Suggestion for the Flood Levy

[dedja]

The current mail is a 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy ...

For what it's worth, I have no issue with assisting those in need as long as the funds are used for that purpose and not as a contribution to general revenue.

[Drop Bear]

The current mail is a 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy ...

For what it's worth, I have no issue with assisting those in need as long as the funds are used for that purpose and not as a contribution to general revenue.

Agreed. That's why I would prefer them to have a one off Flood Tax instead of upping the Medicare Levy.

[Dirko]

Here's a suggestion for the Flood Levy: Gillard can bend over while I shove the bill up her jacksy.

I have already donated an amount of money to the QLD flood appeal and I continually toss loose change into the collection boxes at supermarket checkouts, etc. Now I'm told that I'm going to have more money taxed out of me for the purpose?!? Had I suspected that the government was going to make donation involuntary, then I would not have voluntarily given up my readies in the first place. I will certainly not be parting with any more loose change. Sod 'em.

x 1

[redandblack]

Well, Pseudo, since you choose not to cast a vote, you'll just have to put up with it

I presume you won't claim a tax deduction for your donations

[Farmy]

The current mail is a 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy ...

For what it's worth, I have no issue with assisting those in need as long as the funds are used for that purpose and not as a contribution to general revenue.

Agreed. That's why I would prefer them to have a one off Flood Tax instead of upping the Medicare Levy.

It is cheaper to just increase the Medicare Levy as it can be easily streamlined into the existing tax calculation. Limits any unnecessary administrative costs.

[cripple]

And the winner is $0-50,000pa = no levy
50,001-100,000pa= 0.5%
100,001pa=1.0%
pretty fair in my opinion and in my case will only cost $1 a week out of my pay that I will hardly notice missing. That said I can see a massive outcry about it from everyone that was praising our mateship and generous values yesterday.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

I don't have a huge issue with this, so long as it only lasts for one year and is then removed. It's not a significant amount out the fortnightly pay packet of anyone earning over $50,000.

It had better not be handed over to anybody who didn't bother to insure their home properly though...

[Leaping Lindner]

And the winner is $0-50,000pa = no levy
50,001-100,000pa= 0.5%
100,001pa=1.0%
pretty fair in my opinion and in my case will only cost $1 a week out of my pay that I will hardly notice missing. That said I can see a massive outcry about it from everyone that was praising our mateship and generous values yesterday.

Spot on.

Barnaby Joyce and coalition colleagues ravings of the last few days have been the best example of how stupid pollies must think the electorate is. Um....Ansett levy, gun buy back levy, the dairy levy, the sugar levy, the East Timor levy........

[southee]

Here's a suggestion for the Flood Levy: Gillard can bend over while I shove the bill up her jacksy.

I have already donated an amount of money to the QLD flood appeal and I continually toss loose change into the collection boxes at supermarket checkouts, etc. Now I'm told that I'm going to have more money taxed out of me for the purpose?!? Had I suspected that the government was going to make donation involuntary, then I would not have voluntarily given up my readies in the first place. I will certainly not be parting with any more loose change. Sod 'em.

x 1

x2.......but I will continue to give to other organisations. (ie. Cancer, Disabled etc...)

What did the people of Victoria get for the bushfires??? Sweet F.A....total vote buying in QLD from Gillard and co.

Good to see the "Robin Hood" Labor principles in full force

So, does a fireman/woman, police, SES Volunteer (who worked at the floods) get the levy as they earn over 50K???

[Darth Vader]

I don't have a huge issue with this, so long as it only lasts for one year and is then removed. It's not a significant amount out the fortnightly pay packet of anyone earning over $50,000.

It had better not be handed over to anybody who didn't bother to insure their home properly though...

and here is the problem. Tight-arses who don't insure adequately or not at all will get free money and asset replacement.

[dedja]

I don't have a huge issue with this, so long as it only lasts for one year and is then removed. It's not a significant amount out the fortnightly pay packet of anyone earning over $50,000.

It had better not be handed over to anybody who didn't bother to insure their home properly though...

and here is the problem. Tight-arses who don't insure adequately or not at all will get free money and asset replacement.

I think you'll find the Fed's money will be mainly towards infrastructure repairs ...

[Darth Vader]

oh yeah thats where theFeds cash will go including the levy. My beef is the charity and donations etc will go to tight-arses who dont insure. Fully insured people wont need a dime of charity other than some stop gap support while they battle the fine print and BS that the Insurance industry will land on them

[overloaded]

I don't have a huge issue with this, so long as it only lasts for one year and is then removed. It's not a significant amount out the fortnightly pay packet of anyone earning over $50,000.

