Search

Proposal to put bars on Gold Coast beaches sparks debate

Plans to introduce permanent beach bars on the Gold Coast have sparked debate among locals. "Selling off public beach for commercial enterprise that then excludes people that can't go afford to go in there and have a drink," one resident told Nine News. The proposal came as Queensland seeks to boost its tourism industry in anticipation of the Olympic Games in 2032. "We have to keep reinventing ourselves as a tourism destination and we have 55 kilometres of oceanfront," acting Mayor Donna Gates said. A trial was conducted for at Kurrawa beach in 2022 and it drew mixed reactions. "Really disliked it," one resident said. "I would walk past each day and see all of this area that's shaded and beautiful for people to sit, to enjoy the beach, to watch the volleyball – all of it was blocked off." Gates has confirmed the bars could return to beaches as early as summer next year under another three-year trial, with a view to locking in a long-term lease agreement for six months each year. "There will be people who don't like beach bars but they can go to a different beach," the acting Mayor said. "There would only be one or two initially and I think we can cope with that." Images: Nine News

Travel Trouble

Teacher's wild salary sparks heated debate

A teacher's hefty salary has sparked a major debate online, with some people arguing that some educators are "extremely overpaid". A Melbourne man was quizzed on the street by Getahead, an app that matches workers with employers, as he revealed he has worked as a drama teacher at a high school for decades. “I’m a teacher and I make just north of $160,000,” he revealed. “I’ve been teaching for 27 years,” he added. “Started as an actor and then moved into teaching. The workload is alright, I’m on holidays at the moment." “School holidays are always good. But when you are working, you’re doing a lot of after hours and things like that. “It’s definitely worth it though. I’d encourage anyone to get into it. For any actors out there, drama teaching is the next best thing." “You get to do your craft every day and you get to teach the future of actors. Do what you want to do, until you can’t do it anymore and then find something else that will be good to do." He said, “But you gotta follow your passion first.” The video racked up hundreds of comments, with many stunned at the man’s salary. “There’s no way,” one said, with another adding, “I am in the wrong profession.” In another clip from Getahead, a different woman was quizzed about her salary and it is revealed she is also a teacher. She claims to be raking in $110,000 a year working at a high school, but said the idea teachers get “loads of holidays” is a “total myth”, adding that "the workload is huge." While many commenters were stunned by the significant salaries, there were some that even went as far as to claim teachers were being “overpaid”. “Teachers are extremely overpaid,” one claimed. “The most they should be paid is $30k – $40k.” “$110k for a schoolteacher, at this point we are handing out money,” another said. “If they are earning that much money why are they all saying they need more?” another asked, “That’s an excellent wage.” Other teachers sounded shocked at these figures, with many saying they were not making anywhere near that amount. “That’s not close to average, I’m a maths and science teacher at a high school and I earn $84k,” one shared. “I’ve been teaching for 43 years, I’m head of a subject area and have several post grade qualifications, and I don’t make anywhere near that,” another added. Image credits: TikTok

Money & Banking

Man's DIY speed camera sign sparks debate

Over the years Aussies have come up with various ways to warn fellow drivers of nearby speed cameras, and one man took matters into his own hands by alerting motorists with a handwritten sign. Dressed in a neon orange singlet, a man was spotted at a busy intersection on the Princes Highway in Melbourne over the weekend waving to passing cars while holding up a "Beware Camera" sign. The photo was shared to local news service Wyndham TV's Instagram, and many were quick to praise the "local hero", who one identified as Daryl. “Absolute bloody Aussie legend right there,” one person commented. "A good citizen," another wrote. A few others commented that he was doing "God's work" and deserved to be bought "a beer or 10". However, not everyone was pleased with this act, with many questioning why he was interfering with road safety measures. “Motorists need to take responsibility for not speeding,” one person argued, before others defended the move, saying it would reduce speeding and crashes. Others asked why he didn't have more important things to do with his time. There is no specific law that prohibits warning other drivers about the presence of a speed camera, so the man's actions were legal. This is not the first time Aussies have done this, with many sharing videos exposing the "sneaky" way mobile speed cameras catch drivers in NSW on social media . One person shared a video to TikTok showing a mobile speed camera car parked next to another road sign. “This is their tactics, parking next to other signs so they blend in,” he said in the viral video. Image: Instagram/@wyndhamtv

