(a Schengen passport is highly coveted among my peers)
They must be right wankers, highly coveting something that appears freely available Seems to me they hand them out to anyone with more than 3 mths on a passport
Quote:
Generally, Australian tourists planning to spend less than a total of 90 days within a 180 day period in the 'Schengen area' do not require visas for countries which are parties to the Schengen Convention.
Australia has reciprocal arrangements with a number of countries in the Schengen area which may allow young people to have an extended holiday, supplemented by short-term employment. Further information on working holiday program visa arrangements is available from the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection website.
Ignore posts by The Whole Truth · View Post · End Ignoring The forum fuckwit goes RRRAAARRRGGHHhhh - But not a fuck was given..................by anyone.
The ABS labour force data for the month of July registered a sharp increase in the headline unemployment rate to 6.4% from an upwardly revised 6.0% in June – the highest unemployment rate for 12 years. The result disappointed analyst’s expectations of a steady unemployment rate of 6.0%. In trend terms, unemployment rose marginally to 6.0% in July.
Total employment decreased by a seasonally adjusted 300 to 11,576,600 in July. The decrease in jobs was driven by a 14,800 decrease in part-time jobs, partly offset by a 14,500 increase in full-time jobs. Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased by 14.8 million hours (0.9%) to 1 ,610.7 million hours.
The participation rate also increased by 0.1% to 64.8%, which is part of the reason why the unemployment rate fell, and softens the blow of the poor headline result.
Total employment continues to flatline.
Growth in full-time jobs (0.8% YoY SA / 0.7% YoY Trend) also continues to improve, albeit still remains soft:
Employment growth continues to be driven almost exclusively by the mining states, with the large LNG projects still presumably playing a major role.
And the Southern States continue to have the highest unemployment rates.
The state seasonally-adjusted figures are notoriously volatile and subject to a big margin of error. As such, the below chart shows the ABS’ trend unemployment rates, which shows Western Australia and New South Wales with the lowest unemployment (but with diverging trends), Tasmania and South Australia with the highest, and Victorian and Queensland unemployment also elevated (and rising). Note also that the national unemployment rate (6.0%) is also trending upwards.
Another negative from this release is that the aggregate number of hours worked fell by 0.9% in July, and has only risen by 0.7% over the year, which is below the circa 1.8% growth in the population.
Moreover, the average number of hours worked remains near all-time lows.
One positive from this release was that the participation rate rose by 0.1% in July in seasonally adjusted terms, although the employment-to-population ratio continues to slide.
Australia’s labour market remains soft, whereby employment growth remains positive but at a pace that is insufficient to offset the growing population.
Personally, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the large jump in the headline unemployment rate. The seasonally adjusted figures are subject to massive sampling error, which makes the results incredibly volatile. Better to focus on the trend data, which registered only a slight increase in the unemployment rate but a rising trend.
There are also some positive signs emerging, including the recent recovery in full-time employment (albeit growth remains soft).
As always, mining cliff awaits, which will act as an ongoing headwind to employment. The problem is perhaps compounded by the fact that Queensland and Western Australia continue to drive jobs growth, suggesting a lack of rebalancing across the economy currently.
Nope, absolutely true. Since the introduction of the GST, Australian governments have collected more tax total and per capita than at any time before.
------------------------------ " ... which is that all-too-familiar dynamic in Irish life where people tell lies, cover them up and create all sorts of collateral damage, sometimes spread out over decades, and never take responsibility." - Alan Glynn
Nope, absolutely true. Since the introduction of the GST, Australian governments have collected more tax total and per capita than at any time before.
Linked to official / credible data source to prove please. And a more specific claim - ie are you talking nominal $? % of household income? Or % of GDP?
Nothing really to see here... UE will remain low as our participation resumes its decent do to the agequake. At the moment UE went up only because our participation rate rose.
Sydneyite
9 Aug 2014, 10:34 AM
Linked to official / credible data source to prove please. And a more specific claim - ie are you talking nominal $? % of household income? Or % of GDP?
If it is true, then a good argument for a higher GST and a Land tax only. Abolish all other taxes .
With the exception of the GFC, tax collections have been increasing on a total $ basis, and continuously on a per capita basis since 2000. You can find all the numbers in 5506.0 from the ABS.
Quote:
And a more specific claim - ie are you talking nominal $? % of household income? Or % of GDP?
Total $ and per capita as stated in my first post.
After the GST was introduced, total tax collections increased by 8%, and has been rising at around 4% per year since then, roughly the same as AWE. So after a one off jump of 8%, tax collection has remained at it's new post-GST high.
------------------------------ " ... which is that all-too-familiar dynamic in Irish life where people tell lies, cover them up and create all sorts of collateral damage, sometimes spread out over decades, and never take responsibility." - Alan Glynn
With the exception of the GFC, tax collections have been increasing on a total $ basis, and continuously on a per capita basis since 2000. You can find all the numbers in 5506.0 from the ABS.
Total $ and per capita as stated in my first post.
After the GST was introduced, total tax collections increased by 8%, and has been rising at around 4% per year since then, roughly the same as AWE. So after a one off jump of 8%, tax collection has remained at it's new post-GST high.
The original statement was still incorrect, or at least highly misleading if based on any sort of nominal figure, be it straight total $ or per capita number. An equally correct (but misleading out of context) statement would be "Australian's have never earned more income in the whole of history than at the present time". Inflation basically ensures that nominal figures will almost always increase over time.
Up to 2010/11, it looks like the overall total level of taxation at all government levels as a % of GDP fell to the LOWEST level in 20, maybe 30 or more years. That's the actual situation, and that's why the original statement that I replied to is still bollocks.
