octave

Interest favorable taxation also schemes like salary sacrifice. Eight years ago we had stuff all super but we decided we wanted to retire early so we got serious about stuffing as much as possible in super and taking advantage of everything we could to build super. We thought we had left it too late but we managed to retire at 56 not with a fortune but comfortably without needing to work. Of course, it won't last forever but it will last past the age where we can get an aged pension. Without super we would both still be working.

Wagner Boss Dies After His Plane Accidentally Falls Out of a Window

My debit card is from Bank Australia, the way I use it does not attract a fee unless I opt for a staff-assisted transaction or if I exceed my available funds or a dishonor fee. I never do any of these things. Bank Australia is a community-owned bank, the customers are the owners. Bank Australia is a not for profit bank As we're not listed on the stock exchange, we only answer to you. Profits are returned to you in the form of competitive rates, fair fees and quality products and services. We take action on the issues that matter to you, like climate. Our net zero by 2035 target is the most ambitious of any Australian bank. https://bankaust.com.au/banking/savings-accounts/savings-account-rates-and-fees Of course, there is a cost to the bank for digital transactions, and in the case of my bank, I would imagine that these costs are paid by the difference between interest paid to me and interest charged by the bank on the money they loan. My credit card does cost me $50 a year and no interest because I zero it every Friday. The $50 annual fee is more than compensated for by the reward points which I take exclusively in Bunnings vouchers (about $200-$250 a year). These digital transactions also do have a cost. The seller pays some of it which of course is passed onto the customers no matter how they pay. Whilst this may seem unfair to those who pay by cash we need to remember that cash also has a cost. That amoured van that delivers and picks up cash is not a free service. The bottom line is that at no point have I advocated getting rid of cash. I have not even tried to convince others to use digital. At least one post was suggesting that people shun digital methods in order to support the retention of cash. Being open-minded I have modeled that and it just would not work for the majority of my transactions and for the others I don't feel inclined to jump in my car and drive to the bank and join a queue. The bottom line for me is people should use cash if that is what they want to do. I don't believe (correct me if I am wrong) I have criticized anyone for preferring cash.

Red I twice expressed sympathy with those who struggle. To be clear I think there should be other ways of doing things whilst the demand exists. Bully for me? I don't really think my post is inappropriate in any way, is it? You expressed your experience and I expressed mine. Are we not here to exchange points of view or do we all have to agree on everything?

Yes, same with my mother although not quite there with phone apps though. We have set my mother up in the aged care home with her desk and laptop. When we visit (she is interstate) it is interesting to see that as you walk past people's rooms most people seem to be "installed" in their recliner chairs watching endless TV. My mother is more likely to be on a video chat with her friend in England (they were nurses together 70-plus years ago.) It is not necessarily easy for her but we provide support over the phone and can log into her PC to fix problems. I do think my mother is treated with an extra level of respect because of this. My inlaws are in their late eighties and are both reasonably comfortable with apps. My wife and I pledged a few years ago that we would keep up with these kinds of innovations even if it took a little effort. This is the equivalent of doing crosswords to keep our minds functioning well. I can see that those in their 80s or 90s came to this kind of technology later in life (if at all) and this can be difficult. Although in my family there are 2 computer experts I am always highly motivated to solve problems myself before asking for help. Nothing winds me up more than the assumption that my grey hair equals incompetence with anything past the year 2000. I think as time moves on new generations of older people will have much more experience with tech. Whilst I am very sympathetic to those older folks who struggle I have no intention of becoming that way myself.

Red I am not offended by it, however I think it does exaggerate (I appreciate that you did not write it). Here is my problem though. If the post says "No more garage sale without cash" and I have just had a successful garage sale without cash isn't it reasonable for me to say 'hang on that is not correct" Is that unreasonable? I do not wish to change what you do and in fact, it seems that you do a fair amount of digital transactions as it is. 😀

Really? Under what circumstances? I am happy to take that risk In fact, I don't imagine there are many people that do not use any bank services or credit card services therefore I think almost everyone runs the risk of being "cancelled".

