The Daily Wire: Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble Julia Gillard announces new flood levy and spending cuts

Poll: Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble (16 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support the levy and spending cuts?

  1. Yes (9 votes [56.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.25%

  2. No (7 votes [43.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.75%

  3. Undecided (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 30 January 2011 - 11:13 AM

View PostEpicurus, on 30 January 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

The removal of private school funding requires and equal or increased allocation of funding to public schools as there would be a mass exodus from private to public schools because parents couldn't afford the increased fees.

This is why we must not cut the funding entirely. We just cut funding to those schools that are clearly receiving surplus money and reallocate that money more efficiently. We might be able to raise $100 million or more in this way.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#42 User is offline   macca 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 30-January 11
  • Locationleggo land

Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:18 PM

What a horrid creature is our Queen Nightmare. Surely a party that gave us the world's greatest treasurer could draw on his knowledge to find enough money in the budget rather than taking the easy way out.

Looks like the ALP has closed down its creative department.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#43 User is offline   SERG1O_D 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 30-January 11

Posted 30 January 2011 - 01:57 PM

I don't think anyone minds paying a few bucks a week but it will change the Australian mindset going forward. In future will people continue to dig into their pocket to donate when they think the Govt is going to sting them anyway down the track with a tax/levy?. The money doesn't start getting taken out until July 2011 so why the haste to announce now? Won't we have a better picture of whats actually needed in a month or two? The floods and flood levy have give the Govt an opportunity to cancel some dud schemes (eg Cash for Clunkers), that is one positive that has come out of this.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#44 User is offline   SERG1O_D 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 30-January 11

Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:03 PM

View PostMiglo, on 27 January 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I'm laughing at how news.com can consider middle income earners as being those that earn about $105K a year.


105K for a single income family with a couple of kids and the average mortgage is not rich. It sounds a hell of a lot better than it really is.

I know plenty of families in this income bracket and none of them are what I would consider wealthy, a couple of cars, a home in a middle class suburb, internet and Foxtel and the occasional trip to the Gold Coast, not poor by any means but not driving a BMW X5 and travelling to Mt Buller every winter.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#45 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 31 January 2011 - 07:50 AM

This is why I keep harping on how good Australia was way back in the 50's and 60's. If this levy was proposed then it would have been supported near a 100% as Australians then had a social contract mentality. We are supposed to have a 'social contract' an unwritten law whereby those who has assist those who has not.It is a kind of a social insurance and it is handled by the government of the day. Now even the Liberals have forgotten it!What do you expect..Howard was re-elected many times on the basis that Australians have now discarded this policy and have become mercenary. They treat Treasury as their own personal bank account. Alright many donations were made for these flood victims but these are voluntary. I wholly agree with the levy.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#46 User is offline   Senexx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 31 January 2011 - 09:01 AM

View PostSERG1O_D, on 30 January 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

105K for a single income family with a couple of kids and the average mortgage is not rich. It sounds a hell of a lot better than it really is.

I know plenty of families in this income bracket and none of them are what I would consider wealthy, a couple of cars, a home in a middle class suburb, internet and Foxtel and the occasional trip to the Gold Coast, not poor by any means but not driving a BMW X5 and travelling to Mt Buller every winter.


I would consider them all wealthy. They can afford a holiday, they're wealthy. They can afford Foxtel, they're wealthy. If they're making above the median household income (a figure I actually dispute) $66.8k, they're wealthy.

Let's see single income plus two kids - if they can't live comfortably on $48-50k, they're doing something wrong in my book.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Support the Independents, Democracy always needs and requires a balance of power.

Counter Insurgent,

Deficit Terrorist Unit

0

#47 User is offline   Epicurus 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 16-January 11
  • LocationThe land of droughts and flooding Rains.

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:53 AM

Wealthy is a relative term. Senexx is saying that they are wealthy in comparison to someone on $50K who in turn are wealthy in comparison to someone on welfare.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#48 User is offline   Senexx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 01 February 2011 - 12:39 PM

I guess that is true. I don't consider anyone on the lower end of the welfare scale, say around $10-$12k to be wealthy at all. Nor do I consider anyone under $26k to be wealthy. $26k is what I find to be closer to the median individual wage hence the dispute of the figures above (even though the fig above is for households).

Once you start getting a little over $50k+ I will begin to consider you wealthy. At very least affluent.

That aside I think we're getting a little far afield of the flood levy.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Support the Independents, Democracy always needs and requires a balance of power.

Counter Insurgent,

Deficit Terrorist Unit

0

#49 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:13 AM

You know many people think that Australia's welfare laws regarding incomes and assets are generous and I am only bringing this up because of the topic of "income vis-a-vis rich/poor" on this thread. However this is not correct. It is very much the opposite when an Aged Pension commences to reduce at approx.385,000 dollars asset. This amount is not even the equivalent of the purchase price of a home in Sydney which is approx 500,000 dollars. I think that this amount at the very least ahould be the minimum under which the pension commences reduction
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#50 User is offline   Senexx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 02 February 2011 - 07:57 AM

I haven't checked for a couple years but I think you'll find the median purchase price is around $300-350k

It was a figure that shocked me as I expected it to be in the range you named.

So how about that flood levy?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Support the Independents, Democracy always needs and requires a balance of power.

