Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Remove this Banner Ad

And few have our supply of uranium in the ground.


View attachment 1910121
Your point being? That doesn't make building or running the reactor any cheaper. Dutton's master plan was for Australia to invest in small modular reactors. There are precisely zero of these in commercial use, anywhere around the world - the USA was going to build one, but recently cancelled it due to cost. Then there's the question of where Dutton wants to put them... it's odd that he remains completely silent on this subject.

The simple fact is that nuclear is and always will be more expensive than coal, wind, solar, or hydro. Until fusion reactors become a thing (at least 30+ years away), there won't be any interest in building a nuclear power station in Australia on economic grounds alone - before taking the NIMBY factor into account.
 
Your point being? That doesn't make building or running the reactor any cheaper. Dutton's master plan was for Australia to invest in small modular reactors. There are precisely zero of these in commercial use, anywhere around the world - the USA was going to build one, but recently cancelled it due to cost. Then there's the question of where Dutton wants to put them... it's odd that he remains completely silent on this subject.

The simple fact is that nuclear is and always will be more expensive than coal, wind, solar, or hydro. Until fusion reactors become a thing (at least 30+ years away), there won't be any interest in building a nuclear power station in Australia on economic grounds alone - before taking the NIMBY factor into account.
Capital Hill Canberra?

Already plenty of toxic waste there.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Your point being? That doesn't make building or running the reactor any cheaper. Dutton's master plan was for Australia to invest in small modular reactors. There are precisely zero of these in commercial use, anywhere around the world - the USA was going to build one, but recently cancelled it due to cost. Then there's the question of where Dutton wants to put them... it's odd that he remains completely silent on this subject.

The simple fact is that nuclear is and always will be more expensive than coal, wind, solar, or hydro. Until fusion reactors become a thing (at least 30+ years away), there won't be any interest in building a nuclear power station in Australia on economic grounds alone - before taking the NIMBY factor into account.

He is silent because he its political suicide. He is merely trying to create the discussion hoping some billionaire pipes up and says they will build it.
 

I will have to read it. But I can't imagine the forced loneliness of being at home and the loss of jobs etc could have also impacted health. Loneliness is regarded as a bigger killer than smoking in the over 60s bracket. Don't get me wrong, I think there should be all sorts of studies, but what factors were taken into account to isolate the living conditions from the jabs during the covid years.
 

Thanks Mali, thanks Ash the Ambo. You've both done well.

Resignations must be coming surely?

I could have sworn this was an election issue.But I may have been mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Saw this on another sight today.:think:

on ABC for Kids...


GGnNNRyaoAAGIGp
 
Saw this on another sight today.:think:

on ABC for Kids...


GGnNNRyaoAAGIGp
It's not ABC Kids at that hour of the night.

That channel has dual usage/programming - it's ABC Kids during the day, ABC TVPlus at night (with more adult oriented shows). It stops showing ABC Kids shows at 7:30pm.
 
Q New
It's not ABC Kids at that hour of the night.

That channel has dual usage/programming - it's ABC Kids during the day, ABC TVPlus at night (with more adult oriented shows). It stops showing ABC Kids shows at 7:30pm.

Given that the channel is filled with adult content after 7:30 I can't say I'm surprised that the one and only program that's been cherry picked is a LGBTQ program.

Clearly for some Interview with a Vampire passes the pub test for a "kids channel", but a LGBTQ program is a bridge too far.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Succinct!!!!!



Would be good to see the whole picture here.

Is it actually the same property? Have there been any changes to the property between those dates? What was the land value assessment on the two dates? And the bottom of the 2022 assessment is covered - was the Covid repayment plan information on there too?

Don't just eat up information without any verification. Oh wait, that is just what you do.

Edit: a cursory review of land tax rates in Vic shows this is complete bullshit. The amount payable for 2022 puts the value of the property at about $1 million. The amount for 2024 puts it at about $1.6 million. That covers the bulk of the increase.

Even if the value was the same between the two years, the repayment plan would add around $1,000 to $1,500. Not exactly the $6,000 being suggested here.

And these are for investment properties. Manufactured outrage.
 
Last edited:
So let's get this straight, purchased with $300,000,000 of taxpayers money now they want to sell?


An ILSC spokesperson said there would be "ongoing consultation and engagement with the local First Nations peoples to understand their aspirations and in particular who should benefit from the land divestment process and how those benefits are to flow".

"At this stage, there is no certainty as to what the ultimate outcome of the assessment will be," the spokesperson said.
 
Would be good to see the whole picture here.

