Stage 3 tax cut is now live, what would you spend the extra money on or would you salary sacrifice to your super?
What Would You Spend Stage 3 Tax Cut Saving on?
DaHuntz on 02/07/2024 - 11:11
Last edited 02/07/2024 - 12:50 by 1 other user
Last edited 02/07/2024 - 12:50 by 1 other user
Comments
Wait 'til your great-grand kids are still paying for Mr Potato Head's nuclear waste clean up, if he gets his way with the nuclear power, back of a beer coaster, plan.
@DashCam AKA Rolts: Plenty of room on top of the great divide for a few windmills and a DC wire from Cairns to Adelaide.
Chuck in a few batteries which could be built under license locally and we would have green power forever.
But only a national approach free of corruption could solve this. And buying less oil from the Arabs whilst sniffing less carbon monoxide being a welcome side effect.@payless69: And no taxpayer or consumer subsidies to any power producer - wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas, battery.
Let any power source stand on its own two feet. If it's viable, it'll make money.
@DashCam AKA Rolts: Indeed. It's good to disagree - the more opinions the merrier - but usually, the right are nearly always right.
@payless69: Big "Uncle emailing everyone in his family links to Facebook posts" energy.
If we could tap that we wouldn't even need to bother with other power sources.
Far less waste from thorium-salt reactors, but that's ok, I don't expect low IQ people to understand nuclear isn't trapped in 1960 mentality ;)
@7ekn00: The Poms had to ask the French to build Hinkley Point.
Personally I have no fear of nuclear power. But they take 10 years to build, going 3 times over budget and at the end cost 20 times as much to de-commission.
Makes proper sized windmills pretty much the most cost effective solution.@payless69: Yeah, screw the birds, they can learn not to breed near wind installations :P
I am all for perovskite solar solar with much cheaper flow battery storage ;)
@7ekn00: Modern blades have feathery sides and birdstrikes are hardly a topic anymore.
But thanks to QLD Labor we had to exterminate rare birds so we can sell coal to Adani!
Of course there is also room for solar on the great divide!
@Freitag: The US has a catalog of bird species. When a rare one gets struck some compensation goes to a breeding programme. Makes total sense.
Birds also poop onto solar panels. They need to be accessible to be cleaned and this cost needs to be brought into consideration.
Nuke station: 40 year average life span, then 20 times the disposal cost, sorry no longer worth in todays money.
Windmills: 25 year average lifespan, can be mostly recycled. A 40 year cost average makes it by far the cheapest.
Solar panels: 10 years ahead in cost savings then dropping off to a 40 year average of being a bit more costly just over the wind power option.
Coal burning: Labour's preferred voters grab. Pays union mates destroys the world but hey stupidity always wins. Dumbo Scholz in Germany is so proud of the CO2 he farts into the air.
@payless69: Probably 15 years to build a full-scale nuke and they are eye-wateringly expensive but they do work.
We need some kind of thermal baseload - renewables on their own are not enough to power a 1st world industrialised nation. A combination of both is the way to go.
@7ekn00: Hey, Oak Ridge was leading in molten salt reactors in the 1960s, 60s mentality is not that bad! :P
Gen IV reactors are awesome and definitely need to be in consideration for our mix of power generation, but we need to recognise Australia is a small country with little experience in the field of nuclear power generation. The only option in Dutton's timeline is old style reactors, if you want thorium-salt it won't really help much over the next 20 years (unless we become very close buddies with China and join the belt and road initiative). We also have a tonne of wind and solar. Thorium is likely to be a pretty expensive fuel too, more expensive than uranium, we'd be better off digging it up and selling it.
Although reality is with Dutton's plan is it won't create any nuclear waste because it won't create any nuclear power. If the libs win the next election they'll start building one reactor that'll take 20 years to get running and be massively over budget, then pour money into coal and gas because we need "energy security" while cheaper solar, wind and batteries make all of the above obsolete.
