The use of CCTV cameras for surveillance can't be cheap. If they are used effectively they can certainly assist in making road usage by vehicles much more efficient. I wasn't really impressed to see a particular unit nearby work that was;
1. Placed in an incorrect position or,
2. Not properly maintained and,
3. Quite obviously not monitored effectively.
How the hell is this going to tell you what the traffic is like on the road? Another government departmart wasting money.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Flood Levy or Flood Levee?
Following the devastating floods in Queensland, Victoria and even Carnarvon in Western Australia, PM Julia Gillard has said that we must have a flood levy. No if, buts or maybes. Must have. The Australian taxpayer is to fork out for the repair to infrastructure, mainly in Queensland, and I'm presuming if that is even state property. I've got no issue with Federal property being repaired with Federal money but state property should be fixed by the state in question.
Gillard's plan is to introduce a flood levy whereby people who weren't affected by the flood and who earn over $50k per year will be hit on a sliding scale for somewhere between $1 and $5 per week. There's a few more details here. Doesn't sound like much, does it. Considering that 60% of Australians will pay less than $1/week it sounds to me like another tax on the rich. Typical Labor Party tactic. Do they not think that "rich" people are already mortgaged to the hilt, along with those in the mortgage belt, and that they have plenty of excess money to give away?
There's a few things that irk me here. No consideration is given to those that have donated already and should be exempt to the extent that they have already given. If you have a greater income you will pay a higher share. The State's responsibilities are somewhat overlooked and the Federal government will be bailing them out (which is perhaps okay given the sheer size of the devastation). Where is the claim against town planners who allowed people to build on river flood plains? People that didn't have insurance shouldn't be bailed out as this sends the wrong message. The younger generation is likely to think that the government will bail them out. If you can't afford car insurance when you buy a car you can't afford the car in my book. And Australia should just borrow the money to rebuild infrastructure instead of worrying about getting the budget back into surplus. Hell, they'll only be taking $1.8b from the taxpayer due to the flood levy. Still has to get through parliament though.
Man, I think that it should be a flood levee instead. Pay to build a mound of earth around these rivers and that would be a better way to spend the money. Just rebuilding in the same place is stupid and very short sighted. Heck, why not send the useless and unwanted buildings for schools that wasted some $20b to Queensland and be done with it.
On the other hand we should be helping out a mate in the old banana bender. Now is a wonderful way of creating a purpose built infrastructure but nobody has that far-sighted vision. It'll be pretty much a straight replacement and no improvement. Much like Julia Gillard was for Kevin Rudd.
Gillard's plan is to introduce a flood levy whereby people who weren't affected by the flood and who earn over $50k per year will be hit on a sliding scale for somewhere between $1 and $5 per week. There's a few more details here. Doesn't sound like much, does it. Considering that 60% of Australians will pay less than $1/week it sounds to me like another tax on the rich. Typical Labor Party tactic. Do they not think that "rich" people are already mortgaged to the hilt, along with those in the mortgage belt, and that they have plenty of excess money to give away?
There's a few things that irk me here. No consideration is given to those that have donated already and should be exempt to the extent that they have already given. If you have a greater income you will pay a higher share. The State's responsibilities are somewhat overlooked and the Federal government will be bailing them out (which is perhaps okay given the sheer size of the devastation). Where is the claim against town planners who allowed people to build on river flood plains? People that didn't have insurance shouldn't be bailed out as this sends the wrong message. The younger generation is likely to think that the government will bail them out. If you can't afford car insurance when you buy a car you can't afford the car in my book. And Australia should just borrow the money to rebuild infrastructure instead of worrying about getting the budget back into surplus. Hell, they'll only be taking $1.8b from the taxpayer due to the flood levy. Still has to get through parliament though.
Man, I think that it should be a flood levee instead. Pay to build a mound of earth around these rivers and that would be a better way to spend the money. Just rebuilding in the same place is stupid and very short sighted. Heck, why not send the useless and unwanted buildings for schools that wasted some $20b to Queensland and be done with it.
