RealSurf Surfers' Forum

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, MKM. Because you can cut it so many ways, everyone should pay.

I'd suggest you were contradicting yourself, but I'm too tired, it's late and I have to go to work tomorrow, so I'm gonna eat ice-cream and watch crap tele.

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

i could make a good argument you should pay double

Amen, especially if you were uninsured and are rebuilding on the same block of land.

Out of curiosity, do the families that got wiped out by the cyclone have to pay the levy now? Or the flood affected NSW's / VIC's? What about the families that lost everything in the VIC bush fires?

Once you start exempting groups, you've gotta keep it fair across the board...

mustkillmulloway wrote: 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

amazing they just discovered best part a million dollars left over from donations too help people in cyclone larry ...

Like cleaning up after a cyclone, it's hard to know where to start with this one.

1. - The money you donate to Red Cross or Salvos is not accounted for. You may think you are giving it for the flood victims, but there is no way of knowing that the money you gave to charity went to where you meant it to go. BTW, both organisations are great, as is Tim Costello's mob.

If you are going to give money to charity, give it, and let them sort out the details. If you can't hack that, don't give!!!!!!!!!!!

2. None of the 'donations' went to any government anywhere, so "they" didn't discover another million dollars that was supposed to go to cyclone larry victims. All donated monies went to charities, (Red Cross and Salvos) not to a government.

The whole levy thing is a non-issue, and the wankers complaining about it deserve a good paddlin', Jasper style.

Damage wrote:you gotta wonder why Gillard has bothered to risk the political fallout

Good point. Further, why is it that Abbott is allowed to play politics with this? If Labor tried this on it would be on for young and old. Double standards continue to prevail.

Re the levy, it doesn't matter because we pay either way. The government picks up the bill. It either goes against consolidated revenue or we pay a bit through extra taxes. If you spend on a credit card, you still spend. In that sense, whether we pay for it (partially) via a levy or not is irrelevant.

Re charitable donations, I have great concerns about the moral hazard of looking after people who didn't cover themselves with insurance. Food, shelter, help to get started again - fine, but I can't agree with helping people with money to pay for new houses or furniture when they should have been insured. What about those who were covered - what are they getting?

And whether I gave money to charity or not, that's my business, but anyone who thinks that giving money to charity means they gain the right to complain about the tax is a dill. I'll bet that most of them claim that money back on their end of year taxes without recognising that the government has covered a third or more of their donation.

Here's a better question. Why is qld the only state in Australia that didn't have any insurance to cover flood and cyclone damage for their infrastructure?

That's right, the only state not to have insurance cover is the state most likely to get hit by floods and cyclones.

Blame it on Labor, I don't care, but their lack of insurance coverage means that the rest of Australia is paying the insurance bill that should have been picked up the qld govt. Now that is a question worth asking.

I suspect not many people understand the insurance industry.

There is a reason why most insurers don't cover flood damage, and it's not just because they are bastards. It's because the damage is not distributed evenly, and there is no requirement that all people hold insurance like there is with third party car insurance.
Insurance for natural disasters can never work properly. Insurers won't cover areas which have a hazard return frequency that means the policy income (and income from investment of said monies) doesn't cover the payouts.

Think about it. You aren't going to buy flood insurance if you live on a hill. You are only going to buy it if you think there's a chance you will get flooded. In which case, the insurers can't spread your risk across the general population, like they can with other types of insurance.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is part of the reason why Qld wasn't insured. I know that Florida has trouble getting hurricane insurance, and ended up having to self insure recently. I know earthquake insurance is pretty hard to come by in San Francisco. A major source of the disaster-related damage in the US is driven by the fact that there is government-subsidised insurance that means people build in flood prone areas that should be zoned as parkland or similar.

Whilst the levy will make f* all difference to me, and despite the fact I have family who lost almost everything, I don't support it.

Not because it's not a well intentioned policy, as getting Qld back on track is fundamental to the national economy, given that WA and QLD are the engine room of the resources-based economy, but because it sets a bad precedent and is not well thought out politics.

