The Floods

Can't find the right forum, then post your general surf-related remarks here!

Moderators: Butts, beach_defender, Shari, collnarra, Forum Moderators

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:31 pm

the trout wrote:you labour lovers should all go round the back and try to scrape that union delegate out of your green arses
Right, so according to you, anyone who supports the levy, ergo helping the victims of the flood, is a Labor voter? That right? Fella, you must belong to Mensa with logic like that.

User avatar
Trev
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 22991
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Any Point Break

Re: The Floods

Post by Trev » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:04 pm

ajohnsen wrote:
TrevG wrote:AJ I think your last line negates your preceding argument. The fact is, people are opposed to being forced to contribute to infrastructure replacement, not donating to help victims.
Trev, I'm a little slow in this heat: how did I invalidate my own comments?

The way I see it, replacing infrastructure, that is needed and utilised by the people who also lost their personal possessions, is just as important. It's just that the donations alone wouldn't go to covering both infrastructure replacement and helping individuals with their personal situation.
I read your initial comments to say that many people opposed the flood levy and because of it, wouldn't donate to a charity again. IMO they are two separate things. One is the massive personal donations made by plenty of "good" Aussies. The other is a "forced" donation via a one off tax, sorry "levy". I was of the opinion, the first would go towards victims, the second towards infrastructure. In addition, thousands more gave up their time to help out, some officially through SES and other lacal community organisations, others through just turning up.
Specifically, the size of personal donations to the flood appeal, IMO goes against this line, We are not the people we purport to be. We are small and disappointing
#sixfeetissixfeet!

User avatar
Trev
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 22991
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Any Point Break

Re: The Floods

Post by Trev » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:09 pm

mustkillmulloway wrote:
TrevG wrote: And this, even going so far as saying that they'll never give to a charity again (???)
I sure haven't heard anyone saying that, even on all the endless interviews on television. I would suggest it was just one disgruntled person who probably never has donated to a charity anyway.

i have heard it several times sadly trev, i, would prefer support the red cross or salvos than the bloody goverment ...at least you know the money will go people who need it :idea:
I think th epoint I was making was that there is a difference between voluntary contributions to the flood releif and a government enforced levy on taxpayer. If you donated to the flood releif appeal which is essentially a charity, but decide because of the government's levy never to donate to a charity again, that's pretty small mainded.
And I agree there are people out there who have to live with their consciences as to whether or not they "rightly" received relief payments. At the other end of the scale, there are plenty of dole bludgers who milk the system every fortnight, ongoing.
#sixfeetissixfeet!

Beanpole
Huey's Right Hand
Posts: 39931
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Cheese Cave

Re: The Floods

Post by Beanpole » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:39 pm

Borrow the money, tell Abbott to pull his budgey smugglers over his head and forget about the bloody surplus.

It cracks me up that Abbott makes a big play about being a clubbie and then when a real emergency happens he just goes for the political jugular. Would you trust this man to rescue you at the beach?

"Um, Um, just before I do CPR are you thinking of voting Liberal?"

Sorry I just disgusted myself by briefly imagining Abbott leaning over me about to give CPR :x :x :x :P :P :P :P :x :x
Sorry about that.

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:53 pm

TrevG wrote:
ajohnsen wrote:
TrevG wrote:AJ I think your last line negates your preceding argument. The fact is, people are opposed to being forced to contribute to infrastructure replacement, not donating to help victims.
Trev, I'm a little slow in this heat: how did I invalidate my own comments?

The way I see it, replacing infrastructure, that is needed and utilised by the people who also lost their personal possessions, is just as important. It's just that the donations alone wouldn't go to covering both infrastructure replacement and helping individuals with their personal situation.
I read your initial comments to say that many people opposed the flood levy and because of it, wouldn't donate to a charity again. IMO they are two separate things. One is the massive personal donations made by plenty of "good" Aussies. The other is a "forced" donation via a one off tax, sorry "levy". I was of the opinion, the first would go towards victims, the second towards infrastructure. In addition, thousands more gave up their time to help out, some officially through SES and other lacal community organisations, others through just turning up.
Specifically, the size of personal donations to the flood appeal, IMO goes against this line, We are not the people we purport to be. We are small and disappointing
Trev, you're absolutely right. There were plenty of people who gave generously in non-monetary ways. I'd like to think that, had I been one, I still wouldn't mind paying what really amounts to a pretty small amount in the form of a levy. But, who's to say.

