Looks like we'll have another term of the labor governmnet running the show.

So of their major policy announcements which ones do you think will never get going.

We have

Sydney train link
Brisbane train link
NBN
Water buyback

Will they budget be in surplus in 2013
Will the mining tax increase?
how much will the carbon tax be?
will an East Timorese processing centre be built?
Will we have a 30% fishing no go zones
Will the pokie limits be introduced

What major promises have been made do you think will never be implemented???

Which policies will not get off the ground??
===================================

Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave.

If the first Government to see its majority wiped out after one term in over 75 years decides to go on and try and govern - it will be an insult to us all.

Losing a majority after just one term simply shows you are not good enough.

That's not happened in our lifetime before!!

Shows us just how bad they were!!!

wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:38pm:

Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave.

And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns??

Shameful.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful.

No everyone would like to see that.
And seeing everyone will be paying for this(Abbott eventually wants his scheme taxpayer funded) most people want such a scheme to be the same amount for all.
This argument that higher earners need more is just crap.
As you yourself have stated Andrei higher earners are higher educated and therefore more in control of their desitiny, so working with these undisputable facts it stands to reason a higher income couple can save and plan whilst also factoring in the public payment so therefore suffer no economic hardship in having a family.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:51pm:

No everyone would like to see that. And seeing everyone will be paying for this(Abbott eventually wants his scheme taxpayer funded) most people want such a scheme to be the same amount for all. This argument that higher earners need more is just crap. As you yourself have stated Andrei higher earners are higher educated and therefore more in control of their desitiny, so working with these undisputable facts it stands to reason a higher income couple can save and plan whilst also factoring in the public payment so therefore suffer no economic hardship in having a family.

But smithy - higher income earners have higher outgoings.
In 2007 our mortgage was $4,000 per month. Some people don't even earn that!
But we were a two income couple earning many times that so it wasnt an issue.
But drop down to one wage and it becomes a strain.

Now I realize your argument of 'you shouldn't borrow so much' etc which I am sure you think.

BUT just think for a minute how much tax people like us have paid into the system.
Do we not have a right to expect to be looked after a bit as well?

It just grates to see us get little back, pay a fortune in and see it go to hobos and losers.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful.

Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:51pm: No everyone would like to see that. And seeing everyone will be paying for this(Abbott eventually wants his scheme taxpayer funded) most people want such a scheme to be the same amount for all. This argument that higher earners need more is just crap. As you yourself have stated Andrei higher earners are higher educated and therefore more in control of their desitiny, so working with these undisputable facts it stands to reason a higher income couple can save and plan whilst also factoring in the public payment so therefore suffer no economic hardship in having a family. But smithy - higher income earners have higher outgoings. In 2007 our mortgage was $4,000 per month. Some people don't even earn that! But we were a two income couple earning many times that so it wasnt an issue. But drop down to one wage and it becomes a strain. Now I realize your argument of 'you shouldn't borrow so much' etc which I am sure you think. BUT just think for a minute how much tax people like us have paid into the system. Do we not have a right to expect to be looked after a bit as well? It just grates to see us get little back, pay a fortune in and see it go to hobos and losers.

No I dont think you should borrow so much or little.
What I'm saying is that(seeing you have used yourself as an example) that you and your wife could have paid more into your mortgage before she fell pregnant, paid down credit cards,personal loans etc so the transition after birth to 1 wage was not as big of a burdon.
If we followed your/Abbotts argument to its loglical conculsion if someone on 100K loses there job they are therefore entitled to more dole.
This is not the case nor should it, if ALL taxpayers are going to contribute then it should be 1 payment of X $$'s no matter income or x amount p/week for x amount of months.
Your argument about paying more tax does not gel, remember we have a proportional tax regime so whilst those on lower incomes pay less dollars the percentage of income is roughly the same.
Someone on 200K still gets the 1st 16K free pays 15 cents upto 30K the 30 cents upto 80K etc etc so they only pay the top rate on the last 50K
Yes these figures are not accurate I couldn't be bothered looking them up but you can see what I am trying to get across.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:

Your argument about paying more tax does not gel, remember we have a proportional tax regime so whilst those on lower incomes pay less dollars the percentage of income is roughly the same.

But that's not remotely the case.
Back when I was an Australian PAYE worker, my entire bonus and a large portion of my salary was taxed at over 40%.

Lower income workers do not see a single dollar of their salary taxed at that amount.

It also grates to see money wasted.....as in the hopeless Labor govt in NSW. I am a self-funded retiree and I cannot believe the wastefulness of the NSW State Govt and the dire straits this state now finds itself in. Policies should be properly costed and implemented. Same goes federally. If the country needs a boost, then for God's sake, at least cost it properly and check safety issues and rorting possibilities. All that money gone out the window, lives lost, millions gone overseas. Not only that, but much of the stimulus didn't even factor in until AFTER the so-called crisis. When will accountability come back into government? Hopefully before we go down the toilet.

I also dont believe in equating dole payments with maternity leave.

People out of work are out of work, they are looking to get back in - or they should be.

People who are on maternity have not left their job, they are having a family and need the support for a time when they intend to go back into the same role paying that sound amount.

They are chalk and cheese as examples.

Dole payments should be base level payments for everyone. Including people on $200k.

Incidentally when I was made redundant in 2009, I had a three month period  before I started my new role.
I asked about dole payments and was told I had too large a payout to be allowed anything from the Government.

Bloody shafted again.

Quote my dad "Labor Governments have never done anything for our family son"

andrei<<Bloody shafted again.

Quote my dad "Labor Governments have never done anything for our family son">>
..........................................................................................

I'm glad the government don't let you sponge off them. Pay your way and shut up about it.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Your argument about paying more tax does not gel, remember we have a proportional tax regime so whilst those on lower incomes pay less dollars the percentage of income is roughly the same. But that's not remotely the case. Back when I was an Australian PAYE worker, my entire bonus and a large portion of my salary was taxed at over 40%. Lower income workers do not see a single dollar of their salary taxed at that amount.

