So i have come across this news. Thought i would share it with fellow OZBargainers and get their opinions, Are we likely to get flooded with alot of deals for Solar/Solar+Battery?
I reason why it got my attention is because i have always wanted to get the solar panels installed, maybe 5kw. And when we get these benefits, i think i would be down to get it installed just before summer.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-19/victorians-to-get-half…
I just hope this doesn't go the way of the roof insulation with cowboy installers .
I agree, it is a good incentive but it needs to be managed properly. I think the insulation scheme should get another run as well, particularly for rental properties, but the water is so muddied it probably can't. It is like the Barrier Reef debacle; everyone wants to save the reef but let's do it effectively and transparently.
The householder does have to pay half, so reduces consumers blindly signing up to the scheme without an element of due diligence. You can't protect everyone from themselves though. Some consumers will insist on installing solar despite having a roof that is shaded by a tree.
The problem with insulation wasn't just consumers blindly signing up - it was because it increased demand for insulation installers through the roof (pun not intended..) overnight, and so the numbers of licenced, professional and experienced installers couldn't keep up, leading to cheap and inexperienced ones joining the market.
With the government forking out the money they could’ve regulated who was licensed to install. No lincence, no money. That would’ve stopped the feeding frenzy.
@try2bhelpful: I think the installers were skirting the line pretty hard, because as I remember it there were licence requirements in place. But instead of say, 1 licenced installer working with one other workman per job, it turned into one licenced installer 'supervising' half a dozen unlicenced workman on half a dozen jobs.
@HighAndDry: then there should’ve been bigger penalties handed out for that sort of rubbish so they thought twice about it. I was going to suggest a longer timeframe for releasing funds but, then again, it is hard to setup a scheme that the next lot won’t destroy, even if it is a good idea.
@try2bhelpful: Oh yeah definitely.
But these kinds of schemes - the govt just throwing money at something - generally don't tend to end well just because it doesn't allow for the natural checks and balances to come into play. We all know how the baby bonus did…
Ageed, govt just throws money at these types of schemes.
I remember the TV digital switchover. Any oldie could request a set top box. "Installer" is sent boxes at no cost and paid ~$100 or more per box they installed. They were hiring techie kids and installed enormous amounts a day. Got a TV in the bedroom and rumpus? Here's another couple of boxes ($300 in one visit!) plug in RCA cables, set auto tune, get out and onto the next ;)
@HighAndDry: There is no reason why checks and balances can't be used - it is a matter of holding people accountable for what they manage.
@try2bhelpful: Of course they can be, it's the fact that they can't adjust/adapt fast enough that's the problem. You ease into a scheme, you discover problems and loopholes and potential for rorting, and you can address them. You dive straight into the deep-end of a scheme, by the time you discover all this, s***'s already hit the fan.
The accident rate per installation went down during the insulation scheme. The whole thing was a LNP beat-up.
Source?
4550 paid upfront, then half to be paid back over time.
According to solarchoise:
the average 5kW solar system price in Australia as of April 2017 is about $1.26 per watt – or about $6,800
Heaps of people will jump on this opportunity so companies will immediately stop competing to get the best price as there's plenty of customers to go around, all these new customers will cause a surge in demand for installers and components, which will cause the price to go up, which will negate a lot of the benefits. All while spending $1.2 billion of taxpayers money.
The only positive is finally getting back at the foreign owners of our privatised electrical grid who "gold plated" their way into massive profits and caused the Black Saturday Bushfires. The more people with solar the less value in owning the grid :)
That’s only the downside though. The upside is that the money will largely be spent in Australia on the install, the price won’t go up that much and there will be heaps of extra solar installations. Although add high service charges from elec companies as a downside.
I don't agree. A bigger market means more competition.
Installers will be competing on inclusions (more/better panels, batteries etc) and driving costs down to win customers at the magic $4550 price.
More customers will drive down the price of solar generally with economies of scale.
Supply & Demand.
If $1.2 billion was not spent on this, I'm sure about the same amount would be spent building power plants.
More efficient from a government perspective to make use of private land for free, plus make the landowners pay for half of it as well, not to mention the maintenance responsibility falling on the landowner.
As long as the regulations are in place this time, not just safety but also to protect consumers and from installing in shaded areas.
I'm not claiming I can predict the future, however the LPG rebate didn't work out this way
On my limited knowledge, and on the face of this being a pre-election promise with only a few details available, I think it is a positive step.
The up-front costs have been a deterrent to me installing solar, so this makes it more attractive for me.
I think there is also an associated pre-election announcement today for $1,000 rebate for solar hot water systems <update> The $1,000 rebate for solar hot water systems is an either-or with the solar panels promise, to cover those residences where solar panels are not suitable.
Looks like the actual 50% off starts immediately (with selected suppliers) but the interest free loan will only apply if they get voted in again.
Feck yes. So stoked. Mumma's gonna get some mad solar installed.
"From today, Victorians will be able to install a solar panel system and get half of the cost back via a 50 per cent rebate.
This will be expanded to include the interest-free loan from July next year, under a re-elected Labor Government.
The 50 per cent rebate on solar panel systems will be available to Victorians with a household income of up to $180,000 who live in their own home valued at up to $3 million – this means almost nine out of 10 Victorians who own their own house are eligible."
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/cutting-power-bills-with-sola…
You do realise the half that the Government "pays" for (and the lost interest on the loans) is effectively being paid for with your tax money?
Nothing a government ever gives you is free - you end up paying for it anyway.
Really? I thought that the government just did overtime on their shifts at McDonalds for the extra spending money?
As you don't have control over how that tax money is spent, it really doesn't matter.
Labor pisses money away on poor people to buy votes
Liberals palm money off to their business buddies by the truckload, with nothing to show for it.
Either way, billions of dollars thrown away, but at least with the first one you have a chance of seeing it again. Any money given to poor people is immediately spent in local businesses, and has flow on effects.
@HighAndDry: The 'trickle down' economic model has been tried, and I don't think it works as well as some would suggest.
In this industry, there are huge players making huge profits. They are not necessarily creating more jobs within their companies.
This proposal is a positive one, and we have to hope that the government puts the controls in place to not make it a cash-grab. To some extent they have already done that, in announcing the solar hot water rebate specifically for those properties that are not suited to solar panels.
It will be interesting to see what the other major party comes up with in the election lead up.
The 'trickle down' economic model has been tried, and I don't think it works as well as some would suggest.
Oh, it definitely doesn't work as well as some people would have you believe.
But a healthy economy needs a mix of consumer spending and capital spending. So unless you think the poor people getting money from Labor are going to be investing that money into Plant Property and Equipment… that's not objectively better either.
^ That's the general philosophy anyway.
Specifically regarding this scheme? I don't know the details (I'm not sure the government knows either) but I think it's a good idea. Though this isn't really a handout to poor people either - it's a handout to property owners which tend to exclude the bottom strata of society.
About as much as economic activity as thieves produce from stealing cars.
BTW, 'poor' is really a technical definition. Nobody is poor in this country with the welfare we have, unless its by choice or design. The divide for Poor/Rich in my books is anyone with a net worth of less than 20 million.
@outlander: You have a really weird notion of "poor" then, because if we're talking net worth, someone with $20 Mil is not even upper middle class, they're solidly upper class.
Also - do people just blindly down-vote anything that doesn't vilify the rich? Poverty isn't a virtue.
@HighAndDry: I think the down-votes come from people being told for 2-3 generations about trickle down economics being good for them and seeing the country’s wealth slowly being consolidated into fewer and fewer people.
Like I said, its a technical definition, and that's not to say whose rich or poor, just whose side you should be on if your acting in your own best interests. There are no Oliver Twists in this country. And 20 mil may seem like a lot to you, but its nothing compared to the main players. 20 mil just gets you admission, it doesn't buy you any rides.
The thing to remember is that even if you hate the poor, think they're stupid and lazy (not far off the truth), the flow on effects from poor-relief efforts are substantial. Poor people spend. They spend every dollar they get. The more they have, the faster they spend it. For small local businesses, they see a boom because poor people don't know how to use the internet. For individuals, they see cheaper second hand goods, as poor people rush to make ill advised upgrades on cars and appliances.
So there are there some positives to the wasteful government spending, if your smart and know where to look for the opportunities.
Whereas the liberal approach.. just leads to more corruption. Why buy plant equipment to build stuff to sell and make money, when you can just bribe politicians to give you the money directly? So much simpler.
and seeing the country’s wealth slowly being consolidated into fewer and fewer people.
Bah. That's just people being jealous and greedy. Living standards have been improving non-stop for the past countless decades even through the GFC. Wealth being "consolidated" is irrelevant since the overall wealth for everyone has been growing, so even a smaller piece of the pie is a much bigger slice because it's now a much bigger pie.
And no, envy and avarice are not virtues.
@HighAndDry: You haven’t addressed the point that the wealthy are getting more of the pie and I would dispute it is a bigger pie. Trickle down economics is a complete con job. There are a lot of people in insecure work that is rife for exploitation; the papers are full of this. I’m just glad I’m getting to the end of my career than the beginning. Yes, we had less shiny toys but we could afford to buy a house and a decent degree gave you a good chance at a good job. Now there is HECs and very expensive housing and corporations are cutting jobs, not making them. A lot of the new jobs are lower paying and insecure. How many fricking Ferraris does one person need whilst someone else is living on the street? The GFC was not too bad if you had a reserve and you weren’t greedy. I wonder how many ordinary people have those reserves now. I am not envious, all things equal I’m heading for a comfortable retirement, I’m disgusted at the inequality and the vulgar excesses.
You haven’t addressed the point that the wealthy are getting more of the pie
I did - by saying that it doesn't matter unless your motive is greed or jealousy. If you're better off, why are you bitter that others are better off by more?
and I would dispute it is a bigger pie.
From wikipedia:
The economy of Australia is one of the largest mixed-market economies in the world, with a GDP of A$1.69 trillion as of 2017.[26] Australia is the second-wealthiest nation in terms of wealth per adult, after Switzerland.
Despite the recent decline in the mining sector, the Australian economy has remained resilient and stable[34][35] and has not experienced a recession since July 1991.
So sure, you can dispute it, but you'd be wrong.
I’m disgusted at the inequality and the vulgar excesses.
Again, inequality doesn't matter when everyone has more, unless you're just jealous and bitter others have it better. And "vulgar" excesses? Why do people perpetuate this myth that anyone who has more money than them couldn't possibly have worked hard for it? Yes, there are bad people who're rich. There're equally bad people who're poor.
For the last time, poverty is not a virtue.
@HighAndDry: if you read all of my reply you would see I’m not bitter I’m disgusted, also please indicate how the pie is bigger for non wealthy people when you take into account housing costs and insecure work.
@try2bhelpful: I read your comment before you edited. Stop stealth-editing and maybe I can respond to more of your comment at once.
[Edit]:
you would see I’m not bitter I’m disgusted
Okay, in that case my question still stands:
"If you're better off, why are you disgusted that others are better off by more?
