Oz Round Table

The Oz Round Table boards => The Round Table => Topic started by: *CountessA* on January 19, 2011, 01:10:52 PM

Title: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 19, 2011, 01:10:52 PM
Grieving Grantham residents plead for privacy

Residents of the flood-devastated township of Grantham in southern Queensland have asked to be given privacy.

The residents have started going home to their once-picturesque Lockyer Valley town of 370 people.

Most of the 20 deaths from the southern Queensland floods have been in the Lockyer Valley. Twelve people are still listed as missing.

Residents have started returning to the town, where little is recognisable from last Monday when a wall of water tore it apart.

Grantham's residents have not been allowed to return home since the flood as police were effectively treating the town as a crime scene, picking through the debris for the dead and missing.

They will be given at least another week on their own to grieve, with the Lockyer Valley town closed to non-residents.

Local Linda Weston says people just want to go down and see what is on their property and maybe sit for an hour and cry.

'Evidence of terror'

Premier Anna Bligh says the residents of Grantham are reliving the terror of the deadly flash flooding as they return home.

"They are reliving a terrifying and traumatic event," she told the ABC.

She says she was struck by the physical evidence left behind, which spoke of the terror residents endured.

"The houses have great big holes in the roofs where they kicked their way out and literally threw their children onto the roof as the water lapped at their heels," Ms Bligh said.

"They were standing in the kitchen one minute, 30 minutes later they were kicking out a hole in the roof, throwing their children on top of it.

"You can see all that evidence ... and it's evidence of terror."

She says the people of Grantham had a very difficult few weeks ahead as they came to grips with their losses.

"For people who are going in there, reliving all that, as well as confronting what's happened to their properties ... it's going to be a very, very difficult couple of weeks for the people of Grantham," she said.

Flood appeal

As Grantham grieves, the appeal for Queensland's flood victims has surpassed $100 million.

The Premier's flood relief appeal has been helped by a $5 million donation from Wesfarmers, $2 million from Flight Centre and $750,000 from Virgin Blue.

The public has chipped in $31 million so far.

Elsewhere in south-east Queensland, the clean-up continues but was frustrated on Tuesday by a storm that blew down trees and powerlines around Brisbane and Ipswich.

Energex says its crews are still on track to have flood-hit homes that are safe for electricity reconnected by late Thursday.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/19/3116194.htm
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: golden on January 19, 2011, 03:19:52 PM
Queensland Floods
It has been Queensland’s worst disaster on record and while thousands of volunteers are digging deep to help out neighbours and strangers alike, there are also a number of other resources available to help those who have suffered. Although you may not have been directly affected by the floods please pass on this email to friends, neighbours or family if you feel it may be of benefit to them.
Following is a summary of support services available through a number of government and industry bodies.
 
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP)
 
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP) has been activated to assist people who have been adversely affected by the heavy rainfall, storm damage and associated flooding that began in November 2010 and continued in January 2011 in the state of Queensland.
 Payments of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child will be made if:
•   a person was seriously injured, or
•   a person is the immediate family member of an Australian killed as a direct result of the disaster, or
•   a person’s principal place of residence has been destroyed, or
•   a person’s principal place of residence has sustained major damage, or
•   a person is unable to gain access to their principal place of residence for a period of 24 hours or more, or
•   a person is stranded in their principal place of residence for a period of 24 hours or more, or
•   a person's principal place of residence was without electricity, water, gas, sewerage services or another essential service for at least 48 hours (a utility failure) and the utility failure was caused by damage to public or private infrastructure, or
•   a person is a principal carer of a dependent child who has experienced any of the above.
Accessing the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment
 
•         Centrelink will assist people affected by these events to access Government assistance quickly.
•         Centrelink social workers and psychologists can provide counseling, support and information about services available.
•         For more information on eligibility or if you have any queries, call Centrelink on 180 22 66.
 The Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy has been activated to assist employees, small business persons, and farmers who have had a loss of income as a direct result of the flooding and severe weather that began from 29 November 2010 and continued in January 2011 in the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It consists of ex-gratia payments equivalent to the maximum rate of Newstart Allowance, as detailed below:
 
Rate   Amount
Single   $469.70 per fortnight
Single with dependent child   $508.20 per fortnight
Partnered   $424 (each) per fortnight
Under 21 (from 1 January 2011)   $388.70 per fortnight
Under 21 (from 29 November 2010 to 31 December 2010)   $377 per fortnight
16-20 year old, single with dependent child   $508.20 per fortnight
 
Eligibility
A claimant will be eligible for the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy where he/she:
•   derives an income from an area affected by the disaster or resides in an area affected by the disaster; and
•   Is 16 years of age, or older, and is not a dependent child;
•   Is either an Australian resident and living in Australia for the period he/she is receipt of the Subsidy; or a foreign national, living or working in Australia at the time of the disaster and for the period of time he/she is in receipt of the Subsidy;
•   Has experienced a loss of income as a direct result of the disaster and can show evidence supporting this within 28 days; and
•   Is not currently (at the time of lodgement) receiving another income support payment or pension (such as Age Pension, Newstart Allowance, service pension from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, or Exceptional Circumstances Income Relief Payment); and
•   Where a member of a couple, the claimant must qualify in their own right.
More information on how to register and claim can be found at the following website.
http://www.qld.gov.au/floods/support.html
 
Small Business Support
About 10,000 businesses have been directly hit by Queensland's flood disaster but government assistance is ramping up and industry bodies are organising support schemes.
The Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority website provides details of grants of up to $25,000 to assist small businesses and primary producers with clean-up and recovery efforts following the flood crisis (including immediate recovery assistance grants of up to $5000).

Low-interest loans of up to $250,000 are also available to fund the repair and/or replacement of damaged plant and equipment, buildings or stock.

