Jump to content

Aussies XLVIII


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm fine to say that New South Welshmen are fairly good drivers. Sydneysiders are very courteous drivers, I went down there once and if you need to merge into a lane and it's a massive traffic jam, they let you merge no worries.

Maybe in their own state they do, but I have noticed in other states they do indeed tend to drive down the middle of two lanes. By no means is this all of them but it is a disconcerting large number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in their own state they do, but I have noticed in other states they do indeed tend to drive down the middle of two lanes. By no means is this all of them but it is a disconcerting large number.

I have yet to see this, I myself have never participated in such driving actions. But then, maybe Australia in general should just admit they all suck at driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have yet to see this, I myself have never participated in such driving actions. But then, maybe Australia in general should just admit they all suck at driving.

Now that I agree with I would honestly say that 50% of those driving on the roads should not be their. I am so tired of having to avoid idiots stopping with no warning so they can make a simple turn and I am in a loaded truck weighing 25 tonnes or more!

Then there are the huge numbers who just don't pay attention to what they are doing. How many times do you see people driving down the road paying more attention to the person next to them rather than the road?

Or the ones in a tiny little 4 cylinder bubble car who need 2 lanes to make a turn?

Thats enough from me since I could go on all day about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so we have flooding in outback queensland and northern NSW, the floodwaters are largely headed into the Murray-Darling system and guess what?

Those with the most inefficient irrigation are going to get to waste most of the water!

Yep that's right NSW has decided to divert large amounts of the floodwaters into their antiquated rundown irrigation systems. This means that 90% of the water will be wasted rather than being allowed to flow down the murray and revive a dying river system.

I don't now about you but personally I am Disgusted by this.

South Australia is a world leader in irrigation and we have not allocated any water to increases in the irrigation despite the fact that we use less, waste very little and need it more than any other state.

No we are doing the responsible thing by the NATION and any extra water that we may recieve from these floods will go into helping the river recover.

So why is it that the nations "richest state" ( chronically mismanaged of course) cannot do the same?

I understand that with the corruption and waste in NSW there is just no way they can find the funds to fix the irrigation system. Wouldn't it make more sense though to allow full water only to those who are not going to waste it?

The federal government could probably be convinced via various pressures to pay for efficient water delivery rather than channels with massive leaks and massive evaporation.

Jeor you are a smart guy how about you get elected and start fixing things because the current idiots ( on both sides ) just don't have a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeor you are a smart guy how about you get elected and start fixing things because the current idiots ( on both sides ) just don't have a clue.

I'm very flatterered GS! But unfortunately politics is a massive viper's nest with so many buffoons and backstabbers that anyone with common sense and decency who goes in there is just going to get knifed within a few days. Someone needs to start up a third political party somewhere - there's enough rumbling discontent in the electorate to make it a viable option if enough people had the guts to do it.

I actually think some of the problem with politics in Australia is that the mass media is letting us down. The media needs to be holding governments more accountable and the real issues don't get enough airtime they deserve, because they're focusing on the wrong stuff. I understand that things like the 14 year-old girl's sailing trip around the world might be interesting but surely it isn't front page news over multiple days. And dare I say it, but even political issues like the whaling stuff are wide of the mark - yes there is injustice happening there and it is good to bring it to our attention, but there are other things out there equally as important that aren't getting the airtime.

Water issues like GS has raised. The demographic time bomb that no one seems to think is a problem - we hear all the talk of the US economy imploding because of a shrinking young population (ie less tax revenue for government) and a huge generation of baby boomers about to retire who are living longer than any generation before. But no one in Australia thinks we'll have a problem with it, when we in fact should be even more concerned given that we actually have a huge welfare and pension system that dwarfs whatever the US government has to pay out to its citizens.

Someone should have done a campaign to raise the compulsory superannuation rate, it's stayed still at 9% for the last decade because no government wants to piss off business by raising it. If they'd even just raised it by 1% every two years for say 8 years we would be in a much better position, and everyone would have much more saved for retirement without it costing them a cent. The government would have to spend less on pensions and more to spend on other stuff, and it doesn't even hurt us people because it costs businesses, not taxpayers. I really don't see why no government has even considered it before, when this generational time bomb is ticking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone should have done a campaign to raise the compulsory superannuation rate, it's stayed still at 9% for the last decade because no government wants to piss off business by raising it. If they'd even just raised it by 1% every two years for say 8 years we would be in a much better position, and everyone would have much more saved for retirement without it costing them a cent. The government would have to spend less on pensions and more to spend on other stuff, and it doesn't even hurt us people because it costs businesses, not taxpayers. I really don't see why no government has even considered it before, when this generational time bomb is ticking.