Counter Insurgent,

Deficit Terrorist Unit

0

#51 User is offline   Miglo 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 26-January 11
  • LocationCanberra

Posted 02 February 2011 - 11:05 AM

Serg, I think that $105k was referring to a single income earner and not the household income.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#52 User is offline   Senexx 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 14-January 11

Posted 02 February 2011 - 02:04 PM

Quote

Support for Commonwealth Flood Response Package, Crook
Posted on Wednesday, 2 February 2011

FEDERAL Member for O’Connor Tony Crook today announced he would support the proposed Commonwealth Flood Response Package, due to be introduced when Parliament resumes next week.

Mr Crook this morning held discussions with Prime Minister Julia Gillard regarding the detail of the funding package.

“After careful consideration of the facts that I have been provided to date in relation to the implementation of the levy, infrastructure deferrals and program cuts, I am satisfied that the Government’s responses is adequate and responsible,” Mr Crook said.

“My support is conditional upon me reviewing the draft legislation, which is expected to be introduced into the Parliament late next week, and is consistent with the advice currently provided to me.”

Mr Crook sought assurances that residents of the Gascoyne would be able to seek exemptions from the levy if they were affected by the floods, which the Prime Minister provided today.



“Furthermore, the Prime Minister also confirmed to me today that there are no plans for Commonwealth funded WA infrastructure projects to be cut or delayed as a result of the flood package,” he said.





Continue Reading (Source)


Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Support the Independents, Democracy always needs and requires a balance of power.

Counter Insurgent,

Deficit Terrorist Unit

0

#53 User is offline   Kuzushisan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 24-January 11
  • LocationSouth of Australia

Posted 03 February 2011 - 11:33 AM

Fiona Katauskas via New Matilda

Posted Image
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least - Goethe
0

#54 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 07 February 2011 - 08:52 AM

I think this is a great chance to cutsome middle class welfare and possible axe the private health insurance rebate, surely one of the great business welfare inventions of the last 40 years.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#55 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 07 February 2011 - 04:08 PM

You are asking me about the flood levy? I agree with it. But you see this is why I am against selling state assets for one off gains. The downside is that when Australia has a national disaster (and we most probably will have many in the coming years) we either have to have budget cuts or extra levies to fund their destruction. Alright selling state assets may balance the budget in the short term without raising taxes..but then when disaster hits...ahhhh no money!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#56 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 07 February 2011 - 05:50 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 02 February 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

You know many people think that Australia's welfare laws regarding incomes and assets are generous and I am only bringing this up because of the topic of "income vis-a-vis rich/poor" on this thread. However this is not correct. It is very much the opposite when an Aged Pension commences to reduce at approx.385,000 dollars asset. This amount is not even the equivalent of the purchase price of a home in Sydney which is approx 500,000 dollars. I think that this amount at the very least ahould be the minimum under which the pension commences reduction


Dumbcluck,
The asset test for aged pensions excludes the family home. So it makes no difference if you are in a $1 million home in Sydney or a $150,000 home outback.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#57 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 07 February 2011 - 06:19 PM

View Postscotto, on 07 February 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

I think this is a great chance to cutsome middle class welfare and possible axe the private health insurance rebate, surely one of the great business welfare inventions of the last 40 years.


Get rid of the private health insurance rebate, and use the savings to at least partly pay for the flood of sick and dying that subsequently transfer to the public system.

Clearly ideology of the daft left!

Meanwhile, the allegedly "wooden" ranga calls in a heavy hitter, John Fahey (ex premier and ex Federal Minister for Finance from guess which party?).

Quote

“As I've said before ... I have learned some things by rolling out major construction projects,” Ms Gillard said.


I wonder if she really has.

Tony Abbot shared what he's learnt by telling colleagues that "Labor was addicted to taxes, waste and its own political survival". :emot-roflolmao:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#58 User is offline   JJ 

  • Administrator
  • View blog
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 12-January 11

Posted 07 February 2011 - 06:48 PM

View Posticey, on 07 February 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Meanwhile, the allegedly "wooden" ranga calls in a heavy hitter, John Fahey (ex premier and ex Federal Minister for Finance from guess which party?).

I actually think this is a really clever move. They tried bringing in a big man of business (Lindsay Fox) last time, and it didn't help with the whole BER thing. This time there's a Liberal overseeing it, makes it harder to attack them over waste.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Please read the Forum Rules & Info thread if you haven't already.
0

#59 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:41 PM

View Posticey, on 07 February 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Get rid of the private health insurance rebate, and use the savings to at least partly pay for the flood of sick and dying that subsequently transfer to the public system.

Clearly ideology of the daft left!

Introduce corporate welfare to prop up a particular class of businesses, with no means test and no cap. Introduce penalty taxes for the wealthy who do not choose to be a customer of said businesses, thus distorting the market. Block any attempts to cut spending on this unwarranted and wasteful corporate welfare.

Clearly ideology of the rabid right!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#60 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 07 February 2011 - 07:46 PM

View Posticey, on 07 February 2011 - 06:19 PM, said:

Meanwhile, the allegedly "wooden" ranga calls in a heavy hitter, John Fahey (ex premier and ex Federal Minister for Finance from guess which party?).

It utterly refutes any accusations that the ALP only look after their own. At least it's not Howard-style politics where you have to be in the Liberals' old-boy network to have a chance.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply