# Australia's Population



## Julia (1 February 2010)

There's a fair bit of discussion at present about whether Australia should be aiming for substantial population growth, e.g. suggested to be around 35 million by 2050.

Some of the reason offered by those in favour of this (eg the government, and I think supported by Mr Abbott) is the need to boost the tax base to pay for the ageing population.

I've only heard a couple of commentators suggest the compulsory Super rate should be increased, and then only to 12%.
I agree with Paul Keating that it should be pushed up to 15%, thus eventually reducing the dependence on the age pension.  I'd also go along with the rule that at least part of that Super would have to be taken as an allocated pension so that people don't just blow the lot at retirement age and then seek the government pension.

Even with the existing population, most States are building expensive desalination plants to provide an adequate water supply.  This will make water expensive to householders and business.

Then we have congested cities and transport systems.

And that's before you start considering the woeful state of the health system.

So, I'm interested to have ASF members' views about the ideal population level and why.

How feasible would it be to decentralise from our major cities?
Are people going to be happy to move inland, away from the desirable coastal locations, and is it going to be worth building all the necessary infrastructure to encourage this?

If not, surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?


----------



## So_Cynical (2 February 2010)

Julia said:


> surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?




Sydney is already nightmare-ish and could only take another 1 million max and that would still require some major rail, road and water upgrades....a population of 35 million would require planning and developing a regional super city somewhere around wagga - Albury, and some sort of tax break (incentive) for people living in the rural areas. 

A population of 35 mill would also require the mass development of Thorium based power plants considering all the extra power that would be required for desal and water recycling plants.


----------



## Mr J (2 February 2010)

Something to consider is that we do not live in a technologically static environment, and future technology will change the way we live. Maybe it will be normal by that stage for people to work from home? Maybe medical advances will see retirement age pushed back much further? Maybe we'll become far more efficient in our use of natural resources? We can't seriously consider this a problem yet, because we have no idea of how the world will change in the next four decades. My guess is that it will change a lot :.


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2010)

I suspect both major parties are in favour of a much larger population because they still give weight to, but not voice to, the "populate or perish" argument.


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2010)

Clearly the tropical north should be able to sustain a huge population as it is no different to tropical Asia which has massive population, though not living to a standard that we would accept. 

If there is a fear ("populate or perish") that we should populate our north before our neighbours do it for us, then maybe we should offer incentives for people to live in the north. It is not unheard of. Before the Berlin Wall came down, people were given incentives to live in West Berlin. I can't recall if it was a cash incentive or a reduced tax rate, but it was worth two or three thousand DM to me when I lived there.

Perhaps building the required infrastructure in the north and only maintaining, but not expanding, the infrastructure in the south would over time make it more attractive to live up there. It would probably be politically impossible though.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 February 2010)

Australia is wonderfully blessed with multiple environments within the one country. I have been to every state and territory and could easily live in any of the warm places of Australia.

 I notice vacant land is plentiful though likely crown land or unused private property. There is enough space for a billion people in Australia, give or take a few million. As a member of the human population, and annoyed by this fact sometimes, I think exponential human population growth is the wrong path the species is taking.

We are large consumers and we consume what we don't need. This leaves a large trail of waste growing just as quickly as the populations. Compared to the raw beauty of a natural environment, human presence is like a leper colony. We move in, strip it bare, and establish an environment built out of concrete, steel, glass, bitumen, plastic etcetera.

So I do not understand why the population of Australia, let alone any country, can't remain at present levels or even allowed to reduce. The structure of societies today still require the necessities of life and the infrastructure in place can accommodate that need. 

If anyone can offer a well grounded reason as to why Australia's population needs to grow exponentially then it would certainly be for reasons hypothetical to say the least.


----------



## Mr J (2 February 2010)

> So I do not understand why the population of Australia, let alone any country, can't remain at present levels or even allowed to reduce.




Completely agree, but if we did I imagine that at some point we would be forced by others to accept immigrants from overpopulated countries. On the other hand, maybe the world will cut off supply to Africa etc and turn a blind eye.


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Completely agree, but if we did I imagine that at some point we would be forced by others to accept immigrants from overpopulated countries. On the other hand, maybe the world will cut off supply to Africa etc and turn a blind eye.




Just one word as to why worldwide "endless" rapid population growth will continue unabated..

That word is - *"Politicians"*

For as long as some members of the human race covet power and glory above all else, they will always desire a larger population base from which to draw taxes and form armies to play with.

He/she who has control of the the biggest economy/population/army usually wins.

It's basic human nature.

Unfortunately.



aj


----------



## gooner (2 February 2010)

bellenuit said:


> Clearly the tropical north should be able to sustain a huge population as it is no different to tropical Asia which has massive population, though not living to a standard that we would accept.
> 
> If there is a fear ("populate or perish") that we should populate our north before our neighbours do it for us, then maybe we should offer incentives for people to live in the north. It is not unheard of. Before the Berlin Wall came down, people were given incentives to live in West Berlin. I can't recall if it was a cash incentive or a reduced tax rate, but it was worth two or three thousand DM to me when I lived there.
> 
> Perhaps building the required infrastructure in the north and only maintaining, but not expanding, the infrastructure in the south would over time make it more attractive to live up there. It would probably be politically impossible though.




Most of the tropical north is aboriginal land. Are you proposing to steal it again?

Personally, I think we have enough people. Water problems, pollution problems, overpriced housing etc etc.  Time to cut the migrant intake, particularly the so called "skilled" intake which gives us lots of cooks and hairdressers.  Family reunions should be allowed as most of these are Australians marrying non-Australians and seems very hard nosed to stop that.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 February 2010)

Along with greater population comes greater dysfunctionality. The mental illnesses gang together and walk the streets. Crime and drug abuse grows proportionately with increased population. In small towns there will be a low percentage of dysfunctionals but go to any big city and walk the streets for a few days and nights and observe the number of nutters, both working types and undesirables, that are wound up and ready to pop or are in the process of popping. 

We don't have to go down the same path as other countries but the desire to populate regardless of future earthly demands may be an overwhelming imprint in the majority of people.


----------



## Airfireman (2 February 2010)

It will be difficult to stop population growth, with medical advances we will live for longer, more great great grandads????!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## satanoperca (2 February 2010)

Please read Future Eaters by Tim Flannery, all the answers are in there.

Our populations should not be increased unless you wish a decease in the great standard of living that Australia has to offer.

Increasing population results in an increase in polution and carbon, not good for the environment.

If we close off all the borders to imports of food, are we self sustainable or will we become like Japan and dependant on food imports to stop the people from starvation.

Do we have enough fresh water to support even larger populations or are we to become dependant on desal plants and further increases in emissions.

I for one are glad that a great Australian, Dick Smith has come out rallying against huge population increases.

Cheers


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 February 2010)

satanoperca said:


> If we close off all the borders to imports of food, are we self sustainable or will we become like Japan and dependant on food imports to stop the people from starvation.




 We export 60% of the food we produce. What we import is usually specialised products or out of season.


----------



## vincent191 (2 February 2010)

We have an aging population problem. In 10 years there won't be enough taxpayers to support the baby boomers who will be reaching retirement age.

The easy solution is to find more taxpayers. Migration is the easy way out. It creates an instant army of ready made taxpayers. Some one else have paid for their childhood expenses like education and Australia reaps the instant benefits of productivity and taxes.

Again it has it's pros & cons, we have been through this before after the war and we saw a huge big influx of migrants from Europe mainly from Greece & Italy. The Snowy River scheme won't have been built without migrant labour.


----------



## kwallace (2 February 2010)

> The easy solution is to find more taxpayers. Migration is the easy way out. It creates an instant army of ready made taxpayers. Some one else have paid for their childhood expenses like education and Australia reaps the instant benefits of productivity and taxes.




But that only works if they have a job.......


----------



## noirua (2 February 2010)

vincent191 said:


> Again it has it's pros & cons, we have been through this before after the war and we saw a huge big influx of migrants from Europe mainly from Greece & Italy. The Snowy River scheme won't have been built without migrant labour.




Australia needs migrants willing to tough it in the outback, real outback that is, not Kal.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> We export 60% of the food we produce. What we import is usually specialised products or out of season.




Australia also imported 64.9% food in agricultural products in 2007.


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Australia also imported 64.9% food in agricultural products in 2007.




And your point? mine is that we have plenty of food production capacity. it may not cover everything we _want _because other do specialization of some thing better/cheaper/right time but Oz hasn't got a huge supply problem with food.


----------



## vincent191 (2 February 2010)

Then obviously the answer is to only bring in those who are willing & able to work and are readily employable. That way they will pay their fair share of taxes and pay for the infrastructure needs of a growing nation.

Australia must not stay stagnant, we must progress but it must be planned. Whatever we do, we don't need dole bluggers and unemployable people who go straight onto welfare!!!!


----------



## Bushman (2 February 2010)

The Greens are out today supporting a cut in the skilled migrant intake.

Would be unpopular with our legion of middle class home 'owners' with migration boosting all those home values out there. Kerplunk. There is no way the powers that be will allow this ponzi to pop.


----------



## satanoperca (2 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> We export 60% of the food we produce. What we import is usually specialised products or out of season.




I will take your word on this TH, but if you go to Coles or Woolies and read the labels of the generic brands most is imported.

Need to chase up some stats on this.

Cheers


----------



## awg (2 February 2010)

From an economic and military outlook, it is deemed beneficial to have a population of around 30 mil, from what I have read,, as it requires a certain population level to self-sustain various industries.

Perhaps this view is becoming less relevant in todays world?

However, other factors, especially environmental factors could be very problematical if not strongly addressed.

Water and soil husbandry, for instance.

Demographic and social factors are obvious, hence the paper, I think it is right to discuss the matter openly.

I have an uncomfortable feeling that percieved future security issues are the unspoken driver on this matter longterm.

I would rather have our population issues than those facing most other countries


----------



## satanoperca (2 February 2010)

vincent191 said:


> We have an aging population problem. In 10 years there won't be enough taxpayers to support the baby boomers who will be reaching retirement age.
> 
> The easy solution is to find more taxpayers. Migration is the easy way out. It creates an instant army of ready made taxpayers. Some one else have paid for their childhood expenses like education and Australia reaps the instant benefits of productivity and taxes.
> 
> Again it has it's pros & cons, we have been through this before after the war and we saw a huge big influx of migrants from Europe mainly from Greece & Italy. The Snowy River scheme won't have been built without migrant labour.




Yes but what happens when they get old, we have to import more people and so goes the ponzi scheme.

Cheers


----------



## Happy (2 February 2010)

Julia said:


> If not, surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?





This is exactly what happens and there would have to be much more water to make inland centres not survivable but attractive and comfortable to live in.

Decentralisation has enormous costs and even 50 million new migrants will not generate enough tax to pay for it as well as pay for ageing population.

Those who advocate 30 million plus population just look at tiny fraction of what it is likely to bring.
They simply do not spell out what it is likely to cause, but that’s convenient and typical.

But if it blows in our face, one positive thing out of it might make Australia not as attractive to migrate to. 
(There is hardly anybody trying to jump border to North Korea.)


----------



## prawn_86 (2 February 2010)

Julia said:


> If not, surely our major cities are going to be a nightmare to live in in another couple of decades?




They already are. 

After recently moving to Syd, i have these observations:
- The roads are atrocious. Bumpy, narrow, winding, poor layout
- If you want a good road you have to pay a toll
- There is no struture at all to the city and surrounds. Very few major arteriels etc
- Public transport is reasonable at running on time, but pretty much always crowded


----------



## bellenuit (2 February 2010)

gooner said:


> Most of the tropical north is aboriginal land. Are you proposing to steal it again?




If the aborigines own the land then they are just as much entitled to sell it to developers as anyone else. Who said anything about stealing the land from them? In fact it could provide them with the means to get out of the poverty trap they are in. 

I don't know if it will ever come to that, but the premise of what I was saying is that we may have little choice but to develop the north due to pressure from our overpopulated neighbours, so we might as well start planning for it now on our terms.


----------



## Trembling Hand (2 February 2010)

satanoperca said:


> I will take your word on this TH, but if you go to Coles or Woolies and read the labels of the generic brands most is imported.
> 
> Need to chase up some stats on this.
> 
> Cheers




Nope,



> The food industry is integral to Australia’s economic and social prosperity. In 2006-07, it accounted for 20 per cent of manufacturing sales and services income and in 2007-08 it provided jobs for 206,000 Australians. The overwhelming majority of food sold in Australia is grown and supplied by Australian farmers. We are able to export almost two-thirds of our agricultural produce, while ensuring around 97 per cent of the fresh fruit and vegetables sold in supermarkets is grown and supplied locally.
> 
> In 2007-08, *Australia exported $23 billion worth of food compared to food imports in that same year of $9 billion*, despite the effects of drought. A substantial proportion of these food imports comprised beverages, including specialty branded spirits, and some highly processed foods that are not produced in Australia.




http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/food

no time right now can dig up some more for ya lata


----------



## tradingtiger (2 February 2010)

If the Japanese market is now roughly a quarter of what it was in early 90's (ie, 40,000 then and now Nikkei is 10,000) does that mean the average value of shares that make up their index is a quarter of the value now some 20 years later?

And if so how can they afford to retire and i believe they have an aging population?


----------



## Mr J (2 February 2010)

Doesn't mean much without considering purchasing power.


----------



## Happy (2 February 2010)

> Trembling Hand
> 
> … and some highly processed foods that are not produced in Australia.





Like garlic grown in China on MAN MADE FERTILISER


----------



## Mr J (2 February 2010)

I did not need to know that, Happy.


----------



## Sidamo (2 February 2010)

Happy said:


> Like garlic grown in China on MAN MADE FERTILISER




Presumably made by man in a factory, or are you suggesting there's an army of Chinese peasants taking dumps on their crops?


----------



## Happy (2 February 2010)

I tried to stress exception to comment:



> ... *highly processed *foods that are not produced in Australia





The other one just ‘slipped out’


----------



## Bushman (2 February 2010)

tradingtiger said:


> If the Japanese market is now roughly a quarter of what it was in early 90's (ie, 40,000 then and now Nikkei is 10,000) does that mean the average value of shares that make up their index is a quarter of the value now some 20 years later?
> 
> And if so how can they afford to retire and i believe they have an aging population?




Much higher savings rates than Australia. Also rate of share ownership has plummeted over the years and is much lower than Oz.


----------



## awg (2 February 2010)

Happy said:


> Like garlic grown in China on MAN MADE FERTILISER




Suitably treated human effluent most certainly should be fully recycled if we are ever to maintain a sustainable environment imo, in this country, let alone the world.

degradation of high quality organic topsoil (and water) via a number of mechanisms is a topic most people dont think much about.

If it cannot be dealt with much better than it is now, population growth will eventually reverse, with much handwringing and starvation


----------



## Aussiejeff (2 February 2010)

Woe betide the first generation that has to bear the insufferable humiliation of not materially improving their status or living standards due to overpopulation.

Is it not unbearable to think that the current 5 bed, 3 bath McMansion + 3 cars + 1 child family might have to revert to 4 bed, 2 bath, Mini-McMansion + 2 cars + 1/2 child family status in the not too distant future? 

Oh WOE will they be!! 

Wot? Me woe? 

Nup.

Me will be pushing daisies by then!


----------



## gav (2 February 2010)

Isn't it a bit hypocritical of good old Krudd to want to double our population by 2050, yet at the same time want to impliment an ETS system?  If he is really committed to reducing the so called "man-made" Climate Change, why on would he want to double the amount of polluters?


----------



## gooner (2 February 2010)

gav said:


> Isn't it a bit hypocritical of good old Krudd to want to double our population by 2050, yet at the same time want to impliment an ETS system?  If he is really committed to reducing the so called "man-made" Climate Change, why on would he want to double the amount of polluters?




hypocritical? no

inconsistent. Oh yea......


----------



## Julia (2 February 2010)

gooner said:


> hypocritical? no
> 
> inconsistent. Oh yea......



Why isn't it hypocritical, gooner?
The two aims are directly opposed.


----------



## Mr J (2 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Why isn't it hypocritical, gooner?
> *The two aims are directly opposed.*




I would say they are one and the same: more taxes.


----------



## noirua (3 February 2010)

tradingtiger said:


> If the Japanese market is now roughly a quarter of what it was in early 90's (ie, 40,000 then and now Nikkei is 10,000) does that mean the average value of shares that make up their index is a quarter of the value now some 20 years later?
> 
> And if so how can they afford to retire and i believe they have an aging population?




The Nikkei 225 peaked at 38,957 on 29/12/1989. The index has only one mining stock 'Impex Group' and seems to contain all old world shares. Probably doesn't represent Japan as well as it did once. Many stocks were on PE ratios of 40 to 60 and when growth collapsed so did the average PE.
One day Australia's mining industry will not represent us as it does today and it may be time to exit the ASX200 around 2035 - 2045 - I'll be dead by then so I don't care really.


----------



## gooner (4 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Why isn't it hypocritical, gooner?
> The two aims are directly opposed.




I always believed hypocrisy was pretending you are something you are not, rather than an inconsistency in political policies.....


----------



## tradingtiger (4 February 2010)

The Nikkei 225 peaked at 38,957 on 29/12/1989. The index has only one mining stock 'Impex Group' and seems to contain all old world shares. Probably doesn't represent Japan as well as it did once. Many stocks were on PE ratios of 40 to 60 and when growth collapsed so did the average PE.
One day Australia's mining industry will not represent us as it does today and it may be time to exit the ASX200 around 2035 - 2045 - I'll be dead by then so I don't care really.


But is'nt an index always made up of the leading (top) companies???
Just like the XJO- some will drop off and be replaced by the new leading companies.

Don't they have the equivalent of (Australian) Managed Funds in Japan-and if so- then if the same thing was happenning here (lousy performance)- how would we cope(with retiring).????


----------



## tradingtiger (4 February 2010)

But is'nt an index always made up of the leading (top) companies???
Just like the XJO- some will drop off and be replaced by the new leading companies.

Don't they have the equivalent of (Australian) Managed Funds in Japan-and if so- then if the same thing was happenning here (lousy performance)- how would we cope(with retiring).????


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 February 2010)

tradingtiger said:


> But is'nt an index always made up of the leading (top) companies???
> Just like the XJO- some will drop off and be replaced by the new leading companies.
> 
> Don't they have the equivalent of (Australian) Managed Funds in Japan-and if so- then if the same thing was happenning here (lousy performance)- how would we cope(with retiring).????




Population growth is a big factor to consider in North Asian democratic economies like Japan, Korea and Taiwan before you invest. IMHO.

But again investment advice on ASF is prohibited. 

Do your own research

But will include this Jim Rogers vid. A great person to listen to IMO.


----------



## Julia (4 February 2010)

tradingtiger said:


> Don't they have the equivalent of (Australian) Managed Funds in Japan-and if so- then if the same thing was happenning here (lousy performance)- how would we cope(with retiring).????



Can you explain why you seem to correlate retiring with the performance of managed funds?  Why wouldn't you manage your own investments in retirement?


----------



## Julia (4 February 2010)

When I started the thread, one of the factors I hoped would be discussed was the raising of the Super contribution.  I don't think anyone has passed an opinion on this.

The government is suggesting that much of the need for increased population is to provide an increased tax base for funding the living and healthcare of an expanding aged population.

If our natural resources, e.g. water, and poor infrastructure render considerably increased population a problem, shouldn't we be focusing more on making our existing population more self sufficient in retirement, and increasing the Super contribution to a total of 15% as soon as possible?


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 February 2010)

Julia said:


> When I started the thread, one of the factors I hoped would be discussed was the raising of the Super contribution.  I don't think anyone has passed an opinion on this.
> 
> The government is suggesting that much of the need for increased population is to provide an increased tax base for funding the living and healthcare of an expanding aged population.
> 
> If our natural resources, e.g. water, and poor infrastructure render considerably increased population a problem, shouldn't we be focusing more on making our existing population more self sufficient in retirement, and increasing the Super contribution to a total of 15% as soon as possible?




water is a massive issue Julia. Also, it's great to hear that you earlier mentioned self-managed super.


----------



## tradingtiger (4 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Can you explain why you seem to correlate retiring with the performance of managed funds?  Why wouldn't you manage your own investments in retirement?