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Paul Keating intended for the rate to be set at 12% but the good ol' Howard government limited it to 9%. Not that Keating can be completely absolved of blame for our superannuation problems: it was he who decided that a private sector model (which has been characterised by ridiculously high fees and opportunistic behaviour from managers) should be preferred to a government-run super scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Paul Keating intended for the rate to be set at 12% but the good ol' Howard government limited it to 9%. Not that Keating can be completely absolved of blame for our superannuation problems: it was he who decided that a private sector model (which has been characterised by ridiculously high fees and opportunistic behaviour from managers) should be preferred to a government-run super scheme.

I don't know about you but the thought of politicians being in charge of my retirement fund scares me shitless.

Mind you I fully expect that if there is a major war then all of our super funds will be raided and the only ones who won't lose out will be the politicians.

Thats why I really am not fussed by superanuation except for how the funds have incompetantly chased short term high returns. This has, due to the huge amount of money involved, caused a disastrous change in how business operates.

Short term it looks great but long term it will cause massive problems.

Greed may be good if used properly but greed for greeds sake is moronic. I liken it to fire, a great servant but when it is out of control a deadly enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about you but the thought of politicians being in charge of my retirement fund scares me shitless.

A government-run super scheme might not seem appetising to you GS, but bear in mind that 1) fee-based privately-run super funds are notorious for their focus on short-term performance, as that is the basis upon which many fund managers are remunerated and 2) in a government-run scheme, more funds could have been allocated to productive investment (as opposed to the purchase of already-issued securities or pre-existing property which fuelled an asset bubble), and this in turn could have gone some way to addressing our balance of payments problem and reducing the effects of the financial crisis.

Of course, there is no clear-cut answer here (for example, the allocation of further funds to productive investment may have never occurred anyway in a government-run scheme), and I admit that most people would probably side with you on this one :dunno:.

BTW, I just read another article in last week's The Economist relating to Australia's problems with Indian students. According to the article, the application for Aussie student visas by Indians has declined rapidly in recent times. This is a tough one for the government to handle really. The argument that the crimes aren't racially motivated is obviously falling on deaf ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A government-run super scheme might not seem appetising to you GS, but bear in mind that 1) fee-based privately-run super funds are notorious for their focus on short-term performance, as that is the basis upon which many fund managers are remunerated and 2) in a government-run scheme, more funds could have been allocated to productive investment (as opposed to the purchase of already-issued securities or pre-existing property which fuelled an asset bubble), and this in turn could have gone some way to addressing our balance of payments problem and reducing the effects of the financial crisis.

Of course, there is no clear-cut answer here (for example, the allocation of further funds to productive investment may have never occurred anyway in a government-run scheme), and I admit that most people would probably side with you on this one :dunno:.

BTW, I just read another article in last week's The Economist relating to Australia's problems with Indian students. According to the article, the application for Aussie student visas by Indians has declined rapidly in recent times. This is a tough one for the government to handle really. The argument that the crimes aren't racially motivated is obviously falling on deaf ears.

If it wasn't racially motivated before it is now in a way. My take is the false hysteria over it and the claim that it is racist in the media has now led to idiots seeing Indian students and saying, hey lets be cool and do some curry bashing like on the news. I saw a VICPol police inspecotr or super on the news stating that they're safer in Melbourne than back home in their respective cities and one only needs to look at the figures. Interesting and possibly true, but people don't tihnk like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fail.

It happens on roads all over the world every day.

But one frustrated Brisbane driver who "flipped the bird" to two women in a passing car while talking on his mobile telephone couldn't have got it more wrong.

The woman behind the wheel turned out to be none other than Acting Police Commissioner Kathy Rynders - the state's most senior cop.

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it wasn't racially motivated before it is now in a way. My take is the false hysteria over it and the claim that it is racist in the media has now led to idiots seeing Indian students and saying, hey lets be cool and do some curry bashing like on the news. I saw a VICPol police inspecotr or super on the news stating that they're safer in Melbourne than back home in their respective cities and one only needs to look at the figures. Interesting and possibly true, but people don't tihnk like that.

I cringed when Overland said that. Might be true but nottt a particulary clever thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A government-run super scheme might not seem appetising to you GS, but bear in mind that 1) fee-based privately-run super funds are notorious for their focus on short-term performance, as that is the basis upon which many fund managers are remunerated and 2) in a government-run scheme, more funds could have been allocated to productive investment (as opposed to the purchase of already-issued securities or pre-existing property which fuelled an asset bubble), and this in turn could have gone some way to addressing our balance of payments problem and reducing the effects of the financial crisis.

