All Activity

TBH, I am not sure I know what this means. Do I expect them to mind read? Of course not. I expect them to think. And of course, the ATO's operations are largely independent, but they do speak with their minister - it would be preposterous to say they wouldn't. Especially when a pre-implemented initiative is launched - there is usually a consultation period or some time before its implementation to give people time to adjust. Are you telling me the ATO wouldn't have said some time since its announcement and implementation - when they were preparing to pull the credit card payments - that they wouldn't have had a word. If that is the case and they knew it was going to impact a lot of businesses, then I would say that is incompetence of the ATO. Just to quote myself: A little sarcasm, I will admit, but I will put it simply: I get that Jim Chalmers wouldn't have consulted the ATO as he probably wasn't aware of the significance of credit card payments on taxation payments. I would be very surprised given the potential implications, they ATO didn't have a whisper in his hear.. and I am betting they put it like "well, we will lose xbn, so we will scrap it", not to say there will be a big impact to small business, because let's face it, they care little about it. Australia;s AAA rating has been around by at least one ratings agency (there are three big ones) since 2002 and across all 3 since 2011. And I am sure we agree there has been some pretty crap economic management in that period. So,. I am not sure what that bit has to add to the context. This is probably more down to Australia's resources boom than much else. And Chalmers being a PhD.. big deal. I interview one at least every 6 months and have been for about 10 years. I have probably hired four and kept one. An academic qualification does not automagically translate into real world capability. But, this post wasn't about Jim Chalmers. I have a lot of respect for him. It was about general government (including public service) incompetence - or maybe hubris - and how it leads to unintended consequences.. And how a decision in the interest in consumers - in this case hiding fees - may be not actually driven by such altruistic claims. And what does "A business not being able to Pass on a gov't cost is BS. We pass on GST in full. " What in my post does that relate to? BTW, there will probably be a lot of businesses that have had to swallow some of the GST to keep competitive with the big businesses. GST and VAT here work almost exactly the same.. and the hospitality industry especially suffer for it. Sorry if I yet again offended your sensibilities.. I wasn't picking on Labor.. there are plenty of examples on all sides..

Just shows you didn’t really need it.

It's a bit ironic when you have to bend down to pick up your pick up tool that you dropped.

That's what I keep telling you about CTP insurance ... if it's not used, you shouldn't have pay for it, you should get a refund.

Sadly not

She wasn't using the Nair, then

Not how it actually works. The problem was/is that when a business pays via a credit card it's the receiver that will pay the surcharge from the credit provider. This doesn't happen with direct transfer or debit cards. The card company charges not a flat fee but a % of the payment. Then it also hits the payer with interest. A normal transfer EFT or debit costs a fraction of a cent, hence the policy change. Thus the ATO was up for a minimum $200 million bill for accepting credit payments under the new system from all the small businesses. Should we the taxpayer subsidise small businesses to pay via credit? Also that they rely on a constant credit card rollover indicates poor practice and a susceptibility to failure. Business used similar scare stories about needing to pay superannuation employee contributions when they a paid wages rather than using employees money as a piggy bank for months. Similarly this practice could and did lead to companies going bust and super never been paid. Policy wise it was and is a smart move, as it will create a change in business practices. Certainly way too many firms have dodgy finances, and need culling. I bet the banks are spewing also about all the lost revenue from credit card taxation payments.

So it's back to plan A to custom build a frame. A bit of work involved but at least it can be built to requirements instead of trying to adapt an unsuitable frame. I've got an old frame hanging about which might be ok for a couple of donor bits. Chopping the steering head, main spine and front down tubes as one piece and using it is feasible and would save a bit of work.

I have had hair in my teeth before ...more of a side effect from female pleasure.

Takes care of your furry teeth!

The old M-63 Ural frame is out of the equation. The high ground clearance frame doesn't allow anywhere near the cradle height to accommodate the engine. From ground to the bottom of the frame is 240mm, and that's with 16" wheels and not the 19" originals. Ok for the original boxer twin engine but hard to fit any other type in it. The Ural frame will hang on the wall waiting for a boxer engine to show up one day.

Yeah, and I squeezed my wife's Nair on my toothbrush because she put the tube next to the toothbrushes. Now I wear my reading glasses in the bathroom.

Believe it or not, my wife's hardresser used to tell us - all you need to wash your hair is sunlighr soap. Just make sure you rinse thoroughly. She was happy to sell her shampoo & conditioner if you wanted it. Just didn't like the petro based detergents used in shampoo.

I had to look it up and these figures are a bit approximate: Adjustment for pressure based on standard temp of 1013 HPa is about (1013-1040) x 27 feet/HPa giving PA = -729 feet (negative). Temp rises as you go lower at about 2deg per 1000 ft so temp at -729 feet temp is 15- 729/1000x2 = 16.4 deg approx. which from DA = PA + 120 (ISA -OAT) = -729 + 120(15 - 16.4) = -897 feet. You're flying 847 feet below sea level allowing for the 50 ft at Moorabbin. I would have failed the exam today but hopefully would have passed it once upon a time.

If a business needs to pay the ATO money, probably from its BAS, what does it matter if the money is paid by digital transfer directly from a bank account; a transfer of moeny from a debit card, or the use of a credit card.? The ATO had got its pound of flesh. Am I correct in thnking that if money was paid by a business using a credit card, then any interest charged by the credit card operator would be a legitimate tax deduction for the credit card holder? Would that be why the ATO doesn't want businesses paying by credit card??????

Jerry, it could be due to decisions being made in a more rushed manner than they normally would. The government is under political pressure and taking into account their so far very cautious nature, they have a need at the moment to be seen to be doing something. Regardless of whether that's distractions, announcables, policy making on the run or good policy, there's space they need to fill as time to the election is whittling down. Another backdown today was their only very recently announced 25% cut to state disaster funding. That idea only lasted days after a huge backlash from councils in my state, which has the highest disaster cost in the nation. It would have been a nightmare for councils trying to fund that extra amount and also a lot of pressure on the state budget. It's rare for me to ever say anything good about this government, but credit to them where it's due for coming to their senses, listening to the stakeholders and reversing a bad decision. The ABC radio news today seemed to be dominated by the two backdowns, but the disaster funding issue is solved now so that's one less prickle in the government's undies. With 18 months to the election and their polling numbers where they are, we can probably expect a few more bad ideas from them, but the test will be whether they can swallow their pride, correct their mistakes and move on.

Sounds a bit of a re-run of Hewson and the birthday cake.

I was expecting you, Nev, to have your whizz wheel close by to enable you to give me an answer. Maybe you'll have it by tomorrow morning. I'm going to bed now. Goog Night

There's a Formula for density Altitude that all aviators should Know. It compares what the conditions are Compared to the Standard ICAO Definition. (It Used to be ICAN), It's 15 C and 1013.2 at sea Level, I think each degree is +/minus 120ft and each Millibar something like 30 ft, If I look it up Now I might Lose this Post. Nev

You expect him to Mind -read do you?. I don't think the ATO have a big regular to and fro. with gov't. They are generally Independent in how they run their show. They assess and collect what is Legislated by Gov't The way "SOME" Business's want to do it Passes the cost onto Other taxpayers. Credit Cards are Contentious items The TAX office doesn't need the surety of Payment that Helps business feel good. But Be assured, The TAX office will GET their Money. Jim Chalmers is a "Doctor"of something so He's not your ordinary Dill as you Might Infer . We are STILL AAA rated and doing a lot better than most similar Countries. Check it up IF you don't believe me. A business not being able to Pass on a gov't cost is BS. We pass on GST in full. . If you don't use a card you should get a price above those who do. You should not have to pay for something you didn't use. That should be a basic principle. Nev

I think it's easier on your scalp than strong detergent. Unless you work Under trucks dripping black oil you should just use water. Most people's skin gets dry and thinner. I got Brandy soda and detergent once in a Restaurant near Kew Junction. They'd put it in a Lime Bottle . Nev