@EightImmortals: It's almost like Lucas Heights isn't used for power generation
We can't just scale up Lucas Heights and generate power, nuclear power stations simply don't work that way. We didn't build the reactor either, the Argentinians did. They import Chinese reactors for their main power stations these days, although they are working on a SMR reactor. It was supposed to start generating power in 2017, but here's how it's going so far
@freefall101: Sure, but there must be some local experience in running the thing for decades. Experience that can be parlayed into power generation plants or training other operators while the plants are built. But maybe more importantly, like most nuclear plants it is running just fine without incident for decades. In fact, apart from Chernobyl and Fukashima I'm hard pressed to think of any nuclear plant disasters? (yes, there have been minor incidents) And both of those were down to human error in one form or another.
@EightImmortals: Both cars and planes run on fuel, does that mean someone who can drive a car can fly a plane? We're talking very different technologies, open pool reactors vs pressurised ones, the risk is a lot higher with pressurised. So they wouldn't know all the safety required. Plus, who builds it? We don't have an industry on building reactors, we've never done it.
Nuclear is generally safe but it's still incredibly difficult to build and run. Thus why gen IV reactors have been under development for 25 years and the result is a few test ones and a lot of delays.
IMO hold off until someone can build us a nuclear reactor as cheaply as batteries, wind farms and solar can be built. No point throwing taxpayer money at yet another expensive boondoggle.
@freefall101: South Africa built a nuke - well, the French did and the Saffas paid for it.
We can import the technology and there are plenty of friendly nations that can build them. Thorium would be good too. When I was doing energy economics for my Masters about 10 years ago, we looked at Thorium but it wasn't viable at scale back then. Possibly changed now though.
@R4: The problem there is simple - look at the cost of the UK getting the French to build a nuclear reactor, or the cost of the UAE reactor. As I said, we should hold off until someone can build one cheaply for us. Currently that doesn't exist, so we shouldn't do it. There's a clear difference between the cost of mature nuclear countries running nuclear power and countries trying to import it from friendly nations - the latter wind up paying way, way too much money.
The Saffers one is expensive too, they're still paying hundreds of millions a year (to the Koreans I believe these days) just to maintain the plants. They didn't build up the local industry to support it either. They haven't built more nuclear power because they don't have the money to do it.
You're right that thorium is uneconomical, but there's nothing to import, Thorium does not exist as a commercial product. Once it does we can talk about how it's too expensive to implement anyway.
This is ultimately the problem with nuclear, it's a solution looking for a problem. That neither you nor the person I replied to have seemingly acknowledged that there's literally no way to implement it is insane to me. You're talking about how to implement nuclear - that's not a question. The question should be what is the best, cheapest power source to put into Australia. When you start from the problem, nuclear is ridiculous.
In fact, apart from Chernobyl and Fukashima I'm hard pressed to think of any nuclear plant disasters? (yes, there have been minor incidents) And both of those were down to human error in one form or another.
I don't fully follow the point to the last sentence.. is it somehow not a problem because it was a human error both times? Are we working off a theory there won't be the possibility of human error at future nuclear power stations?
Are we working off a theory there won't be the possibility of human error at future nuclear power stations?
Well yes. That's part of the engineering to eliminate the possibility of operator error being able to cause an incident.
@trapper: I understand the theory, and the intent is lovely, but can you give examples of this happening in practice?
I had a vague idea we were still either using humans to do the things or design the things that do the things, but maybe I missed the next technological revolution when I was doomscrolling
Am I going to get PTSD flashbacks to the "yeah man trains can be driven by AI they're on tracks right" level of incompetent wishful thinking?
@Crow K: A simple example is that a microwave oven won't turn on if the door is open.
This design eliminates any possibility of 'operator error' that could result in someone accidentally exposing themselves to microwaves.
@trapper: Okay, so we are applying the theory of the plastic hook on the microwave door to the future running of a First Of A Kind nuclear power plant.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, reply guy.
@EightImmortals: There was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 in the USA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Makes for interesting reading.
we need to recognise Australia is a small country with little experience in the field of nuclear power generation.
The market is global, plenty of nuclear design engineers with loads of experience.
@trapper: Exactly. If everyone had the mentality of "oh, but we've never done this before," then nothing would have progressed. Sure, nuclear has its risks, but it's cleaner than what we're doing now. It's not the panacea—but no single method is. We need a mix of renewals as well as (clean-ish) combustibles that will take us 30-50 years into the future.
@freekay: nuclear has its risks, but it's cleaner than what we're doing now
Nuclear would be at least 15 years away for just one plant
or
We could start the process tomorrow have a look
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/07/04/australian-state-prio…
even
renewable (solar/wind) to make hydrogen for near instant demand burning it in gas turbines would kill nuclear high cost and long timeline to build and lets not even talk about decommissioning or waste storage
@7ekn00: There's no extant examples of MSR thorium plants operating, but sure name drop like a that about it.
Reading in the media, hearing people talking, Dutton may be on to something (well, not on OzB obviously as it's dominated by Sydney and Melbourne Champagne socialists). People want energy security and many are starting to realise that we can't have it with renewables at scale and at a decent cost to the taxpayer and consumer. If Dutton takes his current energy policy to the election, he may be on to something.
@BuzzBuzzBuzz: No surprise - OzB is dominated by those mentioned above - aka virtue-signallers and reality deniers
@R4: aka virtue-signallers and reality deniers
How many years to make 1 reactor?
How many do we need?
How long do we have to store the waste?
How much is it to decommission?Solar hits the earth at 1000w per sqm
We are only at 20% efficiency with solar
The years it takes to design and build nuclear solar will have been increasing in efficiency making nuclear another cheaper faster plan look like another liberal national NBN disaster.@Loot N Plunder: How do you run, 24/7, arc furnaces, aluminium smelters, refineries, brick kilns, big refrigeration plant etc on renewables and batteries?
@R4: How do you run, 24/7,
By thinking outside the nuclear bubble
Why not use nature?
If the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine its time for the water to flowPumped hydro
solar and wind pump the water
we only need water and space Australia is huge and surrounded by it funny enoughIt could be done tomorrow unlike nuclear
there isn't any waste
As efficiency on solar and advancements on battery's continue nuclear will be a white elephant for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and their grandchildren for how many years it takes to store it@Loot N Plunder: Pumped hydro is a partial solution but it's only really for peak loads. Snowy is massively over budget and schedule. Waste to energy is another partial solution (plant currently being constructed in Kwinana) but not at scale. Gas is a good option but politics doesn't want it.
reality deniers
The reality is that there are too many hurdles for nuclear at this point in time. The window has passed. It only serves to delay the transition to renewables now and keep fossil fuels in the mix for another 2-3 decades.
@us3rnam3tak3n: Renewables are part of the solution but high consumption industrial capability - smelters, arc furnaces, brick kilns, refineries, large capacity refrigeration plant etc cannot be run on renewables. Now, we could as a nation decide we don't need that capability and import absolutely everything but that would be a massively backwards step and do nothing for our economy and security. Gas could do it - and we have plenty - but politics doesn't want it. We need a thermal power capability. We just do. Reality is fossils are going to be part of the mix for at least 20 years whether we like it or not.
smelters, arc furnaces, brick kilns, refineries, large capacity refrigeration plant etc cannot be run on renewables… Gas could do it… fossils are going to be part of the mix for at least 20 years
I don't know what your field is. I'm in mining and metals and we are actively decarbonising. Renewables are seen as an opportunity to indirectly export power by doing energy intensive operations domestically to add value. Solar is cheap. Storage options are improving.
@us3rnam3tak3n: I work in electrical engineering in those areas too and oil and gas.
Decarbonise all you like (as most of the industry is) but that doesn't answer the points that you were replying to.
It only serves to delay the transition to renewables now and keep fossil fuels in the mix for another 2-3 decades.
Without nuclear power there can be no transition away from fossil fuels. That is the reality.
Not even in 50 years; without nuclear we will still be burning coal or gas.
Without nuclear power there can be no transition away from fossil fuels… Not even in 50 years
Maybe you haven't noticed how far storage options have come in the past couple of decades. Lithium batteries have become cheaper; sodium is cheaper still if you have a little more space; redox flow is chemically stable.
https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline
There was a time when nuclear would have made sense in Australia but the opportunity is long gone to make a safe modern plant that is remotely price competitive.
Maybe you haven't noticed how far storage options have come in the past couple of decades.
Why don't you actually do the math instead of just speculating.
Not even in 50 years; without nuclear we will still be burning coal or gas… Why don't you actually do the math instead of just speculating.
Dunno, sounds a bit speculative to me. But rather than some amateur's back of the matchbox calculations read the CSIRO's report.
Combined with the 97% decline in lithium battery costs over the last three decades you can see how current and emerging energy storage technology stands a better chance of meeting our requirements in a time/cost effective manner than nuclear. If there's been some breakthrough that greatly reduces the costs of developing nuclear, I'd be happy to look.
Dunno, sounds a bit speculative to me.
I did the math: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15464716/redir
@R4: Not even Dutton actually believes in nuclear, the world's economists and scientists have stacked up the evidence and the sort of nuclear power plants he's pretending to want 1. Don't exist and 2. Would cost billions and 3. Will be the most expensive form of electricity anyway and 4. Will take decades to deliver.
He doesn't want to acknowledge renewables exist (and the Nationals have gone so far as to announce a "cap" on them). He's intentionally creating sovereign risk for the renewables market and if he gets across the line at the next election he will wait five minutes and say "Looks like nuclear isn't ready yet, better keep on with the coal in the meantime"
Your eagerness to frame this as champagne sipping Sydneysiders tells us more about you than the actual underlying arguments, incidentally.
@Crow K: For every scientist and economist saying that it's not viable, there's another saying that it is. Dutton may not be keen on renewables but that doesn't mean he believes they don't exist. Reality is that renewables have a role in our energy mix but they cannot provide the total solution - unless we accept that we cannot have any viable level of industrial output. We need some kind of constant thermal capability. If we don't want coal and gas to do that, then we need nuclear. I work in electrical engineering and have a lot of experience of HV power generation, transmission and distribution - which drives my viewpoint. Too much of modern thinking on our power capability is an engineering free zone and is driven by ideology, politics and wishful thinking - kind of like what I read on OzB - and it tends to come from the left (which was what my comment about East Coast CSs was about).
For every scientist and economist saying that it's not viable, there's another saying that it is
This is a handy way to let me know your entire body of research in this based on your gut feeling (which impressive as it is, is still outweighed by actual real world facts)
Imagine trying to sell me on both economists and scientists being basically equally split on this. As though nuclear reactors are actually fairly commonplace economic and scientific investments, and we aren't talking about inventing First of A Kind nuclear reactors, with notorious cost overruns.
But I suppose you should have an opportunity to prove you're not just making stuff up… The CSIRO just dropped a report saying how impractical the whole project is for Australia, what real world equivalent scientific body are you going to quote back at me to show how equally divided the community is?
@Crow K: My viewpoint is driven by engineering knowledge. I've also studied energy economics.
The CSIRO in 2024, like many other agencies on both the left and right, is not impartial.
I get that people are against nuclear but we have to have a genuine debate - not memes of 3-eyed fish from our government. Albanese and Bowen are hopeless and hapless when it comes to energy policy.
My viewpoint is driven by engineering knowledge. I've also studied energy economics.
Cool. Are we both going to acknowledge that people with that skill set (and far more advanced, specialized ones) work for the CSIRO, and then move on?
I know it's easier to trash the institution itself (which is what Dutton did), but this is the time for you to prove your workings and quote back at me the equivalent scientific body that thinks it's a great idea for Australia.
You can't toss out trash like "mate scientists are biased and half of them agree with nuclear anyway" and then whine about the quality of debate. Stump up with facts.
@Crow K: If I was taking this conversation seriously I would, but I'm not. This is OzB - not the Oxford uni debating society.
@R4: And at the first invitation to drop a fact, he slunk away with his tail between his legs, all desire for a discussion gone. What a surprise.
It's fine to like to wallow in ideology (a love of Dutton, a desire to be contrary, a wish to spite the east coast Chardonnay sippers), but at the end of the day for all your "actually I'm an engineer mate" assertions, you're rolling around in the same mud as the rest of his base.
@Crow K: Bollocks.
I know, and you do also, that I could easily go and find articles, graphs, tables etc from reputable, peer reviewed sources that would back up my viewpoint, but what's the point? As my economics professor used to tell us, there's a graph for every occasion. I really couldn't be arsed. I know what I believe, it's based on fact and reality and on current evidence, I'm not going to change it.
Each to their own.
It would be so easy and trivial to refute the CSIRO, and that's why I'm not going to bother
This sort of argument only works on dumb people (you know, Dutton supporters)
I know what I believe
What a powerful statement, unique of its kind, absolutely worthwhile to declare out loud?
It's a pity you didn't bring a side order of actual evidence along with you to support it, then maybe some other people might have believed it as well.
@Brianqpr: "Wiv a major in Common Sense mate it's not offered anymore rahahah pity these CSIRO muppets didn't do a major in that yeah bloody woke mob"
"I can't be bothered to present the real, actual existing evidence that supports my wild spurious claims, but you can go look it up on Google yourself, good luck"
If you're trying to convince me you're an educated person with a worthwhile opinion, you're doing an exceptionally shitty job of it
@R4: You can knock off the "even you" talk.
You said some obviously incorrect garbage and tried several times to avoid propping up your loose phrasing with even the simplest of facts..before giving up entirely and then even asking me to do it for you.
You have, by choice, avoided the possibility of being assumed to know something on this subject.
At this stage I'm not entirely convinced your "engineering/electrical studies" extend further from being the one the gang sent down to Bunnings to buy all the powerboards and extension cables for the grow house.
@Crow K: Nah. You took this thread down a notch or two with some arsy remarks a few posts so I'm just following your lead.
There's no point in me posting links as you know they're there. Google it. On current evidence, I'm not changing me viewpoint but you party on Garth with whatever you want to believe.
@R4: Aw, so I am the reason why you're all printer and no fax, hey?
What a shame, there you were about to argue your points beautifully with supporting evidence and then I asked you to do exactly that and to teach me a lesson you've decided that we'll never get that after all.
Oh well, our loss. Be sure to drop by if you have any more ideas that are (for some reason) identical to Dutton's sound bytes.
@R4: It's not at all an even split. The CSIRO and AEMO have both basically said bullshit about Spud's plans. Anyone with a clue knows it's all BS, we have nearly zero nuclear engineering expertise in Australia and every nuclear project recently has suffered cost and time over runs.
Not to mention two recent SMR designs have been registered and yet nothing built. Why? Not economic as decided by the people who designed them, with all the expertise we lack.
Don't kid yourself that there's disagreement in the SMEs on this one, there really isn't.
For every scientist and economist saying that it's not viable, there's another saying that it is.
This is entirely untrue.
It doesn't help your case if you just make things up as you go along.
Modern fission reactor technology is vastly safer than the old PWRs that have caused so much grief in the past.
But proponents of Fission reactors conveniently forget to mention the issues around disposal of the waste from Operation and eventual decommissioning of them… Estimates of a deep core repository for Australian radioactive waste disposal is around 41 billion
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-energy-creates-the-most-…
As for SMRs research indicates they produce proportionally more waste than large scale fission plants do.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/05/small-modular-reac…
These are so of the reasons the rest of the world is investing so much in projects like
https://www.iter.org/
and
https://hb11.energy/ (An Australian base fusion initiative)Use other countries sites for disposal some people suggest.
This is where the US is currently storing retired Navy reactors as they do not have a long term repository..
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Trench+94/@46.5655214,-…Estimates of a deep core repository for Australian radioactive waste disposal is around 41 billion
This is a bit of a strawman.
We don't need to store the waste deep underground for many thousands of years. Technological progress is a thing, there is no need to try solve problems thousands of years into the future like this. We need a solution for a few hundred years at best, and the volume of material is very small.
@trapper: Fully agree tech progress is a thing and that progress is in batteries, it’ll get soo cheap paired with already dirt cheap solar we’d have affordable electricity any time of day.
@cloudy: In Australia we would need batteries that could output 25 GW+ for 14+ hours in winter months - that's at least 350 GWh of capacity.
The Hornsdale Power Reserve in SA, one of the largest batteries in the world, is 194 MWh capacity. It cost $172 million.
We would need at least 1800 of these. Cost: $310 billion. And this is just to meet current demand, wait till everyone is driving electric cars.
Price may come down a bit, but grid scale energy storage will never be cheap.
@trapper: Using your figures and the CSIRO's best case scenario for nuclear would put them near par.
Price (of battery storage) may come down a bit
As I pointed out above, it's come down 97% over the last thirty years, while the construction of nuclear has a long history of cost blowouts. Add to this the resistance from state governments; it's currently illegal under federal law; SMRs haven't been successful in the west; lack of funding options etc and it's just not going to happen.
I'm not actually opposed to nuclear as an option. It just doesn't stack up in our current situation.
wait till everyone is driving electric cars.
Bidirectional charging, like VPPs, will relieve pressure on distribution.
@us3rnam3tak3n: I agree that nuclear is unlikely to happen any time soon, we need law changes first.
But enough batteries to last even a single night is not happening either, it's not even remotely plausible.
1800 x the Hornsdale Power Reserve project? Even if we built a new one every week it would take 35 years lol
But enough batteries to last even a single night is not happening either, it's not even remotely plausible.
But you don't need enough Hornsdale-like batteries to last a single night - there's some amount of wind power coming in over night, there's some amount of pumped hydro storage available over night, there's gas-generated power available over night, there are (an ever increasing number of) residential batteries available over night, and there are an ever increasing number of electric vehicles available over night.
We're absolutely going to need a butt-load of grid level storage, but it's going to come from a range of places. Nobody is suggesting we try to build 1800 Hornsdales to take the load alone.
We're absolutely going to need a butt-load of grid level storage
Yes that's my point. The amount of storage needed is just absolutely astronomical, not even remotely plausible.
Even if we dedicated a large chunk of the budget to it for decades.
Using your figures and the CSIRO's best case scenario for nuclear would put them near par.
My calculations were just for the batteries, we also need to generate that power.
My calculations were just for the batteries, we also need to generate that power.
Renewable generation is far cheaper than the alternatives currently. Dispatchable power is required. Likely some gas in the short term then, as @nom pointed out, a variety of storage options.
yea like when they gave the pensioners a little more and the rents all went up the exact same amount
Aaaaand it's gone
What saving?
For people earning $40,000 pa which is those that really need the help its only $15/wk.
Thats like 3 cups of coffee.
Cost of living has gone up by over $100pwI think you'll find that people on that income have already had tax cuts in stages 1 & 2 - and the first $18k is tax-free anyway. At $40k, you'll be hardly paying any tax from now on.
Although earning only $40k means you will spend all your money. So most of your money will be subject to gst. (Unlike ppl on $140k who don’t need to spend all their money to survive).
@Eeples: Ultimately, people on low incomes struggle financially - everywhere in the World, forever. Not nice but a fact of life - at least in Australia, there's a safety net for them - largely paid for by people who have more.
I'd gamble that the post is talking about those who earn more than $40,000, which would be 75% of Australian earners.
[Source: Financial Review article "How wealthy you are compared to everyone else" January 2023]
This was what i wa slooking for
Ty
asts shares
why
stuffs from aliexpress
ETFs
NFTs are better in the long run. N is like like 8 or 9 letters higher than E.
That's why I put all my money in ZZZ - stock in the mattress store Sleep Country Canada. Up 1.3% YTD baby.
ha
"extra money"
Mortgage rates are about to get another bump ;)
And it's gone