope (7 February 2011)

A Newspoll showed that 55% supported the flood levy. This is not surprising as about 50% don't have to pay the levy.


----------



## sails (7 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> A Newspoll showed that 55% supported the flood levy. This is not surprising as about 50% don't have to pay the levy.




Looks like 1202 people were phoned for the poll.  Not a big sample size.  You wonder how much polls like this are manipulated because it certainly doesn't stack up to the number opposing it on newpaper polls.  Or do they keep polling until they get the result someone wants?  The suggestion from "Yes Minister" to ensure you get the result you want when polling comes to mind...lol

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/110202 Flood Levy.pdf

Sunrise also had a poll with over 4,400 responses.  That's almost 4 times the one from newspoll and the result was *7% for and 93% against*.  It was on one of their videos, so don't have the link now.


----------



## Julia (7 February 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like 1202 people were phoned for the poll.  Not a big sample size.  You wonder how much polls like this are manipulated because it certainly doesn't stack up to the number opposing it on newpaper polls.  Or do they keep polling until they get the result someone wants?  The suggestion from "Yes Minister" to ensure you get the result you want when polling comes to mind...lol



Yes, and I'd like to see the actual questions asked.  i.e. say they asked:

 "are you prepared to pay a dollar a week to see your fellow Australians assisted to recover from the devastating floods no one could ever have predicted?"

I bet most people would unhesitatingly say yes, of course.

But if they were asked:

"Are you happy to have a new tax applied on top of the present Medicare levy because the government's capacity to make adequate provision in the national budget has failed?"

I bet most people would say no.

The reporting of the 'results' of these polls is imo pretty meaningless unless we know the actual wording of the questions asked and further, how respondents were selected.


----------



## sails (7 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, and I'd like to see the actual questions asked.  i.e. say they asked:
> 
> "are you prepared to pay a dollar a week to see your fellow Australians assisted to recover from the devastating floods no one could ever have predicted?"
> 
> ...




Agree - here's the "Yes Minister" clip again which puts these sorts of polls into perspective, IMO...lol


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2011)

Tink said:


> Yep, I understand that IFocus.
> 
> When we had the fires here in Vic, we had quite a few trying to rort the system, unfortunately.
> 
> I just dont understand why people dont insure themselves, bottom line.




In terms of the floods some as Calliope describes, some because the premiums are judged as to high and some because insurance company's simply wont insure in some well known flood plains.

Insurance company's have a lot of research on probability (had some dealing with FM Global in industry) and they work the numbers accordingly generally premiums can be a good guide to your risk.


----------



## Slipperz (8 February 2011)

The oppositions numbers are in.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/we ather/abbott-announces-cuts-instead-of-flood-levy-20110208-1al0w.html

Seems to make sense. Surely we have enough water in our river systems for this year?

Check 600 million.

Automotive industry subsidies 500 million. No idea what that's all about.

Will the industry survive without it? The opposition seems to think so.

Deferring  aid to build schools in Indonesia. Well durrr we need the money to build schools here. Surely the Indonesians can see no bad faith in this action.

Check 400 million.

Bloody hell it's not that hard to find government waste is it?

Definitely on side with the opposition on this issue.

And as a side issue I just totally cleaned out my wardrobe and bottom draws and gave the red cross a tonne of clothes for the people who have lost everything. Just a bit of practical help courtesy of my expanding waistline.


----------



## IFocus (8 February 2011)

> Slipperz;610204]The oppositions numbers are in.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/we ather/abbott-announces-cuts-instead-of-flood-levy-20110208-1al0w.html
> 
> ...




Best time buy back water rights is when in flood they are much cheaper the Murray Darling over allocation of water rights wont go away



> Automotive industry subsidies 500 million. No idea what that's all about.
> 
> Will the industry survive without it? The opposition seems to think so.




This bit I don't know about either anyone else?



> Deferring  aid to build schools in Indonesia. Well durrr we need the money to build schools here. Surely the Indonesians can see no bad faith in this action.
> 
> Check 400 million.




People who are xenophobic will love this, specialty  with the phase "Charity begins at home"
The Jihadist radicals  in Indonesia will also love it hell whats a few more blow apart dead Australians worth. 



> Bloody hell it's not that hard to find government waste is it?
> 
> Definitely on side with the opposition on this issue.




