Re: Young Australians to be the first casualties of IR shakeup

[Ext User(neils)]

"Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:435f6ac7$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
>
> "Brissie" <brissie@zwallet.com> wrote in message
> news:66rtl1hpja90n86g1p4r8hu5dufe0e9495@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:21:09 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
>> <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"« Dont Bite My Finger, Look Where I Am Pointing »"
>>><Orwellian.1984-speak@propaganda.liberals.org.au> wrote in message
>>>news:435499c6@news.comindico.com.au...
>>>> Young Australians to be the first casualties of IR shakeup: report
>>>> Senator Siewert, 15th October 2005
>>>
>>>really, will they have a unemployment rate like they had under the ALP?
>>
>> The reason it has gone down so much in recent years is because all the
>> states are ALP states - and IR is currently a state issue. It was high
>> when the Libs had power in the states.
>
> crap it went down in all states before they were all ALP
>
> your a slow learner
>

I declare this thread over as the abusive idiots have taken over making it
impossible to discuss anything and I thought I would ever miss Sioxante

[Ext User(ant)]

Rod Speed wrote:
> Brissie <brissie@zwallet.com> wrote:
>> Now if you work 2 hours a week, you are classed as employed
>
> Another lie. That is NOT the criteria the ABS uses.
>
>> - under the ALP if you on benefits you were classed as unemployed,
>
> Another lie. That was NOT the criteria the ABS used.
>
>> even if it meant 19 hours a week of work.
>
> The ALP never did the unemployment stats like that.
> Those are clearly to unemployed, liar.

This is true. The ABS measures the official rate, and it's used the same
criteria for yonks. If they changed it, it'd bugger up the stats as they
could no longer be used for comparison.

Unemployment rates are not numbers of people on the dole, it's compiled by
the ABS, who measures it with surveys.


--
ant

[Ext User(ant)]

Mr.T wrote:
> "neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:435f3313$0$8608$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> I think it is probably the government misinterpreting the GDP.
>> Assuming that because people are buying more stuff now than ever
>> before they must have more disposable income. In reality they can
>> buy more stuff as it is cheaper than ever before.
>
> For some consumer goods. But the real reason is that personal debt is
> higher than ever before.

Maybe as owning a house in the city gets further out of reach, people go and
buy things they can afford, to compensate. A bit like the Japanese.


--
ant

[Ext User(Kev)]

Mosley Jones III wrote:
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:435dc630$0$15138$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >
> > "neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:435cd11c$0$8610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> >> He better not have more than 15 employees else you have to fill out forms
> > to
> >> explain mass retrenchment not to mention payout alot of people for
> >> redundancy
> >
> > Simply fire a couple a day, and no redundancy payment will be necessary
> > under the new laws.
>
> crap,
>
> where do you get this stuff, your obviously not very bright
>

who cares, these employers don't give a shit about most of the
industrial laws in place now. And the new laws being proposed will make
it easier on them. And anything they don't like they will ignore just
like they do now

this is the reality of the small business mentality


I have worked for places like this

I know how they work


Kev

[Ext User(Toby Ponsenby)]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:21:26 +1000, Kev wrote:

> Mosley Jones III wrote:
>>
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>> news:435dc630$0$15138$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>
>>> "neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:435cd11c$0$8610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> He better not have more than 15 employees else you have to fill out forms
>>> to
>>>> explain mass retrenchment not to mention payout alot of people for
>>>> redundancy
>>>
>>> Simply fire a couple a day, and no redundancy payment will be necessary
>>> under the new laws.
>>
>> crap,
>>
>> where do you get this stuff, your obviously not very bright
>>
>
> who cares, these employers don't give a shit about most of the
> industrial laws in place now. And the new laws being proposed will make
> it easier on them. And anything they don't like they will ignore just
> like they do now
>
> this is the reality of the small business mentality
>
>
> I have worked for places like this
>
> I know how they work
>
>
> Kev

<ding>
Go to the top of the class.

