Flood Levy

Old Jan 28th 2011, 3:42 am
  #136  
ah-beng
 
spalen's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: ^.^
Posts: 3,113
spalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond reputespalen has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Ive just realised the horrible truth here.

Gillard and Bligh cannot possibly show a surplus now at the election or any time in between because to do so would demonstrate they could have avoided this unpopular tax. So they'll have a massive incentive to spend it all (no matter on what)

You really *can* imagine the meeting to discuss making sure *any* surplus is spent to make sure they demonstrate that they really needed this.

Well, you can if you ever watched Yes Minister.
spalen is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 3:48 am
  #137  
You sip .... I glug !!!
 
Vegemite Kids's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Over the hill!
Posts: 2,790
Vegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII

If the average self-employed person's business goes under and they 'hit the wall' financially, do they expect the govt or the people to bail them out? No. Does the govt. start a levy for them? No. They chose to start a business and made bad business decisions and thus reap the consequences.

Same with the floods. They chose to live there in full knowledge the areas are prone to floods. Their decision and they need to accept responsibility for their own actions.

This is the biggest problem with society today. The lack of acceptance of responsibility; always expecting someone else to bail them out.

But thats my point!! The levy that is being talked about is not for the flooded people. Its for the infrastructure. You know - roads, bridges etc. None of this levy will be used to rebuild peoples houses.

The flood affected people will not recieve a penny of direct aid from this levy. (maybe indirect if they happen to be involved in the construction trade and are involved in the rebiluding effort).

Yes you're right, it was their decision to live on a flood plain (and thats why the majority had insurance, some didnt I agree and some had the wrong insurance, but the majority did), but does that mean nobody should ever live anywhere that there is a 1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year risk that a natural disaster might occur? Lovely thought but a bit naive in my opinion.

And when that 1 in a 100 year event does occur, does that mean the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say "your choice mate - tough"

I dont think the people in the flood affected areas expect the rest of us to 'bail them out' as you put it, but I do believe they will gratefully recieve any assistance that we feel able to donate (whether thats time or money or both).

I do however think and expect that the govt, both state and federal, will repair the damaged infrastructure and therefore logically I expect my tax to go up slightly after a natural disater of this magnitude.

Anyone that didnt expect that had their head in the sand in my opinion.
Vegemite Kids is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:02 am
  #138  
Frequent Flyer Member
 
bcworld's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,994
bcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond reputebcworld has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids
but does that mean nobody should ever live anywhere that there is a 1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year risk that a natural disaster might occur? Lovely thought but a bit naive in my opinion.

And when that 1 in a 100 year event does occur, does that mean the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say "your choice mate - tough".
The media loves this one in x years stuff. Is it really 1 in 100 years? How long have people been tracking floods in Australia?

What was the Brisbane flood peak? A bit under 4.5m?

Seems like worse than that happened 3 times in 10 years before.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/ql..._history.shtml

One thing that's telling is that the flood peak was 1m lower than 1974, but it seems like nearly 4 times as many homes were flooded this time.
bcworld is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:26 am
  #139  
Home and Happy
 
Pollyana's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,786
Pollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by gmralston
Yes I object to that too, I have already donated the amount I wanted, the way I wanted.

During the free transport week I used a bus in the Gold Coast and was told I must donate $2 per person into an open tin to get on the bus, I told the driver I don't have $2 but I have a gocard that is in credit, that is the requirment for using translink services. How do I know he is honest? Maybe he is but the system is open to abuse.
Thats an interesting one and I would be questioning it with the bus company! Certainly the Brisbane Buses I used didn't have that operating....maybe I'm a cynical git this week, but it sounds fishy to me.
Pollyana is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:32 am
  #140  
High in the Dandenongs
 
hevs's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Listening to Puffing Billy
Posts: 9,183
hevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids
Yes you're right, it was their decision to live on a flood plain (and thats why the majority had insurance, some didnt I agree and some had the wrong insurance, but the majority did), but does that mean nobody should ever live anywhere that there is a 1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year risk that a natural disaster might occur? Lovely thought but a bit naive in my opinion.
I agree.....its stupid. So what about everyone who lives in FNQ with cyclones happening fairly often? What about people in Victoria (and other states) who live in bushfire prone areas/ drought areas? Should we allow the insurance companies repeatedly wriggle out of paying for people who do the right thing and take out insurance, to be told they are not covered? And where are these people supposed to live Just In Case theres another flood in 30 years time..? the rise in population (all over the world) is making it nigh on impossible to live somewhere that doesnt get freakish weather/ disasters.....of some kind or other. Perhaps we should go and live in space. In a box....
hevs is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:33 am
  #141  
Home and Happy
 
