Where will the revenue come from?

[Adam The God 30,421]

7 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

There will be no inflation to build $400 Billion in new transition lines? That’s got to be the biggest laugh I’ve had all year. Stick to football mate 

Where have you pulled $400 billion from?

The purpose of a Just Transition is that it's a medium term project seeing infrastructure built over many years.

I'd love to know where the inflation is coming from. Again, spending will only cause inflation if it pushes up against a real resource constraint, meaning the economy will not be able to produce or provide the goods and services...

I won't be responding any further, but fire away.

[Roost it far 8,633]

6 minutes ago, A F said:

Where have you pulled $400 billion from?

The purpose of a Just Transition is that it's a medium term project seeing infrastructure built over many years.

I'd love to know where the inflation is coming from. Again, spending will only cause inflation if it pushes up against a real resource constraint, meaning the economy will not be able to produce or provide the goods and services...

I won't be responding any further, but fire away.

I think he’s confusing the final cost of the subs as opposed to moving away from polluting infrastructure.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,883]

8 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

So says the person with the avitar of David Schwartz who's was nearly financially destroyed by a gambling addiction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nine.com.au/article/12174638-63f5-455f-85b2-b589dd9ddaa6

[redandbluemakepurple 360]

2 hours ago, bandicoot said:

20% of users lives trashed. Any chance of stats backing up those baseless claims? 

I was going with half of the 46% quoted here - https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/gambling-participation-and-experience-harm-australia#:~:text=Survey findings show that around,some risk of gambling harm.

And my recollection of a report (possibly even from Crown itself) that twenty-something percent of their clientele had a problem.

What figure you got?

However, what is the acceptable wastage level for human lives, 10%, 5%?  Including of course the suffering relatives and friends.

[bandicoot 1,395]

1 hour ago, A F said:

Where have you pulled $400 billion from?

The purpose of a Just Transition is that it's a medium term project seeing infrastructure built over many years.

I'd love to know where the inflation is coming from. Again, spending will only cause inflation if it pushes up against a real resource constraint, meaning the economy will not be able to produce or provide the goods and services...

I won't be responding any further, but fire away.

Please let me know how much you think it will cost to build 10,000 kms of new power lines? We also now have to build secondary power sources to power the whole country.. how much do you think it will cost to move from coal and gas to renewables? 

[bandicoot 1,395]

7 minutes ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

I was going with half of the 46% quoted here - https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/gambling-participation-and-experience-harm-australia#:~:text=Survey findings show that around,some risk of gambling harm.

And my recollection of a report (possibly even from Crown itself) that twenty-something percent of their clientele had a problem.

What figure you got?

However, what is the acceptable wastage level for human lives, 10%, 5%?  Including of course the suffering relatives and friends.

According to this BS everyone that scores 1+ is a problem gambler. What a ridiculous assertion 

“At-risk gambling during the past 12 months was assessed using the nine-item Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI). Respondents were grouped into four categories based on their scores: non-problem gambling (0), low-risk gambling (1-2), moderate-risk gambling (3-7) and problem gambling (8-27). Respondents scoring 1+ may be classified as being at some risk of, or already experiencing, gambling problems”

[Wizard of Koz 1,128]

8 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Maybe we should also ban sugar drink and junk food. This is becoming a nanny state 

The line has to be drawn where sport heroes promote gambling with some catchy ads and kids are exposed to it. Thats not cool. We cant have that.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,971]

8 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

It’s such a huge problem. My 11 yo talks about the odds and multi’s. 

Have they had any big wins? 

[Stiff Arm 4,419]

8 hours ago, deespicable me said:

I worked in the racing industry for many years and still bet weekly. I love the game and hate the ads just as much as everyone else. I also bet on the footy as many do. 

The issue of the people that dictate what we should be doing or not with our lives is worse. The do-gooders of this world are the same type of people that "took the children away" in their era. The fact that anyone is so arrogant to think they live better, know better, are better, than others are quite possibly the worst people in the world.