Travel Trouble

"Ridiculous": Debate erupts over whether grandparents should be paid to babysit

Any parent knows how difficult it is to get your child into daycare or preschool. With limited spaces across the country and rising costs, many are turning to their families for help. Many rely on grandma and grandpa to help out with the kids, and while some say they'd happily do it for free, others think it's time to put a price on it. According to a Nine.com.au poll 42 per cent of Aussies believe that grandparents should be paid for babysitting, while 58 per cent of them believe there's no need to pay grandparents for their services. However, the question is more complicated than a simple yes or no, with many explaining that it depends on the circumstance. "If grandparents are babysitting for special occasions or at their request then I don't think they should be paid. Most would do it for love and time with grandkids. If grandparents are providing child minding then that's different. If it's a regular occurrence then yes they should be paid," explained one person. "Grandparents should be paid to babysit if they are required for more than two full days a week," echoed another. "Grandparents should be paid, it is cheaper than creche and the kids won't be as sick mixing with a batch of others," a third wrote. For many there's a big difference between babysitting on a weekend or a one-off day versus during the week. "Being paid as a grandparent to babysit in my opinion is ridiculous, however if a grandparent is enlisted to provide child care more than two days a week so that parents can work, I think a payment in some form isn't unreasonable, even if it's a surprise gift intermittently," one wrote. "I babysit my grandchildren while my daughter works she pays me $20 for petrol, but if they want to go out and I babysit then she doesn't pay me which I'm OK with," added another person. The parents and grandparents' financial position was also a big factor. "I think the grandparent babysitting for payment is a personal thing. Some parents can really afford it, some are struggling and the grandparents do it to help out," one explained. Image: Shutterstock

Retirement Income

Passenger sparks debate over travellers sleeping in aisle seats

A heated debate has erupted online after a passenger suggested those sitting in an aisle seat should remain alert and awake for the entire flight, with the only exception being if it's a long-flight of seven hours or more. “A person sitting in an aisle seat on a plane should not be allowed to sleep," they wrote on Reddit. The reason behind it, according to the passenger, is to ensure that middle and window seat passengers can access the toilet, get served by flight attendants, and evacuate quickly in an emergency. “There are some exceptions and those would probably be on any flight longer than seven hours. “But anything shorter than that, you should not be sleeping. What if the middle or window passenger needs the bathroom, or if the flight attendant needs to hand them something – You’ll be in the way.” They added that a snoozing aisle seat passenger could potentially slow down evacuation during an emergency and put everyone at risk. “Now you would be risking people’s lives because you fell asleep,” they wrote. Social media users flocked to the Reddit thread to share their thoughts. “Nah, just poke me and wake me up if you need me to get up or do something," one wrote. “I’m well aware that I’m in the way, believe me. I’m certainly not there because I wanted to be in the aisle seat.” “If you sleep in an aisle seat, you deal with people getting up. That’s the unwritten rule," another added. A few others supported the idea, but shared their own take on plane etiquette. “My take on this: if you sleep in the aisle seat, you must be okay with being woken up multiple times to let the folks in your row get up. “Other flight rules: middle seat gets the armrest, and window seat must raise the window shade during taxi, takeoff, and landing so the rest of us in the row can watch.” Image: Shutterstock

Travel Tips

Ranger's confrontation with mum sparks debate

An altercation between a woman and a parking inspector in Sydney's Double Bay has sparked debate online. Video footage of the confrontation was shared on <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/parking-ranger-altercation-mum-ritzy-000020905.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">social media</a>, and the pair can be seen arguing over a parking ticket the woman received on Cross St, where two-hour parking rules apply. The woman claimed that she'd "just parked" her car and was paying for a ticket when the inspector arrived to fine her. She started recording him as he was "rude and abrupt", with the video showing him writing up the fine and telling her that he will be adding a complaint to his notes. "You're harassing me, I'll call the police," the ranger said to the woman, as she films him up close. As he turns abruptly pointing a finger toward her, and telling her to leave he appears to hit the phone, and the woman accuses him of assault. "You physically assaulted me. Wow. It's all on camera," she said to the ranger. She also claimed that the ranger "pushed her away", and said that it was "terrifying". The video posted online attracted mixed responses from locals, with some arguing that "there's more to the story" as the video didn't capture what happened before she started filming. However, a few others called the ranger out for his "shocking" behaviour. "The ranger has no right to assault anyone. And if it was when they were on the job, it’s a sackable offence, if not criminal," one said. Another argued that the woman was also in the wrong for being "up in his face" as the ranger was "just doing his job". "You can tell he didn't mean to knock the camera, and that she was up in his face," another added. A spokesperson for Woollahra Council confirmed they were aware of the incident and "regrets any distress experienced during the issuing of a fine due to an illegally parked vehicle." "We understand no one likes receiving a fine, but [we] ask members of the public to refrain from taking out their frustration on Council staff, either verbally or physically," they told Yahoo News. Images: Facebook/ Yahoo