Explain that with anything other than just jealousy.
also please indicate how the pie is bigger for non wealthy people when you take into account housing costs and insecure work.
I've shown the pie is bigger - literally economic growth. You want to say housing costs and insecure work cancel it out, you go show your working.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-12/population-growth-mask…
You are not showing how everyone has more, an average increase that favours high end come earners does not mean the people at the bottom have also got an increase, that is the problem with talking about a bigger pie and extrapolating. It is the problem with all the averaging figures.
Poverty is not a virtue but it is also not something to be ashamed of either. People do not have equal access to wealth, if you are born wealthy you are more likely to stay wealthy and if you are born poor you are more likely to stay poor. My family was lower middle class so my money is something I earned, but I worked in factories when younger so I could see how life could’ve been if I hadn’t got a lucky break in being able to go to Uni. I am not jealous or bitter, as I have indicated I don’t want their wealth, I am just appalled that some people are living on the streets whilst some people are amassing fortunes. Also, given the spate of reporting on exploitive management, dodgy business practices and white colour crime, not all of this has been gotten by “working hard”. Look at the Royal Commission into the Banks. There were very few perpetrators that were actually charged with a crime, a lot of dodgy deals were swept under the carpet and ordinary people bore the brunt. Bang for buck the average worker would be paying way more of their tax burden than the wealthy or large corporations.
I don’t have a problem if people earn their money “working hard” but a lot of wealth has little to do with “working hard” and a lot to do with how well you can exploit others. Take money off someone in a robbery you go to jail, do the same with white colour crime you might, if unlucky, be fired and the company will cover the crime to avoid embarrassment.
@try2bhelpful: I don't think the article actually says what you think, or want, it to say.
The graph for actual per capita income shows an upwards trend since 1995. It's only the graph for Profits and Wages share that shows downward share for wages - but again, that's the proportion, not the absolute value.
"Since mid-2010, wages growth has eased and is currently running at its lowest annual rate since the 1990s recession."
Note that says wages growth has eased, not flattened. It's still growing.
And let's say you're right. The article itself says the solution is:
In other words, governments need to pursue policies that help generate more jobs.
Do you think companies/businesses generate jobs, or do you think poor people generate jobs? I've already said that I absolutely agree - supply-side economics is not the miracle cure-all that its proponents try to sell it as. But in terms of generating jobs (as opposed to just economic activity), it's still far better to apportion government support to businesses (both in terms of encouraging capital investment and jobs), than to consumers (which generates economic activity, but only in terms of consumption spending).
I don’t have a problem if people earn their money “working hard” but a lot of wealth has little to do with “working hard” and a lot to do with how well you can exploit others. Take money off someone in a robbery you go to jail, do the same with white colour crime you might, if unlucky, be fired and the company will cover the crime to avoid embarrassment.
I agree with you on a lot of things T2BH, and I think honestly you have a lot of life experience which serves you very well on a lot of topics. But economics and economic policy is not an area that anecdotal evidence (or, unfortunately, even reading the paper unless it's the AFR) does great in.
Edit:
Poverty is not a virtue but it is also not something to be ashamed of either.
And neither is wealth, despite all the comments here apparently arguing to the contrary.
I am just appalled that some people are living on the streets whilst some people are amassing fortunes.
Sure, but it's an unavoidable consequence of an economic system that rewards productivity and economic performance: yes, if you have more money and resources, you're able to be more productive. That's how capitalism works. There are alternatives, but economic systems are not something you play around with without a great deal of forethought (and unless something is drastically wrong) because the potential downside is Venezuela.
It's great to complain that our system isn't perfect. It's a far sight harder to propose a low-risk, working, alternative.
Look at the Royal Commission into the Banks. There were very few perpetrators that were actually charged with a crime, a lot of dodgy deals were swept under the carpet and ordinary people bore the brunt.
Bang for buck the average worker would be paying way more of their tax burden than the wealthy or large corporations.
How do you even measure "Bang for buck"? Does a wealthy company use more public resources than a poor person? No, it's the opposite. Do richer people use more public resources than poor people? No, again it's the opposite. We all use the same police system (believe me, poor people living in poor areas need it far more), we all use the same defense forces (that's a bit of an all-or-nothing), we all use the same court system (except for rich people being able to afford better lawyers… which they pay for), we all use the same public health system (except rich people who use the private health system more), etc. And that's not including the welfare system.
The list goes on. By and large, poor people use as much, if not far more, of the country's public expenditure than rich people or corporations. I don't complain about this, because this helps social cohesion and order. But it's a bit rich to complain that rich people are apparently paying less tax for more use of public resources.
Here's The Conversation, a left-wing publication, on the distribution of Australia's tax burden.
The Treasurer’s statement that the top 10% of incomes from working age persons pay 50% of personal income tax is correct.
The rich already pay more than their fair share, depending on your definition of "fair". To me, as someone who values self-sufficiency, it means paying your own way. And in Australia, ONLY the rich do so.
@HighAndDry: The article I linked to talked about how the wealth is unevenly distributed with the young and poor getting the smaller part of the pie, not sure how you interpreted it as anything else.
With "bang for buck" I'm talking about the percentage of their income that they are paying in taxes (happy to clarify). Your article doesn't actually address that. I welcome one where you do point that out. Personally I don't have an issue with tax cuts but it should be done at the bottom. Raise the tax free thresholds so the people earning the least get the best percentage breaks on their income.
