Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7261
Or buy them from Australia. The Melbourne E class tram is a Flexity variant, but made in Australia.Nort wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 11:21 amAnother main reason I can't see big spending on trams in this term is that in the post-Covid recovery phase I think governments are going to be heavily prioritising things that provide economic stimulus, and a big chunk of of the trams would go to purchasing them from overseas.
Oh wow, I didn't know about that policy. That would change some things.[Shuz] wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 1:23 pmProvided Labor & Albanese get elected in May, one of their promises is to revitalise production of trains and trams to be made and maintained in Australia rather than overseas. I definetly expect a light rail announcement of some sort for Adelaide. They want to push ahead with several PT projects around the country, but to go one step further and actually coordinate the state governments so that the production and maintenance factories have a substantial and sustainable pipeline of projects to work with over the next 20 years. Its a great policy.
Rob Lucas is one of the last on the old (more generous) superannuation scheme. Don't forget that some of that pension is from the proportion of his salary that he has been contributing for himself as well. It's not all from the state purse. We should thank these people retiring on superannuation pensions for not relying on a government aged pension. People who take a lump sum often manage to arrange to also get an age pension eventually.rev wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:10 amFederal funding, borrowing/debt.A-Town wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:11 pmWith what money though? With the extraordinary amount of money being spent on health, there will only be a trickle left to go towards infrastructure and other economy-growing projects and initiatives.rev wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 7:05 pmAgreed with Nathan, they shouldn't wait to use it for a second term bid, they should get the ball rolling ASAP.
No reason other then politics why they can't have the first stages of a wider network U/C by the time the next state election comes around.
They also need to get a move on and look at how to connect the NSM with the SEF.
Maybe take it a step further and look at creating a proper motorway ring route.
It doesn't get paid for up front. If its going to take four years to build, it gets paid for across that time frame.
Our state debt to gsp ratio is relatively low still, so they can still borrow money especially to fund infrastructure, and our states credit rating isn't too bad either.
And, if we're short, perhaps politicians can take a pay cut, or live off a regular pension like rest of us will have to, instead of the $200,000 plus that politicians like Rob Lucas will get.
It's a new entertainment centre in the CBD, not purely a basketball stadium. Both that and an extended tram network would be excellent investments.HiTouch wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:07 amYes! In fact, thanks to the Federal funding, you and my tax money, we will all pay for the light rail network. Taxes should go to useful things such as effective road and public transport infrastructure. The difference between a basketball stadium and a tram network is that a tram network eases congestion off the road and increases commute and access to urban centres. Basketball stadiums don't do that ghs. They are basketball stadiums. They are big and don't move or increase efficiency. ghs, did you know that basketball stadiums aren't considered infrastructure for this reason? It would be a waste of money making a basketball stadium with wheels to consider it as infrastructure as well. That's why it doesn't happen. It's the difference between a waste of money and a good investment.
Oh he's been salary sacrificing has he? How considerate of him...SBD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:37 pmRob Lucas is one of the last on the old (more generous) superannuation scheme. Don't forget that some of that pension is from the proportion of his salary that he has been contributing for himself as well. It's not all from the state purse. We should thank these people retiring on superannuation pensions for not relying on a government aged pension. People who take a lump sum often manage to arrange to also get an age pension eventually.rev wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:10 amFederal funding, borrowing/debt.
It doesn't get paid for up front. If its going to take four years to build, it gets paid for across that time frame.
Our state debt to gsp ratio is relatively low still, so they can still borrow money especially to fund infrastructure, and our states credit rating isn't too bad either.
And, if we're short, perhaps politicians can take a pay cut, or live off a regular pension like rest of us will have to, instead of the $200,000 plus that politicians like Rob Lucas will get.
If the new CBD entertainment center is an "excellent investment" then it should have no problem attracting private investors.
We may be drifting off to the beer garden, but I'm unclear if you are concerned that members of parliament are paid too much while they are in office, or that they get a superannuation scheme comparable to public servants of the same era when they leave.rev wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:51 pmOh he's been salary sacrificing has he? How considerate of him...SBD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:37 pmRob Lucas is one of the last on the old (more generous) superannuation scheme. Don't forget that some of that pension is from the proportion of his salary that he has been contributing for himself as well. It's not all from the state purse. We should thank these people retiring on superannuation pensions for not relying on a government aged pension. People who take a lump sum often manage to arrange to also get an age pension eventually.rev wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:10 am
Federal funding, borrowing/debt.
It doesn't get paid for up front. If its going to take four years to build, it gets paid for across that time frame.
Our state debt to gsp ratio is relatively low still, so they can still borrow money especially to fund infrastructure, and our states credit rating isn't too bad either.
And, if we're short, perhaps politicians can take a pay cut, or live off a regular pension like rest of us will have to, instead of the $200,000 plus that politicians like Rob Lucas will get.