Jim Chalmers must be feeling its effects today. The "abolition" of credit card surcharges to make the coffee cheaper according to Albo resulted in the ATO scrapping taking credit card payments for tax. I am not sure, but I thought the treasurer would have been consulted before the ATO decided to scrap the ability to pay with a credit card, especially if so many small businesses rely on it - which is in itself a worrying sign. I am trying to work out if this is really unintended consequences or just incompetence. Here is my conspiracy theory. When a consumer is presented a bill at the counter, and they will be slugged a fee for using the credit card, unless they are broke or tempo short of cash on their debit card (assuming they are not going to cop a bigger charge on their debit card use), then they are likely not to use that credit card. That causes a bit of a headache to the credit card companies as that is less lending they are dolling out and less transaction surcharges they are making. So, maybe lobbying the government (and i have no evidence of this), they managed to persuade the government that not allowing credit card surcharges was in the consumer interest. Or maybe consumer groups took the kool-aid and suggested the same to the government - with good intentions. What people forget is that, especially for small businesses - these charges can be 3% + a minimum transaction fee. For small items like a coffee, that can be a bit of change per transaction for the flat fee. But, if a business can't charge a surcharge, they are left with two options: 1. absorb it because all small business owners are greedy bar stewards and want to fleece the public, right? Or two, just pass it on in increased prices - to everyone. But, that way, if you're tempted to use your credit card and avail yourself of the, is it 55 days interest free period, you will do it. The credit card companies still get some money and you're none the wiser. So, Albo spruiking the coffee being cheaper is not quite true and there were stories of before and after prices of the surcharge ban coming in was a biot of an own goal depending on where you purchased your coffee (and other things). Now, the ATO issue. I get that little issue of credit card surcharges on the tax payment may have slipped Chalmer's mind. I mean I am not sure he has had the experience of running a small business and the cash flow issues that come with that. I am not even sure he would have bothered to consult the ATO on the move because the ATO is about tax, and not credit card payments. But, surely, the ATO would have consulted Chalmers before making a unilateral decision to withdraw accepting credit cards if so many small businesses make their payments with credit cards. After all, the ATO just can't raise its prices. In which case, maybe Chalmers forgot to ask how many make the payments and how much is paid using credit cards. I would guess that the ATO would have presented it as, "Gee, boss. If we can't make credit card payment surcharges and unilaterally increase the corporate tax rate, GST, or whatever taxes are paid this way, then we will lose $xbn to the credit card companies." And everyone got fixated on the cost and not the impact. So rather than ask why that would be the case and what would be the impact of going ahead or not introducing a carve out for ATO payments (apart from that being political suicide), the ATO just went ahead - after all - they are a bit of a law unto themselves. Well, it has come to bite the government on the bum. In the scheme of things, not in a huge way, and it will all blow over - The problem is that the decision to allow credit card payments to be taken by the ATO will only be for a year. What then? But, this is an example in poor thinking. The idea that the surcharge would be a boon for consumers is a joke. Ye, only 17& of cafes in this case have unilaterally increased their prices - you can bet others will follow suit. Also, you don't, as a consumer get to take advantage of a lower price by not using cheaper forms of payment. How is that a boon for consumers? Yes, you coul argue it punishes those who are skint at the time.. Er.. if you;re skint, shouldn't you be paring back a bit anyway - using a credit card will just make you skinter. And you have just cut off an important cash flow management capability for small businesses. Well done. I used to have a small software reseller in Aus.. I can't recall if it was Westpac or Anz that provided the merchant facilities to take credit cards, but I recall in the contract, I couldn't apply surcharges (well it was worded I couldn't offer discounts to those not using a credit card that wasn't available to those who used credit cards, if I recall correctly). The transaction costs sometimes made a sale unprofitable when competing with the big fellas. I managed to eek out a living from it, but jeepers it was tough. And that was offering support to try and bring in some margin against the big fellas. Almost every consumer is cost conscious - one learns that very quickly despite what the text books say. I put these sorts of government decisions more to incompetence than to unintended consequences - but the latter is usually the result of the former.

I've never seen the point of using conditioner. The main reason you need shampoo is to get rid of the conditioner you didn't need the day before.

When you have teenagers in the house, nothing stays in its place. Gave my hair a dose of body wash the other day because some eedjit put it in the conditioner spot.

I've forgotten how to use my whizz-wheel to calculate Density Altitude, so could someone answer my this, please? A few weeks ago, a deep High Pressure system moved across South Ausralia and Victoria. I saw a pressure reading of something like 1040 hecto-thingies. If that was the airpressure, and the OAT was, say 15C, ignoring Moorabbin's height of 50 ft AMSL, what would the density height be with those meteorological conditions?