The Federal Government said small business owners who were flood victims could receive about $250 a week for the next three months.
Businesses can check if a deferral has been received by checking on the ATO's Business Portal website or calling the emergency support info line on 1800 806 218.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/business-owner/help-on-the-way-for-flood-business-owners/story-e6frfm5i-1225989218485#ixzz1BFFJLLN9
 
FLOOD CRISIS - Who to contact

Queensland Government
www.qld.gov.au/floods

Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority
www.qraa.qld.gov.au
Ph 1800 623 946

Federal Government
www.disasterassist.gov.au
Ph 180 2266

Australian Taxation Office
www.ato.gov.au/business
Ph 1800 806 218

Ipswich Chamber of Commerce & Industry
www.ipswichchamber.org.au
Ph 3810 6666

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland
www.cciq. com.au/fl oods
Ph 1300 135 822
 
Pro Bono Financial Advice
For those affected, many start the painstaking process of rebuilding their lives - in some instances from scratch. We are here for our clients to help with advice and planning to aid in the re-building process. This might be for family, parents or business owners looking at managing cashflow in the short term. It might be in providing assistance in understanding and claiming any of the eligible subsidies on offer.
As part of the Financial Planning Association's pro-bono program we are offering advice free of charge to flood victims, so please don't hesitate to contact us or pass on our details if we can be of assistance.
 
Kind Regards
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 26, 2011, 01:13:46 PM
(http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt336/smeeagain61/flood.jpg)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: golden on January 26, 2011, 08:27:11 PM
I've got some amazing pictures of this..

"TOLL LOGISTICS Larapinta -  BRISBANE - hope you're not waiting for a package"...

But I'm afraid of that attachment thingo..

So on this occassion I will refrain.   There are going to be some very ordinary DSR's coming up.


P.S That pro bono financial advice email is open to all, I just left the details off the C and P cos I didn't want to be seen as pushing some company agenda.  PM me if you want contact details
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 26, 2011, 08:54:15 PM

But I'm afraid of that attachment thingo..


Do you have a Photobucket account?

If you want to avoid any and all potential  :mobbing: you can upload your photos there and plug in ALL the links you want in your posts here!

There are other picture hosting services that can do the same - but I just used Photobucket as an example.  There are free accounts and paid accounts - but the free one has enough space for a lot of photos.  There are a lot of features, but if you just want to start off with uploading piccies for displaying here, then it won't take you long at all to figure it out.  Besides, there are a few people here who know their way around it.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: tellomon on January 26, 2011, 09:29:04 PM
I disagree.
Pb is #2 the most difficult site to navigate and use.
Facebook is #1.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 26, 2011, 09:33:41 PM
I'm only talking about:

 1. Upload photos
 2. Put them in a folder (if you are adventurous)  It's not essential, but it helps organise things if you have a lot of images.
 3. Copy the [IMG] links to paste here

Anything beyond that and all bets are off.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: golden on January 26, 2011, 09:39:12 PM
The photos are in an email and sorry Brumby its just too hard for me.   Its alot of photos that are of every conceivable package floating in massive sheds of water.  Many have Christmas wrapping, so that will teach em to deliver prior to the 25th, haha, At this point anyone who had shares or their super tied up in insurance are going to do it hard.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 26, 2011, 11:00:47 PM
Email them to me and I'll upload them to my Photobucket account, Golden. Then I can link as many as you like.

OR...

Use my very easy guide to using Photobucket. http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=3531.0

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: 79ftruck on January 26, 2011, 11:37:06 PM
For A Reason NOT To Cross Running Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgF4MHWYgjY
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: tellomon on January 26, 2011, 11:53:03 PM
Awesome vid there, truck!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 27, 2011, 09:17:17 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-announce-10b-in-cuts-and-a-flood-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1225995142030?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Middle income-earners will pay 0.5 per cent of their taxable income for flood reconstruction while those on more than $100,000 will pay 1 per cent under a rebuilding levy announced today
“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

ummm I think Jooooooooolya may need to go back to school

$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week 

I think what she should have said was those on $50,000 a year will pay just under $5 per week isnt it funny how slips of the tongue always work in that creatures favour ...she is a very very very nasty piece of work who lies at the drop of a hat (ok she is a polly and they all fib , but she is a low life manipulating scoundrel and this would have been a deliberate attempt at misleading the public)   so taxing everyone this much is going to raise under $2b and yet Kev managed to blow $43b in 6 months on 2 useless gfc packages ...the plonker
make the insulation installation con men pay for the flood damage I reckon and Kev and Peter con-head Garrett who gave them all OUR cash
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 27, 2011, 11:04:04 PM
Strange..... I get the distinct impression you don't have a lot of faith in Julia smee???
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 27, 2011, 11:10:53 PM
thats very perceptive of you Loco , I didnt think I had made that clear
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 27, 2011, 11:14:27 PM
Check this one out smee - might make you feel better!

Flood tax: what you will pay




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 27, 2011, 11:20:03 PM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-announce-10b-in-cuts-and-a-flood-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1225995142030?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Middle income-earners will pay 0.5 per cent of their taxable income for flood reconstruction while those on more than $100,000 will pay 1 per cent under a rebuilding levy announced today
“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

ummm I think Jooooooooolya may need to go back to school

$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week 

I think what she should have said was those on $50,000 a year will pay just under $5 per week isnt it funny how slips of the tongue always work in that creatures favour ...she is a very very very nasty piece of work who lies at the drop of a hat (ok she is a polly and they all fib , but she is a low life manipulating scoundrel and this would have been a deliberate attempt at misleading the public)   so taxing everyone this much is going to raise under $2b and yet Kev managed to blow $43b in 6 months on 2 useless gfc packages ...the plonker
make the insulation installation con men pay for the flood damage I reckon and Kev and Peter con-head Garrett who gave them all OUR cash
Thanks for putting up that link smee.
I did suspect that the MAD MONK would oppose the levy.
Of course he will, just goes to show, oppose for opposition sake.
What a mean spirited person he must be.

Smee I think you might find your figures are wrong & maybe you should go back to school.
The way I heard it is
you pay 0.5% on earnings, FROM $50,001 to $100,000
Then 1.00% on earnings, OVER $100,000
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 27, 2011, 11:26:05 PM
Check this one out smee - might make you feel better!

