Pollyana

That really is pushing it, I agree.

jad n rich

I came out of the kids hospital - throat operation, and had to buy kids liquid nurofen, (calpol) and it was $18 for 100ml

I thought I had heard every rip off price possible but thats just taking the biscuit!

IvanM

That is far too sensible.

jad n rich

But then the battlers would have to pay a rent that related to the cost of the property, mortage, rates, water... I dont think too many $500,000 houses would be rented out for 300/400 bucks a week then.

Real costs would be more like 1000+ a week.

Then the govt would be under pressure to provide more govt housing and they aint got the money thats for sure.

freebo

More likely those investing in a badly performing asset would cease to do so, rents are already at the level that the market is prepared to pay, if the market would bear it why would landlords not increase the rent anyway? Maybe the $500,000 houses are really $300,000 houses who's prices have been inflated by the aforementioned neg gearing and FTHOG. Why should "the battlers" subsidise someone else's bad investment?

Deancm_MKII

I was watching Gillards announcement at the time and the more she went on...

How did I know you would respond with something like that or your post about "Abbot lovers"? I might not be the only one that is predictable.

>Trigger<

wonder if we'll all be rushing back to the UK..20% VAT..still least it makes the maths easier

Broad Shoulders

So I'm predictable in my response to your predictability

He started it miss!

moneypenny20

Threads merged.

Any chance some of you could remember you're actually adults? Rhetorical question.

spalen

I hope that this gets defeated in the house or whatever bogan ceremony they have in this country that masquerades as government due process.

Since when did paying for capital infrastructure damaged by a 1 in 50 yr event have to be done in 1 year what happened to issuing bonds, creating debt, to fund infrastructure. Its not like they cant find 1.8bn

this is never going to get repealed, there will be some other section doing it tough as that stupid woman says who will need this levy.

fish.01

Why? The people whose houses were trashed without insurance lost their money. I have seen a successful man in tears as he contemplates a $500,000 loss. I don't think anyone is going to run out and hand it back to him with this levy are they?

Surely this is to replace the massive amount of vital infrastructure that has been destroyed - bridges, coal lines from mines etc etc...?

Surely that is just as worth while as the ansett levy or dairy industry milk levy or gun buy back levy the coalition created? All those levies were also short term....though granted the coalition left the one on the milk well past its due date so labor had to remove it.

Gillard should just impose a hypocrisy levy on Abbott

JBJ14

I don't remember flights coming down when the Ansett levy was 'removed' .... don't think it was removed as much as absorbed!

If you live in a flood prone area, you should pay a flood levy EVERY year ... then when you need to rebuild, we can take it from the money that YOU paid! Same with bushfires and people living with shrub all around them .... annual fire levy for living there!

Thats it .... I'm taking over the country! Problem solved!

fish.01

Ansett levy scrapped: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...220597491.html

It is not to rebuild the houses in the flood zone. You're fired

Vash the Stampede

I've been pleasantly surprised by the sensible nature of Gillard's response. A one-off 0.5% increase to the Medicare levy (combined with the scrapping or delaying of expensive and potentially worthless projects like the "cash for clunkers" scheme) sounds good to me. I won't be eligible to pay it, which is another nice bonus.

Gillard has obviously decided to follow the example of John Howard, who introduced a whopping six different levies during his time as PM, even when the budget was in surplus.

So the precedent was set by the Liberals, and Gillard is in good company here. It's a responsible approach, and reflects good financial management.

But Gillard needs to go much further. The Independents are right to push for a federal disaster fund, and Gillard should not be allowed to get her levy unless she agrees to create one. It's an excellent way to make up for the deficiencies of previous federal governments, none of which showed any foresight on this issue.

The money for a disaster fund should come from whatever is left of the stimulus budget, since our economy doesn't need any more artificial stimulation and hasn't for some time. She should also scrap the first home owner's grant, which is massively expensive, economically redundant, and arguably a significant contributor to Australia's overheated property market.

A permanent "disaster tax" is unnecessary, and would inevitably be skimmed off by the government over time. New taxes are an easy way for lazy governments to crib some more cash without spending more effort on balancing the books (e.g. Abbott's proposed tax on businesses to fund maternity leave; why not just run the budget properly in the first place?)

A one-off levy puts the responsibility back on Treasury to keep its accounts in order.

IvanM

As others have said the levy is to rebuild infrastructure that was destroyed. Roads, rail, schools etc. The stuff needed to get the economy going. Not even the Libs are denying the spend is needed.