Flood Levy - Do you agree?

[So_Cynical]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

:

Typical response from a fair proportion on ASFers.

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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