We seem to agree that there isn't equal access to wealth based on where you started. I'm not saying some wealthy people aren't working hard, but there are equally hard workers who are just getting by. Wealth is not an indicator of "hard work" it is, usually, an indicator of getting suitable breaks and, often, how well you exploit others. Crime makes a lot of money, dodgy education facilities made a lot of money, dodgy real estate systems make a lot of money, etc - then the money gets repatriated overseas somewhere and the victim (including our governments) lose out.
I absolutely doubt there is any person in Australia that is self sufficient - they depend on Australian hospitals, roads, ports, etc to enable them to have the goods/services they need. I also have no problem with my taxes being used to pay for other people who haven't been as fortunate as I have.
Personally I think it is more admirable to stop someone starving or find them a home than to cheer on the sidelines for someone lucky enough to have accumulated some wealth; particularly when you look at how some wealthy people make their money. You may "value" self sufficieny, I prefer to value a society where people have enough to eat and aren't living on the streets. It all depends on perspective.
@HighAndDry: I think you’re wrong - wealth is far more than knowing where your next meal comes from. Wealth is about power, and differences in wealth equate to differences in power, even if no is starving. I don’t believe that people in their 20s are more powerful now than they were in the 80’s, despite there being less poverty.
And although I understand you’ve read Rand, no one is saying envy is a virtue.
The article I linked to talked about how the wealth is unevenly distributed with the young and poor getting the smaller part of the pie, not sure how you interpreted it as anything else.
But my entire point is that the proportion doesn't matter - if you're better off, you're better off. Why are you worrying about not being as much better off as others? What happened to the adage that you shouldn't look into others people's bowls other than to make sure they have enough?
This is literally looking into other people's bowls so you can complain that they have more than you. It's petty and greedy and selfish.
With "bang for buck" I'm talking about the percentage of their income that they are paying in taxes
I just linked to an article that confirms that: "the top 10% of incomes from working age persons pay 50% of personal income tax". And since we have a progressive tax system, with higher tax rates as you earn more, yes - rich people may a greater percentage of their income as taxes too. That's inherent in a progressive tax system, surely you don't need a citation for that?
We seem to agree that there isn't equal access to wealth based on where you started. I'm not saying some wealthy people aren't working hard, but there are equally hard workers who are just getting by.
Unless this is some fancy "Da man is keepin' you down" variation, my response is really "So what?" You want to blame something, blame God, or fate, or your (un)lucky stars. Just because you might not be reaping the rewards you think you deserve - and everyone thinks they deserve more - doesn't mean others haven't earned what they're getting.
Do you complain about lottery winners too because they benefit solely from a stroke of incredible luck? Because by your logic you should be. Maybe we should seize their lottery winnings and distribute it to everyone who bought a ticket.
Crime makes a lot of money, dodgy education facilities made a lot of money, dodgy real estate systems make a lot of money, etc - then the money gets repatriated overseas somewhere and the victim (including our governments) lose out.
Sure, but the line between crime, and not-crime, is that criminals are breaching the rules society as a whole have agreed on by way of laws, and rich people who're not criminals have made their money following the rules that society as a whole have agreed on. If you believe in society and that we need to abide by rules, you also need to acknowledge when others have followed those rules, even if you might disagree. Otherwise you're no better than criminals (or those dodgy banks, agents, schools, etc) who only respect the rules they agree with.
I absolutely doubt there is any person in Australia that is self sufficient - they depend on Australian hospitals, roads, ports, etc
Self-sufficient in the sense that they are paying for the proportion of those that they use. Considering the top 10% of income earners pay 50% of all personal income tax, I'm going to guess only they are doing so. Everyone else is, to put it bluntly (and yes, including myself) leeches.
Personally I think it is more admirable to stop someone starving or find them a home than to cheer on the sidelines for someone lucky enough to have accumulated some wealth
Key word being "personally" - good, go do that, but don't try to force your values on everyone else, including by judging others by your personal, subjective values. Judge not lest ye be judged, or let he (she?) who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that. I'm not religious, but I find that's a good rule to live by.
particularly when you look at how some wealthy people make their money.
Key word being "some". Again - yes, some rich people are bastards. But then, so are some poor people. And some middle class people. If you're using a small (and yes, it is small even if more widely publicized) subset of a group to generalize to that entire group, you might want to consider what you're doing. After all, all I'm saying is that Poverty is not a virtue, while you seem to be arguing that Wealth is a vice.
I prefer to value a society where people have enough to eat and aren't living on the streets. It all depends on perspective.
It does depend on perspective. But no amount of perspective will eliminate practicality as a consideration, and your ideal utopia where we have zero homelessness or food insecurity doesn't exist. And I'd rather our current system, which yes - is absolutely imperfect - which allows for the most number of people to be prosperous, have their basics satisfied, and is sustainable.
If you want to change this system, you need more than pipe dreams and aspirational musings - you need a solid workable alternative. Because yet again, the risk of failing when you change the system, might be Venezuela. I guess if everyone is starving, we'll have far less inequality. But then again, I never thought that inequality was itself a problem at all.
@AddNinja: Actually I've never read any Rand. I've read enough people convinced that I have to have reasonable idea of what it is, but honestly it seems like extremism just of a different flavour. Extremist policies are seldom correct.
Wealth is about power, and differences in wealth equate to differences in power
Sure. But wealth only has power because people without it want it. Or those who have it want more I guess.
It only becomes necessarily powerful when it comes to availability and access to necessities, and no one here talking about "the poor" are only talking about those who're starving. They're just talking about those who sees others with money and are bitter they don't have as much.
And although I understand you’ve read Rand, no one is saying envy is a virtue.
