Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Aussie Tax Rates

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Marlon

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Can someone please supply me with the current (approximate) income
tax rates by salary range?

For example, the current U.S.A. rates are (approximately) this:

$0 - $23K 15%
$23-$56k 28%
$56-118 31%
$118-256 36%
$256k+ 39.6%

I know that Australia's would be much higher, but curious as to how much.
Can you please e-mail me a copy of your posting to this group?

Thanks in advance.
Marlon.
am...@westernpower.wa.gov.au

Sen Hwei CHAN

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to


Marlon <am...@westernpower.wa.gov.au> wrote in article
<544acb$l...@wind.westernpower.wa.gov.au>...


> Can someone please supply me with the current (approximate) income
> tax rates by salary range?
>
> For example, the current U.S.A. rates are (approximately) this:
>
> $0 - $23K 15%
> $23-$56k 28%
> $56-118 31%
> $118-256 36%
> $256k+ 39.6%
>
> I know that Australia's would be much higher, but curious as to how much.
> Can you please e-mail me a copy of your posting to this group?

Marlon,

Schedule 7 Income Tax Rates Act 1986 :

Resident Taxpayers :-

$5,400 - $20,700 20%
$20,700 - $38,000 34%
$38,000 - $50,000 43%
$50,000 and above 47%

You must also add a Medicare levy of 1.5%

Regards,

Sen Hwei CHAN

Alan Luchetti

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

"Sen Hwei CHAN" <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Marlon <am...@westernpower.wa.gov.au> wrote...

>> Can someone please supply me with the current (approximate) income
>> tax rates by salary range?
>>
>> For example, the current U.S.A. rates are (approximately) this:
>>
>> $0 - $23K 15%
>> $23-$56k 28%
>> $56-118 31%
>> $118-256 36%
>> $256k+ 39.6%
>>
>> I know that Australia's would be much higher, but curious as to
>> how much.

>Schedule 7 Income Tax Rates Act 1986 :


>
>Resident Taxpayers :-
>
>$5,400 - $20,700 20%
>$20,700 - $38,000 34%
>$38,000 - $50,000 43%
>$50,000 and above 47%
>
>You must also add a Medicare levy of 1.5%

But hardly any property tax and no succession duty. Overall, the US is
higher-taxed than Australia. Among OECD nations, only Turkey is taxed
lower.


Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Brett Cranch <shu...@dot.net.au> writes:

>You must be joking. The income tax rates in Australia suck. Also we are
>paying more sales tax than the USA which has the sales tax ADDED when
>you pay for the item, so you know how much you're paying. In Australia,
>sales tax rates are around 15% plus. (Double the US)

Not to mention the outrageous taxes on cars - getting a car costs somewhere
between 3 and 5 times as much as in the US, and petrol prices are generally
more than double the US price. Books and CDs cost 2-3 times as much as the
US price. Clothes are about 3 times as expensive as in the US. Food is
sometimes about the same, but there is much less variety here. You can't
write off your mortgage payments on tax in Australia either ... and of
course salaries are 1.5-3 times higher in the US.

Oh, and then there's the banks ... savings accounts get something like
0.5 to 2 percent interest, but there are taxes on withdrawals and on
deposits. Credit cards cost 22.5% interest across the board. You can't
get fixed-rate loans on mortgages ...

Payroll taxes - want to employ someone? Pay. Capital Gains. Compulsory
Superannuation. Compulsory Medicare levies ... and that's for hospitals
that are DANGEROUS. Every time you do anything in this country the
government has its hand out.

Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than
the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.

--
| mailto:pe...@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ | Give away what you don't need. |

Brett Cranch

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Alan Luchetti wrote:
>
> "Sen Hwei CHAN" <s32...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >Marlon <am...@westernpower.wa.gov.au> wrote...
>
> >> Can someone please supply me with the current (approximate) income
> >> tax rates by salary range?
> >>
> >> For example, the current U.S.A. rates are (approximately) this:
> >>
> >> $0 - $23K 15%
> >> $23-$56k 28%
> >> $56-118 31%
> >> $118-256 36%
> >> $256k+ 39.6%
> >>
> >> I know that Australia's would be much higher, but curious as to
> >> how much.
>
> >Schedule 7 Income Tax Rates Act 1986 :
> >
> >Resident Taxpayers :-
> >
> >$5,400 - $20,700 20%
> >$20,700 - $38,000 34%
> >$38,000 - $50,000 43%
> >$50,000 and above 47%
> >
> >You must also add a Medicare levy of 1.5%
>
> But hardly any property tax and no succession duty. Overall, the US is
> higher-taxed than Australia. Among OECD nations, only Turkey is taxed
> lower.

========


You must be joking. The income tax rates in Australia suck. Also we are
paying more sales tax than the USA which has the sales tax ADDED when
you pay for the item, so you know how much you're paying. In Australia,

sales tax rates are around 15% plus. (Double the US) If we introduced
taxes on winfalls (Lottery winning etc) we would be taxing those who CAN
afford to pay. This would allow the government to lower the INSANE
personal income tax rates, which only hurt the middle classes. The upper
classes just put all their income/assets etc into a company, so they
avoid paying any tax.

George Antony Ph 93818

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>Not to mention the outrageous taxes on cars - getting a car costs somewhere
>between 3 and 5 times as much as in the US,

Books and CDs cost 2-3 times as much as the
>US price.

>Credit cards cost 22.5% interest across the board.

>Australia is largely a socialist country,

Gee, Peter, you must have a bad day, and you want to take it out on Oz
as a whole. Your kaltchur article can be interpreted as subjective opinion
to which you are entitled. However, most of your numerical comparisons
with the US are plain wrong, just as the figures that you quote on Oz.
The most outrageous errors are above: just try to have a decent look and
you will realize how wrong you are.

George Antony

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

ant...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:

>Gee, Peter, you must have a bad day, and you want to take it out on Oz
>as a whole. Your kaltchur article can be interpreted as subjective opinion
>to which you are entitled. However, most of your numerical comparisons
>with the US are plain wrong, just as the figures that you quote on Oz.

Speaking as a Sydney resident about six months away from emigrating from
oz to the US, and speaking purely from my own observations of prices on
a recent trip to the US, the figures I've described are typical. I
should say that the figures I'm describing may be biased towards the
situation in Sydney, and Sydney is certainly the most expensive place
to live in Oz. However, for the most part, I'm of the opinion that my
observations are fairly generic - if you're used to US conditions,
Australia is not a place to come to for business opportunities. Period.

If you're looking for a place to go on the bum, on the other hand, it's
really the best. We've got, what, 25% of our population living at the
taxpayers' expense? And don't forget - thousands of miles of beautiful
beaches. If you want to live in government housing or in a trailer on
a beach, there's no better country for it.

>The most outrageous errors are above: just try to have a decent look and
>you will realize how wrong you are.

If you have figures of your own George I'd very much like to see them.

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

In article <54752a$p...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>If you're looking for a place to go on the bum, on the other hand, it's
>really the best. We've got, what, 25% of our population living at the
>taxpayers' expense? And don't forget - thousands of miles of beautiful
>beaches. If you want to live in government housing or in a trailer on
>a beach, there's no better country for it.

Of course in the US its more like 50% on the bum. And relatively little
in the way of social services. Yet with total taxation at around the same
pct of GDP as Aus.

I note that while Aus has been criticised this wk for being "up there"
in terms of child and general poverty in the Developed World,
the US rates of numbers living under the same poverty line were
substantially greater.

The US -- a great place to live if you have a better-than-average job.
(Aus average wages have been a bit higher than the US in numerical and real
terms over the past decade, according to the Economist).

--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>If you want a taxation system the same as the American one, the solution
>is obvious. Go and live there.

I agree, that is indeed obvious. I wouldn't suggest that the American
taxation system is a lot of fun, but it's obvious to anyone who spends a few
months that the average standard of material wealth is much higher there.
Most people own their own houses. Most people have cars less than 5 years
old. Most people wear new clothes and new shoes. It's a rotten place to
be unemployed, of course, but if you're an average nine-to-fiver you're
much much better off, materially, in most of the cities there.

>But hint -- make sure you have a good job. Well... that might be
>a bit of a problem to arrange for the long-term because there aren't
>any long term jobs in the US anymore...

I can't speak for other professions, but if you're a competent software
developer you don't have much of a worry with regards to employment in
the US, except for getting yourself a visa.

>... OK ... just make sure you don't get sick.

Bullshit. American health insurance is maybe 3 times as expensive as
Australian health insurance, but the standard of care there is *vastly*
higher than here. The head of the victorian surgeons association (?)
resigned just the other day in protest at the appalling conditions in
Australian hospitals. He said that ONE IN FIVE surgical patients in
Victorian hospitals contract Golden Staph! And the stats published last
year showed that 14% of the patients that are admitted to Australian
hospitals die or are seriously maimed due to errors on the part of
medical staff. Not 14% of the deaths - 14% of the admissions! If it's
possible to keep yourself out of the clutches of Australian doctors,
it seems you'd be well advised to do so ...

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

In article <547bvg$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:

>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>>Of course in the US its more like 50% on the bum.
>
>Is that figure the product of your imagination? If you'll trouble yourself
>to look at "http://nmg.clever.net/wew/curves/uslm001.html", you'll see that
>their present unemployment rate is about 5.5% - where do you get the other
>44.5% from?

From the same place that someone say 25% of Aussies were on the bum.

I presumed they were talking about the size of the workforce.

I.e. 50% of Americans work. 65% of Australians work.

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

In article <547ano$6...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>>If you want a taxation system the same as the American one, the solution
>>is obvious. Go and live there.
>
>I agree, that is indeed obvious. I wouldn't suggest that the American
>taxation system is a lot of fun, but it's obvious to anyone who spends a few
>months that the average standard of material wealth is much higher there.
-------

>Most people own their own houses. Most people have cars less than 5 years
>old. Most people wear new clothes and new shoes. It's a rotten place to
>be unemployed, of course, but if you're an average nine-to-fiver you're
-------

>much much better off, materially, in most of the cities there.

By "average" I presume you mean "what I saw on the streets" rather
than "some number in a book". I think in EITHER of these contexts
"average" can be misleading. I'll get around to this below.
(But don't expect not to become confused by pre-meanderings ;-).

Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
if you take into account liabilities. (I understand around 1/2 the
US population has negative net assets). Not that Australians can
crow -- but the "typical Aussie" is somewhat better off than
the "typical American" -- even if they might pay more (income) taxes
if they earn $50K+ pa.

I had some numbers around here somewhere about what proportions of
each country owned what proportions of overall assets. With a bit
of digging I'll post them later.

I would argue that if your impression is that the AVERAGE standard of
wealth is (obviously) higher in America it could be because you were
inadvertantly selective in your data gathering.

I.e. as essentially a tourist you will not normally go to certain places
or see much of a reprasentive cross-section of the country anyway.
E.g. did you visit Mississippi or the "poor south"? Did you do head
counts in the back blocks of NY city, Detroit, Chicago, or Washington DC?
Tourists normally keep to the bright light areas (which for downtown LA
can be pretty "educational" anyway) so I presume you may have only seen
the CBD's and "nicer" residential suburbs.

As for "home owners" in each country. These are a _comparative_ rarity in
the US. Australia is **a-typical** in copying the specifically Californian
idea of a 1/4-acre block for the "typical" suburban homestead. Hence C20
Australia might resemble California, but Cal isn't "typical" of America.

Millions of Americans -- in the East -- live in walk-up flats or
simply rent a bedroom in a structure that might otherwise LOOK like a
double-story timber house.

But of course a significant number of Americans don't live in large cities,
as they do in Australia (Aus is a very urban country by world standards).
Rural areas have their own problems with "wealth distribution".

Quite a few Americans don't live in *any* home. But chronic problems of
homelessness is getting a little off the thread.
(Last I heard there were more than 1000 organisations of the comparative
size of the Sydney City Mission, taking care of homeless people,
in NEW YORK CITY ALONE).

Income (as opposed to net assets) skewness I've also covered before.
Pretty much the same story obtains. Better to live in Australia if you're
just a "typical" member of the population.

It certainly is the case that there are many millionaires and
billionaires per capita in the US -- accounting for more than
2% of the US population. Such a situation does drag up "average wealth" --
because it doesn't take too many rich and super-rich to drag up an average
income or average wealth figure. Therefore "average" (in terms of
what you might see on paper, rather than in the streets)
can be more than a little misleading.

I.e. we have country A and B with populations of 10 people (doesn't
really matter that we have small countries, does it?). In country A
everyone has an income of $1000 a month. In country B 9 people have
an income of $500 per month and 1 person has an income of $10,000 per month.

I.e. country A has average m'ly income of $1000 (obviously), while
country B has an income of $1450 per month. Which country has the
better average income (B)? Which country has a better TOTAL income
-- skin to a GDP in this simple example (B)? But which country would you
want to live in (me: A; I don't know about anyone else)?

The idea of "average income" or "average assets" can even lead people
[and I have someone specific in mind here ;-) ]
to declare things like:

\begin{non_sqeuitur}
Look -- there is this big disparity between rich and poor in the US.
But the AVERAGE wealth in the US is higher than [here]. Hence it
must be the case that a large disparity is good for everyone.
\end{non_sqeuitur}

Another way to view the situation -- for cynical "crypto leftists"
(as someone inanely labelled me as some point) anyway --
is that some economies operate on the "Casino principle".

\begin{inane_principle}
Hey look! There is this really big prize that you can win! Isn't it
worth a try? SOMEONE comes up a winner each draw! It could be YOU!
\end{inane_principle}

Obviously this kind of argument can be of great appeal to those instilled
with the cult of individualism from birth.

Personally, I take the view that I am "typical" and hence -- if motivated
only by self-interest -- would plug away for a system that gave benefits to
the greatest number that was possible (hence maximizing my chances that I
would be included in this group, rather than maximizing my payoff SHOULD I
be in that group). And the mathematically-inclined will note this is
distinct from "maximizing the average".

