Facebook debate about the 0.5% levy to be added to Australian income tax for those earning over $50,000 & 1% for those earning over $100,000, to assist in rebuilding infrastructure in Qld & surrounds due to the recent floods

The status update that started it all...

Facebook debater 1

"So people chose to live in areas that cannot be insured for flood damage because property is cheap... and now I have to pay more because of it? Get fucked Gillard."

• • ME
    What if they've lived there their whole life, couldn't afford to move, didn't have insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums for flood damage... What are we supposed to do, leave them to fend for themselves? We *should* be looking after our own. It's only $1/$2 a week. We got off quite lightly in my opinion. Just saying.
    
  • 
    

    ME
    Also, natural disasters can happen anywhere. Just because we live in Perth doesn't mean we are immune to them.
    
  • Facebook debater 2
    

    The whole point of insurance is to mitigate against risk. If you take a high risk, you pay more. If you can't afford to take the risk, don't do it. Defeats the purpose for some of us to pay premiums, and others get free ride. This event was predictable, they should have insured for it.
    
  • Facebook debater 1
    

    
    

    There are areas there that cannot be insured for flood, even for extra. Christ, if these people could get insurance but genuinely couldn't afford it then I would be a little more sympathetic. But most of the area CANNOT BE INSURED because it is a known high risk area. So now I have to pay more tax for the government to act as Queensland's insurance provider. Ahh me Labor government, running this country into the ground every time they get up in the morning. The handouts courtesy of Kevin Dudd would've come in handy right about now...
  • Facebook debater 1
    

     PS - Yolie... the floods in Carnarvon, making our vegetables and other food products twice the price. I can't afford to eat now. Where's my Labor government handout? That's right, I don't get one because I live in a state with the highest percentage of income earners. So my dollars go elsewhere. As for looking after "my own", I will hand out money over fist to any Western Australian in serious need. The rest of the country can get fucked, because we gets raped to prop them up for everything else as it is. /rant
    
    
  • ME 
    

    People earning over $50,000 are paying an extra couple of dollars in tax. It's not exactly going to run our country into the ground as you say.
    I think maybe you're underestimating the cost of the damage.
    Extra tax would have had to have been in place to cover the insurance they should have prepared for anywal?
    The lack of compassion I am seeing because of this small increase is disheartening.

    
    
  • ME
    I agree that Carnarvon needs funds also, but the cost of the damage in Qld is much, much higher.
    
  • Facebook debater 1
    

     My lack of compassion is about the same as the level of stupidity shown by some of the people choosing to live in high risk non-insurable areas :P
    
  • ME
    

    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2011/01/27/flood-levy-the-best-packaging-from-labor-for-a-long-while/
  • ME
    Most of Australia is "high risk"
    
  • Facebook debater 1 
    Most of Australia can still be insured for extra :)
    
  • 
    

    ME So what you're saying is that people who can't afford insurance or live in high risk areas shouldn't receive assistance in times of natural disasters? Because without the levy the level of assistance would be significantly lower. Wow, if we take that view then we're screwed when bushfires become the norm in metro/southern WA due to climate change & insurance premiums inevitably rise.
    The levy is also only for the 2011/2012 financial year. $50. I spend more on makeup of a month.

    
    
  • Facebook debater 1
    That's what they say... I bet it doesn't get lifted. It's almost $800 for the year for me. FML.
    
  • 
    

    ME
     Yes? And you can't afford that on ~$100,000 a year? I earn less than the $50,000 threshold but I'd still be willing to pay the $1 a week to help out my fellow countrymen.
    Please reserve"FML" for situations where your life actually sucks, like losing a loved one or having everything you own destroyed by a fatal wall of water. K thanks.
  • ...also in regards to K Rudd's bonus, I truly believe that his cash injection into our economy saved us from the worst effects of the financial crisis, such as the US has experienced... We would be a lot worse off if he hadn't. It allowed employers to keep workers and eased strain on credit debt. I used it to pay off a loan.
    
  • 
    

    Facebook debater 2
    

    I don't know where you got the idea I have no compassion for these people. I'm not against us giving them money if they use it in a way that will stop it from happening again. I'm against giving them money to rebuild the same so that in 25 years from now a bunch of kids can be killed and people's possessions destroyed, just so that we can all feel good about helping out.
    
