Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man! Too relevant to be understood & I don't think you know what a strawman is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" It's this sort of rationale that show what every right-wing leaning person suspects about the climate change debate. It's not about making the world a better place, it's about evening the ledger. Yes, so to make the world a better place the trillions that the USA have earned from its trashing of the environment should be used to pay for reparations to fix said trashing. Oops my bad, the simplistic 'user pays' ideology of the conservative doesn't apply to the complexity of global warming.......*idea*
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man! Too relevant to be understood & I don't think you know what a strawman is It means you are changing the goalposts all the time to suit your arguments when in actual fact the USA isn't the biggest planetary polluter anymore like it use to be.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" It's this sort of rationale that show what every right-wing leaning person suspects about the climate change debate. It's not about making the world a better place, it's about evening the ledger. Yes, so to make the world a better place the trillions that the USA have earned from its trashing of the environment should be used to pay for reparations to fix said trashing. Oops my bad, the simplistic 'user pays' ideology of the conservative doesn't apply to the complexity of global warming.......*idea* Oh yeh, and drive the USA to bankruptcy! Nice one Einstein! If the USA or EU cough, the entire world catches a cold. If that happens you would be in a soup line yourself. Makes Vanlassen's point more apt in that this really isn't about Climate Change or the Environment at all. This is about wealth redistribution.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe Adani mine to go ahead thanks to the QLD ALP. Can't wait for them to get slaughtered next election. -PB Terrible news. We don't need anymore f*cking coal mines. We especially don't need one that requires us to supply $1bn in funding. Lets see the ALP explain where the benefits are for this one. Side note: why even do Environmental Impact Studies when they get ignored like this one was? But if we don't sell it, then another country will because there will still be demand for Coal in developing economies like China and India. We might as well get the money and the jobs. India is heavily slowing down their demand for Coal and putting in shitloads of solar. They've even made a target to have all battery powered cars within the next decade or so. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man! It just shows that he's not really serious about climate change at all.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe Adani mine to go ahead thanks to the QLD ALP. Can't wait for them to get slaughtered next election. -PB Terrible news. We don't need anymore f*cking coal mines. We especially don't need one that requires us to supply $1bn in funding. Lets see the ALP explain where the benefits are for this one. Side note: why even do Environmental Impact Studies when they get ignored like this one was? But if we don't sell it, then another country will because there will still be demand for Coal in developing economies like China and India. We might as well get the money and the jobs. India is heavily slowing down their demand for Coal and putting in shitloads of solar. They've even made a target to have all battery powered cars within the next decade or so. -PB Every country is putting in a lot of Green Energy. It is the future and the technology is improving. But, their Coal consumption is increasing as their energy demands increase because renewables are unable to provide the base load or supply them with the demanded increases of energy as their economy grows at a very fast rate.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play. https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man! It just shows that he's not really serious about climate change at all. Yes I am starting to see that this is actually the case. He is more interested in politicking, socialism, wealth redistribution and the changing of the Status Quo by taxing the USA some 3 Trillion (his figures not mine). It's people like him which cause a lot of damage to the renewables and environmental movements.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA In the stats provided yes. However, I believe the percentages would be much different if they did not go back so far. China only really started expanding at a rapid rate around 1980 if memory serves me correctly. Emissions prior to 1980 don't 'disappear' That's not what i'm saying, of course they don't. However, comparing since 1950 when China's emissions probably didn't significantly increase until 1980-1990 doesn't accurately show the Chinese demand. If you compare China and the USA from 1990 to present, I am saying that their usage would be far closer to parity. Emissions prior to 1990 don't disappear either. Preempting, emissions prior to 2000 don't disappear additionally Further preempting, emissions don't disappear prior to 2007 (when China caught USA) Not sure how much more movement of goalposts you intend doing You are dense. Statistics from 1950 are meaningless because Chinas consumption didn't significantly increase until half way through the monitoring period you provided. Of course the emissions don't change. However your stats are as retarded as showing the comparison in emissions from 1750 and 1930. It's retarded because the bulk of the emissions would be from 1900 onwards which gives you skewed results. I'm not moving any goalposts. I am simply suggesting that 1950, 30 years before China starting expanding at a rapid rate is a stupid year to have stats from.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe Adani mine to go ahead thanks to the QLD ALP. Can't wait for them to get slaughtered next election. -PB Terrible news. We don't need anymore f*cking coal mines. We especially don't need one that requires us to supply $1bn in funding. Lets see the ALP explain where the benefits are for this one. Side note: why even do Environmental Impact Studies when they get ignored like this one was? But if we don't sell it, then another country will because there will still be demand for Coal in developing economies like China and India. We might as well get the money and the jobs. India is heavily slowing down their demand for Coal and putting in shitloads of solar. They've even made a target to have all battery powered cars within the next decade or so. -PB Every country is putting in a lot of Green Energy. It is the future and the technology is improving. But, their Coal consumption is increasing as their energy demands increase because renewables are unable to provide the base load or supply them with the demanded increases of energy as their economy grows at a very fast rate. Which countries are you referring too? You've blanketed with a statement of "all" countries. I would hazard a guess that most European countries aren't. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Davide82
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
My God, 'Dial it in' plays you guys well.
