Tax on rainwater tanks.

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by gnoll110, May 23, 2008.

  1. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    it's all about control douglas,

    like they want to dam the mary river for water supply for new clear power stations, and the dam will ruin the river and its delicate auaqatic creatures, and to further support for the dam they are creating a tourist haven for water skiing and fishing etc.,. etc.,. this makes it accpetable in the eyes of our general populas who are glued to sattelite sport world wide.

    just how it gets noted that native critters like the beaver are needed or our sustainability goes out the door.

    len
     
  2. gnoll110

    gnoll110 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    Funny you should say that, I was there last month. (the shire became extinct on 15 March this year too https://www.tara.qld.gov.au/ ).

    In Nov 06 I saw a dam built under the circa 2002 rules. It had last filled in Feb 06 and by Nov it only had a few feet of water left in it. So, yer, would have lasted about a year from full to empty (It didn't empty, there was some overland flows that summer).

    The farmer wanted a deeper dam to minimise the surface area to volume ratio and thus minimise evaporation, but the department wouldn't allow it. They forced a too shallow dam to be built. The farmer could build that dam he wanted now, as the dam still wouldn't push him over the 'whole of property' storage cap. Better than the last reincarnation, but still restrictive.

    The codes have been redrafted. Now you can't tell what droughts they have planned for. The combines drought/evaporation factors are still too low (and that without taking climate change into account). The factor is 3 for area with over 600mm rainfall & 5 in area with under 600mm rainfall.


    Gnoll110
     
  3. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    yeh beauraucraccy hey, they only going to make things worse and do nothing for environment or habitat. yeh i used to chat with a bloke from out that way for a bit, he went sydney way i think?

    had one farmer rural type (when this poop realy hit the fan) say to me "it doesn't make sense to let all the water run down to the sea and get contaminaed along the way" my response "it does to them as they see the ocean as their water storage, in their tiny shallow sighted eyes sooner or later ocean turns to clouds then rains".

    yeh by my looks at it mostly back over the ocean, anyway that is their reasoning and us voters don't have any power anymore, we are divided by greend and the graet "i'm alright jack" premise. some of us know various levlels of what is what but we are the oft' shot messangers and too few at that.

    len
     
  4. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    "they see the ocean as their water storage" . . comon mate, you can't convince me that anyone beleives that.. :)

    Although there is some argument, that we need enough water flowing down the river, to keep it flowing.. if everyone pumps it dry, then all of the salt and polutants are just going to sit there..

    also, there is an argument that native fish need water to swim in..

    It is very well for someone to say, that it is all "just flowing into the sea" but that isn't really considering all of the people down stream.. what about SA and Adelaide? You tasted the water at Adelaide? Note that I think this is an argument against irrigation, but not against REASONABLE size on farm dams and swales. (NOT for irrigation)
     
  5. gnoll110

    gnoll110 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    The problem is also, the speed of the water. Now it takes a few months for flood water to get from QLD to the month of the Murray. This years water didn't get past Lock 1, where Adelaide draws its water.

    Fifty years ago it took six months, one hundread and fifty years ago it took a year. Peter Andrews book, 'Back from the Brink', includes extracts from the original explorer's records. Between degradation and floor mitigation works, I'd tend to agree with Len. After all, the water reforms are all about stopping farmer from trying to retain water on the land where it falls.

    Where did the water from this years Queensland floods go. Two places mainly; refilling irrigation storages in NSW and what made it past Wentworth ended up in Adelaide. The lower lakes are no better than they were six months ago!

    The first thing I would do is stop water transfer to coastal catchments, specifically the Torrens and the Yarra!

    Gnoll110
     
  6. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    Surely there is 10% GST on Rainwater tanks and installation?

    In the UK there is no GST on new Homes.
    In Oz we are not that enlightened, despite people living in shipping containers.
    Governments are happy to give you money; but not so happy- in stopping -taking it from you.

