The Random thought thread

[Marty_d]

2 minutes ago, old man emu said:

It's hard to come to terms with the reasoning for that. Has your average 16 year-old got the analytical ability and experience to sort the wheat from the chaff of politcal campaigning? Just consider how many 32 year-olds lack those abilities and experiences. 

 

Does granting suffrage to 16 year-olds also mean that contract law will have to now allow them the enter into contracts? What about employment issues? If a person has the right to vote, which has always been a right of adults, does that mean that 16 year-olds must be paid at adult rates?

If you take replace "16 year-old" with "punter" in your first paragraph, the answer would be the same.

16yo's are probably more aware of political impacts on their future than current voters. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c93kkg37n3kt

[Marty_d]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/17/16-year-olds-vote-countries-turnout-political-change?CMP=share_btn_url

[old man emu]

57 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/17/16-year-olds-vote-countries-turnout-political-change?CMP=share_btn_url

I think that the most important thing one can take from the last paragraph of the above article is that "good and statutory education for all young peole makes a big difference".

 

How many of us, when we first voted in an election, voted the same way as our parents? Sort of like following thier religious preference.

[octave]

My understanding is that in the UK, voting is not compulsory.  I imagine that the 16-year-olds who did take up the option to vote would be those who take an interest in politics.  On the other end of the scale, my 92-year-old mother, who is in aged care, still votes, although she is totally unaware of what the issues are. 

 

In any case, I believe that the best thing for society is where as many people as possible take part, whether they are 92 or 16.  The priorities of the aged person and the young person probably overlap, but I am not sure my mother has firm opinions on the job market or the cost of education.  Younger folks may not be thinking much about aged care or the health system.  Both of these areas are important. 

 

I would favour lowering the voting age in this country to 16. It could even start by being optional for under-18s.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Young voters really need to learn about the consequences of voting, rather than just the "feel good" aspect of voting for a party they think will be on their side. If a muslim English Channel boat person rapes their girlfriend, and the party responsible was the party they voted for, they'll suffer extreme "voters remorse". So they should be made to study the policies of the various parties first before attending a polling booth. 16y/olds are too young to know how 40-60y/old candidates think deceptively. 

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

16y/olds are too young to know how 40-60y/old candidates think deceptively.

I agree with that. Which is why education is so important.

 

For instance, Instead of simply learning the dates of explorers or events, I would have benefitted greatly if I was also taught the political policies of the time - the background reasons for world events. Expecially with modern history. 

[facthunter]

In my opinion (as an ex-chalky)  kids ability to reason  and be aware of right and wrong and what is fair and what is not is greatly underestimated. They also have a natural curiosity about most things IF  it's not stifled. Getting them to get off their Mobile Phones might be a  Challenge. 16 or 18 I don't see it as a world changer or see an inevitable flow on effect. Certainly IF you are old enough to fight a war for your Country you SHOULD be able to vote.  Nev

[onetrack]

No, no and No. 16 yr olds are utterly brainless and it's a well known fact that teenagers brains are still developing, and don't actually fully develop until they're around 20.

Even then, there are plenty of brainless 20 yr olds. We don't let them drive on a full licence until they're 17, and I believe the voting age should stay at 18.

I wonder what the devious plan is behind this scheme?  A lot of young people brains are wrapped up in social media, the internet, "Influencers", gaming and other "electronic device" entertainment, and none of that bodes well for intelligent discourse, or intelligent choices on what direction they want the country to go in.

Social media "Influencers" would end up wielding enormous undemocratic voter influence.

[Marty_d]

I've got a 17yo son and a 15yo son. Neither of them are "brainless", in fact I think they may be smarter than me.

Look at the general population. There's 40yo's out there that you wouldn't trust to mop a floor. Old folks who don't know what century it is. People with ideas so weird you don't know how they manage to feed themselves. But all these people get to vote.

I don't have a problem lowering the voting age, but it's not on the agenda here, as far as I know.

[octave]

I suspect people who believe 16-year-olds are "brainless" have had some disappointment in raising their own children. 

 

[Litespeed]

Has long been a greens policy to lower the age to 16.

 

You can get a gun,join the military, drive, work full time at 16/17.

So why not vote?

 

In some USA states you can be a 3 year war veteran but not allowed to legally have a beer.

 

I think it's a great move.

 

We have a ridiculously low 12-14 years age of Adult crime sanctions. In that basis they should get to vote at 12 or 14 years. We seem happy to load teens with adult responsibility but not the benefit of a say.

Edited July 18 by Litespeed

[onetrack]

Well, I don't have any children of my own, but I helped raise 3 nephews via living with the brother and SIL in the same house, for around 17 years.

Plus, I employed a lot of young people, 18 to 25 yr olds, and I spent a considerable amount of time "kicking arses", and berating them for idiotic juvenile behaviour - quite often combined with alcohol and teenage bravado in a group, of course.

