Sensational-Adelaide.com

Extension of the Flinders line to Flagstaff Hill, Aberfoyle Park and Happy Valley.

Norman wrote:-Upgrade of Grenfell and Currie Street

Yes please!

Ben wrote:Extension of the Flinders line to Flagstaff Hill, Aberfoyle Park and Happy Valley.

And be renamed the "Happy Line"

Kouts hinted at transport for the suburbs.

A tram line to Norwood is a given and Gawler rail electrification.

I thought Regency and Pym was already annouced?

A wildcard - Emerson overpass duplication and grade seperation of Seaford rail line.

[Shuz] wrote:I thought Regency and Pym was already annouced?

It was more an announcement of "this is what we'll do next" rather that "we have committed funding to".

Basically they will be waiting for the feds to put in more money before this project sees the light of day.

I think the cost is $400m, so that would mean $80m from the state and $320m from the feds.

[Shuz] wrote:A wildcard - Emerson overpass duplication and grade seperation of Seaford rail line.

That would be good, especially if they co-ordinate works with the Oaklands underpass.

If the government would like something for free, I would gladly pay for someone (or do myself) the announcements on the trains. The current voice is a shocker. Where the hell is "Moile Ind"?

Norman wrote: If the government would like something for free, I would gladly pay for someone (or do myself) the announcements on the trains. The current voice is a shocker. Where the hell is "Moile Ind"?

Agreed 100%. I mentioned this a while back in the train thread last year.

Why did they even change it in the first place?. All it needed was a decent audio system.

Was it just me or was that one of the most underwhelming State Budgets delivered?

So much for the suburban infrastructure spend, which is really just amounted to a reannoucement of the Pym to Regency N-S Corridor section, a reannoucement of the Gawler line electrification and a reannoucement of the new WCH hospital next to the RAH.

I was expecting more. Like a level-crossing removal program or fast-tracking of the tram network expansion or a complete rail electrification program.

Underwhelming. Disappointing.

They are probably waiting for the election to make more announcements. But I am disappointed with not including the upgrade of Grenfell Street and the release of the tram business case. Hopefully those will come in the mid-year review.

So another tax this time on Banks.

Laughable.

Can a state government even levy a tax on banks which arent based here? And even if it's constitutional wouldn't the distribution of GST be wound back as a result?

Im reasonably comfortable with the overall direction of the weatherill government, but a state based bank tax just strikes me as bizarre.

Its just more tax. That is all we have had for a decade.

That's just incorrect, Waewick. Despite the fact there's been some increases, there's also been cuts elsewhere. But more importantly, what the last decade has actually seen has been an investment in infrastructure. Being that we're a development forum, I think most here would be happy for the government to find ways to pay for it.

The bank levy is an odd direction though. It makes you wonder why if they've had this power they hadn't instituted it years ago here or interstate (which is to say, maybe it'll be challenged). But again, what other recourse do they have? Too much of the fiscal power is in the hands of the Commonwealth, so the states necessarily have to become creative.

Waewick wrote:So another tax this time on Banks.

Laughable.

Waewick wrote:Its just more tax. That is all we have had for a decade.

At least this time the new tax is being directed against those who can afford it, rather then hitting those who can't. A 0.0015% tax on banks which make billions in profits every single year, isn't going to affect them much at all.
Of course I fully expect their fear campaign which has already started to fail miserably. After all, these are the people who raise interest rates when the Reserve Bank lowers them or keeps them on hold. This is the industry that the common people see as greedy, who will take your house when you cant afford to make repayments, and throw you out on the street with out any compassion.

I'm certainly not going to cry over the banks getting a very very very tiny tax put on them that will barely make any noticeable impact on their annual super sized profits.

F@$% the banks. They'll gladly contribute to a states or countries or individuals or businesses economic demise, as long as they get their pounds of flesh. But they don't want to contribute something back to the society they are ripping off by raising interest rates when the reserve bank doesn't, or through the increased fees they charge, and the fees they charge for you to take your own money out? F@#& THE BANKS.

rev wrote: F@#& THE BANKS.

When Anna Bligh describes such measures as political opportunism, that's pretty much what they're talking about.

I don't think many will shed a tear for the banks, but being unpopular corporate citizens isn't a sound or rational economic argument to levy a tax from them. We should expect better from our economic leaders than "they can afford it" or, to paraphrase, "fuck the banks". It's nothing more than low brow populism.

There may well be an economic, behavioural argument in favour of the proposal, but they've fallen well short of providing one.

You do all realise the banks will just pass the tax straight on to their customers by increasing fees and charges? So a tax on the banks in reality ends up being a tax on everyone anyway.

As I understand reports of the Bill (not that I can find the Bill itself thanks to SA parliament's indecipherable web site), it specifically prohibits increasing fees and charges in response to the tax.

The amount is entirely insignificant anyway - the $100mil per annum quoted represents less than two days of combined net profits for the 5 banks in question.

However, depending on whether the banks want to send a message to any other states who might be thinking of doing something similar - it would be quite easy for them to charge differential interest rates for South Australian customers, which would blow up quite spectacularly for the government...

e.g. "Eastpac are today announcing an increase on mortgage rates for all SA customers - please direct any enquiries to the South Australian treasurer"

Lot of political risk for a - frankly - paltry $100mil a year.