Flood tax: what you will pay




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603)
Have the courage to call it what it is.
It is a one off levy, to help rebuild Queensland.
Thanks for putting that link up to show how much each of us is contributing to the fund.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 27, 2011, 11:26:32 PM
Elantra, the point is not the arithmetic per se, it is this statement:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

That is an untruth.

It is also a typical 'slip of the tongue' that politicians can - and do - use to confuse the masses during a press interrogation to make things seem less onerous than they are.  Afterwards, when the actual calculations take effect, it's old news and not so damaging to the politician's image.

This is the point Smee made, I thought.


(Gee people type faster than me!! - my comment relates to post #11)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 27, 2011, 11:29:59 PM
Elantra, the point is not the arithmetic per se, it is this statement:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

That is an untruth.

It is also a typical 'slip of the tongue' that politicians can - and do - use to confuse the masses during a press interrogation to make things seem less onerous than they are.  Afterwards, when the actual calculations take effect, it's old news and not so damaging to the politician's image.

This is the point Smee made, I thought.


(Gee people type faster than me!! - my comment relates to post #11)
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 27, 2011, 11:33:41 PM
Did Julia Gillard say:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,”

Yes or No ?
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 27, 2011, 11:35:09 PM
having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 27, 2011, 11:38:14 PM
having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best



Yes.  It's not as if they have a majority to direct passage of such legislation by a party vote.

More negotiations, methinks...?
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 27, 2011, 11:40:51 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if the Greens rejected it! Wouldn't it be even funnier if that led to a new election! I think I'd just have to have a giggle...... or three!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 27, 2011, 11:50:38 PM
Gee - just what we need in dealing with floods ... politicians scrambling for the lifeboats.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 27, 2011, 11:50:44 PM
Loco if it caused another election it would justify mother natures decision to impose the flood on us , the good mother probably reckons the flood will cause less long term pain and suffering than a Gillard govt will
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 27, 2011, 11:51:15 PM
Greens warn more levies on the cards

"While it's obviously important to help in the reconstruction, it's important we don't cut off our nose to spite our face," he told AAP.

"This is probably the first of more climate-extreme levies that are going to be needed."
(The Greens)

It was a call also heard from independent MP Rob Oakeshott, who along with fellow independent Tony Windsor, will be checking the fine print before declaring their support one way or the other.

Some $450 million has been ripped from regional Australia funding - which the pair established when they helped Labor form government last year.


 
"Just when you thought it was safe......"

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/greens-warn-more-levies-on-the-cards/story-fn7ik2te-1225995676896 (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/greens-warn-more-levies-on-the-cards/story-fn7ik2te-1225995676896)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:01:08 AM
 HHHMMMmmmm,,  Hypocrisy?  Nah, of course not.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/politics-must-not-muddy-levy-plan/story-e6frerg6-1225993700197 (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/politics-must-not-muddy-levy-plan/story-e6frerg6-1225993700197)




"We are Australians, we help each other out when the mud hits the fan and we tend to resent cheap politics intruding on getting the job done."

But not here, we only criticize here, we never give credit here, that's not our way here.
We take the attitude here.
My house didn't get flooded so I don't give a RATS.

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:04:56 AM
having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best


  Am I the loco? ;D ;D ;D
Are you going back to school this term ot next??

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 12:10:14 AM
no Loco is r3830 and if you read my post you will see that my maths were perfect

show me one mathematical error in these
$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week
both equations are mathematically perfect
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:17:19 AM
no Loco is r3830 and if you read my post you will see that my maths were perfect

show me one mathematical error in these
$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week
both equations are mathematically perfect

  2+2=4 but whats that got to do with anything here???
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 28, 2011, 12:17:51 AM
I don't think the Greens mind humans being taxed to the point of it hurting their income; mind you, if the frogs were being taxed, that would be another matter.

I am affronted at this notion of a levy. There are serious issues here. Don't be fooled into thinking this is HELPING THE VICTIMS of the floods... It's not. I quote: "This one-year, $1.8 billion levy would help the Government pay for the estimated $5.6 billion hit to the federal budget caused by the floods." In plain words, this is a levy to pay for things that are on an ongoing basis paid for by Australian taxes. If taxation money can't pay for this rebuilding, why not? Where is that money? It certainly hasn't been spent; we know there's a surplus - a substantial one.

I repeat: the levy isn't to help the victims. It's to help the government get out of a substantial portion of its responsibility to rebuild.

I think a great many people who gave generously and without counting the cost to help the victims are going to feel very, very outraged. Can they actually afford this additional cost? And even beyond that - should they have to afford this cost?
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 28, 2011, 12:22:25 AM
Elantra - smee was referring to the link that I posted - which you referred to being his. I'm loco as a matter of interest.

Now.... where was I.....

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VERY VERY FAST BROADBAND! It will be about as modern as a new FX Holden when it appears over the next ten years...... but we will have it! Never mind the low takeup.... never mind that most takeup is at 25Mbps.... we will have it! And bu***r the people.... they can go without so we can! We might have to go with smee's calculations in order to achieve a surplus.... but opportunities will appear between now and 2014. The only drawback will be having the Greens firmly attached to our left one.  ;D

But seriously.... at least they had the common decency to wait until the public in this nation dislodged around $100 Million from their pockets... prior to making the donations compulsory. Dear ..soles.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 12:25:06 AM
2+2=4 but whats that got to do with anything here???

just stating that nothing was wrong with my maths so why would I need to go back to school to learn maths when my maths were correct ....
 however if you wish to keep playing your nit picking tit for tat gameswith me  feel free ... you might have more nits than I have picks but I may have more tats than you have tits .... so let the games begin  ...

 

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:29:50 AM

I am affronted at this notion of a levy. There are serious issues here. Don't be fooled into thinking this is HELPING THE VICTIMS of the floods... It's not. I quote: "This one-year, $1.8 billion levy would help the Government pay for the estimated $5.6 billion hit to the federal budget caused by the floods." In plain words, this is a levy to pay for things that are on an ongoing basis paid for by Australian taxes. If taxation money can't pay for this rebuilding, why not? Where is that money? It certainly hasn't been spent; we know there's a surplus - a substantial one.