Finally, my personal measures of "wealth" include things like potholes
in the street, lighting along highways and bridge maintenance.
While I lived in the US I always noticed that along suburban roads there
were comparatively few street lights (i.e. every 1/4 mile or so).
You almost go blind driving around outer sub'n areas in Aussie capital
cities, in comparison. (An arc light every 50 metres!!!???)

Sometime in the early 90s some American department or other decided
to start looking at bridge maintenance. Around the country it found
quite a few bridges that needed a bit of work. ("Low taxes" == no
work on bridges). A couple of the major networks carried the story
that the survey had found more than 5,000 major bridges that were
in CRITICAL need of repair. By "critical" they wern't joking, according
to some of the footage.

I realise that cars driving over a bridge
and falling through a huge hole that opens up in the roadbed can happen
in Australia -- in the US they worry about how many such cases they
have annually.

It makes the insurance premium go WAY up if the
number is higher than predicted.

Jim Francis

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Peter Merel wrote:
snip

>
> Bullshit. American health insurance is maybe 3 times as expensive as
> Australian health insurance, but the standard of care there is *vastly*
> higher than here. The head of the victorian surgeons association (?)
> resigned just the other day in protest at the appalling conditions in
> Australian hospitals. He said that ONE IN FIVE surgical patients in
> Victorian hospitals contract Golden Staph! And the stats published last
> year showed that 14% of the patients that are admitted to Australian
> hospitals die or are seriously maimed due to errors on the part of
> medical staff. Not 14% of the deaths - 14% of the admissions! If it's
> possible to keep yourself out of the clutches of Australian doctors,
> it seems you'd be well advised to do so ...

Is this correct? I find it very difficult to believe that 1 out of every
7 people admitted to hospital in Oz die or are injured due to medical
negligence......

--

It's no good dying healthy
Jim Francis - Melbourne - Australia

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

In article <32664F...@dot.net.au>, Brett Cranch <shu...@dot.net.au> wrote:
>You must be joking. The income tax rates in Australia suck. Also we are
>paying more sales tax than the USA which has the sales tax ADDED when
>you pay for the item, so you know how much you're paying. In Australia,
>sales tax rates are around 15% plus. (Double the US) If we introduced
>taxes on winfalls (Lottery winning etc) we would be taxing those who CAN
>afford to pay. This would allow the government to lower the INSANE
>personal income tax rates, which only hurt the middle classes. The upper
>classes just put all their income/assets etc into a company, so they
>avoid paying any tax.


Since total State and Fed taxation in Australia is quite comparable with the USA
(both inside the 12.9 to 13.2% of GDP range over the past few years)
we know that while some taxes in each country will be larger or smaller,
others must be smaller or larger.

While some people whine about how high the highest tax bracket is,
they seem to believe this affects the majority of the population.

If you want a taxation system the same as the American one, the solution
is obvious.

Go and live there.

But hint -- make sure you have a good job. Well... that might be


a bit of a problem to arrange for the long-term because there aren't
any long term jobs in the US anymore...

... OK ... just make sure you don't get sick.

--

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>From the same place that someone say 25% of Aussies were on the bum.
>I presumed they were talking about the size of the workforce.

>I.e. 50% of Americans work. 65% of Australians work.

Ah, actually I was referring to the number of Australians living at the
taxpayers' expense. But again, with the difference in welfare systems,
the stats get muddy quick. Cf. concessions in my previous reply.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>By "average" I presume you mean "what I saw on the streets" rather
>than "some number in a book". I think in EITHER of these contexts
>"average" can be misleading. I'll get around to this below.
>(But don't expect not to become confused by pre-meanderings ;-).

Kym, thanks for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking response. Indeed,
"average" is a damned silly abstraction to use, particularly with regards
to a place as large and varied as the US, or even as large and varied as
Oz. Particularly with respect to the US, there seem to be remarkable
differences in the "average" standard of living from city to city, and
even cities that are geographically close, like San Diego and LA, have
very dissimilar conditions.

Further to this, "average" living standards in the US also have a lot to
do with ethnic backgrounds, and in this sense the US can be thought of as
several different countries with various different socio-economic conditions
all superimposed geographically. "Average" certainly ceases to mean much
in this context.

>Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
>Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
>if you take into account liabilities. (I understand around 1/2 the
>US population has negative net assets). Not that Australians can
>crow -- but the "typical Aussie" is somewhat better off than
>the "typical American" -- even if they might pay more (income) taxes
>if they earn $50K+ pa.

I agree, *on paper*, the US has massive overseas debts and its citizens
live in hock. However the stability and ease of credit there mean that,
*materially*, the place is much richer than here. So when I say that
people there seem to live in houses that they own - and by this I don't
mean they don't have mortgages, but that they can expect to dwell in and
control their property. In this material sense the "typical Aussie" is
considerably worse off than the "typical American".

>I would argue that if your impression is that the AVERAGE standard of
>wealth is (obviously) higher in America it could be because you were
>inadvertantly selective in your data gathering.

Indeed; I should say that my comments have a lot more to do with what a
literate tertiary-educated English-speaking person can expect than any
sort of objective view. However I should say that I expect most of the
people reading this thread here to fit into such categories too. But I
should have made this bias explicit, and you may have my apologies.

>Millions of Americans -- in the East -- live in walk-up flats or
>simply rent a bedroom in a structure that might otherwise LOOK like a
>double-story timber house.

Now this is difficult to judge objectively too. Housing standards in the
two countries are remarkably dissimilar. Most Australians don't think
that the odd bit of exposed wiring or plumbing, or the odd crack in the
wall, or several layers of paint and wallpaper, really detract very much
from the quality of a house. Americans have rather a different view of
such things, and it seems that many of them are surprised when they move
here to find that such shoddy workmanship is simply accepted as par. So,
although I should say that the poor in Australia enjoy better housing
than their counterparts in the US, the middle-income and even the upper
middle-class certainly do not.

>The idea of "average income" or "average assets" can even lead people
>[and I have someone specific in mind here ;-) ]
>to declare things like:

>\begin{non_sqeuitur}
>Look -- there is this big disparity between rich and poor in the US.
>But the AVERAGE wealth in the US is higher than [here]. Hence it
>must be the case that a large disparity is good for everyone.
>\end{non_sqeuitur}

I don't think I'd go quite that far :-) The wealth gap in the US is a
worry, and is plainly correlated with some of their crime problems.
However, again, the "average" is quite misleading. There are some places
in the US where poverty is commonplace and crime is endemic; you've
already listed some of them. However there are other places there where
pleasant living standards and general peace-and-harmony pertain. It's
a large and very varied place. Good for everyone? No, I definitely wouldn't
go that far.

>\begin{inane_principle}
>Hey look! There is this really big prize that you can win! Isn't it
>worth a try? SOMEONE comes up a winner each draw! It could be YOU!
>\end{inane_principle}

>Obviously this kind of argument can be of great appeal to those instilled
>with the cult of individualism from birth.

Guilty as charged. However, there is another way to look at this. The
attainability of higher living standards gives people hope that their
lives may improve - I think that's just what the US has, in large amounts,
even among the average working-joes. In a socialist country like oz, no
matter what you do, your expectations are lower. Engineers and wharfies
don't earn much different here - so why be an engineer? Much better to
read the daily terror, watch the footy, and wait for your superannuation.
The cult of mediocrity is just as invidious as the cult of individualism.

>I realise that cars driving over a bridge
>and falling through a huge hole that opens up in the roadbed can happen
>in Australia -- in the US they worry about how many such cases they
>have annually.

We could play with plenty of anecdotes along these lines; I'm not
certain they're pertinent. Actually, since I've given over on bias and
"averages", I suspect we're not going to go a lot further with this.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Jim Francis <j...@webrider.net.au> writes:

>Is this correct? I find it very difficult to believe that 1 out of every
>7 people admitted to hospital in Oz die or are injured due to medical
>negligence......

Indeed, it astonished me - and as I recall the stat caused a considerable
ruckus when it was first announced. However I don't believe it has been
refuted since then - does anyone know any more on this one?

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>Of course in the US its more like 50% on the bum.

Is that figure the product of your imagination? If you'll trouble yourself
to look at "http://nmg.clever.net/wew/curves/uslm001.html", you'll see that
their present unemployment rate is about 5.5% - where do you get the other
44.5% from?

>And relatively little in the way of social services.

I agree with you here - the US is not a very pleasant place to be poor
at all, and something like 16% of Americans live in poverty. Like I said,
if you want to go on the bum, Australia is much better.

>Yet with total taxation at around the same pct of GDP as Aus.

GDP is an entirely rubbery figure, especially as an indicator of material
wealth. Taxes in the US are certainly not insignificant, but their structure
encourages vastly superior business growth and business opportunities so
far as I can see. But of course YMMV.

>I note that while Aus has been criticised this wk for being "up there"
>in terms of child and general poverty in the Developed World,
>the US rates of numbers living under the same poverty line were
>substantially greater.

Yes, though I haven't noticed World Vision setting up operations in the
US recently ... but yes, you can keep proving my point as long as you like.
If you want to go on the bum, Australia is certainly the right place.

Storm

unread,
Oct 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/18/96
to

Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

: Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than


: the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
: take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
: to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.

Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

--
n | g David Carson GothCode 2.5 :
e -+- o goth at large. GoCS6$ TZ cBkLb(Br)w7 PSaNaL M2 s9
t | t "Give me money, give me sex, ZGoPuoMeb C8o a22 b56 H181 g7L w6L
. | h give me food & net access!!" r2Is h5TFe k6 RN SeNn N0492 LauNSW

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/19/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>Note that the debt is worth around a couple of years worth of
>GDP -- hence the idea that "many" Americans owe more than they actually have
>in assets. But credit is a wonderful thing until the final demand comes in. ;-)

It'd be interesting ... but then such an economic disaster would change
the whole world economy, and probably much else besides. Happily things
seem sufficiently stable that a "Terms: 7 days" notice is unlikely to be
served real soon.

>If "they" don't own it, I wouldn't like to call it "theirs".

If you are born into paper debt and material wealth, live your life in
paper debt and material wealth, and die in paper debt and material wealth,
should we say that you lived a life of poverty? I think that the fellow who
owns the skyscraper and is out more millions than it is worth is generally
in a lot better shape than the guy who owns his own mud-hut outright.

>But the difference between owning X youself and paying it off a mortgage is
>that when (sic) you are laid off from work in the US, you have to move
>to a cheaper neighbourhood.

Layoffs happen any place. At least there there is a point to owning a
mortgage - you can claim the payments on your tax.

>I would say that the US may make things a little easier if you're
>not _too_ poor. Since markets are so large -- when compared with Aus --
>many things are comparatively quite cheap. E.g. for 5 years or so
>I could buy a cup of coffee for 25 cents US (including tax). Some take-aways
>sold "bottomless" cups of coffee which -- theoretically -- allwoed you
>to drink as much as you liked for around that price. And, of course,
>the $1.99 all-you-can-eat deals at Wendy's and a couple of other places
>around Binghamton were pretty unbelievable after paying $10 AUD in Mel
>for much less. (After a couple of years Wendy's put it up to $2.99
>all-you-can-eat on Wed only and "no bicyclists" ;-).

Now we seem to be on the same wavelength. What really impressed me on my
last trip there was the quality of life in the smaller towns. Steer
clear of LA and NY, and there are over 50 cities with around .5 - 1.5
million people; the ones I've seen are very pleasant places.

>As I said before, there is another "sample bias" because the areas
>where people from O/S are almost bound to visit are not "typical".

The places I've seen there were not tourist places - my wife has family
there, and we spent a couple of months. However I agree that my
experience is in no way typical, and in fact I doubt that "typical" has
any more meaning than "average" did. However I should say that a trip to
the US is an eye-opener for most Australians, who generally expect to
see lots of violence and poverty as per American TV, with a few rich
folks swanning around in limousines and penthouses.

Sure, such things do go on, but there's also a very large upper-middle
class in the US, usually are not represented on their TV. These are
professional people who would, in Australia, struggle to own a house and
car - but in the US they are considerably more comfortable.

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/19/96
to

In article <549vq6$3...@fourier.ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
Kym Horsell <khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <54828p$m...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
>Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>>[Me:]

>>>Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
>>>Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
>>>if you take into account liabilities. (I understand around 1/2 the
>>>US population has negative net assets). Not that Australians can
>>>crow -- but the "typical Aussie" is somewhat better off than
>>>the "typical American" -- even if they might pay more (income) taxes
>>>if they earn $50K+ pa.
>>
>>I agree, *on paper*, the US has massive overseas debts and its citizens
>>live in hock. However the stability and ease of credit there mean that,
>>*materially*, the place is much richer than here.
>
>Eventually what's on paper catches up with you. ;-)


Just for comparison purposes only ;-) the following are the most recent
income statistics I can find relevant to the US. Note the median income.

Quite a bit of other material, including median home size, rental,
mortgage, etc, details I've stashed under

htpp://laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au:8080/~khorsell/housing/index.sh

===

American Housing Survey

Detailed Tables from the 1993 AHS-N Data Chart
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT DO WE EARN? - Table 2-12

Occupied
housing units

Household Income

5,497,000 Less than $5,000
9,368,000 $5,000 to $9,999
8,642,000 $10,000 to $14,999
7,627,000 $15,000 to $19,999
7,837,000 $20,000 to $24,999
8,863,000 $25,000 to $29,999
6,398,000 $30,000 to $34,999
5,521,000 $35,000 to $39,999
9,507,000 $40,000 to $49,999
7,158,000 $50,000 to $59,999
8,740,000 $60,000 to $79,999
4,114,000 $80,000 to $99,999
2,231,000 $100,000 to $119,999
3,222,000 $120,000 or more
$29 734 Median

As percent of poverty level:
5,604,000 Less than 50 percent
8,183,000 50 to 99
10,033,000 100 to 149
9,009,000 150 to 199
61,895,000 200 percent or more

Income of Families and Primary Individuals

5,990,000 Less than $5,000
9,870,000 $5,000 to $9,999
9,104,000 $10,000 to $14,999
7,821,000 $15,000 to $19,999
8,011,000 $20,000 to $24,999
8,953,000 $25,000 to $29,999
6,328,000 $30,000 to $34,999
5,403,000 $35,000 to $39,999
9,104,000 $40,000 to $49,999
6,780,000 $50,000 to $59,999
8,216,000 $60,000 to $79,999
3,916,000 $80,000 to $99,999
2,147,000 $100,000 to $119,999
3,082,000 $120,000 or more
$28,667 Median

Income Sources of Families and Primary Individuals

69,091,000 Wages and salaries
61,755,000 Wages and salaries were majority of income
2 or more people each earned over 20% of wages
23,264,000 and salaries
11,548,000 Business, farm, or ranch
28,184,000 Social security or pensions
42,332,000 Interest
16,619,000 Stock dividend(s)
11,493,000 Rental income
4,385,000 With lodger(s)
5,963,000 Welfare or SSI
4,361,000 Alimony or child support
13,112,000 Other

Amount of Savings and Investments

42,644,000 Income of $25,000 or less
23,377,000 No savings or investments
11,713,000 $25,000 or less
3,154,000 More than $25,000
4,400,000 Not reported

Food Stamps

42,644,000 Income of $25,000 or less
7,360,000 Family members received food stamps
32,718,000 Did not receive food stamps
2,565,000 Not reported

Rent Reductions

28,141,000 No subsidy or income reporting
941,000 Rent control
27,183,000 No rent control
1,786,000 Reduced by owner
25,344,000 Not reduced by owner
53,000 Owner reduction not reported
17,000 Rent control not reported

2,235,000 Owned by public housing authority
1,667,000 Other, Federal subsidy
568,000 Other, State or local subsidy
555,000 Other, income verification
306,000 Subsidy or income verification not reported
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Revised: Friday, 09-Aug-96 15:19:36

=== end ===

Martin Gleeson

unread,
Oct 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/19/96
to

In article <547ano$6...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
pe...@zip.com.au wrote:

>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>>... OK ... just make sure you don't get sick.

>Bullshit. American health insurance is maybe 3 times as expensive as


>Australian health insurance, but the standard of care there is *vastly*
>higher than here.

Utter garbage. The American health care system is the second worst in
the OECD. (And "maybe 3 times as expensive"? Please! Try 3-6 times as
expensive for less cover on the whole - and you can't even get cover for
visits to your local GP).

>The head of the victorian surgeons association (?)
>resigned just the other day in protest at the appalling conditions in
>Australian hospitals.

Yes, this is thanks to the Victorian Liberal Government wanting to destroy
the public health care system. A good way to start this plan was moving to
case-mix funding, a system judged as a cataclysmic failure where it originated
(the USA).

[...]

>And the stats published last
>year showed that 14% of the patients that are admitted to Australian
>hospitals die or are seriously maimed due to errors on the part of
>medical staff. Not 14% of the deaths - 14% of the admissions! If it's
>possible to keep yourself out of the clutches of Australian doctors,
>it seems you'd be well advised to do so ...

That 'statistic' was exposed as a complete fabrication shortly after the
tabloid media jumped on it.

Cheers,
Marty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gleeson Webmeister | http://www.unimelb.edu.au/%7Egleeson/
Information Technology Services | Email : gle...@unimelb.edu.au
The University of Melbourne, Oz. | Opinions : Mine, all mine.
"I hate quotations." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals (1843)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/19/96
to

In article <54828p$m...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>[Me:]

>>Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
>>Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
>>if you take into account liabilities. (I understand around 1/2 the
>>US population has negative net assets). Not that Australians can
>>crow -- but the "typical Aussie" is somewhat better off than
>>the "typical American" -- even if they might pay more (income) taxes
>>if they earn $50K+ pa.
>
>I agree, *on paper*, the US has massive overseas debts and its citizens
>live in hock. However the stability and ease of credit there mean that,
>*materially*, the place is much richer than here.

Eventually what's on paper catches up with you. ;-)

While the US owes the REST of the world 1 to 2 trillion, the US national
debt is of the order of 7 trillion and growing (i.e. about $28K US
per capita, or about $56K US per working citizen). The _national_ debt
counts how much economic entities in the country (like "households") owe
each other. Note that the debt is worth around a couple of years worth of

GDP -- hence the idea that "many" Americans owe more than they actually have
in assets. But credit is a wonderful thing until the final demand comes in. ;-)

But, as one of my rellies likes to say, "a dollar you owe, is a dollar you got".

>So when I say that
>people there seem to live in houses that they own - and by this I don't
>mean they don't have mortgages, but that they can expect to dwell in and
>control their property.

If "they" don't own it, I wouldn't like to call it "theirs".

I rented a few places around the E and the typical idea was you paid your rent
and were penalised if there was any damage (e.g. something like $10 per
visible thumbtack hole in a wall) when you left. Sometimes $50 was
_automatically_ extracted from your bond regardless of whether the
owners could point to any fault. The more conshy owners photographed the
place before you moved in. Free market (micro-) economics leads to
numerous complications.... ;-)

But the difference between owning X youself and paying it off a mortgage is
that when (sic) you are laid off from work in the US, you have to move
to a cheaper neighbourhood.

>In this material sense the "typical Aussie" is


>considerably worse off than the "typical American".

I would say that the US may make things a little easier if you're


not _too_ poor. Since markets are so large -- when compared with Aus --
many things are comparatively quite cheap. E.g. for 5 years or so
I could buy a cup of coffee for 25 cents US (including tax). Some take-aways
sold "bottomless" cups of coffee which -- theoretically -- allwoed you
to drink as much as you liked for around that price. And, of course,
the $1.99 all-you-can-eat deals at Wendy's and a couple of other places
around Binghamton were pretty unbelievable after paying $10 AUD in Mel
for much less. (After a couple of years Wendy's put it up to $2.99
all-you-can-eat on Wed only and "no bicyclists" ;-).

But then this advantage isn't a matter of the kind of system -- it's
just an effect of a "market parameter" -- its size. And I'm not sure
that having massive export drives into regional free trade zones will
produce the same kind of results for Australia.

>>Millions of Americans -- in the East -- live in walk-up flats or
>>simply rent a bedroom in a structure that might otherwise LOOK like a
>>double-story timber house.
>
>Now this is difficult to judge objectively too.

Sure. ;-)

>Housing standards in the
>two countries are remarkably dissimilar. Most Australians don't think
>that the odd bit of exposed wiring or plumbing, or the odd crack in the
>wall, or several layers of paint and wallpaper, really detract very much
>from the quality of a house.
>Americans have rather a different view of
>such things, and it seems that many of them are surprised when they move
>here to find that such shoddy workmanship is simply accepted as par. So,

I can _see_ you didn't go to all of the places I lived. ;-)

Some [friends] of mine were staying in what I'd call a "typical" (from
other comparisons) old weatherboard 2-storey house in upstate NY
where one lived in what seemd to be a converted coat room under strairs,
and others lived in other rooms that seemed to have been partitioned off
from main rooms with sheets of plaster board. They seemed to think it was
"typical" for that part of the country. But elsewhere, around what they
called the "triple cities area", there were certainly some nice houses.
The region, after all, was down-town IBM central and 10s of 1000s of
IBM execs and engineers lived in the region. Of course, while I was there,
IBM suffered an economic downturn -- on top of the recession that had
hit the NE anyway -- and the company was laying off 10K pa.

I certainly know that many Americans visiting Aus complain about low
building standards and small places. But this is possibly just that
people who visit Australia aren't "typical" Americans -- i.e. they have
to be relatively more well-off than average. I understand (e.g.) that
Australians -- on average (;-) -- travel much more than Americans.
Something like twice the number per capita of Americans than Australians
have never left the confines of their country.
(But, of course, there may be "more to see" _inside_ America than inside
Australia -- and such a comparison is biased by an unknown amount).

Of course, in other places -- I once visited some reasonably well-off
people in the N of Virginia -- they were talking about putting in
a picket fence around their property that was going to cost $100K US.
The house was -- obviously -- comparable with the price of the proposed
fence. (But I don't really go in for columns at the front door).

Unfortunately it seems these LATTER types of homes are seen much more
(via a process of "natural selection" -- they are obviously appealing) and
it may seem there are more of them than they are.


As I said before, there is another "sample bias" because the areas
where people from O/S are almost bound to visit are not "typical".

--

Karen or George

unread,
Oct 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/20/96
to

In article <54752a$p...@the-fly.zip.com.au>, pe...@zip.com.au says...

An example for cars: comparable Subaru Liberty/Legacy wagons cost
USD20,000 plus or AUD35,000. THe US price converts to around AUD25k
at the current exchange rate, so the price difference is some 40%.
Mind you, the Legacy is made in the US while it is fully imported
to Oz. For comparable fully imported models you will never find
the ridiculous 3-5 times more that you claimed. As for cars like
the Taurus, just read the comparative tests in the Australian
motoring press about gimmickry vs usefulness in comparison with
e.g., the Falcon.

First-release CDs are some 25% more expensive in Oz than in the US,
according the Australian Prices Surveillance Authority.

Credit cards do not cost a uniform 22.5%: mine has an interest of
18.9%.

Now, these figures do show that the prices of quoted items ARE higher
in Oz than the US. However, not to the extent that you claimed.
Neither do you recognize quality of life issues that favour Australia
over the US.

In the end, of course, as others have already pointed it out, if you
prefer the US to Oz in prices, salaries and culture, why not just go
there to live ?

George Antony


Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/20/96
to

In article <54a3lk$v...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>Layoffs happen any place. At least there there is a point to owning a
>mortgage - you can claim the payments on your tax.

;-)

Some places... anyway.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/20/96
to

G'day Kym,

On 18 Oct 1996 18:31:04 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
Horsell) wrote:

>Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
>Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
>if you take into account liabilities.

I'm really not sure about the accuracy of this statement. If I bought
a house five years ago, but have 15 years to go on the mortgage, does
this mean that my house ownership is a liability in this context?

As far as material possessions, I wonder about the basis of this
statement. Most items (e.g., cars, electrical goods, clothes) are
significantly less expensive in the States, so your statement
contrasts with my understanding of the country.

>Millions of Americans -- in the East -- live in walk-up flats or
>simply rent a bedroom in a structure that might otherwise LOOK like a
>double-story timber house.

Kym, I lived on the east coast for many years and would find the
bedroom-renting population to be quite small. University students may
certainly do so, but people in the workforce generally buy or rent
their own homes.

What specific areas or demographic groups are you referring to? My
understanding (and experience) of the east coast is quite different.

>While I lived in the US I always noticed that along suburban roads there
>were comparatively few street lights (i.e. every 1/4 mile or so).
>You almost go blind driving around outer sub'n areas in Aussie capital
>cities, in comparison. (An arc light every 50 metres!!!???)

Where and for how long did you live in the States?

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry

dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/20/96
to

st...@ar.ar.com.au (Storm) writes:

>Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

>: Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than
>: the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
>: take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
>: to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.

>Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

Heh. I'd venture, contrariwise, that you don't know what the word "largely"
means :-)

I say "largely socialist" because the place has cradle to grave welfare
and medical coverage, very high direct and indirect taxes, no guaranteed
civil rights, a massive public sector, no significant political choices,
and monopolistic broadcast/print media. All of these things empower the
state over the individual, and that's generally acknowledged as a trait
of socialism.

But if you're asking whether I think the place is Stalinist/Leninist, no,
that'd be very silly.

George Antony Ph 93818

unread,
Oct 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/20/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>ga...@powerup.com.au (Karen or George) writes:

>However, if you look at US domestic cars, such as the various Chryslers,
>you'll start to see what I'm talking about. And if you get into luxury cars,
>Mercedes and so forth, that's where you'll see the really big differentials.

Oh, my heart aches in sympathy with those having to shell out unreasonable
sums of money for luxury cars. But not even there will you see 5 times
the difference in price, as you claimed. So, why not admit that you were
overdoing it.

>>First-release CDs are some 25% more expensive in Oz than in the US,
>>according the Australian Prices Surveillance Authority.

>Heh. The PSA obviously never shopped at an outlet store. We collected about
>a dozen new CDs on our latest trip for USD $10 each.

I would trust the PSA's survey over yours any day. Yes, they survey was on
new, not second-hand CDs, and as I pointed out, first releases. The
discounted market is certainly cheaper, being much larger, in the US.
But, of course, they may have considered a different range of CDs from
yours also, although obviously not as cultured as you.

All that said, of course the PSA's conclusion is that copyright and import
regulations should be reformed so that the price difference could be
brought down.

>Actually, the biggest differentials were on shoes: identical shoes cost
>5-10 times less in the US. Clothes in general were really something - I
>bought 4 pairs of new levis, in sizes that aren't even available in
>Australia, for under US $100.

This stuff that 'identical shoes cost 5-10 times less in the US' clearly
compares discounted US stuff with undiscounted Australian. As such, it
is just as bogus as you other comparisons and indicates that you are
not interested in meaningful comparisons.

There are good spots for bargains in Oz, as long as you know where.
Those buying stuff in dowtown boutiques deserve to pay downtown boutique
prices and can expect as much sympathy as those overcharged for their
Merc 500SL.


George Antony
PERSONAL OPINION ONLY

George Antony Ph 93818

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>st...@ar.ar.com.au (Storm) writes:

>>Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
>>: Australia is largely a socialist country,

>>Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

>Heh. I'd venture, contrariwise, that you don't know what the word "largely"
>means :-)

>I say "largely socialist" because the place has cradle to grave welfare
>and medical coverage, very high direct and indirect taxes, no guaranteed
>civil rights, a massive public sector, no significant political choices,
>and monopolistic broadcast/print media. All of these things empower the
>state over the individual, and that's generally acknowledged as a trait
>of socialism.

>But if you're asking whether I think the place is Stalinist/Leninist, no,
>that'd be very silly.

Surely, at your income level the purchase of a dictionary should not be
a problem, and given your cultural level you could be expected to be
able to use the same effectively.

Just to help out while you are trying to locate the nearest bookshop,
here is the Collins definition of socialist: "n. 1. supporter or advocate
of socialism or any party promoting socialism (socialist party). ~adj.
2. of, characteristic of, implementing, or relating to socialism.
3. (sometimes cap.) of, characteristic of, or relating to socialists or a
socialist party."

Looking at socialism: "n. 1. an economic theory or system in which the means
of production, distribution and exchange are owned by the community
collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production
for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the
absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by the government
determination of investment, prices,, and production levels. Compare
capitalism. 2. any of various social or political theories or movements
in which the common welfare is achieved through the establishment of a
socialist economic system. 3. (in Marxist theory) a transitional stage
after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from
capitalism to communismL characretized by the distribution of income
according to work rather than need."

So, you see, your definition is fundamentally flawed, even without
dragging Lenin or Stalin into the argument. I suspect that you are just
mindlessly parroting the rantings of the rabid US right that terms every-
thing and everybody socialist that is to the left of itself. I suppose
that is culture, of sorts. Just as well that we have little more of it
in Oz than we have real socialism.

George Antony
PERSONAL OPION ONLY

Phil Herring

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

In article <54e96j$3...@the-fly.zip.com.au> Peter Merel, pe...@zip.com.au writes:
>I say "largely socialist" because the place has cradle to grave welfare
>and medical coverage, very high direct and indirect taxes, no guaranteed
>civil rights, a massive public sector, no significant political choices,
>and monopolistic broadcast/print media.

* It's obvious that Australia has higher federal income tax than the USA,
but as has already been pointed out, overall taxation isn't very
different.

* Our welfare system is both good and bad. I think that the crime rate in
many areas in the USA is a direct function of their inadequate welfare
system. You pays your money and takes your chances. There are plenty of
countries in the world with better welfare systems than ours, and different
problems to both the US and Australia.

* People in the USA have no real guaranteed rights, either. The Bill of
Rights of which people are so fond only applies to the federal government -
the states have their own constitutions that may or may not place limits on
what is actually done to citizens. (For example, some states still have
laws prohibiting some sexual activities in both countries, and both states
and cities are free to regulate gun ownership.)

* The USA also has a huge public sector and no significant political
choices. I can't comment on their media ownership.

* Lastly, the USA is a large and very diverse country. For some of the
people, in some areas, it's very good, and as a white person with a
moderately good income from a job that will be easily obtained, Peter
should do quite well. That doesn't necessarily make the USA a better place
to live.

>All of these things empower the
>state over the individual, and that's generally acknowledged as a trait
>of socialism.

Whereas the US approach empowers corporations over the individual, and
that's generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

ant...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (George Antony Ph 93818) writes:

>Oh, my heart aches in sympathy with those having to shell out unreasonable
>sums of money for luxury cars.

:-)

However there is another factor to consider here; many of the cars that
we regard here as "luxury" are not regarded as luxury cars there. I
guess that once you get the 100% tax on Australian "luxury" car imports
a very different economy of scale kicks in.

>But not even there will you see 5 times
>the difference in price, as you claimed. So, why not admit that you were
>overdoing it.

Yeah, a little. 1.5-4 times the price would probably be closer to the
mark than 3-5. However, as Kym pointed out, the different wealth
profiles in the two countries greatly exacerbate or diminish the effect
of these differences, depending on your circumstances. If you're too poor
to own a car, it really doesn't matter what the damn things cost.

>I would trust the PSA's survey over yours any day. Yes, they survey was on
>new, not second-hand CDs, and as I pointed out, first releases.

Outlet stores are not second-hand - they're just direct from the manufacturer.
It may be that you can put our experience down to good shopping - but I should
say that we didn't do anything but visit an outlet mall, drop into their CD
store, and pull out the ones we wanted - some of which were new releases. I
suspect that you're right about recent releases costing more than $10 US -
I'm afraid memory fails me on that. I know we bought that Alanis Morrisette
CD for something ridiculous - but I guess that'd be a high-volume item.

>The discounted market is certainly cheaper, being much larger, in the US.
>But, of course, they may have considered a different range of CDs from
>yours also, although obviously not as cultured as you.

Come on, George, ad hominem attacks aren't necessary. I'm just laying out
things as I saw them while I was there - I'm not claiming to be any kind of
authority on the differences, and certainly YMMV. About the best I can
say with any real authority is that I didn't see any material item that
cost more, in real terms, in the US than in Australia.

>This stuff that 'identical shoes cost 5-10 times less in the US' clearly
>compares discounted US stuff with undiscounted Australian. As such, it
>is just as bogus as you other comparisons and indicates that you are
>not interested in meaningful comparisons.

Discounted? Well, we found those shoes on sale in major American
department stores - we didn't pick them up on street corners or
something. Wave your hands all you want, this has been our *consistent*
experience in shoe stores in several parts of the US. If you don't
believe me, have a look for yourself, or go look for US shoes on the
web. Imho, the shoe event-horizon is certainly in effect in Oz.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:

>All things being equal, a HH is "better off" in Australia than the US
>or Brit.

According to Kym's method of figuring, if a nation was composed entirely
of highly paid single people, it would somehow be "worse off" than a
nation where large families relied on child-labour to scrape by. That
doesn't seem to me to make a whole lot of sense.

And I don't see the relevance of these to either taxes or "typical"
australians/americans. We've already agreed that the different credit
and wealth distributions in the various countries make "average",
"typical" and "all things being equal" meaningless - how do these stats
change this?

Michael Simons

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:


A whole lot of stuff about Australias unfare tax system.


And then there are the taxes that Australians pay on "paper values".
For example, CGT highly discriminates against small two director
family businesses.

Scenario - Father and son form company, both directors, neither one
put many assests in. Business grows. Father wants to retire. Even
though *no money changes hands*, if the fathers share is relinquished
and passed onto the son the ATO will charge capital gains tax on the
deemed value of the share to the son, stamp duty will be charged on
the deemed "sale" value and (once again even though no money changes
hands) the father will be deemed to have earned the deemed value thus
affecting pensions, wellfare payments etc.

I'm all for the closing of loop holes regarding the transfer of shares
etc in family trusts etc, but where there is clearly no intent to
capitalise (you can't eat the share, nor can you buy a luxury yacht
with the share - untill you sell it) a purely family situation should
be exempt from CGT.

For a start it is very difficult to value such a share. Even if the
company has a high profit and high turnover, in the real market place
the share is probably worth only a fraction of its deemed value
because the success of the company is due to the personal efforts of
the owners/directors alone.

Don't forget, CGT, stamp duty, and income will be charged/assesed even
though NO MONEY changes hands. The ATO should wait till ther is a real
capital gain and the share or shares are actually sold to an outsider.

Socialist Australia - where you pay tax even though you didn't earn
any money. Anyone who presides over this system is full of shit.

Thats why whenever I hear somone whining about there not being enough
money for education, health, the ABC, or any other feel good cause my
answer is a resounding STIFF SHIT!

>--
>| mailto:pe...@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
>| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ | Give away what you don't need. |

Regards Mike

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

In article <326c4988...@news.onaustralia.com.au>,

doug buckser <dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>G'day Kym,
>
>On 18 Oct 1996 18:31:04 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
>Horsell) wrote:
>
>>Americans learned to live on credit before Australians did.
>>Hence the majority of Americans don't really own very much of anything --
>>if you take into account liabilities.
>
>I'm really not sure about the accuracy of this statement. If I bought
>a house five years ago, but have 15 years to go on the mortgage, does
>this mean that my house ownership is a liability in this context?


In the context, the house is -- of course -- an asset.
Since the title is typically "held" with mortgage company
it isn't necessarily YOUR asset, however. The mortgage is a liability.

On the optimistic basis (i.e. the one used for income-tax and social service
purposes) your net assets are therefore 1/3 * value of house -
value of remaining mortgage, where value of house includes appreciation or
(typically, some places) depreciation and mortgage includes interest,
setup and termination and payment costs (e.g. the cost of the cheques and
stamps, where applicable).

On a more pessimistic basis, since the asset under some circumstances (such as
default) more or less transfers to your mortgage company, and then you still
owe at least SOME of the remaining mortgage payments
(unless you file for Ch 11), you are have hip-deep liability.

For other assets the situation can be even worse. Depreciation
(not usually accountable for tax rebates etc) can hit many assets pretty
hard (e.g. that stereo TV), and other assets (e.g. "consumables" like
clothing) have low or nil market value after purchase, yet still
(typically) are purchased on credit ,with some interest to be paid along
with other accounting fees.

As for "what Americans own" there are many slightly different data
that can be sited.

In "The Great Depression of 1990" Ravi Batra lists a reasonably-researched set
of data thus:

Share of Wealth Held by 1 Percent
of US Adults or Families

year percent
1945 23.3%
1949 20.8
1953 27.5
1956 26.0
1958 26.9
1962 27.4
1963 31.6
1965 29.2
1969 24.9
1983 34.3

(One of the reasons this book hit some "best seller" lists in the late
80s was the prediction of the coming downturn. Although his predictions
weren't good for the degree of downturn that happened, he certainly got
some of the reasons and the timing right ;-). He argues the next one is due
sometime around 2020, for the same historical reasons).

Since Batra was writing BEFORE 1990 (i.e. 1985), things may have become even
worse over the 90s.

But taking the 83 numbers:
if 1% of the population "holds" 34% of the country's "wealth" (i.e.
net assets of various kinds) it doesn't argue well for the net assets
of the rest of the population. He indicates elsewhere that about 1/2
the US population in the mid 80s (when things were relatively booming)
had 0 or -ve net assets. This is quite in line with other material
presented on poverty in America, elsewhere, and more recently.

As I indicated in another post, the US national debt was around $US7000
billion (sic) and growing a couple of years back (when I last checked).
This amounts to around $US30K per head, or nearly $US60K per employee.
This is then the "average gross liability". Whatever "average gross assets" an
employee owns must be offset against this.

When valuing net value of the average US family home -- don't forget the
average HH size in the US is around 3 (i.e. 3*30K gives a liability of
$90K per HH, on avg against which to offset the value of the
"average" house itself).

(Note: I admit there are problems when speaking about "average" as
it applies to the assets and liabilities in question as the data -- as
indicated -- is skewed).

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

In article <54eg53$l...@wabbit.its.uow.edu.au>,

Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <54e96j$3...@the-fly.zip.com.au> Peter Merel, pe...@zip.com.au writes:
>>I say "largely socialist" because the place has cradle to grave welfare
>>and medical coverage, very high direct and indirect taxes, no guaranteed
>>civil rights, a massive public sector, no significant political choices,
>>and monopolistic broadcast/print media.
>
>* It's obvious that Australia has higher federal income tax than the USA,
>but as has already been pointed out, overall taxation isn't very
>different.

And don't forget the working population of Australia is larger than the US, too.

Around 65% (Aus) vs 50% (US).

As I've indicated before Australia and Canada are streets ahead of the rest
of the world in HH income advantage. Depending on the basis of comparison,
Aus or Canada comes 1st, with the US in around 5th to 20th place.

If you just account for household size and size of the workforce
we find the "average number of incomes per household" comes down to
(based on c1990s data from the Economist Pocketbook):

country HH size WF % index rank
australia 3.00 63.80 191.40 1
canada 2.80 66.30 185.64 2
israel 3.50 51.70 180.95 3
japan 3.10 52.50 162.75 4
ex-SU 3.00 52.60 157.80 5
portugal 3.30 47.80 157.74 6
sweden 2.20 69.30 152.46 7
poland 3.10 48.70 150.97 8
romania 3.20 46.70 149.44 9
norway 2.70 50.90 137.43 10
NZ 2.90 47.10 136.59
spain 3.50 38.90 136.15
denmark 2.40 56.70 136.08
UK 2.70 50.30 135.81
finland 2.60 51.10 132.86
uruguay 3.30 40.10 132.33
switzerland 2.50 52.40 131.00
US 2.60 50.30 130.78
hungary 2.80 45.10 126.28
italy 3.00 42.00 126.00
germany 2.50 49.60 124.00
austria 2.70 45.80 123.66
greece 3.10 39.60 122.76
luxembourg 2.80 42.80 119.84
malta 3.20 37.20 119.04
france 2.70 43.30 116.91
belgium 2.70 41.90 113.13

(The "index" is the avg number of employees per HH multiplied by 100).

If we cost-adjust the above indexes based on the PPP rankings (that
values cost of living from a "standard basket" of not always basic consumer
goods ;-) we find:

country HH WF PPP rank
canada 2.80 66.30 90.00 167 1
australia 3.00 63.80 75.00 144 2
japan 3.10 52.50 82.00 133 3
US 2.60 50.30 100.00 131 4 *
switzerland 2.50 52.40 97.00 127 5 *
sweden 2.20 69.30 79.00 120 6
luxembourg 2.80 42.80 89.70 107 7 *
denmark 2.40 56.70 78.00 106 8 *
germany 2.50 49.60 85.00 105 9 *
norway 2.70 50.90 75.00 103 10
finland 2.60 51.10 77.00 102
UK 2.70 50.30 74.00 100
austria 2.70 45.80 77.00 95
france 2.70 43.30 81.00 95
romania 3.20 46.70 63.22 94
italy 3.00 42.00 74.00 93
israel 3.50 51.70 50.00 90
NZ 2.90 47.10 63.00 86
belgium 2.70 41.90 76.00 86
spain 3.50 38.90 55.00 75
portugal 3.30 47.80 41.00 65
ex-SU 3.00 52.60 37.00 58
malta 3.20 37.20 40.70 48
greece 3.10 39.60 34.00 42
hungary 2.80 45.10 29.00 37
uruguay 3.30 40.10 27.60 37
poland 3.10 48.70 20.00 30

(Don't ask me what the "*"'s mean -- I don't remember).

