Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Public transport to address cost of living pressures?

By johnboy 8 September 2011 43

Following on from Zed’s cost of living spray this morning the Greens’ Amanda Bresnan is asking what he plans to do about transport costs:

“Today Mr Seselja pointed to ABS statistics showing the high costs to Canberrans of fuel and transport,” said Greens Transport spokesperson, Amanda Bresnan MLA.

“This is absolutely true, and it is a real problem. But Mr Seselja and the Government both ignore the real meaning of these statistics and are not pushing for investments that can save Canberrans on transport costs.

“The statistics show that current policies are locking Canberrans into car ownership and car usage because of poor transport planning and a lack of alternative options. This is very expensive and will only become expensive.

“The approximate average time that a resident of Canberra has to work in order to pay for their cars is 550 hours a year, or 1 and ½ hours every day of the year.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
Public transport to address cost of living pressures?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
dvaey 7:13 pm 10 Sep 11

Aeek said :

FACT: Pedestrians pay no specific taxes for the infrastructure that allows them to commute all over Canberra.

FACT:
1) Access to a footpath in the ACT is a right, not a privellige.
2) There is a legal difference between a footpath and a public roadway, as above.
3) The government cant control your access to a footpath. They cant stop you from commuting on the footpath for not paying due fees, but they can stop you from commuting on the highway for not paying them.

dungfungus 5:07 pm 10 Sep 11

Postalgeek said :

Ok, before we start, please read the definition below. Then review what you’ve written and provide something that isn’t, you know, the vibe of the thing.

fact |fakt|
noun

%u2022a thing that is indisputably the case.
%u2022 (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
%u2022 chiefly (Law) the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.

So, for example, say you were to raise the issue of Ambulance Levies. You would go to the ACT Revenue Office site and read the following:
The Ambulance Levy is payable each month by private health insurance companies to offset the cost of providing ambulance services in the Territory. The levy is calculated on the number and type of private heath insurance contributions.
and then you might cite your source – http://www.revenue.act.gov.au/other_levies_and_taxes/ambulance_levy
And it would be reasonable for you to claim it was a FACT.

Something like:

Cyclists pay no specific taxes for the infrastructure that allows them to commute all over Canberra (if they are fit enough and have time to spare). Not even the ambulance levy added to registration fees that all ACT motorists pay. Yet they appear to be users of ambulances more than motorists do.

is not a FACT.

It is unsupported and you could’ve sourced it from anywhere, such as your arse. Saying something ‘appears’ to be the case does not make it a fact. Give me some evidence and then you’ll be cooking.

For another example, had you looked up Consolidated Revenue Fund, you would understand that all monies paid to government go to, well, a consolidated revenue fund. The money you pay for registration does not go to roads. It goes to the CRF. It may then be used for health, or a public servant’s remuneration package. Or it might be spent on roads. Likewise, the ample land tax I pay may end up being used to fix a pothole (generally not created by cyclists).

I know it’s frustrating, but if you go off and do some research and cite some evidence you might actually sound informed.

You have pointed out an error about “Ambulance Levy” that I made. I apologise – I got confused with terminology that the ACT RTA uses namely Road Rescue Fee $16.00 (silly me, I assumed this would mean an ambulance) and Road Safety Contribution $2.00.
You will find this billing information on a motor vehicle registration certificate. It doesn’t apply to pushbikes so my claim that cyclists contribute nothing still stands.
I don’t think special levies go into consolidated revenue but I am sure you or someone else will argue this one with me.
I am rivetted to my seat in anticipation of being de-rided (pun intentded) again.

Jim Jones 4:33 pm 10 Sep 11

dungfungus said :

postalgeek wrote “Of course, if you can bring evidence (you know, a FACT) to the discussion that cyclists outstrip motorists as a drain on ‘the resources of the ACT’, I think we could have a very exciting exchange of valid and sensible points”
FACT: Cyclists pay no specific taxes for the infrastructure that allows them to commute all over Canberra (if they are fit enough and have time to spare). Not even the ambulance levy added to registration fees that all ACT motorists pay. Yet they appear to be users of ambulances more than motorists do.
The amount of ACT resources spent on pandering to the vocal, morally vain cyclists tearing around Canberra in their lycra pixie suits is totally unreasonable. Apart from the small personal proportion from their rates, the cyclists contribute nothing to the establishment of the “world class” facilities they use.

Over to you postalgeek.

Epic failure to understand how tax works.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site