Newman taxes poor twice and parties on the proceeds.

I beg your pardon?

That is exactly what you claimed

And you think this current government is any different? Where is the 50% of the carbon tax rape going? I think you will find, a great deal of it, will go to those rich fat cats, the likes of Flannery with his failing geothermal project, privately owned company to try and help them solve problems, which appear to be far beyond current technology (his project anyway). Who is going to get rich?

No, you have been caught out, complaining about something that stands to show hypocrisy on this carbon tax, as Gillard herself has. With these OVERSIGHTS of the government, policy on the run, will prove to be the order of the day.

Yes, he is just grabbing money, to cover his next election. But he first needs to cover a $60 billion debt and try and get the house back in some order, before he can use it to cover next election. Or do you really think that money is abundant and that nobody needs to pay?

 

You have my pardon, easy mistake if you didn't read the post.

Exactly, all the deniers replies sprout that Newman has to increase rent due to the CTS, I'm asking for justification. It is you people blaming it on the CTS, I know it's just his greedy Liberal money grab at those that have little or no say or possibility of redress.

 

Where I grew up the housing has about 18% public housing, many of these are now privately owned.

Nowadays if you drive through these estates you'll find mostly young families. The question needs to be asked. How many pensioners and retirees actually live in public housing?

I know my parents, now retired don't and neither do their retired friends.

 

Easy, I have justified the increases by pointing out that Labor's management has left the public housing sector in complete shambles and that tenants can not cover a great sink hole to the state economy.

It is one of your proponents that has made the claim, and you supported it. Fact is, be prepared for another rent increase to cover that carbon tax.

You talk about the greedy Liberal party, but this is only an issue for the Greedy tenants of these tax payer funded housing projects that expect this continue.

The housing policy, Labor introduced, is supposed to be, economically neutral, and that is not the case at all, is it? The entire idea is to spread the costs of housing across a broad area, to reduce the price of housing, and cover all costs. No profit and loss, over the years people have come to expect that government should pay the outstanding costs, keeping the price low. Governments of the day, have accommodated such demands to placate the lower socio-economic section of the community.

As peoples circumstances have changed, they continued to expect the same hand outs from the government. They should have been evicted (IMO) but due to the government's life time renting policy, they have continued to expect that people pay for their subsidised housing. I know personally of 2 such house holds which earn $60 thousand a year, living on the government budget.

But because a government will change the rent price policy to make these people pay their fair share, YOU assume it is to simply blame the carbon tax and line government coffers. Again, how does a pensioner feel, when he is paying the same rent as his neighbour, who is earning 3 times as much as him, and living in tax payer funded housing? How do those who wait years for housing feel, paying high rents, to get one of these houses?

Yes, that is right, condemn a government for trying to make people more accountable. that is right condemn a government who expect a policy created by LABOR to work exactly as Labor expected it to work.

 

LMAO, in one breath you deny saying it, then say it again.

I see that you are against public housing, straight away I see where your coming from

This rubbish

First, I know people in public housing, there rent is reviewed regularly and adjusted to their income, the more you earn, the more you pay.

Now a household living on 60K a year is a low income family IMO, maybe at the top end, but they are definitely not rich, and definitely usually not able to pay a $500k mortgage.

How much do you earn annually, it has always amazed me at the wealthy that have no concern for those that serve them, the shop assistants, the secretaries, the garbos.

Like the way doctors look down their noses at wardsmen, nurses, cleaners etc. Where would they be without them.

Don't these people deserve housing, and isn't the main reason housing is so expensive because of investment. Who invests in housing, certainly not the low income earners, they are more concerned with eating.

Your rating as a human being as dropped a few pegs IMHO

 

I am not defending Newman. I think Newman is just another greedy political grub trying to take advantage of vulnerable members of our society. The only difference between what Newman is doing and all the other greedy politicians; is that Newman is blaming the increase on the CT. The others simply raised the value of the properties every time their was a significant pension increase.

I don’t have to make up my own facts:

My Great-Aunt who is 92, lives in a Housing Department property. She can show direct evidence that every time a pension increase occurs; within weeks, she receives a letters saying the rent on the property has been re-valued and the rent will be increased.

If you want to believe all the false Government propaganda, then that is your prerogative, but when I see the evidence for myself in black & white, I tend to come to a different conclusion, beside that of the advertised Government propaganda.

 

What did I say again? That carbon tax cost on public housing will be passed on in the future? And that previous increases had nothing to do with carbon tax, as the OP claims, and you support?

No, I am not against public housing at all. I am against those that simply work the system for their own personal gain, and expect that everybody else should pay. I am against keeping far more deserving people from recieving the help that should come their way, because others can capitalise on government welfare (that is right welfare, because that is exactly what public housing is)

What is rubbish?
The intention of housing policy Labor introduced?

