Flood Levy - Do you agree?

[Gringotts Bank]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[moXJO]

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]

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]

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]

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 caffè lattes with some hangers-on and decent bottle of red. I'll survive.

 

[Surly]

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]

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]

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]

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?