You said this:
I think the down-votes come from people being told for 2-3 generations about trickle down economics being good for them and seeing the country’s wealth slowly being consolidated into fewer and fewer people.
What else do you call "being better off, but bitter because you're not as better off as some others" other than envy and greed? I think I asked this before but I don't remember getting an answer - because again, living standards have improved across the board. Even according to Anglicare, who noone could accuse being on the side of big business:
We find that living standards have increased in Australia over the past 10 years however, that
growth was not shared evenly by all. The gap in the living standards between the richest and
poorest grew by around 13 percentage points during this period and we project a further
widening by 10.4 per cent over the coming decade. Growth in living standards of the top 20
per cent grew by around 22.1 per cent while the bottom 20 per cent grew by just 13.8 per
cent.
Their only complaint? Again that living standards for the poor didn't improve as much as those for the rich - but they still improved markedly.
@HighAndDry: I agree with you that some poor people want the rich taxed more just out of envy. But there are other reasons to want to take money from rich people to give to everyone else. One is that societies with a more equal distribution of wealth are happier more pleasant places to be in. Another is that although some wealth comes from hard work, much comes from luck and just having more money to begin with. The final one I mentioned. As well as sharing money, we want to share power so that everyone buys into society. Just because none is starving doesn’t mean that they have power.
I agree that rich people pay the majority of the income tax in Australia. That’s great - But I think they should pay more until we stop seeing the gap between the rich and poor forever growing to crazy levels like in the states.
But there are other reasons to want to take money from rich people to give to everyone else.
I disagree with most (if not all) of those. I mean - just because you might be robbing a bank to give the money to the poor instead of keeping it for yourself doesn't make you right.
One is that societies with a more equal distribution of wealth are happier more pleasant places to be in.
Define "more pleasant", and cite your sources please, in whichever order. Because last I checked, the place most poor people in the world want to migrate to is still the US, and that's certainly not some paragon of wealth equality. Unless you think you know better than those poor people I guess.
Another is that although some wealth comes from hard work, much comes from luck and just having more money to begin with.
Okay, so I guess I'm justified if I wanted to mug lotto winners?
As well as sharing money, we want to share power so that everyone buys into society.
Good, go vote. Or share your own money. Forcibly taking someone else's money is a rather funny definition of "share". Also - apparently you only care about poor people buying into society, because I'm not sure having your money taken would make the rich buy in.
I agree that rich people pay the majority of the income tax in Australia. That’s great - But I think they should pay more until we stop seeing the gap between the rich and poor forever growing to crazy levels like in the states.
Again, have you heard of the tragedy of Venezuela the Socialist Utopia? It's not a story the Left would tell you…
I'm not even going to bother addressing any of your arguments, because I've heard them before. Nothing you've said is original. If I were to guess I'd say you were a JBP fan, and might have watched a few videos of Milton Friedman, but there's no way to know for sure. Popular theories get regurgitated and spread so many times a person can recite the main points almost word for word and never know the true source.
There is something I would like to know though, thats of personal interest to me.
Do you feel like you're voicing the unpopular opinion?
Do you believe that society is supported by the hard work of a select few, but instead of showing appreciation people of the lower classes just whine and try to steal a bigger unearned share?
Do you feel like because you're arguing on their behalf, you're doing whats right, even though its against your own interests?
Do you think wealthy people act in financially responsible ways, by saving and investing, while poor people give in to temptation and spend impulsively, spending their money on things like booze and cigarettes?
I'm not even going to bother addressing any of your arguments
Then I'll return the favour.
WTF!! If Daniel Andrews was prepared to pay for solar panels for those living in government housing fair enough but to give handouts/loans to owner occupiers is BS. If you can afford to buy a house you can afford your own bloody solar panels.
That pretty much answers the question then. I'm not sure there is a way to ever reach your kind on an intellectual level. The position your arguing from is so firmly embedded in your self image, that any attempt to argue against it is treated as a personal attack. In a very real sense, you don't exist. You're just a relay station for the ideas of someone more successful.
Shame. At least you have plenty of company there.
Would love to see if you mature out of it, or if its a character trait that stays for life. I did, but then I never had your focus or zeal (and I have read Atlas Shrugged. She has some good points, but ultimately the foundation they are built on is too unstable)
edit: Here's a link you will enjoy that supports all your held beliefs
I'm not sure there is a way to ever reach your kind on an intellectual level.
I guess I'm glad I didn't answer. I wonder if you ever look in the mirror.
I kind of want to clarify, even if leaving it at that ^ would be more satisfying from a rhetorical angle. I've never watched any Milton Friedman videos (or know what/who JBP is). I haven't read any Rand. The topic itself is an old one, so all arguments on both sides have been hashed and rehashed ad nauseum. If you think you've come across a new argument for either side, that says more about you than it does about that particular argument. That doesn't impact the validity or invalidity of any argument, which should stand or fall on their own merits.
I have no consideration of self-interest in this. I neither care that I'm currently not "rich" (what was it, $20M+ net worth?) nor that I aspire to be rich (still not $20M+ networth though) one day. Again - those aren't really relevant to the validity of either side.
One last thing though - you might want to stop projecting. I find that those who blindly and zealously believe in one side will tend to carry that blind zeal with them, whether or not they maintain their pre-existing beliefs or cross to the other side. Nor are there anyone more zealous than a new convert, which makes for a bad combination. You might not have matured as much as you think you did.
Very interesting. I did not predict that kind of a response. This makes me less certain of things. I do not like this feeling.
JBP stands for Jordan Peterson, a spokesperson for 'taking responsibility' among other things. He is rapidly growing in popularity. You should watch some Milton Friedman, he's very good. He's polite and eloquent. I have grown to find flaws in all the things he says, but when I first watched him he made a lot of sense. You are sure to enjoy him.
I agree with your stance on the validity of an argument. It should be able to be judged on its own merits. However, to do that you need a suitably accurate framework for it to be compared against. In simpler terms, if your understanding of the world is flawed/shallow, its harder to reject false ideas, because the contradictions aren't as easily seen.
I probably should stop projecting, but I know myself well enough to know thats probably not going to happen. As for sides, I'm sure I am on one, but it's not one that I know of yet. I support the poor over the rich only because the timescale for avoiding destruction is slightly longer.
How do you plan to become rich?
@outlander: As a thought exercise, and I think everyone should do this with respect to every opinion they hold and believe is important, I'll make the case for the opposite side. And I dare say, I'll make a better argument than most actual proponents of that side. And I'll do it without resorting to asinine emotive arguments like "oh but think of the poor people!" or "oh but that's unfair!" Life's unfair, that's not an argument for or against anything.
So, in favour of a heavily progressive tax system.
Ultimately, wealth (as I said above) is dependent on envy and others wanting that wealth. Any student of economics will tell you that price (which is effectively perceived value) is a function of supply and demand. If there is no demand, an ingot of gold is worth as much as a rock. That's enough vague BS so let me get to the point - without society ascribing value to their assets, rich people will lose most of what they have even without a cent taken from them.
The more someone owns, the more they depend on society to remain functional and stable to maintain that wealth. So the more someone owns, the more benefit they derive from anything which keeps society running, whether it be welfare transfer payments so that people don't riot, or defense forces so that the country isn't invaded. And what's the first thing to happen at a sign of instability? Stock markets. Sure - it wipes out people's retirements and mum and pop investors, but they generally don't have billions in the stock market.
Having a progressive tax system, which allows you to have and maintain a strong social welfare safety net - is what keeps the majority of people happy and content and not rioting. Income and wealth inequality is not bad in and of itself - that's just numbers - its real cost is in the social unrest and damage to social cohesion which results. On an individual level, you can say that someone who robs a bank because "f*** the rich" is a law enforcement problem and they should be prosecuted and locked up. On a societal level, a hundred thousand people doing the same thing is no longer a law enforcement problem and becomes a revolution. And the thing about revolutions is that it doesn't care whether you agree with it or not.
On a less drastic, not so much ad absurdem fallacy level, even milder losses of social cohesion can mean broader impacts on a country's productivity and economic level. Happy people, people who think they're being treated fairly, are more willing to come to the table and compromise, and generally easier to motivate. A great example is Germany, where labour unions and business owners have an equal stake in many companies and make decisions jointly. It may lead to lower efficiencies in the short term (high rates of pay, better leave, conditions etc) but there's a reason no one associates Germany with inefficiency, because conversely when conditions become bad, unlike Detroit where the demands of the UAW literally bankrupt several manufacturing plants, German companies and their labour unions are able to compromise, each sacrificing in the short term to keep the whole enterprise afloat.
Detroit is a good example of how just perceived unfairness, whether or not they are valid complaints or not, lead to worse outcomes for everyone. Another example is Zimbabwe, and now South Africa. They were, and are, in the process of kicking experienced white farmers off the land. In Zimbabwe, we've already see this lead to giant crop losses because the black people who take over have no idea how to work the land. And yet they'll put up with literal starvation in order to remedy what they saw as an injustice. Everyone loses.
Absolute wealth equality may not be possible. You simply can't bring homelessness down to zero. But you can certainly make an effort so that those with plenty give up what would be an imperceptible portion of their wealth, for the greater good of the entire economy and society in general.
The saying "A rising tide lifts all boats" is often used in support of supply side economics, but it applies much more broadly. The rich own, by far, a much larger slice of the pie than everyone else. By that same logic, anything which benefits society and the economy as a whole - anything which increases the size of that pie - benefits the rich far more than all others.
@HighAndDry:
Pretty much if you take power and money from a rich person and give it to a poor person, they will lose it very quickly and more people will suffer. Being poor is not a lack of money, it is a state of being and inevitable in human society.
No poor people in a communist country. Everyone has the same. Poor requires the existence of the opposite, wealthy. Socialism eradicates all class difference.
@Thaal Sinestro: Except it doesn't. Even in soviet russia the high level party members, had there cars, servants, etc that the average russian didn't have. It also it doesn't make sense mathematically if two people get the same income but one spends less in meeting his needs than the other the savers overall wealth will rise despite the equality in their incomes.
At no point in history has what you described ever happened becuase of simple mathematics. The only way equality could be achieved is if everyone got exactly the same circumstances (even down to physical bodies and health), with exactly the same resources and with exactly the same expenses. It is not ever going to happen.
$1.24 billion @ $1.26 per watt (from above) = 984,126kW Solar System. That would produce maybe 5.5millionkwh on a good summers day.
Would seem to make more sense for the government to invest that in an epic solar farm(s) to pump electricity into the grid?
Provides the uplift in generation that the grid needs to drop electricity prices.
Creates an asset that will provide the government with an income stream to payback the $1.24billion its spending on this project.
Avoids handing out cash hand over fist to an industry that is rife with shonky operators before such a program existed.
I can't upvote your comment enough. Sadly this is the reality where the poliies are more concerned about the votes rather than trying to do good.
The Victorian Government is already investing "in an epic solar farm":
Construction on Victoria’s 100MW Numurkah Solar Farm has already commenced, with major supply contracts secured for the Laverton steelworks and the Melbourne tram network.
