Flood Levy - Do you agree?

[prawn_86]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

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]

...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]

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.

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

 

[Julia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

No, I dont agree with a Levy

Unbelievable, says it all.

 

[Calliope]

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]

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]

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
# defence
# roads and railways, and
# social security and other payments from Centrelink.

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]

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.