|
Re: Flood levy
Did he not have flood insurance? Is fairness making people homeless? Frankly I feel sorry for those who lost their homes, not those with a dodgy investment choice.
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 9425315)
A friend of mine owns an investment house in Ipswich. The water went up over the window sills and made a complete mess. The tenants got their flood allowance of about $4000 and buggered off leaving him to clear up all their old rotten furniture and mattresses. As the landlord he isn't entitled to claim any assistance. The old tenants are now in a new rental with new furniture all paid for by you and me. That doesn't seem fair to me.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9425446)
Frankly I feel sorry for those who lost their homes, not those with a dodgy investment choice.
|
Re: Flood levy
I am surprised at you suggesting wealth distribution to private investment. It is like you have gone pinko.
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 9425512)
Why doesn't that surprise me?
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9425564)
I am surprised at you suggesting wealth distribution to private investment. It is like you have gone pinko.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9425216)
Last event of a similiar nature was 1974. I believe a condition Nick Xenophon wanted for the levy is that QLD gets insurance. QLD Libs wanted to use more of the flood catchment to hold water as standard. What monkeys.
QLD slacked off on the insurance and should be paying a lot more as a result. I can't find any evidence that insurance would make much difference. If so, NSW and other states would not be busy claiming off the same govt scheme as they have done over recent years to fix their damaged infrastructure...I don't think insurance covers as much as that original beat-up made out? |
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9425446)
Did he not have flood insurance? Is fairness making people homeless? Frankly I feel sorry for those who lost their homes, not those with a dodgy investment choice.
|
Re: Flood levy
Landlords are subsidized by taxpayers as it is through negative gearing. Scumbag socialist scroungers the lot Em.
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 9425616)
If it wasn't for the generosity of landlords then the scumbag tenants wouldn't have anywhere to live.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by fish.01
(Post 9425734)
If so, NSW and other states would not be busy claiming off the same govt scheme as they have done over recent years to fix their damaged infrastructure...I don't think insurance covers as much as that original beat-up made out?
|
Re: Flood levy
It tells you something about the advisability of buying an investment there and what the planners were up to.
Originally Posted by fish.01
(Post 9425738)
FYI, can't get flood insurance on homes in the flood zones.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9426492)
Landlords are subsidized by taxpayers as it is through negative gearing. Scumbag socialist scroungers the lot Em.
|
Re: Flood levy
Socialist wealth redistribution does not care if the form is a subsidy, deduction or tax rebate. Negative gearing is wealth redistribution. Very pinko.
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 9426511)
Negative gearing is not a subsidy it is a deductible expense. It is typical socialist thinking to view deductibles as a government subsidy when in fact all it does is reduce the amount of tax you pay. If tenants don't like paying rent they should go and buy instead.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9426537)
Socialist wealth redistribution does not care if the form is a subsidy, deduction or tax rebate. Negative gearing is wealth redistribution. Very pinko.
|
Re: Flood levy
Sounds pinko to me.
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 9426560)
Socialist wealth redistribution does not even care if the cash cow it sucks from withers and dies leaving everyone poorer. Negative gearing takes this further by providing cheap housing for the poor at the expense of the rich who even after the "tax rebate" still have to subsidise the tenant more and make a loss year after year. Otherwise it would be cheaper to buy.
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by renth
(Post 9426503)
They didn't want to lose their no claims bonus. Why bother claiming when you can rely on the largesse of the tax payer to bail you out?
|
Re: Flood levy
Originally Posted by IvanM
(Post 9426509)
It tells you something about the advisability of buying an investment there and what the planners were up to.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:54 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.