Even his username says it.
ET would barely exist now if it weren't for him riling you guys up aha
Carry on
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
 Bravo Google
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
Dial It In
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 213,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]1850-2011 CO2 World wide Emissions USA - 27% China - 11% China should be allowed to increase emissions in the short term Alternatively, USA builds hundred of billions $ worth of wind & solar in China, free of charge If you went 1990 to 2011, i'd be interested to see how those percentages changed. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years We're talking in terms of pure consumption. The long term affects are not in dispute. Yes, and in relative terms, the USA is the worst consumer It also worth considering that plenty of China's emissions went towards goods consumed in first world countries like the USA Not anymore it isn't. China just recently surpassed the USA. USA is now second. Cumulatively, USA is first, by a mile. As mentioned previously No it's not! We don't talk about cumulatively. We only take the latest emissions as the current dejure state of play.
The graph at the bottom shows the USA is first, by some distance You are referring to cumulative emissions which takes into account past history. The only sound way to gauge who is the biggest emitter of CO2 is this previous 12 moves, and the USA is not the top polluter anymore. It's China, and the gap is widening too. Probably in the not too distant future, India will also surpass the USA. Yes, that history & emissions don't disappear, even when one arbitrarily cherry picks a particular year to evaluate from. Cherry picking - standard modus operandi for your science denying conservative Whether they disappear or not is neither here nor there. What counts is what they are emitting today, not back in 1990, or 2005, or 2007. "Your Honour, it doesn't matter that I killed 27 people 18 years ago, what matters is that I haven't killed anyone today!" Completely irrelevant and an utter straw man! It just shows that he's not really serious about climate change at all. Nah, the argument is just flying over your wilfully ignorant head
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBravo Google Is that meant as a joke or is it legit? It will certainly upset the faithful if they have renamed that arena.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBravo Google What? Algo bombing it lol? Hardly Google doing it at all. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xMy God, 'Dial it in' plays you guys well. Even his username says it. ET would barely exist now if it weren't for him riling you guys up aha Carry on TBF, Extra Time is only entertaining when everyone is at each others throat. The Mods have to stop banning the shit-stirrers
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBravo Google What? Algo bombing it lol? Hardly Google doing it at all. -PB Yeah almost certainly that. Still pretty good :laugh:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Paul,
Most European countries are investing heavily in renewables. All the 27 members of the EU are and they are receiving a lot of ECB funding to expand their programs.
Renewable investment in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus are also proceeding at a fast pace because the EU emission targets are strict and there will be EU fines for not meeting them. There are wind farms all over the country side with new projects starting each and every month. I'm not sure what there targets are but I would say that the EU demands are far more stricter than here.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPaul,Most European countries are investing heavily in renewables. All the 27 members of the EU are and they are receiving a lot of ECB funding to expand their programs. Renewable investment in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus are also proceeding at a fast pace because the EU emission targets are strict and there will be EU fines for not meeting them. There are wind farms all over the country side with new projects starting each and every month. I'm not sure what there targets are but I would say that the EU demands are far more stricter than here. Can confirm. Did contiki a few years back and all through France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Czech Republic there are solar/wind turbines everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPaul,Most European countries are investing heavily in renewables. All the 27 members of the EU are and they are receiving a lot of ECB funding to expand their programs. Renewable investment in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus are also proceeding at a fast pace because the EU emission targets are strict and there will be EU fines for not meeting them. There are wind farms all over the country side with new projects starting each and every month. I'm not sure what there targets are but I would say that the EU demands are far more stricter than here. Yeah I get that, but you said they're still heavily investing in Coal, that's the part I wanted clarification on. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Oh Pauline lol, the old "think before you speak". -PB
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOh Pauline lol, the old "think before you speak". -PB While there is a tiny element of sense (tiny as in in an ideal world you don't want any kids distracting other kids), she worded it horribly. What amuses me about the backlash though is that when I was at school the word autism almost didn't exist. Bratty/distracting kids were put in one class and those who wanted to strive for high marks another. Yet introduce autism to the debate and it's an absolute clusterfuck.