As most here would guess I am not. Abbott keeps bunging on about how much waste in government there is when he hasn't found to many cuts since most of it is deferrals.

The whole thing is total spin plus the decisions aren't his to make you have to be in government to do that.



> And as a side issue I just totally cleaned out my wardrobe and bottom draws and gave the red cross a tonne of clothes for the people who have lost everything. Just a bit of practical help courtesy of my expanding waistline.




Nice work:


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 February 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Automotive industry subsidies 500 million. No idea what that's all about.
> 
> Will the industry survive without it? The opposition seems to think so.



Australia has what is termed a "level playing field" for the automotive industry whereas practically every other country does not. The practical effect of this is that Australian manufacturers are at a disadvantage competing against overseas rivals, hence the need for subsidies if they are to remain in operation.

Why Australia has been silly enough to introduce this "level playing field" nonsense in the first place is a damn good question. It's not as though there is actual competition on a "level playing field", it's just a term for allowing others access to the Australian market without tariffs whilst most do not return the same favours.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> A lot of those who *did* have insurance are complaining loudly that "they" didn't cover me for "flood", "tidal surge'" etc. What they mean is "I didn't cover myself".
> 
> They don't seem to understand that you get what you pay for. If you pay for an inferior product, that is what you get.



To be fair, a lot of it comes down to the difficulty in understanding insurance policies. A consumer shouldn't need the services of a lawyer to explain what they are buying.

Either the policy covers flood or it doesn't. That's a single word answer - yes or no. But read the average policy and there's pages and pages of details that the average person is not likely to understand.

Fire. Theft. Accidental breakage. Flood etc. Simple "yes" or "no" to each is what is required. If I take out insurance to cover "flood" then that should indeed cover me in the event of a flood be it due to a cyclone, blocked drain or whatever. That there are so many loopholes is where people get caught.


----------



## IFocus (10 February 2011)

Bob Katter is one of my favorite politicians reminds me so much of my father who would have voted for him

Bob is just a practical bloke who works for his electorate 

Katter 'rolls over' to back flood levy



> Independent Bob Katter, whose north Queensland electorate bore the brunt of Cyclone Yasi, says he will back the $1.8 billion taxpayer levy following a meeting with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan on Wednesday.
> 
> "I've had to roll over and accept the levy as it is," Mr Katter told ABC Radio on Thursday, ahead of the government introducing legislation to parliament.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/8809215/katter-rolls-over-to-back-flood-levy/

Reported the WA Nat is also backing the levy


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2011)

What's Tony Windsor up to ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/13/3137482.htm?section=justin

I hope he and the remaining independents oppose it. That might just encourage this government to have at least a little respect for money.


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

My sentiments exactly.


----------



## sails (13 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> What's Tony Windsor up to ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/13/3137482.htm?section=justin
> 
> I hope he and the remaining independents oppose it. That might just encourage this government to have at least a little respect for money.




Here's a quote from that article:



> "It seems to me this preoccupation with being back in surplus by 2012-13... I don't think that's necessarily the correct course," he said.
> 
> "I think when a disaster likes this comes along, there's very good reason to slip into deficit."




However, it looks like Katter will support it due to his electorate being hit hard by Yasi. 

But how confident is he that a levy will actually reach those for whom it is intended?  With $1000 lots being thrown around like confetti regardless of the amount actually incurred in damage, it makes one wonder.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 February 2011)

Just an update on how the Levy Tax is being collected and spent.

1. Townsville taxis Thursday and Friday frantic delivering people to Toys r Us, Harvey Norman and Jb on the one hand, and the Bottle shops on the other.

2. Some folk now remember having lived with family in the Ipswich/Toowoomba area during the flood, and when the flood passed , all moved up to Townsville, so they are claiming the bloody tax twice. 

3. This in fact happened to the Gumnuts, we had PTSD, and forgot we were in Ipswich, so will now revise up the claim to $40,800, for the Townsville Gumnuts and and estimated $38,200 for the Ajay Acacia family from Ipswich, our esteemed cousins, who put us up during the floods, and who stayed with us in Townsville during Yasi. 
that's $79 grand , not bad for a few phonecalls.

What an absolute joke.

