Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: Nev.. on 10 Feb 2010 04:05 G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> G-S wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> G-S wrote: >>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Marts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> G-S wrote... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't used the public health system in over 20 years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your >>>>>>>>>>>> Medicare card. Or if >>>>>>>>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years >>>>>>>>>>> I've been in private hospital. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although >>>>>>>>>>> there are less effective alternatives that are in the PBS >>>>>>>>>>> list) and aspirin I buy over the counter. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Try again... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a >>>>>>>>>> private hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare >>>>>>>>>> entitlement on your behalf? LOL. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public >>>>>>>>> health, I said I had not. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on >>>>>>>> your behalf for services they provide to you, is to your >>>>>>>> benefit? Really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that >>>>>>> hospital to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the >>>>>>> cost to me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the >>>>>>> private hospital subsidies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than) >>>>>>> the tax that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits >>>>>>> that I receive). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the NET benefit is negative. >>>>>> >>>>>> Must be hard work shifting those goalposts around so much. ! >>>>>> >>>>>> Nev.. >>>>>> '08 DL1000K8 >>>>> >>>>> Nope... I just hadn't defined them that closely before, but since >>>>> you asked. >>>>> >>>>> Or are you trying to say that something that nets me a negative >>>>> gain is a real benefit? >>>>> >>>>> Coz I don't see it... >>>> >>>> If you earn $1000 and pay it off your mortgage, you can't say that >>>> you received no benefit from the money you earned, just because you >>>> never had it in your hand to spend on other things. >>>> >>> >>> I don't see what relevance that has, a mortgage payment is a positive >>> gain (from a negative accounting position) but it's still a positive >>> net gain. >> >> Not if it doesn't cover the interest! >> >> Your proposition, that you are in a net loss position and therefore >> not a beneficiary because you get less in return for your taxes than >> you pay, is ridiculous, because it would be true for most taxpayers >> that they receive measurably less in return for their taxes than they >> pay, even if they were to receive thousands of dollars in cash. > > That's exactly how I was taught as an accountant to define a net gain or > a net loss (even if you regard that method as ridiculous). Yes, but in this particular application you appear to be unhappy with the outcome, which is contradictory to your original assertion that you would be happy if the money was spent on something which benefited you, because in both cases you would be in a net loss position, so you should never be happy. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2010 04:26 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >>> Pietro wrote: >>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >>>> news:7tWdnbii84EvfvLWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... >>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>> On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>>>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least object >>>>>>>> to, >>>>>>>> rather than the person you want. >>>>>>> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough >>>>>>> votes they >>>>>>> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your >>>>>>> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get the >>>>>>> person you want? >>>>>> You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the >>>>>> people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide >>>>>> which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the >>>>>> party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will >>>>>> certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't get >>>>>> preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own >>>>>> agenda, >>>>>> or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett. >>>>> Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you >>>>> has the opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your >>>>> ballot paper (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing >>>>> stopping the party of your choice from standing multiple candidates >>>>> against each other in your electorate to allow you to choose which >>>>> one you prefer. If they choose not to stand because the >>>>> organisation they belong to tell them they can't, then that's a >>>>> problem you have with the rules of the political party of your >>>>> choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should >>>>> stop pretending that it is. >>>>> >>>>>> The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it >>>>>> disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent >>>>>> past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no >>>>>> representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of >>>>>> the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in voting >>>>>> can >>>>>> make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each >>>>>> electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats >>>>>> and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% >>>>>> swing >>>>>> in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but >>>>>> contrived to >>>>>> keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold. >>>>> 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That >>>>> independant candidates have been elected to parliament in the past >>>>> and present disputes your assertion. In fact at the current time, >>>>> the Commonwealth government, and every single State and Territory >>>>> lower house government include politicans who were elected on >>>>> Greens and/or Independant tickets. So much for your alleged 2 