octave

Thanks Octave; I'm well versed in that as I have more than 2 hectares. The mate in question owns half of a property more than that 2 hectare limit. He lives on the property but it's the portion exceeding the two hectares that bumps his assets up.

Centrelink valuations can be dodgy and are well worth appealing if they seem unrealistic. They often use contract valuers who wouldn't know if their arse was on fire. I've had personal experience of that - not with my arse being on fire, but with dealing with one of those twits contracted by Centrelink. His valuation wasn't adverse to my situation but in phone conversations, I was quite astounded by his lack of basic knowledge on the subject.

 

It can be a bit unfair. Someone who has a rural residential block they've lived on most of their lives can receive a pittance % of the pension due to the size of the block, while their neighbour can have a ten million dollar house on less than two hectares and receive a full pension if his other assets do not exceed the limit.

 

Where I live, so far, it hasn't been a problem because of the type of district it is. If you have a larger property, they value the total property. Then they estimate the value of your house and two hectares. The difference between the two is deemed a non exempt asset. Because I live in a high growth/demand area, a two hectare block is worth just as much as a ten hectare block, so the difference is minimal. Where the mate on the disability pension lives, there is a much bigger differential between a two hectare block and a bigger one, so he is effected a lot more than I am.

 

Once you exceed the asset limit, your pension is reduced by $3 a fortnight for every $1,000 the limit is exceeded. So if you are $100,000 over the limit, you lose $300 per fortnight. If you live in a city and your non residence assets don't exceed the limit, you can receive a full pension. If you live outside of town on a few acres you can be forced to sell your property you've lived on all your life so you can get a pension.

 

Here's a hypothetical situation: You can have the arse out of your pants and be living on breadcrumbs, and so are forced to sell up and downsize so you can receive a full pension and feed yourself. Let's just say that over all the years you've lived there, property values have increased by great numbers. You can sell that property (more than 2 hectares) for 10 million dollars, then buy a ten million dollar house on less than 2 hectares and receive a full pension and live a bit better. Only hypothetical of course, as most people with 10 million dollars would buy a cheaper property and live as a self funded retiree on the balance. And be free of Centrelink to boot.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the 2-hectare rule having sold our 22-hectare property a couple of years ago. I think that often on the face of it, these rules can seem (and indeed often are) arbitrary. We were pretty fearful as people told us we would be up for tens of thousands of dollars. In the end, we spent a lot of time reading and researching and found that it was not so bad after all. We were told by non-experts that we must pay large sums of money to get a valuation that the tax department would accept but in actual fact as far as the tax department goes you can assess it yourself as long as you can show you have used commonly accepted practice. We ended paying a couple of thousand an thus far no nasty please explain letters, I think they have another 3 years in which to challenge it if they disagree but we are pretty confident it conforms to the law.

Don't get me wrong I am not defending Centrelink I am just saying that often things that seem outrageous on the surface when examined closely are perhaps reasonable given the tax take. I am just dealing with my aged parents and delving in the financial aspect of an aged care home. The reality is that the taxpayer does not want to pay the whole of a person's aged care expenses. My parents are far from wealthy but hey do own their own home and it seems fair enough to me that they are asked to contribute to the cost of their care.

I do sympathise with the plight of the person who owns more than 2 hectares. By the way, as far as the tax department valuation goes it can be any 2 hectares within the block and not necessarily in one portion. On my property, I chose 2 one acre portions, one which took in the entire river bank and one that cleverly went around the house, water tanks and other high-value assets leaving the taxable portion which was of a lower value.

Octave .Most information concerning traveling through somone 's land is often on the governments & public web sites.

 

when going to a lot of places like the simpson Desert, You Buy a permit from the government/Natural-parks department.

 

( Simpson Desert National Park (Department of Environment and Science) )

 

Cape-York.

 

( Parks and forests within Cape York Peninsula (Department of Environment and Science) ).

 

These parks are often run jointly by Government & landowner.

 

Took less than a second to find $100 worth of permits. ( CapeYork is likley to be over the $100 on it's own.(happy that its in Dual language)).

 

OME

 

"Wouldn't there be an almighty stink if "scholars" from some other culture decided to descent upon Westminster Abbey and started to dig up Britain's famous dead? "

 

Not at all.

 

We/They, are digging up every thing "Harold the great's been found, after his tomb was lost to antiquity.

 

Motorways demand the removal of consecrated graves daily, (such is Progress).

 

Even pre Roman building sites are always on the list of "DIGGS" !.

 

spacesailor

Many of those fees are for commercial operations such as grazing etc. In terms of the ordinary person going on holiday to a national park, yes there are some fees to camp, this is not unusual in National Parks. These fees seem reasonable to me

Camping and vehicle access permits (Department of Environment and Science)

Applying for a permit to travel through Aboriginal land, the outrageous sum of $0

Apply for a permit to access or travel through Aboriginal land | Western Australian Government

The permit system is designed to help protect the privacy of Aboriginal communities, preserve Aboriginal heritage and culture, safeguard the natural environment and to promote visitor safety.