And Centrelink pay them and the bottle shops do more business and the collective IQ approaches Julia Gillards'.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (13 February 2011)

Anyone remember Rudd's Army????????????????????

Following the response to the 2020 Summit’s recommendations, the Rudd government has agreed to establish a Deployable Civilian Capacity (DCC) for the rapid deployment of civilian experts to assist in *international disaster relief, stabilisation and post-conflict reconstruction efforts.*

WHERE ARE THEY NOW ??????? HUH ????????? anybody ???????????? 

An emergency response register of specialist personnel, such as medical teams, engineers, logisticians, sanitation experts and communications technicians, would enhance DCC responsiveness. Another register that monitors the quantity and location of commercial stocks for emergency humanitarian assistance would help.

Can anybody show me the result of this monumentous gathering of talent?? anybody ???

It is also worth considering, particularly in the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires, how best to draw on the DCC to respond to *life-threatening disasters and delivery of humanitarian assistance to Australians at home when catastrophic natural disasters occur*.

Or was the 2020 Summit just another LABOR quango of bovine excreta ??? 

WHERE ARE THE JOURNALISTS ASKING JOOLYAH GIZZARD as to where the minutemen (and women) are?? HUH???


----------



## Julia (13 February 2011)

gg, that's just quite sickening.


----------



## Julia (13 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> WHERE ARE THE JOURNALISTS ASKING JOOLYAH GIZZARD as to where the minutemen (and women) are?? HUH???



You know perfectly well that most of the press gallery are strongly of the left persuasion and are extremely unlikely to be holding the government to account.

Their lack of political diligence is even more remarkable when it comes to the Greens who are seemingly able to make any outrageous claims they like without being held to account.  

With a few exceptions, notably journalists with "The Australian" they should hang their heads in collective shame.


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2011)

sails said:


> However, it looks like Katter will support it due to his electorate being hit hard by Yasi.
> 
> But how confident is he that a levy will actually reach those for whom it is intended?  With $1000 lots being thrown around like confetti regardless of the amount actually incurred in damage, it makes one wonder.



Bob Katter's not going to reject large wads of money being directed towards his electorate. Politically, he would be a fool if he did. Tony Crook's support however is a bit more of a mystery.

Whether it's for business or personal, assistance should simply be more targeted. That though is obviously not a concern for this government.

I think GG is shouting the bar tonight.


----------



## drsmith (13 February 2011)

Julia said:


> With a few exceptions, notably journalists with "The Australian" they should hang their heads in collective shame.



God bless The Australian.


----------



## kiwichick (15 February 2011)

yes doc   hip hip for the lib rag

even though i am a temporary resident in austruckinfalia i will quite happily pay the levy

NZ donated $3 million for flood relief after just had  quite a large earthquake  in christchurch to deal with

NZ has a permanent earthquake levy on all buildings insurance (the fund currently has about $5 billion)

you should also have a count on the levies little johnie had ... 6 was it?


----------



## kiwichick (15 February 2011)

cut support to indonesia 

yeah good one sherlock!!

Bali bombing anyone? 80 ?  aussies  was it?


----------



## kiwichick (15 February 2011)

if you want cuts surely the baby bribe would be a good start... $1 billion annually

or the diesel subsidy ... $5 billion/ year?

or state governments  ...... $30 billion/year

and you thought the NBN was expensive  ..... yeah right

gotta love aussies ...


----------



## drsmith (15 February 2011)

Justification for the NBN should be based upon whether it can stand on it's own two feet, not on how well it can lean on what other people can see as inequities.


----------



## Julia (15 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> God bless The Australian.



dr, you can be as sarcastic as you like, the "The Australian" does at least question what the government is doing.  They do the same with the opposition.

What newspaper do you reckon does a better job overall?


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, weren't you looking at the nightly TV footage of roads and bridges being swept away?   Schools and various other institutional buildings ruined.



Yes I  saw the namby pamby Southbank river walk washed away. I also notice on the news tonight the rebuilding of such at some 70 million dollars has been taken off the agenda for now. Nevertheless I'm sure a "bigger and better" river walk will be built at some stage. The automatons tend to spend more money after they walk on water. 



kennas said:


> I don't quite understand how they have come to a $$ figure so quickly. How do they really know how much the public infrastructure rebuilding is going to cost?