Conclusions from the above:

All things being equal, a HH is "better off" in Australia than the US
or Brit.

All things being equal EXCEPT costs, a HH is "better off" in Australia than
in the US or Brit.

Craig Macbride

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>I agree, *on paper*, the US has massive overseas debts and its citizens
>live in hock. However the stability and ease of credit there mean that,
>*materially*, the place is much richer than here. So when I say that
>people there seem to live in houses that they own - and by this I don't
>mean they don't have mortgages, but that they can expect to dwell in and
>control their property. In this material sense the "typical Aussie" is
>considerably worse off than the "typical American".

Really? Plenty of Australians go from a virtually debt-free departure
from university into a 20 or 25 year home loan, while similar Americans
stuggle to rid themselves of university-induced debts and then manage
to plunge into a 30 year mortgage, ending up in debt much longer, and
probably not having any more buying power in the meantime.

>Now this is difficult to judge objectively too. Housing standards in the
>two countries are remarkably dissimilar. Most Australians don't think
>that the odd bit of exposed wiring or plumbing, or the odd crack in the
>wall, or several layers of paint and wallpaper, really detract very much
>from the quality of a house. Americans have rather a different view of
>such things, and it seems that many of them are surprised when they move
>here to find that such shoddy workmanship is simply accepted as par.

Interesting. The one real estate agent I spoke to in America, who had
worked in the 70's in Australia, told me that American houses were
poor value compared to their Australian counterparts, being often
constructed with more old-fashioned methods. This came up because I
was surprised at the expense of new houses out in the middle of nowhere
in Arizona, where the land should have cost almost nothing, and the
houses shouldn't, in my opinion, have cost more than building something
similar in suburban Melbourne. It was pretty sad to see what US$120,000
would buy out there beside an Arizonan highway.

--
Craig Macbride <cr...@rmit.edu.au> URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm

"I'm not sure that actually made sense but I'm afraid that if I tried to go
back and figure it out, I would start bleeding from my ears."
- Londo, Babylon 5, "Convictions"

Matt McLeod

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

On 18 Oct 1996 14:29:07 +1000, Storm <st...@ar.ar.com.au> wrote:
>Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
>
>: Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than
>: the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
>: take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
>: to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.
>
>Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

Compared to, say, the US, Australia is "socialist". Personally, I don't
think that this is a bad thing - universal health-care,
almost-universal+free-education, and a reasonable sort of safety net are
things that we can be proud of.

Remember - compared to the "new" US, Thatcher's Britain was socialist. :-)

--
Matt McLeod "Bill spent his whole time trying to be
System Administrator argumentative and not trying to come up
Hunter Network Association with solutions." [Ed Roberts on Bill Gates]


Storm

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

George Antony Ph 93818 (ant...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au) wrote:

: So, you see, your definition is fundamentally flawed, even without

: dragging Lenin or Stalin into the argument. I suspect that you are just
: mindlessly parroting the rantings of the rabid US right that terms every-
: thing and everybody socialist that is to the left of itself. I suppose
: that is culture, of sorts. Just as well that we have little more of it
: in Oz than we have real socialism.

I find the most entertaining thing about being a socialist is seeing
who else in the public eye gets branded as one. I confidently expect
to have John Howard and Bill Clinton joining me in selling Socialist
Worker on street corners, any day now.

Storm

unread,
Oct 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/21/96
to

Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
: st...@ar.ar.com.au (Storm) writes:
: >Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

: >: Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than
: >: the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
: >: take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
: >: to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.

: >Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

: Heh. I'd venture, contrariwise, that you don't know what the word "largely"
: means :-)

: I say "largely socialist" because the place has cradle to grave welfare


: and medical coverage, very high direct and indirect taxes, no guaranteed
: civil rights, a massive public sector, no significant political choices,

: and monopolistic broadcast/print media. All of these things empower the


: state over the individual, and that's generally acknowledged as a trait
: of socialism.

: But if you're asking whether I think the place is Stalinist/Leninist, no,


: that'd be very silly.

Socialism means that the means of production are owned and controlled
by the working class that produces things with these means of production.

Saying that Australia is "largely socialist" because it exhibits some
traits that are generally associated with socialism is like me saying that
Australians are largely cats because they are warm-blooded, bear live
young, and exhibit many other common traits of cat-hood.

But as for your actual traits: yes, a socialist state would certainly
have a massive public sector (there would be no other sector, so that
one is obvious). All your other characteristics however, are incidental
or just plain wrong.

"Cradle to grave welfare and medical coverage"
- I would hope so, but this is by no means implied in socialism.

"very high direct and indirect taxes"

- Not at all! Who would be paying taxes and to whom? The whole concept
of a government taking money from the citizens to pay for things for
the citizens just doesn't make sense if you consider that there is no
actual separation between the "citizens" and the "government". Which
there would not be in a truly socialist society.

"no guaranteed civil rights"
- Not quite sure where you're getting at with the word "guaranteed".
Basically any civil rights are only guaranteed insofar as nobody takes
power who wishes to remove your civil rights; and has the strength to
do so. History has shown quite well, I think, that civil rights
guaranteed in socialist societies tend to last as long as the socialist
society does (ie, unfortunately not very long usually).

"no significant political choices"
"empower(ment of) the state over the individual"
- This is where I became once again sure that you really do not know
what the word "socialism" means. These comments, along with your
statement that you don't consider Australia Stalinist clearly show
that you think that Stalinism, state capitalism, call it what you
will is a brand of socialism.

Socialism implies ALL political choice, decisions are made by the
people, not by a ruling class. ALL decisions, not just the tiny
subset of decisions which we have any say in in our capitalist
representative democracy. Empowerment of the state over the
individual?? There IS no state - there ARE only individuals.

Feel free to reply, maybe we can thrash out exactly where our
terminologies differ..

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

cr...@rmit.edu.au (Craig Macbride) writes:

>Really? Plenty of Australians go from a virtually debt-free departure
>from university into a 20 or 25 year home loan

Um, welcome to the nineties. There was a study released just the other
day that showed that many Australians now leave university carrying
debts, courtesy of fees, that they will *never* pay off. And, by this,
I mean the few Australians who ever get to a university ...

>while similar Americans
>stuggle to rid themselves of university-induced debts and then manage
>to plunge into a 30 year mortgage,

Um, yeah, cheap fixed-rate credit that you can write off on your taxes
is bad? Come again?

>ending up in debt much longer, and
>probably not having any more buying power in the meantime.

Ain't it grand - wave your hand and the facts just disappear - phoof! Try
backing this one up with figures.

>Interesting. The one real estate agent I spoke to in America, who had
>worked in the 70's in Australia, told me that American houses were
>poor value compared to their Australian counterparts, being often
>constructed with more old-fashioned methods.

As mentioned by several in this thread, such generalisations have no
meaning. In general, the standard of workmanship in the US appears to be
higher than in Australia, but of course you can find slums there, and of
course some areas were built in different periods to others, and with
different techniques. What you can expect to buy depends on where you're
looking to buy.

I can only talk about the real-estate we looked at while we were there -
3-4 bedroom free-standing houses with water views, close to the beach in
San Diego, for $150k to $300k. In my estimation, the same houses in
Sydney would go for about 3-10 times the price, depending on the area.
In Newcastle, probably for about the same price as SD, and in Perth
maybe even cheaper than SD. So what should we use as a standard?

I'd say the quality of all the middle-class homes I visited over there
is much superior to what you'd see here at the same price - but my criteria
are different to yours and the areas I looked in were not typical (no
area is) so it seems highly unlikely that we'll establish any meaningful
comparison this way.

Joseph Askew

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

: I agree, that is indeed obvious. I wouldn't suggest that the American
: taxation system is a lot of fun,

Given state and federal governments in the US take a larger slice
of GNP than do Australian state and federal governments this does
not surprise me at all.

: but it's obvious to anyone who spends a few
: months that the average standard of material wealth is much higher there.

Really? Stayed where? It is in fact true that the average standard
of wealth is higher but averages are funny things.

: Most people own their own houses.

So do most Australians.

: Most people have cars less than 5 years
: old.

This we don't.

: Most people wear new clothes and new shoes.

So Australians have awful dress sense. So?

: I can't speak for other professions, but if you're a competent software
: developer you don't have much of a worry with regards to employment in
: the US, except for getting yourself a visa.

SBS had a great program on unemployment the other day. Interviewed
several former IBM employees now unemployed. And without any form
of health care at all. Competant is an interesting word.

: Bullshit. American health insurance is maybe 3 times as expensive as
: Australian health insurance,

The Australian medical system costs about half what the US system
does. Not a third.

: but the standard of care there is *vastly*
: higher than here.

Odd then that we have longer life expectancies, lower child
mortality rates, lower just about any measure you care to name.
Exactly in what way is it higher? And why doesn't it show on
the figures?

: The head of the victorian surgeons association (?)


: resigned just the other day in protest at the appalling conditions in
: Australian hospitals.

Our doctors are spoilt rotten. No wonder they whine.

: He said that ONE IN FIVE surgical patients in
: Victorian hospitals contract Golden Staph!

Australia being less infected than Britain or the US. Golden
Staph is now a world wide problem and not confined to any one
place. We have only recently had an outbreak here.

: And the stats published last


: year showed that 14% of the patients that are admitted to Australian
: hospitals die or are seriously maimed due to errors on the part of
: medical staff.

And so? Think America is much better? They die younger than we do.

Joseph

--
What they cite between quotes afer editing is deformed; one doesn't
recognise it: it's very worrisome, the readers cannot believe anything
of what is printed. - Isabelle Adjani

Joseph Askew

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

: Um, welcome to the nineties. There was a study released just the other


: day that showed that many Australians now leave university carrying
: debts, courtesy of fees, that they will *never* pay off. And, by this,
: I mean the few Australians who ever get to a university ...

Like me for instance. Being totally unemployable of course.

Few Australians go to University? News to me.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

G'day Phil,

On 21 Oct 1996 00:29:23 GMT, Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:

>* People in the USA have no real guaranteed rights, either. The Bill of
>Rights of which people are so fond only applies to the federal government -
>the states have their own constitutions that may or may not place limits on
>what is actually done to citizens. (For example, some states still have
>laws prohibiting some sexual activities in both countries, and both states
>and cities are free to regulate gun ownership.)

My understanding is quite different. The Bill of Rights over-ride any
federal or state legislation (which is why laws are often challenged
in the courts).

It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens.
Therefore, states cannot pass laws which contradict the Constitution.

>* The USA also has a huge public sector and no significant political
>choices. I can't comment on their media ownership.

It depends on what you call significant. To many Americans, the
difference between Republicans and Democrats are significant. In the
South, the Ku Klux Klan occasionally runs for office and the
socialists win elections in Wisconsin. And so on.

>Whereas the US approach empowers corporations over the individual, and
>that's generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing.

Really? How does it do this?

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Animals, women, and minorities: interchangeable victims of the
carnivorous Aryan patriarchy. -- Bangers 'n' Mash

dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

G'day Martin,

On 19 Oct 1996 10:22:50 GMT, gle...@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson)
wrote:

>Utter garbage. The American health care system is the second worst in
>the OECD. (And "maybe 3 times as expensive"? Please! Try 3-6 times as
>expensive for less cover on the whole - and you can't even get cover for
>visits to your local GP).

I'm afraid this simply isn't true. The trend in American insurance is
to use HMOs, in which all medical treatment is covered by an
agreed-upon premium. I visited my GP there many times and didn't pay
anything per visit.

Regarding the cost of insurance, most workers receive medical cover as
part of their salary package. Obviously, there are obvious exceptions
for some categories of workers (e.g., contractors, some part time
jobs).

From personal experience, my private insurance was about $1200/year
(as opposed to the $700/year I now pay for Medibank Private). My
understanding is that your reference to 3-6 times is exaggerated.

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

G'day Kym,

On 19 Oct 1996 17:25:58 +1000, khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym
Horsell) wrote:

>I would say that the US may make things a little easier if you're
>not _too_ poor. Since markets are so large -- when compared with Aus --
>many things are comparatively quite cheap. E.g. for 5 years or so
>I could buy a cup of coffee for 25 cents US (including tax).

It's certainly not limited to cups of coffee. From my experience in
both countries, I've found that the cheaper items in America included:

1. cars
2. almost all electrical equipment
3. computer hardware and software
4. clothing

And so on. The big-ticket items are often quite cheaper. Of course,
Australia has cheaper items as well.

1. health insurance
2. some universities
3. food

>>>Millions of Americans -- in the East -- live in walk-up flats or
>>>simply rent a bedroom in a structure that might otherwise LOOK like a
>>>double-story timber house.

From your descriptions, I'm under the impression that you lived in
student accommodations (perhaps in a university town). In this case,
it's understandable that you wouldn't be familiar with non-university
housing arrangements.

Your reference to walk-up flats is curious. In New York City, for
example, the price of real estate is so high that people in Manhattan
generally rent. If you want to own a house, you move out to Queens or
into the suburbs.

I spent many years on the East Coast and found that house-sharing or
room-renting arrangements were primarily restricted to students or
artists. Regular workers could usually rent their own apartment
without too much trouble.