I am just interested in how mr/mrs average copes with falling asset values.

All I am doing is trying to compare what a typical managed fund in Japan would be returning to retirees ( in a typical allocated pension) assuming the financial planning world is similiar to here.


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 February 2010)

tradingtiger said:


> All I am doing is trying to compare what a typical managed fund in Japan would be returning to retirees ( in a typical allocated pension) assuming the financial planning world is similiar to here.




Well it's not, watch the Jim Rogers vid one more time. It's important to not have an insular view of the world when it comes to investing. I'm still waiting on the press release from the head of Japan Toyota on the brake faults.


----------



## gooner (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> When I started the thread, one of the factors I hoped would be discussed was the raising of the Super contribution.  I don't think anyone has passed an opinion on this.
> 
> The government is suggesting that much of the need for increased population is to provide an increased tax base for funding the living and healthcare of an expanding aged population.
> 
> If our natural resources, e.g. water, and poor infrastructure render considerably increased population a problem, shouldn't we be focusing more on making our existing population more self sufficient in retirement, and increasing the Super contribution to a total of 15% as soon as possible?




Julia

A very simple excel spreadsheet shows that someone on $50k on the 9% SGC and assuming real investment returns of 5% and real wage growth of 1% pa will have $626,000 after 40 years.

This should be more than enough to provide a comfortable requirement for a single person.  People earning minimum wage will probably need some pension assistance but this is probably better than taking the money off them right now when they need it.


----------



## DocK (5 February 2010)

I'm certainly no expert in economics, so the following is probably guff, but here goes:

As an employer, I shudder at the thought of having to pay 15% super for employees.  In order for our business to remain at current levels of profitability or better, either total wages would have to remain the same - meaning a lower take-home pay for employees, or total payroll would have to remain the same - meaning less employees.  Small businesses in Australia are doing it tough atm, and any increase in compulsory super paid by employers would need to come out of existing gross wages I feel, which would no doubt lead to a lot of very unhappy employees.  It is difficult enough for young people to save for the first home deposit/ pay the rent/ allow one parent time off for having babies etc - without them having to endure an effective paycut in order to have more of their wage put into super.  Personally, I think it more important for the home loan to be paid down as quickly as possible whilst young, then plow money into super once the non-deductible debt is under control.

I can certainly see that an aging population is a problem, and it would be very irresponsible to assume that pensions will remain available in the future on the same basis as at present.  Tax revenue to pay for infrastructure needs to increase - not be siphoned off into more and more pensions. However, I would prefer that the onus to look after your own retirement becomes more your own responsibility, in that if you've provided well enough for yourself you retire when you wish, but if not, you may need to continue working longer than at present.  Raising the pensionable retirement age makes sense to me, as we are generally healthier at 65 than prior generations, and are living longer.  It once was that the average man would retire at 60 and die at 70 - happily this is no longer the norm.  Lowering tax rates for those over say 55/60 would encourage people to stay in the workforce a few years longer and allow for that extra net income to be put into super.  Leaving the compulsory super contribution at 9% should allow most people a comfortable retirement if they plan and manage reasonably well, whilst also allowing younger people greater choice as to where they wish to direct their funds- if I were 25 again I'd be quite concerned about the legislative risks of super and would prefer to keep a good portion of investments away from governmental interference.  If I'd worked and saved all my life only to be told "sorry, but we don't trust you with a lump sum, so here's what you can spend per month of your own money, try not to die before you get to enjoy some of it", I'd be very, very ###### off!

Sorry for the ramble, just my


----------



## Happy (5 February 2010)

gooner said:


> Julia
> 
> A very simple excel spreadsheet shows that someone on $50k on the 9% SGC and assuming real investment returns of 5% and real wage growth of 1% pa will have *$626,000 after 40 years*.
> 
> This should be more than enough to provide a comfortable requirement for a single person.  People earning minimum wage will probably need some pension assistance but this is probably better than taking the money off them right now when they need it.






Every 7 to 10 years value of our money halves.


So in 40 years $626,000 taking 10 years as halving factor, will have buying power of under $40,000 
(Try to live the rest of your life comfortably on it, … lifestyle might need some adjustments to do that)


----------



## Mr J (5 February 2010)

Julia did state a real return, and that takes inflation into account. 



> Every 7 to 10 years value of our money halves.




Do you have figures to support this? That suggests inflation at 8%+.


----------



## Happy (5 February 2010)

Put it different way:

1% real return falls within error that comes with every estimation, so chances are it might be negative.

(Little hint: if pensioners had their pensions adjusted for inflation, why all of the sudden they found themselves on border of poverty?
Little explanation to hint: Government reported inflation does not represent real life inflation, otherwise nobody would feel the pinch.)

Anyway, enjoy your assumptions while they last.


----------



## Mr J (5 February 2010)

I know what you're talking about, but criticising the example in this way is unreasonable. It's an example, not a statement of actual returns. We are asked to assume that these figures are facts in the example, so denying that assumption completely misses the point of the example.



> Government reported inflation does not represent real life inflation




I think most here know that, but you still haven't bothered to give any explanation of your inflation rate of 8%+.


----------



## Happy (5 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> ...
> *I think most here know that*, but you still haven't bothered to give any explanation of your inflation rate of 8%+.





If most know, why bother?


----------



## Julia (5 February 2010)

Happy said:


> If most know, why bother?



Well, I don't, Happy, so would be grateful for your further explanation.

DocK, good points, as usual.

I don't think the 15% suggestion is intended to all come from employers.  What I heard was 12% from employers and 3% from employees.

Your comments about paying off mortgages and not allowing the government to control too much of savings are realistic, but somehow people have to be encouraged to take more responsibility for providing for their own old age.
Governments are still going to have to pick up most of the tab for healthcare which will become more and more expensive as medical technology continues to advance.

I don't know what the best solutions are, but I'm just interested to have the discussion.


----------



## Sidamo (5 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Do you have figures to support this? That suggests inflation at 8%+.




Based on RBA's historical CPI data, goods costing $1000 in 1969 woudl have cost $9783.19 in 2009, for an average inflation of 5.9%pa over 40 years.

http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html

Not sure how accurate that is given changes in composition of the basket of goods used to determine CPI???


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Your comments about paying off mortgages and not allowing the government to control too much of savings are realistic, *but somehow people have to be encouraged to take more responsibility for providing for their own old age.
> *
> I don't know what the best solutions are, but I'm just interested to have the discussion.




This transition from the working age people supporting the non-working age people to a self sufficient older age life is not going to be an easy one.
Since "living" became mainly dependent on the coloured paper, it is indeed possible for people to provide for their own living via the compulsory  superannuation scheme. It is indeed possible but the grey area is 'what lifestyle'. 

This subject does in some way come back to "sleeping in the bed one makes". I strongly suggest that stuffing the pillows with feathers in addition to the compulsory scheme is a prudent act to ensure the bed is not a strip of five ply with foam mattress.