Pollyana's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Keep true friends and puppets close, trust no-one else...
Posts: 93,786
Pollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond reputePollyana has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by bcworld
The media loves this one in x years stuff. Is it really 1 in 100 years? How long have people been tracking floods in Australia?

What was the Brisbane flood peak? A bit under 4.5m?

Seems like worse than that happened 3 times in 10 years before.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/ql..._history.shtml

One thing that's telling is that the flood peak was 1m lower than 1974, but it seems like nearly 4 times as many homes were flooded this time.
Official flood peak at the City gauge was 4.46 metres.
Pollyana is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:46 am
  #142  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,048
Deutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to beholdDeutschmaster is a splendid one to behold
Default Re: Flood Levy

I'm surprised that nobody has moaned about the increase in food prices due to the flooding that have been touted in the papers.

Can't Coles and Woolies just import the stuff when there is a shortage? Surely if the price of something increases after the flooding then that means there is a shortage?

For those on average incomes the new tax is only a couple of dollars extra a week, meanwhile in the papers - sensationalism I know - increases up to 50% are being forecast! Surely everybody would be more worried about the cost of living?
Deutschmaster is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 4:46 am
  #143  
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Deancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Vegemite Kids
But thats my point!! The levy that is being talked about is not for the flooded people. Its for the infrastructure. You know - roads, bridges etc. None of this levy will be used to rebuild peoples houses.
Did you actually listen to Gillard's speech yesterday? Not once did she mention the levy was going to be spent on infrastructure.

The flood affected people will not recieve a penny of direct aid from this levy. (maybe indirect if they happen to be involved in the construction trade and are involved in the rebiluding effort).
Nor should they.

Yes you're right, it was their decision to live on a flood plain (and thats why the majority had insurance, some didnt I agree and some had the wrong insurance, but the majority did), but does that mean nobody should ever live anywhere that there is a 1 in 50 year or 1 in 100 year risk that a natural disaster might occur? Lovely thought but a bit naive in my opinion.
That's not what I am saying. People can feel free to live wherever they want but must accept the consequences in the event it all goes pear shaped and not expect people to bail them out.

Shit happens, that's life.

And when that 1 in a 100 year event does occur, does that mean the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say "your choice mate - tough"
If it is a known flood zone or bushfire area then yes because on the balance of probability, if it has happened once it can happen again and don't forget, it wasn't 100 years ago that was the last time there were floods. The last major ones were in 1974 which is not too long ago. This 100 years stuff is political spin.

I dont think the people in the flood affected areas expect the rest of us to 'bail them out' as you put it, but I do believe they will gratefully recieve any assistance that we feel able to donate (whether thats time or money or both).
I don't think they do either. It's the politicians that want us to keep donating and force us to pay a new tax.

I do however think and expect that the govt, both state and federal, will repair the damaged infrastructure and therefore logically I expect my tax to go up slightly after a natural disater of this magnitude.

Anyone that didnt expect that had their head in the sand in my opinion.
They wouldn't need to introduce a new tax if they managed our money more wisely. Instead they just throw it at failed project after failed project. But that's what I expect from socialist governments. All they know how to do is spend other people's money.
Deancm_MKII is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:08 am
  #144  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
iamthecreaturefromuranus is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Flood Levy

What happens if this "1 in a 100 year" flood happens again in another two years, and then again three years later and then again the year after that?