    As Uncle Bob says
    "Politicians will never solve The Problem;
    because they don't realise they are The Problem.".
    -Robert ( Bob ) Parsons 1995
     
  7. gnoll110

    gnoll110 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    Not talking GST. This is in addition to it, and would be annual. I understand that the UK does have a Rainwater tank Tax.

    It would be something like extra annual items on the annual Land Tax paperwork.

    ----------------------------------------
    Dear Citizen(Tax cow), please pay.

    Land Tax (title 54321) $3000
    Tank size 2 ([email protected]$100) $300
    Tank size 1 ([email protected]$50) $50

    Total $3350
    ----------------------------------------
    It's like water rates, except the Govt does not provide any services (or infrastructure). Effectively a tax on using the rain.

    Remember some states (VIc for example) already charge farmers for the farmer to build their own dams of their own land. It one thing to stop farmers taking unreasonable amounts of water (this was the goal of the old pre-1980ish laws), it's another to charge to every drop whist not providing any services or infrastructure (no value for money).


    Gnoll110
     
  8. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    yep that's about it gnoll,

    i heard it was going to be a flat rate based on what the normal flat rate water content of the annual rates bill is. so even for rural dwellers who only have their own water they will be levied at whatever that shires rate is for the townwater supplied in the town, most charges are very similar here our water charge is #257 per year, so that would be the standard charge for tank owners, haven't heard that they are going to use a sliding scale depending on tank size? that might be hard to administer as we are entitled to 10% of the rain that falls.

    so reckon those who didn't prioritise water high enough and bought tanks that gained the rebate (no good sayig they aren't out there, they are). also many tank suppliers wher promoting small cheap in price tanks saying that with the rebate the buyer will make money ie.,. tank cost $700 deliverd/installed and rebate is $1k reckon the cock will come home to roost on those purchases sadly), they will hurt as most of the year in dry periods their tanks will be empty, and reckon also they will want people to drop their use below the minimum regulated (depending on dam levels) by the amount of water that the tank holds in a year, that can all be worked on average rainfalls.

    we didn't make a profit on the rebate, we prioritised water very high on the imortants list and have not used town water for 12 months now, that as i see it is conserving water and being um er self sufficient, at least we never have to drink their polluted recycled stuff hey full of chemical bi product fluride. we always try to encourage others to think outside the square.

    len
     
  9. Pablito

    Pablito Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    Have a look at what has happened in Bolivia and other Latin American countries where water has been privatised. Water tanks were smashed by thugs from the multinational that owned the water company in Bolivia because they had the sole right to provide water to the population. People collecting their own water were, logically, defrauding the company, so...pay up or we smash your tank. Some serious violence later, and the company and government backed off.
    With the current rush to privatise everything in Oz, water can't be too far off
     
  10. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    pablito,

    wter is well on the agenda of privatisation, the profit thugs don't want the system until the tax payers ahve finished paying to put in all infrastructre ie.,. recyceld water system salt water purifying system, all tanks, bores, and dams will be recorded and logged, then when they know it is all tied up they will buy the rite for a paultry sum, and when it falls into disrepair they will walk away and the tax payers will pick up the tab to renew it all.

    len
     
  11. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    How would you go with your own desalinator or air water harvester?
    https://hypography.com/forums/earth-scie ... -a-14.html

    Governments have tried this sort of taxation with bores and TV licences in the past. They have not worked.
    What bore? What TV?
    That tank? -O, you mean my fish pond?

    At the moment Australian Governments are swimming in too much tax money that they are too afraid to spend in case it might further stoke inflation and rises in interest rates (already being caused by "Resources Boom" pumping money into the high end of town.)
     
  12. gnoll110

    gnoll110 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    Anything on aerial photos could be fare game. They could start with applications for Water tank rebate (thus we complete the circle back to the first post ;)) And the govt has been knows to be arbitrary in the past. 'Fish tanks over 10 lts count Sir'.

    Govt could simply say, 'You're not on town water and you don't have a bore permit, therefore you must be on tanks (or air water harvester etc), cough up!'.

    Short term at best.