Permits are issued free of charge.

You can apply online to travel through Aboriginal lands.

The online form is not to be used for mining activity.

Read all required information before applying for a permit.

If you have any queries, please contact the Permits Officer on 1300 651 077 or 61 8 6551 8000 or [email protected]

A mate of mine is on a disability pension. A few days ago, he was notified that his payment is reduced to $50 per fortnight because Centrelink re valued his property and he now exceeds the asset limit by another $150,000. Problem is, he's still disabled and can't work. He's going to appeal the decision, so it will be interesting to see the outcome. It's ironic that he voted for the government who only two months later took away his disability pension.

Brings to mind the famous Harry S. Truman quote - " How many times do you have to get hit over the head before you figure out who's hitting you.".

 

We have to pay for those tax cuts one way or the other.

 

Disability Support Pension - Assets - Australian Government Department of Human Services

Assets we don’t assess

There are some assets we don't assess. We call these exempt assets.

Exempt assets include:

• your principal home and surrounding land up to 2 hectares on the same title
   
  
• some properties larger than 2 hectares on the same title - read more about rural customers and primary producers
   
  
• your principal home, if you vacate it for up to 12 months
   
  
• granny flat rights where you pay more than the extra allowable amount
   
  
• principal home sale proceeds you’ll use to buy another home within 12 months - we deem the exempted amount and include it in the income test
   
  
• any property or money left to you in an estate, which you can’t get for up to 12 months
   
  
• accommodation bonds paid on entry to a residential aged care facility
   
  
• some income streams depending on when you purchased them
   
  
• Australian superannuation investments from which a pension is not being paid - this exemption is valid until you reach Age Pension age
   
  
• a cemetery plot and a prepaid funeral, or up to 2 funeral bonds, that cost no more than the allowable limit
   
  
• aids for people with disability
   
  
• money from the National Disability Insurance Scheme for people with disability
   
  
• a Special Disability Trust, if it meets certain requirements
   
  

I just googled up total costs for owning and running a car. The answer is 300 to 400 a week. More than I thought.

Octave .Most information concerning traveling through somone 's land is often on the governments & public web sites.

 

when going to a lot of places like the simpson Desert, You Buy a permit from the government/Natural-parks department.

 

( Simpson Desert National Park (Department of Environment and Science) )

 

Cape-York.

 

( Parks and forests within Cape York Peninsula (Department of Environment and Science) ).

 

These parks are often run jointly by Government & landowner.

 

Took less than a second to find $100 worth of permits. ( CapeYork is likley to be over the $100 on it's own.(happy that its in Dual language)).

 

OME

 

"Wouldn't there be an almighty stink if "scholars" from some other culture decided to descent upon Westminster Abbey and started to dig up Britain's famous dead? "

 

Not at all.

 

We/They, are digging up every thing "Harold the great's been found, after his tomb was lost to antiquity.

 

Motorways demand the removal of consecrated graves daily, (such is Progress).

 

Even pre Roman building sites are always on the list of "DIGGS" !.

 

spacesailor

Who gets this money? It sounds like goverment and national parks etc. The suggestion that aborigenes are getting rich does not seem to be born out. If aborigenes are getting wealthy from these payments they are doing a good job of hiding it.

[

I still have that memento, but packed away.No one else taken the back road from Alice the The Rock,

 

quite a few tolls & permits in Australia.

 

"Permits do not allow for stops between the East Alligator River (Cahills Crossing) and the Park boundary" NT.

 

"Cape york" The same, Tolls for the ferry plus permits. Last time I did it $80.

 

spacesailor

So space give us more detail, when did this happen? is this infortmation published anywhere or do you just find out when you get there? If a permit is purchased where do the funds go? You see space the yhing is you can convince me of anything if you provide evidence,

ANDDon't forget this & any Government can, like NZ, stop stop superannuation any time they want YOUR money !.

 

spacesailor

Total Bullshit. Please provide me with one documented case.

I was paying the "road toll" at the time.Money from "gas field"

 

Money from "natural Parks".

 

Money from "Tolls & permits" to pass through "Their" land.

 

AND They'r POOR !.

 

spacesailor

Where have you payed a toll? I am calling BS on that claim but I am sure you can provide me of evidence of that claim,

At Hermannsberg, they tel us "whities" they get "DOG" allowance, !.Would they let their Dogs (and theres lots) starve. Without an allowance ?.

 

spacesailor

Really? A dog allowance? Sounds like an urban myth to me. Usually when I hear such a story I use the resources of the internet to check it out so I dont end up looking gullible.

