-Boz-

Also, transfer payments in Australia have huge knock on effects. They continue to drive consumption which continues to drive taxation revenue through GST, company tax, income tax of people who are employed etc. We need everyone to start having kids so we will have a buffer of tax paying citizens to shoulder some of the load the bloomers are leaving for us. However we need the economy to grow as well. This is the best solution to both problems at once. Consumption can continue with minor disruption and we gain a larger tax base.

Do you have a better solution for keeping professional women in the workforce after having one kid? 86% of our workforce is employed in the tertiary service sector with approximately half that being professional services. The participation rate of women with kids in that section of the workforce is abysmally low. Women basically do have to choose Between kids and work, quite often for financial reasons. given the average wage is also about the level people start bitching about payments being made where should the cut off for assistance be? Shouldn't it be targeted at average Australians? Go one standard deviation higher in average income and you are looking at approximately 115k a year. That isn't a big difference (statistically) It cuts off not far above this, so this really is targeted at the average Australian. Yes it benefits people on higher income more but guess what, they pay more tax and will add significantly more to the government's revenue stream if they are encouraged to stay in the workforce AND have kids.

P.S. Average yearly income in Australia is now $72,800

All that does is create short term incentives for people to have kids and doesn't solve the long term problem of keeping people in the work force. There's a reason the baby bonus was a complete failure, it wasn't large enough to mitigate the income loss of middle income earners and up, and it had no ties to work. The idea is to have someone have a kid and go back to work, not give them enough to raise a kid on. If your choice is have a kid or stay employed long term which do you take?

Because you want to encourage as many people as possible to be having kids. Long story short, we don't start breeding we are in for a WORLD of hurt financially in about 25 years. Ageing population is going to f**k us in the ass so hard it's not funny. High income/well educated people tend to have less kids due to understanding of financial issues. Remove the financial burdon and you are more likely to keep women in the work force longer and they are more likely to have more kids.

The ones for higher money around th3 100k mark are much newer. People do take that into account when buying.

Redbook says $20k as an upper limit. Going off what's up for sale on car sales I'd say $23-25k tops. $30k will get you one with less than 60K on the clock. Around 150K going for high teens.

Registration requires the vehicle to be in roadworthy condition. Obviously this should only apply to cars being DRIVEN but the 5-0 have gone after trailord cars in the past.

Between job applications, internship applications and uni assignments my eyes and brain hurt.

If it is registered it can be defected.

So again, why do I want to pay more for a service that is already available to me and also fork out huge chunks of cash from the public purse for it?

And for the record, all Tier 5 NBN connections with at least 200GB of data cost significantly MORE than Telstra cable.

It's the same price as their ADSL offerings and not that bad for average Joe who isn't out to pirate 36 seasons of HD content a month. 200GB 100Mb cable plan is $80 a month, $100 get's you half a TB. That's what I pay for my ADSL with the same amount of data. I want cable, and cable runs right past my front door, but my buildings body corporate won't pay for the installation into the apartments. Not exactly holding out hope that if the NBN gets here in 8 years or whenever that it would be installed either.

Well it has. I can have 100Mb Wired or Wireless internet right now. Next Gen (5G) wireless which is being developed now should be an order of magnitude faster again, current testing suggests Gb connections. As for wider roll out, maybe because the market isn't actually demanding it on a large enough scale to make it properly viable? I know LOADS of people who live in Telstra Cable areas and are on ADSL connections instead.

because camber + low = more low?

Ridiculous camber could be considered unsafe I guess.

where was it defected? And what was it done for?

Pastafarian is the obvious answer.

Tony is a recruiter who specialises in accountants. Associated with finance, not directly related.

So politics hey... NBN, why we need government intervention to provide a service that can probably be better handled by pure market forces? Boat people... actually, not going to touch that one. Bob Katter, crazy as a loon or crazy like a fox? Pauline Hanson, who the hell keeps stumping up $2,000 each time an election rolls round to fund her nominations? Have at it people!

It keeps knocking holes in walls looking for termites I bet

Also, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007C00114

Are you looking at fixed back or reclining?

We inspect a car for panel gaps?

We used to pay for our own, now we don't. http://www.sauqld.com cost us (the club) time and money to maintain, http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/forum/28-queensland/ costs neither (to the club.) This is the point Tony was making.