Hell explained by chemistry student!
by: Mr Nice Guy ( Friday, May 7, 10:00 )
The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term.
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct ...... leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
Thanks to WWW.ZAZZ.COM.AU
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Mr Henry, what have you done to us ???
What the Henry Review means for the property sector – RP Data
The comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system contained plenty of recommendations but resulted in little action from the Federal Government. For property investors the playing field remains largely unchanged.
Titled ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’, the Henry Review report spanned almost 1,000 pages and included 138 recommendations for taxation reform. The Review is arguably the most thorough assessment of the Australian taxation system and processes undertaken. The response from the Federal Government to the Henry Review has been characterised by a distinct lack of recognition for the vast majority of these recommendations.
The most significant recommendations to be supported by the Government were announced together with the report release on Sunday May 2. These included:
* A reduction in the company tax rate progressively from 30% to 28% by 2014/15.
* Superannuation reforms, including shifting the compulsory employer contribution from 9% to 12% by 2019/20 and a $500 annual superannuation bonus for workers earning under $37,000 per annum
* A 40% tax on profits from the resources sector (known as the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT)) which should funnel $12 billion in revenue to the Government over the first two years it is implemented.
* Establishment of a new infrastructure fund which will support state infrastructure projects.
The Henry Review had the potential to change the way Australian’s view the property market as an investment class The big ticket recommendations for the property sector were associated with negative gearing, capital gains tax and stamp duty reform – all of which remained virtually untouched in the Federal Government’s response to the review.
The Henry Review recommended replacing personal taxation discounts such as negative gearing and the 50% capital gains discount with a broader reaching 40% discount on interest income, net residential rental property income, capital gains and some interest expenses (recommendations 14 to 17). In the Federal Government’s response these recommendations were largely ignored.
Investors can continue to use negative gearing to offset losses on their investment property against their personal income tax and capital gains are still subject to a 50% discount if the asset is held longer than one year.
It should come as no surprise that these tax discounts remained untouched, particularly in an election year. One only has to cast their mind back to 1985 when Treasurer Paul Keating attempted to tamper with negative gearing, replacing the policy with a system that offset net losses against future profits. The result was that investment in property declined significantly and with no introduction of new rental stock, rental rates shot upwards. Two years later the policy was wound back.
With Australia being largely reliant on private investors to introduce new rental stock, the resulting reduction in new rental supply that would result from a downturn in investment would likely be fuel to the fire of an already undersupplied rental market.
The Review also recommended major changes to stamp duty provisions, where state based stamp duties would be replaced by a more efficient and broader based land tax system. The recommended land tax system would apply to all land holdings and use a sliding scale for assessment based on value per square metre. In this way, more valuable land would be taxed at higher rates and concessions would be given to low value and agricultural land where the dollar value per square metre is likely to be relatively low. Additionally, land tax would be applicable to individual properties rather than across aggregated land holdings.
The Government has not commented on this recommendation, apart from stating that the family home would be exempt from any land tax. Removing stamp duties will not be a decision the Government makes lightly, considering that stamp duty makes up about 34% of State Government property taxes (which in turn comprise about 45% of the entire State Government revenue base).
Another key section from the Henry Review relates to housing affordability and housing assistance. The review proposes:
* “a review of institutional arrangements (including administration) to ensure zoning and planning do not unnecessarily inhibit housing supply and housing affordability”; and
* a review of infrastructure charges / developer charges to ensure they appropriately price infrastructure contributions from developers to ensure unnecessary costs are avoided, transparency of these charges is improved and reductions in regulation are introduced that will streamline the development time frame.
* an increase in the maximum rate of rental assistance and a provision for escalations in rental assistance to be indexed to rental rates rather than CPI.
All of these recommendations have been ignored in the Federal Governments response to the Henry Review.
Whilst the Government’s response seems to lack a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in the ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’ report, it is still early days. There are likely to be further announcements as the Government releases budget papers next week. In particular, the Government is expected to announce further intentions for tax simplification and savings incentives such as tax breaks on bank savings.