Then you want to get a different accountant  or really, stop bitching your on heaps and review your spending on crap you dont really need  ;)
Again from memory the 40% rate kicks in over 150K
You do OK from what I know of you from these boards Andrei as I do it's really just a philosophical argument for us, but for some it really is pay the electricity or eat :(

It's definitely a philosophical argument I agree.
Whilst I was disappointed not to get the dole payments in '09, I had just received the biggest payout I'll ever get in my life!!!

I do appreciate people are doing it hard and I have always said I am in favor of my taxes going to help people.
But to a point.

PS - I am heading back to Canada tomorrow via LAX. I might be on the same plane as you?!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:40pm:

It's definitely a philosophical argument I agree. Whilst I was disappointed not to get the dole payments in '09, I had just received the biggest payout I'll ever get in my life!!! I do appreciate people are doing it hard and I have always said I am in favor of my taxes going to help people. But to a point. PS - I am heading back to Canada tomorrow via LAX. I might be on the same plane as you?!

Nah mate 17th is my departure date.
Have a safe flight and enjoy Canada :)

I've got a feeling many of the Yahoo members tell a lot of lies about themselves.

Well now.  It does certainly seem that workchoices  (No choices) really will be dead after all, does it not?.  I will put some flowers on the grave.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:45pm:

I've got a feeling many of the Yahoo members tell a lot of lies about themselves.

Some may, but who are their fantasies hurting?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:47pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:45pm: I've got a feeling many of the Yahoo members tell a lot of lies about themselves. Some may, but who are their fantasies hurting?

This forum's quality of posts :P

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:47pm: aikmann4 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:45pm: I've got a feeling many of the Yahoo members tell a lot of lies about themselves. Some may, but who are their fantasies hurting? This forum's quality of posts :P

I can see your point, yahoo due to its large membership ran almost like a IM, where as this board was more along the lines of well thought longer in depth posts, but as with everything it has changed now, I suppose seeing you got most of yahoo here now a blessing and a curse.
I can understand your melancholy

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

If the first Government to see its majority wiped out after one term in over 75 years decides to go on and try and govern - it will be an insult to us all. Losing a majority after just one term simply shows you are not good enough. That's not happened in our lifetime before!! Shows us just how bad they were!!!

Actually it really shows what total flippin cretins people can be.
The last government to get booted after one term was in 1929.
Any idea what happened in 1929?
Yes, the GFC of the olden days, but this time around we were lucky we had a government that made the right calls, at the right times and protected us, and imbeciles from the right harp on about debt like wind up dolls without an original thought ever passing between their ears.

I realise you are not a very nice person Andrei, having watched you take great personal pride in your callous selfishness, but I now see you apply that same pride to your lack of comprehension of anything other than silly Liberal sloganeering that you hear, and then parrot.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:13pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Your argument about paying more tax does not gel, remember we have a proportional tax regime so whilst those on lower incomes pay less dollars the percentage of income is roughly the same. But that's not remotely the case. Back when I was an Australian PAYE worker, my entire bonus and a large portion of my salary was taxed at over 40%. Lower income workers do not see a single dollar of their salary taxed at that amount.

on yahoo Andei you said that you got paid through you company in The Channel Island, so you would never be an Australia PAYE.

You also said that you have a blue with the Australia Tax Office. Was that because you weren't paying tax in Australia on your income?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:40pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful. Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce.

couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare.

codswal wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:30am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:40pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful. Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce. couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare.

Hi cods......there is far too much money wasted on wealthfare, given to people who can really do without it. The baby bonus for instance, I would give to people on $30,000 and less. Childcare rebates is another, I think it should be for single parents only. I'd look into taxi vouchers too, every man and his dog (do they let dogs in taxi's?) is running around the countryside using govt. supplied vouchers. Kids get dropped off and picked up from high school by taxi, that's absurd.

There should be more for the destitute, and less for the people who can do ok without the handout.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:47am:

codswal wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:30am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:40pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful. Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce. couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare. Hi cods......there is far too much money wasted on wealthfare, given to people who can really do without it. The baby bonus for instance, I would give to people on $30,000 and less. Childcare rebates is another, I think it should be for single parents only. I'd look into taxi vouchers too, every man and his dog (do they let dogs in taxi's?) is running around the countryside using govt. supplied vouchers. Kids get dropped off and picked up from high school by taxi, that's absurd. There should be more for the destitute, and less for the people who can do ok without the handout.

Abbott says parental leave is a benefit of employment, so it should relate to income. I say, if it's a benefit of employment, the employer should pay. Not the taxpayer.

If the government is paying more to the rich, then they're essentially saying the children of the rich are worth more. Is that Australian?

John S wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:55pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:13pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Your argument about paying more tax does not gel, remember we have a proportional tax regime so whilst those on lower incomes pay less dollars the percentage of income is roughly the same. But that's not remotely the case. Back when I was an Australian PAYE worker, my entire bonus and a large portion of my salary was taxed at over 40%. Lower income workers do not see a single dollar of their salary taxed at that amount. on yahoo Andei you said that you got paid through you company in The Channel Island, so you would never be an Australia PAYE. You also said that you have a blue with the Australia Tax Office. Was that because you weren't paying tax in Australia on your income?

Oh, dear! The source of income and place of payment are irrelevant. All Australian residents are subject to Australian income tax. Australian citizens who are not residents are subject to the taxation regime in their country of residence.

Some people try to pretend that they are not resident in any country. That is regarded as fraud. Paul Hogan is said to have discovered that the hard way.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:59am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:47am: codswal wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:30am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:40pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful. Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce. couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare. Hi cods......there is far too much money wasted on wealthfare, given to people who can really do without it. The baby bonus for instance, I would give to people on $30,000 and less. Childcare rebates is another, I think it should be for single parents only. I'd look into taxi vouchers too, every man and his dog (do they let dogs in taxi's?) is running around the countryside using govt. supplied vouchers. Kids get dropped off and picked up from high school by taxi, that's absurd. There should be more for the destitute, and less for the people who can do ok without the handout. Abbott says parental leave is a benefit of employment, so it should relate to income. I say, if it's a benefit of employment, the employer should pay. Not the taxpayer. If the government is paying more to the rich, then they're essentially saying the children of the rich are worth more. Is that Australian?