    Gnoll110
     
  13. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    i hope you are wrong or suffer from Paranoia
    I, for one, would be happy to march in the streets with you on this one.
    We are never going to have enough water for the billions on this planet.
     
  14. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    1st up this is a happening vent nothing to do with paranoia.

    2nd as for marching in the street, the authorites would bring in the rent a mob to turn it all into a street fight and turn the public tht does see it away from the cause that is how they do? there is too much apathy in the masses for this to even get a message out to the masses who are glued to idiot boxes watching sattelite sport and not just aussie sport. if marching in the streets would work where are the apathetic farmers who know about this and are hurting?? have they again been bought off with an all day sucker to chew on?? usually what happens to quiet them down.

    3rd they are not telling the truth about where our water comes from for drinking, which dams that is (i can only talk about the brissy factor but doubt it will be much diffreent in any of teh alrge cities).

    ok the only dams they publicise are the flood mitigation dams they never talk about dam lelvels in the dams where water comes from, for one lake manchester brisbanes first and foremost water supply dam is never mentioned but fleetingly, the water treatment plant is at mt crosby where lake manchester is and it has been there all my life to date, there are other dams like the little nerang dam, enogerra dam and the one on the tweed river that feed water into the gold coast and brisbane, there is another dam somewhere behing coomera area it is a water supply dam and down redland bay yet another, the dam at caboolture the level of which never varies and masses drive past unquestioningly never mentioned?? when they want more water for lake manchester they open the flood gates of the wivenhoe which is fed from the flood gates of sommerset and let the water flow down stream (not efficient hey?).

    need to say the old wall at manchester over 100 years old needs repair and stabalistaion which they are doing but there is also room there to build a new bigger/deeper wall for more capacity, they know this, they have it on their budget as a must do, they may lose some manipulative panic the public power, which is silly most ot eh public too apathetic to even know they would build a new wall and the madia supports the gov, they don't bring you the facts.

    older people have forgotten, younger people only know what is put in front of them, sommerset was built after that big flood back in the early early 1900, the flood that nearly floated brissy into the bay, so it is a flood mitigation dam not a water stroage dam, it is in the wrong place for that ther is never enough seasonla rain in those catchments to fill them they are there for those once in a whatever time flood rain situation, and wivenhoe the same it was built after the 1975 flood that again threatened to float brissy into the bay. the travesty dam is for water for new clear power stations and tourism never going to be for drinking. and why are our flood dam levels so low? "we haven't ahd any flood rains? hey.

    yes water needs mangement but once again the gov' does it by pulling the wool over the eyes of its constituancy. up here we don't have the luxury of deep rocky ravines to dam off for drinking water so there is pretty much not many if any places they could even build more holding capacity, any dams they put in are going to threaten the lives of smallish river systems. river need flood events to flush them out man can't do it.

    the gov' is not telling you the truth in most instances i would suggest, don't believe what they want you to believe look behind the picture read the fine print.

    ok no paranoia there.

    len
     
  15. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    gardenlen, I'm afraid you haven't made your point very clear.. what are you suggesting the government is doing that they shouldn't and what are you suggesting they should do that they aren't?
     
  16. gnoll110

    gnoll110 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    My understanding is that the Wivenhoe site was chosen after a dam site survey (early/mid 1970s) of the whole of south east Queensland. Specifically for Brisbane's long term water needs. I also understand the then government put planning/zoning restriction to stop development on the sites at the top of the list. Effective keep then rural until they would be used.

    In the mid late 1980's (about the time Wivenhoe first filled), the then state govt commissioned the Australian Bureau of Statistics to do population growth studies for south east Queensland. The studies said that Wivenhoe would be full utilised in 2010, plus or minus 5 years (depending on different growth assumptions). As a result of this, the then (Ahern?) govt commissioned the building of the second dam (at Wolfdene) from the 1970s site list. The project was approved by Cabinet, land acquisition etc started.

    In December 1989, the incoming Goss govt canned the Wolfdene dam for short term budget reasons. The land was sold and the development restrictions lifted. Wolfdene is no longer a viable dam site due to development in the area since 1990.