There's no "better "fund. We have money in our "own" private fund, but we are being robbed blind by compulsory '"audit" fees. These fees take out more than the fund earns.If we stopped paying, I guess we would be visited by men with guns.

Your super find must be pretty poor. Mine earned 9.85% still over 9% after deducted fees, happy to post my statement.

I don't wish to get into the young but in the medical "Industry" notably, the newer ones do seem to lack any sort of person handling skills frequently. ( I'm not saying ALWAYS) especially with the older and infirm. (Not me yet, but I'm worried). You need to keep physically and mentally active /challenged. Nev

In his speech at a business breakfast in London, the boss of the world’s largest mining company described climate change as “indisputable” and escalating towards a crisis.

“Previous events when CO2 was added to the atmosphere more slowly and sometimes in similar amounts show us what may happen if we do not act. These events coincided with mass extinctions and major rises in sea level,” he said.

Mr Mackenzie said society had released greenhouse gases at rates much faster than at any other time in the geological past.

“The evidence is abundant: Global warming is indisputable,” he said.

Mining boss warns of ‘mass extinctions’

Only benefits the employer's.Most Aussie's will have lower wages, less housing, less job security, (oops thats gone with the thousands of immigrants here already !)

 

More Traffic, Crowded schools,

 

AND

 

A sinking living standard.

 

Soon be a third world country !.

 

spacesailor

The thing is that although I agree with you regarding over population, the capatilist system can only continue with growth. Often anyone who critiques capatilism is labelled as an evil socialist. Capalism ONLY works with growth, this is a fact.

Under our current system our older citizens rely on the younger working folks who pay tax. If we curtail immigration and given our low reproduction rate our age profile will change, we will be an older society, who will pay tax to keep you spacesailer and in a few years me.

It is about the ratio of younger working people compared to older people who need a pension and health care.

Under our system we thrive with more tax payers not less.

Worse than the ban on climbing is the ban on walking around the base. Yep, you now have to look from quite some distance. If looking is also banned, what will happen I wonder.

Is there a ban on walking around it? I can't find any mention of that. Can you point to where I can confirm this?

https://parksaustralia.gov.au/uluru/pub/fs-pleasedontclimb.pdf

page 2 alternate walks Uluru base walk

Beware of ALL "isms". and tags . It's a way of negating the points they make, on the cheap. (ie without proper and informed, debate) Nev.

Yes. In fact I thnk one of the problems we have is that matters regarding science, engineering, medicine, sociology etc. tend to become ideological. This seems to be a fault that is not unique to any particular group.

Octave : "what is it that makes being more conservative personally rewarding. "

The way I see it, a classic conservative outlook has the benefit of increased confidence in a world of frightening variables. The very thought that what one was sure of yesterday might be wrong tomorrow, can be very unsettling to some people. Hence a resistance to change, and resistance to new data that might challenge an old belief.

 

Whereas, a progressive is more likely to find new data to be exciting.

 

All just generalisations. As said before "we're all somewhere on a spectrum".

I agree but what I wonder is doesn't the classic conservative have to contend with constant change anyway and perhaps the best that they can hope for is to slow it down? Whilst the progressive may be frustrated because they think change might be too slow but none the less progress continues

Why women Were not suitible for Manly occupations,(37 years ago)two males with strong arms to push the None powered controls.

I am not aware of the strength required to fly the eighties 737 but the issue would surely be one of strength, not sex. The requirement would surely being strong enough to do the job and this would surely be the test applied. All men are not stronger than all women.

the power-steering becomes to heavy for a small person to steer & the brakes went out as well,

A small person? So the restriction should have been against small people. You do understand that there is a huge overlap in size and strength within the sexes. I am not a weight lifter but there are female weightlifters.

Although I agree with the sentiment of the OP in the context in which I perceived it to be, I think we have to be careful what we mean my conservative and progressive. As with many things that label opposite viewpoints, these are often at the more entrenched end of the respective spectrums. There are the crusty conservatives and the radical progressives - each steeped in idelogy of their beliefs are for the better good (whatever we define as good). I consider myself a cautious progressive - I welcome the future, but in adopting it, we have to look at and as far as possible mitigate the risks (e.g. socioligical, environmental, physical, economic, etc). Unbridled progression can be as dangerous as crusty conservatism.

@octave - I hope whatever your recent adversity is, it has or will soon blow-over with little impact...

I basically agree with that. Firstly most of us are not one or the other but are on a spectrum I think society definitely needs both. We have always needed people who say "let's see what is the next valley" and those who say "but wait perhaps the next valley is full of danger and we have done ok in this valley in the past.

