You would have preferred all taxpayers to pay for it, rather than users? The cost of basic phone services has shrunk significantly any way, so it can hardly be argued that there was any huge revenues unless your use was high.
Well, actually they are. Failed to notice how much public funds are used to pay for infrastructure to enable mining companies to ship their products overseas?
Correct, but it is insignificant to the amount of resources that are taken for fat arses to drive their own motor vehicles. Rego & fuel tax does not pay for roads. It can also be argued that public transport returns significant benefits to the community as a whole.
Which is as it should be for a PRIVATE enterprise. *IF* telecommunications were so important that they CANNOT be left to private enterprise, it should never have been sold. Which is what I said all along. Since it WAS sold, they should obviously be left to get on with it, OR renationalise it.
The idea of building another network at taxpayers expense, AND then selling that down the track as proposed, is the WORST of both worlds IMO!!!
Country people paid the same as city people for almost a century, despite the higher costs of providing their service. That's fine for a *government* owned enterprise, if the government believes it's appropriate of course.
Would be good IF the public got something for the sale of their non renewable mineral resources.
You've got that arse about, income from motorists subsidises public transport and other government spending. Hell we even had the absurd situation of the Bi-Centennial road levies being spent on tram line extensions!
I'd love to see them too, please post yours. But include ALL government motoring income and expenditure including traffic fines, registration, etc. Can't find the total cost/income breakdown, why do you think that is?
It could be argued that getting trucks off the road by subsidising rail freight would be a good idea too, but it doesn't happen. Too many truck drivers protest. Strange why motorists never do when there are FAR more of them.
In any case public transport mainly benefits those who have access to public transport. MANY motorists simply do not!!!
But you agreed there was no need to argue whether it was subsidised, since it clearly is. The only argument is whether you think it's a good thing, AND IF you think forced cross subsidies are appropriate for private companies.
All you have to do is add up the budget figures on those other inputs.
The budget papers never have that sort of breakdown.
Its completely routine to get them from the budget papers if you want to do the breakdown.
It does, actually.
They never protest about stuff like that.
They have enough of a clue to realise what drives policy.
And hordes who do arent interested in using it anyway.
But he never established that private motorists are in fact subsidised at all when nothing like even the entire fuel tax revenue is spent on roads etc.
Nope. One of the prime beneficiaries of public transport are the people not using it. If those people were not on public transport, they would all be fat arsed cagers in their individual motor vehicles adding to road congestion. By them travelling on public transport, they are reducing road congestion, thus reducing wear and tear on your motor vehicle and saving you money and time.
Further, public tranport benefits all those people who live along major traffic routes from reduced health impacts. .........................
That is if they are fully paid for. In any case, it is your council rates that maintain them.they are not paid for from fuel excise. Federal funding only flows down on deemed arterial/major roads. The states also kick in.
Agreed. At the very least "the electronic roads" should have been kept in public ownership. The NBN will provide an opportunity/method to redress that.
Wrong. They dont require any maintenance for a long time.
Never said they were. What matters is that the nothing like the total of what is collected in fuel taxes is spent on roads.
THATS what determines whether there is a cross subsidy for private car use or not.
also kick in.
Irrelevant to whether there is a cross subsidy for private car use or not.
In fact its the exact opposite, car users pay a lot more in fuel taxes alone than is spent on roads by all govts in total, so there is no cross subsidy.
Corse what the current plan is, and what they can get thru parliament at that time are two entirely separate matters.
Clearly Telecom/Telstra wasnt.
Particularly if it involves the scrapping of the copper pair network, it may well end up a profit for taxpayers, particularly given that only about $23B of the alleged $43B cost is going to be paid for by taxpayers.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.