I repeat: the levy isn't to help the victims. It's to help the government get out of a substantial portion of its responsibility to rebuild.


I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 28, 2011, 12:32:26 AM
Message to Indonesia: Considering that you told us to 'nick-off' regarding our refugee resort on your fair lands.... can we have our $500 Million dollars back please? Our schools here are in desperate need of refurbishment - as are the homes of many of our people.

And Kev.... is that seat on the UN really of such great importance.... now think carefully on that question.... seat on the UN - or homes for your residents? How about you kick the tin with that $400 Million dollars you spent. Much more comfy chairs on Ebay - and at a shade of the cost. And with postage.... these good things come to YOU!

There you have it..... $900 Million may just help!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 12:42:02 AM
I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence
.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appalling .

tats 1 - tits 0
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:45:09 AM
Message to Indonesia: Considering that you told us to 'nick-off' regarding our refugee resort on your fair lands.... can we have our $500 Million dollars back please? Our schools here are in desperate need of refurbishment - as are the homes of many of our people.

And Kev.... is that seat on the UN really of such great importance.... now think carefully on that question.... seat on the UN - or homes for your residents? How about you kick the tin with that $400 Million dollars you spent. Much more comfy chairs on Ebay - and at a shade of the cost. And with postage.... these good things come to YOU!

There you have it..... $900 Million may just help!



The top eight countries for Australia Government aid in 2010-2011 (in millions of dollars)

Indonesia 458.7
Papua New Guinea 457.2
Solomon Islands 225.7
Afghanistan 123.1
Vietnam 119.8
Philippines 118.1
East Timor 102.7
Cambodia 64.2

A total of 1669.5 (in millions of dollars)

WOW!!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 12:50:45 AM
I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence
.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0
Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 12:54:47 AM
I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence
.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0
Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.



do you mean are there 3 l's or is there 3 l's ...or is it acceptable to use either ?
but there should be 2 p's , so off you trot !
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 28, 2011, 12:55:58 AM
Elantra, what part of what I said caused you concern?

I would encourage you to check the available information about what this levy will be paying for. I quote: "Q How much money will be collected and what will it be spent on? / A About $1.8 billion. It will go towards rebuilding flood damaged infrastructure such as roads and bridges, mostly in Queensland but also in Victoria." As you can see, this clearly indicates that it's the rebuilding of infrastructure that is being paid for by this levy, not the homes or businesses of flood victims.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/flood-levy-what-you-need-to-know/story-fn6bfkm6-1225995796509
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 01:00:02 AM
I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence
.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0

Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.



do you mean are there 3 l's or is there 3 l's ...or is it acceptable to use either ?
but there should be 2 p's , so off you trot !

Tell you what I'll do. I'll save you a Desk next to me.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 28, 2011, 01:01:05 AM
smee..... are you into 'tits' or 'tats'? I thought I already had a reasonable idea..... but now I'm confussssed!

And Countess - You're correct. The government's interest is only in infrastructure. The fallout by the insurance companies as to whether a flood was in fact a flood - or perhaps a flood of a different sort, or a tsunami of the inland variety, or a failure of the dam controllers in not releasing more water more quickly, or whether is was just a flood incident..... is yet to be determined. A new definition is being discovered so that they can further avoid their responsibilities. It was reported that the repairs to peoples' homes was coming from the Premiers Recovery fund. ie: donations from all Australians.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 01:10:07 AM
Tell you what I'll do. I'll save you a Desk next to me.
 
Oh dear a capital D for desk in the middle of a sentence.
looks like I can't have a desk next to you as you will be standing in the dunce corner.

By the way I am still waiting for you to point out where my maths equation was incorrect.
Or is it like the rest of your posts you just come in flapping your gums with no real substance to back up the tripe you spew forth ?  
 
Your soul contributions are to have a go at other posters instead of constructive discussion on the points , you always play the man , typical supporter of the greens party , huge chip on the shoulder .
Want to keep playing ? Or are you going to spit your rag ,burst into tears and quit like last time you went on the attack and copped some of your own vile bitter medicine in retaliation  ?
If you think you copped the rough end of the pineapple last time , believe me when I say I am far better at the game than your last opponents.   
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 01:38:08 AM
Elantra, what part of what I said caused you concern?


No answer ....see to answer that would mean having to come up with a post with some  substance , and of course the cupboard is bare.
The only way Elantra knows how to answer a post is to attack the poster , if the answer requires logic , thought or constructive debate , then forget it , its not in the repertoire .

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 01:45:23 AM
its really no fun playing this game when the opponent retires hurt after only a few returns of serve and slinks off without even conceding that they are conceding .

Its almost like a forfeit .... appalling

Actually I have just read back of the last few posts and noticed that I was being vindictive, rude, obnoxious , silly , pigheaded and spiteful to another member , hell for a moment there I nearly avoided responding to direct questions  and I started to worry that I may have been turning into a Greens supporter and a Labor fanatic but then I realised that I had sound purpose for my taking of that stance, and the fact that I could actually recognise that I was behaving this way enabled me to let out a sigh of relief that I hadnt suffered from that infliction .

Goodnight all
Elantra see you back here in in a couple of months after the next federal election when Joolya gets defeated by a record margin .... keep training and maybe you will be up for a better game next time , if you can work your way up through the little league
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 28, 2011, 02:17:11 AM
This may sound like I'm on the insurers' side - but only a little bit.

The definition of certain events is critical - and policy holders NEED to understand exactly what is and is NOT covered. On this score, many policy holders are less than informed - HOWEVER, the insurance companies have NOT made adequate effort to make the exercise understandable.

And, in some cases, I have no doubt that there have been deceitful practices used.

But getting back to the definitions.... Insurance companies operate by taking a particular risk and calculating two basic things:
 (1) How likely is this to happen?
   and
 (2) How much will it cost if it does happen?

This is the job of an actuary

In the case of flooding there is (from the little I know) quite a few variations on how you define a flood, but I will keep to a simple and easily understandable example to show why the costs of insurance are what they are.