----------



## badger41 (5 February 2010)

Nice to see this thread get back to superannuation, where it started.

IMHO I think Super is one of the biggest con-jobs ever foisted on the Australian people. There seems to be a mantra "put more in to Super", even if you are old, grey and retired. For heaven's sake, why? For minimal tax benefits, but to ensure that once it's in that incredibly complex and controlled system, the Government now controls your money. At Government's whim, it can change the tax situation, the withdrawal regulations etc.

And don't forget the big trap, the 15% tax on capital if you die without a dependent (and, no, adult kids don't count).  Not to mention the management/accounting fees, be it in a retail or SM Fund

As a practical example, take our situation (self and wife). Retired from full time work 18 years ago, from part-time 13 years ago. At that point had around $750K plus a house. Since then have travelled overseas and interstate on many occasions (2 trips to Europe), updated our cars (currently 2004 Mazda 3, 2007 Suzuki SX4). Did the seachange thing, so new and better house for maybe $50K to make the move. But as we get older, our desire for travel, and our overall expenses seem to decrease, so we spend a lot less. Certainly our health costs have increased, but as we are now entitled to a small asset-tested part-age-pension, we get all the health benefits that go with a pensioner card. Just wish the family dog (who's now a "dog senior") got the same benefits - so far $700 a year in vet bills on average.

Anyway, we still find ourselves with $750K plus a house.  I think the gain in value of the house would offset any decline in the purchasing power of the $75K, which got close to $1m before the GFC. Investments roughly 65% equities, 35% cash/fixed deposits.

As for the age pension being reduced or scrapped that's a lot of voters to upset. But it wouldn't surprise me to see the asset test reduced from its current level of $920K or so.

By the way, I pulled out every dollar I had in Super a couple of years back, for reasons given above. Absolutely no regrets. The current ability for over  60's to withdraw tax free is a "window of opportunity" that I didn't intend to miss.

Cheers, badger


----------



## Mr J (5 February 2010)

Happy said:


> If most know, why bother?




I'm questioning your figure, not that inflation is higher than the official figure.


----------



## gooner (5 February 2010)

Any superannuation increase will inevitably come from employees take home pay as it has done in the past. Employers will simply reduce pay rises in lieu of extra amounts going to super. This makes absolute sense. It also increases the national savings rate, assuming people do not spend extra outside to compensate. Downside is for lower income earners who lose money they could do with now.

All of my calculations were on a real basis and therefore ignored inflation. Some research has indicated pensioners have a higher inflation rate as they buy less imported goods which have gone down in price (TV's, kitchen goods, iphones, cars - all the stuff we import), but this is still at the margins. Reality is that 9% super for an average earner gives a large lump sum after 40 years.

As for super, I was on the top tax rate for about 14 years. I put as much as I could put into super because I faced a tax rate of 15% instead of 50%. If I took my salary as cash I got $50 net from $100 gross. As super I got $85 net. An immediate 70% return. For some legislative risk and not being able to access until I turn 59, I consider it a bargain. Got a nice nest egg now. In retrospect, best investment decision I made.


----------



## beaul (5 February 2010)

I have never read so much crap from you guys. 

You obviously all live in big cities and never go out and see the "real" world of Australia.
Australia is not like SE Asia. (fertile with lots of rain)
Most of Australia is dry desert or so infertile it cant even support a goanna. 
I have been and worked there.

We only gave the aboriginals the land we didn't have any use for. (until we found minerals on it)


In the earlier history of Australia my family (German) arrived in 1920 they were SENT to Queensland. The Italians later on, were SENT to North Qld (sugar cane) they weren't asked.
Our government at the time made policies that were in the best interests of Australia. 
If you wanted to migrate to Australia you had to play by our rules.

All that has changed, now the do gooders want to save the world.

Why don't our more recent  migrants,  lebanese, afganistanis, pakistanis,  indians and sri lankans  move into the outback.?
Its no worse than where most of them they came from.(By the way, I have been to those countries.)


The fact is, if we were to do that, they would not come here.

Why because most of Australia  is barren and worthless until a cyclone comes along every 10 years and drops a lot of rain.

Australia is NOT a big country it probably has less arable/productive  land than England or France.

I do think we need a referendum on this matter where the people have a say.

I have never heard a serious debate in recent Australian politics on this matter and it is about time we had one.

I just don't agree that we "need " more people in Australia, and in particular people who should have fixed up their own country before coming here and trying to change ours.

We don't need cheap labour, we can never compete with China.
I also agree that our superannuation is the biggest "con" on Australia after Bob Hawke.


----------



## Trembling Hand (5 February 2010)

beaul said:


> I have never read so much crap from you guys.
> 
> You obviously all live in big cities and never go out and see the "real" world of Australia.






Yep nice post. well argued.


----------



## Happy (5 February 2010)

beaul said:


> I have never read so much crap from you guys.
> ...





I don't disagree with any part of your post except this bit.

People live in different parts of Australia and big cities account for 90% or even more of total population. 
About 60% to 90% of all new arrivals be it plane, boat (sorry mods), or university or TAFE end up in big cities too.

Pumping another 14 million to over stretched services will bring if not cracks to our society if not major disturbances, might bring riots.

I don't think for a minute that Cronulla stuff of Macquarie Fields or Redfern are never to be repeated.

Would hate to be close to the next one or one after that.


----------



## bellenuit (5 February 2010)

beaul said:


> Why don't our more recent  migrants,  lebanese, afganistanis, pakistanis,  indians and sri lankans  move into the outback.?
> Its no worse than where most of them they came from.(By the way, I have been to those countries.)
> 
> 
> The fact is, if we were to do that, they would not come here.




The problem is that if it is forced on the new migrants, you create two classes of citizens. Those who can freely live in the cities and those who can't. I assume the largest portion of recent migrants still come from the UK, Ireland, Europe and S.E. Asia. Are you suggesting that they should have more rights than migrants from the countries you named?

Now while I agree that there may be benefits to dictating where new migrants can live and work, I am sure that we have signed some international treaty or other that prevents this. We could also end being accused of creating apartheid, even if those with less rights are far better off than before they migrated.

The best solution is to make it more attractive for new migrants, in fact for anybody, to live in those areas we want to populate.  Instead of building infrastructure that encourages the growth of the southern coastal cities, spend that money building infrastructure in the northern coastal population centres.


----------



## Julia (5 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> This transition from the working age people supporting the non-working age people to a self sufficient older age life is not going to be an easy one.
> Since "living" became mainly dependent on the coloured paper, it is indeed possible for people to provide for their own living via the compulsory  superannuation scheme. It is indeed possible but the grey area is 'what lifestyle'.
> 
> This subject does in some way come back to "sleeping in the bed one makes". I strongly suggest that stuffing the pillows with feathers in addition to the compulsory scheme is a prudent act to ensure the bed is not a strip of five ply with foam mattress.