Overall for the property sector, it is largely ‘business as usual’ and potentially a case of ‘watch this space’.
Article by RP Data - www.rpdata.com.au
The comprehensive review of the Australian taxation system contained plenty of recommendations but resulted in little action from the Federal Government. For property investors the playing field remains largely unchanged.
Titled ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’, the Henry Review report spanned almost 1,000 pages and included 138 recommendations for taxation reform. The Review is arguably the most thorough assessment of the Australian taxation system and processes undertaken. The response from the Federal Government to the Henry Review has been characterised by a distinct lack of recognition for the vast majority of these recommendations.
The most significant recommendations to be supported by the Government were announced together with the report release on Sunday May 2. These included:
* A reduction in the company tax rate progressively from 30% to 28% by 2014/15.
* Superannuation reforms, including shifting the compulsory employer contribution from 9% to 12% by 2019/20 and a $500 annual superannuation bonus for workers earning under $37,000 per annum
* A 40% tax on profits from the resources sector (known as the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT)) which should funnel $12 billion in revenue to the Government over the first two years it is implemented.
* Establishment of a new infrastructure fund which will support state infrastructure projects.
The Henry Review had the potential to change the way Australian’s view the property market as an investment class The big ticket recommendations for the property sector were associated with negative gearing, capital gains tax and stamp duty reform – all of which remained virtually untouched in the Federal Government’s response to the review.
The Henry Review recommended replacing personal taxation discounts such as negative gearing and the 50% capital gains discount with a broader reaching 40% discount on interest income, net residential rental property income, capital gains and some interest expenses (recommendations 14 to 17). In the Federal Government’s response these recommendations were largely ignored.
Investors can continue to use negative gearing to offset losses on their investment property against their personal income tax and capital gains are still subject to a 50% discount if the asset is held longer than one year.
It should come as no surprise that these tax discounts remained untouched, particularly in an election year. One only has to cast their mind back to 1985 when Treasurer Paul Keating attempted to tamper with negative gearing, replacing the policy with a system that offset net losses against future profits. The result was that investment in property declined significantly and with no introduction of new rental stock, rental rates shot upwards. Two years later the policy was wound back.
With Australia being largely reliant on private investors to introduce new rental stock, the resulting reduction in new rental supply that would result from a downturn in investment would likely be fuel to the fire of an already undersupplied rental market.
The Review also recommended major changes to stamp duty provisions, where state based stamp duties would be replaced by a more efficient and broader based land tax system. The recommended land tax system would apply to all land holdings and use a sliding scale for assessment based on value per square metre. In this way, more valuable land would be taxed at higher rates and concessions would be given to low value and agricultural land where the dollar value per square metre is likely to be relatively low. Additionally, land tax would be applicable to individual properties rather than across aggregated land holdings.
The Government has not commented on this recommendation, apart from stating that the family home would be exempt from any land tax. Removing stamp duties will not be a decision the Government makes lightly, considering that stamp duty makes up about 34% of State Government property taxes (which in turn comprise about 45% of the entire State Government revenue base).
Another key section from the Henry Review relates to housing affordability and housing assistance. The review proposes:
* “a review of institutional arrangements (including administration) to ensure zoning and planning do not unnecessarily inhibit housing supply and housing affordability”; and
* a review of infrastructure charges / developer charges to ensure they appropriately price infrastructure contributions from developers to ensure unnecessary costs are avoided, transparency of these charges is improved and reductions in regulation are introduced that will streamline the development time frame.
* an increase in the maximum rate of rental assistance and a provision for escalations in rental assistance to be indexed to rental rates rather than CPI.
All of these recommendations have been ignored in the Federal Governments response to the Henry Review.
Whilst the Government’s response seems to lack a great deal of support for the recommendations contained in the ‘Australia’s Future Tax System’ report, it is still early days. There are likely to be further announcements as the Government releases budget papers next week. In particular, the Government is expected to announce further intentions for tax simplification and savings incentives such as tax breaks on bank savings.
