fish.01

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.

Vegemite Kids

Labour got the votes it needed and now Gillard is asking you to give $250 of it back Gotta love politicians!

cresta57

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.

Expat Kiwi

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?

fish.01

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.

spalen

Not many mate, because they were exempt from that little 'gift horse' due to its means testing.

cresta57

At least if the cash had been spent on infrastructure we'd have had something to see for out taxes instead of the billions of dollars that went to China payment from every "battler" that went out & bough a plasma telly.
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.

Wol

Quote from Mandy Rice-Davis:

..........(oh well, you can fill it in yourself.)

fish.01

Well, no they wouldn't They analyse the finances of many countries around the world and are far more removed than the usual partisan suspects. Far more useful commentary than most lab/lib stuff.

mpgrewal

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).

fish.01

Nothing to do with it. It is for govt reconstruction spending on infrastructure like rail, road, bridges etc to get the country moving economically again.

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.

mpgrewal

Thats an expensive lesson to learn

Thanks, makes sense if its for public infrastructure. I'm happy to contribute.

moneypenny20

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.

spalen

Agree entirely.

fish.01

A lot of the areas in Brisbane that flooded were the usual suspects matching the 1974 flood maps down to the house. A lot of these people would not have been able to get insurance. Someone is always going to live in these houses so unfortunately while personally we can make sure it is not us, not everyone can be exempt from living in a house that potentially floods and has no insurance.

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.