And where does his salary come from? Your taxes.
Who cares if it's the old "more" generous pension scheme for them or the new one, either way, it's a hell of a lot more in pension then you or I will ever see.
And when the pensions for regular folk start to dry up, and they will, these politicians will be sitting pretty.
But hey, he salary sacrificed from his 6 figure tax payer funded income, he deserves it.
They are paid too much.SBD wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:49 amWe may be drifting off to the beer garden, but I'm unclear if you are concerned that members of parliament are paid too much while they are in office, or that they get a superannuation scheme comparable to public servants of the same era when they leave.rev wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:51 pmOh he's been salary sacrificing has he? How considerate of him...SBD wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 5:37 pm
Rob Lucas is one of the last on the old (more generous) superannuation scheme. Don't forget that some of that pension is from the proportion of his salary that he has been contributing for himself as well. It's not all from the state purse. We should thank these people retiring on superannuation pensions for not relying on a government aged pension. People who take a lump sum often manage to arrange to also get an age pension eventually.
And where does his salary come from? Your taxes.
Who cares if it's the old "more" generous pension scheme for them or the new one, either way, it's a hell of a lot more in pension then you or I will ever see.
And when the pensions for regular folk start to dry up, and they will, these politicians will be sitting pretty.
But hey, he salary sacrificed from his 6 figure tax payer funded income, he deserves it.
Sure, we could pay MPs a minimum wage so that they know what the poorer people in society live on. Maybe an outcome would be that the minimum wage and the dole are increased, which might well be good things for society as a whole, I don't dispute that. But the other side is that less of the people who could earn significantly more would bother to stand for public office. Why put in the work and stress and family disruption of being an MP if it only earned 10% more than the dole and 5% more than serving coffee at the local cafe? We might complain about some of the candidates now (I wasn't happy with my available choices), but imagine how much worse it would be if all the competent ones left for better paying jobs.
You're right, they earn more than me, but I don't want their jobs either.
Running the state, and country for that matter, should not be about enriching your self with a 6 figure salary that is way above the average salary/wage of ordinary people and a pension way beyond what any average person will ever see.But the other side is that less of the people who could earn significantly more would bother to stand for public office.
Private investors are purely focused on profit. The investment of a new entertainment centre goes beyond the ROI for the government. You're rejuvenating barren wasteland and bringing extra life into the CBD and giving residents a world class arena to enjoy sports and concerts in.
Who governs now Will? Predominantly the rich.Will wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:23 pmRev, the problem with this philosophy is that talented people will not enter politics if the salary was not competitive. Come on! who in the real world would leave their respective careers in business, law, medicine etc.. for an average salary, which seems to be around $51k, especially if they have a family to support.
If we instituted this, politics would become the domain of the rich and self sufficient. Essentially, most politicians would be rich, old white men. I do not want to see parliament filled with the likes of Clive Palmer...
I’m not following your argument. By your definition, everyone who earns a 6 figure salary is not a commoner. Likewise anyone who attended a private school is also not a commoner. We live in an aspirational society, whereby a significant portion of society would be deemed inappropriate to sit in parliament according to your definitions. Earning $100k in modern Australia doesn’t make you rich.rev wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 10:28 pmWill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 7:23 pmRev, the problem with this philosophy is that talented people will not enter politics if the salary was not competitive. Come on! who in the real world would leave their respective careers in business, law, medicine etc.. for an average salary, which seems to be around $51k, especially if they have a family to support.
If we instituted this, politics would become the domain of the rich and self sufficient. Essentially, most politicians would be rich, old white men. I do not want to see parliament filled with the likes of Clive Palmer...
Who governs now Will? Predominantly the rich.
When was the last time a "commoner" governed SA? Or governed the country? Our current PM is a multi millionaire with a Harbor side mansion.
Is Malinauskas a commoner? Went to Mercedes College which only costs tens of thousands, his wife is a partner at a legal firm. Yep, sounds like your average bloke whose lived most of his adult life pay cheque to pay cheque which only happens to be the majority of people in this state and country.
Marshall wasn't short of a quid either.
In our current system, the only talent you need in politics is to be able to bullshit to your constituents with a straight face.
Do you actually think our current system attracts the brightest and most talented? Do you think those who govern are average folk?
They gave Mike Rann a plum position over in Italy, Joe Hockey got sent to the USA in comfort, Gillard has an office full of staff and enjoys a healthy salary, all courtesy of us even after she's out of office.
She sold her house in Melbourne didn't she?
Did the proceeds of that impact her pension? Like you know it would any other person who wasn't a politician?
If you're actually trying to defend these grubs, while the average Australian struggles, you're either blissfully ignorant of the reality and challenges faced by most, or just having a laugh.
How can anyone justify paying these people 6 figures, and their staff, on top of giving them fully fitted and furnished offices outside of parliament, cars, travel, while ordinary folk struggle more and more.