    As for bushfires, it's disgusting that homeowners and their local councils choose their lifestyle over the risks they cause to firemen, their neighbours, their kids etc. If climate change is making it worse, shouldn't we be proactive about stopping people dying?
  • Facebook debater 3
    

    I agree.. once a tax is imposed, its never lifted. I'd bet my life on the fact that this flood levy will never go away.
    
    
    The other dumb thing about imposing it as a tax is the poor QLD'ers who its supposed to be helping will cop it too and have to pay to help themselves.
    
    I'm all for helping people, but give them a loan, not a gift of my money. Federal loans can come out of the federal coffers, not out of my tax dollars. Like you've said, its a known high risk area and this type of event has been predicted - if the insurance companies won't insure against it they can obviously see its coming :)
    
    I too am sick of WA being taxed to death to support the rest of the country, and getting a significantly smaller share of federal funding. Its not just the Labor government that does this either, Liberals are just as guilty.
  • ME 

     um, "the poor QLD'ers who its supposed to be helping will cop it too and have to pay to help themselves"?? Julia has made it clear that those affected by the floods will not have to pay the levy.

    Have either of you actually done research for this levy or are you both just knee-jerk reacting to "omg we have to pay a dollar a week".
    Also, it is not "just so that we can all feel good about helping out", it's a practical solution to fix things right now... Re-locating all the people who can't afford to move would cost just as much? The tax is A THIRD of total government funding for rebuilding infrastructure. The rest is being sourced from reduced spending and non-essential projects. Where else is the money going to come from? "Federal coffers" - do you not think that if the government had billions of dollars SPARE (and yes, the damage bill is BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, then they'd use that?
    FFS. I give up.
    I thought our nation's people had more common sense and intelligence.
    Obviously not.
    
    

    • Facebook debater 3
      

      ‎1: Last time I read about it, your best friend Julia hadn't stated that those effected won't cop the tax. Does this include the poor WA'ers that everyone has forgotten about? or do we have to fund our own flood relief too?
      
      
      2: Its a fair and reasonable position to take on ANY new tax claimed as temporary that its a bad thing as it wont go away. Have you paid attention to the last 50 years of Australian politics and government taxation policy?
      
      3: I really do feel for the people of QLD, and I'm all for helping out where practical and getting QLD back to normal, however, as an already highly taxed citizen of Australia, I object to any additional tax imposed on me for anything. The federal government has plenty of money in the bank. Sure, give them 2/3 of what they are planning, but fuck off this tax and replace it with a federally funded loan to the state of QLD.
      
      4: You're entitled to your own opinion, and so are the rest of us. Quite frankly after your thinly veiled personal attacks on everyone that disagrees with your position, questioning common sense and intelligence, makes you sound like you've either run out of valid things to argue, or you're just a child who likes to rant on the interwebs. Either way, I don't particularly care.
    • ME
      

      I'm stating fact. My arguement IS valid. I'm not attacking anyone personally. I stand up for what I believe in. So that makes me a ranting child? LOL.
      Thanks for playing.
      
    • 
      

      ME
       You might want to actually know what you are talking about before you debate something like this. Julia has said several times that those who have/will be receiving govt assistance for the flooding won't be paying the tax. Research, my friend, it's a wonder.
      

      • 
        

        •  Facebook debater 2 
          

          What does it mean to fix things now? Does it mean restore things to the way they were before the floods, or make it so that more people won't die or lose everything in the future?
          
          I have no objection to my money being put to good use. If we are going to go through this in another few years with more dead people and billions of dollars in damage, then I don't consider that good use.
        • Facebook debater 3
          

          You think your argument is valid, and sure, you might have a few points, but nothing you say will convince me that I should pay more tax ever.
          
          I'm an already over-taxed citizen with a pretty decent handle on current events. I vote no on the referendum for more tax.. oh wait, what? no referendum? I don't have a choice? oh fuck.
          
          obviously I've hit a nerve with you. 3 posts from you in the space of a minute continuing to try and justify your position.
          
          I seriously can't be bothered continuing this discussion with you. Obviously you have formed your opinions, as have I and there is no middle ground.
          