Overall for the property sector, it is largely ‘business as usual’ and potentially a case of ‘watch this space’.
Article by RP Data - www.rpdata.com.au
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Budget 2010
Australia's Federal Budget 2010/11 - Making Sense of it
The Federal Budget is hardly the most riveting document you are ever likely to read. Sure you know it’s important, but the problem is that it’s a huge document with countless facts, figures and tables. And when it comes to analysis, economists seem to be writing for other economists; and accountants writing for other accountants.
It’s always important to remember that it is just a budget, the same that any household or company would prepare. Assumptions are made; forecasts are taken. And sometimes they can go awry – remember last year Treasury thought we were headed for recession, while unemployment was expected to hit 8.5 per cent. We didn’t experience a recession and unemployment peaked at 5.8 per cent.
At the end of the day most people want to know what’s in it for them. It doesn’t matter whether you are a student, pensioner or CEO of a major company.
So we have decided to make this analysis different.
Sure, there are the usual tables, graphs, facts and figures. But we reckon that there are only three questions most people want answered and that’s where we will be concentrating:
• Did the Government get it right?
• What does it mean for Australia?
• Who are the winners and losers?
First things first
• This year (2009/10) the budget deficit is tipped to hit $57.1 billion (4.4 per cent of our economy or GDP). Last November, a deficit of $57.7 billion was expected.
• Next year (2010/11) the deficit is tipped to be $40.8 billion (2.9 per cent of GDP), better than the $46.6 billion deficit forecast six months ago.
• The budget is expected to return to surplus three years early in 2012/13.
• Most of the measures have been previously announced: Health fund reform; company tax cut; resources super profits tax; increase in super fund levy and personal tax cuts.
Did the Government get it right?
• The Government believes that a no-frills, no-nonsense budget is required. We beg to differ. Australia was successful in avoiding recession last year and, unlike other advanced nations, is not weighed down by huge deficits and debits. We should be building on that success. Spending should be cut, not curbed, so that the Reserve Bank – and home-buyers – don’t have to shoulder the burden.
• But policy decisions since November last year increase the deficit by $3 billion. The Budget deficit is tipped to improve by over $16 billion next year, but none of the improvement is due to Government efforts. The deficit is expected to improve by over $31 billion in 2011/12 and only $600 million of that is due to Government.
• The Henry Tax Review has been handed down but the Government has only opted for only a handful of the 138 recommendations. But where the Government deserves credit is to show some discipline on spending. (Effectively it’s promised a lot, but nothing happens any time soon). So we give the Budget a mark of: 13/20.
• Of course, we have to take a moment to focus on the budget setting. Last year the budget was set against the background of the global financial crisis. One by one, major economies were slipping into recession, and while our government tried to protect our economy as much as possible, policy-makers seemed resigned to the fact that we would probably go down the same path.
• The Government spent freely by way of cash hand-outs; tax breaks for businesses; home insulation schemes; spending on schools; and building social housing. As a result the budget moved from a surplus of almost $20 billion to a deficit of just over $47 billion. The Reserve Bank slashed interest rates from 7.25 per cent to 3.00 per cent. And it worked – Australia avoided recession.
• Of course the fact that we did so well then caused some to argue that we spent too much and cut rates too far. Hindsight is a marvellous thing. But it seemed like the right idea at the time. Of course not all the money was well spent, but that’s another story.
• This year the budget has been set against the background of a domestic economy now doing perhaps a little too well. The Reserve Bank has been active in winding back the stimulus, lifting cash rates 1.5 percentage points in just eight months. There have been concerns that we are witnessing Mk II of the commodity boom, with consequences for economic growth and inflation in Australia.
• But in the last few weeks, the positive sentiment has been dented by the European debt crisis (EDC). Could this be the second act of last year’s financial crisis, leading to ‘W’-shaped economies? That is, many countries recorded ‘V-shaped’ recoveries, but are they now headed south again?
• We would argue that our economy remains in strong shape; that China will continue to expand strongly; that Greece won’t de-rail the global economy; and that the US economy is on the path to recovery. On that basis, the Government should be winding back stimulus to the economy.