The point is, do you have a limit of how much you want to handicap the hardest workers, and the best qualified people?  Or do you want to drag the rewards for effort down to the point where a garbage collector is the pinacle of Australian achievement?  Or do you want to suck the blood out of employers to the (not too distant) point where it`s inviable to opperate in Australia?

Is there an end to the greed of the laziest?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 7:18pm:

... Incidentally when I was made redundant in 2009, I had a three month period  before I started my new role. I asked about dole payments and was told I had too large a payout to be allowed anything from the Government. ...

To be eligible for the dole, one must be seeking employment. You already had a job which, as you say, would start three months later. You were not, therefore, seeking employment. In essence, your aspiration was to dole-bludge between jobs.

You also had, as you say, a large payout. Trying to claim the dole when you have plenty of resources doubles the bludge.

Andrei Hicks: dole bludger to the max!  ;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:18am:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:59am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:47am: codswal wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 7:30am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 7:09pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:40pm: wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 6:38pm: Which policies will not get off the ground?? =================================== Abbotts Full Pay maternity Leave. And you would not want to see mother's get a chance to have a family and take a break from work to look after their new borns?? Shameful. Just like you don't like your taxes going to the unemployed, I don't like my taxes going to parental leave. You shouldn't have to be paid to take care of your baby, just do it, women have been ever since they joined the workforce. couldnt agree more pansi.. and we never do that.. the younger generation just seems to whinge and they get help.. its welfare no matter which way you try to look at it... sorry to all those that think paid maternity leave is a given.. but thousands did it without any hand out whats so tough about life today... during the war it must have been hell but they did it without a sc ap of help and no whinging..seems to me the more this generation get the more they want.. lets not forget the freebee computers they are all sweating on.and voted for..next it will be.  well you encouraged us to have the children.. now we want the free childcare. Hi cods......there is far too much money wasted on wealthfare, given to people who can really do without it. The baby bonus for instance, I would give to people on $30,000 and less. Childcare rebates is another, I think it should be for single parents only. I'd look into taxi vouchers too, every man and his dog (do they let dogs in taxi's?) is running around the countryside using govt. supplied vouchers. Kids get dropped off and picked up from high school by taxi, that's absurd. There should be more for the destitute, and less for the people who can do ok without the handout. Abbott says parental leave is a benefit of employment, so it should relate to income. I say, if it's a benefit of employment, the employer should pay. Not the taxpayer. If the government is paying more to the rich, then they're essentially saying the children of the rich are worth more. Is that Australian? The point is, do you have a limit of how much you want to handicap the hardest workers, and the best qualified people?  Or do you want to drag the rewards for effort down to the point where a garbage collector is the pinacle of Australian achievement?  Or do you want to suck the blood out of employers to the (not too distant) point where it`s inviable to opperate in Australia? Is there an end to the greed of the laziest?

I guess there's no curing John Howard's middle-class welfare bludgers.

Quote:

The point is, do you have a limit of how much you want to handicap the hardest workers, and the best qualified people?  Or do you want to drag the rewards for effort down to the point where a garbage collector is the pinacle of Australian achievement?  Or do you want to suck the blood out of employers to the (not too distant) point where it`s inviable to opperate in Australia? Is there an end to the greed of the laziest?

Do you really believe blue collar workers or the unskilled are lazy? Sometimes that is the only option for them depending on their upbringing and education standards.

Shop assistants, cashiers and the like are on their feet for 8 hours a day and if you've bothered to shop at your local supermarket - you can see how physically hard this is - not to mention monotonous. These are the women who will have to return to work after having a child because they don't have a financial choice.

Those on a high income return to work because they usually want to - but they have a choice. $75,000 tax free often means they can afford to take more time off than someone who receives only $20,000.

Welfare in this country has become ridiculous and out of control. As some of the others have stated before - it should only be for the most needy - not the most greedy.





   

mantra wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:28am:

Quote: The point is, do you have a limit of how much you want to handicap the hardest workers, and the best qualified people?  Or do you want to drag the rewards for effort down to the point where a garbage collector is the pinacle of Australian achievement?  Or do you want to suck the blood out of employers to the (not too distant) point where it`s inviable to opperate in Australia? Is there an end to the greed of the laziest?   Do you really believe blue collar workers or the unskilled are lazy? Sometimes that is the only option for them depending on their upbringing and education standards. Shop assistants, cashiers and the like are on their feet for 8 hours a day and if you've bothered to shop at your local supermarket - you can see how physically hard this is - not to mention monotonous. These are the women who will have to return to work after having a child because they don't have a financial choice. Those on a high income return to work because they usually want to - but they have a choice. $75,000 tax free often means they can afford to take more time off than someone who receives only $20,000. Welfare in this country has become ridiculous and out of control. As some of the others have stated before - it should only be for the most needy - not the most greedy.

Mantra, how could you miss such an obvious point?

I think that if the Liberals form a minority government then the Maternity leave would be likely to go ahead.

I feel that it would have had no chance if the Liberals had won outright because the Liberal Business group owned machine would have never been allowed to introduce their big new tax to pay for it. The Tax would be passed on to consumers and we would all end up paying for this policy.

In the case where the independents have a significant hold there is no way that the Liberals could get away with not introducing this policy in a minority government.

The big problem I see with a minority government of either persuasion is the impact it will have on returning to surplus - the additional projects that the independents are putting into the system will impact on our financial recovery.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 8:52am:

I think that if the Liberals form a minority government then the Maternity leave would be likely to go ahead. I feel that it would have had no chance if the Liberals had won outright because the Liberal Business group owned machine would have never been allowed to introduce their big new tax to pay for it. The Tax would be passed on to consumers and we would all end up paying for this policy. In the case where the independents have a significant hold there is no way that the Liberals could get away with not introducing this policy in a minority government. The big problem I see with a minority government of either persuasion is the impact it will have on returning to surplus - the additional projects that the independents are putting into the system will impact on our financial recovery.

