Jerry_Atrick

A prodigee of Abbott? Be careful what you ask for.

Indeed.. It looks like the "other alliance" is a bit stronger than ours: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-supplies-iran-with-cyber-support-spy-imagery-hone-attacks-ukraine-says-2026-04-07/ That't thank thanks Chump gets from Putin.. Of course, Chump won't see it that way.

The original article I saw was either on the ABC or The Age website (when I go tot he Guardian, it usually only feeds me British based or, for global news, what it considers important or interesting for Brits. There was no mention of CGT for the primary residence, but there was mention on negative grearing being removed from all but a private investor's first investment property; It must have been The Age, as I doubt very much the ABC wouls pull an article for a reason other than it iwas plainly inaccurate. But here is what I found from teh ABC: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-04/capital-gains-tax-changes-among-options-as-labor-weighs-housing/106306738 And it only mentions CGT discountsd being removed from investment properties. Which, IMHO, is the correct thing to do. Inherited properties that are then used by the beneficiaries to rent out (i.e. become an investment propety) should be required to have a surveyor's valuation at the commencement of them being advertised for rent so that the CGT clock starts tickign with an accurate assesment.. Or maybe ion this case, because of the emotional ties, maybe wait 12 - 24 months and if they sell in that period, then it is CGT free; after that the valuation has to be obtained and CGT has to be paid on a subsequent sale. Of course, this creates a perverse outcome on an intergenerational basis. Keep the original home in the family and pass it on to subsequent generations = no tax. Convert it to cash to invest in some other form of asset/wealth building investment, and you pat tax, and have less to invest and pass on. Would have to look into the stats of how many homes are passed onto multiple generations to work out the real impact. Be that as it may, it would be incredibly uunfair to CGT the primary property anyway. Not because of the fact it was already paid for by post tax dollars and insn;t an investment per se, but a place to live; but also, the deduction being inflation rate is not representative of the true inflation rate of a house. Unless you are moving into a care home of some sort, you are likely to be purchasing another property to live in. As house price inflation often skyrockets past the normal inflation rate and the price increase of houses is excluded from the inflation calculation, if you sold your house and had to pay CGT on it, you could not afford at least a similar standard of house - you would be going backward. And this would probably stall the housing market (except for those thast had to sell) and foprce prices up even further - no supply but a demand still will tend to do that. Labor, or Albo is not stupid.

Once again you sling mud with no substance and show your bias against Israel,.. IHaven't heard you reliably debunk much, if anything with fact Who's biased? Pot calling kettle, etc etc

I see FIFA haven't stripped him of their inaugural peace prize. I wonder who gets their second one?

I may be thick, but I genuinely don't get what you are saying. How does all humans being equal equate to being pro-Palestinian? Believing they are unfairly treated by the Israelis is one thing (whether that is true or not - I can no longer be arsed getting into that argument), but being pro-Palestinian because all humans are equal sort of ignores the horrible inequities in Palestinian controlled areas (Gaza and Ramallah) - as well as other Arabic or Islamic nations - I dunno, like Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi, Iran, Afghaistan, many ogf the other 'Stans, and the like. Unless killing gays because they are gay, or beating your wife legally and even being instructed on how to do it, legal honour killings, discrtimination against far east labourers, slavery, etc is treating everyone equally. You know - like in Israel whihc has the largest - because the only gay pride; where foreign workers are treated the same as local, where Palestinian citrizes have the same rights and one was even the previous deputy PM, and there have been Palesitnian cheif jidges of the Israeli high court. Where women are eqqual and marital rape, wife beating, etc is against the law. Where even a soldier will be held to account for killing a Palestinian terrorst after they have injured aoir killed other Israeli soldiers. Where before 7 October, Israel provided necessary medical care to Gazans and Ramallans despite there being lots of hospitals in those two areas - some hopefully withoput weapons cahces under them. Where Israel provided Gazan with the water supply (and still do) despite Hamas firing rockets at them almost daily. Where many Gazans used to work in Israel with the same rights and conditions as Israelis and could move about freely (they were justifiably searched oin their way into Israel because of the risk of them wearing bombs). Hang on.. Where is their vocal opposition to Russia that does commit war crimes on a daily basis, targetting civilian infrastructure? Where is their vocal oppostiion to the many wars and conflicts in the middle east that don't involve Israel? I can't recall much more than a scant reference to Iran, and even then it was more about the illegal Chump/Net war and not the 30,00+ civilians killed (although this could be because the newspapers and the ABC don;'t gibve them much coverage). Then, yeah. good on the Greens for sticking with their morals. Give them a clap. They're just being perfect and it's not anti-semitism at all. Shame though, because most of heir policies, if implemented properly, seem pretty good. Would I vote for them despite the above? Actually, probably, because thankfully in the incredibly unlikely event they got in, they cold probably block exports and imports to/from Israel. I don't think wither country would lose sleep over it. Given it is unlikely they would get in, the additional primnarly vote would hopefully send a message to the majors to lift their game in the other areas.

I don't agree with everything you have written, but the sentiment is spot on, IMHO.

