Why do we Crash our Cars?

According to Paul Murray, speed does not kill. At least, it does not kill as much as inattention, carelessness, fatigue, failure to give way and recklessness. (Same tired message won't save more lives, The West, 28 Mar 09.)

In fact, that's not just, "according to Paul Murray". His article uses statistics of actual car crashes in WA. His main message is, that speed is not the prime cause of accidents -- so why do we focus on catching speeding motorists?

Aside: I just removed a freudian slip from my typing. I had typed "innattention" as the first cause of fatal car crashes. That double-n would have been clever, if intentional. Alcohol has top score in Murray's list of causes.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Murray is able to give "attitudinal factors" top ranking in the car crash cause statistics. He uses the simple expedient of grouping several causes into one, so the numbers add up to the top score. No worries: This dubious use of statistics is not the point that interested me... Anyway, is there any journalistic use of statistics that is not dubious?

The road toll in WA has increased, writes Murray, over a period in which "cars and roads got a lot safer".

Is this the real problem?

Is this the real problem: that cars and roads are getting "safer"?

Cars are safer, easier to drive. Roads are smoother, well designed, easier to drive along. We can afford to let our attention wander... Until the unexpected happens and we crash.

We take a few risks, we're feeling a bit tired, no worries: the car has all sorts of safety features, the roads are smooth and well designed, with safety in mind. It's okay to be a bit reckless, a bit careless, a bit sleepy -- until we crash.

There is no challenge to driving! There is nothing to demand our attention. Nothing that demands our full driving effort. Nothing to keep us concentrating, awake... Nothing -- until that sudden error, that sudden, unexpected danger. By then it is too late.

Spend less, save more

Stop spending millions on "safer", smoother, better planned roads. Let them deteriorate. Replace road repairs with signs, "Warning, bad road ahead." Save a lot of money on road building. Force motorists to be constantly aware, constantly on guard.

This has an extra -- proven -- bonus: automatic road calming. "Road calming" generally involves deliberate attempts to make roads more difficult to navigate. Small roundabouts, narrow roads, extended pedestrian areas to cause chicanes for drivers. All this has been found to slow traffic -- and to reduce overall use of cars! So let the roads get rougher, design for less traffic flow rather than more. And watch the use of cars -- and fuel -- decline.

Then remove some of the "safety" features from cars. The simplified suspension can't corner at high speed? Great! Drivers will feel uncomfortable enough -- while attempting to corner at high speed -- to slow down. You feel a bit uncomfortable, driving with a crumple zone which is only good for speeds up to 30 kph? Great, you may be uncomfortable enough to drive more carefully...

Safety features mean less safe driving

As we demand more safety features in our cars and on our roads, we drive less safely. Why bother paying attention, when our environment has been made so much safer?

At work, at school, on the sports ground, we are encouraged to strive to the limit of our ability. On the road, we do strive to the limit of our ability -- and to the limit of the ability of the car and road to protect us. Humans like to push the limits.

Make the roads and cars inherently dangerous. The limits that we push will be easier to reach -- at slower speeds.

Leave the obvious dangers in our driving environment. Every bump, every pothole, every sickening thump of the suspension, will remind us: pay attention, take care, keep awake...

Leave the risk and keep the drivers awake. Save money, save lives, save fuel. All good. All cheap.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Bribes Continue Despite Alleged Success

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Well, isn't that strange. "Drug firms splashed out $16 million on dinners, drinks and travel for doctors in just six months despite" (my emphasis added) "despite criticism such events influence medicos over what they prescribe." (The West, $16m prescription for doctors' hearts: report, 28 Mar 09)

Why do you think that drug firms splash out this money? From the goodness of their warm little hearts? Of course not!

Drug companies provide doctors with dinners, drinks and travel. In exchange for these freebies, doctors are expected to prescribe drugs from that company. Consciously or unconsciously, the doctors are influenced.

Why do you buy a particular brand of toothpaste? Because you saw it advertised, you saw a nice person on tv say that it was good, because you received a free sample with your gardening magazine... These are tried and true marketing techniques.

