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.
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: $354,644,000,000.00That’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...