In my example, I will stick to one differentiating characteristic - the direction of the water ingress.  Don't laugh - the reason is very simple.
Scenario 1. If water is flowing down a hill and runs through your house, then it is obviously on its way somewhere - but only the houses in its direct path will be affected - and that is likely to be a relatively small number of properties.
Scenario 2. However, if water cannot get away quickly enough and they bank up, causing the water level to rise, then large areas will be inundated - which means a large number of houses will be affected.

Now, if Scenario 1 occurs, it may affect 100 houses.  If the cost of repairs averages at $20,000 then the insurer will be looking at a payout of $2,000,000

However, if Scenario 2 occurs, it may affect 5,000 houses. If the cost of repairs averages at $20,000 then the insurer will be looking at a payout of $100,000,000

If an actuary works out that, on average, this is the yearly risk and the insurer has 100,000 policies, then to cover Scenario 1, they only need $20 from each policy premium and that is reasonably affordable - but for scenario 2 they will need $1,000 - which becomes far too expensive for most people. True flood cover IS very expensive for exactly this reason. (apologies to any actuaries for the extreme simplification)

Remember, insurance companies are businesses - they must have more money coming in than going out - or they will go bust.


Now if you still feel that this is unfair - answer me this: Would you try to claim a win from a bookie on a bet you didn't make?

Didn't think so.

Yet, that is what insurance companies are like - bookies! (apologies to any bookies out there).

The sequence is a little different and the horse names bizarre, but the mechanics are pretty much the same. It might go like this:
 A punter walks up to a bookie and says "I want to make a bet"
 Bookie: "Sure. On what?"
 Punter: "House burning down"
 Bookie: "OK then, how much do you want to win?"
 Punter: "$250,000"
 Bookie: "Righto - that'll be $400 and it's good for a year!"
 Punter: "Ta mate" and he walks off with the betting slip.

Then imagine the exchange if the punter turns up to claim his win on that bet when a huge tree fell through the middle of his house.


Now getting back to the serious side ... while these 'definitions' are so drastically important, the twists and turns that insurance companies put these things through end up producing a maze of confusion and misunderstanding.  The cynics out there may claim that as deliberate - and I might be hard pressed to argue against that, even if I was inclined to try.

They need to be clear, and they need to be standardised so that not only can insurance products be more easliy compared, but so that all the little loopholes are cut off.  The cost of insurance may still be an issue - but at least everyone will understand exactly what is involved.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 28, 2011, 10:57:40 AM
Brum - many thanks for your thoughts. A pity that your example isn't included in the terms and understandings of an insurance contract!

We read our insurance policy recently..... all 42 pages. (perhaps the size of this document also prevents most from actually reading it. The cynic could suggest that this is the reason for such a large document)

Well, here in Penrith, at the base of the Blue Mountains.... we are covered for tsunami damage - but not for damage caused by the sea. I intend to keep a very, very close eye on the Nepean River.... haven't seen a tsunami come out of there as yet - but the insurer obviously sees this as a threat! I wonder if the above ground swimming pool spits the big one and bursts its banks - whether the forthcoming tsunami from that event would be covered?
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 28, 2011, 11:13:49 AM

Brum - many thanks for your thoughts. A pity that your example isn't included in the terms and understandings of an insurance contract!


My example was just to present a basic idea of some common principles.  When it comes to the various contract documents - there is little they have in common and some might say they are devoid of principles!

Also, I might be opening up a huge can of worms if I interpret something one way and the insurer meant something different - with the poor punter in the middle finding out the hard way.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 03:27:28 PM
-- Removed as per request --
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: shyer on January 28, 2011, 03:49:53 PM
..........
Love your work.

Elentra I love your work too.

We never see you till objective critizum of any labour / loonie left / greenie goverment is presented. And in you rush with 1/2 truths, spin and emotion.

You must be a closet Right winger you are turning people away from the left
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 28, 2011, 04:28:50 PM
Can I suggest we all stop kicking sand in other people's faces?


I would like to make two points - the first of which should be no surprise to anyone:

 1. We have many members here and there are those that have very steadfast opinions - which can, and do, differ. Differences of opinion are going to happen and discussion can get intense. Let's not get burned by our own fire-in-the-belly.

 2. It is often the case that the strands of argument are wrongly intermingled - and I have seen countless examples of all-in brawls erupt from simple oversights.  I admire a well argued case that follows logical sequences with acknowledgement of valid points by an opponent - but when things go off track, it annoys me no end.

In this thread, I have seen both of the above and it is getting absurd.

From my observation (correct me if I'm wrong ... I will let you do that) there are two components of the 'energetic' discussion.

The first is the arithmetic behind the flood levy, as defined by tables, calculations and journalistic comment. In general - setting all the flames to one side - everybody is saying the same thing ...

The second is a statement made by the PM - which is incorrect as it associates one amount with the wrong salary scale. This is the only real issue I have with this sub-topic - and I put it as a point earlier in this thread, yet noone has addressed it, yet it appears to me to be the initial 'difference of opinion' that has (incorrectly) dragged in the original arithmetic - and we are now seeing a vehement argument for the same thing.  The facts have been overrun by the fervour.


The logic of this part of the discussion has been compromised - and I fear that, if it continues, moderation will be demanded.  I pray that we avoid that.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: DuffyDuck on January 28, 2011, 05:00:26 PM




Actually I have just read back of the last few posts and noticed that I was being vindictive, rude, obnoxious , silly , pigheaded and spiteful to another member



It's good to see that we can agree on certain issue's.
Love your work.

Hey stop cramping my style!!

Deliberately leaving out the whole picture and taking things out of context is my department!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 28, 2011, 05:53:11 PM
Let’s get this sorted so that we can all agree on what’s being said.

