Sensational-Adelaide.com

Will wrote: Regarding the tiered system, I don't think it is fair for an ordinary worker on $38k a year paying the same amount as a plastic surgeon on $1 million a year. The value of money is relative to how much you have. If you have more, you can afford to pay more. Punishments such as speeding fines are eant to be a deterent. If I was rich, a $200 fine would not put me off speeding, because the monetary equivalent would be like paying $10 now as a student.

But then you'd have a system whereby the same offence is worth different amounts to the government when committed by different people. The law simply cannot be randomly applied based on subjective factors determined by the government of the day. Do you index for inflation? What about people with substantial assets but little income? Do the unemployed not pay any fines? At what point is a worker no longer considered ''ordinary'? If offending is more likely to occur in lower income brackets, why would you impose lesser fines upon the very people who are more likely to offend? And so on.

And regarding home ownership, my proposal is based on my belief that home ownership is for everyone, not just the rich. I would hate to live in a society where working people can work as hard as they can yet never own their own home. I feel that such grants actually serve to inflate the price of property which negates their purpose to begin with.

I agree with you that all these home-buyer grants have contributed to rising prices to some degree, but so too has an entitlement mentality that empowers people to stick their hand out to the government for assistance in the first place rather than keeping a tighter reign on one's finances and having realistic expectations in the first place. Even allowing for the upward pressure of grants on prices, if a person has to be propped up by government to be able to afford a home, then they shouldn't be buying one in the first place.

Omicron wrote:But then you'd have a system whereby the same offence is worth different amounts to the government when committed by different people. The law simply cannot be randomly applied based on subjective factors determined by the government of the day. Do you index for inflation? What about people with substantial assets but little income? Do the unemployed not pay any fines? At what point is a worker no longer considered ''ordinary'? If offending is more likely to occur in lower income brackets, why would you impose lesser fines upon the very people who are more likely to offend? And so on.

Not sure if I have an opinion on this or not, and I'm not sure if this is even comparable. But I'd like to point out that the courts do adjust bail and fines dependant on the accused's means. However the result of this is normally that poor people end up in remand while rich people await trail at home.

Happy people should pay more tax.

That makes me sad.

AtD wrote:That makes me sad.

AtD wrote:That makes me sad.

ah, social equalisation achieved!

I wish journalists would properly reference the quotes they supposedly take from 'reports' and such so the rest of us can try to gather some context. Not a single report I can find from the Sustainable Budget Commission says anything like what one of the Advertiser reporters have claimed. Bah.

I blame the capatalist society we live in. The cirpirate grttd of the media arez always planning with the Liberals to take this country over. It's all abut the money, and never about the people who need hep such as the developers.

Omicron wrote:

Will wrote: Regarding the tiered system, I don't think it is fair for an ordinary worker on $38k a year paying the same amount as a plastic surgeon on $1 million a year. The value of money is relative to how much you have. If you have more, you can afford to pay more. Punishments such as speeding fines are eant to be a deterent. If I was rich, a $200 fine would not put me off speeding, because the monetary equivalent would be like paying $10 now as a student.

But then you'd have a system whereby the same offence is worth different amounts to the government when committed by different people. The law simply cannot be randomly applied based on subjective factors determined by the government of the day. Do you index for inflation? What about people with substantial assets but little income? Do the unemployed not pay any fines? At what point is a worker no longer considered ''ordinary'? If offending is more likely to occur in lower income brackets, why would you impose lesser fines upon the very people who are more likely to offend? And so on.

And regarding home ownership, my proposal is based on my belief that home ownership is for everyone, not just the rich. I would hate to live in a society where working people can work as hard as they can yet never own their own home. I feel that such grants actually serve to inflate the price of property which negates their purpose to begin with.

I agree with you that all these home-buyer grants have contributed to rising prices to some degree, but so too has an entitlement mentality that empowers people to stick their hand out to the government for assistance in the first place rather than keeping a tighter reign on one's finances and having realistic expectations in the first place. Even allowing for the upward pressure of grants on prices, if a person has to be propped up by government to be able to afford a home, then they shouldn't be buying one in the first place.

The current cost of speeding fines in SA is:

Less than 15 km/h over the limit: $190 + one point.
15 to 30 km/h over the limit: $302 + two points.
More than 31 km/h over the limit: $453 + four points.

I never suggested that the unemployed or lower income earners would pay no fines. They would continue to pay the existing fines. However, because the value you give to money is relative to how much you have, I suggest that it would be fair for those earning say above $100 000 to pay double the amount, and for those earning above $250 000 to pay triple. So if for example, someone earning above $250 000 was caught speeding 10km/hr over the limit, then instead of paying $190, they would pay $570. This will ensure that fines serve as a deterrent for everyone. The income brackets quoted of course are arbitrary, but there is no scientific way of determining where these brackets should be implemented; just like the income tax brackets. And yes, these brackets would be indexed to inflation, so that over time, with increasing wages, the value of the fines remain the same.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've kept you on my Christmas card list, mind.

Omicron wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've kept you on my Christmas card list, mind.

I always love a robust debate.

Having gone to a private school, most, if not all my mates are on the other end of the political rainbow. Even though as the only ''commo'', and the numerous debates that have occured between us, I still love them, and have over time learnt to agree to disagree. So yes, you too are still on my May Day card list.

Will wrote:

Aidan wrote: But just look at who SA has elected: Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann. Which one of them is not proof that, far from being abolished, the upper house should be given more power?

What's your point? neither of those men is a redneck hick.

Neither of the four of them? Will, Will, Will, come on, you're better than that!

rhino wrote:

Will wrote:

Aidan wrote: But just look at who SA has elected: Bannon, Brown, Olsen, Rann. Which one of them is not proof that, far from being abolished, the upper house should be given more power?

What's your point? neither of those men is a redneck hick.

Neither of the four of them? Will, Will, Will, come on, you're better than that!

According to Will there's only two men there.

Seems the state govt will save $5.6m pa by doing away with car rego sticky labels from July 2011!

We'll be following the WA model where the police check your rego by entering your numberplate details into their in-car system. You will still receive your annual payment reminder in the mail and can check your rego status online (or via a phone number).

Wayno wrote:Seems the state govt will save $5.6m pa by doing away with car rego sticky labels from July 2011!

We'll be following the WA model where the police check your rego by entering your numberplate details into their in-car system. You will still receive your annual payment reminder in the mail and can check your rego status online (or via a phone number).

The part I don't like is that they're doing away with the 6 month rego. You can go for 3 months or 12 months only. I have always paid my rego every 6 months - it's affordable at the time, without making too much of a donation in the long term.