Bike rebate?

[Theo Bekkers]

Resound wrote:

> That is, of course, assuming that there'll be much of a pension
> system left after the baby-boomer demographic bulge has been through
> it.

As a pre-boomer I would like to point out that the boomers, and other
previous generations, paid their taxes on the understanding that the Gov't
would pay them a pension in their old age. If the Gov't has spent that money
on 'younger' people rather than put it aside or invest it, why should they
(the younger people) not cough up for my pension?

Theo

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Resound wrote:
>
> > That is, of course, assuming that there'll be much of a pension
> > system left after the baby-boomer demographic bulge has been through
> > it.
>
> As a pre-boomer I would like to point out that the boomers, and other
> previous generations, paid their taxes on the understanding that the Gov't
> would pay them a pension in their old age. If the Gov't has spent that money
> on 'younger' people rather than put it aside or invest it, why should they
> (the younger people) not cough up for my pension?
>
> Theo

They'd have to get jobs, first, Theo.

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> As a pre-boomer I would like to point out that the boomers, and other
>> previous generations, paid their taxes on the understanding that the
>> Gov't would pay them a pension in their old age. If the Gov't has
>> spent that money on 'younger' people rather than put it aside or
>> invest it, why should they (the younger people) not cough up for my
>> pension?

> They'd have to get jobs, first, Theo.

I'll take an early pension and you can have mine. You can be a company
director and finance controller.

Theo

 

[LotteBum]

Theo wrote:

I don't know. I have a $60,000 mortgage. Who pays for this 'financial
assistance from the government'? Me?

And me. I'm not saying that I require any financial assistance from Canberra. I'm saying that I don't see why people should live in sheer poverty because they choose to 'replace' themselves.

Also, Theo... I am so sure you drive a Prado. Almost certain. Am I right? If not, then it must be a Falcodore.

LotteBum

 

[Peka]

A woman's chance of falling pregnant at 30 are 50%

I'd have thought that if you're fit and healthy, and have been for all of your life, your chances would be a fair bit more than that?

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:

> I agree, but look at it from another angle: What if, for instance, I
> was desperate for children? I'm 24 now (ie. WAY too young).

My wife was 23 when we had our third, and last, child.

> In terms
> of fertility, I'm in my prime. By the time my partner and I will
> realistically be in a financial position to have children (ie. not
> have to send them to one of the disturbingly shitty state schools I
> was unfortunate enough to attend, clothe them reasonably and let them
> play the sport they want [in other words, buy them the bike they
> need]), I'll be 30.

Some people call it waiting, others call it greed. We were poor, our kids
went to state schools, we struggled. They all have good jobs. The boys each
have their own business.

> A woman's chance of falling pregnant at 30 are > 50%. .

You don't have to 'fall'. Just lie down, close your eyes, and think of your
country

> I don't mind my tax dollars helping young, struggling families because
> their children will grow up and pay sh!tloads of tax as well.

That's the ticket. My kids are.

Theo

 

[LotteBum]

Peka wrote:

I'd have thought that if you're fit and healthy, and have been for all of your life, your chances would be a fair bit more than that?

That probably gives you a much better chance, sure. However, common talk (ie. I have no scientific evidence to back this up) seems to indicate that the main reason fertility is dropping is as a result of delaying having children. Out grandparents and great grandparents had tonnes of children and had them well into their forties. Women these days are very lucky to fall pregnant in their forties, let alone have a healthy baby. Anyway, the problem apparently is that we are 'designed' to fall pregnant not too long after we start menstruating, have the child, breastfeed for a year or so (ie. usually women don't conceive when breastfeeding), then when menstruation resumes, have another one, then the same thing happens again. But because we're forever trying to control our fertility and playing havoc with our own cycles we're kind of ruining things for ourselves.

Anyway, this must be boring all you blokes. Sorry!

Lotte

 

[ritcho]

Resound wrote:

> That is, of course, assuming that there'll be much of a pension
> system left after the baby-boomer demographic bulge has been through
> it.

As a pre-boomer I would like to point out that the boomers, and other
previous generations, paid their taxes on the understanding that the Gov't
would pay them a pension in their old age. If the Gov't has spent that money
on 'younger' people rather than put it aside or invest it, why should they
(the younger people) not cough up for my pension?

Theo

That's easy - the dependency ratio is so much higher these days. In the old days you had many more workers funding a small number of retirees. Now you have a relatively small number of workers funding ever increasing numbers of retirees. If the old age pension were calculated such that it imposed the same burden on workers as it did forty years ago, it would be less than half of its current level. (Or in other words, today's older generation didn't contribute enough to fund the pension system).

Ritch

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-09-08, LotteBum <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyway, the problem apparently is that we are 'designed'
> to fall pregnant not too long after we start menstruating, have the
> child, breastfeed for a year or so (ie. usually women don't conceive
> when breastfeeding),

According to my sister, this is a myth.

> then when menstruation resumes, have another one,
> then the same thing happens again. But because we're forever trying to
> control our fertility and playing havoc with our own cycles we're kind
> of ruining things for ourselves.
>
> Anyway, this must be boring all you blokes. Sorry!

Not me. I want to be a father. I've just hit decrepitude (aka I'm now
thirty years of age). Suffice to say that, if I end up with a woman my
own age, give or take a year, this is a matter of no small importance to
me.

Of course, if I end up with a woman who's six or seven years younger,
it's less important to me. However, the point still remains: that it's
something ticking away at the back of my mind.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

 

[LotteBum]

Theo wrote:

My wife was 23 when we had our third, and last, child.


That's how it was done back then... like I said. People were probably also a lot more mature back then. And... there probably wasn't a lot to do but shag lots.

Some people call it waiting, others call it greed. We were poor, our kids
went to state schools, we struggled. They all have good jobs. The boys each
have their own business.


I think you'll find that the gap between state and private schools has increased and it's not what it used to be. My sister is a high school teacher and the difference in just 10 years (that's when I was in high school) is phenomenal. I'm not saying children need to go to expensive private schools, but state school funding these days is just a joke - it really is. I guess it boils down to your own preferences and experiences, but put it this way, my children will not endure what I had to endure at the state schools I went to. Ever. Others may have different experiences and that's great, but I can only speak for my own.

Also, I'm going to need a $50,000 Prado to get the little ***** to and from school, otherwise the other mums will think I'm poor.

You don't have to 'fall'. Just lie down, close your eyes, and think of your
country


You mean it doesn't have to be a world class gymnastics event??

That's the ticket. My kids are.

Well there you have it.

LotteBum

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> On 2005-09-08, LotteBum wrote:
>> Anyway, the problem apparently is that we are 'designed'
>> to fall pregnant not too long after we start menstruating, have the
>> child, breastfeed for a year or so (ie. usually women don't conceive
>> when breastfeeding),
>
> According to my sister, this is a myth.

It is. My daughter-in-law fell for that one, and got my wife the
granddaughter she wanted.

Theo

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 08:00:31 +1000, LotteBum wrote:

> My sister had gestational diabetes
> and when I went to the gestational diabetes section of the hospital with
> her on her fortnightly checkup, 90% of the pregnant women there (they
> obviously had gestational diabetes) were significantly overweight (ie.
> borderline obese).

I was reading/hearing something a month or two back where they were saying
that gestational diabetes may not be gestational in the majority of cases.
It's just that pregnancy is the first time many women have diabetes tests
done. There was a lot more behind this than I can remember, but I seem to
remember them saying that GD itself should have no effect during pregnancy
but that other conditions that may manifest themselves as GD may do.

Graeme

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:33:14 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Is there some reason your attributions are always messed up? Maybe you can
> get some ng training assistance from the Gov't.

That's the fault of the web based front end to aus.bike on Cyling Forums.
It could be sorted out (other usenet<->web front ends don't have this
problem), but obviously Cycling Forums either don't see the need or don't
know how to.

Graeme

 

[SteveA]

That's easy - the dependency ratio is so much higher these days. In the old days you had many more workers funding a small number of retirees. Now you have a relatively small number of workers funding ever increasing numbers of retirees. If the old age pension were calculated such that it imposed the same burden on workers as it did forty years ago, it would be less than half of its current level. (Or in other words, today's older generation didn't contribute enough to fund the pension system).

Ritch

And old people are becoming less and less co-operative about easing the burden on the youngsters - they just won't die!

The old age pension was introduced in 1908 with an eligibility age of 65 years. At that time, life expectancy at birth for men was 55 years and for women 59 years. If you made it to 65, you could expect to live to 76 if you were a bloke, or 78 if you were a woman.

Should have been a bit of a bargain for the government of the day really. Lots of people died before pension age and those that survived had the decency to drop off the perch after a few years.

Now, life expectancy at birth is 77 for boys and 83 for girls. Andif you get to 65, average at death will be 82 and 86.