First of all, what did Julia Gillard say about the figures?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-announce-10b-in-cuts-and-a-flood-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1225995142030?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Quote
Middle income-earners will pay 0.5 per cent of their taxable income for flood reconstruction while those on more than $100,000 will pay 1 per cent under a rebuilding levy announced today
“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

Quote
THE Federal Government will impose a one-off flood levy of 0.5 per cent for middle-income earners, Prime Minister Julia Gillard says.
A levy of 0.5 per cent will be applied on taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000 and a levy of one per cent will be applied on taxable income above $100,000.
"Anyone earning under $50,000 will not pay the levy," Ms Gillard told the National Press Club on Thursday.
"In other words it is not like the Medicare levy, which for most taxpayers applies to all their income - it is like income tax rates which apply only above certain income levels."
Someone who earns an income of $60,000 will pay just under $1 extra per week under the levy, Ms Gillard said.
"A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week," she said.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-one-off-flood-levy/story-fn7ik2te-1225995425695

Well, let’s look at the figures.

(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/01/27/1225995/481807-flood-tax.gif)

(http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/01/28/1225996/087511-hs-flood-levy-graphic.jpg)

Now – does this make sense when we compare it to what Julia Gillard said? She specifically stated “A levy of 0.5 per cent will be applied on taxable income between $50,001 and $100,000 and a levy of one per cent will be applied on taxable income above $100,000.”

But if we check this, we find a discrepancy. For example, in those nice little charts, it shows someone who earns $150,000 paying a $750 levy for the year. According to Julia Gillard, this person would be paying a 1% levy. But $750 is NOT 1% of $150,000.

It’s 0.5%.

Those charts show someone whose income is $110,000 paying a $350 levy for the year. According to Julia Gillard, this person too would be paying a 1% levy. But again, there’s a problem. $350 is NOT 1% of $110,000.

It’s  0.31818%.

The charts show someone whose income is $60,000 paying a $50 levy for the year. According to Julia Gillard, this person would be paying a .5% levy. However, $50 is NOT .5% of $60,000.

It’s 0.08333%.

Annual income     Levy (per year)
according to Julia Gillard’s stated figures
   
Levy (per year)
acc. to Ms Gillard’s stated percentages
   
Discrepancy %    
$150,000    $750    $1500    200%
$110,000    $350    $1100    314%
$60,000    $50    $300    600%

Have I made an error of logic here? I am actually hoping I have – because if not, this is an error of quite horrifying ineptitude from the government.

PLEASE - someone correct me!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 28, 2011, 06:29:35 PM
I think you will find the percentages are marginal rates - just like income tax works.

$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $100,000 = 0.5%
$100,001 + = 1%

So someone on $110,000 will pay
$50,000 x 0.0% +
$50,000 x 0.5% +
$10,000 x 1.0%
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 28, 2011, 06:38:58 PM
Hmm... then this levy is certainly a tax.

Thanks for that, Brumby.

So... someone earning $60,000 would actually be paying the levy only on $10,000, which means $50. That solves the discrepancy...

To save face, I demand to know why Julia Gillard didn't stipulate these percentages were "marginal rates"!  :5+5: :footinmouth:
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: lacey on January 28, 2011, 07:17:38 PM
For A Reason NOT To Cross Running Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgF4MHWYgjY

It's an American road slipping away.  It's not in Australia
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 07:17:59 PM
I think you will find the percentages are marginal rates - just like income tax works.

$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $100,000 = 0.5%
$100,001 + = 1%

So someone on $110,000 will pay
$50,000 x 0.0% +
$50,000 x 0.5% +
$10,000 x 1.0%

Which is pretty much as my first post said.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
Can I suggest we all stop kicking sand in other people's faces
yep by all means you can suggest it
will I stop doing it ?
Nope not as long as Elantra posts on this thread I wont
the rot was started by Elantra as far as attacking other posters , Elantra  refuses to engae in proper forum
debate and discussion , there have been a number of direct questions asked of Elantra all of which have gone  unaswered
Elantra does not contribute in any positive way to any threads whatsoever on this forum and in fact (as suggested by Shyer earlier) only appears on the political threads and then only to attack posters with differing opinions not to debate , but to make personal attacks,as I see it this is a breach of policy rules .. many times many of mine and other peoples posts here have either been moderated or frowned upon just because they sail close to the line or are of a controversial nature or just cos someone doesnt like the content but dont neccessarily breach rules , and yet this posters blatant breach of rules is allowed to slide ,Well Ive had a skin full of it and dont want it to get to the same situation that we have had with other clowns when people like me let it slide too long , and everyone else pussyfooted around
So as far as I am concerned the sand kicking was warranted and I will keep kicking it until either the  admin/mods tell me stop or the real perps flock off elsewhere to cause trouble or at the very least they have the decency to respond to direct questions asked of them within a thread ,until then all I can say is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MotNtq41NDw
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: lacey on January 28, 2011, 07:26:36 PM
I honestly can't see any point in getting too excited about Ms Gillard lying.  All pollies lie and so do we all and just because she's the Prime Minister, doesn't make a bit of difference.  And besides, it's gonna happen whether anyone likes it or not.  And just because someone here doesn't agree with what you've said, we are all born to disagree and we should do it with a bit of dignity, instead of cutting each others throats.   :grouphug:
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: tellomon on January 28, 2011, 07:33:56 PM
What Smee said!

All of the Flamers, strokers and Trolls can just Flock the Flock Orf here, or become the subject (read: TARGET) of a serious GANG-POSTING pwning of EPIC proportion.

This Warning is Stand-Alone.


C):-{=  <" the 3 amigos are watching you! "<<
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 28, 2011, 07:49:16 PM
C):-{=  <" the 3 amigos are watching you! "<<

yeah and when we watch we do it with eyes wide open , none of this tunnel vision crapola !

Oh and by the way Elantra ...for your next id (after you slink away again) perhaps Rebel2 would be an apt user name .......its  worth consideration ...

woooooooooops would you believe that , I kicked some sand and it had some rocks in it

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: tellomon on January 28, 2011, 08:22:12 PM
Smee Rocks!!!

\0/
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 28, 2011, 11:15:55 PM
Elantra, what part of what I said caused you concern?

