🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Jun 1996 10:42:12 +0800, kevin@opera.iinet.net.au (Kevin Hall)
wrote:

>iinet.net.au>:
>Distribution: 
>
>��Anthony Kidd (drwho@iinet.net.au) wrote:
>: On Wed, 29 May 1996 05:06:52 GMT, bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd
>: Felsche) wrote:
>: 
><reduced>

                        <snip doctor>
>: Most consumers go for the cheapest quote.
>
>I wish to make two points here:
>	1. "Taking your time to do a good job" was unfortunately misused 
>	   by many workers to mean "wot's the hurry? Gotta take it easy 
>	   you know", and all it mean't was the same bad job took longer.
>	   Those workers who worked smarter, and made the effort ended up
>	   being tarred by the same brush.

I agree with what you say as I have seen this many times on building
sites in the old days. Them days are gone as work is harder to get.


>	2. Most consumers go for the cheapest quote because they can't 
>	   see the benefits of paying more. But I think this applies to
>	   most things. eg computers.

Big building company's use this example as well as some firms try to
undercut the opposition so much they cut corners to get the contract
and complete the job..

99% of the time they get away with it and the consumer knows no
different and the building company does not care as they got the
job done cheaper and if that contractor goes bust they just get
another company in to finish the contract. Problem is most contractors
get away with it.

Who looses?...the consumer.

I read articles in iinet.general about the debate of "you get what you
pay for". So when I went hunting for a new computer I never used that 
attitude and paid more money for my computer as I wanted no hassles.

I got some hassles but these hassles regarding my computer are sorted
out and after recieving e-mail on problems other people have after
getting there new computers I think myself quite lucky and hopefully
my decision paying more money on my computer will pay off in the end.
(Touch wood. Touch head)

                                          <snip doctor>
>Back to the point of the original posting, while I support the taxing of 
>your "travelling allowance"? (mine gets taxed), I suspect this is not the 
>cause of your wrath. I join you in opposing the BACKDATING  of the tax. 
>To me, this smacks of vindictiveness and deliberate union bashing. I lean 
>more to the right than left, but get annoyed when stupid decisions are 
>made "because they can".

Everyone has different allowances and this is due to what occupation
they have. 

I use a respirator when using toxic chemicals does this mean you
should have a respirator?

I wear a safety helmet and safety boots does this mean you should
have these?

The backdating of the tax is a joke. Maybe this is a sneaky thing the
tax department /goverment are doing as they well know there will be
a uproar in the construction industry in what they are doing and after
many strikes they will let us of this,but still tax us on the
travelling allowance <g>.
>
>* K - Three types of people: Those who can count and those who can't * 

Bye
Anthony :)

Trust no one.