>Some [friends] of mine were staying in what I'd call a "typical" (from
>other comparisons) old weatherboard 2-storey house in upstate NY
>where one lived in what seemd to be a converted coat room under strairs,
>and others lived in other rooms that seemed to have been partitioned off
>from main rooms with sheets of plaster board. They seemed to think it was
>"typical" for that part of the country.

This is an interesting point. My brother and sister lived in upstate
NY, where he taught at a university. During my trips there, I visited
quite a few houses and didn't enter even one which remotely matches
your description. Personally, I'd question your description of a
"typical" house for that part of the country, based on both my
brother's descriptions and my personal experiences there.

>Something like twice the number per capita of Americans than Australians
>have never left the confines of their country.
>(But, of course, there may be "more to see" _inside_ America than inside
>Australia -- and such a comparison is biased by an unknown amount).

There are other factors as well, of course. For example, Americans
generally receive only two weeks of vacation per year, so it's more
difficult to take the longer trips. Long service leave is relatively
unknown there.

America also has more distinct regions than Australia. For example,
when I travel from Melbourne to Sydney, for example, the cultural and
geographic differences are not hugely significant (the harbour
excepted, of course).

However, the difference between New England, the South and the West
Coast is enormous. An American can travel to the different regions in
the car or on a quick plane, use the same currency, not have to bother
with passports or shots, etc.

>Unfortunately it seems these LATTER types of homes are seen much more
>(via a process of "natural selection" -- they are obviously appealing) and
>it may seem there are more of them than they are.

Equally, the neighbourhoods at the opposite end of the spectrum are
also noteworthy.

>As I said before, there is another "sample bias" because the areas
>where people from O/S are almost bound to visit are not "typical".

My favourite story from the Atlanta Olympics was about a reporter who
deliberately travelled into the drug areas of Atlanta, then wrote
about how shocked he was about the appalling conditions. No kidding.

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ian Staples

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

>: I agree, that is indeed obvious. I wouldn't suggest that the American
>: taxation system is a lot of fun,

>Given state and federal governments in the US take a larger slice
>of GNP than do Australian state and federal governments this does
>not surprise me at all.

This assertion was challenged by Mike Nahan of the Institute of Public
Affairs in an article in _The Cairns Post_ yesterday (21 Oct 96, p.8).

In terms of GDP (how that relates to GNP, I have no idea 8-)
he claimed the following:

Country Taxes as % GDP*

Denmark 48.3
NZ 35.7
Australia 28.7
UK 27.6
France 24.3
Germany 23.9
US 21.0
Switzerland 20.8
Japan 19.3
Average OECD 28.5

*The catch is that these rates _exclude_ social security insurance
payments. Also, he doesn't consider the OECD average as an appropriate
benchmark for Australia as "It includes too many big-taxing European
basket cases, such as Sweden, which ... has not experienced growth in
private sector jobs for more than 30 years."

Nahan justified his analysis on the grounds that the US, for example,
finances superannuation etc. through taxes (as do all OECD countries
except Oz and NZ). In Australia, however, we pay the compulsory
super levy direct to private super funds, so it's not treated as
a tax going into Govt coffers.

I'm left with the impression that there are probably too many degrees
of freedom to make sensible comparisons between countries!

Cheers, Ian S.

P.S. Oh yes, and we've been promised a "weekly series [of columns]
to be supplied by the Institute."

P.P.S. An interesting claim made by Nahan is that out antiquarian
tax system has an indirect cost of 20% and an administration and
compliance cost of 5%, meaning that $25 in every $100 collected is
simply wasted. Hmm... maybe not, I think he's saying that 20% is
wasted *on*top*of* the tax collected, so the total "tax" is some
$35 billion higher than indicated in the official stats.

From what I've seen of companies trying to comply with the system,
or live with it, he's probably not far wrong. To my mind the
most incidious effect is the inordinate effort that must be given
by company directors etc. to taxation issues, rather than given
to productive concepts and their implementation.

--

Ian Staples MS-Mail: stap...@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA Phone : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880 Fax : +61 (0)70 923 593 " " "

Ian Staples

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

>: Most people have cars less than 5 years old. [in the USA]

>This we don't. [in Oz]

Those 5-year-old yank cars may *be* new, but they *look* bloody
old. :-)

At least, they did when I was there 20 years ago. Given that
they are likely to perforate with rust in a year or two (due
to salt on icy roads) no one seemed the least concerned with having
the normal dings and crunches repaired. (An approach I can
sympathise with, not being particularly "car proud". :)

Cheers, Ian S.

Martin Gleeson

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

In article <326e96cb...@news.onaustralia.com.au>,
dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au (doug buckser) wrote:

>G'day Phil,
>
>On 21 Oct 1996 00:29:23 GMT, Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:

[...]

>>* The USA also has a huge public sector and no significant political
>>choices. I can't comment on their media ownership.
>
>It depends on what you call significant. To many Americans, the

>difference between Republicans and Democrats are significant. [...]

Even the head of the Republican Party (Rick Richards?), interviewed on 3LO
a month or so ago, believes there isn't much difference these days (at least
at the federal level).

>>Whereas the US approach empowers corporations over the individual, and
>>that's generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing.
>
>Really? How does it do this?

You don't understand capitalism?

Cheers,
Marty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gleeson Webmeister | http://www.unimelb.edu.au/%7Egleeson/
Information Technology Services | Email : gle...@unimelb.edu.au
The University of Melbourne, Oz. | Opinions : Mine, all mine.
"I hate quotations." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals (1843)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin Gleeson

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

In article <326d957a...@news.onaustralia.com.au>,
dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au (doug buckser) wrote:

>G'day Martin,

G'day Doug,

>On 19 Oct 1996 10:22:50 GMT, gle...@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson)
>wrote:
>
>>Utter garbage. The American health care system is the second worst in
>>the OECD. (And "maybe 3 times as expensive"? Please! Try 3-6 times as
>>expensive for less cover on the whole - and you can't even get cover for
>>visits to your local GP).

>I'm afraid this simply isn't true. The trend in American insurance is
>to use HMOs, in which all medical treatment is covered by an
>agreed-upon premium. I visited my GP there many times and didn't pay
>anything per visit.

Perhaps that depends on your GP or other factors. I have some friends in
the US (CA) who would love to buy insurance for their GP visits, but can't
find a company wiling to sell it.

>Regarding the cost of insurance, most workers receive medical cover as
>part of their salary package. Obviously, there are obvious exceptions
>for some categories of workers (e.g., contractors, some part time
>jobs).

"Most" workers is extremely subjective. It might be most workers in the type
of industries you work for or have friends in (which I presume are technical/
professional, correct me if I'm worng), but it isn't the case for most other
workers most of whom are in relatively low paid jobs.

Also, you have some other interesting conditions. A good friend of mine is
a Director of Photography working in LA. To become a union member costs him
$8000 to join and $4000 per year. If you don't want the medical cover option
of the union membership, the costs are about $400 join/$200 p.a. The majority
of members take up the medical option.

>From personal experience, my private insurance was about $1200/year
>(as opposed to the $700/year I now pay for Medibank Private).

Did you also get some partial cover from your employer?

>My understanding is that your reference to 3-6 times is exaggerated.

If you prefer to only think of costs in terms of dollars, then I would agree
that 3-6 times is an exaggeration (I only meant to write 3-5, but no matter).
The per-capita spending on health in the US is around $USD2050. In Australia,
it's around $USD960. So more than double as a baseline. To this, add what
you get in terms of outcomes: in the US, non-universal cover (therefore
the "cost" of health programs and procedures "not performed" is absent),
higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy; in Australia,
essentially universal cover, lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

As far as private insurance is concerned, if you take into account what $x
buys you in Australia, and what it buys you in America (i.e. a lot less),
the differences become apparent.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>Given state and federal governments in the US take a larger slice
>of GNP than do Australian state and federal governments this does
>not surprise me at all.

Depends heavily on the state. I hear one very popular tax minimization method
in the US is to set up a company in either Delaware or Nevada, where there
are no corporate taxes, and then have that company do most of your trading
for you. But I'm sure there are traps in such things, also. Anyone know
more about this?

>Odd then that we have longer life expectancies, lower child
>mortality rates, lower just about any measure you care to name.
>Exactly in what way is it higher? And why doesn't it show on
>the figures?

We have socialised medicine, which helps our child mortality averages
more than somewhat.

>And so? Think America is much better? They die younger than we do.

Most of their lifespan deficiency can be put down to nutrition. Lots of
fat, lots of sugar and lots of salt in the standard american diet. Lots
more than in the average Australian diet, and lots more calories too.
Read Weindruch's article on nutrition in the January '96 Scientific
American for pointers to more such stats, or look up
"http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/bmdelane/cr.htm"

Storm

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

Matt McLeod (ma...@hna.com.au) wrote:

: On 18 Oct 1996 14:29:07 +1000, Storm <st...@ar.ar.com.au> wrote:
: >Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
: >
: >: Australia is largely a socialist country, and a much smaller market than
: >: the US, and generally people here are less courteous and less willing to
: >: take risks than in the US. We have some nice beaches, but if you expect
: >: to get ahead in business here, go back, you're going the wrong way.
: >
: >Lemme guess.. you don't know what the word "socialist" means, do you?

: Compared to, say, the US, Australia is "socialist".
<snip!>
: Remember - compared to the "new" US, Thatcher's Britain was socialist. :-)

Compared to a lizard, you are a cat. Does this mean you are largely
a cat? :-)

Phil Herring

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

In article <54iitu$i...@the-fly.zip.com.au> Peter Merel, pe...@zip.com.au writes:
>Depends heavily on the state. I hear one very popular tax minimization method
>in the US is to set up a company in either Delaware or Nevada, where there
>are no corporate taxes, and then have that company do most of your trading
>for you. But I'm sure there are traps in such things, also. Anyone know
>more about this?

I have also read that some states (well, Texas, at least) that don't have
state income taxes will provide you with a certificate of residency so long
as you *intend* to live there some day. There was a fuss about one George
Herbert Bush being a legal resident of Texas, when he only spent one or two
days there per year, in motels.

This was a few years ago. Things may have changed since then.

Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96
to

Ian Staples wrote:

> jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
> >Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
>
> >: Most people have cars less than 5 years old. [in the USA]
>
> >This we don't. [in Oz]

I'm not so sure of that---ten years old, maybe...

> Those 5-year-old yank cars may *be* new, but they *look* bloody
> old. :-)
>
> At least, they did when I was there 20 years ago. Given that
> they are likely to perforate with rust in a year or two (due
> to salt on icy roads) no one seemed the least concerned with having
> the normal dings and crunches repaired. (An approach I can
> sympathise with, not being particularly "car proud". :)

Maybe back then but that was 20 years ago---we now have just about the
best corrosion protection technology in the world, for example my father's
1991 Pontiac Grand Prix hasn't rusted (he takes good care of it, but
still...) Still are a LOT of really old crappy looking cars around too, and a
few old ones in decent shape.

Aardwolf.

Lubosh

unread,
Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96
to

In article <slrn56ma3...@praetor.hna.com.au> ma...@hna.com.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
...

>Compared to, say, the US, Australia is "socialist". Personally, I don't
>think that this is a bad thing - universal health-care,
>almost-universal+free-education, and a reasonable sort of safety net are
>things that we can be proud of.
You have never been to Denmark, have you?

>Remember - compared to the "new" US, Thatcher's Britain was socialist. :-)
Now that's scary !


Phil Herring

unread,
Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96
to

In article <326e96cb...@news.onaustralia.com.au> doug buckser, dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au writes:
>On 21 Oct 1996 00:29:23 GMT, Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>* People in the USA have no real guaranteed rights, either. The Bill of
>>Rights of which people are so fond only applies to the federal government -
>>the states have their own constitutions that may or may not place limits on
>>what is actually done to citizens. (For example, some states still have
>>laws prohibiting some sexual activities in both countries, and both states
>>and cities are free to regulate gun ownership.)
>
>My understanding is quite different.

Your understanding is wrong. The First Amendment has been applied in a
few state cases, but other than that, the Bill of Rights applies to the
government in Washington, DC.

>The Bill of Rights over-ride any
>federal or state legislation (which is why laws are often challenged
>in the courts).

Challenged in the *state* courts.

>It's my understanding that the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens.
>Therefore, states cannot pass laws which contradict the Constitution.

Try buying a handgun in Washington, DC, and see how far you get.

Joseph Askew

unread,
Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96
to

Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:

: >Given state and federal governments in the US take a larger slice


: >of GNP than do Australian state and federal governments this does
: >not surprise me at all.

: Depends heavily on the state.

Yet on average the US governments take a larger slice.

: for you. But I'm sure there are traps in such things, also. Anyone know
: more about this?

One obvious trap is that there is a rush for the bottom with taxes
falling less on business and more on people. Not in itself a bad
thing as such I suppose. Depending.

: >Odd then that we have longer life expectancies, lower child


: >mortality rates, lower just about any measure you care to name.
: >Exactly in what way is it higher? And why doesn't it show on
: >the figures?

: We have socialised medicine, which helps our child mortality averages
: more than somewhat.

Well I'm not a baby any more so that's supposed to make me feel
better? By any rational measure Australia has a more sensible
health care system. It kills me to say it because I would love
for it not to be true but it is. So on what grounds can you
claim that the US has a better health care provision?

: >And so? Think America is much better? They die younger than we do.

: Most of their lifespan deficiency can be put down to nutrition. Lots of
: fat, lots of sugar and lots of salt in the standard american diet. Lots
: more than in the average Australian diet, and lots more calories too.

I doubt this rather loudly. Australians eat out more often than
Americans I hear. There is no way that we could eat worse. And
much of our diet is not only copied from America, much of it is
made in America, by Americans or according to the American style.
MacDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC to name but a few.

And one of the main predictors of heart attack death is how
soon help arrives. Help within fifteen minutes of an attack
is vital. If Americans are keeling over from heart disease
left right and centre where are the ambulances?