The thing is, we don't know if the people who are bitching and moaning are the same people who donated. I suspect there's a mix. Honestly, of the hundreds of comments on a SMH article last week, only a handful were in favour of the levy. Those that weren't, displayed such loathing and disgust for the Government that you'd think they were being asked to fund a military takeover of some island inhabited by tiny rabbit people covered in soft fawn down who don't know what it is to not smile.

It was the over-reaction that made me wonder what sort of people we are? I mean, if you've already donated (and do we need to consider the size of the donation?) is it really so bad to be asked to chuck in a bit more? Is it worth getting so het up about?

I just want to see Queensland back up on its feet as soon as possible, and not just for the warm and fuzzy feeling of seeing Barry and Pam back in their weatherboard cottage that they moved into when they were childhood sweethearts back in '27. The longer Qld is on its knees, the worse off the economy is and we'll end up paying in some form or another anyway.

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Damage » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:21 pm

I want to know what has been the total amount donated by households divided by say 22 million. (No corporate numbers allowed.)

IE the per capita amount.

Come on all you we're-so-generous mob > what's the figure?

mustkillmulloway
Owl status
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: i live in a pineapple under the sea

Re: The Floods

Post by mustkillmulloway » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:34 pm

ajohnsen wrote:[. Honestly, of the hundreds of comments on a SMH article last week, only a handful were in favour of the levy. Those that weren't, displayed such loathing and disgust for the Government that you'd think they were being asked to fund a military takeover of some island inhabited by tiny rabbit people covered in soft fawn down who don't know what it is to not smile.

It was the over-reaction that made me wonder what sort of people we are? I mean, if you've already donated (and do we need to consider the size of the donation?) is it really so bad to be asked to chuck in a bit more? Is it worth getting so het up about?

.


i think and i have nothin back me up....we are a over taxed nation....the goverment asking for yet more, yet again, was a straw that broke the back :idea:

people, a lot people now who had good jobs or had good bussiness...don't no more :cry:

at the same time....electricity, water...rates...anything do with goverment keeps going up and up

ppl..i suspect....are f.uckin over it. how about we stop paying the pollies pensions and divert there wages into it :idea:





i agree with beany..blow the surplus

p.s why do i have pay help people who can afford buy a house i can't, have a car i can't afford, but choose not have insurence :? :?:
reginald wrote:Hang on, now all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. How the try again did that happen?

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:57 pm

mustkillmulloway wrote:
ajohnsen wrote:[. Honestly, of the hundreds of comments on a SMH article last week, only a handful were in favour of the levy. Those that weren't, displayed such loathing and disgust for the Government that you'd think they were being asked to fund a military takeover of some island inhabited by tiny rabbit people covered in soft fawn down who don't know what it is to not smile.

It was the over-reaction that made me wonder what sort of people we are? I mean, if you've already donated (and do we need to consider the size of the donation?) is it really so bad to be asked to chuck in a bit more? Is it worth getting so het up about?

.


i think and i have nothin back me up....we are a over taxed nation....the goverment asking for yet more, yet again, was a straw that broke the back :idea:

p.s why do i have pay help people who can afford buy a house i can't, have a car i can't afford, but choose not have insurence :? :?:
Careful Fong, that's the road to America where people complain that the government doesn't look after them and fight like mad against paying any extra tax. Dumb fcuks. Someone ought to tell 'em that it's taxes what funds sh*t like health, edumacation, roads and so and so forth. Oh, but that's socialism, communism, Marxism, cappucinoism, they'll argue.

As for the people who chose not to have insurance? Sure, there are some who made that choice, but there are a bunch who did take out insurance but are being stiffed.