On the other hand we should be helping out a mate in the old banana bender. Now is a wonderful way of creating a purpose built infrastructure but nobody has that far-sighted vision. It'll be pretty much a straight replacement and no improvement. Much like Julia Gillard was for Kevin Rudd.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Kevin Rudd Is A Nation-Destroying Socialist Who Needs To Be Stopped
Kevin Rudd, Krudd, is a nation-destroying socialist who needs to be stopped. When the media is stating that he's more destructive than Gough Whitlam ever was that's saying something. Gough Whitlam, as you may or may not know, headed the only Australian government in history that was dismissed by the Governor-General.
What has Kevin done this time to upset me? Well, it's actually taken a week for me to calm down enough to write something that's not as likely to have me charged with libel or sedition. He's called for a Resources Super-Profit Tax, RSPT, which is capable of ruining our great nation. This RSPT kicks in when miners earn more than the 10-year government bond rate of about 6%. Six percent people! This communist, socialist, fascist bastard obviously doesn't know anything about capitalism and profit. What about the risk and return model? Anybody worth his salt knows that a company needs to make 15-25% return to be profitable. I don't think Shell likes to have any assets not performing at at least 18% profitability. Wesfarmers looks for around 18% and I know that they had an asset (Wesfarmers Transport) producing about 15% and that was divested. What sort of a joke is this idiot?
Krudd claims that the miners aren't returning the money to Australia and are taking it all for themselves. He wants to ensure that all Australians share in the returns from our non-renewable resources. Ha! Why don't they invest in the shares of these companies? I think the fact that the states can obtain royalties from the miners and I don't believe that the federal government can do so is one reason to introduce this tax. Krudd wants to cut the states out of tax revenue altogether.
Krudd claimed that 40% of BHP Billiton and 70% of Rio Tinto were owned by overseas investors in his defence of introducing this new tax. I read today that there are over 3.3 billion shares listed for BHP Billiton. Well, 60% of 3.3 billion shares is an awful lot of money still which affects Australians directly so there are no faceless sufferers. Krudd actually thinks that this won't affect Australians and it's just some faceless foreigner who will cop it in the arse. Almost every Australian will be affected as those that have superannuation invested in shares will probably be affected as BHP and Rio will be in practically all superannuation funds. How much did the miners drop last week? BHP went from a close of $40.75 on Friday the 30th of April (the RSPT proposal was released on Sunday the 2nd of May) to $37.50 the following Friday. A drop of 8%. Rio went from $72.10 to $64.98 in the same time frame which was a drop of 8.75%.
The RSPT will lead to a considerable drop in foreign investment and Australia has long required foreign money to build infrastructure. Today is no different. And it's not only the foreigners that will limit investment as Cape Lambert Resources announced, almost immediately, that it would not invest in Australia but would look overseas. I mean, wouldn't you if the tax rate was going to reach approximately 57% and become the highest in mining in OECD countries? No wonder the Canadian Finance Minister is rubbing his hands with glee fully expecting miners doing business in Australia currently to turn their attention to his country.
One thing mining companies consider when investing overseas is sovereign risk. They want to be fairly certain that the rules of play don't change once they have started the game. I see this RSPT as something akin to nationalisation whereby a sovereign government takes some or all of a company's assets. Looks like Krudd and his crew are trying to nationalise the resources industry in Australia. Even Kim Jong-il is looking better than Krudd in turns of a popular socialist at this point in time.
Talk about killing the golden goose. Resources are returning billions of dollars annually in the form of taxes and royalties. Companies are taxed at 30%, still high by OECD standards, and workers, thousands of them country-wide, pay greater rates of income tax than that. Stopping many projects in this country is not going to increase revenue nor create wealth for our workers. It'll certainly put a halt to a two-pace economy though. More mining leads to greater employment, more training required for workers and more tax payments from wage earners.
Krudd has had five months to look over the Henry Tax Review, from Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, so how could he be so blind as to what the reaction from resources companies, and the stock market and foreign investors, would be? What is Krudd's modus operandi here? If he's so worried about inflation what better what to combat it than ruin the value of a major section of the Australian people's capital - the stock market. If he wants to sell this country off to his Chinese mates then why not destroy the value of all major business so that the Chinese can come in, all cashed-up, and take what they like at bargain prices?