party >>>>> stranglehold. >>>>> >>>>>> Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary >>>>>> votes >>>>>> are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to help, as >>>>>> GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have had. >>>>> Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on their >>>>> ballot paper in precisely the way that they wish so any talk of >>>>> preference deals between parties or candidates causing voters to >>>>> vote against their wishes are rubbish. If people choose to follow >>>>> the advice of their first preference on how to distribute the >>>>> remaining preferences, then that is their decision. IF they are >>>>> too stupid to understand or too lazy to learn how the election >>>>> process works I have precisely 0% sympathy for them. It's not a >>>>> secret, information on how elections work is readily available, for >>>>> free, particularly around election times. >>>> >>>> As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp >>>> that if they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who >>>> end up first and second), their preferences actually do nothing. So >>>> preference deals by the major parties are more about political >>>> advertising than about the actual voting mechanism. >>>> >>>> Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the least >>>> popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until one >>>> candidate get to 50% + 1 vote. >>> >>> While that's mostly true in the lower house, in the upper house with >>> it's quota system, there is the possibility for left over votes which >>> initially went to one of the two major parties candidates flowing >>> down to smaller parties or independants if the major party does not >>> field enough candidates to utilize all of the votes cast in their >>> favour, or if one or more of their candidates fail to secure >>> sufficient votes to meet a quota. >> >> Which is I understand how fundy man got elected... > > I got the impression that you were for the notion of proportional > representation, and now you appear to be not happy when it is put into > practice. It's quite puzzling. > I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] G-S [1] It's a package deal to get my support I'm afraid.
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2010 04:28 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> G-S wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Marts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> G-S wrote... >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have private health care and so do all my family, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't used the public health system in over 20 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You would have. For example, every time you pulled out your >>>>>>>>>>>>> Medicare card. Or if >>>>>>>>>>>>> you're admitted to the ED, which is paid for by Medicare. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't been to an emergency department in over 20 years. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only times I've been in hospital in more than 20 years >>>>>>>>>>>> I've been in private hospital. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the PBS for prescription drugs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I actually am on regular prescriptions, plus aspirin. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> None of the prescriptions I am on are on the PBS (although >>>>>>>>>>>> there are less effective alternatives that are in the PBS >>>>>>>>>>>> list) and aspirin I buy over the counter. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Try again... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LOL. Are you naive enough to think that when you attend a >>>>>>>>>>> private hospital, they don't claim 100% of your Medicare >>>>>>>>>>> entitlement on your behalf? LOL. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I never said the private hospital hadn't benefited from public >>>>>>>>>> health, I said I had not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you can't see how the private hospital receiving money on >>>>>>>>> your behalf for services they provide to you, is to your >>>>>>>>> benefit? Really? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would use the private hospital no matter what the cost of that >>>>>>>> hospital to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The government subsidizing those private hospitals reduces the >>>>>>>> cost to me of course, which means I receive a benefit from the >>>>>>>> private hospital subsidies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But the benefit I receive is less than (substantially less than) >>>>>>>> the tax that I pay (and that applies to the total of benefits >>>>>>>> that I receive). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So the NET benefit is negative. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Must be hard work shifting those goalposts around so much. ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nev.. >>>>>>> '08 DL1000K8 >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope... I just hadn't defined them that closely before, but since >>>>>> you asked. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or are you trying to say that something that nets me a negative >>>>>> gain is a real benefit? >>>>>> >>>>>> Coz I don't see it... >>>>> >>>>> If you earn $1000 and pay it off your mortgage, you can't say that >>>>> you received no benefit from the money you earned, just because you >>>>> never had it in your hand to spend on other things. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't see what relevance that has, a mortgage payment is a >>>> positive gain (from a negative accounting position) but it's still a >>>> positive net gain. >>> >>> Not if it doesn't cover the interest! >>> >>> Your proposition, that you are in a net loss position and therefore >>> not a beneficiary because you get less in return for your taxes than >>> you pay, is ridiculous, because it would be true for most taxpayers >>> that they receive measurably less in return for their taxes than they >>> pay, even if they were to receive thousands of dollars in cash. >> >> That's exactly how I was taught as an accountant to define a net gain >> or a net loss (even if you regard that method as ridiculous). > > Yes, but in this particular application you appear to be unhappy with > the outcome, which is contradictory to your original assertion that you > would be happy if the money was spent on something which benefited you, > because in both cases you would be in a net loss position, so you should > never be happy. Why would you assume I'd ever be happy with what a politician is doing? In my experience satisfaction with politicians varies from hugely annoyed with them to mildly annoyed with them. G-S