Why does a doctor prescribe a particular brand of drug? Because they saw it advertised by the sponsor of an excellent dinner, because they heard that nice person at the free seminar (with free drinks) say that the drug was good, because they received free samples (along with free air tickets to the next free seminar). Tried and true marketing techniques. And they work.

Drug companies market to doctors. Doctors are influenced by the advertising. Why would the companies stop? Why would they stop despite criticism that it works?!

Is this undue influence?

While it works, drug marketing will continue. Is there a reason for it to stop?

Is this marketing -- or is it bribery? Is it an attempt to inform doctors of the latest in effective products -- or is it an attempt to buy a customer? Is this legitimate provision of essential information -- or is it undue influence?

I don't know.

But I am not surprised that it continues, despite criticism. It continues, because it works.

If you want to surprise me, make decisions: is this unethical bribery or legitimate marketing? Is the drug company acting unethically by offering bribes, or is it being helpful by providing information? Is the doctor being unethical by accepting bribes, or being proactive by learning about new drugs?

Is there a body which claims responsibility for the ethics of the medical industry? Surprise me: make decisions, actual decisions on ethical behaviour.

Then take action, one way or the other. Don't just pretend to be surprised.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

What I Dislike about "Daylight Saving"

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

I don't really mind that it's still dark, if I get up before 7 am. I mean, if I have to get up before noon, that's bad enough. A lack of light doesn't make it any worse.

I don't really mind that it's still hot and sunny at dinner time. I mean, if it's that hot, we'll have the air conditioner running.

I don't really care whether we're two hours different to the eastern states, or three. I don't really care that we spend three months with a two hour difference and one week with a three hour difference. I've been dealing with Ireland, setting up a visit, and they are nine hours behind WA. All it takes is the internet and some thought before the occasional phone call.

It doesn't bother me that countries which were once touted as being major trading partners -- and which are in our, WA, time zone -- spent three months with a one hour time difference. I don't deal with them. Businesses which do, have adapted with no complaint.

I don't care that there are a lot of young voters who have not had a chance to vote on daylight saving. If they turned 18 in the last few months then there is an entire legal and political system over which they have had no influence. Capital punishment, corporal punishment, shopping hours, federation, constitution... Take your pick, they have not voted for (nor against) any of those.

This is what really bugs me:

"Before going to bed tonight wind your clock back one hour." (The West, 28 Mar 09)

Wind "your clock" back! Your "clock"! Riiight...

• Wind back the clock on the bookcase.
• Wind back the clock by the TV.
• Wind back the clock by the other TV.
• Wind back the clock in the video recorder.
• Wind back the clock that's part of the oven.
• Wind back the clock in the microwave.
• Wind back the clock in the car.
• Wind back the clock in the other car.
• Wind back the clock in the camera.
• Wind back the bedside alarm clock.
• Wind back the clock on the other side of the bed, the one for the short-sighted partner.
• Wind back the clock which we only use when on holiday.
• Did I miss any? Probably...

On the other hand, there is some good news...

The grandfather clock does not need to be wound back. It gave up the ghost -- stopped running at all -- after being wound backwards -- and forwards -- several times.

The mobile phone clock does not need to be wound back. I'm not sure which worries me more: That I could not find out how to change the phone clock, or that it changed itself without telling me...

Which reminds me:

• Wind back the clock in the house phone handset. (It's okay, I'm sure that I still have the instruction book.)

That is what really annoys me about "daylight saving"!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Put Judges with the Jury?!

Have you ever been at a staff meeting where your boss wants you all to take on a little bit of extra work? No-one really wants to agree... But you all feel, that the first person to disagree will be sacked. So what do you do? You all agree with the boss...

Today's page 1 headline: "Put judges into jury rooms, says court chief" (The West, 21 Mar 09). Now why would a judge suggest that?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

There's a great furore just now, about people bashing police and being acquitted, on the grounds that it was self defence. Our law allows a person in a fight (call them A1) to make a snap decision, decide that a policeman (call him P1) is using excessive force against a third person (A2). That entitles A1 to use even more force against P1.