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
A mate was just telling me he got his new Land Rates notice thru and the price has jumped up 7% from last year.
I couldn't remember if a 7% increase in land rates was high or not.
Looking at past years, my own Land Rates have jumped:
15/16 - 16/17 = 5.2%
14/15 - 15/16 = 5.2%
13/14 - 14/15 = 2.5%
12/13 - 13/14 = 6.9%
How do they work this shit out, even? Whom calculates it each year, what is it based on, etc?
The way I understand it, the Emergency Services Levy is yet to be included into Land Rates as it has been delayed. So it is seemingly "naturally" increasing each year.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xA mate was just telling me he got his new Land Rates notice thru and the price has jumped up 7% from last year. I couldn't remember if a 7% increase in land rates was high or not. Looking at past years, my own Land Rates have jumped: 15/16 - 16/17 = 5.2% 14/15 - 15/16 = 5.2% 13/14 - 14/15 = 2.5% 12/13 - 13/14 = 6.9% How do they work this shit out, even? Whom calculates it each year, what is it based on, etc? The way I understand it, the Emergency Services Levy is yet to be included into Land Rates as it has been delayed. So it is seemingly "naturally" increasing each year. They work out how much more money they need to waste and charge accordingly :laugh:
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xA mate was just telling me he got his new Land Rates notice thru and the price has jumped up 7% from last year. I couldn't remember if a 7% increase in land rates was high or not. Looking at past years, my own Land Rates have jumped: 15/16 - 16/17 = 5.2% 14/15 - 15/16 = 5.2% 13/14 - 14/15 = 2.5% 12/13 - 13/14 = 6.9% How do they work this shit out, even? Whom calculates it each year, what is it based on, etc? The way I understand it, the Emergency Services Levy is yet to be included into Land Rates as it has been delayed. So it is seemingly "naturally" increasing each year. They work out how much more money they need to waste and charge accordingly :laugh: If that's the same as council rates then yeah :laugh: Do you pay state government land tax on all properties in NSW? In SA it's only on investment properties.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Greens are just as hypocritical as the big 2 when it comes to political expenses.
Sarah Hanson Young has claimed a $4k whale watching trip with her child as a political expense saying something along the lines of "she wanted to view the affects of oil drilling the Great Australian Bight first hand".
She's got to make up a better excuse than that. Terrible misuse of tax payer money.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xA mate was just telling me he got his new Land Rates notice thru and the price has jumped up 7% from last year. I couldn't remember if a 7% increase in land rates was high or not. Looking at past years, my own Land Rates have jumped: 15/16 - 16/17 = 5.2% 14/15 - 15/16 = 5.2% 13/14 - 14/15 = 2.5% 12/13 - 13/14 = 6.9% How do they work this shit out, even? Whom calculates it each year, what is it based on, etc? The way I understand it, the Emergency Services Levy is yet to be included into Land Rates as it has been delayed. So it is seemingly "naturally" increasing each year. They work out how much more money they need to waste and charge accordingly :laugh: If that's the same as council rates then yeah :laugh: Do you pay state government land tax on all properties in NSW? In SA it's only on investment properties. For us our land rates are council rates. We get 6 monthly land/council rates and quarterly water/sewerage rates. We also get a notice every year saying our land value has gone up so that council can charge more in rates. Parasites :laugh:
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Fucking lol, the Dark Abbott rises. People keep given that kent air time. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFucking lol, the Dark Abbott rises. People keep given that kent air time. -PB Didnt he say he wouldn't be snipping and yet what does he do
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
On what planet do people need to be doing a 3 month 'internship' at the coffee club. :crazy:
|
|
|
|