Bike rebate?

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> 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

Oooh can I have the dole then?

Tam

 

[Terry Collins]

ritcho wrote:

> The money from your taxes has already been spent on (inter alia) an
> extremely generous and unsustainable pension system.

You must be talking about the one the pollies get.
You can not possibly be talking about the one that normal people get
where they are forced to fosick through garbage bins for "recyclables"
or to eat dog food, could you?




> 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)

You jest surely.
1) Trust the government hahahahahahaha.
2) Put money into any super scheme, hahahahaha
3) do your own super scheme by wisely choosing investments and not
following th blind bleating of accountants.


> 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.
It gets worse?

 

[Terry Collins]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

>
> 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 how many people over 40 has your company put on this year?


> They should be able to save enough money to finance their own retirement.

That is a reasonable requirement if people like Alan Bond, Ray Williams,
Jodie Rich, Ziggy, etc, are executed and their personal asessts taken
to compensate all those people they have defrauded.

 

[LotteBum]

Theo wrote:

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

Ha! I'd tell you I know ten times as many old folks on pensions as I do unemployed people on the dole. But I don't know anyone who is unemployed.

Us youngsters don't work anywhere near as hard as the older generations did. In fact, people are becoming lazier and lazier and more and more worthless. We're useless... nobody needs us.

Lotte

 

[Terry Collins]

Theo Bekkers 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.

I'm not so sure, but I don't think it is a blanket statement. Rather I
think it relates to having many children.

In two generations of my family tree, well before the pill, etc where
there was from 10 to 14 children in each family, there is a regular
pattern in the later children of regular births. So much so, that if one
is missing, a quiet enquiry brought forth the information of
miscarriage/died at birth.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

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

> Oooh can I have the dole then?

Only if you agree to pay my pension.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terry Collins wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> 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 how many people over 40 has your company put on this year?

None out of three. We need to give young people jobs so they can pay taxes
so I can retire.

>> They should be able to save enough money to finance their own
>> retirement.

> That is a reasonable requirement if people like Alan Bond, Ray
> Williams, Jodie Rich, Ziggy, etc, are executed and their personal
> assets taken to compensate all those people they have defrauded.

Absolutely!

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

LotteBum wrote:

> Ha! I'd tell you I know ten times as many old folks on pensions as I
> do unemployed people on the dole. But I don't know anyone who is
> unemployed.

You work in a nursing home then?

> Us youngsters don't work anywhere near as hard as the older
> generations did. In fact, people are becoming lazier and lazier and
> more and more worthless. We're useless... nobody needs us.

I don't agree. I know a lot of young people who work very hard and smart.
Some of them work for us.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Terry Collins wrote:

> I'm not so sure, but I don't think it is a blanket statement. Rather I
> think it relates to having many children.
>
> In two generations of my family tree, well before the pill, etc where
> there was from 10 to 14 children in each family, there is a regular
> pattern in the later children of regular births. So much so, that if
> one is missing, a quiet enquiry brought forth the information of
> miscarriage/died at birth.

You've lost me. How is that related to pregnancy during breastfeeding? My
mother's generation breastfed until the next baby was born.

Theo

 

[Terry Collins]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Terry Collins wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not so sure, but I don't think it is a blanket statement. Rather I
>>think it relates to having many children.
>>
>>In two generations of my family tree, well before the pill, etc where
>>there was from 10 to 14 children in each family, there is a regular
>>pattern in the later children of regular births. So much so, that if
>>one is missing, a quiet enquiry brought forth the information of
>>miscarriage/died at birth.
>
>
> You've lost me. How is that related to pregnancy during breastfeeding? My
> mother's generation breastfed until the next baby was born.

It was often around three year periods, some shorter, some longer.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-09-09, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Us youngsters don't work anywhere near as hard as the older generations
> did. In fact, people are becoming lazier and lazier and more and more
> worthless. We're useless... nobody needs us.

There's a famous saying in geekdom:

"Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script".

There's a saying in PhDdom that all PhDs could be replaced with an
even smaller shell script.

I don't think I am capable of working in the real world ever again.

And as I said at WoJ tonight, I blame aus.bike on this

(well, that and alt.religion.kibology, and the scary devil monastery,
and ..., and ...)

Actually, I blame it all on a guy called "Screwtape", who introduced
me to usenet in 1998 in first year. If it wasn't for him...

--
TimC
Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
-- Robert Firth

 

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-09-09, LotteBum (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Us youngsters don't work anywhere near as hard as the older generations
>>did. In fact, people are becoming lazier and lazier and more and more
>>worthless. We're useless... nobody needs us.
>
>
> There's a famous saying in geekdom:
>
> "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script".
>
> There's a saying in PhDdom that all PhDs could be replaced with an
> even smaller shell script.
>
> I don't think I am capable of working in the real world ever again.
>
> And as I said at WoJ tonight, I blame aus.bike on this
>
> (well, that and alt.religion.kibology, and the scary devil monastery,
> and ..., and ...)
>
> Actually, I blame it all on a guy called "Screwtape", who introduced
> me to usenet in 1998 in first year. If it wasn't for him...
>
Oh go to bed

Email from Ian.. apparently we are riding to mt martha in the morning

 

[ritcho]

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

Not true! As a said before, boomers were able to share the burden of supporting a small number of retirees with a lot of young taxpaying boomer workers. Now that they all want to retire, they expect a similar level of support from the next generation. Despite the meagre pickings of today's pensions (and dole payments), the share of tax taken from income has never been higher... this is equivalent to contributing more (higher taxes) and making do with less (erosion of pensions).

