Remember all the uproar when the Goods and Services tax ( GST ) was introduced nearly a decade ago ?
Now it is something that is taken for granted. Few people take note of the GST component listed at the bottom of each sales docket - except for accountants and those whose business it is to compile tax returns.
Now the dust has settled and the political point scoring ended this is seen as an absolutely " fair " tax - because everybody pays it !
It's not a tax that the clever or the wealthy can dodge, and it doesn't matter if you are an Australian citizen or a tourist. If you have a hair cut, buy a meal, go and watch the football - or buy a movie ticket - you pay ten percent to the tax man - and that is ten percent that would otherwise be collected by a more discriminatory tax if there was no GST.
Lets face it. Money has to come from somewhere to run this state - and the GST is essentially a state tax !
The other surprise is that the promise of not raising that tax from ten percent has been kept - and that is not the experience of the rest of the world. In some countries the VAT or whatever name the tax has been given has increased on a regular basis - in some instances to as much as twenty-five percent of every purchase.
Nobody rants about the GST these days - and neither should they. Compared to every other form of taxation - this one is fair and honest - and with the passage of time we have almost forgotten that we are being taxed !
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Monday, 6 April 2009
Mortgage relief con !
The big four banks have agreed to provide relief for those with a mortgage who lose their job in this recession.
The scheme is flexible and can range from foregoing any payments for twelve months to paying only interest during this period. Any money owing to the banks as a result simply gets tacked onto the other end of the loan !
The problem is that it is not automatic and not everyone will be offered relief. Each application will be judged on a case by case basis and in reality it is as much a case of protecting the bank's bottom line as helping recession victims.
The ultimate financial disaster for a bank is taking possession of someone's home. In some cases the mortgage value is greater than the hoped for sale price and the bank will be forced to sell at a loss. The unfortunate former owner then has no home and an ongoing debt to the bank.
Banks are neither trained or psychologically adept at selling real estate. A home presented for sale needs to look well maintained. The lawns need to be cut and it helps to have a " lived in " look.
Once the owner departs and the home reverts to the bank decay sets in. The junk mail accumulates, grafitti appears and the lawns become a jungle - and sometimes squatters take over !
The banks will seek to avoid that fate by carefully screening each application. A lot will depend on whether they think the owner will find another job reasonably easily - and their own judgement on how long this recession will last.
The least likely to be offered relief are the owners of homes in positions of sales demand. There is more value to the bank of avoiding foreclosure of a house that would be hard to sell. By avoiding that option there is a chance that the recession may end, house prices may lift - and the bank's bottom line may avoid a hit.
Obviously any form of relief is better than a hard line attitude but it will be interesting to see how this scheme works in a practical sense - and whether the government manages to get the smaller lenders to climb on board !
The scheme is flexible and can range from foregoing any payments for twelve months to paying only interest during this period. Any money owing to the banks as a result simply gets tacked onto the other end of the loan !
The problem is that it is not automatic and not everyone will be offered relief. Each application will be judged on a case by case basis and in reality it is as much a case of protecting the bank's bottom line as helping recession victims.
The ultimate financial disaster for a bank is taking possession of someone's home. In some cases the mortgage value is greater than the hoped for sale price and the bank will be forced to sell at a loss. The unfortunate former owner then has no home and an ongoing debt to the bank.
Banks are neither trained or psychologically adept at selling real estate. A home presented for sale needs to look well maintained. The lawns need to be cut and it helps to have a " lived in " look.
Once the owner departs and the home reverts to the bank decay sets in. The junk mail accumulates, grafitti appears and the lawns become a jungle - and sometimes squatters take over !
The banks will seek to avoid that fate by carefully screening each application. A lot will depend on whether they think the owner will find another job reasonably easily - and their own judgement on how long this recession will last.
The least likely to be offered relief are the owners of homes in positions of sales demand. There is more value to the bank of avoiding foreclosure of a house that would be hard to sell. By avoiding that option there is a chance that the recession may end, house prices may lift - and the bank's bottom line may avoid a hit.
Obviously any form of relief is better than a hard line attitude but it will be interesting to see how this scheme works in a practical sense - and whether the government manages to get the smaller lenders to climb on board !
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Censorship .... and the Internet !
Ominous noises circulating in political circles. A case seems to be building to justify censoring what can be seen on the Internet.
Of course such an idea will be carefully hidden in what seems a just cause. Child pornography is the emotive issue thought to sway even civil liberty people into accepting the unacceptable !