A hint to the poor foresight was the iron-clad promise that the levy would be a once off, even when long term forecasts (sketchy as they are) and seasonal projections were progging further calamities.

The Govt appears terrified to not achieve the budget surplus it promised, and is going all out to avoid this possibility. It seems driven by a desire to avoid the very hypocrite tag that it foisted upon Johnnie, which would provide the Libs with ammo for credibility attacks. Lord knows they aren't providing useful policy alternatives.

Man the f#ck up. The government is there to make the tough calls, not worry about what the opposition will say.

We would never have been in this position if the previous election hadn't been conducted as an all-out bidding war for the lowest common denominator. I'm sure the same people that were swayed by the $10 p.w. tax cut in 2007 are complaining about the $10 p.w. tax levy now.

You can't have it both ways. You either pay tax, and get services, or you STFU.

^^^^^

Pretty well said akaboo.
To take the insurance thing a bit further, The Queensland Government has for years been unable to insure its schools against vandalism as the premiums are higher than the repair bills we cop each year.

Well said, Alakaboo, thanks.

mustkillmulloway wrote: p.s and given we can budget for a ten year war in afgan and billions each year o/s aid....and that floods and cyclones are nothin new too oz....why hasn't the goverment got money put aside too budget for natural diasters in our own country

mustkillmulloway wrote:everybody should pay the levy

if you search through the agitated emoticon-riddled ranting, Fong says some very clever stuff.

But then you go and say something like this...

mustkillmulloway wrote:if you where effected ( affected ) directly by the floods
i could make a good argument you should pay double

I'd like to hear that argument.
Sure, I think that everyone who lives in a hazard zone is essentially gambling against inevitability, and should have contingency plans to either mitigate or wear the consequences, but this is a bridge too far.
To quote an infamous resident of the affected area, "please explain?"

^^^ I sort of know where Fong is coming from but I suspect he may have overlooked the fact that many of the people who were affected can't get flood insurance. And if they can, it would be exhorbitant. And there's a whole lot of others who live hand to mouth in rental properties who couldn't afford it anyway. (although I would want to see what they spend on cigarettes, grog and drugs before I went to bat for them).

You put forward some good points alakaboo ....

alakaboo wrote:Sure, I think that everyone who lives in a hazard zone is essentially gambling against inevitability, and should have contingency plans to either mitigate or wear the consequences, but this is a bridge too far.

With insurance "gambling" is the magic word as you are having a bet with the insurance company that it may happen and the insurance company " sets the odds" on how much of a chance of that happening ............... if the risk is high so will the cost of insurance.

Anything can be insured but the premium may be unfordable.

So if ppl choose to live in high risk areas with no insurance is it fare that those that don't should have to pay.

Would you feel compelled to help pay for repairs to a drink driver that has written off their car ?

Johnno wrote: Would you feel compelled to help pay for repairs to a drink driver that has written off their car ?

No, but nor would i have to. Their insurance claim would be voided by the fact they are pissed. And even if I did, everyone has some form of car insurance, so the proportion I'd pay would be minimal. Although I'd probably end up footing a part of their medical bill via medicare.

Johnno wrote:So if ppl choose to live in high risk areas with no insurance is it fare that those that don't should have to pay.

No. Life isn't fair. Get a helmet.
As I was pointing out, if you live in a truly high risk area, you shouldn't be able to get insurance.

If it's truly a choice, then no. Recent purchasers of properties in erosion-prone areas who then run crying to the courts are a good example.

If, as Trev alludes to, it's a pattern that results from socioeconomic imbalances, then yes.
If a measure of society is the way in which it treats the least fortunate, then there is an obligation on those who have to help those who have not.
The same caveats that Trev mentioned also apply to my comments.

oldman wrote: Blame it on Labor, I don't care, .

it's no ones fault but our own...we choose our useless leaders

why hasn't anything been plan for it's not the first flood or cyclone for godsake

evaucation centres not built or overfull turning people away, wrong ones used and flattened it's like a bloody sick comedy

we have a army of pen pushes paid good coin govern us ( we pay good taxes...sadly they get spent on other things ...like home insulation now blowin in the wind)

and they do a good job in good times...the money just rolls in for them

the whole lack of planning, before , after and now is simply amazing

in private enterprise....they be all out on there arses

mustkillmulloway wrote: in private enterprise....they be all out on there arses

Hell yeah!
After all they're just another group abusing government handouts.(their salaries)
And don't start me on parliamentary pensions.

alakaboo wrote: As I was pointing out, if you live in a truly high risk area, you shouldn't be able to get insurance.

Insurance companies will set the premium so no problems with insurance as they know what the risk is and a lot is re insured out so we will not be seeing any insurance company going broke over this.

alakaboo wrote: If, as Trev alludes to, it's a pattern that results from socioeconomic imbalances, then yes.
If a measure of society is the way in which it treats the least fortunate, then there is an obligation on those who have to help those who have not.

Fully agree with you and believe all must be done to help those less fortunate but the vast majority would not fall into that group so why should we have to help those that have accepted the risk but also have the means to live else where.

dinosaur wrote:Is living in a zone that may be effected by a 1 in a 100 hundred year event, really gambling and taking a risk.

Yes.......as it will happen but more a matter of when. We have just gone through a very inactive cyclone season for the past 20 plus years even the year that Larry hit it was the only cyclone in Nth Qld that year. Now we have a strong el nina so the gamble / risk is going to be high.

mustkillmulloway wrote:the whole lack of planning, before , after and now is simply amazing in private enterprise....they be all out on there arses

Nail Hammer ............ Qld government and councils are all to blame for a lot of this through poor planning and allowing developments to go ahead. Yeah may seem a big call but only Qld has itself to blame as they approved all the developments hey !!!!

And why after all this we will see the same homes being rebuilt in the same locations waiting for this all to happen again because as sure as the sun comes up each day Brisbane will have another flood and Nth Qld will get hit by another cyclone so if they chose to do that they need to do that with their own money not the taxpayers.

May seem a bit hard but that is what is need to be done now as a little pain now may save a lot of grief late.

Geez those IAG shares I got from the NRMA have been a great investment

So you can get insurance as long as the industry thinks it will never have to pay out?
Good deal.

I don't think people realise that 95% of Australia is flood prone if it rains hard enough for long enough.

To put it crudely, we just have to have development that will not wash away, is easily hosed out and is back up and habitable within a few days after the event. And yes probably all without insurance.

The bushfire thing is no different.

Last year Wayne Swan said "come hell or high water, the budget will be in surplus in 2011/2012"
Well he's not got both

get rid of this bunch of wasters is a good start www.climatechange.gov.au/ -

mustkillmulloway wrote:in private enterprise....they be all out on there arses

Laughable! The last vestige of the scoundrel.

The great super-efficient, all-seeing all-knowing private sector versus those numbnuts in the public sector.



It's the great lie that fires the imagination of all those hard working souls in the private sector.

Homeside, Opes/Prime, the entire superannuation and financial planning industry in Australia for the last 25 years, Bunnings, Grace Bros, THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS, Westpac and NAB which nearly went broke in the 90's, Rio Tinto's record of management over the last 5 years, the PRIVATE SECTOR that put the insulation in houses, the entire banking industry, how many property developments!

You want to have a game of who can rack up the biggest number of screw-ups?

Out on their arse??? Only half of them, the other half paid themselves huge bonuses along the way.

Oh yeah, private sector = geniuses; public sector = dummies!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a reflection on those houses along the river in Brisbane, I read a lot of reports that said a lot of these were the millionnaires row, which when you think about it, that is where the millionnaires tend to buy, right next to the river.

If you think you can afford a million dollar home, and not insure it against something like a flood in Brisbane, you have no sense.

QBE offered full flood insurance to qld'ers I have read, and Suncorp also. Someone can correct me on that, but reports are that insurance was available.