(I may be confused here. It's possible that A1 saw P1 using excessive force, so A1 responded even more forcefully against P2, another policeman. But my memory may be faulty. That seems to be just too ridiculous to believe.)

Anyway... Near the end of the trial (of A1 and friends), the judge (big-J) dismissed a juror (little-j1). Big-J told little-j1, get out, you are no longer a member of this jury. Why? As reported in The West, big-J had heard from little-j2 -- another juror -- that little-j1 had already made up her mind. And the judge was only half way through his summing up! How dare a juror make a decision while big-J is still talking! So, out you go!

This big-J is one of the judges who -- it is being suggested -- could sit in with the jury.

"A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render a rational, impartial verdict," according to Wikipedia.

So you have twelve average people sitting together trying to decide a complex case. They have sat through five weeks of evidence. I can see it now...

"Okay," say little-j1 through to little-j11, "We seem to have come to an agreement. And the agreement is..."

"Wait," says little-j12, to the other members of the jury.

"Your honour," whispers little-j12 to the judge, and only to the judge, "I think that they have all made up their minds!"

"How dare they!" shouts the judge. "Off with their heads! Or, at least, leave the room! All of you! Except, of course, for my indecisive little friend, little-j12."

Oh yes, I can really see it working, having a judge sit in a room with the jury.

Have you ever been at a staff meeting where your boss wants you all to take on a little bit of extra work? No-one really wants to agree... But you all feel, that the first person to disagree will be sacked. So what do you do? You all agree with the boss...

Have you ever been in a jury room with the judge? You are all a bit uncertain -- this complex law is new to you. You have spent weeks following the legal illogic. Now you think that you have it all clear...

The judge -- from a position of power, from a position of experience and certainty -- says: You are all wrong.

What do you do?

You back down, you agree, you keep your worries, your different thoughts, to yourself. After all, you think, the judge must know what he's talking about.

Put the judge in with the jury? May as well just let the judge decide the case. The decisions of the jury will be lost, forced out, "corrected". Most jurors will follow the "expert", the judge. Those who do not follow -- will be sent home in disgrace.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Politics is Just a Game

Ex Senator Brian Harradine was a politician whose vote could be bought and sold on the open market. All it took, was a few million dollars of our money. And this, according to Andrew Probyn, was a good thing (The West, Shambolic Fielding fails to put runs on the board, 20 Mar 2009).

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

According to Probyn, Harradine offered his vote to the highest bidder. "He knew how to do deals," apparently. Why was he elected? Who cares. As long as he could "do deals," he was a successful politician. You want to sell Telstra? Good idea? Bad idea? Who cares... As long as you give me money to buy my next election.

Not an honest politician, perhaps. You know the definition... An honest politician is one who, once bought, stays bought. "And in a vain attempt to get his support for the Howard government's GST, the island state got about $150 million ... and stacks more..." Give the man money and he still did not give you his support.

This money-driven Senator is -- according to Probyn -- an ideal model for the "Shambolic Fielding". Sell your vote to the highest bidder, is the Probyn advice.

It was a great relief to turn the page and find the letter from Elizabeth Saunders, of Cottesloe (Courageous stand).

Saunders writes to support Fielding's stand. He is against binge drinking, he wanted alcohol ads banned during television coverage of sporting events, he did not get the ban so he did not support the alcopops tax. Thank you, Elizabeth Saunders!

Fielding had a point he wished to make. Should he change his mind -- back down, sell out -- in order to win political points? No way!

Fielding may be an idiot. Probyn, certainly, sees him as being a political dunce. Why? Because he would not be bought off. Fielding also changed his mind -- another sign of failure, according to Probyn.

Wouldn't it be nice, to have a few more politicians who could change their minds. Who could see new points, accept a different interpretation, realise that their initial stance was not the best.

Wouldn't it be nice, to have a few more politicians who have an opinion of their own. Who stated that opinion up front. Who said what they wanted -- and would not be bought off, by cash offers by other politicians.