I would encourage you to check the available information about what this levy will be paying for. I quote: "Q How much money will be collected and what will it be spent on? / A About $1.8 billion. It will go towards rebuilding flood damaged infrastructure such as roads and bridges, mostly in Queensland but also in Victoria." As you can see, this clearly indicates that it's the rebuilding of infrastructure that is being paid for by this levy, not the homes or businesses of flood victims.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/flood-levy-what-you-need-to-know/story-fn6bfkm6-1225995796509
Governments have always provided reconstruction funds, except that in this case the magnitude is so great there needs to be a levy to cover it.

If you don’t agree with the levy, how about
scraping Howard/Abbott's ridiculous baby bonus for a start...what an appalling waste of billions of dollars....and means test the 'private' health insurance rebate and quit giving money to 'private' schools?

  Or far more simple solution would be to defer the reduction in top end company tax rates for a year, saving about $1.5-2b over the forward estimates, negating the need for the spending cuts.

Who the hell would care if the budget is in surplus by 2012/13?
Tony Abbott that's who. You'd never hear the end of it.
He'd come up with another one of his great big slogans....

Howard had 6 Levies and all but 1 was when they had a surplus.
Howard's milk levy? Gun levy? Sugar levy? Ansett levy?
All taxes?

Frankly, I'm hugely impressed by Gillard's handling of this issue so I guess we cancel each other out.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 29, 2011, 12:42:50 AM
Elantra, it is clear that we have different perspectives on this.

I want to state here that ENOUGH of making an issues-based discussion any sort of personal attack. Everyone, I am asking that bygones be bygones, and disagreements remain focused on the issues.

Now - you're saying that "in this case the magnitude is so great there needs to be a levy to cover it." Let's look at what the government has been getting already through our taxes.

(http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/image/38%20Appendix%20G%20Australian%20Government%20taxation%20and%20spending_1.jpg)
(http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/overview/image/38%20Appendix%20G%20Australian%20Government%20taxation%20and%20spending_2.jpg)

Individuals income taxation:   $137,070,000,000
Company and petroleum resources rent and taxation:   $68,380,000,000
Sales taxes:   $51,320,000,000
Borrowings (Budget Deficit):   $32,823,000,000
Non-tax revenue:   $19,365,000,000
Petroleum excise:   $16,110,000,000
Other excise:   $9,120,000,000
Superannuation taxation:   $7,170,000,000
Customs duty:   $6,770,000,000
Fringe benefits taxation:   $4,010,000,000
Other taxation:   $2,506,000,000
TOTAL government revenue in 2010-11:   $354,644,000,000.00

That’s 354,644 million dollars. It’s perhaps easier to comprehend in trillions – it’s $35.5 trillion.

Are you honestly saying that the government cannot afford to rebuild the infrastructure in the flood-affected areas, in the light of this?

Do you believe it is not the government's responsibility to rebuild? Do you believe that taxes are not collected in part to deal with precisely this sort of problem?

Consider the issue of foreign aid. It's lovely to be able to help other countries, but does it not strike some irony that when disaster hits here in our own country, the Australian citizens have to put up a fifth of the infrastructure rebuilding cost themselves? How much will the rebuilding cost? (I ask this rhetorically.) Anything like the $1.669 billion being given away in just 52 weeks for foreign aid? No... less than that. I am sorry - this IS ironic.

On the issue of the baby bonus - I don't agree with it. This shows the rates: http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/payment-rates.php. I honestly do, however, fail to see what relevance this has to discussion of whether or not the government is responsible for rebuilding of infrastructure after a disaster...

On the issue of private health insurance rebates and money to private schools, since they're also not germane to this topic, shall we leave discussion of them for another thread? Feel free to start one.

Ditto for "reduction in top end company tax rates".

Then you ask "Who the hell would care if the budget is in surplus by 2012/13? Tony Abbott that's who. You'd never hear the end of it." - Are you honestly stating that the government is determined not to do what it's mandated and required to do - in rebuilding infrastructure in the aftermath of a disaster - because it's afraid of how that will be seen by the Opposition? Honestly? Do you realise what that suggests? That Ms Gillard and Labor in general are POLITICALLY motivated to avoid spending the necessary money...?

Hmm. My view is that if there are the funds to help with such disaster recovery, those funds should be used. It's unfair to try to take a political advantage by imposing an additional tax on an already tax-burdened society. I would have more respect for Labor if it paid what needed to be paid, with taxpayers' money, rather than trying to be frugal for the sake of proving some sort of point. If Tony Abbott were to take advantage politically IF Ms Gillard saw to it that the government paid all that was necessary rather than imposed a levy, that would rebound to his discredit. But at present it's Ms Gillard's actions that are rebounding to her discredit - at least in my view. (Clearly not in yours, which is fine...) Be that as it may, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

You're making non-comparative comparisons when you mention the sugar levy and the milk levy. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but was the sugar levy not imposed on the producer and the processor of the accepted sugar cane? It wasn't a levy on the public? Am I correct?

Re the gun levy - please read through http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1995-96/96bd104.htm. Would you agree that what we see there is an increase of the Medicare levy to increase from 1.5% to 1.7% - an increase of 0.2% in the rate of Medicare levy? That is, not an increase upon taxable income - but a .2% increase in just the Medicare levy. Think about your Medicare levy: add 0.2% to it. Huge increase? No... it's not.

While I still disagree with the gun levy, I can see more justification for it than for a Flood Levy. The reason is that the buy-back of firearms was to prevent any such mass killing as the Port Arthur killings occurring with such ease ever again. This was a procedure to protect us all for the future. Since I strongly disagree with automatic or semi-automatic weapons being readily available to us, I am somewhat sympathetic to the levy. (I still believe the government should have been able to manage without levying the general public.)

And so on.