• The Government has given a commitment not to increase spending by more than 2 per cent in real terms until the budget surplus is more than 1 per cent of GDP.
• But while the government is to be applauded for its commitment to restrain spending growth, it has been lazy in other areas of fiscal (budget) policy.
What does it mean for Australia?
• Managing the economy is very much a balancing act. The Reserve Bank has a role by setting interest rates (monetary policy). And the Government has a role in deciding what to spend, where to spend and how to pay for it (fiscal policy).
• You can’t have one arm of policy moving one way, and the other arm of policy moving the other way. But that is very much that situation. The Reserve Bank has been winding back stimulus and now arguably monetary policy is neutral – not boosting or slowing down the economy.
• Given that monetary policy alone is controlling our economy, we believe the cash rate will have to rise further over the coming year to around 6 per cent by the end of next year.
• Over the coming year, the budget deficit is expected to improve by around $16 billion or just over 1 per cent of GDP. But all of that will come by natural means or the “automatic stabilisers” – more employment, so less unemployment benefits and more taxes; and higher company profits, so again more taxes. But the government isn’t doing anything to improve the bottom line. That is, there is little in the way of discretionary measures to cut spending or boost revenues.
• Still, it is an election year. To what extent could we reasonably expect the Government to slash and burn in this environment?
Who are the winners & losers?
• Low-income earners: There is another round of tax cuts. But even for those on $50,000 a year it works out at just an extra $5.77 a week. Tax simplification and less tax on bank deposits – but you’ll have to wait. Workers under $37,000 get extra $500 in super.
• Middle-income earners: Someone on $100,000 a year gets an extra $9.62 a week from July 1 via tax cuts.
• High-income earners: Those on $150,000 a year get a tax cut of $19.23 a week.
• Pensioners: No change. Cheaper medications from health fund reforms.
• Investors: Most investors hope for a satisfactory negotiation between the Government and miners on the super profits tax.
• Companies: Nothing in the short-term. Small business gets a tax cut from July 2012.
Source Craig James, Chief Economist, CommSec
The Federal Budget is hardly the most riveting document you are ever likely to read. Sure you know it’s important, but the problem is that it’s a huge document with countless facts, figures and tables. And when it comes to analysis, economists seem to be writing for other economists; and accountants writing for other accountants.
It’s always important to remember that it is just a budget, the same that any household or company would prepare. Assumptions are made; forecasts are taken. And sometimes they can go awry – remember last year Treasury thought we were headed for recession, while unemployment was expected to hit 8.5 per cent. We didn’t experience a recession and unemployment peaked at 5.8 per cent.
At the end of the day most people want to know what’s in it for them. It doesn’t matter whether you are a student, pensioner or CEO of a major company.
So we have decided to make this analysis different.
Sure, there are the usual tables, graphs, facts and figures. But we reckon that there are only three questions most people want answered and that’s where we will be concentrating:
• Did the Government get it right?
• What does it mean for Australia?
• Who are the winners and losers?
First things first
• This year (2009/10) the budget deficit is tipped to hit $57.1 billion (4.4 per cent of our economy or GDP). Last November, a deficit of $57.7 billion was expected.
• Next year (2010/11) the deficit is tipped to be $40.8 billion (2.9 per cent of GDP), better than the $46.6 billion deficit forecast six months ago.
• The budget is expected to return to surplus three years early in 2012/13.
• Most of the measures have been previously announced: Health fund reform; company tax cut; resources super profits tax; increase in super fund levy and personal tax cuts.
Did the Government get it right?
• The Government believes that a no-frills, no-nonsense budget is required. We beg to differ. Australia was successful in avoiding recession last year and, unlike other advanced nations, is not weighed down by huge deficits and debits. We should be building on that success. Spending should be cut, not curbed, so that the Reserve Bank – and home-buyers – don’t have to shoulder the burden.
• But policy decisions since November last year increase the deficit by $3 billion. The Budget deficit is tipped to improve by over $16 billion next year, but none of the improvement is due to Government efforts. The deficit is expected to improve by over $31 billion in 2011/12 and only $600 million of that is due to Government.
• The Henry Tax Review has been handed down but the Government has only opted for only a handful of the 138 recommendations. But where the Government deserves credit is to show some discipline on spending. (Effectively it’s promised a lot, but nothing happens any time soon). So we give the Budget a mark of: 13/20.
• Of course, we have to take a moment to focus on the budget setting. Last year the budget was set against the background of the global financial crisis. One by one, major economies were slipping into recession, and while our government tried to protect our economy as much as possible, policy-makers seemed resigned to the fact that we would probably go down the same path.
• The Government spent freely by way of cash hand-outs; tax breaks for businesses; home insulation schemes; spending on schools; and building social housing. As a result the budget moved from a surplus of almost $20 billion to a deficit of just over $47 billion. The Reserve Bank slashed interest rates from 7.25 per cent to 3.00 per cent. And it worked – Australia avoided recession.
• Of course the fact that we did so well then caused some to argue that we spent too much and cut rates too far. Hindsight is a marvellous thing. But it seemed like the right idea at the time. Of course not all the money was well spent, but that’s another story.
• This year the budget has been set against the background of a domestic economy now doing perhaps a little too well. The Reserve Bank has been active in winding back the stimulus, lifting cash rates 1.5 percentage points in just eight months. There have been concerns that we are witnessing Mk II of the commodity boom, with consequences for economic growth and inflation in Australia.
• But in the last few weeks, the positive sentiment has been dented by the European debt crisis (EDC). Could this be the second act of last year’s financial crisis, leading to ‘W’-shaped economies? That is, many countries recorded ‘V-shaped’ recoveries, but are they now headed south again?
• We would argue that our economy remains in strong shape; that China will continue to expand strongly; that Greece won’t de-rail the global economy; and that the US economy is on the path to recovery. On that basis, the Government should be winding back stimulus to the economy.
• The Government has given a commitment not to increase spending by more than 2 per cent in real terms until the budget surplus is more than 1 per cent of GDP.
• But while the government is to be applauded for its commitment to restrain spending growth, it has been lazy in other areas of fiscal (budget) policy.
What does it mean for Australia?
• Managing the economy is very much a balancing act. The Reserve Bank has a role by setting interest rates (monetary policy). And the Government has a role in deciding what to spend, where to spend and how to pay for it (fiscal policy).
• You can’t have one arm of policy moving one way, and the other arm of policy moving the other way. But that is very much that situation. The Reserve Bank has been winding back stimulus and now arguably monetary policy is neutral – not boosting or slowing down the economy.
• Given that monetary policy alone is controlling our economy, we believe the cash rate will have to rise further over the coming year to around 6 per cent by the end of next year.
• Over the coming year, the budget deficit is expected to improve by around $16 billion or just over 1 per cent of GDP. But all of that will come by natural means or the “automatic stabilisers” – more employment, so less unemployment benefits and more taxes; and higher company profits, so again more taxes. But the government isn’t doing anything to improve the bottom line. That is, there is little in the way of discretionary measures to cut spending or boost revenues.
• Still, it is an election year. To what extent could we reasonably expect the Government to slash and burn in this environment?
Who are the winners & losers?
• Low-income earners: There is another round of tax cuts. But even for those on $50,000 a year it works out at just an extra $5.77 a week. Tax simplification and less tax on bank deposits – but you’ll have to wait. Workers under $37,000 get extra $500 in super.
• Middle-income earners: Someone on $100,000 a year gets an extra $9.62 a week from July 1 via tax cuts.
• High-income earners: Those on $150,000 a year get a tax cut of $19.23 a week.
• Pensioners: No change. Cheaper medications from health fund reforms.
• Investors: Most investors hope for a satisfactory negotiation between the Government and miners on the super profits tax.
• Companies: Nothing in the short-term. Small business gets a tax cut from July 2012.
Source Craig James, Chief Economist, CommSec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)