Wouldn't it be nice to have politicians who had stated and supported their own opinions. So we could vote for them on the basis of those opinions. And expect that those opinions would not be lost to the current highest bidder.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Butcher and the Law; Mazza in the Court

The recent Butcher case has clearly demonstrated that law has evolved to protect the thug. When it comes to violent crime, the law is all on the side of the violent criminal. When police try to prevent violence, the police are likely to be found "guilty".

What can we do?

Police must have the authority to stop violent crime -- without, themselves, being charged with violence. On the other hand, there could well be police who misuse -- overuse -- their right to use violence. So we need to balance that, with a public right to call attention to overuse of violence by police.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

When a thug claims "self defence" as an excuse for thumping the police, the thug is really acting as a vigilante. When a violent thug becomes entitled to take the law into their own hands -- we are heading for mob rule by violence.

Do not hit the police officer

Rule 1, as it should be: Do not hit the police officer.

If the police use excessive violence -- report it. There are procedures for charging police with excessive violence. Follow them -- after the fight is finished. Do not reply to violence with more violence.

Rule 2, as it should be: The police officer will stop the fighters as quickly as possible.

It's like war, really: the aim is to stop the thug as quickly as possible -- before they do any more harm. Get them down and out of the fight. Unconscious thug? Fine. Injured thug? Unfortunate. Dead thug? Improve police training so that "unconscious" is easier to achieve than "dead". Excessive police violence? Take it -- after the fight -- to the appropriate tribunal.

What if the thugs insist on their right to violence?

Violent thugs -- and their lawyers -- seem to feel that violence is their right. Funny, isn't it. Big, tough people think that violence is okay. Their lawyers are paid to believe that violence is okay. Only the people on the receiving end of violence seem to object.

Still, there may be a valid point. So...

Alternative rule 1: Police will ring-fence the fight. Let no new person in. If someone wants to leave the fight, let them through the ring-fence (but not back again). Once the fight winds down, arrest anyone who needs to be arrested. That is, police will not attempt to stop a fight. They will stop it growing, they will limit the area affected by the fight.

You want a fight? No worries, you'll also be expected to finish it.

What about the weak and "innocent"? They'll end up in hospital or the morgue. Just as it is now. What about the strong and "guilty"? They will be charged and, probably, released.

So, no change to the outcomes for the fighters. Just a limit to the spread of the fight. And police have less chance of being injured.

A stupid rule, really. But I suggest it as a sop to those who believe that police should have their hands tied behind their backs when attempting to stop a violent fight.

This is my court!

Judge Mazza dismissed a juror. Why? She had -- allegedly -- already made up her mind. One juror said, Your honour, that other juror believes that the thugs are guilty. The judge threw a hissy fit: I have not yet finished my summing up, how dare you decide before I have finished speaking, get out.

Okay, the judge had had a bad day. Defence lawyers had been attacking him, it had been a long trial, etc, etc. Is that a reason for the judge to spit the dummy? To ignore all the rules about guilt and innocence?

According to one juror, the other juror had already made up her mind. That's what the paper would report as "allegedly" -- not yet proven, innocent until proven guilty. Yet the judge skipped all that difficult stuff and decided, Guilty, get out, don't you dare to not need my summing up to make up your own mind.

Ah well.

It's just a judge using his own position of power. I guess we should be glad that he did not hit the juror with a flying head butt.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Just How Taxing is Tax Reform?

Tax time again. Ours is done by a tax agent: we provide all the available paperwork, the tax accountant puts it all together. Then we -- the taxpayers -- sign each and every page of the tax return.

But what does it all mean?

We have a tax accountant prepare our tax returns for one reason -- it is too complicated for us. We do not understand tax law, we do not understand tax accounting. Perhaps we understand accounting, at the basic bookkeeping level.

And we are expected to sign every page of a tax return. To indicate -- I guess -- that we understand it and that we believe that it is correct!

Okay, we do believe that our tax returns are correct. Why do we believe that? Because we had it all done by a tax accountant.

There were promises from Canberra, that tax would be reformed. Will the reform make tax something that the average taxpayer will understand? Now that, I would really like to see...

