Continuing Rant Thread - Get it Off Ya Chest here

shop deals on amazon
gas guyz
inkbird
Advertise with us
Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum

Help Support Australia & New Zealand Homebrewing Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That sucks GP. Thieving ******* scabs.
 
My three and a bit year old daughter had her first dance eisteddfod yesterday. A Kodak moment to be sure. Or not. No photography or videos allowed, said the lady taking my $20 entry fee.
Why? I asked rhetorically. Because other peoples children may be in the photo, the lady said. But you have photos of other peoples children on your social media pages, I replied. She shrugged. Its just the rules, sorry.
Whats the world coming to when we're all presumed to be pedophiles.
 
Or maybe only the pedo's are allowed to take photo's that can be used against them latter
 
Rock up to work for my normal 1300-2130 Monday arvo shift, and somebody has decided to change that to a 1330-2400 shift and hasn't bothered to tell me about it.

******* useless.
 
That's really shit. I've worked those hours and three extra hours at the end of your shift at that time of night is awful. They should have asked your permission, much less let you know.
 
Dave70 said:
My three and a bit year old daughter had her first dance eisteddfod yesterday. A Kodak moment to be sure. Or not. No photography or videos allowed, said the lady taking my $20 entry fee.
Why? I asked rhetorically. Because other peoples children may be in the photo, the lady said. But you have photos of other peoples children on your social media pages, I replied. She shrugged. Its just the rules, sorry.
Whats the world coming to when we're all presumed to be pedophiles.
Click to expand...
Have had the same. And it was do the lousy fux could charge more for shitty amateur photos and video, none of which will actually focus on the sole subject you have any interest in, your own child.

I just took photos with my phone anyway. F¥ck 'em!

I didn't think of it at the time, but I should have said my child can't be in photos or videos due to cultural/religious reasons. That'd f¥ck their operation. They can't take photos or videos of anything she's in, and can't exclude her, due to it being "discriminatory".
 
Now for a rant of my own: I know it's an age old topic, and there's a f¥ckzillion posts and threads and forums on it etc, but I want to voice my opinion on Government. Just a couple of examples in relation to Centrelink for now though.

I'd like to know how in the f¥ck a person can drink, vote, root, smoke, get loans, get married, sign leases etc etc at 18 years old, as an adult, (some of those can be done younger, I know), but in order to be eligible for Centrelink payments, their parents income is considered until they are 22 years old, even if they don't f¥cking live there?

Secondly, with all this bullshit over gay marriage, (who gives a sh!t who gets married?), how can it be the case that the Federal Goverment refuses to legalise gay marriage, yet Centrelink (you guessed it, Federal Government Department), recognises gay relationships and treats "marriage-like" relationships in the same way as married people, therefore considering their combined income and assets when determining eligibility for payments?

Whilst I am not gay, nor am I under 22 years of age, nor am I asking for Centrelink payments, these to me are two of the most hypocritical, blatant, in your face, bullsh¥t things I see our Government persisting with.

PS. I said "two of", leaving much room for the countless others ....


FIN


Cheers
 
Wardcliff said:
Now for a rant of my own: I know it's an age old topic, and there's a f¥ckzillion posts and threads and forums on it etc, but I want to voice my opinion on Government. Just a couple of examples in relation to Centrelink for now though.

I'd like to know how in the f¥ck a person can drink, vote, root, smoke, get loans, get married, sign leases etc etc at 18 years old, as an adult, (some of those can be done younger, I know), but in order to be eligible for Centrelink payments, their parents income is considered until they are 22 years old, even if they don't f¥cking live there?

Secondly, with all this bullshit over gay marriage, (who gives a sh!t who gets married?), how can it be the case that the Federal Goverment refuses to legalise gay marriage, yet Centrelink (you guessed it, Federal Government Department), recognises gay relationships and treats "marriage-like" relationships in the same way as married people, therefore considering their combined income and assets when determining eligibility for payments?

Whilst I am not gay, nor am I under 22 years of age, nor am I asking for Centrelink payments, these to me are two of the most hypocritical, blatant, in your face, bullsh¥t things I see our Government persisting with.

PS. I said "two of", leaving much room for the countless others ....


FIN


Cheers
Click to expand...
Cos they're bastards and they consider the money that we give them as theirs, not the nation's funding with which we entrust them. And every single thing they do is designed to keep more of thyat money in their super/pension funds.
 