User avatar
Deesee
barnacle
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:01 am
Location: A gutter in Chumpsville...

Re: The Floods

Post by Deesee » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:20 pm

I think the avenue of compulsory house insurance (much akin to vehicle greenslips), needs to be explored....

If i was an insurance company, i don't think i would insure structures built on a proven flood plan fullstop (Subaru WRX young driver scenario..). Why would i accept less than $1K per year for a policy if i'm liable to pay out say $150-400K every 30 or so years? I doesn't make sense and is a bad business decision (shareholders have every right to question the practice). Adds a spin on the compulsory thought above - who'd take it on?

Why are we donating / being taxed, to rebuild / clean up on the same land? What new measure will be put in place - so far we're only being reactive and little proactiveness has been chaired... At a minimum, repaired or rebuilt dwellings should be on stilts (true QLD'er architecture), and not slabs, otherwise the levy will be spent just as carefully as the insulation and school project schemes.. (Surely towns like Murphy's Creek aren't going to get a whole whack of tax payers money to rebuild on the same flood plain again?)

Ever get the feeling that BNE is like Bart Simpson touching the electrified cupcake over and over and not learning from the mistake...

Infrastructure rebuilb? So QLD state govt doesn't insure certain infrastructure (can anyone confirm), and the Aust tax payer foots the bill?

How about a cyclone Yasi levy while we're at it?

I just don't like being taxed for avoidable f*ck ups (
If it feels good, do it.

User avatar
Deesee
barnacle
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:01 am
Location: A gutter in Chumpsville...

Re: The Floods

Post by Deesee » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:32 pm

mustkillmulloway wrote:
p.s why do i have pay help people who can afford buy a house i can't, have a car i can't afford, but choose not have insurence :? :?:
I'm aweare of an ex co worker who lived on quite a salubrious (ie. houses worth easily around the million plus mark) stretch of realestate along the BNE river who's house was inundated up to the guttering. He told me he had 48 hour notice (even received a phone call at work from emergency services advising of the impending danger). 24 hours prior he hired a truck and trailer and evacuated all his possesions to another mates house out of harms way. House is being rebuilt, but no possesions (unless he wanted insurance to replace for some updated versions), were lost.

His neighbours ignored the warnings and lost most of their goods, 3 families in his street uninsured - WTF? They're doing well in that part of town?? No excuse, hence why i'm pi$$ed off about it.
If it feels good, do it.

mustkillmulloway
Owl status
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: i live in a pineapple under the sea

Re: The Floods

Post by mustkillmulloway » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:41 pm

ajohnsen wrote:
As for the people who chose not to have insurance? Sure, there are some who made that choice, but there are a bunch who did take out insurance but are being stiffed.

hmmm...so your saying i should pay up cause dumb fu.cks are too stupid ask if there policy covers flood :?:

or did they get the cheapest cover they could :idea: while paying infl;ated , bigg $$$, have water views :?:
and now cry poor for taxpayer hand outs :!:
it's bullshit

p.s hi dess :P
reginald wrote:Hang on, now all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. How the try again did that happen?

User avatar
No Pants Lance
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 9081
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:26 am
Location: where wake collide

Re: The Floods

Post by No Pants Lance » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:07 pm

Aj's on the money IMO. As a nation we're mindless in the massive squandering of our hard earned cash- smokes, pokies, frappaccino's, jagermeister shots, dodgy pills, un satisfying hookers, fattening fast foods, adulterated hooch, road tolls, fcuks tel, brain dead band, etc etc. .... But the moment the dreaded tax demon is raised, just like interest rates,fuel, power, bread,milk, bananas price rises issue, we're all fcuk that, this sucks. We voted Howard in on the back of concerns for our economic wellbeing. Not on issues of our collective wellbeing. Or the wellbeing of the planet. On the plain and simple hip pocket obsession. How will I maintain my lifestyle ticket. He'll make sure I can. And boy did he, and now what. Fcuk! Climate change, Middle East unrest, US not so powerfull after all, and What!? China, India, monetary super powers!!?    
We've had it/got it,  too good, and just baulk the moment we're asked to put out that little bit more. 
For fcuk's sake, $1/p/w per $50k earned. Jeeeezus.  What's that a sacrifice of. The sugar in most fatty's skim caps!  
I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that we are at heart a measly bunch, but I reckon most of the whinging about this tax is coming from the so self interested disenfranchised classes. The haven't got enough's. Screen not big enough. Car not latest enough. Shoes not sexy enough. What , Domino's again mum! class. 
Meanwhile $$$ for the rest of the hugely consumptive lifestyle gets dished out no questions asked.  
Just saying.    