Of course the tax, or cost would be passed on to consumers. How else could it be?  Just a step closer to the State owned Generations.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

... Of course the tax, or cost would be passed on to consumers. How else could it be?...

Well, if the tax is imposed where the capacity to increase prices is constrained. Say, where the taxed operate in an international market, then the cost would have to come from their profits.

Sounds like a very good argument for a resources super profits tax to me.

I think the NBN will fizzle out when people just won't pay the large
cost to get connected.
Optic fiber is expensive to lay in areas where there are too few customers.
I can't see it as a viable business model except in big cities.

Imagine laying out 100 kilometers of optic fiber to a small town
with say 20 customers?
How long would it take to get the money back & how
much would they be charged?

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:30am:

I think the NBN will fizzle out when people just won't pay the large cost to get connected. ...

The plan is to decommission the copper, where fibre is connected to the premises. Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. There are nation-building justifications for subsidising - or not even charging for - some traffic.

National infrastructure is not necessarily commercially viable. The number of failed commercial road projects is evidence of that. Yet nobody pretends that roads should not be built.

People who impose commercial criteria on national infrastructure simply haven't a clue.

Quote:

Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN.

No it won't.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:52am:

Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't.

So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:37am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense.

It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense.

How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/

:(

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:40am:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:37am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/ :(

Ahh, a Market Fundamentalist. I realise that commercial viability is market capitalist dogma, but you worship false gods.

Commercial viability can be nonsense in the context of national infrastructure. Roads, for example, are not necessarily commercially viable. For evidence, research failed commercial road ventures. Nobody's suggesting that roads should not be built to remote communities, just because there's no money in it.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:49am:

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:40am: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:37am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/ :( Ahh, a Market Fundamentalist. I realise that commercial viability is market capitalist dogma, but you worship false gods. Commercial viability can be nonsense in the context of national infrastructure. Roads, for example, are not necessarily commercially viable. For evidence, research failed commercial road ventures. Nobody's suggesting that roads should not be built to remote communities, just because there's no money in it.

oversimplistic reply roads are not old technology by the time, this is laid out if it ever is completed it will be outmoded

. You only have to look at how big the countries is to get the point where not Singapore and South Korea were not the UK we are the size of the United States  

that is only my opinion

;)

John S wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:55pm:

on yahoo Andei you said that you got paid through you company in The Channel Island, so you would never be an Australia PAYE. You also said that you have a blue with the Australia Tax Office. Was that because you weren't paying tax in Australia on your income?

Not that it is related to any of this but I'll answer that.
In 2007, which is when I was talking about I was a PAYE employee.
For 2008 & 2009 I was on a finite contract to re-structure a division.

It was this redundancy payment relating to a finite contract that caused the ATO issue. They queried whether I should have been paid a redundancy but rather a contract closing payment, which obviously have vastly different tax consquences. Had that occurred I would have owed them over A$50,000.

Anyway back to the original points.
The maternity scheme of Abbott's makes sense to me.
If people are going to take time out to have families, then we want to encourage that. We don't want to penalise higher earners and possibly cause them to not have children.
It is of course the middle and higher incomes we want to be having children rather than the poorer end of town.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:

It is of course the middle and higher incomes we want to be having children rather than the poorer end of town.

I'm sure that, in your dotage, you'll want a better class of servant bathing you, spoon-feeding you and wiping your snooty nose and backside - even if they think such is beneath them, eh!?

I was thinking in regards to the national interest.

We want people having children that can -

1) Pay for their education
2) Pay for their healthcare
3) Have such children attain skillsets we badly lack in Australia

No compare that with the crap people, the people who can't afford any of the above, the kids who drop out of school because their parents couldn't give a toss....

See which is better for Australia??

Nah, you probably don't. Still blinded by a hatred of people who have got on in life.

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:54am:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:49am: bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:40am: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:37am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/ :( Ahh, a Market Fundamentalist. I realise that commercial viability is market capitalist dogma, but you worship false gods. Commercial viability can be nonsense in the context of national infrastructure. Roads, for example, are not necessarily commercially viable. For evidence, research failed commercial road ventures. Nobody's suggesting that roads should not be built to remote communities, just because there's no money in it. oversimplistic reply roads are not old technology by the time, this is laid out if it ever is completed it will be outmoded . You only have to look at how big the countries is to get the point where not Singapore and South Korea were not the UK we are the size of the United States   that is only my opinion ;)

Fibre is very basic infrastructure. It seems all shiny and new to most of us, but that's what people in the industry tell me.

Techniques for using fibre are advancing rapidly. Laser frequencies, modulation, keying and something called phase-shift have been mentioned, but the technicalities are frankly well beyond me.

Hence the tenfold increase in potential that drew the mirth of the opposition when announced. In context, that revelation was about as surprising as the realisation that a Ferrari can go faster than a model T Ford. Same infrastructure, different technology.

The potential life of the NBN is five decades or more. Nobody really knows the limits of what fibre can do and how long it will last.

By the time fibre is obsolete, http:// may have been replaced by bmus:// (Beam me up, Scotty)  ;) But I suspect we'll all be long dead by then.

Is the potential benefit worth the cost? I think it's worth a try. Others evidently differ.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:46pm:

bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:54am: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:49am: bwood1946 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:40am: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:37am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense. How can commercial viability be nonsense ????????????????/ :( Ahh, a Market Fundamentalist. I realise that commercial viability is market capitalist dogma, but you worship false gods. Commercial viability can be nonsense in the context of national infrastructure. Roads, for example, are not necessarily commercially viable. For evidence, research failed commercial road ventures. Nobody's suggesting that roads should not be built to remote communities, just because there's no money in it. oversimplistic reply roads are not old technology by the time, this is laid out if it ever is completed it will be outmoded . You only have to look at how big the countries is to get the point where not Singapore and South Korea were not the UK we are the size of the United States   that is only my opinion ;) Fibre is very basic infrastructure. It seems all shiny and new to most of us, but that's what people in the industry tell me. Techniques for using fibre are advancing rapidly. Laser frequencies, modulation, keying and something called phase-shift have been mentioned, but the technicalities are frankly well beyond me. Hence the tenfold increase in potential that drew the mirth of the opposition when announced. In context, that revelation was about as surprising as the realisation that a Ferrari can go faster than a model T Ford. Same infrastructure, different technology. The potential life of the NBN is five decades or more. Nobody really knows the limits of what fibre can do and how long it will last. By the time fibre is obsolete, http:// may have been replaced by bmus:// (Beam me up, Scotty)  ;) But I suspect we'll all be long dead by then. Is the potential benefit worth the cost? I think it's worth a try. Others evidently differ.