Travel Trouble

Restaurant sparks debate over “age discrimination”

A US restaurant has gone viral for their "age policy" after they decided to ban young people in a bid to create a “grown and sexy” vibe. Bliss Restaurant opened its doors in St. Louis, Missouri last month and have already caused an uproar for their unique policy where men under 35 and women under 30 are not allowed in. Owners Marvin Pate and his wife, said that they created the rule to help them “maintain a sophisticated environment, uphold our standards, and support the sustainability of our unique ambience”. Despite getting some backlash over the policy, they insist that they will stick to their code. “I think Bliss is a home away from home,” he told local news station KSDK. “You can come here and actually feel like you’re at a resort. People will feel like they’re on a vacation. “Of course, we have been getting a little backlash because of our policy, but that’s OK. We’re sticking to our code.” Pate is so committed to providing a space for older people, that if anyone looks younger than 30, they will get their ID's checked. “The restaurant is just something for the older people to come do, have a happy hour, come get some good food and not have to worry about some of the young folks who bring some of that drama,” assistant manager Erica Rhodes added. A few people have slammed the restaurant, suggesting that the rule was “age discrimination”. “The owner barely makes his own age requirement. Come on,” one vented online. “I’ve never seen a bar fight that wasn’t started by some drunk over 30,” another added. “I feel like it’s usually older people acting out nowadays," and another person replied: “Y’all ever seen a Karen under 30?” However, in the age of young influencers, many thought the restriction “makes sense". “Ah, Bliss, no influencers with those bright lights and filming while everyone else is trying to have a nice meal,” one said. “I like the concept, it’s time we mature adults can dine in a relaxing atmosphere without kids screaming, parents screaming, aggressive behaviours,” another added. “I love the age requirements. Please keep it like this. Don’t change it a lot of places back in the day had age requirements I’m glad that somebody finally taking it back protect your business I support,” a third wrote. “I love this idea!!!! Perfect!!!! And for all those gripping and complaining about it…..or have some smartelic comment….. just wait. One day your day is coming," another mused. Images: Instagram

Travel Trouble

“Is this illegal?”: Mum sparks debate over divisive rubbish bin tactic

A mother has reignited an age-old debate over neighbourhood etiquette, asking whether it is "illegal or frowned upon” to add rubbish to a neighbour’s wheelie bin if yours is completely full. Brooke Bliss, who lives on the NSW Mid North Coast, said that in her area bins were only collected once a fortnight and her outside bins fill up very quickly as a family of five. Often left with overflowing rubbish by the time collection day rolls around, Bliss admitted that she waits till the "dead of night" on the day before the bins are emptied and tosses a couple of bags of general waste into neighbours' bins. “Is this illegal or frowned upon?” the creator asked her followers in a video online. The mother-of-three explained to <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/mum-sparks-debate-over-widespread-rubbish-bin-tactic-everyone-does---but-is-it-illegal-004710089.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yahoo News Australia</a>, “It’s actually super stressful, especially when you have young children… the bins fill up quite quickly.” “I find that my bin is full maybe like the fourth day after it’s just been collected and there’s still another eight or so days to go.” She added that she had “the most lovely neighbours” who would never have an issue with it, but she’d heard of other people being told not to do that by other residents. “I mean, if your neighbours aren’t letting you do that even if they have room in their bin, you then have the rubbish lying around your property because you have nowhere else to put it," Bliss added. Many fellow Aussies commenting on her video said they also sneak rubbish into their neighbours' bins and that once they were on the kerb they were fair game, with one adding, "as long as you're not putting rubbish in recycling or garden waste". “Both our neighbours know we do this to them,” one wrote, while another said, “I do it in broad daylight.” With a third adding, "everyone does this". While there are technically no laws against using your neighbours' bin, trespassing could be an issue unless you wait until the bin is on council land. A spokesman for Bliss's local council said that the move is generally frowned upon unless there is an agreement among neighbours. Image credits: Instagram / Shutterstock

