Taxpayer funding of Car Industry
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxpayer funding of Car Industry
The Australian's Editorial of today Thursday 13th Dec reveals that Mitsubisbi Motors based in South Australia has had a handout of $200 million and seeks another $140 million to ensure the safety of jobs in that part of the industry. Other car manufacturers have also received taxpayer funds of many hundreds of millions in the past. An interesting contrast with the aviation industry which is subjected relentlessly to the "user pays" principle and has had to provide it's own infrastructure such as terminals and high Government taxes at every turn.
Typo again!!
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
Typo again!!
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: Flat Side Up ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
What has this to do with aviation.... 
JUST JOKING FSU.......
Actually I am very surprised nobody has brought this up earlier.
While I personally still do not think the Australian Government, taxpayers or even the travelling public should HAVE to save Ansett , neither should they HAVE to save all the foreign owned car manufacturers.
IF they are going to, then as you say, what is different about the Airline Industry?
JUST JOKING FSU.......
Actually I am very surprised nobody has brought this up earlier.
While I personally still do not think the Australian Government, taxpayers or even the travelling public should HAVE to save Ansett , neither should they HAVE to save all the foreign owned car manufacturers.
IF they are going to, then as you say, what is different about the Airline Industry?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAME,what about the wharfies.
Howard paid them their full redundancy,yes taxpayers money,some in excess of 200G.They were then re-employed on lucrative contracts the next day!
Now Howard tells AN staff their redundancies are not of industry standard ie:greater than eight weeks.Those reduncies were negotiated under the EBA process he created!
Howard paid them their full redundancy,yes taxpayers money,some in excess of 200G.They were then re-employed on lucrative contracts the next day!
Now Howard tells AN staff their redundancies are not of industry standard ie:greater than eight weeks.Those reduncies were negotiated under the EBA process he created!
Guest
Posts: n/a
bulldog69,
I know this is a very emotive issue, but PLEASE read what I said......
"I personally still do not think the Australian Government ................. should HAVE to save Ansett". I was refering to saving Ansett, as an Airline, like saving the car manufacturer and/or their plant....... I think you will find most Australians agree with that.
I was cetainly NOT refering to the employee's entitlements and/or benefits.
Actually I still think Air NZ, as a Company that is still operating SHOULD pay all of that, IF not then maybe the Government through that levy.
Best regards,
"lame"
(edited because I was misquoting myself... :o )
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: lame ]
I know this is a very emotive issue, but PLEASE read what I said......
"I personally still do not think the Australian Government ................. should HAVE to save Ansett". I was refering to saving Ansett, as an Airline, like saving the car manufacturer and/or their plant....... I think you will find most Australians agree with that.
I was cetainly NOT refering to the employee's entitlements and/or benefits.
Actually I still think Air NZ, as a Company that is still operating SHOULD pay all of that, IF not then maybe the Government through that levy.
Best regards,
"lame"
(edited because I was misquoting myself... :o )
[ 13 December 2001: Message edited by: lame ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, lame, I agree with you. The guilty party, Air NZ, should be pursued for the workers entitlements just as any other employer who steals worker's entitlements should be treated.