          Get back to work. I'm sure you have better things to do than argue on the internet. Its what I intend to do :)
        • ME

          
          I do have better things to do but when I feel strongly about something I get passionate about it, as obviously you do too.
          Do not condescend me.
          I'm attempting to make you understand that this levy is necessary.And when I see efforts to assist people who are in need, being thwarted by those who obviously earn more than the average person, and who I am assuming have all the trappings and gadgets of modern life, spend money on things with motors and shiny things and things we don't NEED, but take for granted, I get on my soapbox.
          And I'm proud that I have that stubbornness. I'd rather that than be a good little girl and stay quiet about things that I believe in. I will not be silenced by any man.
          You have a good afternoon.
        • Facebook debater 4
          so I am guessing R when the baby is born and you get the baby bonus or A takes paid maternity leave provided by the government you will be too proud to take it as after all why should we pay for your choice to have a baby!!!!!!!!! After all it is only 1 or 2 a week!!!
        • Facebook debater 3
          haha.. dont condescend me either :P
          
          I wont be silenced by any woman on a soap box :D
          
          I will have a good afternoon, thanks, you too.
          
          Karen: baby bonus and maternity leave is a different story. its paid to everyone irrespective of which flood prone area they choose to live in. Level playing ground thats well established :D
          
          I'm sure R would forego the bonus/payment if his taxable earnings were reduced by the same figure.
        • ME
          Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then :) My argument is just as valid as yours. I wasn't the one that called you a ranting child simply for having a debate :P
        • Facebook debater 3
          

          omg, you don't shutup and insist on having the last word, don't you?
          
          I wasn't the one that accused everyone else of lacking intellect and common sense.
        • Facebook debater 4
          Yes S they are and they are also something we pay for that is wrong yet people still take it and dont complain.....but lets face it we dont live in a perfect world and some people dont have the luxury of high incomes,choices and others live were they can afford and pray that natural disasters are something they never have to live thru
        • • Facebook debater 4

           I feel for you R as you have a higher paying job and work hard but maybe we should look into more important things like the stupiditiy of child support .....I personally would hope that if this ever happen to us in Perth the nation would help us out in the same manner
        • ME
          I said that about intellect and common sense a) because of the views I'm seeing about the levy (by mainly high-income-earning privileged men); and b) because of the fact that it appeared that a few people on here had not checked facts before entering into a debate.
          And yes I am hard to shut up, when I feel as though it's something that needs to be said. I don't care about having the last word; I just try to open apparently narrow-minded people's minds to a compassionate state of being.
          That's all.
        • Facebook debater 5

           

          K you do realize why they are paying a baby bonus right? It's not as a Handout. The gov needs to stop the aging population as they need younger Generation of workers to support the baby boomers when they retire
          
          You see they spent too much money on social welfare because there idiots and now need new tax payers to help fund it.
          
          Here's an idea to every state hell to every person in the world
          
          START SAVING YOUR OWN MONEY and quit reaching into MY pocket when you didn't 

          
          
        • Facebook debater 5
          

          Incidentally a high income is not a luxury
          
          It's something you hAve to fight and study and sacrifice your free time and work hard for
        • Facebook debater 4
          very true P by no means making light of the hard work required by someone who works hard and studies hard to get ahead in life but some people dont have it or the opportunities it what I meant
        • Facebook debater 1
           

          ‎+1 P. you've hit the nail on the head.
          
          As for high-income-earning privileged men - its not our fault we've managed to get better paying jobs than some. Perhaps it was our education or our smarts that got us where we are today. If you don't like capitalism, try moving to a communist society like Russia or Mainland China. Perhaps the lesser educated poor men there will be more of a pushover.
        • ME
          

           It's called social responsibility P. Would YOU be able to pay for everything lost and start over again if you lost everything you own?
        • All this kerfuffle over the amount of money per week you probably find in the back of your couch or spend on coffee every morning. And the money is going to people that really need it, it's not as though the money is going to those that don't need it. Why can't we all band together as a nation to help, instead of squabbling over $2 a week?!
          Slightly pathetic. Just sayin'.
          Man, lucky it's quiet in the office today :P
          
          
          
          
          
          ***What do you think about the levy?***

        
        
      •