Legal

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

A photo taken at Bronte Beach has sparked the age old debate over whether picnickers should be allowed to reserve picnic tables by dumping their stuff on them. The image taken at one of Sydney's most popular beaches, showed two picnic tables under the same hut with table clothes and bags on them, but there was no human in sight. “There were at least half a dozen of these tables ‘reserved’ for a couple of hours on Sunday morning from very early in the day,” one annoyed beachgoer wrote on Reddit. “We got there at 7am and left a few hours later. No one was using the tables the entire time we were there.” The post has received hundreds of comments from other annoyed picnickers, with one going as far as calling it "unAustralian". “It's not acceptable,” one person said. “You can reserve it by sitting there yourself, but not by leaving an item.” “Yes, you should be actually using it, not leaving your s**t on there to reserve it for later,” another added. “It's the height of selfishness.” “Move their stuff, move yourself in, and say, ‘it was like this when I got here’,” one commenter suggested. “All I see is a free tablecloth and free bag,” another quipped. However, a few others pointed out that there were other available seats, and that there are unspoken rules around reserving picnic spots. "In this instance, it’s probably okay,” one wrote. “The back table is free, go grab it.” "As long as there’s people there minding the tables, not just throwing a bunch of tablecloths down and walking off, I’m fine with it,” another added. “First come first served.” “If I was bringing a few things from the car I might do this,” a third commented. “Like dropping off the tablecloth and backpack before grabbing the esky etc. But I'd maintain line of sight. Anything else isn't justified in my opinion.” A spokesperson for Waverly Council have asked people to "refrain from reserving tables and always have a back up plan". “Waverley is the second-most densely populated local government area in Australia outside of the City of Sydney, and we attract millions of visitors every year, so our recreational spaces are at a premium," the spokesperson told Yahoo News Australia. “On weekends and at other peak times, picnic tables and barbecues do invariably fill up. So we ask people to share our spaces so that everyone can have a turn.” Images: Reddit

Travel Trouble

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

In what seems to be a picture perfect wedding, eagle-eyed social media users spotted one odd detail. The couple were snapped standing at the altar, and while everything else about their outfit seemed flawless, one Reddit user called the groom out for wearing black Crocs and black socks to his wedding. “Imagine you get ready for three hours and your groom shows up in Crocs,” the user said. “Crocs would be a legit reason to say no at the altar,” another wrote, before adding: “Crocs are a valid reason to not date someone. They are horrible.” “He’s wearing a suit, maybe he has a problem with his feet that he can’t wear proper footwear,” a third commented “Surely no one, no matter how casual in style, voluntarily leaves the house in Crocs?” However many other social media users were quick to defend the wedding faux pas, with some saying that they wish they had done the same thing at their own weeding. “He probably has an injured foot or broken toe. He’s perfectly groomed (a pun) otherwise and obviously tried to camouflage his socks and crocs with his attire," one sympathised. “Ya I have really severe diabetic neuropathy in my feet, especially my toes. Doctor actually suggested Crocs as they have extra space and don’t restrict movement," another added. “I wore flip flops under my dress. I hate heels with a passion,” a third wrote. "He's wearing a nice suit, matching dark socks so I'm not seeing an issue here as he probably has some kind of foot or back injury or pain. If I were marrying him this wouldn't bother me," added a fourth. “Let the man get married in something comfortable. My wife could have shown up in a potato sack barefoot for all I cared, she is there to marry me, not for a fashion show," a fifth defended. Image: Reddit