They definitely don't underestimate. Government contracts are quite lucrative.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 February 2011)

kiwichick said:


> if you want cuts surely the baby bribe would be a good start... $1 billion annually



Do you mean couples getting paid time off work to bear children? Where do these policies emanate?

The Paid Parental Leave scheme:

    * is government funded
    * is for eligible working parents
    * can be transferred to the other parent
    * is paid at the National Minimum Wage - currently $570 a week before tax*
    * is for up to 18 weeks, and
    * can be taken any time within the first year after birth or adoption.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2011)

Julia said:


> dr, you can be as sarcastic as you like, the "The Australian" does at least question what the government is doing.  They do the same with the opposition.
> 
> What newspaper do you reckon does a better job overall?



I read a lot of articles from The Australian. Some though are very biased. My "God bless The Australian" remark is not only reflects my perception of its general bias, but the fact that it is in accordance with my own political bias. Recent criticism of the Liberals I suspect has more to do with the frustration of a party that has forgotten the main game, removed the fuses from the fuse box of their own house and is stalking each other in the dark, knives in hand.

State rags such as those from SA, the NT (a long time ago) and WA I have little time for. The impression I get from these is that they are directed at the intelect of pre-teens.


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2011)

On the subject of floods, Darwin has had 14 inches of rain in less than 36 hours and it's still heaving it down in serious fashion.

Well and truely worthy of the rain gauge polishing cloth this event. I lived there for about 5 years in the early 90's and when it rained, it didn't mess around. I can't recall anything quiet like this.


----------



## IFocus (16 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> I read a lot of articles from The Australian. Some though are very biased. My "God bless The Australian" remark is not only reflects my perception of its general bias, but the fact that it is in accordance with my own political bias. Recent criticism of the Liberals I suspect has more to do with the frustration of a party that has forgotten the main game, removed the fuses from the fuse box of their own house and is stalking each other in the dark, knives in hand.
> 
> State rags such as those from SA, the NT (a long time ago) and WA I have little time for. The impression I get from these is that they are directed at the intelect of pre-teens.




Classic post all round DR had a good laugh


----------



## Julia (16 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Recent criticism of the Liberals I suspect has more to do with the frustration of a party that has forgotten the main game, removed the fuses from the fuse box of their own house and is stalking each other in the dark, knives in hand.



That may be so.  We don't know.  But at least they're prepared to air criticism of the Libs in contrast to pro government lobbyists who lack any objectivity whatsoever.



> State rags such as those from SA, the NT (a long time ago) and WA I have little time for. The impression I get from these is that they are directed at the intelect of pre-teens.



I'm not familiar with those, but unless they are extraordinarily pathetic I imagine they will pale in comparison with Brisbane's "Courier Mail" which since turning tabloid in format has matched the format with tabloid journalism.  Just unreadable imo.

Coming back to the subject of the thread, I suspect the government - by suggesting they may have to cut disability services and programs of subsidised housing for at risk people and other social programs - are angling to have wavering MPs agree to the flood levy rather than see valuable social programs cut.

The *****'s could so easily cut some middle class welfare, rather than threatening to demolish minimal programs for those who are severely disadvantaged.


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Classic post all round DR had a good laugh



Don't get too excited.

I still don't agree with the flood levy, a carbon tax introduced by stealth or poorly targeted government spending in general.

There's plenty to give this government a serve over.


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2011)

According to the Bureau of Meteorology's 8-day rainfall prognosis, the focus for rainfall over the next week or so will turn towards Western Australia.

A lazy 50mm in Perth would be be very handy.


----------



## derty (17 February 2011)

We are about to get pizzled on out here in Kalgoorlie. Had enough rain to call the drillers back into town over the last couple of days and expecting 100-200ml between now and Monday. Annual rainfall out here is around 250ml.


----------



## IFocus (17 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Don't get too excited.
> 
> I still don't agree with the flood levy, a carbon tax introduced by stealth or poorly targeted government spending in general.
> 
> There's plenty to give this government a serve over.




Was talking about your craft of words rather than ideology.............


----------



## drsmith (17 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Was talking about your craft of words rather than ideology.............



I did say something about bias..................

Cheers.