Red I don't believe at any point I have said that society should go cashless. My post was only critiquing the list of supposed downsides to digital payments. I am not asking you to abandon cash but your post is asking me to use cash " Please pay with cash & please say no to a cashless society while you still have a choice." And I am happy for you to have that choice but I also want the choice.

How does the bank tell you what you can spend money on? That is a reasonable point but I think the answer to this is competition between banks and other payment methods such as Paypal. I have 3 methods of payment, I can tap my phone which uses money from my bank account, there are no fees for this. I use Paypal for online payments and I have found this to be very safe they are pretty accommodating with refunds if you don't get what you paid for. The third method is my credit card. I don't pay interest because it is merely a temporary payment method and I zero my card every Friday. The card does cost me $50 a year however I get rewards points that I redeem as Bunnings vouchers. i just bought all the hardware I needed to install my new range hood. I don't think I have ever paid Mastercard any interest however we are quite financially disciplined Like I said I really don't care how people run their finances, it is not any of my business. I am also happy to admit that both cash and digital have pros and cons.

I am pretty sure we have flogged this subject to death before. I am someone who operates cashless nearly all the time. People seem to think that therefore I am somehow advocating for everyone to go cashless. In fact, I don't particularly care what others do. It is none of my business. I operate cashless because it is cheaper and easier. This one is easy to dispel. A few months ago my 90-year-old mother who lives interstate ended up in the hospital and from there opted to go into aged care. It was up to me and my wife to put her house on the market. The house sold quickly and we had to dash over and empty her house over a 3 week period. This meant selling most of her possessions. My mother lived on an estate that was exclusively for older people. Over the next 3 weeks, we had an ongoing garage sale. Initially, we thought that most buyers being older folks would insist on paying with cash. This in fact only happened twice. we were quite surprised that these older folks were quite with it when it comes to technology. Before we started selling things we went to the bank to get a selection of denominations. This meant trying to predict how many $5 notes we would need, whether would we need coins, and what denominations. In fact, this ended up being totally unnecessary. Most people opted to do bank transfers the money going straight into my mother's account and a few used Paypal. People who were just passing by were not limited by how much money they happened to have in their pockets. I would suggest that this is how most garage sales operate these days. Not even sure what this means in practice. Aged pension also goes through a bank. I would suggest that in these modern times, kids are like;y to have bank accounts and are likely to be more financially literate than in days gone by. As a child, my grandmother would give me 20 cents a week of spending money. This did not stay in my pocket long. perhaps if it had gone into a bank account I might have learned to save up for something rather than blowing it straight away Do people still send birthday cards? Why? No different from selling my mother's possessions. In our house, we kind of have a voluntary simplicity philosophy. This means we don't tend to keep things that we no longer need, we would rather someone use these items rather than them taking up our space. I sold a few things this week and I was not impeded by lack of cash either on my part (change) or on the buyer's part. No one in recent times has offered me cash. I have not found this to be true. We bought a new range hood last week from Appliances Online. Delivered to the door (free) delivery. I don't believe I have had limited choices due to not paying with cash. Maybe. I am not sure what the downside of this is really. I would be more than happy to share my Woolworths shopping list from my delivery this morning. Yep. I always carry my mobile phone. I guess this is true. Most people are not paid in cash therefore at some stage you have to deal with a bank. If you are worried that a bank will block your account then surely this could be also done by the bank blocking your cash withdrawals or ATM withdrawals. Sometimes there is a good reason to block someone's bank access, proceeds of crime, drugs, or terrorism. Yeah, I am not worried about that. Yes and no. If my mother had adopted modern methods she probably could have stayed in her own home longer. As a 90-year-old getting a taxi to the bank became too much. I have given this example before and nobody ever comments on it. I worked at a music studio that was situated in an industrial area. My wife managed the studio for the owner (he managed our other branch) The students were expected to pay for a whole term's worth of lessons upfront on the first week. At the time this would have been $350 per student. you can see that as we had over 1200 students that on any given day there could be a lot of money in the cash draw in an area that was not very busy at night. We never had to have a policy because hardly anyone wanted to pay by cash. Often the kids would come up by themselves the parents having paid by direct deposit or over the phone. Even though the business took in a lot of money in a day it did not require a safe or a nervous walk to the night deposit safe at the bank. it also did not require much counting of cash and tallying up at the end of the evening. I can see why many sole traders do not like having to deal with cash. I remember when we lived near Canberra and the attendant at our local petrol station was stabbed to death in a robbery gone wrong. And on Facebook! I estimate that more than 90% of my purchases are online. I am not sure how I could achieve this with cash. Apart from that as I get older I do not want to lose the ability to function in the modern world. When I walk along city streets I do not envy the queue at the ATM or people waiting for the bank to open. When I do shop in person I do not have to predict how much money I am going to spend or worry about being mugged. If someone asks for my wallet they can have it, but it will not do them any good. Oops nearly missed this one. This is easy to dispel. At my local Woolworths there are usually one or two homeless (I assume) people. Firstly if they were not getting any "donations": they probably would not bother being there. What I see and I have done this myself is that instead of giving cash which could be spent on anything people tend to give food or a coffee or fruit etc. I believe this is better than giving money. I have even given someone a Woolworths voucher. There is a man there a couple of days a week who sells the Big Issue and I noticed he has the capability of accepting digital payments and this is what most people do. I reallly don't care what people choose to do and I accept that there are pros and cons however I think some of these points are exaggerated or actually untrue. Dealing only in cash does not for the average person cut out of the bank. If the system goes down my digital methods of payments may be affected but those who draw out money will also be affected. I would argue that almost no one operates purely on cash. if you buy a car you don't go into the showroom with 20k in your pocket. if you are a pensioner your income still goes through a bank