BTA, those were the wankers that voted for the GST in their thousands.
Because Wholesales Sales Tax might just allow a buyer to discover the
profit margins those execrable receivers and despatchers of brown
cardboard boxes were on for doing not much more than storing and
forwarding - and sometimes hiring and firing a rep just for the fun of
it.
Pity they're all unpaid tax collectors now:-)
Imbeciles.

--
Toby.

No man's life, liberty or property are safe
while the legislature is in session.
Judge Gideon J. Tucker
or Benjamin Franklin
or Mark Twain

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
>>>> Mosley Jones III <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote

>>>>> actually, all income groups gained disposable income from the lowest to
>>>>> the highest

>>>> You still don't get it do you. I didn't, and I know quite a few people who
>>>> didn't.

>>>> What's the point of quoting selective statistics that are simply designed
>>>> to make things look good?

>>>> Just be happy you are better off, and continue to ignore those that aren't.
>>>> There is no need to pretend everyone is.

>>> I think it is probably the government misinterpreting the GDP.

>> Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of rational thought.

>>> Assuming that because people are buying more stuff now than ever before they
>>> must have more disposable income.

>> Just another of your utterly silly wanks.

>> The govt and the ABS certainly understands the difference
>> between GDP and disposable income, even if fools like you dont.

>>> In reality they can buy more stuff as it is cheaper than ever before.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
>> fucking clue.

> Rod you better worry as this supposed economic moron is due to start work as a
> junior exec in the treasury dept 8)

No surprises there, just another stupid pig ignorant shinybum.

Clearly you aint gotta fucking clue about the difference between
GDP and disposable income, or anything else at all, either.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> news:435f5cca$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
>>
>> "neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:435f3313$0$8608$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>> news:435f1dd9$0$25854$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>>>>
>>>> "Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
>>>> news:435e18e9@funnel.arach.net.au...
>>>>> actually, all income groups gained disposable income from the
>>>>> lowest to the highest
>>>>
>>>> You still don't get it do you. I didn't, and I know quite a few
>>>> people who
>>>> didn't.
>>>> What's the point of quoting selective statistics that are simply
>>>> designed to
>>>> make things look good?
>>>>
>>>> Just be happy you are better off, and continue to ignore those that
>>>> aren't.
>>>> There is no need to pretend everyone is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it is probably the government misinterpreting the GDP.
>>> Assuming that because people are buying more stuff now than ever
>>> before they must have more disposable income.
>>
>> no completely wrong, get a education and stop embarrassing yourself

> So my lessons on economics, competition policy and its effects at uni are
> total garbage.

Nope, that crap you spewed above proves that it was in one
ear and straight out the other as far as you were concerned.

That terminally silly shit of yours about
GDP and disposable income in spades.

Just another terminally stupid uniwanker.

> Thankyou for making me aware that I know less about the economy than you do

Than everyone with a clue does, actually.

>>> In reality they can buy more stuff as it is cheaper than ever before.

>> really, show me the negative inflation to support your pathetic story

> Inflation has no effect here, I am talking about consumer goods. How much
> would a 51cm TV have cost 5 years ago, and now? Clothing, cheaper (also
> crappier but that is another arguement) Cars, the same or cheaper.

Pity that those are a quite small part of total consumer spending, fool.

> Most consumer goods are cheaper than before.