    All this got a public airing about 18 months ago, then the Kruddster become opposition leader. He was the new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Premier Goss.

    During the last week of the 2007 election campaign, I though it was assuming what passes as interviewing these days. In one interview, the Kruddster both attacked the Howard govt for not doing enough infrastructure planning and claimed some credit for the first Goss govt's 'good' budgetary planning. Apparently the interviewer missed that one or chose to let it go through to the keeper.

    As a side note, my father says that the NSW govt was warned both at the completion of the Warragamba Dam (1960) and the completion of the Snowy Mountains Scheme (mid 1970s) that Sydney would fully utilise its current dams by about 2000.

    So neither state can say 'we didn't see this coming' (even without climate change).


    Gnoll110
     
  17. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    gotta say nope gnoll,

    wivenhoe as was sommerset initially built as flood mitigation, so they could return lots of land in brissy back to housing develoment, pretty much if it got flooded it could not be ceveloped even to teh extent (and this included those river drontages affected by flood), les theiss (one of joes close friends) lived over at tennyson and his daughter bought the house at the junction of the creek and brissy river near pamphlet bridge graceville, it was an old run down house and the only way they could build that new mansion was to build it around and onto the existing building, as town plan prevented new homes or development on flood lands, and wivenhoe along with the flood plain they created between the rocklea markets and sherwood on sherwood road, this all supposedly as civil engineers would ahve one believe took up to around 5 meters off the top of any further floods like that in '75. that creek at pamphlet bridge graceville does not flow into the brissy river as the silly scinetific types tried to preach it is part of antures course to take excess water from the river and into the vast flood plain area where salisbury and rocklea now are all built up of course, and that creeks course has been cut and replaced by pipes that will never do the job, and salisbury etc, all land reclaimed and built on, the rocklea markets all part of the blight.

    now after joe feeding the chooks went the next junta may have preached a different story, but for me (and you'd be surprised how many others, lots)know both sommerset and wivenhoe are way too wide and shallow to ever be good water storage, if you talk to the locals the travesty will be the same the overall water depth is very shallow (traversty will be around 3 meters) and they are over arrable land with no water table so the water evaportes as it heats in the shallows and also soak into the soil.

    i went through the 75 floods (places that had never been floodeed even back in the early 1900's got flooded all due to bad town planning development), i was there when they told us how they would try to minimise any such floods hence wivenhoe, and at school when they taught your general local knowledge we where taught the same sommerset was built to save brissy from big flood, it didn't work in the end because developers where allowed to fill on flood plains and reclaim swamps so the water had nowher to go in 75, will it happen again, for be you bet your toukley it will and because again of greedy poor development lots who have never been flooded before will this time be flooded.

    we where also there when the council was buying up flood property homes so people could move on because they couldn't sell them and they converted those propeties to plaks and playing fields, that was in the oxley creek environ which is all aprt of that rocklea trip..

    water holding dams are built in deepish ravine type territory with mostly rock walls or maybe clay not arrable pasture soil, and they are deeper therfore run cooler higher in the mountaisn where they get some sun shelter. like i think was said in a post here earlier on the council would not let ths bloke have a deep dam it had to be shallow i'd suggest the rule is around 3 meters or so and when it cops th sun it evaporates.

    as far as i know (and i haven't been up that way for near on 8 years or so) there are no pipes to take water from wivenhoe to the mt crosby treatment works, they simply open the gates and let it flow down stream when they need it down there.

    len
     
  18. ppp

    ppp Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Tax on rainwater tanks.

    comon len, so what would you propose as a solution?
    One one hand you criticise them for replacing a creek with a pipe, then you criticise them for running water from wivenhoe to the mt crosby treatment via the creek (instead of a pipe?)..?? - i reckon that the creek is by far the better solution.

    Yes, deep narrow ravines are good places to build dams, but have you identified any of these? Are you suggesting we should demolish the existing dams? Then what?

    yes again, your comments make a nice story, but I can't for the life of me understand what you are suggesting should happen instead..??
     

Share This Page

-->