We went to see QI live when it came to Melbourne in about 2011 I think. It was good but a little bit recycled, still worth it though. There is a related podcast called "No such thing as a Fish" which is done by the QI Elves https://audioboom.com/channels/2399216-no-such-thing-as-a-fish

I believe losses outstrip gains. Current estimates place the loss of hydrogen and helium at 6.6 pounds (3 kilograms) per second. That works out to just a tad more than 100,000 tons (90,700 metric tons) per year. When you compare that to the estimated mass of meteoric material that falls to Earth each year (approximately 50,000 tons), indeed, our planet does seem to be on a weight-loss program. Is the Earth Gaining or Losing Mass?

This is a line from Tim Minchin's poem "Storm" If you show me that, say, homeopathy works, then I will change my mind I'll spin on a fucking dime I'll be embarrassed as hell, But I will run through the streets yelling 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while it's memory of a long Lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!'

I would argue with the use of the word "measuring". I would suggest that it is a little difficult to "measure" the unseeable or things that cant be felt by our physical senses. Tell me how to measure these things and I will give it a go. This may or may not be true however within all cultures there have always been individuals who are not spiritual in the sense of believing in a higher power. Spiritual is not a word I tend to use however I do not consider this to be problematic. I am not sure how belief in an unseeable creator would make any difference to my life. Religious folks are often quick to insinuate that those who don't believe in a creator must therefore have barren futile lives. I love and I am loved. On an evolutionary level, love may just be a release of oxytocin in order to preserve our close fellow human beings. The important thing is love feels good and is not reliant on a creator. I can be moved to tears by music, I can lie on my back on a dark night and look at the stars in wonder. I do not need a creator to appreciate these things. I totally agree with this. The story of the universe is endlessly fascinating and the explanation "god did it" is just not satisfying to me at least (I accept that others may disagree) My life is pretty good. You won't find me posting on the "gripes" thread. I really can't see how life would be made better by believing in a creator. I accept humans will probably never fully understand all the details of the universe. God did it doesn't cut it for me.