All this report will be just like the billion dollar fining industry we have in this State. Its all based on "statistics of the dammed". ie they take their stats from the poor people out there who end up gambling their house away on pokies or unstable people who get behind the wheel of a car and destroy lives.

The end result is we see a different set of adds on tele. Nothing else changes. People still lose the plot and do bad things.

Mate, your last three paragraphs are simply hyperbolic sweeping statements. None of it is based on any evidence, just the liberatarian ramblings of someone who thinks authorities shouldn't intervene to minimise its citizens "losing the plot and doing bad things" (whatever that means).

I mean honestly... "the do-gooders of this world are the same type of people that "took the children away" in their era" ???

Reminds me of what Deeluded used to write!

[jnrmac 20,189]

10 hours ago, A F said:

Again, look up the Just Transition movement.

Provided the Commonwealth understands its fiscal, regulatory and legislative powers, there'll be no inflation.

Spending in of itself doesn't cause inflation. It's about the availability of real resources (labour, equipment, minerals etc). 

All spending public or private carries an inflation risk, but unlike private spending and consumption, the Commonwealth has levers like say taxation to free up resources. Federal taxation isn't a funding mechanism, it helps maintain the value of the currency and helps to manage resource space for expenditure.

I've had these arguments many times on Demonland and I think I'll leave it at that.

This post is unbelievably misguided and defies basic economic principles.

[Engorged Onion 10,223]

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

This post is unbelievably misguided and defies basic economic principles.

AF's post suggests that spending alone does not cause inflation, emphasising  that the availability of real resources is the key factor. However, I presume you  might argue that excessive spending can lead to an increase in demand for goods and services, which, if not matched by an increase in supply, can drive up prices and contribute to inflation. Perhaps believing that the relationship between spending and inflation is more direct?

Understanding of fiscal, regulatory, and legislative powers...The original post implies that as long as the Commonwealth (government) understands its fiscal, regulatory, and legislative powers, there will be no inflation. Again, I assume you feel that that understanding these powers alone does not guarantee the absence of inflation.

Taxation as a tool to manage resources:....Do you think that taxation primarily serves as a revenue source for the government.  And that while taxation can influence resource allocation, its primary purpose is to generate funds for public spending rather than directly manage inflation or resource availability.

 

I mean you could have explained yourself,  rather than a brief statement and an attack.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

15 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

Whatever the shortfall of the replacing advertising revenue, it is a lesser evil than 20% of users having their lives trashed. Just say no.

 

11 hours ago, redandbluemakepurple said:

I was going with half of the 46% quoted here - https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/gambling-participation-and-experience-harm-australia#:~:text=Survey findings show that around,some risk of gambling harm.

And my recollection of a report (possibly even from Crown itself) that twenty-something percent of their clientele had a problem.

What figure you got?

However, what is the acceptable wastage level for human lives, 10%, 5%?  Including of course the suffering relatives and friends.

20%? Compare with this study, which says the prevalence rate of problem gambling in Victoria is 0.81% of all adults. See here: 

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/study-of-gambling-and-health-in-victoria-findings-from-the-victorian-prevalence-study-2014-72/

Quote: "The prevalence of problem gambling in adult Victorians is 0.81 per cent (35,500 people). While the percentage has not changed significantly since 2008"

[Kent 2,914]

5 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

20%? Compare with this study, which says the prevalence rate of problem gambling in Victoria is 0.81% of all adults. See here: 

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/study-of-gambling-and-health-in-victoria-findings-from-the-victorian-prevalence-study-2014-72/

Quote: "The prevalence of problem gambling in adult Victorians is 0.81 per cent (35,500 people). While the percentage has not changed significantly since 2008"

another example of facts getting in the way 

Modern life doesnt deal in facts in my view making equity resource allocation, tax and welfare very difficult to achieve

[deespicable me 1,498]

9 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

Mate, your last three paragraphs are simply hyperbolic sweeping statements. None of it is based on any evidence, just the liberatarian ramblings of someone who thinks authorities shouldn't intervene to minimise its citizens "losing the plot and doing bad things" (whatever that means).