There is no doubt that some sordid examples of children subjected to sexual exploitation can be accessed on the Internet by the tap of a key and the click of a mouse. There is no argument5 that most people would be apalled if their children were viewing such filth.
This is where the subject becomes opaque. There is a huge difference between the right of a parent to install a filter to prevent child access to objectionable material - and the right of the government to block access to sites it considers should be quarantined from ordinary citizens.
The stalking horse seems to be euthenasia.
Every Australian has the right to bring about their own death - and many terminate the pain and misery of a terminal illness in that way. What is illegal is for another person to help bring about that death.
There are suggestions that information on how to achieve euthenasia should be banned from the Internet.
Many years ago a book titled " Exit " was the first do-it-yourself suicide manual on that subject - and it was temporarily a banned import into this country. Appeals quickly overturned that ban and ever since euthenasia has been studiously avoided by politicians. A brief legalisation in the Northern Territory was overturned by the Federal government.
Now that old adversary - the churches - are behind this suggestion. It was thought that a ban on child pornography would disarm opponents and that euthenasia could open the censorship door a crack - but once the wall is breached a tsunami of censorship is possible.
The suggestion seems to be political kite flying - and there is every chance that it will get it's tail feathers shot off ! It is one thing to make emotive appeals through the letters columns in newspapers - and quite another to get a censorship bill through parliament.
When push comes to shove - that is where the politicians will have to stand and be counted - and it is clear that the public sentiment favours an uncensored Internet !
Of course such an idea will be carefully hidden in what seems a just cause. Child pornography is the emotive issue thought to sway even civil liberty people into accepting the unacceptable !
There is no doubt that some sordid examples of children subjected to sexual exploitation can be accessed on the Internet by the tap of a key and the click of a mouse. There is no argument5 that most people would be apalled if their children were viewing such filth.
This is where the subject becomes opaque. There is a huge difference between the right of a parent to install a filter to prevent child access to objectionable material - and the right of the government to block access to sites it considers should be quarantined from ordinary citizens.
The stalking horse seems to be euthenasia.
Every Australian has the right to bring about their own death - and many terminate the pain and misery of a terminal illness in that way. What is illegal is for another person to help bring about that death.
There are suggestions that information on how to achieve euthenasia should be banned from the Internet.
Many years ago a book titled " Exit " was the first do-it-yourself suicide manual on that subject - and it was temporarily a banned import into this country. Appeals quickly overturned that ban and ever since euthenasia has been studiously avoided by politicians. A brief legalisation in the Northern Territory was overturned by the Federal government.
Now that old adversary - the churches - are behind this suggestion. It was thought that a ban on child pornography would disarm opponents and that euthenasia could open the censorship door a crack - but once the wall is breached a tsunami of censorship is possible.
The suggestion seems to be political kite flying - and there is every chance that it will get it's tail feathers shot off ! It is one thing to make emotive appeals through the letters columns in newspapers - and quite another to get a censorship bill through parliament.
When push comes to shove - that is where the politicians will have to stand and be counted - and it is clear that the public sentiment favours an uncensored Internet !
Saturday, 4 April 2009
Promises .... Promises !
The ending of the G 20 meeting in London was hailed as a success with a statement indicating that those attending agreed to a $ 1.4 trillion plan to restart the world economy, crack down on tax havens, regulate the finance industry and curb excessive executive salaries.
The problem with world conferences of this nature is that no nation can be seen to be a standout. The closing statement is for home consumption as well as attracting international plaudits - and the voters need to be placated into believing that their leaders are on the ball and actually part of the solution to a world problem.
That's just fine - so long as the solution does not harm the home economy - or cost them money they are unwilling to commit.
Previous world meetings have voted huge sums to alleviate poverty in the third world. The closing statement has promised big improvements in living standards - a leap in education - safe drinking water - modern health clinics.
Reality has been far different. Only a fraction of the funds promised have been forthcoming and those lofty promises have been seen for what they were - purely a " feel good " public relations exercise !
There is no doubt that some good will come out of that G 20 meeting, but it is also unlikely that the promised outcome will be fully achieved.
The meeting has agreed that the world will not embrace protectionism - and yet already the United States, Britain and some of the Europeans have bailed out their car industries in an attempt to save jobs.
There is scant difference between supporting an enviable industry with public funds, allowing it to sell locally and export a subsidized product, and slapping a tariff on someone else's goods !