Our taxes are paid for a purpose. When that purpose is not met... I think we all wonder why on earth we're paying taxes...
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 29, 2011, 12:55:25 AM
That’s 354,644 million dollars. It’s perhaps easier to comprehend in trillions – it’s $35.5 trillion

Hardly enough to cover Kevs travel expenses !
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Yibida* on January 29, 2011, 01:56:28 AM


JEEEEESES I'm off on a Pawnage quest online gaming for a few of hours and missed all the action flockit ! ... who was in disguise this time ? ... did they fall on their sword or trip and strangle in their own string ? ... LOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 29, 2011, 02:06:45 AM
While I still disagree with the gun levy, I can see more justification for it than for a Flood Levy. The reason is that the buy-back of firearms was to prevent any such mass killing as the Port Arthur killings occurring with such ease ever again. This was a procedure to protect us all for the future. Since I strongly disagree with automatic or semi-automatic weapons being readily available to us, I am somewhat sympathetic to the levy. (I still believe the government should have been able to manage without levying the general public.)

I disagreed with this one too. It was 'played-up' as be a major success.... The levy raised $500 Million. The return was 125,000 firearms NATIONALLY - out of an estimated (actually, Guesstimated is a better term due to no records of ownership prior to 1975)  - 3,000,000 in NSW alone. Thank the good lord for spin doctors!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 29, 2011, 02:13:44 AM
Flood Levy Fact Sheet


I found this bit of interest.....

Impact on businesses
Businesses will need to apply a new withholding schedule to their employees to withhold levy payments.
Businesses will not be required to pay the levy. The levy will be applied to individual taxpayers.





http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1949/PDF/Flood_Levy_Fact_Sheet.pdf (http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1949/PDF/Flood_Levy_Fact_Sheet.pdf)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 29, 2011, 05:19:42 PM
anyone who didnt get a chance to listen to Joolya having a chat with 3AW's Neil Mitchell yesterday morning , its well worth the listen if youve got 15mins to spare ...starts off pleasant enough and then we get the real Joolya when Neil questions her....    

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/280111_Julia_Gillard.mp3
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *r3830* on January 29, 2011, 11:03:45 PM
Gillard Governent increases cigarette, beer and spirit taxes

The tax will hit smokers and drinkers from Tuesday and collect millions of dollars for the Budget, but it has not yet been announced by any government minister.

OY! Julia.... you forgot about wine!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cigs-beer-and-spirit-taxes-surge/story-e6frf7l6-1225996409405 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cigs-beer-and-spirit-taxes-surge/story-e6frf7l6-1225996409405)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 30, 2011, 01:43:35 PM
So If I have a stay at home wife and 2 children and my taxable income is  $90,000 for the 2011-2012 year I will pay $200 flood levy
thats the first 50 grand free of levy and the remaining $40,000 @ .5% = $200

My next door neighbours also have 2 children same ages as mine but both adults there work and their taxable incomes for that period are  $50,000 each  , so that family have a $10,000 a year higher income than me and yet they pay no flood levy
as each person has a $50,000 levy free threshhold ???

Have I read that right ?

Likewise if my taxable income was $120,000 for the year I would pay a levy of $450 thats 0 on the first 50 grand $250 on the next 50 grand and $200 on the last 20 grand = $450

if the neighbours were on $80,000 taxable income each they would have earnt a total of $40,000 more than my family and yet their levy would still only be $300 ..$150 less than my family as again they get the first 50 grand each levy free and pay .5 % on the remaining 30 grand each so pay $150 each


does this seem fair Joooooooooooooolya ?
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Roo on January 30, 2011, 07:34:47 PM
Smee...your logic is a little flawed.

You mention people with children....so shouldn't the fact that they have children have some bearing on how much they 'donate'?

Do you have any idea how much teenagers eat these days?...lol
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 30, 2011, 07:45:52 PM
its got nothing to do with donating Roo its about the tax or levy its about what is taken by the govt , both my examples above both families had 2 children the children were only included in the story to show it the same sized families involved ,  but the one family earning less was charged more levy

so where is my logic flawed ... please explain

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Roo on January 30, 2011, 07:59:23 PM
Well...I guess I am thinking that not every family has 2 children...some have none!

I guess the Government is just trying to be fair to all by using averages and probabilities.

To be honest...their use of earnings to determine how much you pay is what is actually flawed.  They really should take into account the number of children people have into the equation.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *smee* on January 30, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
yes thats what I was saying the formula to calculate the levy isnt a fair formula

but even if neither couple in my examples above had any children the family earning more would pay less ...

but you are right in that it would be worse  if the single income family had a few kids , but the dual income family had no kids but still earnt more and paid less , and thats how it would work according to the schedule and only adds weight to my question ....does this seem fair Joooooooooooooolya ?

Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: tellomon on January 30, 2011, 08:23:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrjRKB586s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrjRKB586s)
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: Elantra on January 31, 2011, 11:53:04 AM
Deleted
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *CountessA* on January 31, 2011, 01:21:42 PM
If the government cannot afford to rebuild the infrastructure (and to build the preventative measures promised directly after the 1974 floods), I have no doubt the vast majority of Australians would agree with the levy - although there is no doubt some families honestly cannot afford it because they are in such a tight situation with repaying mortgages and other loans, bringing up children without government benefits, struggling to cope with rising costs, etc.

But if the government states it cannot afford to rebuild the infrastructure but it CAN afford other controversial and overwhelmingly expensive projects that don't have any urgency, that's a different thing...

It's a difficult situation. I suppose we all must feel at least some cynicism about the government responding speedily and effectively to what needs to be done. After all, it's been more than 35 years since the 1974 floods and the measures promised then STILL haven't eventuated.

I don't think the government - whichever government it is - can get away with such dilatory response this time.
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Ubbie Max* on January 31, 2011, 01:51:51 PM
I hope the govt doesn't create a Pluto Pup tax or, heaven forbid, a Pepsi Max tax.

I'll neck myself but, not until after wreaking havoc with the beloved Barrett 50 cal..
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: *Brum6y* on January 31, 2011, 02:32:42 PM
...They'll probably tax the rounds for your beloved Barrett 50 cal so much that you'll have to wreak havoc with the butt!
Title: Re: UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF
Post by: lacey on January 31, 2011, 04:13:07 PM
I just love the way you can give everyone a giggle in such a serious topic Max.

Goodonya!