Another pig ignorant lie.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> news:435f6893$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
>>
>> "neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:435f3469$0$8641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3s8erhFmu723U1@individual.net...
>>>> neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote
>>>>> Mosley Jones III <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote
>>>>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
>>>>>>> Mosley Jones III <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and are far more employed
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are less unemployed now than when Johnny W Howard
>>>>>>>>> was treasurer. However there are now far more under-employed
>>>>>>>>> part time workers who make up a large class of working poor.
>>>>>>>>> (Even the governments own figures admit to that.) And it's
>>>>>>>>> about to get even bigger.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> absolute crap the participation rate is the highest it has
>>>>>>>> ever been where do you get this crap?
>>>>>>>> http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/OP8ExcelFiles/4-3.xls
>>>>
>>>>>>> Participation rate has nothing to do with hours worked, or
>>>>>>> amount of money received. How does this contradict what I said?
>>>>
>>>>>> GDP per capita is up
>>>>
>>>>>> Participation rate is up
>>>>
>>>>>> full time employment is up
>>>>
>>>>>> Now provide evidence that there is more under employment now then
>>>>>> there was under the ALP, and that its about to get worse
>>>>
>>>>>> I think you repeat these things without knowing
>>>>
>>>>> Okay here is your proof.
>>>>
>>>> Lying, again.
>>>>
>>>>> It is from the governments library in Canberra.
>>>>> http://www.hrmguide.net/australia/jobmarket/hidden_unemployment.htm
>>>>
>>>>> Hidden unemployment
>>>>> Updated March 10 2005 - Today's official unemployment figures
>>>>> continue to hide the real number of people who want to work in
>>>>> Australia, according to the Brotherhood of St Laurence.
>>>>
>>>> Soorree, those clowns dont rate, you wont be able
>>>> to find official govt stats saying anything like that.
>>>>
>>>>> "The current definition that 'one hour's work a week' equals
>>>>> employment produced today's official jobless rate of 5.1 per
>>>>> cent," Tony Nicholson, Executive Director of the Brotherhood said
>>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>> Flagrantly dishonest when the OECD standardised figures
>>>> that dont use anything like that criteria get the SAME rate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> first point, please mind your language
>>> secondly, where do you think the OECD gets there figures from?
>>
>>
>> Australia's unemployment is counted according to the ILO's rules as
>> most nation do and has been for decades.
>> http://www.ilo.org/

> And they get there figures from the RBA

Not on that 1 hour per week lie you spewed they dont.

> so of course the two figures are identical.

They arent, actually, just very similar. Another lie.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

neils <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
> news:435f6ac7$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
>>
>> "Brissie" <brissie@zwallet.com> wrote in message
>> news:66rtl1hpja90n86g1p4r8hu5dufe0e9495@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:21:09 +0800, "Mosley Jones III"
>>> <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "« Dont Bite My Finger, Look Where I Am Pointing »"
>>>> <Orwellian.1984-speak@propaganda.liberals.org.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:435499c6@news.comindico.com.au...
>>>>> Young Australians to be the first casualties of IR shakeup: report
>>>>> Senator Siewert, 15th October 2005
>>>>
>>>> really, will they have a unemployment rate like they had under the
>>>> ALP?
>>>
>>> The reason it has gone down so much in recent years is because all
>>> the states are ALP states - and IR is currently a state issue. It
>>> was high when the Libs had power in the states.
>>
>> crap it went down in all states before they were all ALP
>>
>> your a slow learner

> I declare this thread over

Uniwankers dont get to 'declare' a damned thing,
you silly little terminally pig ignorant pathological liar.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:435f5c37$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
> so what, you may be a useless bludger.

Since I've never recieved a government benefit of any kind in my whole life,
that would more likely apply to you!

> > What's the point of quoting selective statistics that are simply
designed
> > to
> > make things look good?
>
> no use,
>
> that's why is used the official ABS figures

Which were irrelevant to your argument. If that was all that mattered to
personal prosperity, then the New Zealand Labor government is doing FAR
better than Johnny's team.
Why don't you move over there?

> what is the point of using your situation to say that most people are
worse
> off and only few are better off

Where did I say that? You claimed everyone was better off, which is patently
incorrect.

> > Just be happy you are better off, and continue to ignore those that
> > aren't.
> > There is no need to pretend everyone is.
>
>
> Never said everone was.

Use Google if you have trouble with your memory.

> but you said only a few were and the rest were not. But as you can see all
> economic grousp were better off,

Use Google if you have trouble with your memory.
And ALL economic groups are NOT better off! That's the point.