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:09 pm

mustkillmulloway wrote:
ajohnsen wrote:
As for the people who chose not to have insurance? Sure, there are some who made that choice, but there are a bunch who did take out insurance but are being stiffed.

hmmm...so your saying i should pay up cause dumb fu.cks are too stupid ask if there policy covers flood :?:

or did they get the cheapest cover they could :idea: while paying infl;ated , bigg $$$, have water views :?:
and now cry poor for taxpayer hand outs :!:
it's bullshit

p.s hi dess :P
Insurance companies are notorious for trying to get out of paying, regardless of what the policy says. We all know that.

That said, of course there are some knob jockeys about.

You can cut this whole debate so many ways and there'll always be something that doesn't quite work - it cannot fit every variation. Bit like any form of welfare, really, but we do it because we look after people,even if a few undeserving ones slip through the net.

Also a bit like the schools and insulation thingo. The primary objective wasn't to insulate houses or improve schools' infrastructure, it was to stimulate the economy, and in a hurry. Of course, it was going to be imperfect. But Australia weathered the GFC better than anyone else.

Deesee, compulsory house-slips probably a good idea for identified dodgy areas.

User avatar
Deesee
barnacle
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 1:01 am
Location: A gutter in Chumpsville...

Re: The Floods

Post by Deesee » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:12 pm

I'd rather put that levy money towards my local shapers pocket than rebuilding sh1t holes. Even if it was only $0.05.
If it feels good, do it.

User avatar
ajohnsen
Duke Status
Posts: 11841
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:38 am
Location: Marrickville

Re: The Floods

Post by ajohnsen » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:15 pm

Skip, kinda off topic, but did you read Mike Carlton's bit in the weekend SMH? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 1agt8.html

User avatar
Damage
Owl status
Posts: 3838
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Floods

Post by Damage » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:20 pm

The most puzzling thing about the flood levy is that will only raise a relatively modest amount. Abt 1.5 Bill.

With some conservative estimates putting the flood + Yasi damage at about 6 to 10 billion :arrow: you gotta wonder why Gillard has bothered to risk the political fallout for an amount that is only a small proportion of the total req'd.

:|

User avatar
No Pants Lance
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 9081
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:26 am
Location: where wake collide

Re: The Floods

Post by No Pants Lance » Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:24 pm

ajohnsen wrote:Skip, kinda off topic, but did you read Mike Carlton's bit in the weekend SMH? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... -shower-<a href="tel:20110204-1">20110204-1</a>agt8.html
^^^^^

Nup. Will scrounge a copy off a homeless guy's bedding on my way to work tomorrow. Not sure I've got the broadband allocation left to view online after kids squandered on online gaming. :lol:

Nah, seriously, will have a look. (after I check out Domain :wink: ) Got it lying around. What's that, ? $2 just squandered for rubbish bin lining.

mustkillmulloway
Owl status
Posts: 4962
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: i live in a pineapple under the sea

Re: The Floods

Post by mustkillmulloway » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:19 pm

ajohnsen wrote: You can cut this whole debate so many ways and there'll always be something that doesn't quite work - it cannot fit every variation. .

cop out

u can make it fit if u want too

everybody should pay the levy, if miss grillhard deems she can't run the country with the taxes she blows now, sorry mean collected :oops:

no ÖUTS

if you where effected ( affected :?: ) directly by the floods

i could make a good argument you should pay double :idea:
reginald wrote:Hang on, now all of a sudden I'm the bad guy. How the try again did that happen?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests