Re post 23022..How is it that we have to pay

Ahhhhhhh Little Johnny. Nah lets not go there i'll start kicking the dog. :)

What did the dog do?

i Misty, you're right. Think I'm having a PMT moment or two :))

Im 37 and when I turned 18 I decided that if I don't vote I wont complain. I sleep like a baby every night for 19 years.

I Musty, you're right. Don't vote, it only encourages em.

If you don't vote ..... then don't whinge!

Actually when I think about it.

I didn't learn anywhere in school that when the Brits got here 200 years ago that they got togrther woth the Aboriginal Compnity to "VOTE" on issues regarding Nat. Parks. I almost typed Nat. Perks.

Hmm so fncK em I say. Pay what you want to pay.

Make your own rules up as you go along.

And if someone gives you a hard time about it just shoot him. Or chain him up at the neck and get him to plant veges in your garden.

I hear the white folk have good rythym. (Especially those forest keeper type) Get them to do a little Jig for you after supper. .

If you feel so strongly about it ... Why don't you donate your house to the local Aboriginal comminity? Then you could plant vegies for them!

Shaker, "If you don't vote then don't winge". I didn't winge.

And as for donating my house? Hey Im a practising hypocrite, which means I put ME first always.

Unless of course I decide not to.

Pretty much. It's up to me.

Utemad.....The points you make don't make me change my mind lol. As for laughing at people who complain about tax on fuel??(i think u need help :)) The way i understand it and correct me if i am wrong is that the tax on fuel is a % rather than a fixed cents/litre so the higher the price the more the tax. What is happening to the extra income from these tax's? I never suggested removing the tax just using the money from them to fund the parks. Oh well everyone to their own .....

There's more to it than that. Who sets the level and type of services provided by the Feds ? We do of course...yeah right.

The truth is that much legislation is instigated by various lobby groups in their own interests. If the Govt thinks there's a vote in it then its passed.
We go along with the spin doctors until the fourth estate finds something to cause a stink over.

The user pays concept assumes that all users can afford to pay for what they consume. The poor, the disabled, the pensioners, the disadvantaged also have to consume things like utilities. Pay for luxuaries perhaps, but is water a luxuary ? Rates ?

If the user pays, how come public school parents pay for private schools and vica versa ? "User Pays" is a nice little justifying phrase often trotted out, meaning buggar all in many cases.

At election time we vote with a hip pocket cargo cult mentality, always believing that they actually care enough to keep their promises. The warm and fuzzies disappear as soon as an elections been won.

A surplus simply means that the Govt has ripped the poor taxpayers off enen more than even they intended to.

In the case of fuel, the user pays, and pays ....and pays.

Arghhhh ! Enough, Footie, back to normal programming :))

I work in the environmental scene and am also currently studying the same. That would be why in my view more money for National Parks is a good thing :-)
At least in Qld NPs are so underfunded it is not funny. We are getting more and more parks but the staffing levels are not increasing at the same rate. IMHO parks were understaffed before anyway.

As for the gazillion other taxes and fees and the other methods of raising money the Govt uses. I don't care. Like anyone else I would like to keep as much money as I earn in my own pocket however I don't want to see services suffer.
There is FA we can do about taxes so I'd prefer to worry about when I was going 4wding next :-)

See you in the bush (in my solar powered Rodeo!)

Hi Bruce....hate to rain on your parade but the state govts actually get a vast amount of their funding from the Fed govt. So any monies generated from federal tax's are really no different from a state tax.

Yes it is Steve, it was probably the best camping spot we had on our trip.Just question $16 a night for something which should IMO be free.A caravan park costs a few dollars more and that pays someones wages on private land.(i prefer the bush camp tho)

Agree with you 100% Bros..just returned from Byfield NP and the good ol sparks and nolife did some real brainwave idea's there.Where a lot of poeple used to camp beside a fresh water creek in behind the dunes and where there were established tracks into the camping area ,there is now signs up saying no camping in this area, so now everyone has to camp further down the beach thus makeing new tracks over the dunes and clearing new camp sites.

O and i forgot to mention the facilities, which are....ummm ummm..bugger there was none.And we actually picked up two rubbish bags on other peoples rubbish( i hate it when i do a good thing )

$35 a night is a bit much.

Agree, user pays to an extent is OK. I suppose the other side of user pays is user discretion or choice. Don't go to that NP any more.

Smocky.

But what I cant understand is , OK , there is 6 of us , but , we take up no more room , or use any more resources , then a couple.

Why do we pay 3 times as much ?

Well if there were facilities, you'd say that you're going to use more water or electricity etc. I suppose the only argument when in bush is based on user pays. There are more users therefore more pays.

It would seem that the fairest charging method for NP's is to charge per car.

THATS what I mean.

In a Cvan park . . . fair enough , per person , no problems , use water , tricity etc etc.

In a nat Park with just long drop loos , and supply own water . . . what extra am I using . . . More loo paper , maybe , but $20 more ?

More firewood . . . Hardly.

I use no more space for my CT , then a Couple in their CT or Cvan.

Pay per car , or per site (6 adults may need 2 sites etc).