What about boom and bust? Sure, the resources sector is booming at the moment. It's a once in a lifetime, not generation, boom with China (and India to follow) growing amazingly. Not even the rebuilding following World War II comes close to the super requirements of commodities that we currently have. There'd be no money to invest in a bust anyway. Why bring that forward by 20 years?
It's time for Kevin Rudd to go. He's hit the self destruct button but unfortunately it's not on a five second timer. We have to wait until the next election. Obviously Kevin wants us to all live on kibbutzes but where is the money to build them coming from? Everything he has touched since coming to office, if you'll pardon my French, has turned to shit. Household insulation installation - bit lump of expensive shit. Laptop for every secondary student - costly, not totally effective lump of shit. Stimulus Package - massive, almost completely ineffectual waste of billions of dollars we don't have - constitutes a dump of momentous proportions. Where are the nation-building stimuli that would benefit this country after having a war chest built up by the former Liberal government?
It's time the Governor-General came a-knocking on Kevin Rudd's door. Before someone with more evil intent does. Don't worry as that won't be me. I don't think he's even worth a bullet.
What has Kevin done this time to upset me? Well, it's actually taken a week for me to calm down enough to write something that's not as likely to have me charged with libel or sedition. He's called for a Resources Super-Profit Tax, RSPT, which is capable of ruining our great nation. This RSPT kicks in when miners earn more than the 10-year government bond rate of about 6%. Six percent people! This communist, socialist, fascist bastard obviously doesn't know anything about capitalism and profit. What about the risk and return model? Anybody worth his salt knows that a company needs to make 15-25% return to be profitable. I don't think Shell likes to have any assets not performing at at least 18% profitability. Wesfarmers looks for around 18% and I know that they had an asset (Wesfarmers Transport) producing about 15% and that was divested. What sort of a joke is this idiot?
Krudd claims that the miners aren't returning the money to Australia and are taking it all for themselves. He wants to ensure that all Australians share in the returns from our non-renewable resources. Ha! Why don't they invest in the shares of these companies? I think the fact that the states can obtain royalties from the miners and I don't believe that the federal government can do so is one reason to introduce this tax. Krudd wants to cut the states out of tax revenue altogether.
Krudd claimed that 40% of BHP Billiton and 70% of Rio Tinto were owned by overseas investors in his defence of introducing this new tax. I read today that there are over 3.3 billion shares listed for BHP Billiton. Well, 60% of 3.3 billion shares is an awful lot of money still which affects Australians directly so there are no faceless sufferers. Krudd actually thinks that this won't affect Australians and it's just some faceless foreigner who will cop it in the arse. Almost every Australian will be affected as those that have superannuation invested in shares will probably be affected as BHP and Rio will be in practically all superannuation funds. How much did the miners drop last week? BHP went from a close of $40.75 on Friday the 30th of April (the RSPT proposal was released on Sunday the 2nd of May) to $37.50 the following Friday. A drop of 8%. Rio went from $72.10 to $64.98 in the same time frame which was a drop of 8.75%.
The RSPT will lead to a considerable drop in foreign investment and Australia has long required foreign money to build infrastructure. Today is no different. And it's not only the foreigners that will limit investment as Cape Lambert Resources announced, almost immediately, that it would not invest in Australia but would look overseas. I mean, wouldn't you if the tax rate was going to reach approximately 57% and become the highest in mining in OECD countries? No wonder the Canadian Finance Minister is rubbing his hands with glee fully expecting miners doing business in Australia currently to turn their attention to his country.
One thing mining companies consider when investing overseas is sovereign risk. They want to be fairly certain that the rules of play don't change once they have started the game. I see this RSPT as something akin to nationalisation whereby a sovereign government takes some or all of a company's assets. Looks like Krudd and his crew are trying to nationalise the resources industry in Australia. Even Kim Jong-il is looking better than Krudd in turns of a popular socialist at this point in time.
Talk about killing the golden goose. Resources are returning billions of dollars annually in the form of taxes and royalties. Companies are taxed at 30%, still high by OECD standards, and workers, thousands of them country-wide, pay greater rates of income tax than that. Stopping many projects in this country is not going to increase revenue nor create wealth for our workers. It'll certainly put a halt to a two-pace economy though. More mining leads to greater employment, more training required for workers and more tax payments from wage earners.