Relationships

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Shakira Coldwell, 21, has sparked debate online after copping a $116 parking fine for an "absurd" rule she claims she didn't even know existed. The Aussie woman took to TikTok to share her confusion, and asked if anyone else was aware of the rule. “Was I the only one that didn’t know you can get a parking fine for parking nose in, like the front of your car goes in first instead of backing into a car park?” she asked. She then asked whether the rule was only enforced in Noosa, saying that she was "pretty sure" you could park in any way as long as you stay between the lines. Coldwell then shared a photo of how she parked her car when she received the fine and said that she was “clearly” within the parking lines but hadn’t backed into her space like the car next to her. “Does that not just seem a bit absurd, a bit bizarre?” she said. She also said that she was only just made aware of the fine, as she had been travelling, which means that she may be copping even bigger fees as her payment was now overdue. “I’ve asked a couple of people about this and they literally had no idea that rule even existed. Like, I’m within the lines, it doesn’t matter how I’m parked,” she continued. According to the Brisbane City Council website, failing to park as indicated by an angle parking sign will result in a $116 fine, but Coldwell claims that she didn't see any signs. “So I am a bit confused. Is this just Noosa rule or does everyone know this because I literally did not know this was a rule. And low key $116 for a parking fine that's a bit absurd, given I was within the lines,” she said. Many commenters were quick to inform her that it was actually a common parking rule that wasn't restricted to Noosa. “As someone who lives in Noosa I can 100% guarantee there was a sign saying you had to back in,” one person wrote. “Being within the lines literally has nothing to do with it lol,” another said. A few others said that parking the wrong way in angled spots can make it “dangerous” when backing out into traffic, with one commenter claiming “everyone knows this”. However, a few others were just as baffled as the 21-year-old. “I’d be challenging that. I have never heard of it and there should definitely be signs so if you can go and check the signage,” one said. “Never heard of this before I wouldn’t pay it tell them where to go,” another wrote. According to the <a href="https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/community/local-laws/parking-regulations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noosa Council website</a>, rear-in angle parking is enforced in certain areas to “ensure a safer parking experience for everyone in the area," and to prevent cars from crossing into oncoming traffic as they try to exit the parking bay. Images: TikTok

Legal

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

The annual celebration of Australia Day on January 26th has long been a subject of contention, but the debate has recently reignited with fervour. Radio personality and long-time panellist on The Project, Kate Langbroek, has weighed in on the matter by saying that altering the date won't resolve the underlying issues. She also lamented the sense of shame felt by many Australians on what should be a day of national pride. "I don't believe that if the date changed that it would be the end of these discussions and this discontent," she said. "But people have a hunger for something to celebrate about their nation, who want to be proud about their nation, and want to be able to have it on an annual basis. I think it's fair enough to want that." In response to her comments, co-host Rove McManus replied: "It does lead to the greater discussion for us as a nation of acknowledging that past so we can celebrate where we are now, which we still haven't done no matter what the day." The discussion on The Project underscored the complexity of the issue. While some, like Langbroek, advocate for maintaining the current date as a day of celebration, others argue for its change to acknowledge the painful history of colonisation. Langbroek then shared an anecdote about how a hesitant greeting of "Happy Australia Day" that she received only goes to show the level of discomfort and ambivalence surrounding the holiday. "[He] then sort of slunk away as if what he said was shameful. I know the reasons for it, I understand the reasons, but it's a great pity for our nation," she said. Co-host Georgie Tunny then proposed the idea of designating January 26th as a day of mourning while finding an alternative date for celebration – a notion met with both sarcasm and consideration. The public response to the panel discussion was predictably polarised . While some adamantly defend the tradition of celebrating Australia Day on January 26th, others advocate for change, citing the need to confront Australia's colonial past honestly. Amidst the discord, there are calls for innovative approaches to Australia Day. Suggestions range from incorporating solemn remembrance of Indigenous heritage in the morning to hosting citizenship ceremonies and festive events later in the day – a reflection of the nation's aspirations for unity and inclusivity. Images: The Project

