The thing is it's an expensive 'doing soemthing', and there is a lot of "but if we have no rain it's just going to be another empty damn sentiment". that said, if the restrictions get much worse I think you'd find that the cost in public opibion for destroying the forests might not be as high as it once was...
Maybe so, but at the moment, it's criminal to see how much water runs away to no beneift after a rainstorm...
And if we need to use less water stillt hen the bottom line is going tos tart getting shaky for Melbourne Water...
I think it might depend on what they said the tax was going towards as to how much people would complain about being taxed for water tanks.
But yes I think there would be an argument if they rebated and then taxed. Depends on how much time between cutting off the rebate and insituting the tax too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-05 03:02 am (UTC)Maybe so, but at the moment, it's criminal to see how much water runs away to no beneift after a rainstorm...
And if we need to use less water stillt hen the bottom line is going tos tart getting shaky for Melbourne Water...
I think it might depend on what they said the tax was going towards as to how much people would complain about being taxed for water tanks.
But yes I think there would be an argument if they rebated and then taxed. Depends on how much time between cutting off the rebate and insituting the tax too.