I think if friends and relatives may want to get together and that is fine. I guess I think that the disposal of the body (to put it bluntly) does not in my view need to be tied to some kind of memorial event. These days my friends and relatives are dispersed around Australia and the world. I think a problem with the funeral business is that at a time of distress, people are expected to make expensive choices. Call me a tight arse but I am more likely to go with this sort of thing. Bare Any other get-together or remembrance will be for and at the discretion of my family.

My father had a prepaid funeral but of course, my mother was sold extras at the time. I think she felt pressure to put on a good show. Personally, my wife and I are not planning on having funerals.

As far as I am aware some level of music is taught to all primary school children. People do not really opt out. By this, I mean learning some music not necessarily learning an instrument or playing in a school band. In high school, I think it is more of a choice. When I was in my first year of high school I had to do music and a language. In the second year, you could choose either a language or music. Of course, I would say that being exposed to music education to a small degree is good however I don't believe every student should be forced to learn an instrument. We are not really talking about 3 or 4 students leaving class to do music so it is not exactly the same as RI. By the way, I have absolutely no problem with students doing RI if that is their choice. I would say the same with music. I used to go into schools and teach instruments. This did involve students leaving class. I think that is fine but I would not expect lessons for the rest of the class to be affected and I think that should be the case for RI. When it comes to the 3Rs, how much time is needed to teach addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division? Arithmetic and maths are not exactly the same thing. I used to have an American friend who spent a few years in Australia working for CSIRO. He is now a professor at Arizona State University. I once had a friendly dig at him when he didn't calculate the bill splitting in a restaurant ( he has a couple of PhDs in mathematics.) As he pointed out to me, a mathematician is not someone who knows their times tables or is great at long division. The skill is taking a problem and working out equations to solve it. Want to send a probe past Pluto? How long do I fire the engine? What path will it result in? I am not discounting basic literacy and numeracy however as the world changes new skills are also required. I would argue that computer literacy is a basic skill that just about everybody will need in their work life.