Furthermore, in the old days, a worker could expect to live for maybe 5 or 10 years after retirement. Now its closer to 20 years - raising the eligibility age for pensions is just one of the policies that will restore the solvency of the system (yes, it will happen). So, to maintain a standard of living that you want, I suggest you work longer so you can accumulate more before you start to draw down your savings, 'cos the government won't be able to bail you out.

Ritch

 

[ritcho]

ritcho wrote:

> The money from your taxes has already been spent on (inter alia) an
> extremely generous and unsustainable pension system.

You must be talking about the one the pollies get.
You can not possibly be talking about the one that normal people get
where they are forced to fosick through garbage bins for "recyclables"
or to eat dog food, could you?




> 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)

You jest surely.
1) Trust the government hahahahahahaha.
2) Put money into any super scheme, hahahahaha
3) do your own super scheme by wisely choosing investments and not
following th blind bleating of accountants.


> 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.
It gets worse?

I was referring to the level of pensions 30 years ago, which were much closer to average earnings of workers. These have been steadily eroded as the dependency ratio has climbed so that they are now pretty meagre by comparison. The outlook is bleak though as it isn't going to get better any time soon.

Not jesting - people aren't saving enough and that includes the government. It's funny how the ones that say they don't trust government are the first to put their hands out...

I forgot option 4: Soylent Green [1]

Ritch

[1] this is jest

 

[Terry Collins]

ritcho wrote:
> Terry Collins Wrote:

> I was referring to the level of pensions 30 years ago, which were much
> closer to average earnings of workers.

Which was when I started noticing pensioners rummaging for recyclables
and there was a song about pensioners living on dog food, gum leaves and
sand.


> Not jesting - people aren't saving enough and that includes the
> government. It's funny how the ones that say they don't trust
> government are the first to put their hands out...

Yawn, now you belong in misc.survivalism. The trouble is you sound just
like those sharks trying to get us to sign up to their super funds.

The problem with "economic theory" is that it is just theory and it has
too many holes/exceptions in the real world, so people don't trust
"economists". It is like listening to born again god bothers[1].

I've had the education of seeing my father pay max super contributions
all his working life (lots of refund because "you have too many units
this year")and then finding out that he would have been far better to
buy the empty block of land behind him and build an investment property
on it.

The problem with investment housing is that you need 6 (healthy ) to 10
(medical problems) to support yourself and it is easy to see that the
maths don't work; i.e not everyone can own ten properties, some people
have to be the renters.

So you look at shares, which is really gambling, plus company exectives
reward themselves worse then pollies.

Then you look at industrials and that is really "all your eggs into one
basket" for most people.

Then you look at "super funds, etc" and they have the same problems as
companies; i.e. the objective is to reward the directors now.

Is it any wonder no one "saves"

But, according to Ross Gittins, you are actually wrong, because people
are saving in the best way possible, given the circumstances, they are
putting it into the family home, which has many tax advantages.

And recently he said that the future demand for government supplied
pensions will not be as great as feared as a significant proportion of
baby boomers had built up sufficent assests to provide their own pension.

Unfrotunately, he is an "economist". {:-(


[1] Anyone else noticed that the god squad has started to get lippy?
Twice now my queue line of "No thanks we have our own religion" has
recieved some lippy retort.

I have also noticed that they (young 7day mormons?) have started driving
cars.

We are going to be very busy when the VeloRevolution comes.



>
> I forgot option 4: Soylent Green [1]

Oh, sydney is currently having that option pushed.

>
> Ritch
>
> [1] this is jest

I wish it was. What is that saying about "If a system can possible fail
it will and the less likely it is to fail, the more catastrophic it will
be when it happens".

 

[ritcho]

ritcho wrote:
> Terry Collins Wrote:

> I was referring to the level of pensions 30 years ago, which were much
> closer to average earnings of workers.

Which was when I started noticing pensioners rummaging for recyclables
and there was a song about pensioners living on dog food, gum leaves and
sand.
[snip]

> [1] this is jest[/color]

I wish it was. What is that saying about "If a system can possible fail
it will and the less likely it is to fail, the more catastrophic it will
be when it happens".

I can't speak for what you noticed thirty years ago, so I'll take your word for it.

There are sharks out there trying to pinch your savings, but savings isn't just about super - its about storing your wealth for later - your own home, a block of land, a milk bar, a bank deposit and all kinds of financial instruments count. Some are better than others in risk and return. Most people choose a blend which starts with the family home and expands from there.

Gittins may well be right in suggesting there won't be a crisis. I happen to agree - my best guess is that people will figure it out and start saving more. Older workers are probably deathly afraid that they didn't save enough and will face the reality of delayed retirement or a lower standard of living than they thought. Not really a crisis as such, but it will be disappointing for those affected - how much should disciplined savers be punished for the mistakes of others?

Ritch