The two critical drawbacks of Fibre are

1.  It can't carry power
2.  Very time consuming and expensive to repair when cut, and it will be regularly.  Has everyone forgotten the very recent example when a fibre optic cable was cut on the QLD NSW border; created chaos for two days.

If an ISP can't deliver FO services to the home at a comparable cost to current ADSL services, no-one will sign up for it en-masse.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:50pm:

... If an ISP can't deliver FO services to the home at a comparable cost to current ADSL services, no-one will sign up for it en-masse.

The plan is to decommission the copper when premises are connected to fibre. The premises get the fibre and the occupants buy whatever services they want. There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone, but the occupants won't have the option of staying with what they had.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 1:50pm: ... If an ISP can't deliver FO services to the home at a comparable cost to current ADSL services, no-one will sign up for it en-masse. The plan is to decommission the copper when premises are connected to fibre. The premises get the fibre and the occupants buy whatever services they want. There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone, but the occupants won't have the option of staying with what they had.

but the occupants won't have the option of staying with what they had.  


So cop it sweet or off to the Gulag

that Gillard way

;)

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 1:50pm: ... If an ISP can't deliver FO services to the home at a comparable cost to current ADSL services, no-one will sign up for it en-masse. The plan is to decommission the copper when premises are connected to fibre. The premises get the fibre and the occupants buy whatever services they want. There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone, but the occupants won't have the option of staying with what they had.

So wholesale increases in internet costs will be the norm then?

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:00pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 1:56pm: .... There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone ... So wholesale increases in internet costs will be the norm then?

:-?

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:03pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:00pm: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 1:56pm: .... There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone ... So wholesale increases in internet costs will be the norm then? :-?

Assuming the ALP get in and the NBN goes ahead, then the investment will be recovered from the consumers.  At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b; given labors propensity to underestimate cost and bungle policy implementation, plenty of evidence of that in the last 3 years alone, it would be reasonable to expect a significant cost blow out.  

The cost will be passed on either directly via the ISP or via increased taxes; someone has to pay for it.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:03pm: qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:00pm: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 1:56pm: .... There's no indication that more expensive services will be forced on anyone ... So wholesale increases in internet costs will be the norm then? :-? Assuming the ALP get in and the NBN goes ahead, then the investment will be recovered from the consumers.  At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b; given labors propensity to underestimate cost and bungle policy implementation, plenty of evidence of that in the last 3 years alone, it would be reasonable to expect a significant cost blow out.   The cost will be passed on either directly via the ISP or via increased taxes; someone has to pay for it.

cost blowout of foregone conclusion that this Labor governments way i in compodent and inept

:D

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:37am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 10:52am: Quote: Traditional voice traffic alone will support the NBN. No it won't. So people will stop using their 'phones when fibre replaces copper? Read what I wrote. Traditional voice traffic will support the NBN. It won't necessarily satisfy any commercial viability nonsense.

Listen David know all.
If it was your money you wouldn't spend it.
Guess what - it is your money - tax money.
I don't want my money wasted on 1000s of kilometers of optic fiber
that is only being used by a few kids watching porno.

I agree with Bobby on this one.

People should remember when these billions are wasted by the Government that it is OUR money that they are wasting.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:25pm:

... I don't want my money wasted on 1000s of kilometers of optic fiber that is only being used by a few kids watching porno.

Just because that's your main use for the 'net, don't assume the same of everyone.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:25pm: ... I don't want my money wasted on 1000s of kilometers of optic fiber that is only being used by a few kids watching porno. Just because that's your main use for the 'net, don't assume the same of everyone.

Sorry but the infrastructure plans for a country the size of Australia do not pass an economic test.

If this were a plan for a private company it needs to pass key benchmarks on viability, cost-benefits in quantitative terms and obsolesence - it fails nearly all of them.

Waste of money.
Remember they have already plunged us into debt as it is.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:42pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:25pm: ... I don't want my money wasted on 1000s of kilometers of optic fiber that is only being used by a few kids watching porno. Just because that's your main use for the 'net, don't assume the same of everyone. Sorry but the infrastructure plans for a country the size of Australia do not pass an economic test. If this were a plan for a private company it needs to pass key benchmarks on viability, cost-benefits in quantitative terms and obsolesence - it fails nearly all of them. Waste of money. Remember they have already plunged us into debt as it is.

Australia is a vast continent, with a relatively small and ubiquitous population.

The fair provision of accessible essential public services and infrastructure are not really conducive to highly profitable economies of scale!

Hence, the private sector has been unwilling and/or unable to deliver anywhere near adequate and affordable high-tech telecommunications services outside major metropolitan areas!

Clearly, the private sector has already failed all objective socio-economic tests and benchmarks on this!

This should have been obvious, as far back as when the dogmatic Libs recklessly hocked Telstra (or part thereof - and definitely the wrong parts thereof)...

So, we are back to a predictable situation, where: the private sector is expecting to be subsidised with more Corporate WEALTHfare!

If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed.

There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same.

The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong.

If that BER program had been a program at any of the multi-nationals I have worked for, Julia Gillard as head of it would have been fired immediately.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong.

Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense...

Classic comparison -

The Government's BER and botched pink batts scheme wastes billions of taxpayers money. Builds gyms for schools that want a library and a library for schools that want a gym.
The head of Julia Gillard becomes Prime Minister and asks the country for a second chance and says what a terrific job they have done??

