Bike rebate?

[LotteBum]

Stuart Lamble wrote:

According to my sister, this is a myth.

Really? I haven't actually looked into it, but I was fairly sure that was the case, generally speaking... it would make sense, that's for sure.


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.

I think you should chase Tamyka. That's what I'd be doing if I was a bloke. Actually, I'm thinking about it even though I'm not one.

Lotte

 

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2005-09-08, LotteBum <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you should chase Tamyka. That's what I'd be doing if I was a
> bloke. Actually, I'm thinking about it even though I'm not one.

I'm pretty sure that with her level of fitness, I'd stand absolutely no
chance of catching her. Too fast, you see.

--
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".

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:

> 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.

Please explain "'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.

You don't sound very sure. I drive a company car. 2003 Ford Courier ute, the
basic manual model with air-con. I also have a 1994 Moto Guzzi California
which has done 190,000 kms but is currently down awaiting me to put in a new
clutch.
I get to drive a 4WD for the VBFB, 11 tonne Isuzu with seven speed box,
Hi-Lo range and pretty flashing lights. If you're in a Prado, you'd better
get out of the way.
(psst-I do have a partly restored 1967 Mercedes 230S hidden in the back of
the shed.)

Cheers

Theo

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Terry Collins wrote:
>
> 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 {.

I keep tellin' hippy that "you boys are all the same"

Tam

 

[Tamyka Bell]

LotteBum wrote:
>
> Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> According to my sister, this is a myth.
>
> Really? I haven't actually looked into it, but I was fairly sure that
> was the case, generally speaking... it would make sense, that's for
> sure.
>
> 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.
>
> I think you should chase Tamyka. That's what I'd be doing if I was a
> bloke. Actually, I'm thinking about it even though I'm not one.
>
> Lotte
>
> --
> LotteBum

Thanks Lotte, but no thanks. Try again when you get that blade 4 'do!

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

ritcho 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?

> 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).

Sorry, I don't agree. The Gov't took money from me in taxes to fund my
pension. Where is my money now?

My dad had nine children, all of whom pay taxes. He also has some 38
grandchildren and about a dozen GG-children and two GGG-children. All of
whom are more than happy to help the Gov't fund his retirement. Do you want
to explain to your granddad that you're going to cut off his pension?
Every generation pays for its parents retirement and its children's
education. It's your turn to pay.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:
> Stuart Lamble wrote:

>> According to my sister, this is a myth.

> Really? I haven't actually looked into it, but I was fairly sure that
> was the case, generally speaking... it would make sense, that's for
> sure.

My mother breastfed all of her children for a year to 18 months. There is 21
months between my older sister and me, and 15 months between myself and my
younger brother. You work it out Lotte.

Theo

 

[LotteBum]

Theo wrote:

My mother breastfed all of her children for a year to 18 months. There is 21
months between my older sister and me, and 15 months between myself and my
younger brother. You work it out Lotte.

Theo, you will find that I have already been corrected and I readily accepted the earlier correction (ie. I don't really need two). You like to try to belittle people, don't you?

Lotte

 

[LotteBum]

Tam wrote:

Thanks Lotte, but no thanks. Try again when you get that blade 4 'do!

I'll try Monday.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> LotteBum wrote:
> > Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> >> According to my sister, this is a myth.
>
> > Really? I haven't actually looked into it, but I was fairly sure that
> > was the case, generally speaking... it would make sense, that's for
> > sure.
>
> My mother breastfed all of her children for a year to 18 months. There is 21
> months between my older sister and me, and 15 months between myself and my
> younger brother. You work it out Lotte.
>
> Theo

It reduces likelihood of pregnancy. That does not mean it's impossible
to fall pregnant. If you're fertile, hahahaha.

http://tinyurl.com/ctd97
http://tinyurl.com/dluqc

For more refs search for breastfeed and fertility, on scholar.google.com

Tamyka

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:
> Theo, you will find that I have already been corrected and I readily
> accepted the earlier correction (ie. I don't really need two). You
> like to try to belittle people, don't you?

No sorry, didn't notice that.

Theo

 

[ritcho]

ritcho 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?

> 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).

Sorry, I don't agree. The Gov't took money from me in taxes to fund my
pension. Where is my money now?

My dad had nine children, all of whom pay taxes. He also has some 38
grandchildren and about a dozen GG-children and two GGG-children. All of
whom are more than happy to help the Gov't fund his retirement. Do you want
to explain to your granddad that you're going to cut off his pension?
Every generation pays for its parents retirement and its children's
education. It's your turn to pay.

Theo

The money from your taxes has already been spent on (inter alia) an extremely generous and unsustainable pension system. The boomer generation hit the workforce in the mid/late 1960s, dramatically cutting the dependency ratio. As a result, governments were able to introduce Medicare and greater access to universities (ultimately free access). The boomers thought that such largess could continue forever. Unfortunately, a Ponzi scheme that borrows from future investors to pay incumbents is unsustainable.

There are three possibilities to improve the solvency of old-age pensions.

1. Contribute more (through taxes for govt funded and higher savings for private superannuation)
2. Work longer, so you won't have to live as long off your savings
3. Get used to a lower standard of living in the future.

So far, option 1 has dominated as far as taxation is concerned, and boomers are in denial about 3 (though inflation adjusted pensions have grown slower than the rest of the economy...).

Unless you have nine children and 38 grandchildren supporting you in your old age, you should get used to the idea that your standard of living in retirement will either impose a greater burden on your kids than you faced, or you get a lower standard of living.

