Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[oz_mark]

Natasha Stott-Despoja. She was born in July 1969, so she is now in the fourth year of her sixth decade. I am astonished that this is seen as questionable. I have counted them up on my fingers several times now, and I am quite certain of my figures.

It's questionable as it is a pretty stupid way or representing her age.

A decade at its simplest is a period of ten years.

 

[Skyring]

Or to put it even more simply: Is her first year the days until she turns 1 or are they the remaining days of the calendar year she was born? Common sense says you count a person's years by reference to their birth and I see no reason why decades wouldn't be the same.

Common practice, rather than common sense. Her first decade was the Sixties, as I said. Knowing that she was born in 1969, logic therefore dictates that her next decade was the Seventies and so on.

It's a way of looking at things, and both views are equally valid within their respective framework.

As are many ways of looking at political questions. It is when someone insists that their way is the only way, and someone else insists that no, their way is the only way - that's when we get pointless arguments going around and around.

You, like myself, have had great experience of disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are apt to arise - somebody says that another has not spoken truly or clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in the question at issue.

And sometimes they will go on abusing one another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for ever listening to such fellows.

Why do I say this? Why, because I cannot help feeling that you are now saying what is not quite consistent or accordant with what you were saying at first about rhetoric. And I am afraid to point this out to you, lest you should think that I have some animosity against you, and that I speak, not for the sake of discovering the truth, but from jealousy of you. Now if you are one of my sort, I should like to cross-examine you, but if not I will let you alone.

And what is my sort? you will ask. I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute - for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter - let us make an end of it.

I am one with Socrates here.

 

[Skyring]

It's questionable as it is a pretty stupid way of representing her age.

But I said nothing about her age!

 

[oz_mark]

But I said nothing about her age!

Not explicitly, but your argument makes an implicit claim about her age.

 

[Skyring]

Not explicitly, but your argument makes an implicit claim about her age.

Inferred, rather than implied. I knew exactly what I meant.

And my objective was to make the point about seeing things in different ways. I notice some animosity, some lack of mutual understanding growing in this thread.

If we are here to cheer on our preferred political team and to hurl abuse at the other fellows, that's one thing and entirely human, but if we are here to discuss the issues seriously - and they are serious issues being discussed - then we should not feel ourselves too attached to any one way of seeing things.

We should recognise that there are other views, and they may well be as strongly held as our own. Through honest - and friendly - discussion, we learn more and achieve more than by slinging disguised insults at each other.

For that is something I have come to value about this forum: the way that we help each other, share our experiences, and bring different experiences and views to bear on any matter.

 

[medhead]

Still hearing about SMSF and recouping the black hole, but Abbott has promised not to mess with people's super as our super savings belong to us. And this did not come from The Australian btw.

But I don't think the ALP will mess with it either. The fact that Abbott has come out today after those stories yesterday to say he won't do anything seem like normal political tactics to me. It's what he has to do as opposition leader. Anyway, it'll all be in the budget in a couple of months, whichever way.

 

[Pushka]

But I don't think the ALP will mess with it either. The fact that Abbott has come out today after those stories yesterday to say he won't do anything seem like normal political tactics to me. It's what he has to do as opposition leader. Anyway, it'll all be in the budget in a couple of months, whichever way.

I sincerely hope you are right, and that all this is political scaremongering. But I dont trust any of them much to be honest. The only thing we know they won't mess with is their own "entitlements".

 

[medhead]

I sincerely hope you are right, and that all this is political scaremongering. But I dont trust any of them much to be honest. The only thing we know they won't mess with is their own "entitlements".

Howard did fix that cough at the pushing of Rudd. So I can't entirely agree however, it did take a long time.

My take on the super thing is it was backgrounding to test an idea. Given the large negative reaction and now Abbott's statement, IMO that idea is dead. But I'm often wrong.

 

[TheEmu]

Inferred, rather than implied. I knew exactly what I meant.