From: theo on 10 Feb 2010 05:56 On Feb 10, 5:28 pm, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote: > Why would you assume I'd ever be happy with what a politician is doing? > > In my experience satisfaction with politicians varies from hugely > annoyed with them to mildly annoyed with them. Politicians are like cats. There's nothing wrong with a dead cat. Theo
From: Nev.. on 10 Feb 2010 06:01
G-S wrote: > Nev.. wrote: >> G-S wrote: >>> Nev.. wrote: >>>> Pietro wrote: >>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:7tWdnbii84EvfvLWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... >>>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>>> On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>>>>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least >>>>>>>>> object to, >>>>>>>>> rather than the person you want. >>>>>>>> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough >>>>>>>> votes they >>>>>>>> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. If >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your >>>>>>>> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you get >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> person you want? >>>>>>> You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the >>>>>>> people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide >>>>>>> which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the >>>>>>> party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will >>>>>>> certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they don't >>>>>>> get >>>>>>> preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own >>>>>>> agenda, >>>>>>> or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett. >>>>>> Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you >>>>>> has the opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your >>>>>> ballot paper (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing >>>>>> stopping the party of your choice from standing multiple >>>>>> candidates against each other in your electorate to allow you to >>>>>> choose which one you prefer. If they choose not to stand because >>>>>> the organisation they belong to tell them they can't, then that's >>>>>> a problem you have with the rules of the political party of your >>>>>> choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should >>>>>> stop pretending that it is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it >>>>>>> disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the recent >>>>>>> past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no >>>>>>> representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of >>>>>>> the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in >>>>>>> voting can >>>>>>> make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each >>>>>>> electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats >>>>>>> and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% >>>>>>> swing >>>>>>> in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but >>>>>>> contrived to >>>>>>> keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold. >>>>>> 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That >>>>>> independant candidates have been elected to parliament in the past >>>>>> and present disputes your assertion. In fact at the current time, >>>>>> the Commonwealth government, and every single State and Territory >>>>>> lower house government include politicans who were elected on >>>>>> Greens and/or Independant tickets. So much for your alleged 2 >>>>>> party stranglehold. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary >>>>>>> votes >>>>>>> are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to >>>>>>> help, as >>>>>>> GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have >>>>>>> had. >>>>>> Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on their >>>>>> ballot paper in precisely the way that they wish so any talk of >>>>>> preference deals between parties or candidates causing voters to >>>>>> vote against their wishes are rubbish. If people choose to follow >>>>>> the advice of their first preference on how to distribute the >>>>>> remaining preferences, then that is their decision. IF they are >>>>>> too stupid to understand or too lazy to learn how the election >>>>>> process works I have precisely 0% sympathy for them. It's not a >>>>>> secret, information on how elections work is readily available, >>>>>> for free, particularly around election times. >>>>> >>>>> As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp >>>>> that if they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who >>>>> end up first and second), their preferences actually do nothing. >>>>> So preference deals by the major parties are more about political >>>>> advertising than about the actual voting mechanism. >>>>> >>>>> Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the >>>>> least popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until >>>>> one candidate get to 50% + 1 vote. >>>> >>>> While that's mostly true in the lower house, in the upper house with >>>> it's quota system, there is the possibility for left over votes >>>> which initially went to one of the two major parties candidates >>>> flowing down to smaller parties or independants if the major party >>>> does not field enough candidates to utilize all of the votes cast in >>>> their favour, or if one or more of their candidates fail to secure >>>> sufficient votes to meet a quota. >>> >>> Which is I understand how fundy man got elected... >> >> I got the impression that you were for the notion of proportional >> representation, and now you appear to be not happy when it is put >> into practice. It's quite puzzling. >> > > I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without > preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it worse. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8 |