Krudd has had five months to look over the Henry Tax Review, from Treasury Secretary Ken Henry, so how could he be so blind as to what the reaction from resources companies, and the stock market and foreign investors, would be? What is Krudd's modus operandi here? If he's so worried about inflation what better what to combat it than ruin the value of a major section of the Australian people's capital - the stock market. If he wants to sell this country off to his Chinese mates then why not destroy the value of all major business so that the Chinese can come in, all cashed-up, and take what they like at bargain prices?
What about boom and bust? Sure, the resources sector is booming at the moment. It's a once in a lifetime, not generation, boom with China (and India to follow) growing amazingly. Not even the rebuilding following World War II comes close to the super requirements of commodities that we currently have. There'd be no money to invest in a bust anyway. Why bring that forward by 20 years?
It's time for Kevin Rudd to go. He's hit the self destruct button but unfortunately it's not on a five second timer. We have to wait until the next election. Obviously Kevin wants us to all live on kibbutzes but where is the money to build them coming from? Everything he has touched since coming to office, if you'll pardon my French, has turned to shit. Household insulation installation - bit lump of expensive shit. Laptop for every secondary student - costly, not totally effective lump of shit. Stimulus Package - massive, almost completely ineffectual waste of billions of dollars we don't have - constitutes a dump of momentous proportions. Where are the nation-building stimuli that would benefit this country after having a war chest built up by the former Liberal government?
It's time the Governor-General came a-knocking on Kevin Rudd's door. Before someone with more evil intent does. Don't worry as that won't be me. I don't think he's even worth a bullet.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Tax Hike On Cigarettes - It's About Time
I don't know about you but I abhor smoking. The smell is horrible, the health effects and the cost on the hip pocket all disgust me. When I was growing up our house was a smoke-free zone except for visitors who were deemed too important to offend by telling them to go outside. This was only one visitor from memory. It's been drummed into me from being a toddler that smoking is unacceptable.
Finally Kevin Rudd's government has done something that I can agree with. They upped the price of a packet of cigarettes by 20% by way of a tax increase. Very few smokers that I know (actually I don't associate with a great deal of smokers) would be put off by the price. They all know that it is detrimental to their health, which should be the biggest reason for quitting, but they still can't bring themselves to do it. Once they're hooked price doesn't really come into the equation. Finance 101 talks about supply and demand and the association with price. I don't think that the price hike will deter many hardcore smokers but long term there will be less smokers as youngsters will be able to afford to smoke less and less. If the young can be stopped from taking up the habit initially there will be much lower demand for cancer sticks. And that bodes well for society in my opinion. I feel that the effects of this will pay off in the long run but not create a significant change in the attitude of current smokers.
Another initiative of the government is to ensure that cigarette packaging is plain. The ghastly photos of gangrenous toes, cancer-ridden mouths and affected eyeballs obviously hasn't done the trick. There has been some response that the plain packaging won't have an affect but I'm sure it will. Cigarettes won't catch the eyes of the young and impressionable. I reckon it will see real benefits in the years to come.
I wonder how much money the government reaps from taxes on cigarettes and how much medical care actually costs the community with regards to treatment for smokers. If there was more to gain by getting rid of cigarettes then laws would be passed for them to reach $50/packet or ban them altogether but methinks that the revenue stream is too hard to ignore.
I can see Australian tourists returning home trying to bring more foreign cigarettes into the country. Why aren't they banned from the duty-free list? That would help a little bit. I don't see smokers getting their wages docked for taking smoko breaks when non-smokers can't.
Of course the tobacco industry is none too pleased by the decision taken by the government. Why would they be? I don't have any time for those who (knowingly) deal in death. I'm sorry to see that they can't find an industry that I find so personally offensive to make money out of.
Well done Kevin - 1 out of 7239 right is getting back on track.
