Leaderboard

I can remember it was fairly common for old blokes to live permanently at a pub in one of the rooms. Often WW1 vets. When I was growing up we had one old fella living permanently in our local pub. He had the nickname Woody as he used to chop the pub's firewood and do odd jobs for his board and lodging. He didn't drink, just lived at the pub. Woody was a lovely old bloke, a real gentleman. I got to know him quite well as he used to come out to the farm and stay and look after us if my dad had to go away for a couple of days. In those days the adults would go to the pub and take all the kids with them. Us kids would play around in the pub's backyard and climb the big tree there and at some stage we'd always end up going to see Woody in his room and have a yarn with him. After I'd moved away as a late teenager/early adult, whenever I was back visiting my dad I'd often drop in and see old Woody at the pub. Eventually he got so old and frail he ended up in a home.

Riding in hail is never fun. Like been assualted by an angry dwarf with a little ball peen hammer. Makes snow and black ice seem like fun-almost.

You didn't. I was acknowledging that such projects are like other art forms - it's not done for profit.

Great that you were out too Peter! The missus and I rode to Nicholls Rivulet to visit Crawleighwood Gardens. I agree, good day for it, would have been even nicer with no wind.

Abbah? Yeah they were gods.

Eric Abetz is still around, but he's in Tasmanian state government now. So while he's still a pain in our arse, at least the rest of the country is spared.

I think the House will go to the Democrats but the Senate is probably doubtful. I also think Trump and his minions are planning a lot of disruption in States that they look like losing. It won't be a clean election and the results will be disputed in the courts for weeks if not months. Trump will do everything he can to avoid losing and he has the Justice department, Russ Vought and a bunch of election deniers in influential federal and state positions to help him do it.

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.

He's just blasted Norway in a speech because they didn't give him the Nobel Peace Prize. He said he deserved it for stopping eight wars plus two more which he says he will wrap up very soon, including the one he started although he didn't mention that. What a loser. It's hard to believe that this moron is the US president. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgj921e14jdo

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