This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Stupid Questions - and things you were afraid to ask

Discussion in 'LORD' started by pipsqeek, May 19, 2006.

  1. Si

    Si The Trickster's Bitch

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cairns, effin'Q
    Thanks guys, I ended up buying it with my wife's iTunes thingy, which I've never used before. It must look funny on their stats next to Gaga and Glee. I should see what Venom they have on there, to really screw with some heads.
     
  2. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    A tax question.

    Helping someone do their tax return.

    They have a loan on an investment property and an offset account.

    Their bank statement for their offset account reads:

    Interest $A
    Interest offset $B

    My guess is in the income from rent section of their tax return they only claim $A as the 'interest on loan' deduction.

    Not A+B, correct?

    s
     
  3. bsercombe

    bsercombe Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,688
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Dubbo, NSW
    Hmmm. That would be my understanding. My bank never told me what the interest offset for a year was so I never provided it to my accountant- only the interest charged on the loan. On the face of it, the Interest Offset should be the amount of interest saved by having money in the offset account. It's odd that the tax office doesn't require you to pay tax on it because it sort of acts like money earned, let's just not mention it too loudly eh?
     
  4. TheDenimRager

    TheDenimRager Hats make things better.

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,806
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Under the Southern Cross
    I finally got it. WILLIAM FICHTNER. Bit part in West Wing, played a scientist in Contact, when he wears glasses he looks like Lawrence Krauss.
     
  5. TheDenimRager

    TheDenimRager Hats make things better.

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,806
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Under the Southern Cross
  6. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ah, that guy, have never watched West Wing, probably first saw him in a few eps. of Grace Under Fire, her boyfriend for a while I think.

    Was also in Heat.

    s
     
  7. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    He had a major role in Prison Break, no glasses though!

    Here's a stupid question. Why do Crompo & Skaife always have their shirt collars tucked into their jerseys? Is that normal? Looks a bit silly to me.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
  9. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I usually wear mine in like the above.

    I recall wearing them out when I was in primary school so to me, it feels old fashioned to wear them out.

    s
     
  10. Bloopy

    Bloopy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Neither. I never thought of it as an option. If I tried to wear my collar in, one side would inevitably pop out because most of my jerseys aren't that tight, and then it'd really look :loco:
     
  11. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    LOL - best option but be careful, there's bound to be a meaning as to which side is worn out.

    s
     
  12. Celestial-Todd

    Celestial-Todd The Incredible Bulk

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    Depends on the size of the collars for me... long = tucked into jumper, short = sitting over the top of jumper
     
  13. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    After the last US election there's threat of some US states seceding from the union.

    I notice they counted the votes by the number of states in their favour and to win you had to have more states won than your opponent.

    Is it possible, due to the differing population sizes in each state and if the number of states won were very were close between the two, a president could win yet have the total individual vote count against him or is there a method to counteract this happening?

    s
     
  14. TheDenimRager

    TheDenimRager Hats make things better.

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,806
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Under the Southern Cross
    It is quite possible to lose the popular vote but win the election. That's what happened with Bush vs Gore in 2000.
     
  15. Celestial-Todd

    Celestial-Todd The Incredible Bulk

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Messages:
    11,530
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Western Sydney
    I don't think it's based on states in your favour, but individual "seats" within each state.... ie, California has 100 seats, Obama wins 99.... Utah and Omaha have 5 seats each and Romney wins them all

    Obama would still win the election despite Romney winning more states

    At least that's how I think it works....
     
  16. Winmar

    Winmar Pillock of society

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    11,228
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Are the electoral colleges what we would call seats?
     
  17. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    When I was watching the election, they had a whole state coloured in red for one and blue for the other - I think.

    I wasn't paying that close attention, it's what it looked like from a distance.

    'Popular vote' is the higher of the two's vote count of individual voters across the country right? I thought that was what it mean but looking up the definition it wasn't explained too well.

    Another question, why isn't the popular vote the decider?

    Politics - not my strong point. At school I thought I'd like history, it was interesting learning about events but then it went all political - yawn!

    s
     
  18. Shadow298

    Shadow298 UNLEASH THE GUAN

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9,902
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Without the Darkness
  19. Si

    Si The Trickster's Bitch

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    665
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cairns, effin'Q
    From what I understand (and please understand I'm a long way from being an expert), the electoral college is certain officials in each state. Similar to our Senate (note that the US also has a Senate, but let's ignore that for now). In theory this means small states get as much of a voice as big states. Otherwise New York has a lot more say in who's president than Alaska, and tiny little states that you can jog around in an afternoon like Rhode Island will forever be screwed. But instead of them going directly to the Senate, they in turn vote for the President. Each state has a different system. Some use a ballot and you can have five votes for guy A and five for guy B, others will vote as a bloc. Political parties will also gerrymander the hell out of any colleges under their power at the time, to ensure their candidate gets as many votes as possible. So before the election is even held, you can tell how many states are behind the Democratic party and how many behind the Republicans. From that you know how many electoral votes they have in their pockets. So really an election's just down to a handful of swinging states. Unless the president is outrageously popular with the people, and of course those types never rise to the top any more.

    I was reading about Texas recently, how one of its major cities is electorally divided according to a hundred year old plan that just so happens to divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and somehow that Haves got to elect all the officials. And they always vote conservative. But there's increasing agitation to have the zones redrawn, especially for the large Hispanic population that all live on the Have Not side and are a bit sick of all the officials being rich white guys who pretend they don't exist unless there's a crime. If the boundaries are redrawn, the Electoral College in Texas will almost certainly have a few Hispanics among its numbers, and they never ever vote Republican. So Texas might become another swing state, making it yet harder to figure out who'll win (unless you're Nate Silver).

    Most people will admit that the US electoral system is deeply screwed up, inefficient, and illogical. But it was invented almost from scratch, with just a bit of Cromwell, a smidge of Iceland, knowledge of ancient Greece and Freemasonry to build with. So it's still admirable.

    Note also that there have been at least two Australian governments recently that lost the popular vote but still managed to govern. The "popular vote" is a meaningless nonsense that would vastly concentrate power into a few high-density pockets if it were to be relied upon to find our leader. Who'd want a leader chosen solely by inner Sydney and Melbourne?
     
  20. StephenSLR

    StephenSLR Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,846
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Yep, that makes sense.

    s
     

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Our music community has been around for almost 15 years and we pride ourselves on offering great metal music discussion, as well as music production and other closely related topics. We work hard every day to make sure our community is one of the best. Enjoy!
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Donate ♥

    We have worked hard for 15 years (and running) to make sure our Metal community is running fast, uses the best software, and isn't overloaded with advertising. If you love the forum as much as we love bringing it to you, please show your support with a generous donation. We really appreciate it!