There are lots of other interesting stats here:

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110129.NSF/0/7fb56f24209c1422ca257036002267f9?OpenDocument#OLDER%20PEOPLE%20IN%201905%20and%202005

SteveA

 

[Resound]

"Absent Husband" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Those who choose to have children should pay for them........[Is this
> the room for an argument?] "
>
> <snip>
>
> G'day Steve - OK, I'll bite... *laughs*
>
> We need to replace ourselves in society. We need to have a new
> generation coming trough to replace the old one. I think this is a
> simple concept that is basically ignored by many.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that everyone should reproduce. Yes, its an
> individual choice that we all have to make. But if you choose NOT to
> contribute to society in that way, then you need to appreciate that
> some of your tax dollars will be going to assist those who do (ie. the
> ones with kids...).
>
> You can't just get old, have no kids, then wonder why there aren't
> another generation of happy taxpayers to run around, earn money, and
> keep the country going (hopefully better than the previous
> generation!!).
>
> Yes, I know there are huge numbers of people in other countries. And so
> yes, we could solve this problem by simply opening our borders and
> letting them come on in. I'm all for increased immigration, so I won't
> argue against that. But that won't REPLACE the need for us to bear
> young, just mitigate it somewhat...
>
> Cheers,
> Abby (isn't this a cycling group??)
>

Hmm. A couple of things that spring to mind. 1: I don't have a problem with
2 kids. It's the 4 and 5 children famlies that make me pause and wonder what
on earth they think they're doing. 2: People are not a scarce resource.
We've got considerably more than we need already and although population
growth is slowing, it's still positive (globally, anyway). Yeah, there's
going to be a nasty demographic hump. The baby boomer generation ensured
that anyway and they're all entering retirement age about now so we're going
to have to think long and hard about how the elderly are going to be
supported in any case.

Usual disclaimer that I really don't know that much about this particular
subject and this is all off the top of my head.

 

[Resound]

"Terry Collins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Resound wrote:
>
>
>> That is, of course, assuming that there'll be much of a pension system
>> left after the baby-boomer demographic bulge has been through it.
>
> Seems it might all be scare tactics. There are a few counter studies that
> are showing that many baby boomers won't get anything out of the
> government pension system because they purchased their own homes, put away
> super, etc, etc, etc.
>
> Between pollies trying to ensure they still continue to get extraordinary
> super and idiot super funds worried about the coming super scheme bubble
> collapse, I take all of this with a grain of salt.
>
>> If I (or anyone else) suffers from an illness through sheer bad luck
>> rather than poorly considered actions then that's another story.
>
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of people like that out there with that
> problem. They don't tend to whine about it either, so they are under the
> radar.
>
>

This I know. One of my best friends suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
and ME (can't quite remember what that stands for...associated illness).
Within a couple of days she went from being an active energetic person to
having to do essentially nothing because if she exerts herself too much (and
the limit is unbelievably low) she literally cannot do anything at all for
days. It's made all the more entertaining by large chunks of the medical
fraternity telling he that it's all in her head (despite clinical testing
that shows otherwise) and that it's brought about by prolonged laziness and
she's simpy unfit because she does nothing (despite rapid onset and an
active lifestyle beforehand). Life is astonishingly unfair sometimes.

 

[Terry Collins]

LotteBum wrote:

> Anyway, this must be boring all you blokes. Sorry!

Don't apologies. I might be available some time in the future and you
never know your luck. Just means older women have advantages (like
highly reduce chance of a support request a few months after).

 

[Terry Collins]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> I'm generally okay, unless I eat a decent dose of lollies, cake or
> chocolate. Then it's all about getting horizontal.

Well, I'm sure a few young men have taken note of that admission {.

 

[paul]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> From <http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1454859.htm>
>
> Medicare to offer new exercise rebate
>
> A new Medicare rebate is being introduced to help battle Australia's
> rising level of obesity.
>
> The rebate will cover the costs of programs prescribed by exercise
> physiologists to treat chronic sufferers of diseases such as diabetes,
> high blood pressure and obesity.
>
> Australian Association for Exercise and Sports Science president Chris
> Tzar says exercise can be critical to the successful control of these
> diseases.
>
> "Approximately 65 per cent of patients undertake less than the minimum
> required amount of physical activity per week," he said.
>
> "We really need to start tackling chronic disease with relation to
> lifestyle issues.
>
> "Physical inactivity is expected to become the number one risk factor in
> chronic disease, it will probably overtake smoking in the near future."
>
> --------------
> Anyone know a decent exercise physiologist? I think I need a program
> that involves a new bike...
>

Is there an australian based bike/riding blog at all? That stores
stories like this?

Paul

 

[Terry Collins]

Resound wrote:

> It's made all the more entertaining by large chunks of the medical
> fraternity telling he that it's all in her head (despite clinical testing
> that shows otherwise) and that it's brought about by prolonged laziness and
> she's simpy unfit because she does nothing (despite rapid onset and an
> active lifestyle beforehand).

Lol, sorry, it isn't funy when you're on the end of it. I gained 4
specialist (so far) for my diabetes and I've come to learn that each is
only competent in their specialisation. Outside it and they sound just
like the ones your friend is dealing with. At least they respect each
others reports.




> Life is astonishingly unfair sometimes.

Yep.
>
>