And my objective was to make the point about seeing things in different ways. I notice some animosity, some lack of mutual understanding growing in this thread.

If we are here to cheer on our preferred political team and to hurl abuse at the other fellows, that's one thing and entirely human, but if we are here to discuss the issues seriously - and they are serious issues being discussed - then we should not feel ourselves too attached to any one way of seeing things.

We should recognise that there are other views, and they may well be as strongly held as our own. Through honest - and friendly - discussion, we learn more and achieve more than by slinging disguised insults at each other.

For that is something I have come to value about this forum: the way that we help each other, share our experiences, and bring different experiences and views to bear on any matter.

By definition: speakers/writers imply; listeners/readers infer.
I agree with your sentiments in regard to this forum though, clearly expressed.

 

[Skyring]

By definition: speakers/writers imply; listeners/readers infer.

Of course. But if one implies something, that something is deliberate.

One may say that the homoerotic nature of Huckleberry Finn is implicit. But only if Mark Twain intentionally wrote it that way.

Otherwise any such conclusion would be inferred. Because Twain definitely didn't write Huckleberry Finn as black gay fiction.

 

[TheEmu]

Of course. But if one implies something, that something is deliberate.

One may say that the homoerotic nature of Huckleberry Finn is implicit. But only if Mark Twain intentionally wrote it that way.

Otherwise any such conclusion would be inferred. Because Twain definitely didn't write Huckleberry Finn as black gay fiction.

Errr.. Exactly!
Mark Twain also said: "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example!"

 

[Moody]

So tell us honestly, Skyring. Did you make a simple mistake with Natasha's age that you are now trying to cover up, or were you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Skyring]

So tell us honestly, Skyring. Did you make a simple mistake with Natasha's age that you are now trying to cover up, or were you being deliberately obtuse?

Neither. Seriously, did you think that I thought she was in her sixties?????

And I've explained the point I was making, with reference to Gorgias. We can talk at cross purposes on subjects such as politics, religion or sport, and get all uptight and upset with each other. Or we can explore the topic like we do everything else here - in an honest spirit of inquiry with good humour, trust and friendship.

 

[coyote25]

....But as soon as the tax payer funded defined benefit schemes for public servants and politicians is brought into line with what the rest of us have to have , the better

I am not so sure about Politicians but late in the Howard Government they changed the Public Servant system to accumulation for all new employees. The contribution rate however is higher then the mandated minimum I think at 15.4%.

The Fed Government considered converting the old schemes to the new one that all other Australians have but apart from the legal problems of retrospectively changing promised benefits they could not afford to do so.

The good short term part of the PS Defined Benefit scheme is it is unfunded. The government doesn't need to put the money aside as the payout isn't based on earnings. For accumulation funds however investment returns are key so it must be paid and invested.

The older employees have the old scheme which the government is slowly putting money aside via the Future Fund, another forward thinking Costello initiative. Eventually the older public servants will die out and if they do and are single on the super pension the Commonwealth keeps all the money on death ie it isn't passed on. This is part of the actuary calculations. Maybe older public servants should be encouraged to smoke to save the Government annual super pension money!

In short new public servants have been bought in line I think since 2007. Politicians, who have always had a vastly better system have been changed as well but I'm not sure of the details.

 

[medhead]

The politicians scheme ended late in the Howard government. Rudd kind of wedged Howard on that. I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth PS scheme ended some time before then, I can't remember the exact year but I recall some commonwealth public servants saying the defined benefit scheme wasn't available back in 2005 or even maybe 1999.

 

[amaroo]

The politicians scheme ended late in the Howard government. Rudd kind of wedged Howard on that. I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth PS scheme ended some time before then, I can't remember the exact year but I recall some commonwealth public servants saying the defined benefit scheme wasn't available back in 2005 or even maybe 1999.

IIRC it was Mark Latham that squeezed the commitment from Howard during the 2004 election campaign......