----------



## tothemax6 (18 February 2011)

Didn't realize this thread was still going, so Ill jump in again. Does anyone know why it is that they actually need to do this levy? Where exactly is all of the tax money is being so efficiently and carefully spent, such that there is none left over? More likely it is being spewed randomly around the country on various government pet projects.

A reverse levy would be better.


----------



## sails (18 February 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Didn't realize this thread was still going, so Ill jump in again. Does anyone know why it is that they actually need to do this levy? Where exactly is all of the tax money is being so efficiently and carefully spent, such that there is none left over? More likely it is being spewed randomly around the country on various government pet projects.
> 
> A reverse levy would be better.




I am beginning to think Ms Gillard sees this as a personal achievement to force another tax on the people instead of finding areas of waste in her own government which could easily fund this amount.  Maybe something she wants this on her resume...

The emotional excuses for this tax is annoying and especially when she clearly already has tax payer funds to spend on other things of her choice.  Saying people are uncaring when they oppose it on the basis that the government could easily find these funds by cutting back on some waste.

Here's an analogy:
How would we feel if we had a neighbour who had an above average income, spends like there is no tomorrow on fast cars, parties, etc.  Then one of his kids gets sick and he goes to his neighbours and friends who earn much less than he does asking for financial help for hospital treatment.  When his friends suggest he cut back on his own spending, he angrily tells them they are uncaring about his child.​
Some would call this emotional blackmail. 

And she has "bought" the green's vote for the levy.  Always money available for pork barrelling so she can get her way.  Maybe this is why Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilke are holding back to extract a bit more tax payer funds for their own electorates.  In some countries  "pork barrelling" is called "bribery"...



> In exchange for the Greens' vote, the Government has agreed to restore $100 million in funding for solar programs and rental assistance schemes.




From Lateline: Government wins Green support for flood levy


----------



## noco (18 February 2011)

Well this link shows very clearly, Labor may well be in Government but the Greens hold the power. I read it was more like $324 million, not $100 million Gillard had to pay the Greens just get her flood levy through. Yes! 20% of $1.6 billion.She also had to bribe Wilkie.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...on_of_the_18_billion_meant_for_flood_victims/


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 February 2011)

sails said:


> Here's an analogy:
> How would we feel if we had a neighbour who had an above average income, spends like there is no tomorrow on fast cars, parties, etc.  Then one of his kids gets sick and he goes to his neighbours and friends who earn much less than he does asking for financial help for hospital treatment.  When his friends suggest he cut back on his own spending, he angrily tells them they are uncaring about his child.​
> Some would call this emotional blackmail.



Could this be an ingrained belief that the government of any day (via tax payer funds) does support the lazy, the irresponsible, and those that believe it is their god-given-right to government support.


----------



## drsmith (24 February 2011)

Bob Katter's support is perhaps understandable given his electorate is one of the major beneficiaries.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...es-house-of-reps/story-fn3dxity-1226011346563

What though is WA National Tony Crook thinking ?

His vote would have made the difference.


----------



## Mofra (24 February 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Could this be an ingrained belief that the government of any day (via tax payer funds) does support the lazy, the irresponsible, and those that believe it is their god-given-right to government support.



Given the growth of middle class welfare in this country over the past two decades, it would be very hard to argue against your point. 

I don't think either major party has the political capital or courage to reform this *real *problem in government waste though.


----------



## joea (24 February 2011)

Hi
Could some intellectual please explain how we would know that Gillard has only taken
$1.8 Bullion from the tax payer, for the flood levy?
Cheers


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Just an update on how the Levy Tax is being collected and spent.
> 
> 1. Townsville taxis Thursday and Friday frantic delivering people to Toys r Us, Harvey Norman and Jb on the one hand, and the Bottle shops on the other.
> 
> ...




*Qld will suffer under levy deal: Lucas*

Xenophon to vote for levy as long as Queensland takes out disaster insurance.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/floods/8219311/qld-will-suffer-under-levy-deal-lucas

The federal government's decision to bow to pressure from independent Senator Nick Xenophon to ensure he supports their flood levy will cost Queensland taxpayers dearly, the state government says.

The agreement will force the states and territories to take out insurance, create their own disaster funds or take equivalent measures.

With the support of all the other crossbench senators, the levy will become a reality from July, affecting most Australians earning more than $50,000.