Agree entirely.  Nice analogy, Wysiwyg.




badger41 said:


> Nice to see this thread get back to superannuation, where it started.
> 
> IMHO I think Super is one of the biggest con-jobs ever foisted on the Australian people. There seems to be a mantra "put more in to Super", even if you are old, grey and retired. For heaven's sake, why? For minimal tax benefits, but to ensure that once it's in that incredibly complex and controlled system, the Government now controls your money. At Government's whim, it can change the tax situation, the withdrawal regulations etc.
> 
> ...



But if you've pulled your funds out of Super, aren't you now paying tax on the earnings plus capital gains, whereas if you'd left them in Super and were in pension phase which obviously you are, you'd not be paying any tax?

If you have a SMSF you have control over how, where and when the funds are invested.  This, imo, is its huge advantage over using public Super managed funds which on the whole produce very mediocre results.





beaul said:


> I have never read so much crap from you guys.



It's so good to have an input from someone with such clearly honed perception and excellent command of the language.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 February 2010)

We need a inland state, a state with no coast line, a state where a new city can grow and suck in 2 or 3 million people....sure there's not a lot to inland Australia but the main reason there's nothing there is that there is no inland state...no capital to provide white collar careers and services, no critical mass.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 February 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> We need a inland state, a state with no coast line, a state where a new city can grow and suck in 2 or 3 million people....sure there's not a lot to inland Australia but the main reason there's nothing there is that there is no inland state...no capital to provide white collar careers and services, no critical mass.




Could change the A.C.T. to a state and all the criteria are met. :aus:


----------



## DocK (6 February 2010)

I am reminded of a movie (think it may have been Gallipolli?) where a young guy off to war explains to an old man in central Australia that "if we don't stop them there, they might invade here" and the old guy ascerbically replies "and they're welcome to it".  Or something along those lines...

It is indeed a problem that us Aussies love to live near water, and that the vast majority of us are clustered around the edges of our country.  I grew up in regional Queensland, and much prefer the Gold Coast  Our young people are deserting the little country towns that were once the backbone of Australia to flee to the cities as quickly as they can.  Our towns are dying.  Our migrants naturally want to live where the majority of us do - for the same reasons as the rest of us.

I think the clever hats need to come up with some very good incentives to entice people away from the cities and back to the towns.  To use Mt Isa as an example - there is no reason I can think of to move there apart from the possibility of earning good money (unless you're an ugly woman, according to Mt Isa's mayor).  Maybe if there were good tax breaks for living in regional areas, more people would move to those areas to benefit from lower taxes.  As Bellenuit has said, if more Govt funds were spent on infrastructure in inland or northern coastal Australia, it would be more attractive to new Aussies to live there.

I dimly recall that in my first job, employees transferred "out west" received a "living away from home" bonus, or some type of bonus for "living more than 5 hours from ocean" - maybe all taxpayers should be offered something similar?


----------



## DocK (6 February 2010)

gooner said:


> Any superannuation increase will inevitably come from employees take home pay as it has done in the past. Employers will simply reduce pay rises in lieu of extra amounts going to super. This makes absolute sense. It also increases the national savings rate, assuming people do not spend extra outside to compensate. *Downside is for lower income earners who lose money they could do with now.*
> All of my calculations were on a real basis and therefore ignored inflation. Some research has indicated pensioners have a higher inflation rate as they buy less imported goods which have gone down in price (TV's, kitchen goods, iphones, cars - all the stuff we import), but this is still at the margins. Reality is that 9% super for an average earner gives a large lump sum after 40 years.
> 
> As for super, I was on the top tax rate for about 14 years. I put as much as I could put into super because I faced a tax rate of 15% instead of 50%. If I took my salary as cash I got $50 net from $100 gross. As super I got $85 net. An immediate 70% return. For some legislative risk and not being able to access until I turn 59, I consider it a bargain. Got a nice nest egg now. In retrospect, best investment decision I made.




I can certainly understand *your* decision to put extra into super Gooner, as on your tax rate it would certainly make sense, but sometimes I think some posters on this forum lose sight of the "Aussie battlers" who are on minimum or average wage and are pushing it uphill just to get by.  I look at our employees and know that the last thing they need is less take-home pay.  They're on 30c tax rate, late 20's to mid 30's and in the saving for deposit/paying off mortgage/having babies stages of life.  They've had 9% of their wages put into super for almost their entire working lives, unlike us older folk.  People my age and older are the ones in the most strife, if we haven't looked after ourselves, as we didn't have compulsory super forced on us and may therefore have way too little set aside.  I agree with Wsiwyg that some extra "plumping of the pillows" would be a very good idea for those currently having 9% put away, but at least they should be able to "exist" on only the compulsory super accumulated, if that is all they eventually have.  If not, I think they should have to work a little longer, if able, to provide for themselves.  I don't think having more of their earnings taken away from them now, while they need them, is the best answer - and would no doubt be political suicide for any government that tried to enforce it.  

Perhaps compulsory super contributions should be scaled according to age - starting at 5%, increasing to 9% at say, 30 years of age, and increasing again to 12% at 40, 15% at 50 - as people age they will hopefully have the mortgage reduced, the kids educated etc and have more disposable income to contribute to their retirement.


----------



## gooner (6 February 2010)

DocK said:


> ....snip...
> 
> I dimly recall that in my first job, employees transferred "out west" received a "living away from home" bonus, or some type of bonus for "living more than 5 hours from ocean" - maybe all taxpayers should be offered something similar?




There is an existing remote area tax offset

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.asp?doc=/content/rebate_zone.html


----------



## DocK (6 February 2010)

gooner said:


> There is an existing remote area tax offset
> 
> http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.asp?doc=/content/rebate_zone.html




Ah, there you go, shows how little I know.  Maybe the zones should be widened and/or the offset increased.  

Off to work, will be intrigued to see how you've all solved our problems upon my return


----------



## So_Cynical (6 February 2010)

gooner said:


> There is an existing remote area tax offset
> 
> http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.asp?doc=/content/rebate_zone.html




And its a joke...Ceduna don't qualify for the offset even though its 750+ kilometres to the state capital, (Adelaide) and 360+ kilometres to larger medical, shopping and social centres (Port Lincoln, Port Augusta)


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 February 2010)

Australia needs 50 million to provide security and opportunity.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 February 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Australia needs 50 million to provide security and opportunity.




Why stop there? In case you have underestimated, how about making it 75 million, just to be _safe_?

Awww, shucks. Make it a neat 100 million. Rounded figures are easier to deal with....


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 February 2010)

Aussiejeff said:


> Why stop there? In case you have underestimated, how about making it 75 million, just to be _safe_?
> 
> Awww, shucks. Make it a neat 100 million. Rounded figures are easier to deal with....



I think you may have caught one of these ... 



