Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Gillard Government

Jump to new
drsmith said:
To me, it's the many that's the problem. If it's easier for a government to levy than to re-prioritise, then it will levy.

Did we have special levies post the74 Brisbane floods or the destruction of Darwin after Tracy ?


And means tested too no doubt, should it come to pass.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know how much?
 
drsmith said:
To me, it's the many that's the problem. If it's easier for a government to levy than to re-prioritise, then it will levy.

Did we have special levies post the74 Brisbane floods or the destruction of Darwin after Tracy ?
Click to expand...
Before my time sadly, so I couldn't comment.
Levies seem to be a part of the political landscape, and they have been since the early Howard era.

Personally in the event of a major catastrophe I am not opposed - something such as a levy for a political policy change I would be opposed to.
 
drsmith said:
And means tested too no doubt, should it come to pass.
Click to expand...
Don't you think it should be means tested?

noco said:
Does anyone know how much?
Click to expand...
0.5% has been suggested, but I can't remember by whom.

The government's move to set up a group of business leaders to discuss what should happen is sensible. No doubt a large part of their reason for doing this was to be able to deflect criticism from themselves should a new levy be imposed.
 
Julia said:
Don't you think it should be means tested?


0.5% has been suggested, but I can't remember by whom.

The government's move to set up a group of business leaders to discuss what should happen is sensible. No doubt a large part of their reason for doing this was to be able to deflect criticism from themselves should a new levy be imposed.
Click to expand...
Nothing should be means tested as it creates distortions in marginal tax rates. The LDP's 30/30 income tax policy strikes me as a good foundation for overall income tax policy.

One option for the government, should it decide to impose a levy, could be Tony Abbott's maternity scheme levy on business. It would be interesting to see how he responds to that.

The main question here is at what level of disaster should governments fund recovery from increased taxation. It's a difficult one to answer, but the basic principal should be to re-prioritise other spending first. Past history could also be a guide as noted in my earlier post. This government since its election in 2007 has, as many of us understand, been extremely wasteful of taxpayers funds since that time. On that basis alone, I find myself very reluctant to endorse any increase in taxation by this government inparticular.
 
1) Why don't they use the leftover money from the Pink Batt Fiasco?
2) What about the money put aside for the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
3) Why not use some of the money from the 30% Health Takeover GST system?
4) Use some of the RSPT money to cover costs?
5) The BER still has money left in the slush fund?
6) I won't go on as it will get boring.
7) Just one more - the NBN pool of money could be used !!!
8) Can't stop now ....... what about the 900 million they took out of Medibank Private to prop up the budget??
9) No seriously ........ no more ..... OK !!
10) I shall not mention the ETS backflip. What about the money set aside for this catastrophe?

Ooopsies ...... none of these are a solution and nor is placing a levy on the taxpayers to pay for a natural disaster. That is what insurance companies are for. Tighten the legislation surrounding policies that WILL COVER flood damage. IMO :mad:
 
trainspotter said:
1) ...... none of these are a solution and nor is placing a levy on the taxpayers to pay for a natural disaster. That is what insurance companies are for. Tighten the legislation surrounding policies that WILL COVER flood damage. IMO :mad:
Click to expand...

The cost of coverage in high risk ares is the problem. In the past people were tempted to take a punt, but the likelihood of more frequent major flooding may decide people to pay the higher premiums or look elsewhere.

Another factor is that nearly all our country towns are located on flood plains.

Queensland's flood disaster has again highlighted the serious shortcomings of Australia's insurance regime, with flood cover unaffordable for many households in flood-prone areas. It also reinforces the need to carefully review the current policy you have.

Floods are Australia’s most common and costly natural disaster type. Over the past three decades, the cost of all flooding in Australia has ranged between $2.5 billion and $4 billion per decade.

While nearly half the policies in our survey cover flood, CHOICE is concerned people in officially flood-prone areas may be charged a much higher premium – some insurers have indicated a surcharge of as high as 1000% for the highest flood risk they cover. It’s estimated that approximately 3% of Australian properties are at grave risk of flooding and cover let alone affordable cover may not be available to them
Click to expand...
.

(Choice 14/1/11)
 
From Calliope's quote ex 'Choice':
While nearly half the policies in our survey cover flood, CHOICE is concerned people in officially flood-prone areas may be charged a much higher premium – some insurers have indicated a surcharge of as high as 1000% for the highest flood risk they cover. It’s estimated that approximately 3% of Australian properties are at grave risk of flooding and cover let alone affordable cover may not be available to them
Click to expand...

That seems entirely reasonable to me. Insurance companies are not charities.
Why would anyone expect them to take on extraordinary risk without extraordinary premiums?