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2018/07/28/victorias-1…
But you would never know it if you relied on the MSM.
That doesn't get votes though. Plus you don't have to spend $$$ to run and maintain the solar plant.
This way people can directly see how the government paid for their vote, by look at their roof queue that old colorbond ad
What a fantastic offer, so I, and thousands of others, who already have them….. we just might have to say something.
I don't understand your comment; are you saying that you already have solar panels and are therefore against the policy (because you will miss out) and will therefore vote for another party?
If so, there are very few government policies that would apply to 100% of the population (and this one will not as well).
Surely deciding who to vote for should be inclusive of the 'greater good' rather than just what is in it for me?
Surely deciding who to vote for should be inclusive of the 'greater good' rather than just what is in it for me?
Except this policy effectively penalizes those people who did the right thing earlier. It is likely to have a chilling effect on people doing the right thing, because in the future, someone will think: "I can do this which is better for the environment, or wait for the government to pay me to do the same thing instead of missing out."
The earlier adopters of solar panels will not be penalised. They will just not specifically benefit.
They did enjoy federal government rebates for the installation, and generous feed-in rates for a number of years, whilst others (who may not have been in a position to do so at that time) did not.
This proposal seems a little more equitable to me.
They will just not specifically benefit.
I understand that's a conceptual difference, but practically they lose out.
@HighAndDry: Sorry, but can you explain specifically how or what "they lose out".
Surely there are any number of government policies / initiatives that do not directly 'benefit' (or even impact on) large sections of the population, but that is completely different to losing out?
Install solar before this initiative starts: Don't get this benefit.
Install solar after this initiatve starts: Get the benefit.
Net result - the person who installed earlier, and therefore helped the environment more, doesn't get the benefit while the person who installs it later does.
Perzacterly. I got on early to be a leader in the pack, not to be overtaken by it like this. I think we should not only benefit from this offer as well, maybe a bonus for what we have already given the power companies.
Government rebate? Not the price we paid.
Generous feed-ins? 8c kWh??? Wow, wait, it's 11c now, still way lower than the cost for us to buy 'their' kWh.
@try2bhelpful: Not from the Victorian government? And I'm not sure if the earlier ones are still applicable (so new installers will be able to benefit from both) or the amounts involved (if the earlier ones were as beneficial…).
But policy-wise, it's always a bad idea to effectively penalize early adopters of good things - they already are taking a bigger risk (unproven tech, etc), generally pay higher prices (new tech, less economies of scale, etc), and most govt policies generally encourage the early uptake of such things, or at least are ongoing.
Look at electronic vehicles - most common schemes involve lower registration costs (I don't think that's in NSW yet) but that benefits existing owners as well as new owners. I guess there are also schemes which discount transfer duty for e-vehicles that'd also have the same issues though.
@Chris Topher: But the feed-in was originally 60c/kWh.
Regardless, my view remains that we (as a society) cannot take an attitude that all government policies / initiatives must benefit us directly.
What is your view on education (if you or your family are not direct beneficiaries of changes to TAFE funding - as an example).
What is your view on increasing police or ambulance services (if you or your family are hopefully not in need of those).
Regardless, my view remains that we (as a society) cannot take an attitude that all government policies / initiatives must benefit us directly.
Of course we can. That's literally how democracy works - we all vote in our own self interest, and collectively we work out what our society as a whole wants. Of course, that can include enlightened self-interest, which is stuff like a better environment which might incur short-term costs but have long-term benefits.
What is your view on education (if you or your family are not direct beneficiaries of changes to TAFE funding - as an example).
Then don't increase funding - unless the increase in TAFE funding can be shown to improve Australia's economy as a whole, and/or have other benefits.
What is your view on increasing police or ambulance services (if you or your family are hopefully not in need of those).
I don't know how anyone could definitively say they won't need policing or ambulance services, but exactly the same - if I think those services are already sufficient for what I need, and is enough to uphold social cohesion, then no, I wouldn't support increasing them.
…
Are you under some impression that we should all agree to unlimited increases in policing and ambulance services? Surely you can see there's a level at which those will be enough and more won't necessarily be better?
Early adopters got to rort that extremely favourable feed in tariff for years and years at other energy users expense.
You forgot about how you got to be smug for years and years at family and friends BBQ's. Boasting how much money you are saving in lower power bills every quarter, how the thing is paying for itself, and how you are saving the environment.
@serpserpserp:
As with all people who assume, you too are wrong.
I haven't been on solar 'that' long. So wipe that smug look off your face and get some facts before you post about any omissions that I might have made.
@HighAndDry:
This is similar to new mobile customers getting benefits for signing up as a brand new customer while long term customers don't get rewarded
@Chris Topher:
it's not 11 cents the state gov dropped it to 10 cents in June
I find it interesting that the pay in rate an amount paid by power companies to people with solar was dropped so lowering their cost for power, then the Government offers to help pay people to put in solar, these companies will then buy the power at the new lower cost effectively using taxpayer funds to benefit large mainly foreign owed power companies with as far as i can see no financial return for the government
If you have roof space, you could perhaps install more panels with the scheme to add to your existing battery storage / feed-in. Those able to afford solar panels in the past have effectively helped drive up the cost of energy bills to the rest, (I suspect this initiative will inflate the cost of energy further in the long-term) much like the FHOG.
However, solar has for many Australians still somewhat a luxury option, and if we can one day soon reap some savings that would be a great thing for the environment (even if it does little to ease our power bills).
Can anyone explain the logic in excluding rental properties from this scheme?
Renters seem to be penalised for no good reason.