NOT the claim of the OP. This is exactly how it should be done. FACT IS, You supported the claim that moving from a percentage based on area rents, to a income indexed rent price policy (that you now claim is already in place) as being a RIP OFF.

Gee... and I thought you where a worldly character. I would like the money your on. I know people on half that, paying mortgages that get absolutely NO help from government, getting little in the way on compensation for this carbon tax. But your ok with that.

So people earning half would be considered the working poor? Perhaps you should get out more, there are many more people living well below that figure and these people do not live on government handouts, and your happy to belt them with greater costs.

Let me put it this way, I obviously earn far less than you and according to YOUR analysis of $60 thousand being low income, I would be considered the working poor.

relevance?

Well who does deserve housing, low income earners, pensioners, perhaps those doctors you are complaining about? My preference is for the pensioners, who can not afford the full price of housing costs over those, you consider to be a low income family.

My rating? LOL... it is you who want to impose a carbon tax on these people, since Gillard has begun to bring this policy. Now you want to complain that I am inhumane, because you think it is wrong that this happens? I have been the one complaining that those who would suffer most (the low income earners) would be impacted most. and you complain about my humanity? Now it has come to light, you want to complain? HAHAHAHA...

It appears that at a price, everybody is humane. BUT when you complain that your policy is doing exactly what is expected, you should not complain.

 

Newman with this minor decision, not even worthy of news, is saying that micromanagement such as this is a waste of time and resources... and much like the carbon tax itself will have no real impact on anyone. Its just something the ALP does not understand, management. The ALP believes in bloated bureaucracy and tons of useless public services positions doing useless tasks.... its part of there vision of socialism where the government employs everyone who isn't rich, and then taxes the socks off the rich. The problem is its a self destructive plan designed to shift power away from the people. The Bligh government were terrible at it, they had so many jobs available I could swear most of them were not real positions and just put out there to pump up job advert figures to make things 'appear' booming. The scary thing is when the GFC crippled the world market it gave a smokescreen to the initial negative effects on our economy from the ALP strategy and so we're all sitting here saying our downslide is a correction to the world market when in effect Australia would be a lot stronger now if the Libs had never been booted out by the dekusional Rudd mania in kevin07.

 

I have always been a firm believer that “everyone” regardless of age or status needs to learn their own lessons, before they are able to move on and progress. Sooner or later, the people “will” understand and start to comprehend the real damage this lying troll and her minions have hoisted upon the Australian people and Australian businesses by forcing this nonsense carbon tax upon them.

The pittance that the troll chucked them will have zero financial effect in combating the coming price increases that will effect nearly every commodity because of this tax. Just wait until 2013/14 when diesel fuel is no loner carbon tax exempt, and watch the price of basic commodities like fruit, veg, and meat skyrocket due to a massive increase in transport costs that will be past on to the consumer all the way up the ladder from the distribution of the seeds/livestock to the supermarket shelves.

Useless, worthless “jobs for the boys”. Both political parties are guilty of that insidious crime against the Australian tax payer. Yes, these parasites keep advocating the smokescreen of low unemployment figures, but conveniently forget to tell the people those low figures are based on people doing casual & part-time jobs; unemployed people doing volunteer work, and unemployed people on the “Work For the Dole Scheme”.

Its amazing why our “biased” media don’t take these parasites to task over these erroneous unemployment figures. Someone wrote an article (been trying to find it) based on the last Australia census, and their estimates were that the Australian ‘true’ unemployment rate was around 15.7% based on math not incorporating the about recipients who cannot be truly counted as being employed. How could anyone ethically (besides scummy politicians) advocate that a casual worker doing ten hours per weeks and still claiming 100% benefits, be counted in their figures as being employed. LOL

 

Thanks for the input Garry, I'll clear up what you seem to misunderstand. I did say "I'm ok with the carbon tax" I'm not ok with the Newman implementation of an effective 25% tax in the name of the carbon tax. A knee jerk political stunt without any basis in actual costing, lets not let the actual cost of the carbon tax on housing get in the road of a good taxing.

I have read the stories thanks Garry, It's why I posted?

I don't believe I specified the elderly someone else may have? It's everyone.

I agree the issues need to be addressed and the other measures I didn't make reference to I happen to in the main agree with those except I am concerned how the implementation might differ from the proffered.

I didn't at any time assume that anyone would be exempt from the carbon tax or presume to know all the effects of the carbon tax either. You do seem to assume a lot. To save you assuming again I can read, I do know what the carbon tax is.
Specifically this thread relates to the inclusion of the exempt carbon tax offsets to low income earners in the calculated income for low income housing clients means a flat rate imposition of a 25% tax in the name of the carbon tax not actually under the provisions of it though I believe.

I'm not sure what "this type of thread" means? The comment though does demonstrate something about your condescending attitude.

 

Not to be obtuse or anything, But I have not read anywhere that a 25% effective tax on carbon being passed on to public housing anywhere.

I have seen that increases due to the fact that the Newman government believed that rents where not high enough. I have read how Labor are complaining that there will be higher rents to come under the new structure of the public housing system in. BUT no where have I read that there will be a 25% effective tax due to carbon tax.

So could you supply the offending article?

Fair enough, point taken

Unfortunately, without further detail, we can only speculate implementation. However, everything I have read on the subject, would appear to be, well above board. Not withstanding that, many costs could be be saved, and the sacking (supposedly) of many bureaucrats that do leach of the system, is a good start. The later is a rumour spread by the opposition spokesman for public housing, so I would not expect to find anything supporting such. (I know, convenient for me)

Yes, I do assume a lot. One of the problems with being opinionated. But the OP did come across as sour grapes, with the final straw being the passing on of the carbon tax expense.

What, you believe that public housing has carbon offsets? and that these are not being accounted in the price setting of the rents?

At this stage, I beleive that Gillard is addressing this very topic, calling it an oversight of the implementation of the tax.

Yes, it does, I admit. However, does not detract from the fact, that this thread falls on the same lines as the other carbon tax debates. It is either A viable debatable issue, or it is not. All the threads about the carbon tax are legitimate issues. Not garbage as the other poster would claim.

 

I believe it was a direct comment attributing the increases to the carbon tax and the financial loss. It's a fact that "that little in compensation" is the same for a family in low income housing as the family paying the mortgage except theirs is now taxed 25%. Try to understand this Garry - I'm not talking about the change back to the 25% income rent scheme here overall except in that it was implemented only weeks ago and is a double hit for these low income households, the point being it is inhumane.
Again the costs they get "belted with" are the same for both families? Initially, before these measures that is!

 

Wow I can picture Newman from your description, uncanny likeness.

That is exactly why I don't think the 25% of your income approach is the best solution. I never disputed that the other states have that system.
Whose false propaganda, what do I believe?

Congrats to your great aunt BTW 92 many more I hope.

 

The Op has been proven to be nothing but hot air.

 

If you continue to deliberately miss the point in an effort to muddy the water you will begin to appear very obtuse indeed in short time.

Also despite your efforts I don't think anyone thinks you seriously don't understand what is being said just that you don't want it said.

Both families on the rent subsidy scheme and families living in their own homes get the same compensation from the federal government. The housing clients are to be taxed on that payment as included income in the assessment of their rent. Hence 25% tax. The payments are tax exempt for everyone else!
As for the "passing on of the carbon tax" that's not actually what this is as I'm sure we will see that later when cost has been quantified won't we?

 

Thanks for the opinion, much like your opinion on most things without foundation and derogatory, drawing a conclusion from thin air like a kid with the answers written on your hand, who when asked to produce his work grins sheepishly and says "I can't miss".

 

Give them their 15 minutes, they can only insult and run. At least we fight and de-bunk their threads first. In this one they have proven it so they insult it.

 

Allow me

If Ms Gillard was quick she would have taken the opportunity when the liberals moved for a pay rise, to tack the amendment on the end of the asylum seeker bill. The Libs would have passed it in a heartbeat!

 

Aussie and Garry have made good points and exposed a lot of the issue for discussion as well. I think it's good to actually have a debate that explores these facets of both public housing and the carbon tax. Don't get me wrong, I optimistically support the concept of an ETS the carbon tax is a positive step but I'm not naive. I'm not without great apprehension much akin to the feeling I had at the implementation of the GST as I'm sure many Australians are in varying degrees.

Lets hope

 

The difference between the carbon tax and GST is the carbon tax will put the price of everything up and make business less competitive internationally whereas the GST actually caused the price of many goods to fall because sales tax was abolished along with a lot of other gov charges and levy's and the GST actually doesn't affect business costs and is not charged on export goods. But that aside, the statement 'Newman taxes poor twice and parties on the proceeds' is just plan poor taste political rehtoric/spin/lies/deceit by political opponents. So public housing rents are going up, boo-hoo! too bad so sad! the cost of everything is constantly rising and why shouldn't their PUBLICLY SUBSIDISED rent be tied to their income. I reckon if their income goes over a certain amount they should be kicked out to make way for those less fortunate. The bloody lazy wasters and welfare parasites are a huge burden on Australia.