The following is link to an excellent discussion on the reasons for the floods in Brisbane and the potential solutions. Also sorts out some of the gross misunderstandings and misstatements regarding the Wivenhoe Dam.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/australiatalks/stories/2011/3092031.htm
.
 
trainspotter said:
1) Why don't they use the leftover money from the Pink Batt Fiasco?
2) What about the money put aside for the "Cash for Clunkers" program?
3) Why not use some of the money from the 30% Health Takeover GST system?
4) Use some of the RSPT money to cover costs?
5) The BER still has money left in the slush fund?
6) I won't go on as it will get boring.
7) Just one more - the NBN pool of money could be used !!!
8) Can't stop now ....... what about the 900 million they took out of Medibank Private to prop up the budget??
9) No seriously ........ no more ..... OK !!
10) I shall not mention the ETS backflip. What about the money set aside for this catastrophe?

Ooopsies ...... none of these are a solution and nor is placing a levy on the taxpayers to pay for a natural disaster. That is what insurance companies are for. Tighten the legislation surrounding policies that WILL COVER flood damage. IMO :mad:
Click to expand...

You've taken the words out of my mouth TS. Well summarised.

gg
 
Another tax is really beyond the pale.

What the Gillard government should really be looking at is cutting back on the middle class welfare that was brought in during the Howard years.

It is unsustainable in the long term and sooner or later it needs to be reined in.

I wouldn't have any objection to paying a one off levy if I thought that our governments and i am including both the major parties here have managed our finances well.

Unfortunately the track record of both major parites is a litany of wastage.
 
A letter in The Australian today works it out. And the poor little pets thought they got the jobs on their merits.

JOAN Kirner, Carmen Lawrence, Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally, Julia Gillard and now Lara Giddings.

Excepting the deposed Kevin Rudd, the resignation of David Bartlett on the lamentably predictable excuse of wanting more time with his young family continues an unworthy Labor tradition of gutless male politicians -- their egos inversely proportional to their ticker -- leaving women to face the cacophonous electoral music.
Click to expand...
 
noco said:
Well, our Jooyla ain't travelling too well ATM. Things will certainly get heated in Canberra in the coming months. How long can our fearless leader last after reading the link from the Courier Mail.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/pm-going-flat-as-rudd-reinvigorates/story-e6freon6-1225994075706
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, Noco. I remember an article some time ago that Rob Oakeshott has stated that he would remove his support should there be a leadership challenge to Gillard. Will see if I can find it.

If he pulled his support, labor would then need Katter to take his place. Although he clearly supports Rudd, I don't know that his electorate would be so pleased. Katter has expressed his views on the three amigos which I think has been posted before. Here is the link anyway: Bob Katter reveals three amigos schism
 
noco said:
Well, our Jooyla ain't travelling too well ATM. Things will certainly get heated in Canberra in the coming months. How long can our fearless leader last after reading the link from the Courier Mail.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/pm-going-flat-as-rudd-reinvigorates/story-e6freon6-1225994075706
Click to expand...
That's a pretty fanciful article in the Courier Mail imo. Ms Gillard is certainly failing dismally as PM but I don't think too many would see a solution in a Rudd/Plibersek ticket.
Much as I detest Ms Gillard, I detest K.Rudd more.

If they get rid of Gillard, I reckon there would be more advantage in going for Chris Bowen with maybe Greg Combet. Toss Swan at the same time as Gillard.
 
Calliope said:
There are suggestions it will be added to the Medicare levy:cautious:
Click to expand...
I heard on the news a special Medicare Levy this year of 2%. For me it' s good bye to JG in the next election. Taking money from people without asking is dam rude. :mad: No doubt there is a scheme to make "tough choices" elsewhere to "bring the budget to surplus" in 2012-13
 
Intrinsic Value said:
Another tax is really beyond the pale.
What the Gillard government should really be looking at is cutting back on the middle class welfare that was brought in during the Howard years.
It is unsustainable in the long term and sooner or later it needs to be reined in........
Click to expand...
He he.

IV, you're not suggesting that the Golden Children of social welfare, the 'Working Families' should suffer the slightest inconvenience?

In particular, the 18 weeks of sit-down money (un means tested) will be the last, the very last budget to be cut, or even reviewed. This is despite the fact that, after a 180 degree turn, we now believe in a Sustainable Australia.

And in fairness, Tony Abbott's proposed scheme is ultimately even more of a gouge on taxpayers, if enacted via a more indirect pathway.

But both sides of politics had better keep their hands off the 30% private health insurance rebate (if they want my vote that is).
 
Another tax for just about every Australian, and the 'effective tax rate' being paid by Australians continues to edge higher. Rather than cutting back on spending and welfare payments being handed out to random people.

How long until Julia Gillard gets her ultimate wish of the effective tax rate being 100%, and Australia becomes the communist state that she has been waiting for.
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
Tisme
N
Kevin Rudd: The next UN Secretary General?
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
16K
noco
N
sydboy007
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
3K
sydboy007
sydboy007
Joe Blow
  • Sticky
How to identify an investment scam
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
60K
farmerge
farmerge
Top