> Posts may be factually incorrect, taken out of context, misinterpreted, or left in the fridge for too long


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

> He said greater publicly-funded health, aged care and related expenditures to support generation X and Y in their retirement years will need to come from a relatively smaller number of workers.



http://www.thebull.com.au/articles_detail.php?id=9599

What basis do people make these projections on? Why will a relatively smaller number of workers need to support elderly people? I think people can be looking after themselves financially while not relying on the community to fill the financial gaps. Money to pay for the inevitable assistance we all need at an older age is what is required and there is plenty of people to fill the assistance roles required.
I think these forward lookers aren't looking at what is needed if people are going to be living longer. They need more of their own money.


----------



## Happy (20 February 2010)

100 million? why stop there make it 1 billion.


No matter how we do it to supposedly support older generation with extra population, one day will be the day that growth cannot be sustained and we will be caught with pants down big time.

What consecutive Governments do is delay the inevitable so this doesn’t happen now.

If you ask me? JUST BIG JOKE.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 February 2010)

Happy said:


> 100 million? why stop there make it 1 billion.
> 
> 
> No matter how we do it to supposedly support older generation with extra population, one day will be the day that growth cannot be sustained and we will be caught with pants down big time.
> ...




.... and the best part of all is.... the joke is on _us_.

Gotta love the punch line....


----------



## nioka (20 February 2010)

The actual number is not as important as the make up of that number or the place of settlement. Why import the problems of the countries they want to leave.
The NIMBY in me says it is okay to double the numbers in Sydney or Melbourne as long as I don't cop the cost of their water desalination, their road congestion or their power generation. ( I dont intend to go there). However keep the coastal population down elsewhere as it would spoil my fishing. (except in the Northern Territory or the north of West Aust. I don"t intend to go there again either.)

Or just delay the program for a few years and it will be someone elses problem. Bring them all from Tibet maybe. Aren't they a peace loving mob of hard workers. Settle them near Canberra and rename it "Little Tibet". Maybe not. That would give the Chinese a takeover target.

Maybe I'll have to follow Pauline and go to the home of my ancestors.

Hard decisions are best not made on the weekend. Back to the garden.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think these forward lookers aren't looking at what is needed if people are going to be living longer. They need more of their own money.



Though I do not want to live longer than I can physically look after myself. When I see people that can't look after themselves it brings sad emotion to me.


----------



## tunrida (20 February 2010)

No chance of changing the status quo where all things religous and political depend on growth - jobs, paypackets, production etc etc and the easiest way to get growth is population increase - so we pay low socio-economic single mothers to encourage them to pump out six more.
A wee problem with all this is that the largest contributor to climate change is population growth. But this is not on the agenda and won't be because too many votes would be lost.
16 September 2009 – A senior United Nations adviser has called on world governments to reduce population growth and work together to keep climate change from causing an immense human catastrophe, starkly warning: *“We’re on a trajectory that is absolutely unsustainable and profoundly dangerous.” *
Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Special Adviser to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that seek to slash a host of social ills by 2015, said the rich world should pay for much of the necessary mitigating steps. 
“We’re in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth's processes. Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva yesterday.  - emphasis mine!


----------



## The Once-ler (22 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Australia also imported 64.9% food in agricultural products in 2007.





I thought everyone knew the amount of food Australian farmers produce? Australia grows enough food for 60 million westerners, or 100's of millions on a developing world diet. 

Australian farmers can't help it if consumers feel the need to import highly processed small good's, chocolate, french wine etc.



Australia produces on average 40 million tonnes of grain a year, or nearly 2 tonnes per person. This compares with a global average of just 350 kgs per person. The US, regarded as the food bowl of the world produces 1230 kgs per person, China, 325 kgs per person, and just 90 kg's per person in Zimbabwe.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5539


Australia is the worlds second largest exporter of beef behind Brazil, and exports 65% of it's beef production.

Australia exports half it's dairy production. Accounts for 16% of global dairy exports and is the third biggest exporter.

Australia exports wool, cotton, lamb, sugar, and almost every food type.

Other info here,.....

http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/affaoverview.html


Everyone should know these facts. Especially since agriculture in Australia is also not subsidised, where as in most other places in the world, the food produced costs the poor tax payer an absolute fortune in farm subsidies.


----------



## Knoxy (22 February 2010)

Once-ler, you'd have to admit that on your list there are things Australia shouldn't produce because they are unsustainable here eg. cotton and rice take heaps of water. 

Also no-one could look at the state of rivers, groundwater and spreading salinity and say that our agricultural practices are sustainable. A kiwi originally, I travelled around Aus prospecting wind farms for a couple of years and the state of the poor sheep and cattle I saw was deplorable. Us kiwis like our sheep, but believe they should eat grass in a country suited to growing them. White sheep so much more attractive... 

Quite simply, other than some crops eg. wheat, Australia is very unsuited to agriculture on the current scale.


----------



## The Once-ler (22 February 2010)

Knoxy said:


> Quite simply, other than some crops eg. wheat, Australia is very unsuited to agriculture on the current scale.





How is agriculture unsuited when Australia produces so much excess? I'd think Australia's excess food production per capita would be second only to New Zealands. However it is much more diversified than New Zealands. Did you realise New Zealand is a big grain importer, and it mostly comes from Australia? 

I've had a fair look about New Zealand too. The amount of water being pumped from underground aquifers in places like the Canterbury Plains is frightening. There is no controls over it, no limitations, and the bores are going down as fast as the drills will drill. Remember, the Canterbury Plains is really very dry from 500 to 600 mills average rainfall. Much dryer than the part of northern NSW I'm from, and without irrigation it would be a very poor producer of food. Lets hope those aquifers can hold up eh? The West coast of the south island is so wet it's basically useless agriculturally, and does produce not much. North Island is very nice. 

I've also seen droughts in New Zealand. New Zealand is certainly very productive agriculturally. But that just means a drought hits harder and faster too. New Zealand will be in drought in a month, where in a low stocking, low producing area in Australia a drought might not take effect for 3 months.

It sounds like you have made your views on Australian agriculture from a trip through the desert. The production figures are all there for anyone to see. The food crisis of 2 years ago was partly triggered from the drought here. Australia is a major food exporter, just like New Zealand, and I don't see why any of that production is unsustainable, except for, as you mentioned, cotton and rice, which really are fairly small crops.

There will be a lot of countries in trouble if Australia stopped exporting food. It's another reason why we should keep our population low, because once we are eating it all ourselves, who does the other places get their food from?


----------



## disarray (22 February 2010)

the more people we add the more efficient we will need to be to maintain current lifestyle levels. without more efficiencies (and capital) things will just gradually descend into a gridlocked, ecologically ravaged pit of suck and make everyone miserable.

with sensible urban planning, water management, and common sense farming practices we could comfortably support a much larger population, but the tasks required are huge and beyond the capacity of our current socio-political system. as long as people are paid to be useless and punished for productivity the system will continue to degrade.


