Arguing About Politics And Stuff!

[-Boz-]

If telstra wholesale was a far more efficient beast and really pushed, we could have it but a lot of people don't want it because they don't need the additional expense. It's a nice to have for homes, not a must have in most cases.

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.

[t5iv]

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.

TPG unlimitied $60. They've got a monopoly on the market, if they were to push a better product to ISPs and then manage the network, they should be making similar revenue without the poor rep.

your second point is highly valid. If I own a property that is capable of ADSL, why should I install a cable line for a tenant in there as well?

[-Boz-]

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

[-Boz-]

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?

[t5iv]

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?

This. This. So much this.

[Smity42]

1) I can't get cable at my place

2) Cable is shared infrastructure. Speeds will vary a lot depending on how many ppl are using your bit of cable at the time.

3) what is this mystical 100mb wireless I can supposedly get? Does it compete with the NBN prices I looked at which could give me a tier 5 connection 500gb+ data pay by the month for around $120 a month? Does it actually go that fast or is a that a theoretical speed?

[smidy]

They come in f**k up the economy any more, we'll all be in the dole check queue.

No more monies to modify cars let alone pay for fuel. Other parties take my vote and in my personal opinion, the AMEP is doing more harm than good.

I would generally say the majority of people in the party are standard average wage maybe a bit more type people and understand the struggles we have in life at the moment and our economy and wasted money that is happeing constantly now. I doubt they would make the economy worse than the millions every week that the labour party currently throw away at wasted proposals that either are lies or fold in weeks. The main aim AMEP is to give us a fair go with the authority abuse towards modified car owners and drivers. They will never get enough votes to hold power but to get them to senate would help us and our happiness to spend our"no monies" on what we love.

Just my opinion anyways, the way the media hype towards Abbott winning will generally sway the no thinkers to vote for him so he will probly get in.

[Bunta]

I am highly concerned about the slash and burn techniques that are the current flavor of the month in the LNP. It didn't work here in QLD, I noticed that applications for any type of development stopped almost the day the government changed, it is only just slowly coming back to life now. This will likely happen again if the LNP get in at the federal level. I also hate the paid maternity leave thing and the idea of buying boats from people smugglers is just silly.

I also dislike the ALP at the moment with the constant money wasting, even at this point I am totally undecided where my vote will go.

[HiveFleetAbyss]

I am highly concerned about the slash and burn techniques that are the current flavor of the month in the LNP. It didn't work here in QLD, I noticed that applications for any type of development stopped almost the day the government changed, it is only just slowly coming back to life now. This will likely happen again if the LNP get in at the federal level. I also hate the paid maternity leave thing and the idea of buying boats from people smugglers is just silly.

 

I also dislike the ALP at the moment with the constant money wasting, even at this point I am totally undecided where my vote will go.

Yeah I don't get why a woman warning $120k a years needs a $75k pay out

[-Boz-]

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.

[HiveFleetAbyss]

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.

Yeas but as far as im concerned if you're earning over $80k a year fark ya no hand out for you creedy people up the payment for the low income people who stuggle to raise a family because of the government.

[-Boz-]

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?

[-Boz-]

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

[Bunta]

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?

I see what you are saying and agree that it is important to keep people contributing to the economy whilst having kids My issue is this. It doesn't really help the low income earners (while it is certainly better than nothing) and the high earners who don't need it get helped the most. Seems to me it would be better off being means tested and using the savings from the higher income earners to provide more of a boost to the lower scale people.

[-Boz-]

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.

[-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.

[-Boz-]

And if you think current austerity measures suck imagine how bad it will be if we don't shore up the tax base by 2050 when it is estimated that there will be less than 2 people working for every one person who isn't. How the f**k do we pay for government expenditure funded less than two thirds of the population?

For comparison it was roughly 26:1 work:non working in the 60's and is currently around 7:1

[Bunta]

I dont have the perfect solution, hence I am not in politics, however In my experience they don't come back anyway, giving a bigger payout is unlikely to help that

[Chris Rogers]

sits on side lines for now. other shit to do.

[-Boz-]

Some people are gone no matter what. However there is lots of research that shows that significant numbers of women are not having kids or having fewer because of the effects of lost income. Remove this and more women will have kids or have more kids.