Where I work we rolled out a 2 year plan to build refinery plants in South Asia to cut down supply chain costs, freight, increase headcount net value etc.

The program recently went into production - 20% OVER budget, and 3 months behind original plans.
An email comes out not so long back with the news that the Senior VP of Global Supply Chain (and head of the project) would be 'leaving the company with immediate effect'.

That's the difference and that is why Government's waste so much of our money.

No accountability.

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

... Australia is a vast continent, with a relatively small and ubiquitous population. The fair provision of accessible essential public services and infrastructure are not really conducive to highly profitable economies of scale! Hence, the private sector has been unwilling and/or unable to deliver anywhere near adequate and affordable high-tech telecommunications services outside major metropolitan areas! This should have been obvious, as far back as when the dogmatic Libs recklessly hocked Telstra (or part thereof - and definitely the wrong parts thereof)...

Actually, I think it was Labor that started the Telstra sellout. Howard just took it to a ludicrous extreme.

The market has failed to deliver appropriate telecommunications infrastructure. It just isn't profitable enough (the much-loved Commercial Viability article of the Market Capitalist faith) in most of the nation. Rectifying market failure is a responsibility of government.

A responsible government proposes to honour that. A potential government in waiting doesn't.

Then how do you explain Mrs Thatcher's successful programs of privatisation and the assertion -

"Businesses run businesses best. It is the job of Government to get out of the way"

Governments and public sectors are not good at budgeting, they do not have the accountability.

Providing services is one thing, doing it at an exhorbitant cost to us the taxpayer is quite another.

How else do you explain the Fuelwatch and Grocerywatch that produced NOTHING and cost us a fortune??

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:53pm: ... Australia is a vast continent, with a relatively small and ubiquitous population. The fair provision of accessible essential public services and infrastructure are not really conducive to highly profitable economies of scale! Hence, the private sector has been unwilling and/or unable to deliver anywhere near adequate and affordable high-tech telecommunications services outside major metropolitan areas! This should have been obvious, as far back as when the dogmatic Libs recklessly hocked Telstra (or part thereof - and definitely the wrong parts thereof)... Actually, I think it was Labor that started the Telstra sellout. Howard just took it to a ludicrous extreme. The market has failed to deliver appropriate telecommunications infrastructure. It just isn't profitable enough (the much-loved Commercial Viability article of the Market Capitalist faith) in most of the nation. Rectifying market failure is a responsibility of government. A responsible government proposes to honour that responsibility. A potential government in waiting doesn't.

You're right david....Keating did the original 1/3 stock sale of Telstra (which did provide a lot of cash when we needed it)..
But NO government should have allowed the total sales to go beyond 49%....which Howard did.....and which was an incredibly stupid thing to do....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Then how do you explain Mrs Thatcher's successful programs of privatisation and the assertion - "Businesses run businesses best. It is the job of Government to get out of the way" Governments and public sectors are not good at budgeting, they do not have the accountability. Providing services is one thing, doing it at an exhorbitant cost to us the taxpayer is quite another. How else do you explain the Fuelwatch and Grocerywatch that produced NOTHING and cost us a fortune??

You can allow 'Businesses' to run something like Telstra, without giving away ALL control and revenue....

Quote:

At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b

WHY LIE???

Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions?

"Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion

Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion
Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion
Overhead: $2 billion
Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion

Total: $42.8 billion"

Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in.
WRONG!!!

The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment.

So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it??

The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm

So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative.


"Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge."

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. If that BER program had been a program at any of the multi-nationals I have worked for, Julia Gillard as head of it would have been fired immediately.

If the BER  has been run by a private company only half of the money would have been wasted and a lot less examples of unusable and unwanted buildings would have occured.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:

Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge."

Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time.
A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste?

IF IF IF

IF we had not been on the brink of a catastrophic recession, more planning would have been great.

If we had years to sort through plans and projections, some projects would have been altered or rejected.

If we had chosen to spend time on installing enough oversights to guarantee their would be no waste, we would have failed to protect the building industry from catastrophic collapse, and an ensuing cataclysmic round of company failures and layoffs.

The building industry, not the mining industry, is the bread and butter industry this country runs on, and when the building industry sneezes, we all catch cold.

In reflection we always find mistakes we would change, but on balance, the BER was a brilliantly well run scheme, and deserves to be seen as such, despite the odd few rorts and stuff ups, which the opposition misrepresent dramatically, but disingenuously, and which pale in comparison to the vast majority of great projects delivered that benefit our kids, and our economy.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:

Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge."

Given that the NBN costs are ESTIMATES only and that there has been no cost benefit analysis nor viability analysis and that there private sector involvement is ASSUMED and not actually in place Id say the current estimate of $43B is no more than a guess.

ANd given that nothing the labor govt did came in anywhere near on budget or acheived any of its stated goals why shoudl we expect such a massive project to do so? That would be silly.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

... Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time. A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste?

It does seem to be that governments do what business is afraid to do.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

... Given that the NBN costs are ESTIMATES only ... Id say the current estimate of $43B is no more than a guess. ...

Treasury estimates no more than guesses? Your biases are showing.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:23pm: Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge." Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time. A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste?

and if u remember your history you will recall that the state governments each chose a different rail guage and the result was a mess. are you sure you want to compare the two???

and what needs to not be forgotten is that we actually DO have a broadband network that works and works very well. Im all for increasing the network and fixing up the substandard parts but a completely new network? not so sure of thet need and at the truly gigantic cost it is rididulous.

Your comparison with a railway network looks a little silly if the govt had bulit an entirely new railtway network to overcome the shortfalls in the original one. they took the proper and responsible course and fixed the old one instead of building a brand new one.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

... If the BER  has been run by a private company only half of the money would have been wasted ...

So you acknowledge that a private company couldn't have avoided waste under the circumstances. That's unusually honest for around here.

Could any single company have handled the workload? Could they have delivered in the timeframe?