I'm going to rant about something divisive. Negative gearing. Why the big fuss anyway? Im listening when the kids say they can't afford to buy. I don't think negative gearing is causing that. That's not my rant. It's people saying people like me are the rich getting richer. Bullshit. Let me give you my example. So, Yes, I have an investment property. Here are the rough figures. My wife and I get $20k rent per annum. We pay it back at $40k per year. Interest is about $$14k. That means we each get the take $7000 off our taxable incomes. Which is NOT $7000 BACK at taxpayers expense which the labor party keeps stating. It works out about $2k each. My wife and I have never had a days unemployment benefits. Missed the paid parental leave. baby bonus etc. Both of have worked full time all our lives. We've put as much into super as we can. We've saved. We are going to be self funded retirees. If any young people say I'm the reason they can't afford a house, just give me the nod that you're happy to pay your taxes for the rest of your life to fund this growing ageing population to be pensioners and I'll spend all my savings on cool cars, massive tv's, holidays and whatever the hell else I feel like. So what's the big deal if it gets scrapped? Nothing. My tenants rent goes up to cover most of the shortfall. Who loses then? I realise I am fortunate to have always had a job. I don't particularly like it, but I don't quit it because I need it. Fortunate, yes. Rich? No.
 
mckenry said:
I'm going to rant about something divisive. Negative gearing. Why the big fuss anyway? Im listening when the kids say they can't afford to buy. I don't think negative gearing is causing that. That's not my rant. It's people saying people like me are the rich getting richer. Bullshit. Let me give you my example. So, Yes, I have an investment property. Here are the rough figures. My wife and I get $20k rent per annum. We pay it back at $40k per year. Interest is about $$14k. That means we each get the take $7000 off our taxable incomes. Which is NOT $7000 BACK at taxpayers expense which the labor party keeps stating. It works out about $2k each. My wife and I have never had a days unemployment benefits. Missed the paid parental leave. baby bonus etc. Both of have worked full time all our lives. We've put as much into super as we can. We've saved. We are going to be self funded retirees. If any young people say I'm the reason they can't afford a house, just give me the nod that you're happy to pay your taxes for the rest of your life to fund this growing ageing population to be pensioners and I'll spend all my savings on cool cars, massive tv's, holidays and whatever the hell else I feel like. So what's the big deal if it gets scrapped? Nothing. My tenants rent goes up to cover most of the shortfall. Who loses then? I realise I am fortunate to have always had a job. I don't particularly like it, but I don't quit it because I need it. Fortunate, yes. Rich? No.
Click to expand...
It's not so much people with one investment property it's about people with multiple properties that use negative gearing to pay no tax at all
 
I think what you misunderstand is that while they pay no tax at all they are still paying massive amounts to be in that negative geared state.

Which is probably costing a lot more than what is being saved on tax.
 
Yes. That's it. It costs bloody heaps to ensure I have an asset in 20 years time that affords me to live like the people I have paid for to be on the pension for the last 25 years.
I take your point about people having multiple properties to pay no tax. I don't know anyone like that though. Also if I can't negatively gear it after the next election, I sure hope they don't ask me for tax when it's finally positively geared! Yeah riiiiight.
 
mckenry said:
I'm going to rant about something divisive. Negative gearing. Why the big fuss anyway?
Click to expand...
on the other side of the argument though.. you get to deduct the losses you suffer on this investment, meanwhile obtaining any future capital gains and then you'll get a 50% discount on that cgt bill
so the 'tax payer' has offset your losses on your cash-negative investment, while you get to reap the future rewards with a discount on your capital gains tax

plus unless your investment property was a new build, it didnt 'add' anything to the economy to offset that tax payer funded yearly cash-negative investment (if its a new build, then i dont see the issue as its a +/- game of losses v employment so lets call it economy neutral)


while housing isnt a 'right', it would be nice of the tax policies werent assisting in the increasing price and supply/demand issues
(mostly devils advocate argument)
 
Even if they scrap negative gearing mckenry that will not affect your investments, a date would be pulled out of a hat for the negative gearing to cease, it will not have any consequence on properties already negatively geared.
Looking at the bigger picture how much money will the government save by not having to fork out pensions for self funded retirees,
that will be the next target welfare payments, 8 out of ten people go to work to pay $150 billion welfare bill, that is the next area the government will be looking to save money, just can't go on rising the way it is.
 
I might be called a c unit for saying this but Im having a really shitty week. so **** you to anyone I offend.

I would rather the govt support the mum and dad investor that are working hard to support themselves and busting their arses to build an retirment nest egg to limit or mimimise what they take in pension than for them to take more form those that work hard to put in the pockets now as dole bludgers and later as pensioners for those that dont work hard.

if buying your first home is hard - gee lifes tough isnt it.

Cavet...this week I am extra Grumpy
 
The median house price in somewhere like Bathurst, NSW central tablelands, is under 300K and about $250 to rent, and generally a decent spread, not some 57 square dollhouse.
Its not the fault of investors that our population is heavily biased toward eastern seabord centralization, its simply supply and demand. If you want the 2026 postcode, like the gazillion other hip and trendys, be prepared to pay through the nose for it.
 
Negative gearing only works for the wealthy with mulitple properties, as stated before ( even big Mal said it was a rort ! ).... mums & dads dont make money from negative gearing, it just helps them along

Maybe they could change the rules so that you may only negative gear 1 investment property, rather that cascading multiple proprties
 

Latest posts

Back
Top