 

[eastwest101]

The politicians scheme ended late in the Howard government. Rudd kind of wedged Howard on that. I'm pretty sure the Commonwealth PS scheme ended some time before then, I can't remember the exact year but I recall some commonwealth public servants saying the defined benefit scheme wasn't available back in 2005 or even maybe 1999.

I think you are correct on that medhead - see people - politics and elections do actually work sometimes! If it wasn't for Rudd/Latham "wedging" and Howard "being wedged" we would still have a higher unfunded public service superannuation liability hanging over our heads....

edit: whoops amaroo already on the case with new facts...

 

[Sprucegoose]

Neither. Seriously, did you think that I thought she was in her sixties?????

And I've explained the point I was making, with reference to Gorgias. We can talk at cross purposes on subjects such as politics, religion or sport, and get all uptight and upset with each other. Or we can explore the topic like we do everything else here - in an honest spirit of inquiry with good humour, trust and friendship.

Emotionally I would say she will always be young at heart. I remember the day she rocked up to the house in her doc martins!

 

[TheEmu]

I am not so sure about Politicians but late in the Howard Government they changed the Public Servant system to accumulation for all new employees. The contribution rate however is higher then the mandated minimum I think at 15.4%.

The Fed Government considered converting the old schemes to the new one that all other Australians have but apart from the legal problems of retrospectively changing promised benefits they could not afford to do so.

The good short term part of the PS Defined Benefit scheme is it is unfunded. The government doesn't need to put the money aside as the payout isn't based on earnings. For accumulation funds however investment returns are key so it must be paid and invested.

The older employees have the old scheme which the government is slowly putting money aside via the Future Fund, another forward thinking Costello initiative. Eventually the older public servants will die out and if they do and are single on the super pension the Commonwealth keeps all the money on death ie it isn't passed on. This is part of the actuary calculations. Maybe older public servants should be encouraged to smoke to save the Government annual super pension money!

In short new public servants have been bought in line I think since 2007. Politicians, who have always had a vastly better system have been changed as well but I'm not sure of the details.

I think the change-over was in the early - mid-noughties. MrsTheEmu is a public servant in the defined benefit scheme. The Commonwealth PS spent considerable effort trying to coerce existing members to bail out of the old and into the new scheme voluntarily, to avoid any legal issues. Their intent was to close it up to everybody below a certain paygrade, so they assembled teams of "consultants" and sent them on road trips, holding seminars around the country to sell the new scheme. Take-up was very low - people were more aware of what they had than was anticipated. I attended one of the seminars here as members were encouraged to bring their spouses and I recall it was very light on detail and pretty heavy on sell - very lowest-common-denominator/fear motivation type stuff. They actually said the scheme was going to be shut down and things got fairly heated.
The audience was a lot smarter than the bosses gave them credit for!

 

[medhead]

I think the change-over was in the early - mid-noughties. MrsTheEmu is a public servant in the defined benefit scheme. The Commonwealth PS spent considerable effort trying to coerce existing members to bail out of the old and into the new scheme voluntarily, to avoid any legal issues. Their intent was to close it up to everybody below a certain paygrade, so they assembled teams of "consultants" and sent them on road trips, holding seminars around the country to sell the new scheme. Take-up was very low - people were more aware of what they had than was anticipated. I attended one of the seminars here as members were encouraged to bring their spouses and I recall it was very light on detail and pretty heavy on sell - very lowest-common-denominator/fear motivation type stuff. They actually said the scheme was going to be shut down and things got fairly heated.
The audience was a lot smarter than the bosses gave them credit for!

Sounds a lot like the roadshow when the mining company I worked at switch from in house to a PLUM super master trust thing. Still there was no getting up in arms. They just told everyone they could get lower fees and they could get higher returns. But didn't mention that those were mutually exclusive statements. Lower fees = lower returns and high returns required higher fees. Technically true but possibly misleading promises and just about no hard information.