Is it actually the same property? Have there been any changes to the property between those dates? What was the land value assessment on the two dates? And the bottom of the 2022 assessment is covered - was the Covid repayment plan information on there too?

Don't just eat up information without any verification. Oh wait, that is just what you do.

Edit: a cursory review of land tax rates in Vic shows this is complete bullshit. The amount payable for 2022 puts the value of the property at about $1 million. The amount for 2024 puts it at about $1.6 million. That covers the bulk of the increase.

Even if the value was the same between the two years, the repayment plan would add around $1,000 to $1,500. Not exactly the $6,000 being suggested here.

And these are for investment properties. Manufactured outrage.

I went on the SRO website and worked it out too as well either the land value has increased 50% in two years or they've bought another property (which is the most likely)

It's like the post before about the ABC, it's intentionally misleading just to create outrage and people don't even bother to check whether it's accurate before posting it.
 
Last edited:
So let's get this straight, purchased with $300,000,000 of taxpayers money now they want to sell?


An ILSC spokesperson said there would be "ongoing consultation and engagement with the local First Nations peoples to understand their aspirations and in particular who should benefit from the land divestment process and how those benefits are to flow".

"At this stage, there is no certainty as to what the ultimate outcome of the assessment will be," the spokesperson said.
It literally tells you in the article

The ILSC's primary objective is to fulfil its statutory obligations of returning land to First Nations peoples, and in doing so, create Indigenous benefit for traditional owners, and local, regional, and national First Nations peoples," a spokesperson said in a statement
 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed concerns as a scare campaign drive by the opposition and said there would be no impact on the price of the cars most targeted by the policy, especially the favoured utes.

“There’s a few big vehicles in the United States,” he said. “Indeed, they’re a fair bit bigger than vehicles that are available here.”

But one industry figure, who asked not to be identified, said the comparison with the US was false. Car making in America was heavily subsidised and vehicles weighing over 3.86 metric tonnes were exempt from the emissions standards, which was why US manufacturers made such big utes.


The Australian government’s preferred standard has an upper mass limit of 4.5 tonnes for light commercial vehicles, meaning it would include many vehicles not included in the US standard, the source said. That includes 45 per cent of all the F-series trucks – America’s best-selling vehicle.

Also, the Americas do not put the heavy 4WDs in a different category.

“I don’t think there is any genuine opposition to Australia introducing a fuel efficiency standard and I don’t think anyone would be opposed to us copying what they have in the USA.”

“Where the government is cocking this up, is that what they’ve proposed looks nothing like what they have in the USA.”

Another industry source said it was clear the government did not understand its policy and had made an error by announcing its preferred option at the start of the four-week consultation phase.


This would make any sensible change look like a backdown, he said.


Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said it was “inconceivable that the government can go ahead with this new tax on cars and utes”.

“I don’t know any tradies in the country at the moment who can afford to pay Albo’s $15,000 tax on a Toyota HiLux,” he said.
GG2RaUKaQAA4gCd
 
Last edited:

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed concerns as a scare campaign drive by the opposition and said there would be no impact on the price of the cars most targeted by the policy, especially the favoured utes.

“There’s a few big vehicles in the United States,” he said. “Indeed, they’re a fair bit bigger than vehicles that are available here.”

But one industry figure, who asked not to be identified, said the comparison with the US was false. Car making in America was heavily subsidised and vehicles weighing over 3.86 metric tonnes were exempt from the emissions standards, which was why US manufacturers made such big utes.


The Australian government’s preferred standard has an upper mass limit of 4.5 tonnes for light commercial vehicles, meaning it would include many vehicles not included in the US standard, the source said. That includes 45 per cent of all the F-series trucks – America’s best-selling vehicle.

Also, the Americas do not put the heavy 4WDs in a different category.

“I don’t think there is any genuine opposition to Australia introducing a fuel efficiency standard and I don’t think anyone would be opposed to us copying what they have in the USA.”

“Where the government is cocking this up, is that what they’ve proposed looks nothing like what they have in the USA.”

Another industry source said it was clear the government did not understand its policy and had made an error by announcing its preferred option at the start of the four-week consultation phase.


This would make any sensible change look like a backdown, he said.


Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said it was “inconceivable that the government can go ahead with this new tax on cars and utes”.

“I don’t know any tradies in the country at the moment who can afford to pay Albo’s $15,000 tax on a Toyota HiLux,” he said.
GG2RaUKaQAA4gCd
What are you complaining about, our electricity bills have come down by $275.00 - the prime minister told us they would and he keeps his promises. This other stuff you post is just white noise (to them)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top