Other than that, looks good policy.
As renters do not own the property, they generally cannot do improvements to the property.
Of course.
The offer should go to the property owner, and then the benefits of cheaper power bills, go to the tenant.
No different to the NBN rollout really.
In this proposal, a property that is rented out is excluded from the offer, as the owner needs to be resident.
Exactly!
And hence why I asked the question of why.
This exclusion only serves to penalize tenants doesn't it? All good for homeowners though.
@sir_bazz: I'm not sure of how a tenant will be penalised.
They certainly will not benefit directly, but that is not a penalty.
@GG57:
Exclusion from access to the solar FIT is a penalty.
No panels = No FIT.
And at the same time, every owner occupier, (assuming 100% take up rate), will benefit from lower power bills.
I just think that all Vic residents should be able to benefit from this policy, rather than just owner occupiers.
@sir_bazz: Extracts from the article linked by OP:
"…scheme is available to owner-occupied homes valued at less than $3 million, with a combined household income of less than $180,000."
Not every owner-occupier will benefit.
"Adding an extra 2,000 megawatts of solar beyond what was expected to happen will lower energy bills for all Victorian households…"
So renters will still enjoy lower energy bills
@sir_bazz: if the scheme works out then it may be extended. This sounds like the Government trying to ring fence it to reduce the “rip off” factor. If you are an owner occupier you get one property done, if you are a landlord you can do many. The more properties the more chance of it being rorted.
@GG57:
Make no mistake, the extra 2000 megawatts generated by solar here, reduces the power bills of those who generated it,(through the FIT).
And it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that energy retailers will look at their shrinking revenues and offset this with increased daily supply charges.
A potential double whammy to renters.
and how does the owner recoup the extra $2500-$4000it costs for the installation if the generation goes to the tenant
@iand:
Fair question.
I dont see any reason why a tenant should receive additional benefits that an owner occupier wouldn't receive. So the tenant would only benefit from lower power bills once the interest free loan has been repaid…same as an owner occupier would need to do.
Probably means a short term tenant may not see the benefit if they move out prior to the loan being repaid, but any subsequent tenants would.
@sir_bazz:
The proposal does not apply to tenanted properties. It is in the article linked by OP.
The proposal does state that, on an assumption that more electricity will be generated and fed into the grid, that overall retail electricity prices should drop. If it does, then tenants will benefit from that drop in retail prices.
@GG57:
Clearly I have read the announcement. My question, that you replied to, is why wasn't the offer extended to all properties?
The means test and the asset test seem fair and reasonable as those excluded under these tests can be expected be in a position to self fund the panels. The rental property exclusion however, doesn't seem to have good reasoning behind it.
And I can only respond to the assumption that electricity prices will drop across the board,as political spin.
What it will do, is help to address potential short falls in supply due to the closure of our coal powered generators but that's an issue of reliability rather price.
@sir_bazz: Yes, there will always be gaps in all government policies / initiatives.
In this case, the proposal is stated as expecting to cover 650,000 homes (over 10 years). That is better than nothing.
Similarly, I can't understand why all buildings shouldn't have panels installed (regardless if tenanted residential, commercial, car parks, etc.). I would even suggest that no feed-in credits would be required, if we could rely on the electricity providers to reflect the additional supply in lower retail supply prices.
Unfortunately the industry is privatised and no longer government run, so such a concept cannot be mandated.
@GG57: > So renters will still enjoy lower energy bills
How so? With less customers paying for electricity from the power companies, the cost per kwh will rise, those without access to solar (renters, generally the poorer people) will be paying even more for power.
So not only do the rich get to increase the value of their properties (subsidised by renters who don't benefit), the poor will end up paying more for electricity in the future.
@idonotknowwhy: Explained in a subsequent comment yesterday:
"on an assumption that more electricity will be generated and fed into the grid, that overall retail electricity prices should drop."
That is the assumption.
"The rich…" need to have a household income of <$180k. to qualify, so not all of "the rich" will benefit. Some would argue they are, in fact, penalised.
I would have thought if I had a rental property with a solar system on it, I would have factored that saving into my rental price.
If little landlords are allowed to get this for free, you do realise they'll get it installed and up the rent on your because it improves the amenity of the property?
@serpserpserp:
You may be right there. Our agent said pretty much the same a couple of years back.
But would the same still be true "if" every dwelling had solar panels installed? I dunno. It may well become viewed as a normal expectation rather than an additional amenity, much like roofing insulation or double glazed windows, (in new dwellings), are?
In any case, I don't see it as a good or valid reason to exclude rental properties from the proposal. Including rental properties still adds new green generation to the grid which is a good thing for all.
Its a vote buying exercise. Landlords often own several properties, so its a lower return on investment per vote, and no good to renters because 'I don't own this place, why would I bother putting solar panels on?'
Cynical view but hard to disagree with.
Cynical.. no, thats my positive viewpoint.
My cynical side says that this is being pushed forward by liberals or liberal-friendly allies, in order to discredit solar in favor of coal, which the liberals have been pushing hard lately for some unknown reason.
@outlander: Likely yes on the second bit. Back in 2010 (was it?) True Value Solar opened one of their ads amid sirens, klaxons and the yelled proclaimation: THE CARBON TAX IS COMING!.
It was trashy, scare-tactic advertising where they tried to panic everyone. They were reading from the Credlin/Abbott playbook. As you may have seen recently, Credlin's on-air admission they were bullshitting everyone about the ETS to seize political power.
My cynical side foresees low quality products and workmanship ahead. Hope we don't see flying panels (or worse) in future gales.
Nvm
Just reread article