Suggestion for the Flood Levy

[fish]

"Abbott puts foot in mouth over levy":

TONY Abbott does not want you to pay to rebuild Queensland but thinks you may want to help the Liberals.

In an insensitive move as flood victims continue the long painful process of recovery, Mr Abbott yesterday sent out an online letter to subscribers, slamming the Government's proposed levy - even though 60 per cent of taxpayers would pay less than a dollar a week for the 12 months of its operation - but inviting donations to the Liberal Party.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 5999047245

So are they gonna go back to Turnbull or will someone else get a shot now?

I wonder if anyone on this forum will call him a looney?

[redandblack]

This is just another example of his total lack of judgement.

He's a looney.

[smac]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

[Leaping Lindner]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

On first glance it's absolute madness! Mind you knowing the way insurance companies work they probably wouldn't be covered anyway. Insurance companies aren't known for their benevolencey.

[Squawk]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

I think it was assessed as being cost prohibitive and hence, the Cwlth Govt is effectively
Queensland's insurer.

[Sojourner]

My mail is that Premier Bligh sold off all of Qld Rail, would not then the rail infrastructure now be privately insured?

[mick]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

It is common practice for governments to self insure.

[Psyber]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

It is common practice for governments to self insure.

Because we the tax-paying public are their free insurance company.
It is just like spending superannuation funds because we can always hit the tax-payers to put it back later - except sometimes it gets to be to big a hole for that to work...

[Squawk]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

It is common practice for governments to self insure.

Yes - but the SA Govt has a level of commercial insurance to cover damage to govt owned assets that may be affected by natural disasters.

[smac]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

It is common practice for governments to self insure.

The news is that Qld is the only Australian State without such insurance, making it not very common at all.

[Squawk]

Mental Health Minister Mark Butler will be blogging live on AdelaideNow at 12.30pm, to discuss the flood levy.

[Squawk]

Mental Health Minister Mark Butler will be blogging live on AdelaideNow at 12.30pm, to discuss the flood levy.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/relief-but-a-gloom-left-behind/story-e6frea6u-1225999875948

[scoob]

Can someone with more knowledge than myself please inform me, why there was a levy for the rebuilding of infastructure after the floods as the government said it was a necessity. Now with the extra funding required for the cyclone rebuild how can this be afforded without an extran levy? Gillard said today that extra budget cuts/hard decisions had to be made... If this is the case then why wasn't it done in the first place - Was the initial levy a desparate requirement or just a ploy to avoid delaying the return to surplus?

In no way am I saying that funding isnt required up there but just questioning how is being derived, if there is a better way, and are the effects of returning surplus that disastorious, or is it just because it is an election year/election promise?

[Q.]

They raised the tax on beer. Bastards!

[Leaping Lindner]

Okay, admittedly I'm not a fan of landlords or people with "property investments" at the best of times but this defies description. What a great way to pitch in and help out your fellow Australians in a time of need.

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/ ... omments=31

[Psyber]

Okay, admittedly I'm not a fan of landlords or people with "property investments" at the best of times but this defies description. What a great way to pitch in and help out your fellow Australians in a time of need.
http://www.businessday.com.au/business/ ... omments=31

I would be surprised if they didn't rise.
One of the reasons I have not bought an investment property in SA and become a "landlord" is simply that the return on investment is inadequate.
I can do better elsewhere without the worry about slack or malicious tenants wrecking my investment, which is in effect my pension.

Once upon a time tax free capital gains on property made the lower operating return, and the damage risk, worth it for those capital gains.
Now they are not there, the return is not good enough, and the shortage of rental property will increase.
And don't expect "Public Housing" to fill the gap - state governments know property is not a good investment in this social climate too.

[Squawk]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

I think it was assessed as being cost prohibitive and hence, the Cwlth Govt is effectively
Queensland's insurer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140843.htm

[scoob]

Speaking of stupidity - why in hell did Qld Govt choose not to insure their infrastructure? Would the flood levy be necessary if they had? I'm sure the Feds are pleased to be copping flack over the levy that is covering the failure to insure.

I think it was assessed as being cost prohibitive and hence, the Cwlth Govt is effectively
Queensland's insurer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/16/3140843.htm

Well done Nick X - 50million Vs. 5Bn... does seem to make sense... But hey if they had a agreement with the commonwealth that they would pay 75% of rebuild costs then why would they pay for insurance???
Why was there no reserve funds in the budget for this... Was it deemed as safe because the rest of Australia will pay it along with its own states insurances and levies - but hey they had a bad storm(s) lets all chip in.