 

But they'd do utterly stupid things at work, too - high levels of risk taking, against their training and instructions, poor decision-making, where you had to pull them up and point out how stupid or wasteful the last decision they took, was.

 

It was standard policy in interstate trucking to not hire truck drivers under the age of 25. It was always regarded in the industry that anyone under 25 lacked adequate responsibility and maturity to be let loose with a big semi-trailer, into outback and remote areas.

 

I still opine that a move to allow 16 yr olds to vote is either stupidity, or a clever plan to manipulate youthful, malleable voters.

 

My Dad had a saying he repeated regularly - "One boy is a good boy, Two boys is half a boy, and Three boys, is no boys at all!" In other words, juveniles in a group become even more brainless, than they are on their own.

[facthunter]

I think that it might be later than you say at about 23.  Brain  development stops. It STARTS at birth or perhaps a bit before. Knowledge is NOT intelligence. Kids at age 2 have life long personality traits evident. They can ride MX bikes well at 10 . Be world Gymnasts at 13. Be excellent chess players. Have High IQ's. people can be manipulated at any age. ASK Goebbels. Kids don't have their brains concerned  with amassing fortunes at a young age Unless some Influence has been on them. As I said earlier they have this wonderful curiosity about many things. Not just what will advantage them. They are really very special people and the future of the world is in their Hands. IF it lasts that long and that won't be their Fault.   Nev

[facthunter]

Large families help raise them selves. There's instances where a 12 year old has taken on the burden  when the Parents are not doing it.. Nev

[onetrack]

I personally think it's utter brainless stupidity to let kids ride powerful machines when they're 10 yrs old.

It shows the parents fail to understand childhood brain development. They lack experience, motor skills, fast reflexes, and mature decision-making processes in their brains.

Kids live in a fantasy world until they're about 8, how else can we adults fool them with Santa Claus stories up to that age?

 

I get angry when I see stupid Yanks getting their children to drive farm machinery at age 5 or 6, or letting them drive high-powered quad bikes at age 7.

 

It's a recipe for a multitude of child deaths and injuries - and over 300 kids are killed on American farms every year, thanks to farming parents brainlessness.

Would you let your 10 yr old drive a V8 powered car on the highways? Of course not, and authorities intelligently ban such stupidity.

We stopped child labour over 100 years ago because of the massive death toll of youngsters.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Plus, I employed a lot of young people, 18 to 25 yr olds, and I spent a considerable amount of time "kicking arses", and berating them for idiotic juvenile behaviour - quite often combined with alcohol and teenage bravado in a group, of course.

Perhaps there is a selection process here.  My experience with young people (other than my own and his peers) is teaching private music lessons for most of my working life.   I taught kids of various ages for over 35 years, and whilst not every student excelled, I can't think of many that I would describe as "brainless"   

 

Just like any group in society, there is a range of personality types, intelligences, etc.  Whilst some 16 year olds may not take the voting process seriously or not seek out the required information to make voting choices, this also applies to members of other groups.  Although my mother is not so cognitively with it or well informed, I still support her right to vote.

 

There is real-world data on this. Austria allowed voting from 16 in 2007.   I doesn't seem to me that this has had a disastrous effect on the country.

 

"In 2007, Austria became the first country to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in national elections, with the expanded franchise first being consummated in the 2009 European Parliament election. A study of young voters' behavior on that occasion showed them to be as capable as older voters to articulate their beliefs and to make voting decisions appropriate for their preferences. Their knowledge of the political process was only insignificantly lower than in older cohorts, while trust in democracy and willingness to participate in the process were markedly higher.^[14] Additionally, there was evidence found for the first time of a voting boost among young people age 16–25 in Austria.^[15]"

 

The earliest moves in Europe came during the 1990s, when the voting age for municipal elections in some States of Germany was lowered to 16. Lower Saxony was the first state to make such a reduction, in 1995, and four other states did likewise.^[13]

 

 

[facthunter]

Kids PRETEND to believe in Santa Claus. THAT WAY they keep getting presents. THEY aren't stupid.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Why are people so coy or embarressed to talk about money? I picked up a second hand sofa yesteday, handed the seller a white envelope with the money in it, but let her know I didn't count it, so if she wants to check before I go, I was happy. She very coyfully (if that is a word) grabbed the envelope, as if we were doing some shady deal, and in a hushed and hurried tone, said something like, "no, that's OK". and scurried off. It may have been stolen; I have no idea; but I doubt it looking at the couple and where they lived.. and the fact they haad a brand new sofa in their living room. 

 

A lot of people are like that - they don't want to negotiate, they don't want to check - they just want the thought of money to pass. It is such an important part of life, yet even my parents hushed up the topic. We can't do anything without it, and when we don't have enough - which will be differnt for different people - life can be a real pain. 