Onetrack, forgive my quoting of your post. It just helps me remember the points I wish to make. I don't think that is what the theory of evolution proposes. Giraffes did not just develop long necks but because all giraffes are not identical some had slightly longer necks (due to errors in gene copying). If this provided a survival advantage then the slightly longer neck creatures will be more reproductively successful and are more likely to mate with other environmentally favoured individuals. A straightforward example is the peppered moth. During the industrial revolution, trees became darkened by coal smoke. This meant that the normally light-coloured moth became easier for birds to pick off. Within the range of colours the darker moths were slightly more likely to avoid this fate thus the light-coloured pepper moth population began to darken due to natural selection. Whilst the human body (and any animal really) is complaex it does have some shoddy engineering. Most of us as men of a certain age are not impressed with the "designers" decision to run the urethra through the prostate, an organ that is prone to enlarge and interrupt the flow in later life. Nice one. or perhaps the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve anyone? It can be explained by embryology but is hard to understand from an intentional design perspective. Whilst this may seem too incredible is it really more incredible than an infinite supreme being who can create the whole universe and everything in it and yet require acknowledgment and gratitude? The notion of everlasting life is a little harder to comprehend in my opinion. The term "afterlife" is always left vague. The proposition seems that you must acknowledge god in order to secure everlasting life. Presumably, this rules out slugs and dogs etc. A quick Google tells me that, it is thought the old testament was written between 1200 and 165 BC. Modern Homo Sapiens date back to about 160000 years. These early humans would not have access to the bible and therefore would not have the opportunity to understand the deal being offered. Other early hominids perhaps did not even have the intellectual capacity to understand the concept of a supreme being. A genuine question for people who believe in an afterlife (and I have no problem with people believing that), what is this afterlife supposed to be like? I know different people have ideas. Some believe in the idea of being reunited with previous deceased loved ones. The last time I visited my grandmother about 20-something years ago in aged care she believed my young son was me and she thought I was a stranger. This was because her brain had changed due to dementia. If we were to be reunited (I guess I would have to praise the big fella for this to happen) then will she be Grandma 2000 edition or 1970 edition? My consciousness seems to be a manifestation of the billions of neurons in my brain which have been modified through experiences. If I have a stroke then who I am may be very different than who I was pre-stroke. I am reminded of Clive Wearing a British musicologist and conductor who contracted a disease that damaged his hippocampus. This man is famous for not being able to store short-term memories, every 20 seconds or so it is as if his memory is rebooted. I wonder if this would be a problem in the afterlife. I suppose he would not have the capacity to accept a god anyway, perhaps there is a clause to cover this. According to the internets there are 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims and 1.1 Non religous people. I guess we could say that out of all religions, Christians are ahead although if you add up Muslims and Non-religious then you could say that most of the people of Earth are not Christians. And yet some people believe we are regularly visited by aliens. And I have no problem with people's personal philosophies. I do not think that not believing in an afterlife equates with nothing to look forward to. For me the fact that life or conciseness is finite makes me appreciate the one life I have. The notion of being conscious for eternity seems horrific to me. I am OK with not existing, it is nothing new. I was in a state of nonexistence from 1962 going back approximately 13.77 Billion years. Not existing is hard for my human brain to imagine however the time between my birth and the beginning of the universe is no more perplexing than the time between my death and the end of the universe. Does eternal life continue after the demise of the universe? As an atheist who believes life is finite like the universe itself, my life is precious and must be enjoyed as much as possible. Indeed to me, it is the fact that my life will end one day that makes me strive to enjoy my existence. Earlier in my life I was probably more willing to argue. These days I am pretty mellow really although I do object a little to some of the ideas that not being a believer leads to some kind of barren joyless life. If there is a great creator and an afterlife then there are a few options. I could die and the great creator says "Well you did not believe in me despite the vague clues, but I am not a petty vengeful god, so in you come" or there is a great creator and an afterlife and I will miss out but luckily will not be conscious to be aware of my loss. I suppose there is the burning pit of hell option but it seems unlikely.

It does not seem an absurd subject to me. Having a look at the available courses I can see a certificate course and a degree course. I am not particularly interested in horses myself but I can understand that vets assistants and people who are involved in the racing industry would benefit from gaining knowledge in these subjects. If the course is crap then it is up to these industries to insist on improvements to the curriculum. I would have thought that tertiary studies would have been undertaken by women rather than girls.

Yeah, that is the myth however most people who knock a BA don't even know what it is.

I think it is easy to have a go at highly qualified PhDs etc without fully appreciating their input to the things we expect. As an example we expect medical science to advance. We expect research to come up with better treatments for cancer and other conditions. I know a young woman who was in Australia for a few years doing her PhD. She came to Australia because it is a leader in the field she was working in. She was researching (and I might have the title wrong) nanobiotechnology. Specifically, this was about creating particles of an exact (but tiny) size). The purpose of this is to hopefully create particles that can transport cancer drugs specifically to the cancer cells instead of poorly targeting chemo drugs. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that people less educated than me are dumb losers and those much more educated are somehow useless to society.

I am not necessarily against these events being hosted in Melbourne. There is a big difference though. The events you mention (other than the Olympics) utilize existing infrastructure. My problem is with rebuilding new arenas, courts, and fields, etc, when these things already exist. The economic case does not stack up.

It is surely irrelevant. We do not have a duty to go through something that does not financially stack up in order to prevent other countries from making similar decisions. I do certainly think questions should be asked about the soundness of the original decision to host.

There are coffee beans grown in warmer parts of Australia. https://www.mountaintopcoffee.com.au/ By the way, fun fact, what we call coffee beans are not beans at all but in fact seeds.

I did not know this but apparently gotten goes back a long way. Got and Gotten: The Differences Both got and gotten existed as far back as Middle English. English speakers in North America preserved gotten as the past participle of got. Outside of North America, the shortened version became standard. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/got-gotten/ Ill-gotten gains?