Printable View
Sounds complicated and difficult to manage. A bit like the different regulations and laws in each State of Australia :wink:Quote:
Each participating countries' central bank and government is required to ensure that its currency (and inflation) remains within a narrow margin in relation to the other euros. If not the other central banks are allowed to intervene in that currency and country to ensure that the relativity is maintained.
State of Origin is only a good idea when NSW is winning :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
Bugga! I'd overlooked that? Hmm? Back to the drawiing board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mac
The push in Qld for a new northern state has been around for a couple of generations (at least) and was/is solely about State tax expenditure.
I think the European Union experiment is nothing like what this conversation is about - we ARE one country, overgoverned beyond belief, at breaking-point cost to the community.
In Mildura (as one instance) three local administering bodies exist ALL under the State umbrella, and each raising separate funds (tax). In addition Mildura participates in the Boarder Anomalies Committee (some such name) which is a nonsense and achieves VERY LITTLE, if anything, because it has no administrative power - it smiply reports/recommends to State, and advises LG on what its Meetings discuss.
It is not widely known Broken Hill (in NSW) is on South Aust time and relates more to SA than Siddeney - many community members feel isolated (politically) from a Syndey-centric NSW government. The huge LG area has often discussed seceding to SA, and the same can be said of Wentworth Shire across a couple of bridges from Mildura - which shows how isolated Sydney makes these taxpayers, because Mildura also complains of the Melbourne-centric arrogance.
Removing State governments would in a very short period pay any cost involved in the restructure of regional administration, and the adoption of country-wide 'everything'. Then those cost savings could/should be left with the tax payers. I estimate a saving of some $????s annually.
Actually, I believe this change will happen, and sooner rather than later.
soth
Personally I'd just ditch the councils. Legally there is much more chance of that happening too.
Either way what about all the money that gets chucked at the bush. Like every time there is a drought. How many uneconomical farms are out there and should have gone broke been shut down except for the subsidies due to drought.
What about the latest offer from the Commonwealth to take over water includes billions on dollars to provide capital investment for farmers to use water better! Damn that sucks. What about money for capital investment for photographers! You wouldn't believe the cost of the stuff we are using and the market pressures that digital compacts have put on us.
So what about it poor hard working photographers deserve a hand out just like farmers after all this crisis we face is much worse than any drought because it is not going to end and it is only going to get worse.
Did that fly? Nah didn't think it would. So why does it fly for the country? Complaining about not getting money is a bit slack. Politicians count the votes and send the money where the most votes are.
Personally ending subsidies will get the no hopers out allow the rest to prosper and you end up with a wealthier region and a wealthier country. Subsidies have long ago been proved to rob liberty and cause an economy to take the long slippery slope to oblivion. Such are Russia. Actually look at Europe and it's famed socialism and Eurosclerosis. Sweden long the darling of the socialist left has been bought out by and large and America continues to be the number one economy. Challenged by China it is true who do it by pursuing the free market.
Nah ditch the Councils who are an extra and unneccesary level of government, they tax but basically do nothing apart from clog up enterprise and put in a few speed humps so they can say they did something.
Studley
It's a pity that us New South Welshmen, West Australians, and Victorians have to support you buggers in South Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddles
If you were aware of that then you might quit your whingeing: -
You can pay us back our $415.30c (plus whatever it was for all the rest of the years) whenever you want. :wink: Then you can complain about getting "shafted" :hahaha:Quote:
New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia receive less than equal per capita shares under the Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation arrangements because the Commission has assessed their fiscal capacity to be relatively strong. For example, the Commission assessed that New South Wales has a relatively stronger capacity to raise revenue from land tax and stamp duty on property transfers; Victoria has a relatively lower cost of providing state government services; and Western Australia has a relatively strong capacity to raise revenue from mining activities. The remaining States receive more than an equal per capita share of funding because the Commission has assessed their fiscal capacity to be lower and/or their costs of service delivery to be higher.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2003-04/bp3/html/chapter1.htm
It's a pity that us New South Welshmen, West Australians, and Victorians have to support you buggers in South Australia.
If you were aware of that then you might quit your whingeing: -
You may not have intended it, but thanks for your support. Abolishing the states would eliminate all the whingeing, back biting and petty interstate rivalries that now exist in this country.
Us buggers in South Australia are also Australians. Don't forget that.
Ahh but is photography a primary industry? Is it a major export? That's where your problem lies. It's traditional to bale out primary producers because they have more impact on the bottom line.Quote:
poor hard working photographers deserve a hand out just like farmers
Well it earns export dollars and won't need 2 cents to prop up compared to farming
Either way if you read on you'll see I stamped myself as being anti subsidies and handouts
Studley
"It's traditional to bale out primary producers because they have more impact on the bottom line."
Puleeese? Don't introduce a new dimension to the debate, and if you must there's surely something better than lines on bottams.
soth<!-- / message -->
Whipping??? Where.....:D