We keep hearing about the effects of climate change... what if this really is climate change at work?
I know that these areas are historically prone to flooding, but what happens if this is the start of regular serious floods?
Do we keep pouring money into the area ad infinitum?
iamthecreaturefromuranus is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:13 am
  #145  
High in the Dandenongs
 
hevs's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Listening to Puffing Billy
Posts: 9,183
hevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond reputehevs has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by hevs
I agree.....its stupid. So what about everyone who lives in FNQ with cyclones happening fairly often? What about people in Victoria (and other states) who live in bushfire prone areas/ drought areas? Should we allow the insurance companies repeatedly wriggle out of paying for people who do the right thing and take out insurance, to be told they are not covered? And where are these people supposed to live Just In Case theres another flood in 30 years time..? the rise in population (all over the world) is making it nigh on impossible to live somewhere that doesnt get freakish weather/ disasters.....of some kind or other. Perhaps we should go and live in space. In a box....
Ermmm, add southern WA to the list with their catergory one cyclone about to decend on them...hope everyone is safe, and that we are safe from another levvy
hevs is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:26 am
  #146  
BE Forum Addict
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Deancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond reputeDeancm_MKII has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by iamthecreaturefromuranus
What happens if this "1 in a 100 year" flood happens again in another two years, and then again three years later and then again the year after that?

We keep hearing about the effects of climate change... what if this really is climate change at work?
I know that these areas are historically prone to flooding, but what happens if this is the start of regular serious floods?
Do we keep pouring money into the area ad infinitum?
Wait until the next el nino cycle, then it will be drought again. It's all cyclical, even climate change.
Deancm_MKII is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:36 am
  #147  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
fish.01's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
fish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII
...
If it is a known flood zone or bushfire area then yes because on the balance of probability, if it has happened once it can happen again and don't forget, it wasn't 100 years ago that was the last time there were floods. The last major ones were in 1974 which is not too long ago. This 100 years stuff is political spin.
...
Just in case you don't realise I don't think the rain that caused the 1974 flood would flood Brisbane these days. It has been 100 years since the last flood this size.

Last edited by fish.01; Jan 28th 2011 at 5:40 am.
fish.01 is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:41 am
  #148  
You sip .... I glug !!!
 
Vegemite Kids's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Over the hill!
Posts: 2,790
Vegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond reputeVegemite Kids has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by Deancm_MKII

They wouldn't need to introduce a new tax if they managed our money more wisely. Instead they just throw it at failed project after failed project. But that's what I expect from socialist governments. All they know how to do is spend other people's money.

But thats just naive to think that. They're Govt. ie by definition they dont use money as wisely as they could/should. Its got nothing to do with them being socialists. The Liberal / Conservative / Republican govts worldwide are pretty good at wasting money as well. Its the nature of Govt and you're whistling dixie if you think thats going to change anytime soon. Learn to live with it and plan for it. Or get involved in Govt yourself and work to change it (good luck!!!!)

Otherwise you're just going to give yourself high blood pressure working yourself up about it.


As for the rest of your post, I'll just say I hope I never need any help or compassion when you're walking on by!
Vegemite Kids is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:43 am
  #149  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
fish.01's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
fish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond reputefish.01 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by bcworld
The media loves this one in x years stuff. Is it really 1 in 100 years? How long have people been tracking floods in Australia?

What was the Brisbane flood peak? A bit under 4.5m?

Seems like worse than that happened 3 times in 10 years before.

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/ql..._history.shtml

One thing that's telling is that the flood peak was 1m lower than 1974, but it seems like nearly 4 times as many homes were flooded this time.
Point taken about the shortness of records but re those other 3 floods in the 10 years before 1893 - they all happened without the Wivenhoe dam -they might be mostly mitigated these days.
fish.01 is offline  
Old Jan 28th 2011, 5:48 am
  #150  
MODERATOR
 
cresta57's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Redneck Wonderland
Posts: 9,932
cresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond reputecresta57 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Flood Levy

Originally Posted by spalen
Ive just realised the horrible truth here.

Gillard and Bligh cannot possibly show a surplus now at the election or any time in between because to do so would demonstrate they could have avoided this unpopular tax. So they'll have a massive incentive to spend it all (no matter on what)

You really *can* imagine the meeting to discuss making sure *any* surplus is spent to make sure they demonstrate that they really needed this.

Well, you can if you ever watched Yes Minister.
I blame Kevin Rudd! That t**t gave everyone a grand, wiped out the biggest budget surplus ever encountered by an incoming govt in one big vote buying swoop
cresta57 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.