What ultimately matters is the proportion of our incomes that we have to pay in tax, in any discussion around whether current total taxation higher or lower at different periods - the best proxy for this is aggregate is the taxation as a % of GDP.
I hate to say it, but the spectacular events that hit the headlines aren't necessarily the things most worth worrying about. The big news on the economy this week was the spectacular jump in the unemployment rate from 6 per cent to 6.4 per just during July. Not a big worry.
Question is, what does it prove? That the economy fell into a hole around the middle of the year? Doubt it. There's little other evidence that it did and a lot that it didn't.
That the slow upward creep in unemployment we've been seeing for about two years may have accelerated? Doubt that, too. Again, the other economic indicators aren't pointing that way.
(Indeed, some economists have been wondering if unemployment was close to peaking. So far this year employment has grown by an average of 15,600 jobs a month, compared with just 5100 a month last year.)
That the unemployment figures are volatile from month to month and this is an unexplained statistical blip that should be corrected next month? Seems a bit too big for that.
Truth is it's hard to know what the problem is. Easier to be sure when we've seen another month or two's figures.
But my guess is it's a once-only upward step in the measured rate of unemployment, caused by a seemingly small change in the questions that people in the Bureau of Statistics' monthly survey are asked so as to ascertain whether they've been "actively" seeking a job if they don't have one.
The change – made partly because of the switch to searching for jobs on the internet rather than at Centrelink – seems to have led more people to be classed as unemployed and fewer as "not in the labour force".
If this guess proves right, it's not so worrying. It doesn't change reality, just the way we measure it. In any case, we've long known that the official measure of unemployment is very narrow and understates the extent of the problem.
That's why the bureau publishes every quarter a broader measure of unemployment, which takes the official unemployment rate and adds the under-employed – people with jobs who aren't working as many hours a week as they'd like to – to give the "labour force underutilisation rate".
The figures for May show narrowly measured unemployment of 6 per cent, and an underemployment rate of 7.5 per cent, to give a broader measure of 13.5 per cent.
Less spectacular than this month's jump in the official rate but, to me, more worthy of worry is news that hasn't hit the headlines: the rapid worsening in teenage unemployment.
Whereas so far this year the trend rate of overall unemployment has risen by 0.2 percentage points, the trend rate for people aged 15 to 19 has risen by 2.8 percentage points to 19.3 per cent.
Note, this doesn't mean almost one youth in five is unemployed. Most people that age are in full-time education, so aren't in the calculation. Turns out about one in 20 of all 15 to 19 year-olds is unemployed and looking for a full-time job.
Many people have it in their heads that unemployment rises because people lose their jobs and employment falls. That's true only in recessions. It's rare for employment to fall – it fell only briefly even during the global financial crisis.
No, the main reason unemployment rises outside of recessions is that the economy isn't growing fast enough to employ all the extra people joining the labour force from education, as immigrants or as mothers rejoining.
That's what's been happening over the past two years. And young people – particularly those who leave school or training too early – have borne most of the burden of insufficient job creation. We should be doing much better by them than Work for the Dole and denying them benefits for six months to keep them hungry.
But there's nothing spectacular about this quiet suffering, so it doesn't hit the headlines. Much better to scandalise over factory closures, which surely signal the end of the world. So let's look at the facts on retrenchment, courtesy of a Bureau of Statistics study.
About 2 million people left their jobs over the year to February 2013 (the latest period for which figures are available). About 60 per cent of these left voluntarily and 21 per cent left because of their illness or injury, leaving 19 per cent – 380,000 – who left because they were retrenched.
That's a rate of retrenchment of 3.1 per cent. The rate hit 4 per cent in 2000, but then fell to a low of 2 per cent in 2008, just before the global financial crisis, then increased sharply to 3.1 per cent in 2010, where it has pretty much stayed since.
Over the year to 2013, all industries experienced retrenchments, but the most were in construction, 65,000; retailing, 40,000; and manufacturing, just under 40,000.
Up to 2010/11, it looks like the overall total level of taxation at all government levels as a % of GDP fell to the LOWEST level in 20, maybe 30 or more years. That's the actual situation, and that's why the original statement that I replied to is still bollocks.
What ultimately matters is the proportion of our incomes that we have to pay in tax, in any discussion around whether current total taxation higher or lower at different periods - the best proxy for this in aggregate is the taxation as a % of GDP.
Best proxy according to who? You? GDP is a chain volume measure, taxation is a dollar measure.
Since 2003, income tax has been rising at 4% per year, roughly the same as AWE, corporate tax has been rising at 6% per year, and GST has been rising at 4% per year, slightly faster than inflation. Total revenues have increased around 5% per year.
The proportion of our incomes that we pay in tax is now dependent on age. If you are a Baby Boomer, you pay less tax as a proportion of your income than a GenX or GenY, because you earn more (and income tax has gone down) but you consume less (empty nest, independent children) and consumption taxes have increased. The one off increase in tax revenues of roughly 8% has never been reclaimed by the tax payer. We continue to pay 8% more than before the GST, but it is unevenly distributed among tax payers, with the younger generations paying roughly 12% more relative to incomes, and the Baby Boomers paying around 4% less.
------------------------------ " ... which is that all-too-familiar dynamic in Irish life where people tell lies, cover them up and create all sorts of collateral damage, sometimes spread out over decades, and never take responsibility." - Alan Glynn
Record youth unemployment sounds like it goes hand in hand with massive immigration as the ' new ' Australian takes all the jobs from the kids of 'old' Australians.
Government policies set to ruin Australia all in the name of the gravy train.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy