The federal government proposes a levy to finance the rebuilding of flood affected areas and the opposition opposes it. I'm in two minds on the issue.

On the one hand the money is going to have to come from somewhere, but on the other a prudent government would have sufficient reserves to deal with occurences like this. It's not as though the country has a shortage of national disasters.

The levy would represent an increase in taxation, which will mean slowing some parts of the domestic economy and redirecting it to rebuilding infrastructure in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, increasing the cost pressures in the construction industry (with some consequent flow-on to housing affordability).

Borrowing the money, as some are suggesting would actually have similar effects, but over a longer time span - as the money would have to be paid back eventually it would depress expenditure in later years.

The alternative would be to use the floods to justify winding-back spending on the BER and the NBN. That's possible, although in the case of the BER presumably promises have already been made.

It's hard to see this government scrapping the NBN, but it does raise questions about spending $40B on what will be little more than an enhanced highway for online games and video downloads.

One thing is for sure, infrastructure needs to be repaired as quickly as possible because it is a key to generating the wealth that will pay for it, and much of the wealth that sustains the country.

My son rented a unit at Ipswich.
Despite his best efforts he lost everything.
He commented that if the floods were caused by a God he did not look after his own, as a number of churches nearby were totalled.
This being interesting I asked him to take some photos for me.
Two Days later he emailed back saying that he could not take any photos of the damaged churches because they were the first buiding rebuilt, and that they were now back good as new even better.
Why should we pay a levy to have the churches repaired?

Tax the emitters

Responsible for

AGW linked events

Might I humbly suggest.....

We had the gun buyback levy, so special levies are not new.

Councils charge rates on the "unimproved land value", adjusted roughly for location but ignoring trifles like being at the top of a low rise or at the bottom.

I suggest that some levy should apply, ongoing as a compulsory insurance against all sorts of widespread disaster like flood, bushfire, tsunami, earthquake, rain of frogs etc.

That being said, payouts should be capped at about the price of a basic dwelling and some essential goods. "basic" might reflect buildings as built in the original subdivision.

No additional payout if you built a mcmansion on a flood zone, that is *your* lookout, but provision for basic dwellings etc seems reasonable.

Money might rebuild basic dwellings, community facilities and schools that double as disaster centres.

Not so sure about the churches. They already enjoy a lot of tax exemption. I'd rather get schools back up first.

How to invest the float might be interesting....

I suggest the fund buy or build our most basic infrastructure, dams, robust buildings on high ground, power stations and so on.

Then, the fund owns a substantial part of our common wealth as the backing for it's capacity to draw as governments traditionally did.

Rusty

GYs political leanings emerge as the BER and NBN are touted as the only two considerations for cost cutting.

How about the wasted dollars on our armed forces, particularly with Smith just about to buy up some worn out British ships built for the Cod Wars years ago?

What next, a re-commissioning of G for George as part of a 'new' airforce?

Or, how about the excessive spending on so-called 'private' schools taking a considerable hit on the bottom line?

Maybe if our tax system taxed the wealthy with a progressive tax that could not be avoided or evaded, then there would be more tax income, and possibly even a lower rate for many people?

A global crackdown on rouge nations like Switzerland (and many others) which is every bit as obnoxious a nation as N. Korea or Burma, Iran or Pakistan.

This state harbours ill-gotten gains for the respectable crooks who run our world. Perhaps if Australian politicians led the way in a national tax crackdown and exposed the international community for the liars and blaggers they are, we could tax more fairly than now?

Now, as ponde has pointed out, the exalted status of 'the church' ensures that about $30billion a year of income goes untaxed and totally unaccounted for in our national support of religions-as-charities even though very few people are actually 'religious' in this nation. How about taxing some of the privileges 'religion' currently enjoys?

Never forget that every dollar our 'generous' business community 'donates' to the flood funds is a tax deduction for them, paid for by us, and buys them 'moral character' that we have paid for.

How many more 'levies' do we need to pay for?

And why should greedy 'developers', and stupid planners and local government councillors, get away with allowing so many houses to be built in the way of floods?

NO! Definately not!.

If Julia wants to have the money to repair Australias's infrastructure & help flood affected people, then she can have a moratorium for 5 years on the $3,879,196,000, (That's $3.9 Billion dollars), in Overseas Aid. Charity begins at home & Australia need that money now. The $3.9 billion is the 08/09 figures. This happens every year and is on top of the 7% of Australian GDP obligation given to the UN every year. Yet Australia has struggling Infrastructure, Roads, Hospitals, Education, etc. Just think of the advancement in these areas Australia could achieve in just a few years.

See http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pubout.cfm?ID=9266_4050_7172_5723_8240

The only money Australia should send overseas in Aid is Emergency Aid for a particular disaster, not just to bribe 3rd world countries into supporting us in various UN votes.

I haven't been able to find out how much money leaves Australia through private Aid, Oxfam, Churches, etc, but even if it's 25% of the 3.9 billion that would be a substantial amount. Then there are people, Philipino wives, students, interant workers, etc living in Australia who send money to their families & relatives abroard.

Charity begins at home Australian Aid money is needed to help Australians at the moment.