Besides the compulsory rate being so low, another issue I have with superannuation is that there's all this encouragement for me to put my money in super but no real assurances about what will happen to it. As a young worker with no dependents and a reasonable disposable income, salary sacrificing into super is a tax effective way to go about saving and it'll get compounded over 40 years or so. But there is no assurance from the government that they're not going to mess around with the whole super thing. I can see in future years where they become more cash-strapped they will just tax the heck out of super and all that saving will go to waste - currently they don't tax it if you withdraw after a certain age, but there's no stopping them changing the rules. And with probably 40 years at least to go before I retire, that's a long time for the government to change its mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the compulsory rate being so low, another issue I have with superannuation is that there's all this encouragement for me to put my money in super but no real assurances about what will happen to it. As a young worker with no dependents and a reasonable disposable income, salary sacrificing into super is a tax effective way to go about saving and it'll get compounded over 40 years or so. But there is no assurance from the government that they're not going to mess around with the whole super thing. I can see in future years where they become more cash-strapped they will just tax the heck out of super and all that saving will go to waste - currently they don't tax it if you withdraw after a certain age, but there's no stopping them changing the rules. And with probably 40 years at least to go before I retire, that's a long time for the government to change its mind.

I am not up on the current laws but I do admit that in the past I was disgusted that they would charge you income tax when you put the money into the super and then again when you drew it out. Now if you had a chioce about it then maybe or if they were just taxing you on the money you had made but they were taxing the lot so I was truly disgusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides the compulsory rate being so low, another issue I have with superannuation is that there's all this encouragement for me to put my money in super but no real assurances about what will happen to it. As a young worker with no dependents and a reasonable disposable income, salary sacrificing into super is a tax effective way to go about saving and it'll get compounded over 40 years or so. But there is no assurance from the government that they're not going to mess around with the whole super thing. I can see in future years where they become more cash-strapped they will just tax the heck out of super and all that saving will go to waste - currently they don't tax it if you withdraw after a certain age, but there's no stopping them changing the rules. And with probably 40 years at least to go before I retire, that's a long time for the government to change its mind.

I can see why you might be worried about this Jeor, but there are at least two reasons why it probably won't happen. For one thing, a significant tax hike on super benefits paid would probably raise the ire of thousands of Australians who, like you, were making voluntary contributions to their super funds on the basis that they would not be taxable beyond a certain age. It would therefore be an extremely difficult tax reform to pull-off from a political standpoint. Secondly, the main reason why the government is likely to be "cash-strapped" in future years is because it is struggling to cope with our ageing population. In that case, I can't see that it would make a great deal of sense to tax retirees on their super benefits, since it is those same retirees who the government will be spending money on in the form of aged pensions.

Of course, I could be completely wrong on this and you might be facing 40% taxation on your super benefits down the track ;). Such are the vagaries of trying to predict political decision-making processes 40 years in advance...

I am not up on the current laws but I do admit that in the past I was disgusted that they would charge you income tax when you put the money into the super and then again when you drew it out. Now if you had a chioce about it then maybe or if they were just taxing you on the money you had made but they were taxing the lot so I was truly disgusted.

As Jeor mentioned, there is currently no income tax on benefits paid to taxpayers over a certain age (which stands at 60 ATM). But you are correct in saying that it was not all that long ago (prior to 2007) that Australian super was subject to double taxation: once upon contribution to a super fund and a second time upon payment of the benefit to the taxpayer. Bear in mind though that the tax rates being paid were concessional rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, The Economist is convinced that Australia is experiencing a massive housing bubble (see table at bottom of article). They have calculated the Australian market to be overvalued by more than 50%, having examined the current house prices to rents ratio versus the long-term ratio. Luckily, the mining boom means that most Aussies aren't going to default on their mortgages in the near future (or at least not nearly as many as did in the US in 2008), so it's not likely that we are going to experience the foreclosure/price reduction spiral that occurred in the States. But it is a bit of a worry for people like me who are going to be entering an overpriced housing market in the next few years. From my point of view, it would be nice to see a bit of a pricing correction occur before that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mean to threadjack, but this is a thread about Australia in general.

Quick question:

What is everyone doing this Australia Day? BBQ at the park? Massive backyard cricket session? Throwing a Triple J Hottest 100 Party? Going down to Bondi to be racist? Let me know what you guys are up to.

I'm fairly certain I have a party at the beach to play cricket and sink some beers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mean to threadjack, but this is a thread about Australia in general.

Quick question:

What is everyone doing this Australia Day? BBQ at the park? Massive backyard cricket session? Throwing a Triple J Hottest 100 Party? Going down to Bondi to be racist? Let me know what you guys are up to.

I'm fairly certain I have a party at the beach to play cricket and sink some beers.

going to cafe Primo for lunch then seeing Avatar with a friend :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...