One of the big tax perks that is gaining a lot of attention lately is the directors loans. The more you make and the more you borrow, the more you save in tax. In many jurisdictions there is (or was) a threshold for converting directors loans to dividends. It typically was about the same as the zero tax rate. For the rest, you set up a commercial rate between the director and the holding company; the loan will cover the repayment agreement, which can be very minimal. As you receive this money as a loan, there is no tax payable. The tiny repaymnent terms, just enough to be considered a legal contract, mean that the interest earned by the company and tax paid is minimal or the income from interest is offset by the admin costs. When you finally die, you have no assets in your name to repay the loan, your estate is bankrupt (your ownership of the coompany is returned to the company and distributed to the remaining shareholders, usually your family. Voilla! Virtually no tax paid. Blind or secret trusts are another good way as they often benefit from tax deductions not available to private people and you can't tell who is the beneficiary to loob tax against when they exit the trust (either through death or some other form). Apart from some family trusts, which now attract dfifferent tax treatment, the UK has effectively limited the life of any trust to 80 years, after which the lessor of capital gains, probate taxes, stamp duties, etc must be paid.

It's a bright future he have. This came from a weekly AI newsletter I get: npm is a package manager for javascrip and used to deploy most web apps.

The couldn't pronounce him guilty at a press conference - unless they want the trial and the charges to be dropped from subjudice. I was merely taking on the position of a civil law case, and on one of the alleged murders, at time was an unarmed and restrained person. As I mentioned, I don't know muc about military law, and the conjecture was based on civilian law. However, surely, a PoW has a right not ro be murdered. For that one case I mentioned, it does not seem in dispute - at least in the court of public opinion - that the victim was partially bound (hands/wrists) and gagged, and unarmed. At that stage, is he a PoW - I would imagine it to be dependent on the circumstances - and that it does not need someone to be physically locked up. I'll read the pdf later and get back.

I haven't seen what you refer to, but if it is so, then you are right . The problem is today, there is a lot about virtue signalling without allowing the process to take place to make a determination. Until, that something makes their virtueness look a biut ugly,. then it is dennial followed by wiait for due process.

Either way, he would have been excused from service - too dangerous to his own men. .Can't shut up which is not good on a patrol, I imagine.

How on earth then, did you get your flight radioo operators licence? Did they only have morse code in those days? 🙂 (double "o" intended on radio for Scottish accent effect)

I agree, Nev. I haven't served, but have worked closely with active serving personnel, some of whom were in the elite force of their country. I would always defer to someone who has served for a more considered opinion, but my observation was that the special forces personnel were selected and traing based on their mental toughness and fortitude. A lot of the physical training is about building the mental toughness. This no doubt has an impact, but one thing it does mean is that they are more likely to see somethng through then your average soldier. And when they choose to operate outside SoP and commands, it is more likely because they intended it. Whether that intention is pure evil or the result of what they have experienced and some form of PTSD or other mental impairment should, rightly so, be determined by a court of law - Is this going through the civil or military courts? This is the same of anyone charged with murder; it is not the police job to pass judgement; it is the prosecutor to determine if on the evidence there may be a good case to answer; and then on the judge/jury or military panel (apols if that is no longer the case - I don't really know too much about military law). If it is a civil trial, they will have to establish which state it comes under (most likely territory - and therefore federal criminal law). Regardless, they will have to prove two elements beyond reasonable doubt - actus reus - guitly act - and that it was he who caused the death with no intervening factors; and then b) mens rea - guilty mind (in Aus, they now call it the fault element). They will have to prove, subjectively, i.e. that in Robert's -Smith own mind rather than what a reasonable person would think, that he intended to kill (or commit grevous bodily harm) or was criminally reckless (not negligent) to whether or not the deaths would occur form his actions. Both have to be proved beyone reasonable doubt. Then there could be defences, of which mental impariment is one. Interestingly, the defences only have to be proven to a balance of probability - more likely than not - that the conditions for the defence occured. I would imagine it would be a similar apprach in military law. What is widely reported is that he had an unarmed civilians with arms tied behind his back, and if I recall correctly, blindfolded, stand at a ledge of a ricky outcrop, in which Roberts-Smith intentionally kicked the person over thee outcrop. Assuming it to be accurate in that case, the actus reus is definitely there, and the facts would storngly suggest the reuisite intention ir criminal recklessness. That would then open the defences. Extreme provocation is a partial defence these days; so the provocation of comrades being killed previously in an ambush (the previous day) may come into it, but probably not as the law was changed to virtually immediate provocation - so an immediate reaction to provcation. Anything else is a cold blooded intention. There are a couple of other defences but from memory none would really apply. He would have to show on the balance of probability that he had some form of mental impairment and PTSD is one that the court will accept. He only needs to show it was likely rather than definite. So, there is a lot to play out here. And he, like everyone else deserves a fair trial. It is high time it came.. If he is found to have suffered mental impairment, the court will order an assessment and potentially lodgings at a suitable HMAS instituton. The assessment may determine he is no longer suffering or if so, he does not need lodgings as long as he submts to and maintains prescribed treatment.

It's the accent... 😉