Ritch

 

[Terry Collins]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Terry Collins wrote:
>
>>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 {.
>
>
> I keep tellin' hippy that "you boys are all the same"

Hmm, umm, can I let you in on a little secret, that doesn't work as a
pick up line. "boys" like a compliment in some ways.

Only later in life did I learn what "you have nice long fingers really
meant".

 

[Peka]

The money from your taxes has already been spent on (inter alia) an extremely generous and unsustainable pension system. The boomer generation hit the workforce in the mid/late 1960s, dramatically cutting the dependency ratio. As a result, governments were able to introduce Medicare and greater access to universities (ultimately free access). The boomers thought that such largess could continue forever. Unfortunately, a Ponzi scheme that borrows from future investors to pay incumbents is unsustainable.

There are three possibilities to improve the solvency of old-age pensions.

1. Contribute more (through taxes for govt funded and higher savings for private superannuation)
2. Work longer, so you won't have to live as long off your savings
3. Get used to a lower standard of living in the future.

So far, option 1 has dominated as far as taxation is concerned, and boomers are in denial about 3 (though inflation adjusted pensions have grown slower than the rest of the economy...).

Unless you have nine children and 38 grandchildren supporting you in your old age, you should get used to the idea that your standard of living in retirement will either impose a greater burden on your kids than you faced, or you get a lower standard of living.

Ritch

Given the increase in age expectancy, shouldn't the minimum retirement age be increased (ie. option 2) ?

 

[TimC]

On 2005-09-09, Terry Collins (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Tamyka Bell wrote:
>> I keep tellin' hippy that "you boys are all the same"
>
> Hmm, umm, can I let you in on a little secret, that doesn't work as a
> pick up line. "boys" like a compliment in some ways.
>
> Only later in life did I learn what "you have nice long fingers really
> meant".

OK, so what does "you have lovely long eyelashes" mean?

--
TimC
"This company performed an illegal operation but they will not be shut
down." -- Scott Harshbarger from consumer lobby group on Microsoft

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Peka wrote:
> ritcho Wrote:
>> There are three possibilities to improve the solvency of old-age
>> pensions.
>>
>> 1. Contribute more (through taxes for govt funded and higher savings
>> for private superannuation)
>> 2. Work longer, so you won't have to live as long off your savings
>> 3. Get used to a lower standard of living in the future.
>>
>> So far, option 1 has dominated as far as taxation is concerned, and
>> boomers are in denial about 3 (though inflation adjusted pensions
>> have grown slower than the rest of the economy...).
>>
>> Unless you have nine children and 38 grandchildren supporting you in
>> your old age, you should get used to the idea that your standard of
>> living in retirement will either impose a greater burden on your kids
>> than you faced, or you get a lower standard of living.

> RitchGiven the increase in age expectancy, shouldn't the minimum
> retirement age be increased (ie. option 2) ?

I agree, but then all those young'uns complain that us oldies have their
jobs. I personally am planning to retire at age 67 1/2. My planned date is
1/7/2010.

Theo

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:05:15 +1000, TimC wrote:

> OK, so what does "you have lovely long eyelashes" mean?

I used to get that one too, but now they've gone short, sparse and limp. I
*really* hope there's not a similar perceived link to finger length/foot
size!

Graeme (big feet, long fingers)

 

[Theo Bekkers]

ritcho wrote:

> There are three possibilities to improve the solvency of old-age
> pensions.
>
> 1. Contribute more (through taxes for govt funded and higher savings
> for private superannuation)
> 2. Work longer, so you won't have to live as long off your savings
> 3. Get used to a lower standard of living in the future.

I think 2. makes the most sense. There are some problems with it however.
Young people who can't find jobs get upset. Some people over 65 are
unemployable, and few people will employ over 65ers.

> So far, option 1 has dominated as far as taxation is concerned, and
> boomers are in denial about 3 (though inflation adjusted pensions have
> grown slower than the rest of the economy...).
>
> Unless you have nine children and 38 grandchildren supporting you in
> your old age, you should get used to the idea that your standard of
> living in retirement will either impose a greater burden on your kids
> than you faced, or you get a lower standard of living.

I only have three children and six grandchildren so far.
How about those people who have two or less children get excluded from
pension schemes for failing to provide for their old age? They should be
able to save enough money to finance their own retirement.

Theo

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Peka wrote:
> > ritcho Wrote:
> >> There are three possibilities to improve the solvency of old-age
> >> pensions.
> >>
> >> 1. Contribute more (through taxes for govt funded and higher savings
> >> for private superannuation)
> >> 2. Work longer, so you won't have to live as long off your savings
> >> 3. Get used to a lower standard of living in the future.
> >>
> >> So far, option 1 has dominated as far as taxation is concerned, and
> >> boomers are in denial about 3 (though inflation adjusted pensions
> >> have grown slower than the rest of the economy...).
> >>
> >> Unless you have nine children and 38 grandchildren supporting you in
> >> your old age, you should get used to the idea that your standard of
> >> living in retirement will either impose a greater burden on your kids
> >> than you faced, or you get a lower standard of living.
>
> > RitchGiven the increase in age expectancy, shouldn't the minimum
> > retirement age be increased (ie. option 2) ?
>
> I agree, but then all those young'uns complain that us oldies have their
> jobs. I personally am planning to retire at age 67 1/2. My planned date is
> 1/7/2010.
>
> Theo

Oooh I plan on getting a job before then.

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> I agree, but then all those young'uns complain that us oldies have
>> their jobs. I personally am planning to retire at age 67 1/2. My
>> planned date is 1/7/2010.

> Oooh I plan on getting a job before then.

You can't. Ritch wants us old people to keep working so the Gov't can afford
to pay young people the dole.

Theo