Finally Kevin Rudd's government has done something that I can agree with. They upped the price of a packet of cigarettes by 20% by way of a tax increase. Very few smokers that I know (actually I don't associate with a great deal of smokers) would be put off by the price. They all know that it is detrimental to their health, which should be the biggest reason for quitting, but they still can't bring themselves to do it. Once they're hooked price doesn't really come into the equation. Finance 101 talks about supply and demand and the association with price. I don't think that the price hike will deter many hardcore smokers but long term there will be less smokers as youngsters will be able to afford to smoke less and less. If the young can be stopped from taking up the habit initially there will be much lower demand for cancer sticks. And that bodes well for society in my opinion. I feel that the effects of this will pay off in the long run but not create a significant change in the attitude of current smokers.
Another initiative of the government is to ensure that cigarette packaging is plain. The ghastly photos of gangrenous toes, cancer-ridden mouths and affected eyeballs obviously hasn't done the trick. There has been some response that the plain packaging won't have an affect but I'm sure it will. Cigarettes won't catch the eyes of the young and impressionable. I reckon it will see real benefits in the years to come.
I wonder how much money the government reaps from taxes on cigarettes and how much medical care actually costs the community with regards to treatment for smokers. If there was more to gain by getting rid of cigarettes then laws would be passed for them to reach $50/packet or ban them altogether but methinks that the revenue stream is too hard to ignore.
I can see Australian tourists returning home trying to bring more foreign cigarettes into the country. Why aren't they banned from the duty-free list? That would help a little bit. I don't see smokers getting their wages docked for taking smoko breaks when non-smokers can't.
Of course the tobacco industry is none too pleased by the decision taken by the government. Why would they be? I don't have any time for those who (knowingly) deal in death. I'm sorry to see that they can't find an industry that I find so personally offensive to make money out of.
Well done Kevin - 1 out of 7239 right is getting back on track.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
What's Going On In This Year's Election?
I haven't taken too much notice of what the politicians are saying in this year's federal election. The two major parties, Liberals/National Party and the Labor Party, have agreed on pretty much everything so there doesn't seem to be too much difference.
I did hear one thing that made me take notice. The Labor Party will ban universities from offering full fee-paying student places for Australians from 2009. Why, I might ask? I paid as a full fee-paying student to attend university. The universities offer a limited number of places for school leavers, add several thousand overseas students who pay about four times as much as Australian fee-paying students do, and then top it up with a few full fee-payers. I was more than happy to pay to receive a higher education. Guess there's a bit of Liberal-thinking user pays mentality there but it didn't bother me. Even though I experienced nearly three years of earning bugger all money I'd say that it is starting to pay off.
What is the Labor Party's thinking on this issue? It's got me beat. Do they think that education should be free for all Aussies? Maybe we'd better ask Peter Garrett as he seems to have a real answer for all of the opposition's policies. He breaks through the claptrack and says what the real plans are.
Who's gonna win the election? Labor is streets ahead in the polls and apparently the mortgage belt is favouring Labor 57-43 in a two-party preferred vote. It doesn't bode well for little Johnny.
It doesn't matter who you vote for because you still get the government.
I haven't taken too much notice of what the politicians are saying in this year's federal election. The two major parties, Liberals/National Party and the Labor Party, have agreed on pretty much everything so there doesn't seem to be too much difference.
I did hear one thing that made me take notice. The Labor Party will ban universities from offering full fee-paying student places for Australians from 2009. Why, I might ask? I paid as a full fee-paying student to attend university. The universities offer a limited number of places for school leavers, add several thousand overseas students who pay about four times as much as Australian fee-paying students do, and then top it up with a few full fee-payers. I was more than happy to pay to receive a higher education. Guess there's a bit of Liberal-thinking user pays mentality there but it didn't bother me. Even though I experienced nearly three years of earning bugger all money I'd say that it is starting to pay off.
What is the Labor Party's thinking on this issue? It's got me beat. Do they think that education should be free for all Aussies? Maybe we'd better ask Peter Garrett as he seems to have a real answer for all of the opposition's policies. He breaks through the claptrack and says what the real plans are.
Who's gonna win the election? Labor is streets ahead in the polls and apparently the mortgage belt is favouring Labor 57-43 in a two-party preferred vote. It doesn't bode well for little Johnny.
It doesn't matter who you vote for because you still get the government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)