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Save 3% with No Lost Services

For the last... quite a few... months, the Barnett government has been demanding that each and every one of its agencies will reduce its budget by 3%. By "each and every" I mean, of course, "each and every except for the premier & cabinet and their coteries of sycophantic advisors". Aside from that: each government agency has to reduce its budget by 3%.

So what has been the response, so far?

The response so far has been, a few careful leaks to the media.

Oh yes, says Health, we will cut the number of nurses. No more "agency" nurses. Think how much we will save! Think how much patient care will suffer, trumpet the media. Can't do that, echo the politicians, that could cost us votes. So, Health goes back to the drawing boards.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Oh yes, says Police, we will sell the one boat which protects all of WA from terrorists, poachers and pirates. Think how much we will save, after somehow covering the loss of selling a large, fully equipped, specialist boat in a falling market... You can't do that, trumpet the tame media. Can't do that, echo the politicians, we will be seen to be weak on terrorism. So, Police goes back to the drawing boards.

What is happening now?

Agencies are leaking ideas of cuts that they know will not be acceptable. Cuts that could be political suicide. Cuts that would probably not save anything anyway... Cuts that the politicians are forced to deny, then attack, then refuse.

So agencies are seen to be "trying", trying to find ways to save 3%. When the actual cuts are announced they will be -- in comparison -- not so bad. Some groups of low level public servants will disappear; their work will be done by other low level public servants now expected to work twice as hard. Some mid level public servants will be redeployed; their salaries counted as a budget reduction, their redeployment packages hidden under another budget. A token number of high level public servants will find that their positions have disappeared; they will need to be re-employed as "consultants" with a higher effective salary but under another budget.

And yes, an entire new agency, or at least a branch, will be created -- at exorbitant cost -- to manage the budget reductions. There will be a year or two of high level managers being employed and low level administrators leaving and not being replaced. Then it will all be back to business as usual.

Reduce the budgeting, not the budgets

Look at the process for creating a public service budget:

• Managers are required to produce budget figures, six to twelve months ahead. They direct their staff to create budgets.
• Staff create budgets for their own areas. A lot of it is guesswork... How can you budget accurately when your work may change on the whim of a senior bureaucrat? So, they take last year's figures, add 10% plus some justification; a few "initiatives" are always good. The figures are passed back to the manager.
• The manager agrees with some figures, questions others, refuses a few. It's all subjective: if the manager knew the correct figures, why did they ask others to write them down?
• Staff spend some more time, either randomly cutting dollar values, or writing lengthy justifications.
• The manager makes some more changes, depending on mood, then passes the lot to a secretary.
• The secretary makes it all look neat and tidy. Some errors creep in or stay in, since the secretary does not understand the thinking that led to the budget.
• All this goes to the next manager up the line... who agrees, disagrees, demands changes, etc, etc, etc.
• Finally, some form of budget reaches the top of the agency. (After being chopped and changed. After demands for different figures. etc, etc, etc.)
• The agency budget is now passed to Treasury.
• Treasury -- a group of career public servants who know nothing at all about Education, nor about Health, nor about Welfare, nor about... well, you get the picture... -- this group pick apart the budget figures from each agency.
• The Treasury bean counters (or should that be, Bean Counters?) change some figures, demand some other changes -- and send the budget proposal back to the agency for recalculation.
• And the agency continues to slog through the entire, ludicrous process.

So where is the 3% that I promised?

• Take last year's budget.
• Subtract 3%.
• Pass the new total back to the agency and say, spend that much.
• With one promise: We -- the government & Treasury -- will never waste your time by asking you to explain how you spent that money.

End of story. Read the previous section to find the savings, in time and effort.

Will it really work?

Of course, there are some caveats: How can we make it work? What if the agency really does need more money? What if they are all a bunch of crooks, and steal every penny?

Start with the last: If they are all a bunch of crooks, that will be discovered by auditors. If the auditors are also crooks, see next paragraph.

How can we make it work? First, define "it": "It" is what we -- the public, the government -- require of an agency. So we set measures. If those measures are met then "it" is being done to our satisfaction.