Ian Staples

unread,
Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96
to

Aardwolf <se1...@itis.com> writes:

>Ian Staples wrote:
[Re the shabby appearance of new yank cars .]


>> At least, they did when I was there 20 years ago. Given that

>> they are likely to perforate with rust in a year or two ...

>Maybe back then but that was 20 years ago---we now have just about the

>best corrosion protection technology in the world, ...

It was quite funny when I was there actually. In the NE USA (and in
Canada too, if I recall correctly) there had been such a rust problem
with a new model that people were forming "Rusty Ford Clubs" -- at
least in name; I don't know if they ever had meetings. :-)

Anyway, I was told that Ford's response was to make some changes
and then guarantee that their cars wouldn't perforate within 12 months.
Of course, the thought that they were confident for a _whole_year_ was
enough to cause even more hilarity among would-be customers than the
original problem had. :):):)

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>Yet on average the US governments take a larger slice.

It seems that this is not correct. A recent post here quoted Mike Nahan
of the Institute of Public Affairs in an article in The Cairns Post of
21/10/96:

"Country Taxes as % GDP*

Denmark 48.3
NZ 35.7
Australia 28.7
UK 27.6
France 24.3
Germany 23.9
US 21.0"

>>>lower child mortality rates


>> We have socialised medicine, which helps our child mortality averages
>> more than somewhat.

>Well I'm not a baby any more so that's supposed to make me feel
>better?

The original poster, as you can see, mentioned child mortality rates and
longevity rates as criteria for judging medical care. So I responded to
that. How does your own age bear on these criteria?

>So on what grounds can you
>claim that the US has a better health care provision?

If you can afford a decent level of medical insurance, it appears that
the US system will afford you much superior care to the Australian system.
If not, then it will afford you inferior care to the Australian system.
As to which is better for you - obviously that depends on your circumstances.

>I doubt this rather loudly. Australians eat out more often than
>Americans I hear.

So what? Australian don't shovel salt, sugar, fat and calories down
themselves so much when they eat out. If you doubt this, I invite you to
visit the US and sample their standard cuisine - unless your tastebuds
and your eyes are defective, I promise you that you'll notice the
difference immediately.

>There is no way that we could eat worse. And
>much of our diet is not only copied from America, much of it is
>made in America, by Americans or according to the American style.
>MacDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC to name but a few.

Those are relatively recent innovations in Australia - they haven't had
their effects on our mortality yet. However I should say that we still
don't consume these things in American quantities - and if you doubt
this, then try following the references I gave in my last posting, and
tell me why you think they're bogus.

>And one of the main predictors of heart attack death is how
>soon help arrives.

A better predictor is whether or not you have the heart attack in the
first place ... which is determined almost entirely by nutrition.

Joseph Askew

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>>Yet on average the US governments take a larger slice.

>It seems that this is not correct. A recent post here quoted Mike Nahan
>of the Institute of Public Affairs in an article in The Cairns Post of
>21/10/96:

>"Country Taxes as % GDP*

>Australia 28.7
>UK 27.6
>US 21.0"

Unfortunately you leave out the key issue which is that these
figures are fixed by removing Social Security from the US
figures. Probably the Australian ones too. By the same logic
I can insist that medicine gets removed from the Australian
figure (which would make us comparable with the US) or that
the US figure for private health care is added (which would
push the US above us). This is especially important as a lot
of countries have unfunded pension debits. Belgium has a massive
debt, some 110% of GNP. But if you add its pensions to that debt
you get about 350% of GNP. I think that is the most extreme case
I know of.

>>Well I'm not a baby any more so that's supposed to make me feel
>>better?

>The original poster, as you can see, mentioned child mortality rates and
>longevity rates as criteria for judging medical care. So I responded to
>that. How does your own age bear on these criteria?

Well then, I, as the original poster, fail to see the point. How
can you argue that the American system is superior when it cannot
even provide decent pre and post natal care? Babies are dying in
the US for some reason. More than here. Probably because of our
health system. If this *is* caused by socialised medicine it is
proof of the superiority of our system.

>>So on what grounds can you
>>claim that the US has a better health care provision?

>If you can afford a decent level of medical insurance, it appears that
>the US system will afford you much superior care to the Australian system.

Yet you wil ldie younger and fewer of your children will live. In
what way is the US system superior when it fails in all the gross
measurements?

>If not, then it will afford you inferior care to the Australian system.

So only *parts* of the US system is superior?

>As to which is better for you - obviously that depends on your circumstances.

No doubt.

>>I doubt this rather loudly. Australians eat out more often than
>>Americans I hear.

>So what? Australian don't shovel salt, sugar, fat and calories down
>themselves so much when they eat out.

There is obviously a whole 'nother Australia out there I have
yet to meet. Just for the record I shovel down as many calories
and as much salt, sugar and fat as I can when I eat out.

> If you doubt this, I invite you to
>visit the US and sample their standard cuisine - unless your tastebuds
>and your eyes are defective, I promise you that you'll notice the
>difference immediately.

I shall have to defer to your wider experience never having
eaten in the United States.

>>There is no way that we could eat worse. And
>>much of our diet is not only copied from America, much of it is
>>made in America, by Americans or according to the American style.
>>MacDonald's, Pizza Hut, KFC to name but a few.

>Those are relatively recent innovations in Australia - they haven't had
>their effects on our mortality yet.

I suspect they have and given they have been here years how long
is long enough?

>>And one of the main predictors of heart attack death is how
>>soon help arrives.

>A better predictor is whether or not you have the heart attack in the
>first place ... which is determined almost entirely by nutrition.

No it isn't. It is determined mostly by the imbalance between diet
and output perhaps. People who work hard at manual labour and eat
a lot of fat don't run a huge risk.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

G'day Peter,

On 22 Oct 1996 01:26:22 GMT, Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:

>I can only talk about the real-estate we looked at while we were there -
>3-4 bedroom free-standing houses with water views, close to the beach in
>San Diego, for $150k to $300k. In my estimation, the same houses in
>Sydney would go for about 3-10 times the price, depending on the area.

This is a very interesting point. I bought a house last year and was
assured by my friends in Sydney that a house in the same location
there would have been -much- more expensive. On the other hand, some
friends from Geelong think that I paid far too much.

As you point out, it's all relative.

Ian Staples

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:

>> If you doubt this, I invite you to
>>visit the US and sample their standard cuisine - unless your tastebuds
>>and your eyes are defective, I promise you that you'll notice the
>>difference immediately.

>I shall have to defer to your wider experience never having
>eaten in the United States.

When I was there (admittedly 20 years ago :) the thing that struck me
was the profusion of excellent salads on offer. What's more, the
bastards wouldn't serve you your life-sustaining meat order until
you'd eaten all the rabbit food. ;-)

>>A better predictor is whether or not you have the heart attack in the
>>first place ... which is determined almost entirely by nutrition.

>No it isn't. It is determined mostly by the imbalance between diet
>and output perhaps. People who work hard at manual labour and eat
>a lot of fat don't run a huge risk.

I'm sure a lot of things influence this, but somewhere, some time
ago I recall seeing something on the comparison of twins who had
been raised separately. They were followed to see what happened
to them over the years and, if I'm remembering correctly, the
incidence of "premature" death from heart disease was better
correlated with similar problems of the natural parents whereas
cancer was better correlated with its incidence in the foster
families -- suggesting that genetics played a greater role in
susceptibility to heart disease whereas environment played the
greater role in terms of cancers.

Cheers, Ian S.

P.S. Dropping a.p from followups.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au (doug buckser) writes:

>Personally, I'd be very surprised to hear if there is a state without
>corporate taxes. There are some states, such as New Hampshire, which
>don't have state sales tax or state income tax, but I believe that
>they'd all tax corporations.

There are a number of businesses online that sell Nevada shelf-companies
for exactly this reason; I think Delaware has been the most popular base
for US companies due to an extremely low corporate tax, but it seems that
now Nevada has ruled out corporate tax altogether, and is guaranteeing
considerable anonymity too. Some details, along with a sales pitch, are at

http://www.webmill.com/asp/nvcorp

As well as sundry other places - use your favourite search engine for more.

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

sta...@planet.mh.dpi.qld.gov.au (Ian Staples) writes:

>[vaguely remembers studies] suggesting that genetics played a greater

>role in susceptibility to heart disease whereas environment played the
>greater role in terms of cancers.

By far the best researched method of life extension is the practice of
calorie restriction, which, as mentioned in the original thread, is
described in some detail at

http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/bmdelane/cr.htm

This method appears to offer a tremendous beneficial effect for those
with a genetic predisposition for heart disease, as well as for those
with predispositions for cancer, adult-onset diabetes, and many other
conditions, even when only pursued later in life.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

G'day Peter,

On 22 Oct 1996 13:41:18 GMT, Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:

>Depends heavily on the state. I hear one very popular tax minimization method
>in the US is to set up a company in either Delaware or Nevada, where there
>are no corporate taxes, and then have that company do most of your trading

>for you. But I'm sure there are traps in such things, also. Anyone know
>more about this?

Personally, I'd be very surprised to hear if there is a state without


corporate taxes. There are some states, such as New Hampshire, which
don't have state sales tax or state income tax, but I believe that
they'd all tax corporations.

Doug

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

G'day Martin,

On 22 Oct 1996 12:28:09 GMT, gle...@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson)
wrote:

>>I visited my GP there many times and didn't pay anything per visit.


>
>Perhaps that depends on your GP or other factors. I have some friends in
>the US (CA) who would love to buy insurance for their GP visits, but can't
>find a company wiling to sell it.

From my far-distant perspective, it sounds like your friends may be
living in exceptional circumstances. While I was employed in the US,
for example, the companies provided free HMO cover (which included GP
visits).

Perhaps it would be worth identifying anything which may place your
friends outside the norm.

>>Regarding the cost of insurance, most workers receive medical cover as
>>part of their salary package. Obviously, there are obvious exceptions
>>for some categories of workers (e.g., contractors, some part time
>>jobs).
>
>"Most" workers is extremely subjective. It might be most workers in the type
>of industries you work for or have friends in (which I presume are technical/
>professional, correct me if I'm worng), but it isn't the case for most other
>workers most of whom are in relatively low paid jobs.

While I appreciate your strategy of defining anything or anyone which
contradicts you as elitist, I'm afraid that it's not as simple as
that.

While I lived in the US, I had friends who worked in many types of
industries. Almost without exception, their company or their spouse's
company provided family medical cover. It's my understanding that
medical cover is also provided by government jobs (e.g., teachers).
Students generally pay a minimal amount for university-sponsored
cover.

In short, my experience leads me to take issue with your
generalisations.

>>From personal experience, my private insurance was about $1200/year
>>(as opposed to the $700/year I now pay for Medibank Private).
>
>Did you also get some partial cover from your employer?

During this time, I was a contract editor with Honeywell and didn't
receive any subsidies. Later, when I became full-time staff, I
received full medical cover as part of the salary package.

>>My understanding is that your reference to 3-6 times is exaggerated.
>
>If you prefer to only think of costs in terms of dollars, then I would agree
>that 3-6 times is an exaggeration (I only meant to write 3-5, but no matter).
>The per-capita spending on health in the US is around $USD2050. In Australia,
>it's around $USD960.

The logic behind this statement confuses me. If my maths are correct,
2050/960= 2.14 (or roughly double). To use this figure was the basis
of a 300-500 percent difference isn't self-explanatory. You then make
what appear to be irrelevant issues (e.g., higher infant mortality
rates, lower life expectancy).

>As far as private insurance is concerned, if you take into account what $x
>buys you in Australia, and what it buys you in America (i.e. a lot less),
>the differences become apparent.

In your calculations, don't forget to add in the Medicare levy and any
other indirect taxes which underwrite the Australian medical system.

Lamari, Matthew

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

Yank cars' warranties are 3 years, and people into buying new cars ditch
them after this (also when the financing practically forces you to).

I've been told by guys from Canada that the salt rusts the floors right
out of cars (would be the same in northern U.S.) Fortunately for young
poor student types, there aren't laws that take your car off the road
with 1 rust-hole, and you can drive the car without doors until you fall
through the hole in the floor, as long as your headlights and indicators
work.

Just that my '88 EA Falcon in Townsville last year had more rust on it
than obviously un-restored older cars here in Austin, Texas (snows once
every ten years, no nearby coastline). Only rust I've actually ever
seen on a car was a couple from the sixties, and only where they had
long-unrepaired crash damage (crash damage is extremely common in the
driving-skill-impaired Austin and yank attitude to motoring.) In fact,
even dented areas don't seem to want to rust.

Nonetheless, I had heard of used car places actually moving cars out of
places without snow, to avoid cars full of rust. In used-car hunting in
Austin, I was searching for Rust the same way I had done in Townsville;
but there was really no point.


Matt.

Aardwolf wrote:


>
> Ian Staples wrote:
>
> > jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> >

> > >Peter Merel (pe...@zip.com.au) wrote:
> >
> > >: Most people have cars less than 5 years old. [in the USA]
> >
> > >This we don't. [in Oz]
>
> I'm not so sure of that---ten years old, maybe...
>
> > Those 5-year-old yank cars may *be* new, but they *look* bloody
> > old. :-)
> >

> > At least, they did when I was there 20 years ago. Given that

> > they are likely to perforate with rust in a year or two (due
> > to salt on icy roads) no one seemed the least concerned with having
> > the normal dings and crunches repaired. (An approach I can
> > sympathise with, not being particularly "car proud". :)
>

> Maybe back then but that was 20 years ago---we now have just about the

Peter Merel

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

>>As to which is better for you - obviously that depends on your circumstances.
>No doubt.

Okay, then we've reached agreement here, bar the shouting about
life-spans.

>>Those [american fast-food] are relatively recent innovations in Australia

>>- they haven't had their effects on our mortality yet.

