Flood Levy
#151
Re: Flood Levy
Shame most independent respected economists disagree with you. The handling of the GFC was touted as excellent and the suggestion was we would have lost far more money had we lost confidence and gone into recession.
#152
Re: Flood Levy
Labour got the votes it needed and now Gillard is asking you to give $250 of it back Gotta love politicians!
#153
Re: Flood Levy
Coulda woulda shoulda.................... that remains something we will never know where as we all do know that Rudd simply bought votes with a nice 1k windfall. He could just as easily spent that money on repairing/upgrading existing infrastructure or implementing large civil contracts, that wouldn't have shared it around enough to buy enough votes though.
#154
Banned
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,010
Re: Flood Levy
If it stops Australia's economy tanking I think its a small price to pay to get mines, railroads and other infrastructure up and running again. The sooner the better in my opinion because not only is Australia losing tax revenue from mining companies jobs are also at risk.
Out of interest, how many of you objecting to an temporary 1% levy were very happy to accept $900 stimulus payments a couple of years back? or have worked on the construction of new school buildings when there was little other work to be had?
Out of interest, how many of you objecting to an temporary 1% levy were very happy to accept $900 stimulus payments a couple of years back? or have worked on the construction of new school buildings when there was little other work to be had?
#155
Re: Flood Levy
Coulda woulda shoulda.................... that remains something we will never know where as we all do know that Rudd simply bought votes with a nice 1k windfall. He could just as easily spent that money on repairing/upgrading existing infrastructure or implementing large civil contracts, that wouldn't have shared it around enough to buy enough votes though.
#156
Re: Flood Levy
If it stops Australia's economy tanking I think its a small price to pay to get mines, railroads and other infrastructure up and running again. The sooner the better in my opinion because not only is Australia losing tax revenue from mining companies jobs are also at risk.
Out of interest, how many of you objecting to an temporary 1% levy were very happy to accept $900 stimulus payments a couple of years back? or have worked on the construction of new school buildings when there was little other work to be had?
Out of interest, how many of you objecting to an temporary 1% levy were very happy to accept $900 stimulus payments a couple of years back? or have worked on the construction of new school buildings when there was little other work to be had?
#157
Re: Flood Levy
We do not know that. The first injection was supposedly meant to be quick. Infrastructure spend is slower release. The experts said was phase 2. Rather go on the word of independent economists rather than "certainties" spouted by radio shock jocks who just follow the party line.
Now if Rudd had sent everyone vouchers to spend on anything Australian made we'd also have seen more benefit. That way the windfall would have made it's way back into Australian pockets. It would also have insured that it was spent & not banked by those that didn't need the spare income.
Hey ho.
#160
Re: Flood Levy
Flood levy to public isn't making sense to me. Is it for reconstruction of those houses which were not insured (I doubt if this %age is more than 10%) or for insured ones also.
If it includes insured ones also, have those insurance companies declared themselves bankrupt before the money could be collected from the last resort (public).
Although I'm not much bothered about 0.5% in this needful time but still I don't want to do someone else's job (if it is capable of doing itself).
If it includes insured ones also, have those insurance companies declared themselves bankrupt before the money could be collected from the last resort (public).
Although I'm not much bothered about 0.5% in this needful time but still I don't want to do someone else's job (if it is capable of doing itself).
#161
Re: Flood Levy
Flood levy to public isn't making sense to me. Is it for reconstruction of those houses which were not insured (I doubt if this %age is more than 10%) or for insured ones also.
If it includes insured ones also, have those insurance companies declared themselves bankrupt before the money could be collected from the last resort (public).
Although I'm not much bothered about 0.5% in this needful time but still I don't want to do someone else's job (if it is capable of doing itself).
If it includes insured ones also, have those insurance companies declared themselves bankrupt before the money could be collected from the last resort (public).
Although I'm not much bothered about 0.5% in this needful time but still I don't want to do someone else's job (if it is capable of doing itself).
Things like this: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70008F20110107
BTW, more than 60% were uninsured....most of these losses will just be taken by the residents involved. No one is going to walk in and hand them $100,000 to redecorate like some politicians are spinning it.
Last edited by fish.01; Jan 28th 2011 at 10:19 am.
#163
Re: Flood Levy
Lots of people who lost everything were not in a 'flood prone' area. Many people had insurance which had a flood exemption. Many people can't afford insurance, with or without flood cover. It's as much as some people can do to put food on the table without wondering where the hell $1,000 pa could come from for something that could possibly never be used.
However, all that is irrelevant in relation to the levy.
However, all that is irrelevant in relation to the levy.
#164
Re: Flood Levy
Lots of people who lost everything were not in a 'flood prone' area. Many people had insurance which had a flood exemption. Many people can't afford insurance, with or without flood cover. It's as much as some people can do to put food on the table without wondering where the hell $1,000 pa could come from for something that could possibly never be used.
However, all that is irrelevant in relation to the levy.
However, all that is irrelevant in relation to the levy.
#165
Re: Flood Levy
Some houses/apts that flooded in Brisbane were not so predictable. They were new and/or apparently above the flood line or whatever. The flood was higher upstream and lower downstream than the 1974 flood so the different "slope" of the flood did confuse things somewhat.