News

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

An obese woman has sparked debate online after refusing to give up the second seat she paid for to a fussy toddler. The 34-year-old booked the two seats for her cross-country flight to visit her family for Christmas because she was previously unable to comfortably fit in one seat. All was well until the young woman next to her demanded that she "squeeze into one seat" so her son could sit on the other. "I am obese," she admitted on the Reddit thread. "I'm actively working toward losing weight and I've made progress - but I booked an extra seat because I'm fat." She added that she insisted on keeping her seat because she paid for it, but the mum "made a big fuss over it, and she told the flight attendant I was stealing the seat from her son." "Then I showed her my boarding passes, proving that I paid for the extra seat. The flight attendant asked me if I could try to squeeze in, but I said no, that I wanted the extra seat I paid for." The woman claimed that the toddler was only 18 months old, so he didn't need his own seat and could've sat on his mum's lap for the duration of the flight. "I got dirty looks and passive-aggressive remarks from her for the entire flight and I do feel a little bad because the boy looked hard to control - but am I in the wrong?" she asked other social media users. Many shared their overwhelming support for the woman and slammed the mum and flight attendant for their "horrific" behaviour. "The mum is an a**hole for not buying a seat for her son and assuming someone else would give up a seat they paid for. Odds are she was hoping there'd be extra seats on the flight so she didn't have to pay and used the lap thing as a loophole," one commented. "What's even the point of the extra seat if the flight attendants are going to let entitled people bully others into giving it up?" another added. "People buy entire seats for high-end musical equipment. Not even people. Their lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on your part," a third wrote. However, there were a few others that said the woman was in the wrong for causing an inconvenience. "If you are so fat that you have to have more than one seat on an airplane then you are selfish," one said. "Flights overbook all the time especially during the holidays - how can you justify having two seats to yourself?" "How much room does a kid take up, seriously? Yeah the mum should've bought a seat but that doesn't mean you have to be selfish and cause two people discomfort," another commented. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The best 100 cities on the planet have been revealed, with three Aussie cities making the final list. The list was compiled by as part of an annual report by <a href="https://www.worldsbestcities.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resonance Consultancy</a>, who rated major capital cities on three main factors: liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs, walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums, as well as ratings from TripAdvisor and Google. The top ten chart features four cities on the Asian continent, four in Europe and two in the U.S. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were all featured in the list, coming in at numbers 31, 35 and 57 respectively. Taking out the number one spot this year is London, dubbed the "capital of capitals" that "reigns over all global cities" as the best metropolis in the world. The study proclaims it as the most liveable and the most lovable mecca, solidified by its winning culture and education attainment. The report concludes, "Despite crippling Covid lockdowns and economic devastation. Despite Brexit. Despite a war in Europe. The city is more indomitable and part of the global discourse than ever. From the Queen's death, to last autumn's chaotic drama at 10 Downing Street that finally calmed down with Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister, only to take heavy local election losses this spring, London is rarely quiet these days." Here's the full list of top 100 cities in the world. 1 - London, England 2 - Paris, France 3 - New York, USA 4 - Tokyo, Japan 5 - Singapore 6 - Dubai, United Arab Emirates 7 - San Francisco, USA 8 - Barcelona, Spain 9 - Amsterdam, Netherlands 10 - Seoul, South Korea 11 - Rome, Italy 12 - Prague, Czechia 13 - Madrid, Spain 14 - Berlin, Germany 15 - Los Angeles, USA 16 - Chicago, USA 17 - Washington, D.C., USA 18 - Beijing, China 19 - Istanbul, Turkey 20 - Dublin, Ireland 21 - Vienna, Austria 22 - Milan, Italy 23 - Toronto, Canada 24 - Boston, USA 25 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 26 - Budapest, Hungary 27 - São Paulo, Brazil 28 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29 - Stockholm, Sweden 30 - Munich, Germany 31 - Melbourne, Australia 32 - Lisbon, Portugal 33 - Zürich, Switzerland 34 - Seattle, USA 35 - Sydney, Australia 36 - Doha, Qatar 37 - Brussels, Belgium 38 - San Jose, USA 39 - Bangkok, Thailand 40 - Warsaw, Poland 41 - Copenhagen, Denmark 42 - Taipei, Taiwan 43 - Austin, USA 44 - Oslo, Norway 45 - Osaka, Japan 46 - Hong Kong, China 47 - Tel Aviv, Israel 48 - Athens, Greece 49 - Frankfurt, Germany 50 - Vancouver, Canada 51 - San Diego, USA 52 - Orlando, USA 53 - Helsinki, Finland 54 - Miami, USA 55 - Buenos