 

When my gardners (which I have for 2 hours a week - so not what you may be thinking) needed to up their rate during the cost of living crisis (aka inflation), he was very sheepish about broaching the subject, as if I may scold him.  I said to him, as he was in busines now, he has to get comfortable talking about money and ensuring he is not getting ripped off.. I then proceeded to scold him (just kidding). 

 

I still teach my kids about money - and not to be afraid of it nor afraid to talk about it. 

Edited Friday at 08:00 AM by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

People who assess the worth of you based on what wealth you have acquired, need not bother talking to me. It's THAT simple. Life is too short.  I also Detest Snobs.  Always have. Without good health you have nothing much.  Our values are distorted by GREED.  Stuff we don't NEED. None of us are getting out of this ALIVE.  Gaze at the stars and feel how insignificant  you are and be content with it as that is the reality. Nev

[red750]

Cash is being phased out and banks won't process cheques after next month. The Lotto company has ceased issuing prize cheques. All transactions will soon be electronic. Public transport trips paid by tapping your phone. Even street beggars are now using EFTPOS machines or QR codes. Many stores already don't accept cash, and banks make it harder to access cash.

 

Woolies, and I guess Coles, now have a rule that you can withdraw up to $200 in cash with any purchase. So you can buy a kit kat bar, go through the self serve checkout and pay with your EFTPOS card or phone and withdraw $200. Bank ATM's have a minimum note denomination of $20. If you only need $15  you have to hope your trader can give you $5 change. But you need a $1 coin to unlock your trolley, which is refunded when you return the trolley, if you can find another trolley with the release chain. You'd be surprised how frequently the trolley collectors take away the trolleys just before you get there.

[onetrack]

I don't generally have any problems around talking about money. I can talk about it for hours, and about how it's artfully avoided me all my life! 😄 

 

Cash is still king in my neck of the woods. All the food van vendors have signs saying they prefer cash, and give reasons why - such as not making rich banks richer, and making sure that cash never gets phased out. I like dealing in cash, it quite often gets me a better deal. If I do a deal, I lay out the money and make the seller count it, so there's no errors (on my part or theirs), and no comeback.

 

I got my big Lotto payout in cash, the newsagent asked if that was how I wanted it, and I said yes. He had to open his safe, which had a time delay on it. I didn't have a problem with that.

Most of the items I sell, I get paid in cash, although I'm happy to take bank direct debits if they want to do it that way. But that introduces a delay, which is generally undesirable for both buyer and seller.

 

I sell stuff on eBay and I can only get paid via bank deposit. I don't have a problem with that, it's not like the amounts are in the tens of thousands. The good part is, eBay sales operate 24/7/365.

I sold $250 worth of stuff on eBay while I was on holiday in Broome. The buyers are happy to wait until I get back, to package it up and send it off.

 

The part that bugs me about sales transactions is the people who want to keep chiselling you down and down, I'm sure they practise it constantly on everyone. I just select a point where I won't sell below and stop at that. I've had buyers trying to chisel me down on cars, but I tell them my bottom line, and if they keep trying to get it for less, I just tell them to look elsewhere.

A lot of people simply want a more expensive item than they have the money to buy.

 

Then there's the "psychological block" numbers. A car salesman told me once, $10,000 is a critical figure for cars, it's a complete stumbling block.

$9,999 sounds affordable, but $10,999 is just too much, so people won't pay it. It's the same at auctions, you see bidders stumble at the round figures - $2,000 - $5,000 - $10,000. They stop bidding because they see the bids keeping on going relentlessly if they go over the round figure.

 

A sad part of our modern wealthy society is children are not taught about the value of money, how to deal in it, how to resist buying urges from enticing advertising, about how to save and invest.

So many parents just hand over money to their children with no strings attached - $200, $300, $500, just to spend on some item the kid insists it reallys NEEDS.

 

I got brought up in a family with no money. They say you've never known poverty until you've been a dairy farmer and developing a farm. I had hessian bags on my bed as a youngster because my parents couldn't afford good blankets or doonas. But they were warm enough and I didn't freeze to death. I found I had to work to get money, money didn't just land in your lap.

I do regret I didn't get more professional training when I was younger, in how to deal with corporate scumbags and finance houses and banks, and how to keep their grubby hands off your assets.

 

I've got to 76 with a lot of hard firm rules in place about money, and they were all from hard-learnt lessons. 

I advised SWMBO about 25 yrs ago to place some spare funds she had, with a mortgage broker I knew (we keep our finances separate, and we each just contribute to a household kitty. This system works fine, and has done for 35 years. No "coercive money control" in this house).