----------



## Knoxy (22 February 2010)

The Once-ler said:


> Remember, the Canterbury Plains is really very dry from 500 to 600 mills average rainfall.
> 
> I've also seen droughts in New Zealand.
> 
> It sounds like you have made your views on Australian agriculture from a trip through the desert.




Once-ler, appreciate your comments, I wasn't holding NZ up as the answer, too small and I'm proud to be an Aussie. Orig from Canterbury and yes the annual rainfall is about 650mm. However, the artesian supplies come from the Southern Alps, not rainfall over Canterbury. There are places with 10 - 15 m rainfall and NZ's snow is very reliable. 

I listen a bit to talkback radio and in last year or two have been hearing about the high farmer depression and suicide rate, the farmers sons walking off the land and the significant problems with the Murray River system. Yes that's drought, but drought may be normal.

With the wind farms, I've designed/built in Tassie, Eyre Peninsula, West Vic and Hunter Valley. Poorest condition sheep I've seen were outside Queanbeyan. All the landowners find the $6k per turbine pa to be gold given the drought. I'm also involved with Vic's desalination project. So have seen a few of the problems.

Anyway, off target. I think there has to be a limit to desirable population, 6.5 B seems too much for Earth maybe 50 M too much for Aus.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2017)

Why don't we have a population policy ?

https://theconversation.com/austral...hy-78183?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for July 3 2017 - 77556139&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for July 3 2017 - 77556139+CID_6fbca7ad3d4f0815d56c904b523ebb43&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Australia doesnt have a population policy why


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't we have a population policy ?



 Greed.  You have to join a few dots.  Go ahead and join them.


----------



## SirRumpole (4 July 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Greed.  You have to join a few dots.  Go ahead and join them.




It's not greed if the government has to fork out more welfare for the migrants who can't get a job, it's stoopidity. The business lobby says they need more consumers, but they don't want to give them jobs, and governments fall for it. 

Stoopid.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not greed if the government has to fork out more welfare for the migrants who can't get a job, it's stoopidity. The business lobby says they need more consumers, but they don't want to give them jobs, and governments fall for it.
> 
> Stoopid.




As you know, the business lobby represents the ruling class.  They have an enormous amount to gain from a big Australia.  And yeh, governments do whatever the ruling class tells them to do.  It doesn't bother the ruling class one bit if there's a massive underclass of non-English speaking migrants who have no interest in assimilating or working.

When problems arise - as they have, big time - the ruling class tells the governments to crack down on any and all forms of rorting.  Everything from welfare fraud to international tax avoidance.  Usually they don't like 'crack downs', because sometimes even _they _have to pay, as in the case of the banks recently.  Easy solution though, offset it.  Make the consumer carry it.

Australia's living standards have dropped significantly, and it's all due to greed.  Out of control breeding in China and India makes it many times more problematic.  Unsustainable rabbit-like breeding, enough to choke the planet.


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> As you know, the business lobby represents the ruling class.  They have an enormous amount to gain from a big Australia.  And yeh, governments do whatever the ruling class tells them to do.  It doesn't bother the ruling class one bit if there's a massive underclass of non-English speaking migrants who have no interest in assimilating or working.
> 
> When problems arise - as they have, big time - the ruling class tells the governments to crack down on any and all forms of rorting.  Everything from welfare fraud to international tax avoidance.  Usually they don't like 'crack downs', because sometimes even _they _have to pay, as in the case of the banks recently.  Easy solution though, offset it.  Make the consumer carry it.
> 
> Australia's living standards have dropped significantly, and it's all due to greed.  Out of control breeding in China and India makes it many times more problematic.  Unsustainable rabbit-like breeding, enough to choke the planet.




Just until recently, China have a one child policy. So only their very rich would have two children. The poor will either have to drown their daughters or have the second pregnancy forced out of them. i.e. What breeding problem in China?  

Well, they do need to breed at least one kid. Who's going to take care of them when they're old? The State?

Poverty has never been caused by over-population. It's always caused by the rich being stupid and greedy that they want more and more, extracting all the wealth and life out of the working poor among them and among their colonies. Then after a being crapped on for too much and too long that there's nothing to lose, the poor and stupid masses just rise up, chop heads, take all properties and form of gov't... then their rebel leaders soon enough replace the former ruling elite with themselves and their princelings. 

Circle of life. The non-Disney version.


----------



## luutzu (4 July 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's not greed if the government has to fork out more welfare for the migrants who can't get a job, it's stoopidity. The business lobby says they need more consumers, but they don't want to give them jobs, and governments fall for it.
> 
> Stoopid.




I heard that 95% of Australians are "unnecessary". It costs money to breed, feed and educate... why bother when you can just import an instant "skilled" immigrant who will also need to bring in cash, cannot receive welfare for the first couple of years, and will work for cheap. 

So it is only stupid if you look at it from a sensible, all we Aussies are brothers of a different mother kind of way. If you look at people as dollar and cents, it makes more money and gain more political points if you privatise the prisons, then pass laws to lock up those "surplus" population. 

That or send them off to foreign wars to die for their country, freedom this and other stuff.

There's a lot of things wrong with the country when the gov't somehow thought businesses should be paid to take on free labour. 

I mean, here... take this useless piece of trash we haven't bothered to train or educate, get them to do whatever crap you like for three months and we'll pay you for your kindness and patriotism. 

What happen after three months? If 3 months isn't enough time to learn a lifelong skill, and it won't... then just kick them out, get a new coolie and we'll give you another bonus. 

You can't make these stuff up.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2017)

luutzu said:


> I heard that 95% of Australians are "unnecessary". It costs money to breed, feed and educate... why bother when you can just import an instant "skilled" immigrant who will also need to bring in cash, cannot receive welfare for the first couple of years, and will work for cheap.
> 
> So it is only stupid if you look at it from a sensible, all we Aussies are brothers of a different mother kind of way. If you look at people as dollar and cents, it makes more money and gain more political points if you privatise the prisons, then pass laws to lock up those "surplus" population.
> 
> ...




We do seem to have a bit of a problem, getting the younger generation motivated, also they don't seem to want to have kids bothering them.
That may explain, why we have 1600/week, coming into the Country.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2017)

sptrawler said:


> We do seem to have a bit of a problem, getting the younger generation motivated, also they don't seem to want to have kids bothering them.




Because they can't afford to have kids perhaps ? If they can't afford a mortgage then why add to debt woes by having children ?

The same will apply to migrants coming here, that's why a lot of them end up on welfare.


----------



## qldfrog (5 July 2017)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Out of control breeding in China and India makes it many times more problematic.



Do not mix China and India: there is no and has not been any out of control breeding in China for the last 50 years and I do not worry at all about Chinese natality, but have a look at Egypt and the whole of Africa, indonesia, Pakistan , philippines etc etc and be scared..with also  common trait: religion


----------