 

I am with this sentiment to a point. I remember all the arguing and misinformation regarding the GST, and in my opinion it has been a great success. Imagine trying to make our way in this global economy on the old antiquated system we had. The GST has been god send for business in my opinion.

There is no doubt we need to clean up our environment, and as DV has alluded to in another thread, we have become spoilt, lazy, and self obsessed. I was whinging this morning about having to unpack the dish washer.....can you believe it ! I quickly give myself an uppercut of realism. here I am whinging because I have to unpack a dish washer when there are people in the world that don't even have running water.

If Labor pull off a miracle and return to power, an ETS is inevitable. I believe that even if the Liberals get in, eventually an ETS will come in, as there is growing pressure on all countries world wide to head in a more environmentally sustainable direction. Good news ! What impact this current carbon Tax has on our cost of living is yet to be seen. Don't believe all the rubbish being spruiked by either side, as they are feathering their own arguments. We will know in a relatively short time the impact this will have on our lives.

In regards to Newmans public housing rent rise. Cost of living is skyrocketing........for everyone. I have no idea how much the carbon tax is impacting those preice rises, but you can be sure if what Newman said was untrue, Gillard would of set the dogs on him as she threatened. Made a real example of an enemy. BUT she didn't, that begs a question I think. The environment is everyones burden, therefore everyone should pitch in, that includes the already heavily subsidised low income. The environment does not diferentiate between income levels.

I know a number of homes in my region that are three bedroom and being occupied by one person, while families are waiting for housing. Now I am not saying kick the person out, not at all, but it seems easier to find housing for one solitary person than a family of five. I have no answers for our growing numbers requiring public housing, but you can be sure the numbers are only going to go up.

 

So, you are not trying to attribute the rent scheme to implementation of the carbon tax scheme.

As the public housing scheme is in desperate state, something has to be done. When would it have been a humane time to actually attempt to fix such situations? The previous Labor government seemed to ignore these problems, was that because they did not know how to fix the problem? The more the situation continues, the more resources it will take to fix the problem, and the higher the rents will need to go before equilibrium can be met.

I don't know if the changes Newman government will bring in, will have any effect to the problem, but I do know they have to handle the situation with the resources they have.

It may seem a double hit, but not in the name of carbon tax, it is only a double hit because the previous Labor government tried their best to ignore such problems in attempts of retaining lower socio-economic votes. It failed.

The fact is that compensation is the same for both housing sectors, but there is nothing in anything I have read that contributes a 25% tax on anything in this area.

So in your opinion, when or how should these problems be fixed? The fortnightly loss of 1 million dollars (26 million a year), the problem of extremely high maintenance cost, due to areas of malicious tennants?

And how long should the Newman government sit on the carbon cost for housing? Where is the money coming from to achieve that standards of HUMANE?

As for putting money toward the high court challenge, It only stands to reason, that the Newman government wants to retain control over their income, to better their state, rather than let the federal government, pool the money and give it to the population areas that they see fit. It is not inconceivable, that a Labor government will retain funds that should go where it was derived from, simply to attack support for a Liberal Government. Labor has no more morals in that respect than Liberal. Howard showed that very aspect of politics with NSW Labor. One of the major issues with the GST was, the state revenue was directed to federal and then dolled out by the federal government to the states. Now you see many occasions where federal government, will not hand the money back unless they meet the criteria of the federal demands.

You say the resources are owned by the people, but which people? Should NSW get the revenue from the Queensland minerals, robbing the state from potential savings, to build a good coffer for the NSW electoral funds? OR should the Queensland people benefit from selling their own dirt, Thus helping those poorer of the Queensland (you know that public housing sector, just to mention one) to actually prosper?

 

Your aspersions are without foundation and derogatory, drawing a conclusion from thin air like a kid with the answers written on their hand. Gob, as I mentiones earlier, the new State Govt Offices are to be public property, Newman isn`t building them for himself. This type of project is what all Governments should be implementing, in these times. Not only is this type of project provide public infrastructure during a buyer`s market, this is also the best type of stimulus to inject into the economy.
As to the High Court action against the Federal Government`s cash grab in the form of the MRRT, which will deprive Queensland of it`s mining royalty income. It would be remiss of any State Premier not to take action to protect the income of their State.

 

Newman is saving money everywhere he can to get Queensland out of the deep hole that it is in. It has nothing to do with the carbon tax, and there's always backlash to spending cuts.

The MRRT does not deprive the states of any royalties income, it is ontop of that income.

Vic and NSW has been subsidising WA and Queensland for decades, with seriously huge amounts of money. Too late for them to whinge and moan that they have to pay back into the system now.

 

LOL... got any evidence to support that?