Acting Premier Paul Lucas said he was glad the levy would pass but criticised the federal government and Senator Xenophon, saying they had delivered a "massive kick in the guts" to Queensland taxpayers.

He said the deal would require not only states, but also local governments, to fork out billions of dollars to insure themselves against disasters.

"What do you say to ratepayers in towns like Gympie, or Dalby or Emerald that flood all the time," he told reporters in Brisbane.

"But under this proposal, they're going to have to have insurance.

"It will send them broke."

The state government is currently seeking a quote to insure its assets, including roads, against future natural disasters.

But Mr Lucas said Queensland would struggle to find an appropriate deal because of its size, population and regular floods and cyclones.

"It is simply not on to make it mandatory," he said.

"... We can demonstrate it is not possible to do."

He said the federal government did not have insurance of this kind, and questioned why the case should be different for Queensland.

"Make no mistake, insurance of this type, if you can get it... is delivered by international insurance conglomerates that do it to make a profit," he said.

"Let's be perfectly clear - this doesn't just mean the state will now have to pay massive premiums to overseas insurance companies, but local councils will too."

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Oh well, I suppose that it is only fair that Queensland take out disaster insurance just like any other State in the Federation.

It's time that Queensland gets it's insurance in line with the other states and abandons some of it's old quirks like the fault principle for motor accidents. 

Insurers must make a lot of money up there when they only have to fight 'men of straw' in certain situations where no third party indemnity exists.

http://www.maic.qld.gov.au/about-maic/ctp-scheme.shtml

CTP Scheme Description

Queensland operates a common law 'fault' based Compulsory Third Party (CTP) scheme, first introduced in 1936. The scheme provides motor vehicle owners with an insurance policy that covers their unlimited liability for personal injury caused by, through or in connection with the use of the insured motor vehicle in incidents to which the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies.

For the injured third party, it provides access to common law, where the injured person has a right to approach a law court to seek monetary compensation from the person 'at fault' for the personal injury and other related losses. As a fault based scheme it requires proof of liability, meaning the injured party must be able to establish negligence against an owner or driver of a motor vehicle. Consequently, circumstances can arise where an injured person can not obtain compensation, such as when they were the driver wholly at fault in the accident because there is no negligent party against whom a claim can be made.

The Queensland scheme is governed by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and underwritten by private licensed insurers who accept applications for insurance and manage claims on behalf of their policyholders. Compensation is paid to accident victims from the respective insurer's premium pool. Since 1994, the scheme has had an increased focus on the rehabilitation of injured persons and places certain obligations on insurers and claimants.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

*Following the response to the 2020 Summit’s recommendations, the Rudd government has agreed to establish a Deployable Civilian Capacity (DCC) for the rapid deployment of civilian experts to assist in international disaster relief, stabilisation and post-conflict reconstruction efforts.*

This Policy Analysis examines the need to specify responsibilities, accountabilities, authority, legal obligations and resources to achieve a ‘Team Australia’ approach. Equitable conditions of service for civilian participants on overseas operations that are comparable to military and police entitlements will be important.

An emergency response register of specialist personnel, such as medical teams, engineers, logisticians, sanitation experts and communications technicians, would enhance DCC responsiveness. Another register that monitors the quantity and location of commercial stocks for emergency humanitarian assistance would help.

It is also worth considering, particularly in the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires, how best to draw on the DCC to respond to life-threatening disasters and delivery of humanitarian assistance to Australians at home when catastrophic natural disasters occur.

http://www.apo.org.au/research/rudds-army-deployable-civilian-capacity-australia

Anyone see any of these remarkable people from "Team Australia" leap into action?

HUH ??? Anybody?


----------



## nulla nulla (5 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> *Following the response to the 2020 Summit’s recommendations, the Rudd government has agreed to establish a Deployable Civilian Capacity (DCC) for the rapid deployment of civilian experts to assist in international disaster relief, stabilisation and post-conflict reconstruction efforts.*
> 
> This Policy Analysis examines the need to specify responsibilities, accountabilities, authority, legal obligations and resources to achieve a ‘Team Australia’ approach. Equitable conditions of service for civilian participants on overseas operations that are comparable to military and police entitlements will be important.
> 
> ...




Is David Koch on the team?


----------