Quote:

and if u remember your history you will recall that the state governments each chose a different rail guage and the result was a mess. are you sure you want to compare the two???

Yet another great argument for getting rid of these waste of money layer of government.
And the network being built by the feds not the idiot states.


Quote:

Your comparison with a railway network looks a little silly if the govt had bulit an entirely new railtway network to overcome the shortfalls in the original one. they took the proper and responsible course and fixed the old one instead of building a brand new one.

I believe we are upgrading the network not building a whole new one.
I maybe wrong I'm not a "tech head" ;D ;D ;D
I'm more concerned with Conroy's censorship >:(
With your premiss the old nokia brick was enough and all the improvements to mobiles are a waste.

Quote:

that works and works very well

Sorry Longy, but you know not of what you speak.

The description of "an aging, rotting, copper network", is not hyperbole, but an accurate description of what we have.

Do you maintain a T model ford as your daily drive?
Of course not, most people recognise the inherent value of having a modern vehicle that delivers comfort, safety, and reliability, and it is a sound principle that makes them take that decision.
The NBN is replacing our country's T model copper network, with a state of the art fibre network that will deliver both reliability, and functionality, that NO COPPER network, ever could, irrespective of how much you spent on it.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

... Quote: Your comparison with a railway network looks a little silly if the govt had bulit an entirely new railtway network to overcome the shortfalls in the original one. they took the proper and responsible course and fixed the old one instead of building a brand new one. I believe we are upgrading the network not building a whole new one. I maybe wrong I'm not a "tech head" ;D ;D ;D

The proposal is to replace all, or nearly all, of the existing copper with fibre. Existing network infrastructure that's suitable will be incorporated into the NBN. I think the election interrupted the signing of an agreement with Telstra, but the other telco's are on board. To the best of my knowledge.  :)

Quote:

I'm more concerned with Conroy's censorship >:(

First, we need the infrastructure. The censorship thing is a reminder that we're really only getting the best of an abysmal choice. If "best" is an appropriate term.

Quote:

With your premiss the old nokia brick was enough and all the improvements to mobiles are a waste.

Steam's the way of the future. We don't need these new-fangled sealed roads. Railroads; build more railroads!

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:26pm: ... If the BER  has been run by a private company only half of the money would have been wasted ... So you acknowledge that a private company couldn't have avoided waste under the circumstances. That's unusually honest for around here. Could any single company have handled the workload? Could they have delivered in the timeframe?

no company can avoid waste. this isnt an either/or question. its ia relative one. even an incompetent and inefficient private company would not produce the levels of waste the govt did with the BER.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:00pm:

Quote: and if u remember your history you will recall that the state governments each chose a different rail guage and the result was a mess. are you sure you want to compare the two??? Yet another great argument for getting rid of these waste of money layer of government. And the network being built by the feds not the idiot states. [quote]Your comparison with a railway network looks a little silly if the govt had bulit an entirely new railtway network to overcome the shortfalls in the original one. they took the proper and responsible course and fixed the old one instead of building a brand new one.

I believe we are upgrading the network not building a whole new one.
I maybe wrong I'm not a "tech head" ;D ;D ;D
I'm more concerned with Conroy's censorship >:(
With your premiss the old nokia brick was enough and all the improvements to mobiles are a waste.


[/quote]

Once again you are failing to understand the core of my issues. is fiber to the home superior? yes. is it exciting and wonderful and amazing? yes will my downloads of pirate movies and tv shows come down a lot faster? absolutely. Do i want it? sure do!

can we afford it? NO.

The Bugatti Veyron is a vastly superior car than mine in absolutely every way. and i want one - very bad. but the reality is it wont go any faster than my current car because there is virtually nowhere to take it. and then there is the problem that i cant afford it - ever.

THATS MY POINT.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:36pm:

... can we afford it? NO. ...

Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise.

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:56pm: If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense...

You can fix anything with a big bucket of money Thy.

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:23pm:

Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge."

Excuse my error, we would essentially be splitting hairs there.  Happy enough to call it $43b?

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:56pm: If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense... You can fix anything with a big bucket of money Thy.

Yep look at our NHS in Britain.

Billions upon billions upon billions of pounds and what does it look like still?
A whole heap of shyte.

Socialism - throw more and more money at a problem and don't worry about profitability or economic viability, that's not our style.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 3:28pm:

mozzaok wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:23pm: Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge." Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time. A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste?

Absolutely.  How many different gauges did Australia have as a consequence of states not been able to agree on the standard?

Colossal stuff up and considerable waste of money.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 4:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:36pm: ... can we afford it? NO. ... Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise.

actually they dont at all. Industry is generally unconvinced unless they ahve been provided with a large segment of the pie in whcih case they are enthusiastic (of course). Treasury - that monument to failed predictions and faulty modelling - hasnt even bothered to model the cost. But somewhere deep inside you, where your integrity lies buried deep within you partisan soul, havent even YOU asked why when our hospitals are failing, our river network in historical distress and our education system suffering that we chose the BIGGEST EXPENSE in our history on the internet?

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:02pm:

Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:56pm: If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense... You can fix anything with a big bucket of money Thy.

Absolutely!!! just ask Greece....

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:33pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 5:02pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:56pm: If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense... You can fix anything with a big bucket of money Thy. Absolutely!!! just ask Greece....