The biggest problem will come with the regulation of financial markets. There is no plan for an international standard and whatever regulation is enforced will be a matter for individual countries.
Hopefully the deficiencies will become apparent when the G 20 meets again in six months time. Perhaps that meeting will have the consensus to tighten the rules and make a world trading regimen work.
Provided - of course - that there is still world trade six months from now !
The problem with world conferences of this nature is that no nation can be seen to be a standout. The closing statement is for home consumption as well as attracting international plaudits - and the voters need to be placated into believing that their leaders are on the ball and actually part of the solution to a world problem.
That's just fine - so long as the solution does not harm the home economy - or cost them money they are unwilling to commit.
Previous world meetings have voted huge sums to alleviate poverty in the third world. The closing statement has promised big improvements in living standards - a leap in education - safe drinking water - modern health clinics.
Reality has been far different. Only a fraction of the funds promised have been forthcoming and those lofty promises have been seen for what they were - purely a " feel good " public relations exercise !
There is no doubt that some good will come out of that G 20 meeting, but it is also unlikely that the promised outcome will be fully achieved.
The meeting has agreed that the world will not embrace protectionism - and yet already the United States, Britain and some of the Europeans have bailed out their car industries in an attempt to save jobs.
There is scant difference between supporting an enviable industry with public funds, allowing it to sell locally and export a subsidized product, and slapping a tariff on someone else's goods !
The biggest problem will come with the regulation of financial markets. There is no plan for an international standard and whatever regulation is enforced will be a matter for individual countries.
Hopefully the deficiencies will become apparent when the G 20 meets again in six months time. Perhaps that meeting will have the consensus to tighten the rules and make a world trading regimen work.
Provided - of course - that there is still world trade six months from now !
Friday, 3 April 2009
The health enigma !
Wollongong has gained a very valuable - and very rare - diagnostic medical tool with the arrival of PRP Diagnostic Imaging's new CT Scanner.
This is one of only six such units in Australia - and just a hundred in the entire world - and it cost $ 3.5 million. It is so advanced that it provides 320 slices of the organ being examined in just one third of a second. Older machines are limited to 64 slices - over a much longer period - and can not achieve as high a definition.
PRP is a private firm and obviously they hope to make a profit from providing an advanced medical facility. We are probably about to see a re-run of the MRI saga of several years ago when hospital patients were being transferred to private facilities because our government health system could not afford a public machine.
Then came the nonsense of a machine in place in the hospital, but without a license that would allow it to be used on the general public. Use was confined to those granted a bed in the hospital - and all others had to pay to use the machine in private facilities.
PRP should be applauded for taking the commercial risk of introducing this service to Wollongong. This machine will only have a short unique life before advances in medical science make it obsolete and hence until that happens it will be the premier imaging form serving the entire south coast and it's hinterland.
In a perfect world the country's national health service would be at the forefront of new medical equipment and it's provision, but in the real world there is a gap of almost light years between development and provision of state of the art equipment.
So - once more we find the pinnacle of diagnostic health available for a fee by those willing to take a financial risk to provide a service. Many will grumble and begrudge that it is not free under Medicare.
They should keep in mind that it is only the perceived benefits and saving of human life stemming from such private machines that generates the pressure for the government to provide similar equipment.
Without that - most would be unaware that such equipment exists !
This is one of only six such units in Australia - and just a hundred in the entire world - and it cost $ 3.5 million. It is so advanced that it provides 320 slices of the organ being examined in just one third of a second. Older machines are limited to 64 slices - over a much longer period - and can not achieve as high a definition.
PRP is a private firm and obviously they hope to make a profit from providing an advanced medical facility. We are probably about to see a re-run of the MRI saga of several years ago when hospital patients were being transferred to private facilities because our government health system could not afford a public machine.
Then came the nonsense of a machine in place in the hospital, but without a license that would allow it to be used on the general public. Use was confined to those granted a bed in the hospital - and all others had to pay to use the machine in private facilities.
PRP should be applauded for taking the commercial risk of introducing this service to Wollongong. This machine will only have a short unique life before advances in medical science make it obsolete and hence until that happens it will be the premier imaging form serving the entire south coast and it's hinterland.
In a perfect world the country's national health service would be at the forefront of new medical equipment and it's provision, but in the real world there is a gap of almost light years between development and provision of state of the art equipment.