I mean honestly... "the do-gooders of this world are the same type of people that "took the children away" in their era" ???

Reminds me of what Deeluded used to write!

Well then Mate, I think I might like Deeluded. And yes thats a pretty good summary of my ramblings. Sorry I didn't fact check. But I don't have the finances, unlike our Government to commission a report and spend millions working out that

1. advertising can have an adverse affect on children and...

2. gambling has the potential to ruin lives.

As to who took the children away it's a well known fact it was the church that wanted to "save" the children and bring them up as good wholesome christians. They genuinely thought they were doing the right thing. Just like it's the government of today, trying to save us from ourselves. 

Mind you they've had their successes, banning smoking and compulsory seatbelts. But I'm just rambling again. Sorry they upset you so.

 

[monoccular 17,576]

I heard Ox speak at a sportsman's night maybe 5 years ago.  

He was really very passionate and quite moving in his revelations of the "near miss" he had with his gambling addiction.

All these advertisements at breaks with Nathan Brown in particular, just feed the potential for addiction despite the token "gamble responsibly" and the adverts for gamblers' help after the ads.   

When listening to radio I just change stations whenever these come on, and on TV I just mute and do something else.  It is all pervasive.

[Little Goffy 14,645]

On 6/28/2023 at 3:16 PM, Trisul said:

70% of a barrel of oil goes to products other than fuel.  Good luck living a modern life without them.

So your saying that these other products are produced in the process of burning the oil for energy?

Sharpen up.

Reduced demand for fuel oil will reduce the price of oil as a petrochemical/hydrocarbon input. So, yeah, it is good luck for all of us who use those products because the transition to renewable energy will make them all cheaper.

Also, you've got your figure backwards; 70% is used for fuel.

Seriously, sharpen up.

[Grr-owl 1,253]

On 6/28/2023 at 2:37 PM, A F said:

Let's hope so. Invest in renewable energy. A major driver of inflation over the past 2 years is the cartel behaviour of local providers, and the price setting power of the OPEC cartel.

Beware the price setting power of the Communist Party of China....

[Smokey 4,389]

On 6/28/2023 at 8:39 PM, bandicoot said:

Speak for yourself 

I was speaking for myself. You must have noticed I used the term “I’m absolutely willing” and not “we’re”

Very clever observation detective 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Smokey

[Smokey 4,389]

On 6/28/2023 at 3:20 PM, DubDee said:

Nathan Brown just logged on to Seek.com

Couple of same game multi job applications. 

And remember Nathan, apply for jobs responsibly. 

[Adam The God 30,421]

.

Edited June 29, 2023 by A F

[Lucifers Hero 40,364]

Folks, this is a football forum...🙄

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Hopefully the biggest outcome is less revenue for footy media meaning less content.

That would be a great result.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Clint Bizkit

[Little Goffy 14,645]

17 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Hopefully the biggest outcome is less revenue footy media meaning less content.

That would be a great result.

Gasp! Do you think it is possible that they might have to cut BT and replace him with a mere professional?

Will Robbo be reduced to regular whiskey chasers instead of Glengoolie Blue?

[deanox 9,989]

On 6/28/2023 at 3:15 PM, jnrmac said:

We tax everything except fresh food whether or not its for the public good.

Gumments are addicted to raising revenue and can't live within their means.

The "means" of the government is the tax revenue. It's not like it's out there working jobs.

Governments represent society/community and the services we expect/demand. They generate revenue from tax proportional to what is required to deliver those community expectations.

Just because you think a particular service, initiative or cost is unimportant doesn't mean other parts of society agree.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,305]

On 6/28/2023 at 2:23 PM, bandicoot said:

Sugar and junk food also cause harm to society. So what’s stopping the government taxing them? 

You're right, they should be taxed and advertising banned. But I don't see how the two issues are related. It's a logical fallacy to say one thing shouldn't be regulated until everything is, each is addressed on its own merits.