What I am pondering though is what does one or the other of these tendencies mean for the individual. By way of an example, I have a friend I have known for 37 years, he is in many ways very conservative (socially), in fact, I can't work out why we are still friends Many many years ago I remember when the first women were trying to become airline pilots. My view was why not, his view was they were unsuited for this job. Thirty years later and it is not an issue. I think my opinion still sounds ok but his now seems a little silly. Perhaps history is generally kinder to less conservative people???

This is a huge oversimplification but it seems that progress is something that happens anyway, sometimes the rate changes but mostly it still continues. Again this is simplifying a complex thing but I feel like it must be more rewarding to champian the future rather than the past or present. I guess what I am asking is this, what is it that makes being more conservative personally rewarding. Perhaps a dumb question that has no clear answer but which ideology is liable to lead to more personal happiness?

Not trying to have a go at anyone probably should not have used the word crusty but in my defence a) I was talking about me and b) it is not meant to be derogatory, I learned to fly from a crusty old CFI

@octave - I hope whatever your recent adversity is, it has or will soon blow-over with little impact.

Thanks, just dealing with ageing parents interstate who are getting unable to live in their own home. Flying back and forth to look after them.

What are you asking from the Conservatives?

I guess I was just interested in what makes other people tick. I thought it might make an interesting conversation.

Sorry, Octave, I was just poking fun at your implied stereotype of a "conservative", which, of course, can only look that way from your self professed progressive viewpoint.No offense intended.

 

Precluded? Put that down to "PEBKAC".

I wasn't offended at all, all good conversation.

So conservatives give me your pitch. Should I become a crusty old conservative?

I did not call conservatives 'crusty old" I asked whether I should become a conservative and being of a certain age I perhaps could be described as at least getting towards being old and crusty.

I defined progressivism from a personal point of view, outlining how I think it contributes to a happy life and I am merely asking what more conservative people believe are the personal benefits of conservatism are.

That precludes

That precludes.......... ?

It seems to me that many threads end up being a competition between conservatism and progressivism. Most of us do not have the power individually to steer the course

of our society. We can rant and rave but we still only have one vote. This got me to thinking about whether it is better for an individual to be one or the other. I consider myself to be happier than the average person. I don't know why this is but I do have some theories.

I thought it might be interesting to articulate why I believe it is easier to be progressive than conservative.

As a progressive, the future is not scary, in fact, I can't wait to see what will come in the near future. New ways to power our cars or our houses, bring it on. New aircraft, bring it on, etc.

In my work life, I meet people from many cultures and sexual identities and it is easy for me, I just accept them for how good of a friend they are or whether they are a good person to work with. Make 007 a woman, who cares as long as they do a good job.

At 57 I do not look back through my life and think it used to be better and has become worse, indeed my life is the best it has ever been despite some recent adversity.

Being progressive means that I am able to engage with younger people. My wife retired recently and we still meet her ex-colleagues for lunch or the pub. these are young intelligent people but they still invite us oldies out.

There is hardly any generation gap between me and my son (29). Although he lives overseas there is hardly a day when we don't chat.

As a progressive I believe that my views will be treated more kindly by history. When I read the writings of past progressives their views seem more palatable than the views of conservatives. Past progressives said yes give women the right to vote however the views of conservatives form this time seem primitive.

By contrast, it seems to me that if I were conservative I would be anxious about change and the future.

In my work life, I have young colleagues from different cultures, they do seem to like me and not consider me to be a grumpy old man to be avoided.

Although I don't regret much in my life I recognize that my life is easier and more fulfilling now than in the past.

So conservatives give me your pitch. Should I become a crusty old conservative?

Diversity/political correctness/equality strikes again. The next 007 will be a black woman. Ian Fleming must be spinning in his grave.

The role of this fictional character has been played by many different humans over the years. The 007 character has long ago diverged from the original concept. I would suspect that the producers are not making a political statement but rather they are adjusting the character as they have done before to cater to a more modern audience. It is simply good business.

", I voted against it as I considered it ridiculous, but it was passed and I can live with it, no problems. "I have yet to meet a Hetro who voted for it, seems strange All those Hetros were out-voted by such a small minority.

 

spacesailor

Clearly, the majority of heteros did vote for it. I am heterosexual but I voted for it. My philosophy is if I can extend a right that will make another person's life happier and not detract from my life then why would I not?

I am not on an aged pension but this does not mean I don't vote for governments who will increase the pension.

Homosexuality has always existed and always will. In the past, we debated whether a woman should be able to vote or whether mixed-race marriage was ok or not but those arguments now seem ridiculous as will same-sex marriage.

If my sister chooses to get married to her same-sex partner of 40 years I won't consider her or marriage as being ridiculous.

As someone who generally leans towards libertarianism, I am for people making their own decisions and for the government to only step in where there is a danger to others, such a danger has not been identified to me.

Shiraz has its compensations.

Indeed it does, at least on this we can agree.