CRIKEY: We’d like to inform readers that Mungo MacCallum’s weekly column will no longer be appearing in Crikey, but fear not — you can still find it every Tuesday at The Byron Echo. We thank the great man for his Monday insights and Mungo will continue to appear in our hallowed list of bylines on a semi regular basis.

Apology to Professor Steven Schwartz:

Crikey writes: We accept suggestions made about the Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University, Professor Steven Schwartz, in the Tips and Rumours section of Crikey on January 27 are entirely untrue and apologise to him unreservedly for their publication and for any resulting harm.

The flood levy:

David Havyatt writes: Re. “Why the flood levy is financially dumb” (Friday, item 22). Let’s follow the logic of Tom Elliott to its logical conclusion.

He writes:

“In a nutshell, while the government can borrow so much more cheaply than the households it’s supposed to assist, there is no good reason why the flood costs should be funded at personal home mortgage rate — which is exactly what, for most people, the proposed levy represents.”

Therefore any taxpayer who finds themselves paying a mortgage off should ask the Government for a tax rebate because it would be cheaper for the Government to pay the debt than them.

The reality is this is a macroeconomic issue, not mere accounting.  The extra money to be spent restoring Queensland infrastructure is an unplanned fiscal stimulus. Part of it is funded by replacement of other spending. But additional spending funded by borrowing is stimulatory.

Further, we know that food supply issues will result in a short term increase in inflation. Creating the overhang of a levy is a good counter-balance to the inflationary pressure.

The levy is wise decision making from competent economic managers who happened to manage to get the fiscal stimulus response to the GFC just about right.

And while we are at it, can we end the confusion between the levy and charity. Charity is to help people rebuild lives, the levy is to help the Government rebuild state infrastructure.

John Kotsopoulos writes: Tom Elliott wrote: “There are many reasons why the proposed flood levy is a bad idea.”

If I may respond to his claims: “It’ll reduce the government’s popularity even further.”

Surely the dropping or deferral of more spending programs is a bigger risk to the Government’s popularity given the bleating which has been stirred up over the cuts already announced.

“The public will reduce voluntary donations to flood victims.”

As you well know the money for the levy is for a different purpose, namely the rebuilding of infrastructure needed to restore economic activity and will help ensure that the hit to tax revenue is minimised.

“Consumer spending will drop, placing further pressure on retailers.”

Ahem retailers are rubbing their hands at the prospect of replacing all those household items that have been damaged or destroyed by the floods. Outside of the flood areas the levy is well targeted and will hardly touch those with the highest propensity to spend.

“There’s a possibility the temporary levy will become permanent.”

You are kidding? Does the term “sunset clause” ring a bell?

Come on Tom stop spreading misinformation, you are better than that.

Martyn Smith writes: Re. “Sorry, but opposing the flood levy is not a moral failing” (Friday, item 1). I’m impressed with Crikey‘s coverage of the levy and the correspondents’ views on it. You’ve covered it well and at the end of it, after careful thought, I’m all for getting on with the job and paying it. We can well afford it and probably spend more on fireworks.

Opposition to it may not be a moral failing, to quote Bernard Keane, but it is an example of the dark side of the Australian character. We have long taunted the British as “whinging Poms”, but to get a real whinge try getting an Aussie to pay any extra tax. He’ll demand the government of the day fix the problem but at someone else’s expense. Poor things, an extra dollar a week, the world is coming to an end!

The “debate”, using the term advisedly, between Neil Mitchell and Julia Gillard that you included was very informative. I scored it Gillard 10, Mitchell zero. Mitchell’s style seems to be to state his opinions as facts and having “thrown” the person whom is in “interviewing” into confusion, go in for the kill. He failed when dealing with the prime minister, who admirably kept her cool and showed herself to be a lady with dignity and Mitchell proved himself to be a right wing-nut demagogue. These are the people who are baying for no levy. We should treat them and their utterances with great caution and the contempt they deserve.

I personally hope Mitchell will soon be consigned to the dust bin of history, where he belongs.

Harry Wright writes: Bernard Keane’s comments quoting $ 2 billion dollars and its effect on the economy is in my view being guilty of trying to be persuasive by quoting the gross figure, rather than the quite small “one off’ figure which everyone earning above $50,000 can easily afford. Look at it a small part of one’s discretionary spending and that would be fair.

Mark McDougall writes: Considering how far behind Gillard fell in the background to Anna Bligh’s straightforward respected treatment of the January 12 floods, could we view this cash splash as an attempt to save face? (I note mid-north coast NSW milk farmers, flooded last year, one spending $300,000 to get the dairy back into production, are now being pressed by superchains for low cost milk. They didn’t get any cash splash).

Triple J’s Hottest 100:

David Hardie writes: Re. “My Cup of Tea: before we die, let’s get a little listless” (Friday, item 15). Ben Eltham makes a far point about the possibility demise of the JJJ Hottest 100.

Who, in the 1970’s, would have thought that the end would come sooner or later for the Countdown Top 10?

The Hottest 100’s time may be coming to an end and who knows, in 20 years time, will we be debating the demise of the “News Ltd MySpace Top 1000”?

Young Parliamentarians:

Darren Gilchrist writes: Re. LM McIntire and Sol Salbe (27 January, comments) mentioned William Nielsen, Andrew Jones, and Edwin Corby. What about someone a bit closer to this century! …Wyatt Roy? 20 years (born 22 May 1990).