So - once more we find the pinnacle of diagnostic health available for a fee by those willing to take a financial risk to provide a service. Many will grumble and begrudge that it is not free under Medicare.
They should keep in mind that it is only the perceived benefits and saving of human life stemming from such private machines that generates the pressure for the government to provide similar equipment.
Without that - most would be unaware that such equipment exists !
Thursday, 2 April 2009
A commercial opportunity.
The new " free shuttle " bus now offering relief from Wollongong's parking problems is the ideal way for residents to adopt a " park and ride " strategy - provided they can find somewhere to safely park the car.
At this stage, that is the " missing link " !
On that stretch of the Princes Highway between Fairy Meadow and North Wollongong an ideal parking site is going begging. The old Indoor Cricket centre was being demolished for another use when the job was cancelled, and behind it Campbells wholesale closed down several years ago. Both provide a parking area for many cars.
Wollongong council should negotiate with the owners because there is mutual gain from encouraging shoppers to make this a " park and ride " destination.
Not only would it attract patrons to the shuttle bus, but any place where people congregate is a Mecca for those offering business services. Everything from a cup of coffee to a drop off point for dry cleaning could rejuvenate what is now an ugly wasteland !
The shuttle bus is a great idea. The only shortcoming is the lack of a safe - designated place to leave the car. Parking on a busy road is not an option that would appeal to most people.
Opportunity knocks ! Is council listening ?
At this stage, that is the " missing link " !
On that stretch of the Princes Highway between Fairy Meadow and North Wollongong an ideal parking site is going begging. The old Indoor Cricket centre was being demolished for another use when the job was cancelled, and behind it Campbells wholesale closed down several years ago. Both provide a parking area for many cars.
Wollongong council should negotiate with the owners because there is mutual gain from encouraging shoppers to make this a " park and ride " destination.
Not only would it attract patrons to the shuttle bus, but any place where people congregate is a Mecca for those offering business services. Everything from a cup of coffee to a drop off point for dry cleaning could rejuvenate what is now an ugly wasteland !
The shuttle bus is a great idea. The only shortcoming is the lack of a safe - designated place to leave the car. Parking on a busy road is not an option that would appeal to most people.
Opportunity knocks ! Is council listening ?
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Digital TV - Disappointment !
A lot of people advanced their buying decision on digital Television because of the advent of fifteen new, free to air channels - five of which were about to come on stream from this month.
The first started this week - but it can not be received in Wollongong.
What a disappointment to viewers living outside of Sydney to find that this new service will be limited to those in the metropolitan area - and what a slap in the face for sporting fans who have paid big money in anticipation of a sporting bonanza !
No doubt the TV people have intentions of sending the new channels country wide - when they get around to it. One of the limitations is the current economic meltdown. It is quite possible that the big money behind television will take a " wait and see " attitude - and monitor the impact of the new service in the city before spending a brass razoo on it's extension.
This is an area on which the Federal government should move. It was a previous government that forced the existing three networks to extent their coverage nationwide so that the majority of Australians were given a channel choice beyond just the local station and the ABC.
Remember the days when country TV started at 10 am - and closed at 10-30 in the evening ?
The recession could be the excuse for a return to the bad old days - if we let them get away with it.
Now is the time for those not living in the capital cities to be heard - loud and clear. And the first port of call should be the politicians.
Remember - those well fed people we elected to represent us and look after our interests !
It's about time they earned their keep !
The first started this week - but it can not be received in Wollongong.
What a disappointment to viewers living outside of Sydney to find that this new service will be limited to those in the metropolitan area - and what a slap in the face for sporting fans who have paid big money in anticipation of a sporting bonanza !
No doubt the TV people have intentions of sending the new channels country wide - when they get around to it. One of the limitations is the current economic meltdown. It is quite possible that the big money behind television will take a " wait and see " attitude - and monitor the impact of the new service in the city before spending a brass razoo on it's extension.
This is an area on which the Federal government should move. It was a previous government that forced the existing three networks to extent their coverage nationwide so that the majority of Australians were given a channel choice beyond just the local station and the ABC.
Remember the days when country TV started at 10 am - and closed at 10-30 in the evening ?
The recession could be the excuse for a return to the bad old days - if we let them get away with it.
Now is the time for those not living in the capital cities to be heard - loud and clear. And the first port of call should be the politicians.
Remember - those well fed people we elected to represent us and look after our interests !
It's about time they earned their keep !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)