 

She put $50,000 with this broker for a good percentage return (ISTR it was about 10%), and the money was backed with you holding a property title for security, provided by the mortgage broker - or so he said. The bloke had been in business for decades, I couldn't see any risk with him. 

However, after a fortnight and no sign of any property title for security forthcoming, I started to get uneasy - and so did SWMBO. So I told her to start really pressuring him - for the title - or for her money back! She ended up in his office, screaming at him in righteous rage - a frightening sight, I can assure you. She won. The $50,000 was returned, promptly - and we breathed a sigh of relief.

 

It eventually turned out, the mortgage broker was in deep s*** with bad investments, and paying Peter from Pauls account, and defrauding hundreds of people. He ended up with such a massive mess, it took a liquidator about 10 years to sort it out.

He'd invested in sandalwood plantations, and hundreds of properties all around the State, and given title to properties to more than one person! - it was a "total schemozzle" as Borat would say.

 

The only good thing that came out of it, was that he repaid the money to SWMBO out of his personal bank account (in absolute and total fear I think - what you get, when confronted by a police superintendents daughter, in a righteous rage) - and a number of years passed before all his scheming came undone - so the time limit on transactions involved in bankrupt estates, that could be reversed, was well and truly over - so she got to keep her money.

She actually put that money into a Telstra Super account (because she worked for Telstra for a while), and Telstra Super has paid far better than any mortgage broker ever would.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

People who assess the worth of you based on what wealth you have acquired, need not bother talking to me. It's THAT simple. Life is too short.  I also Detest Snobs.  Always have. Without good health you have nothing much.  Our values are distorted by GREED.  Stuff we don't NEED. None of us are getting out of this ALIVE.  Gaze at the stars and feel how insignificant  you are and be content with it as that is the reality. Nev

I think you may have misunderstood my point. While I agree with it, the question or thought is why are people so afraid to talk about money; It is the thing that determines the quality of their life, yet most people shy away fom discussing it, learning about it, and the like You'e right - health is far more imporant, but on the socio-economic ladder, richer people are in general healthier and live longer lives (with better quality of life) than poorer people. I wasn't referring to greed, etc; and objectifying the wealthy v poor... That is a different topic altogether.

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

A sad part of our modern wealthy society is children are not taught about the value of money, how to deal in it, how to resist buying urges from enticing advertising, about how to save and invest.

So many parents just hand over money to their children with no strings attached - $200, $300, $500, just to spend on some item the kid insists it reallys NEEDS.

This is sort of my point - and this probably stems from an aversion to talk about it. Somehow, as a society, we have become almost scared of it. We shouldn't be; being ipen about it will help bridge the gap. 

 

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

what you get, when confronted by a police superintendents daughter, in a righteous rage)

Can I borrow your SWMBO to deal with a couple of builders? 😉

 

[onetrack]

Jerry, I've seen her cross the road to drag a huge bouncer off a club patron, when the bouncer was pounding the (obviously drunk) patron to a pulp. She won't stand for any wrongs being carried out - and she was right - the bouncer was seriously in the wrong, and could have gone to jail if the patron had been seriously injured or even killed.

 

Meantimes, myself and her son (an MMA Champion with a Karate Black Belt), just stood there open mouthed, as she ran across the road and grabbed this giant of a bouncer by the collar, sternly saying to him, "THAT'S ENOUGH!" 😱

 

Amazingly, the bouncer DID stop (possibly out of shocked surprise, more than anything else) - but she achieved her aim, which including checking on the drunken patrons condition (he was O.K., just a bit bloodied, and possibly having learnt his lesson, about taking on huge bouncers!) 

 

I'm sure she could deal very well with your errant builders, the minute she found something illegal, devious, or shonky going on! She's the ultimate "righter of injustices". And she's a big girl, she can virtually go eye to eye, with most big blokes. On top of that, she can spot or smell BS from 10 miles away, long before I pick it up.

 

[red750]

I saw an interesting story the other day by a financial adviser. He said he planned to die with virtually nothing in his account, and plans to leave nothing to his kids when he dies.

 

That seems harsh and selfish, but his reaasoning is that when someone lives into their 80's their children will be likely in their 50's and 60's. By that time hopefully, the kids will have their finances under control. He thinks it would be more helpful to assist them when they are younger and getting their mortgage under control.

 

Also, having  a very small final balance will limit the amount of death tax/probate duty one is required to pay.

 

Stepping into fantasy land for a while, if I happened to win a lotto jackpot, I would have it paid out to my kids on the understanding they would pay all my bills and anything I wanted. They wouldn't have to pay any tax on a lotto win, (yes on any eanings from that win) and with my balance below the pension cutoff, I would keep the benefits such as bulk-billed medical service, power concessions, etc, more so than the pension I would receive. I would direct them to make tax deductable donations sufficient to offset whatever additional tax they may have to pay.