Flood levy (2 Viewers)

[SomebodyToldMe]

like hockey said, cut spending instead you fucking communist wankers.

 

[ohexploitable]

like hockey said, cut spending instead you fucking communist wankers.

sup jason

 

[SomebodyToldMe]

sup barry

 

[harrisony]

If I was someone who donated a substantial amount of money and was forced to pay the levy I wouldn't be too happy.

 

[SomebodyToldMe]

think of it as donating more money than you had earlier ~ $10

 

[Phoenix Fury]

If I was someone who donated a substantial amount of money and was forced to pay the levy I wouldn't be too happy.

Yeh it's gunna deter people from donating in the future too, thinking we'll just get a levy anyway.

Fuck this wasteful and incompetent government.

 

[kaz1]

Take money out of the military, it's not like something we really need.

 

[Azure]

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/keneally-wants-changes-to-flood-levy-20110128-1a7qo.html lol

 

[Edu.kid]

This is what i think they should do with the money instead.

http://www.squidoo.com/interesting-gadgets

 

[ohexploitable]

This is what i think they should do with the money instead.

http://www.squidoo.com/interesting-gadgets

Fuck off spammer.

 

[davidbarnes]

Taxes are obviously bad in general and no one likes paying taxes. In principal however, the levy is needed and we all understand that Qld and flood affected areas are a national priority and do require financial help in rebuilding critical infrastructure.

How the levy has been applied (in its current form anyway, its almost surely going to change a bit still) is that if you earn less than $50,000 you don't pay anything, while the higher your income, the more you pay (as it should be).

I personally earn less than $50,000 a year currently (as I imagine most users of this site do also) and thus it won't really affect me.

I agree with user boris in that many of the houses constructed in the past 30 years never should have been allowed and the areas affected should have been more prepared (with the exception of those towns hit by the flash floods which were not as predictable). The last major flood in Brisbane was in 1974, over 35 years ago, plenty of time to plan and prepare. 10 years ago (early 2000's), a hydraulic/drainage engineer at Brisbane Council noted the flood modelling for the area was 1m below the correct height and the one in a hundread year flood would in fact be potentially 1m higher than the flood maps indicated. That is a huge issue that should have been cleared up years ago and have given some warnign to residents in the new affected zone perhaps.

To do what Tony Abbott says though and scrap the NBN to pay for it is ridiculous. It is also rather hypocritical considering Abbott wants to raise the Medicare levy by 1.0% ('great big new tax') to pay for his planned maternity scheme.

So ultimately, I do support the levy. Its only for one year after all and helps those most affected by the recent flooding disasters.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

Scrapping the NBN to pay for it is a fucking fantastic idea tbh.

As much as I hate Australia's shitty net, the NBN is a waste of a fuckton of money and will take a fucklong time to implement, the money would be better spent on the flood shiz imo.

 

[Lolsmith]

How the levy has been applied (in its current form anyway, its almost surely going to change a bit still) is that if you earn less than $50,000 you don't pay anything, while the higher your income, the more you pay (as it should be).

"because your labour is more valuable, you are less entitled to it"

I personally earn less than $50,000 a year currently (as I imagine most users of this site do also) and thus it won't really affect me.

"and it's okay for me to say that because I have no experience with it."

To do what Tony Abbott says though and scrap the NBN to pay for it is ridiculous. It is also rather hypocritical considering Abbott wants to raise the Medicare levy by 1.0% ('great big new tax') to pay for his planned maternity scheme.

oh noes, he wants to stop the construction of a state legislated monopoly (literally it will be illegal to develop competition (and you'd vote for these fuckers) ) at the cost of upwards of $20 billion that has no means of actually sustaining or paying for itself instead of assisting people to have basic shelter in a non-retarded place. What a ridiculous plan

Shouldn't even have it

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

this whole issue is fucking simple as the following:

the required funds can be obtained either by cutting government spending or increasing revenue;

cutting spending > increasing revenue

the issue is fucking resolved

 

[meilz92]

against. why the fuck should we have to raise taxes to pay for the floods when all these charities are raising hundreds of millions of dollars?
to me it just seems like another excuse for revenue raising.

fucking julia gillard

 

[Lentern]

Taxes are obviously bad in general and no one likes paying taxes.

What kind of useless lefty are you? Never ever open an argument by conceding that. Ever.

 

[funkshen]

Considering the amount of money that is gushing into Australia (similar to how these floodwaters gushed into the bogan infested floodplains and gave them a good wash), I much prefer this flood levy as a dampener on agg. demand than hiking up the interest rates.

 

[vikraman]

Considering the amount of money that is gushing into Australia (similar to how these floodwaters gushed into the bogan infested floodplains and gave them a good wash), I much prefer this flood levy as a dampener on agg. demand than hiking up the interest rates.

Floods are pretty bad for the wider economy because they'll accelerate wage inflation. The workers for flood reconstruction are the same skilled workers required for the mining sector. A flood that would be good for the economy would be a flood that specifically washed in about 100,000 trained electricians, builders and plumbers. Or a flood that shut down about half the mines in Australia for about 5 years while we train 100,000 electricians, builders and plumbers. Aggregate demand is not the problem, it's labour reallocation and the shut down of secondary industry. This mining boom is a pyrrhic victory, the longer it goes on for, the worse off we're going to be when commodity prices crash.

 

[davidbarnes]

Scrapping the NBN to pay for it is a fucking fantastic idea tbh.

As much as I hate Australia's shitty net, the NBN is a waste of a fuckton of money and will take a fucklong time to implement, the money would be better spent on the flood shiz imo.

We don't have the money up front for the NBN, NBNco has to borrow bonds to pay for its construction. As both Gillard and Abbott have ruled out borrowing money to pay for the Flood reconstruction effort, then this is a moot point/end of it.

The NBN is not a waste of money, it will actually turn a profit (between 6 and 7%) while also offering far superior broadband/phone access at prices cheaper than or equivalent to today's prices (while also offering a lot more in terms of speed, data and quality).

"because your labour is more valuable, you are less entitled to it"

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you saying everyone should pay the same flood levy? You are really suggesting the teenager earning $3000 a year should pay the same as the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank earning 9 million a year? Ridicilous. Paying a percent of income (0.5%) makes it fair on all as it is adjusted to match their level of income.

"and it's okay for me to say that because I have no experience with it."

Again, hard to know what you are trying to say there.

oh noes, he wants to stop the construction of a state legislated monopoly (literally it will be illegal to develop competition (and you'd vote for these fuckers) ) at the cost of upwards of $20 billion that has no means of actually sustaining or paying for itself instead of assisting people to have basic shelter in a non-retarded place. What a ridiculous plan

Shouldn't even have it

As above, the NBN is self sustaining and will even generate a return profit (6 to 7%), which is more than most government programs ever do.

The flood levy is not to 'provide basic shelter' for flood affected people as you try to suggest it is, it is to repair infrastructure damaged (roads, rail, bridges, stormwater, sewage etc).

 

[davidbarnes]

What kind of useless lefty are you? Never ever open an argument by conceding that. Ever.

I am not a 'lefty' as you put it, I don't favour any side of politics. I go with what makes sense. In this case the government needs money to rebuild Australia and help our fellow Aussies out and a levy had to be imposed. If we had the money sitting there doing nothing then I would obviously oppose a levy, but we don't. Scrapping nation building projects such as the NBN is not an option also. I am also not in favour of the government scrapping some of the programs they have announced either.