>I suspect they have and given they have been here years how long
>is long enough?

To significantly affect mortality rates? I guess about 30-40 years -
long enough for people to have eaten the stuff for significant parts of
their lives. Most of the places you mentioned have only achieved significant
market penetration in the last two decades, and then mainly with the young.

>>A better predictor is whether or not you have the heart attack in the
>>first place ... which is determined almost entirely by nutrition.

>No it isn't. It is determined mostly by the imbalance between diet
>and output perhaps. People who work hard at manual labour and eat
>a lot of fat don't run a huge risk.

If you look at the longevity results in detail, you'll find that people
who work hard at manual labour and eat a lot of fat do indeed still run
a large risk. What you want for longevity is good nutrition and
conservative amounts of load-bearing exercise. If you don't believe me,
follow the pointers I posted and tell me where you think they're bogus;
"is-not" and "is-too" won't cut it when there are considerable empirical
results in this area.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96
to

G'day Martin,

On 22 Oct 1996 11:53:26 GMT, gle...@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson)
wrote:

>>>Whereas the US approach empowers corporations over the individual, and


>>>that's generally acknowledged as a Bad Thing.
>>
>>Really? How does it do this?
>
>You don't understand capitalism?

If this is your best supporting argument, we might let this topic go
through to the keeper.

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh ernyyl bhtug gb trg bhg zber

dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96
to

In article <54fnbp$f...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>>All things being equal, a HH is "better off" in Australia than the US
>>or Brit.
>
>According to Kym's method of figuring, if a nation was composed entirely
>of highly paid single people, it would somehow be "worse off" than a
>nation where large families relied on child-labour to scrape by. That
>doesn't seem to me to make a whole lot of sense.

No -- you have made an invalid inference.

I am talking about household income.

Obviously where there are more breadwinners in a household, that
houshold will do "better" in that given country.

The size of the household, the size of the workforce and the
cost of living therefore determine which of the countries listed
are relatively better off.

Further, I only compared those countries that were at a similar
post-industrial development level.

Viz:
>>All things being equal, a HH is "better off" in Australia than the US
>>or Brit.

The topic has always been Aussie income tax levels and (hence) income.
You now appear to be trying to change the topic to one comparing Australia and
Mongolia.

--
R. Kym Horsell
KHor...@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU k...@CS.Binghamton.EDU
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym

Kym Horsell

unread,
Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96
to

In article <326c911a...@news.onaustralia.com.au>,
doug buckser <dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au> wrote:
>[walk-up flats or shared housing are "typical"]

>From your descriptions, I'm under the impression that you lived in
>student accommodations (perhaps in a university town). In this case,
>it's understandable that you wouldn't be familiar with non-university
>housing arrangements.

I've "seen" all sorts. ;-)

But I don't just go by what I see -- that is subject
to the unconscious "averaging" problems I indicated before (i.e.
what may be a distribution skewed toward the low end averages out
to a higher-than-typical value -- e.g. as for "average wage").

From the US HUD the "typical" American home involves a total of 5 rooms.
This seems to jive with the 5-room apartment as the "typical" accomodation.

From the data below, the "typical" home is around 1500 ft^2,
occupied by 2.5 people and costs from $US500 to $US600 per month in
what appears likely to be rent.

(And, co-incidentally, "typical" of the accomodation I saw ;-).

===data===
From the American Housing Survey 1993:

Occupied housing

611,000 1 room
989,000 2 rooms
7,959,000 3 rooms
17,221,000 4 rooms
21,030,000 5 rooms <--- "typical" 5 room unit
19,870,000 6 rooms
13,083,000 7 rooms
7,683,000 8 rooms
3,738,000 9 rooms
2,541,000 10 rooms or more

Size of Unit (sic):

64,574,000 Single detached and mobile homes
697,000 Less than 500 square feet
2,381,000 500 to 749
5,704,000 750 to 999
15,084,000 1,000 to 1,499 <--- 10 to 15 squares
13,414,000 1,500 to 1,999
9,653,000 2,000 to 2,499
5,374,000 2,500 to 2,999
4,799,000 3,000 to 3,999
2,688,000 4,000 or more
4,780,000 Not reported


Persons per Room:

64,611,000 0.50 or less <---
27,727,000 0.51 to 1.00
1,940,000 1.01 to 1.50
446,000 1.51 or more


Monthly housing cost

1,606,000 Less than $100
9,600,000 $100 to $199
5,860,000 $200 to $249
5,546,000 $250 to $299
5,285,000 $300 to $349
5,324,000 $350 to $399
5,306,000 $400 to $449
5,152,000 $450 to $499
9,295,000 $500 to $599 <---
7,698,000 $600 to $699
5,861,000 $700 to $799
7,737,000 $800 to $999
5,263,000 $1,000 to $1,249
3,044,000 $1,250 to $1,499
4,222,000 $1,500 or more
2,414,000 No cash rent
5,512,000 Mortgage payment not repor

===end===

Aardwolf

unread,
Oct 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/26/96
to

Lamari, Matthew wrote:
>
> Yank cars' warranties are 3 years, and people into buying new cars ditch
> them after this (also when the financing practically forces you to).

Some have five or six now, I believe. Yes some people like new cars all the
time, I'd be happy with my '69 Polara and '73 Grand Am for as long as I
drive. And Possibly an HZ Statesman SL/E, among other additions ;-)

> I've been told by guys from Canada that the salt rusts the floors right
> out of cars (would be the same in northern U.S.) Fortunately for young
> poor student types, there aren't laws that take your car off the road
> with 1 rust-hole, and you can drive the car without doors until you fall
> through the hole in the floor, as long as your headlights and indicators
> work.

Yes rust is a large problem particularly in older cars, however regular
proper cleaning can greatly reduce and in some cases comletely prevent
this. Even in snowy areas (and living in Wisconsin I'm no stranger to
that) we use WAY too much salt considering the other options for clearing
the roads.

Aardwolf.

doug buckser

unread,
Oct 27, 1996, 2:00:00 AM10/27/96
to

G'day Peter,

On 24 Oct 1996 13:55:45 GMT, Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:

>dbuc...@onaustralia.com.au (doug buckser) writes:
>
>>Personally, I'd be very surprised to hear if there is a state without
>>corporate taxes.
>

>There are a number of businesses online that sell Nevada shelf-companies
>for exactly this reason; I think Delaware has been the most popular base
>for US companies due to an extremely low corporate tax, but it seems that
>now Nevada has ruled out corporate tax altogether, and is guaranteeing
>considerable anonymity too. Some details, along with a sales pitch, are at
>
>http://www.webmill.com/asp/nvcorp

Thanks for the information. You learn something new every day...

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Kym Horsell

unread,
Nov 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/6/96
to

In article <54pn8d$d...@the-fly.zip.com.au>,

Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>khor...@ee.latrobe.edu.au (Kym Horsell) writes:
>
>>Obviously where there are more breadwinners in a household, that
>>houshold will do "better" in that given country.
>
>This does not follow. Many families have living standards that are
>influenced heavily by inherited wealth. ...

How many is "many"? You don't possibly know.

In any case, isn't "inherited wealth" earned in the first place?

I would imagine that inherited wealth is therefore correlated well
to my "breadwinners per household" metric or the "cost adjusted
breadwinners per household" metric. If you believe this not
to be the case, I would be interested in your (non-hand-waving)
analysis.

It seems to be -- for some reason -- you can not accept that
the "standard of living" in Australia and Canada can be shown
to be greater than that -- according to some metrics -- than
the USA or Britain. I find this curious. Presumably your orientation
is to the usual GDP per capita standards that indicate the wealth
of resident multinationals, rather than the household sector of
an econonmy. ;-)

All very well -- but not what we're talking about here.

(And, as independent evidence that some form of breadwinners per
household may be indicative of "wellness of living" for families,
note that the most livable cities in the world have been in
the past few years chosen from Canada and Australia).

Richard Scott

unread,
Nov 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/11/96
to


Richard Scott (rsc...@hawaii.edu)

" Steve I've gotta say Thank You,
For what you've done for me.
The nights are dark and lonely
When you're not on TV. " - Radio Birdman

On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, doug buckser wrote:

> From my far-distant perspective, it sounds like your friends may be
> living in exceptional circumstances. While I was employed in the US,

Not exceptional at all. They could be denied coverage because they were
sick before, for example. Why else would Bill be suddenly crowing about
providing coverage for those '25 million Americans that didn't have it due
to changing jobs or pre-exisitng conditions' now, that is 10% of the
population or so. Not inconsiderable.

> for example, the companies provided free HMO cover (which included GP
> visits).
>

Some. Take all the people in low-paying jobs, even if they can get it,
they can't afford it. For example, coverage similar to Medicare I had in
one job - and worse in some respects, certainly, cost $1200 Australian a
year, roughly. Same thing, in Australias would have been roughly a third
of that. Now, if I wanted to insure my wife, too, whack on another $3500
a year. Nice and affordable types of coverage if you are making $12000 a
year, isn't it? And that is around the minimum wage amount that millions
and millions of Americans are employed at.


> Perhaps it would be worth identifying anything which may place your
> friends outside the norm.

Easy, put them in a non-high-paying professional job.


>
> While I appreciate your strategy of defining anything or anyone which
> contradicts you as elitist, I'm afraid that it's not as simple as
> that.
>
> While I lived in the US, I had friends who worked in many types of
> industries. Almost without exception, their company or their spouse's
> company provided family medical cover. It's my understanding that
> medical cover is also provided by government jobs (e.g., teachers).
> Students generally pay a minimal amount for university-sponsored
> cover.
>

Minimal amount? $800 US dollars a year? The same amount someone earning
what, close to what, 30 grand would pay for medicare. How many students
earn 30 grand? This being for much more limited coverage, too.



> In short, my experience leads me to take issue with your
> generalisations.
>

His generalisations adhere very closely to the truth.


doug buckser

unread,
Nov 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM11/16/96
to

G'day Richard,

On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 00:56:07 -1000, Richard Scott <rsc...@hawaii.edu>
wrote:

>> From my far-distant perspective, it sounds like your friends may be
>> living in exceptional circumstances. While I was employed in the US,
>
>Not exceptional at all. They could be denied coverage because they were
>sick before, for example.

It's my understanding that the same situation exists here. When I
first arrived in Australia, I had to wait a year for complete Medibank
Private insurance because they wanted to be sure that I didn't have
any pre-existing conditions.

Denying medical cover to sick people is an interesting ethical
dilemma. Should a company be required to cover someone who has tested
positive for HIV? In this case, it's likely that the company will
spend -a lot- of money, while recovering little of it. On the other
hand, should an HIV-positive person therefore be deprived of private
hospitals? It's an interesting question.

>Why else would Bill be suddenly crowing about
>providing coverage for those '25 million Americans that didn't have it due
>to changing jobs or pre-exisitng conditions' now, that is 10% of the
>population or so. Not inconsiderable.

There are two responses to this question.

First, as we discussed earlier, some types of jobs don't offer health
insurance. However, because most jobs offer family health cover, the
spouse's insurance covers the family.

Second, as a Republican, I'm not completely satisfied with all of
Clinton's election statements, particularly one which is taken out of
context.

>Some. Take all the people in low-paying jobs, even if they can get it,
>they can't afford it. For example, coverage similar to Medicare I had in
>one job - and worse in some respects, certainly, cost $1200 Australian a
>year, roughly.

In order for me to understand your background on this subject, would
you mind identifying the type of job you had (e.g., part-time work in
a burger shop, student union work, programmer/analyst)? If you can
provide an explanation of your conditions, I'll be able to better
understand the points you're trying to make.

>Same thing, in Australias would have been roughly a third
>of that. Now, if I wanted to insure my wife, too, whack on another $3500
>a year.

My Medibank Private cover costs roughly $700/year or thereabouts.
Although my maths aren't as good as they could be, I don't understand
how $700 is one-third of the $1200 you were paying in America.

>Nice and affordable types of coverage if you are making $12000 a
>year, isn't it? And that is around the minimum wage amount that millions
>and millions of Americans are employed at.

Yes, millions of Americans are employed at minimum wage, but I wonder
how many of them are the heads of households. That is, I'm sure that
many high school and uni students earn minimum wage at the supermarket
or McDs while earning tuition, but they would presumably be covered by
their parents' coverage. And so on.

>> Perhaps it would be worth identifying anything which may place your
>> friends outside the norm.
>
>Easy, put them in a non-high-paying professional job.

While I do appreciate the reference to on-going class struggle and so
on, I recall reading that the average US family income is in the
neighbourhood of $25-30k. Personally, I believe that a family can
easily afford private insurance within this income (assuming that the
employer doesn't provide coverage).

>It's my understanding that
>> medical cover is also provided by government jobs (e.g., teachers).
>> Students generally pay a minimal amount for university-sponsored
>> cover.
>>
>Minimal amount? $800 US dollars a year? The same amount someone earning
>what, close to what, 30 grand would pay for medicare. How many students
>earn 30 grand? This being for much more limited coverage, too.

Again, your rhetoric appears to be letting you down somewhat. If my
memory is accurate, I paid less than $100/year for medical cover while
I was in university, because it was organised through the student
activity fees. Because university students are generally young and
healthy and the small on-campus medical centre handled the routine
accidents, the payments were small.

It appears that perhaps you weren't aware of a university-sponsored
medical insurance program or didn't qualify for some reason. I
attended two universities and my family members attended/teach at
several others and it's my understanding that very inexpensive medical
coverage is a standard feature at all of them.

>> In short, my experience leads me to take issue with your
>> generalisations.
>>
>His generalisations adhere very closely to the truth.

I'm trying to respond to your generalisations with specifics.
Furthermore, because most of my references involve Australian
organisations, you are certainly familiar with them. One of the
benefits of living in Australia and America is that I have some
experience with comparable organisations and facilities.

0 new messages