I wonder if Greece sent a thank you card to Berlin?

qikvtec wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:10pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:28pm: mozzaok wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:23pm: Quote: At last estimate the cost of the NBN was $47b WHY LIE??? Are you afraid the truth will be insufficient to support your opinions? "Fibre to 90 per cent of premises: $26.6 billion Last 10 per cent of premises: $5.3 billion Backhaul (connecting networks together): $3.3 billion Overhead: $2 billion Out tuning (with 2.5 per cent inflation): $5.6 billion Total: $42.8 billion" Now another lie the opposition has been pushing hard on, and all the whiners swallowed hook line and sinker is the government is pouring 43billion in. WRONG!!! The government investment is 27 billion, the rest comes from private investment. So it is a big investment in our country, and in our future, so is it worth it?? The Drum on the ABC has a comprehensive article that lays out all the salient facts and does not take political sides, so check it out for yourself, here; http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/20/2989172.htm So I will leave you with this quote from that article, it sums up pretty well the Opposition alternative. "Then there's the alternative. Opponents to slam the Government's proposal for being drawn up on the back of a napkin. Well if the $25 million implementation study represents a napkin it's tricky to say what the $6 billion alternative scheme was drawn up on. Pouring $6 billion into a rotting copper network and virtually-unfeasible wireless network to achieve peak speeds that the Japanese were rolling out nine years ago is a rather depressing vision of Australia's technological future. As a value proposition, you be the judge." Just watching the Insiders now and a great point on the cost of the NBN was that back in the day the railways were a massive investment at the time. A nice comparision I thought, anyone want to dispute that the rail network was a waste? Absolutely.  How many different gauges did Australia have as a consequence of states not been able to agree on the standard? Colossal stuff up and considerable waste of money.

The best example I can use is the bridge over the river murray at Yarrawonga. two state govts were involved and both started their ends of the bridge... AT DIFFERENT locations and different elevations. This stupid bridge now has an odd bend to compensate for the fact that this was not only a govt project but a TWO GOVT project. two layters of arrogance and incompetence trying to (literally) meet in the middle and missing by a very large margin.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 5:33pm: qikvtec wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 5:02pm: Equitist wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 3:00pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 2:56pm: If publicly funded programs do not pass economic viability and profitability tests that private companies enact - then they should not proceed. There is a reason private companies stay afloat and a reason why so many public Government funded schemes fall flat - because they don't treat it the same. The Government assumes it would be a bottomless pit of our money - which is wrong. Trust a right whinger, to reduce all socio-economic factors down to dollars and no common sense... You can fix anything with a big bucket of money Thy. Absolutely!!! just ask Greece.... I wonder if Greece sent a thank you card to Berlin?

Greece got a little upset because the Germans unfairly demanded that the Greeks increase their pension age from 57 to 67 - liek Germany.

tough.

Socialism... grand ideas wrapped up in arrogance and delivered with incompetence... at someone elses expense!

Why we allowed Greece into the EU is still a mystery to me.

It's a beautiful country, I went there a lot as a kid but its a banana republic in everyway.
It has an absurd social system and expects Britain, Germany and the Netherlands to bail them out all the time.

Same with Portugal and Ireland.

Madness.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:42pm:

Why we allowed Greece into the EU is still a mystery to me. It's a beautiful country, I went there a lot as a kid but its a banana republic in everyway. It has an absurd social system and expects Britain, Germany and the Netherlands to bail them out all the time. Same with Portugal and Ireland. Madness.

They are lazy. pure and simple. businesses avoid tax as part of the national ethos. workers do so only on occasion and then expect to retire at 57.

The amusing thing about this Super Broadband Network is that if it is ever up and running, very few of the population will be able to afford the download speeds which labor promotes…….companies/big business yes, the average user NO.  Do labor idiots really think that the very fast download speeds are going to be free?

Del_has_returned wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:56pm:

The amusing thing about this Super Broadband Network is that if it is ever up and running, very few of the population will be able to afford the download speeds which labor promotes…….companies/big business yes, the average user NO.  Do labor idiots really think that the very fast download speeds are going to be free?

The labor gopvt and its supporters tend not to think. it is generally "i want therefore I will have". And it is up to those awful liberals and middle/upper income parasites to pay for it!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 5:32pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:36pm: ... can we afford it? NO. ... Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise. actually they dont at all. Industry is generally unconvinced unless they ahve been provided with a large segment of the pie in whcih case they are enthusiastic (of course). Treasury - that monument to failed predictions and faulty modelling - hasnt even bothered to model the cost. But somewhere deep inside you, where your integrity lies buried deep within you partisan soul, havent even YOU asked why when our hospitals are failing, our river network in historical distress and our education system suffering that we chose the BIGGEST EXPENSE in our history on the internet?

I guess it comes down to who's most credible. I'll go with Treasury.  :)

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 5:32pm: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:36pm: ... can we afford it? NO. ... Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise. actually they dont at all. Industry is generally unconvinced unless they ahve been provided with a large segment of the pie in whcih case they are enthusiastic (of course). Treasury - that monument to failed predictions and faulty modelling - hasnt even bothered to model the cost. But somewhere deep inside you, where your integrity lies buried deep within you partisan soul, havent even YOU asked why when our hospitals are failing, our river network in historical distress and our education system suffering that we chose the BIGGEST EXPENSE in our history on the internet? I guess it comes down to who's most credible. I'll go with Treasury.  :)

You clearly don't appreciate how poorly the Australian Treasury have forecasted in the past then.

They are notoriously inept and have to revise their figures ALL THE TIME.

Qualifying for my CA they always used to say "If you can't get a job in banking or industry, you can always go work for the Treasury"

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 6:39pm:

# wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 6:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 5:32pm: # wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 4:36pm: ... can we afford it? NO. ... Intelligent and knowledgeable people, with access to far better information than you or I, say otherwise. actually they dont at all. Industry is generally unconvinced unless they ahve been provided with a large segment of the pie in whcih case they are enthusiastic (of course). Treasury - that monument to failed predictions and faulty modelling - hasnt even bothered to model the cost. But somewhere deep inside you, where your integrity lies buried deep within you partisan soul, havent even YOU asked why when our hospitals are failing, our river network in historical distress and our education system suffering that we chose the BIGGEST EXPENSE in our history on the internet? I guess it comes down to who's most credible. I'll go with Treasury.  :) You clearly don't appreciate how poorly the Australian Treasury have forecasted in the past then. They are notoriously inept and have to revise their figures ALL THE TIME. Qualifying for my CA they always used to say "If you can't get a job in banking or industry, you can always go work for the Treasury"

very true. Their record for modelling and prediction is so bad that frankly the opinion of you taxi driver has a higher success rate. Remember the 11% uneployment rate they predicted for this year? the $315B+ debt?

and there's more...