MrT.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"neils" <oneliah@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:435f6fb8$0$8610$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Inflation has no effect here, I am talking about consumer goods. How much
> would a 51cm TV have cost 5 years ago, and now? Clothing, cheaper (also
> crappier but that is another arguement) Cars, the same or cheaper.
>
> Most consumer goods are cheaper than before.

And unfortunately nearly everything else far dearer.
Tried to buy a house lately? What about council rates, electricity,
petrol...... you get the idea.

MrT.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:435f655c$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
> > For some consumer goods. But the real reason is that personal debt is
> > higher
> > than ever before.
>
> what a slow learner
>
> of cause we have more debt in dollar terms, because prices always go up,
but
> do we have more debt as a % of our wealth

Since the answer is yes, you must be the slow learner!

Personal debt Vs income is UP.

> our debt is up, but so is our earnings and our wealth.

Agreed (apart from your grammar) So what?

> if you had debts of 10,000 10 years ago, and assets of 50,000, you would
> better off now if you debts were 15,000 and your assets 100,000

Agreed, *IF*.

> now I shouldn't have to explain that to you if you were not a slow learner

What do you call someone like you who plucks hypothetical data out of his
arse then, and pretends it supports his argument?

MrT.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:435f6a1c$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
>
> >> - Howard changed the unemployment criteria. Now if you work 2 hours a
> >> week, you are classed as employed
> >
> > In fact there is no minimum. 1 hour is sufficient.

> as it is according to the ILO's rules that we have been using for as long
as
> I can remember under the ALP and the coalition nothing has changed.
>
> also the participation rate is at a all time high
>
> http://www.ilo.org/
>
> your a compulsive liar


If you actually cared to check the AUSTRALIAN criteria under Labor, you
would find that YOU are the compulsive liar.

The chances of you doing that are nil unfortunately.

MrT.

[Ext User(Mr.T)]

"Mosley Jones III" <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote in message
news:435f6a55$1@funnel.arach.net.au...
> prove you claim, abuse and no evidence make you look like your lying

And who started the abuse, and who provides irrelevant and made up data?
YOU.

I guess that shows you're the one lying according to your own criteria.

MrT.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Mosley Jones III <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote

>>> For some consumer goods. But the real reason
>>> is that personal debt is higher than ever before.

>> of cause we have more debt in dollar terms, because prices
>> always go up, but do we have more debt as a % of our wealth

> Since the answer is yes, you must be the slow learner!

> Personal debt Vs income is UP.

It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if it
wasnt with historically low interest rates, stupid.

>> our debt is up, but so is our earnings and our wealth.

> Agreed (apart from your grammar) So what?

So there isnt any point in hyperventilating about the debt level, stupid.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote
> Mosley Jones III <administrator@info.gov.mars> wrote

>>>> Howard changed the unemployment criteria.

Lie.

>>>> Now if you work 2 hours a week, you are classed as employed

Lie.

>>> In fact there is no minimum. 1 hour is sufficient.

That's still a minimum, stupid.

>> as it is according to the ILO's rules that we have been using for as long as
>> I can remember under the ALP and the coalition nothing has changed.

>> also the participation rate is at a all time high

>> http://www.ilo.org/

>> your a compulsive liar

Completely clueless, anyway.

> If you actually cared to check the AUSTRALIAN criteria under Labor,

No such animal. The ABS did it the way they currently do it right thru that
time.

> you would find that YOU are the compulsive liar.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

> The chances of you doing that are nil unfortunately.

You in spades with how the ABS has been doing the unemployment rate for decades.

[bobalot]

As someone fairly indifferent the IR stuff and fairly neutral on it all, I have to say that rod speed is the biggest wanker i have seen grace the internet.

Congratulations Rod, you are a real dickhead.

[Ext User(Rainbow Warrior)]

Internal Revenue or Infra red?


"bobalot" <bobalot.1yhr9r@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:bobalot.1yhr9r@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> As someone fairly indifferent the IR stuff and fairly neutral on it all,
> I have to say that rod speed is the biggest wanker i have seen grace
> the internet.
>
> Congratulations Rod, you are a real dickhead.
>
>
> --
> bobalot