So the government of the day needs to set clear standards for each agency: "This is what we require you to do." For example: Educate every child up to a certain level depending, perhaps, on their innate abilities; Provide a hospital bed for 90% of sick people and home care for the rest; Arrest criminals with enough evidence to convict at least half of those arrested... That sort of thing but with targets that can be both measured and attained.

Set the standards and provide the money. If the senior managers of the agency are not able to provide the services -- hire people who can.

What if they really do need more money?

Good point -- things do change. But for one year, the first year, let's just say that costs should not change very much.

If there are expensive items that need to be bought -- delay the purchase for a year. If the environment has changed -- try to just get by for a year. If you really do need extra staff -- redeploy those now-unwanted budget staff into more productive areas.

Get by for this coming year on last year's budget, less 3%. We will not ask you where the money went. We will just ask that you provide the services that we require.

What if they really, really need more money?

Sometimes, the chief executive will realise that more money is really, really required. The government will provide a 1% increase, on your say-so, on one simple condition: the CEO requests the money and the CEO is sacked. No-one replaces the CEO; the salary and perks remain in the budget. (A bonus for the agency!)

Need another 1% extra in the budget? That'll be another two executives, thank you. 2%? Four executives... And so on.

But, I can hear you say, At this rate, soon all that will be left will be... the people... oh... the people who actually do the work. Oh.

Beautiful, isn't it?!

Independent Thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Means Testing Mean for Old Age Pensions

There is a current suggestion to means test the age pension. In particular: include the value of the house -- the principal place of residence -- in the means test. After all, a pensioner can always borrow against the value of the house...

What a mean suggestion!

Some old couple have been living in the same house for fifty years. The house value has risen due to normal inflation. Now they have a valuable house, no income and an unknown number of years to live. They are forced to mortgage their house.

Need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Ten years later, the house is mortgaged to the hilt. They have lived frugally but all the money is gone. There is no money for mortgage repayments so the bank takes the house. The couple now has no income, an unknown number of years to live -- and nowhere to live.

Why means test an age pension?

The pensioner has money, why should we support them? Well, they have paid a heap of taxes, let's pay some of it back. They still have an income! So what? Perhaps it would be nice to give old people just a bit more. There are more and more old people! Does that make each age pensioner worth less?

Let's look at that first question: The pensioner has money, why should we support them? We can see their taxes -- paid over many years -- as an investment. Okay, an unusual investment, in that they "invest" a whole heap of money but expect only a fraction back.

The investment / repayment view is why I have nothing to say -- today -- on other types of pension. Age pensioners have had years to "invest". Other pensioners may not. So, back to age pensioners:

Why do we -- or some people -- object to paying a full age pension to an old person? It may just be meanness, perhaps disguised as economic rationality. Or it may be annoyance, based on known abilities to avoid tax.

Some of our most famous millionaires are seen to pay very little tax. They pass all of their money through large, conglomerate companies. By the time a tax return is filed, there is no visible income to be taxed. Why should we pay an age pension to these visibly-rich people?

I agree... But why punish other pensioners for our annoyance at the smaller number of people who use the law to minimise their tax payments?

Solve the real problem

I believe that the real problem is, that we are paying age pensions to people who, (a) Do not need the money, and (b) Have spent many years avoiding the payment of the "investment" of taxes.

Forget the means test on age pensions: if you get to be old enough, you deserve to get some tax money back. Oh, but you never actually paid any taxes? Oh, well, perhaps we will now not pay you an age pension...

Look back to the last few years of a pensioner's income-earning years. Did the pensioner pay zero tax for the last few years of their income-earning years? Well, sorry, no tax paid, no pension payable.

Did they pay a reasonable amount of tax? Or were they family partners of someone who did pay tax? Okay, they get an age pension. Feel free to adjust the pension based on current income. Just make sure that the amount paid is a reasonable amount to cover living.

Roll the plan in over several years. If you plan to collect an age pension in the future -- start paying taxes now.

Independent Thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com