It had better not be handed over to anybody who didn't bother to insure their home properly though...

and here is the problem. Tight-arses who don't insure adequately or not at all will get free money and asset replacement.

maybe they should put the money to a 'save the horses from being whipped' fund ?

[Darth Vader]

you're an idiot

[dedja]

oh yeah thats where theFeds cash will go including the levy. My beef is the charity and donations etc will go to tight-arses who dont insure. Fully insured people wont need a dime of charity other than some stop gap support while they battle the fine print and BS that the Insurance industry will land on them

I think if you take the emotion out it's a reasonable point ... no-one ever deserves to be involved in such a tragedy but those that either don't insure adequately or don't insure at all can't expect to be compensated for their folly. By all means give them support to get back on their feet as it would be un-Australian not to do that.

[Dirko]

They may use the levy to build a levee.....

[Squawk]

The cause is admirable but the levy (to raise $1.8b) + other decisions (to raise a minimum of another $3.8b) is a con.

Effectively the net outcome is a neutral impact on the Cwlth government budget. To allow for this, everyone is paying in one form or another - if not through the levy, then through the loss of, or deferral of, program initiatives. Ultimately, everyone contributes in one shape or form EXCEPT the Cwlth Govt itself, which has made no decision to contract any of its own core activities. This could be through a departmental efficiency dividend, for example.

It's somewhat ironic that the Cwlth are raising $1.8b through a levy to account for a natural disaster. Yet they dont blink an eyelid when they lose a similar amount of money negligently - eg due to poor implementation of the insulation scheme and the BER program. Those losses are absorbed in the budget, but neither the the $1.8 or the $3.8b or the total of $5.6b+ are being absorbed in any way.

Also, the Feds have not indicated whether they are including a full cost recovery for the $600m of Centrelink payments or the operational costs of the ADF response.

In short, the Feds have spread the pain everywhere but amongst themselves. Even Queenslanders are paying the levy and foregoing 6 road infrastructure programs for a while (ie deferred). The Feds have not borne any pain at the budget table themselves.

They have also taken this a step further by using the flood disaster to corner the Greens - they wanted to rationalise Green programs and have been lambasted in the past for scrapping the solar panel rebates and stuffing up the insulation program. Now they are axing more "green" programs to redirect funds to Qld and daring the Greens to speak out against the decision, whilst painting them as being nasty for not being sympathetic to Queenslanders etc.

Lastly, the biggest issue of them all is to stick to the 2012 surplus forecast. An election year IIRC. Our $1.8b levy preserves that, especially when there is a zero impact on Cwlth coffers. We are all paying (literally) to keep a political promise.

Notwithstanding, Qld and other states do need help to rebuild - but something even on this scale should not warrant a Cwlth levy. After all, just have a look at how much money is allocated to Defence and AusAid each year. The Joint Strike Fighter is in the region of $40b alone IIRC - for 97 planes. Reduce that to 80 planes and you've paid for the rebuilding of the entire country that has been affected by floods.

[dedja]

That would be a reasonable argument except for one small point ... WE fund the Commonwealth Government, so I would have thought a relatively neutral position is a good thing.

Yes, there is a political wedge element in play but the opposition is playing the same card. The programs you have listed were in the budget forecasts ... the expenditure required for rebuilding QLD and others is not. Whether that money was eventually spent wisely or not is another discussion.

At the end of the day, there are many poor souls who need help and for most this levy increase will not affect them ... if you can't afford a $1 a week then something must be wrong.

This will cost me a few hundred bucks but I have my house, possessions and no mental scars ... I think I'm one of the lucky ones.

[Squawk]

That would be a reasonable argument except for one small point ... WE fund the Commonwealth Government, so I would have thought a relatively neutral position is a good thing.

Yes, there is a political wedge element in play but the opposition is playing the same card. The programs you have listed were in the budget forecasts ... the expenditure required for rebuilding QLD and others is not. Whether that money was eventually spent wisely or not is another discussion.

At the end of the day, there are many poor souls who need help and for most this levy increase will not affect them ... if you can't afford a $1 a week then something must be wrong.

This will cost me a few hundred bucks but I have my house, possessions and no mental scars ... I think I'm one of the lucky ones.

Yeah D - we fund the Cwlth govt for regular budgets, and we fund them to fritter money away. Now we are funding a Qld rebuild through the levy AND also paying at the community and business level for programs foregone or deferred. At the end of the day, no cuts to core Cwlth business allows the pollies to steer a steady ship to the next election with all their resources in tact. Spin is spinning and spinning!

As I said, the cause is meritorious but the mechanism is not what it it is being sold as.

[dedja]

I hear you Squawk, but that's the way of the world politically these days.

The Feds are giving QLD $2B up front so it will have to be a different Labor government to squander the money this time