Aires, Argentina 56 - Hamburg, Germany 57 - Brisbane, Australia 58 - Kuwait, Kuwait 59 - Las Vegas, USA 60 - Montreal, Canada 61 - Glasgow, Scotland 62 - Shanghai, China 63 - Rio de Janeiro, USA 64 - Auckland, New Zealand 65 - Atlanta, USA 66 - Houston, USA 67 - Busan, South Korea 68 - Philadelphia, USA 69 - Naples, Italy 70 - Denver, USA 71 - Nashville, USA 72 - Manchester, England 73 - Dallas, USA 74 - Liverpool, England 75 - Minneapolis, USA 76 - Mexico City, Mexico 77 - Minsk, Belarus 78 - Lyon, France 79 - Portland, USA 80 - Rotterdam, Netherlands 81 - Bogotá, Colombia 82 - Kraków, Poland 83 - Valencia, Spain 84 - Santiago, Chile 85 - Birmingham, England 86 - New Orleans, USA 87 - Bucharest, Romania 88 - Leeds, England 89 - Muscat, Oman 90 - Ottawa, Canada 91 - Cologne, Germany 92 - Charlotte, USA 93 - Calgary, Canada 94 - Nagoya, Japan 95 - Düsseldorf, Germany 96 - Hanoi, Vietnam 97 - Gothenburg, Sweden 98 - Sapporo, Japan 99 - Bilbao, Spain 100 - Baltimore, USA Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Parents have shared their thoughts on letting their children live at home rent free, as the age old debate of paying board stirred up some strong opinions. A <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/money/should-children-over-the-age-of-18-pay-board-if-they-still-live-at-home-reader-poll-exclusive/77876711-2950-4bf3-bb30-716442a6fd74" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nine.com.au</a> reader survey asked the question: Should children over the age of 18 pay board if they still live at home? The responses were many and varied, as a whopping 72 percent of respondents said grown up kids should be contributing financially to the household. One person commented, "If children have employment, it's important that they clearly understand that life is not free and they need to budget, show accountability and responsibility." Another wrote, "If the children over 18 are working, then yes, they should contribute or give money to the parents to bank for them." Others said children shouldn't be expected to pay board, and would rather their kids save money for bigger financial commitments. "My parents did not charge me board even though I was working because they did not need the money and told me to save for my first car, which I did," one person shared. Another wrote their parenting tactic, writing, "I let my children not pay board. So they could save for a deposit on a house. They did and they all (3) have a house." Despite many people sharing their strong opinions on the matter, most respondents said it was not a black and white question, as many households have individual circumstances that affect their decision. "Depends on if they are working or not and what income the parents have. My son is 22 but unemployed due to health problem, we just pool our unemployment payment so it differs for each family situation, not a YES or No answer," one reader wrote. Another said it depends on their employment and study status, writing, "Yes if they're working almost full time, not if they're studying and just working part time to cover living expenses." The poll comes as Aussies have struggled with a rise in basic living costs, with <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/australian-household-spending-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS</a> data showing that Australian households spent a total of $1.2 trillion on what was classed as general living costs in 2022. This sum is close to $100 billion more than in 2021. The average household spent $130,353 in 2022, which is the equivalent of $2507 per week. This is a 20.4 per cent jump on the previous year. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

A 12-second clip of two passengers arguing on a plane has reignited the age-old debate of whether it is acceptable to recline your seat on a plane. The viral video which was originally posted on TikTok and then re-shared on X, has racked up over 8 million views since Thursday. In the video, a frustrated woman was calling out another female passenger for pushing her seat the entire flight, right after they landed. “The whole trip she pushed my seat,” the woman said to a male passenger seated next to the female passenger accused of kicking her seat. “You seen it. You know she did.” “I’m allowed to put my seat back," she yelled repeatedly. Ian Miles Cheong, the user who posted the video on X, defended the woman saying: “She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space.” A few were on the woman's side and praised her for standing up for herself. “You are allowed! Period! You want space in front of you instead of pushing the seat, buy a seat with extra space or get your a** to business class. Reclining was put there for a reason,” one person wrote. “She was patient enough to wait till flight landed," they added. “If the seat is reclinable, recline it,” another commented. "What she’s saying is right. The woman has a right to put her seat back without someone kicking it," a third agreed. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space. <a href="https://t.co/WELD7Qh4Re">pic.twitter.com/WELD7Qh4Re</a> — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1719881310351863952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2023</a></blockquote> However, others claimed that there was an unwritten rule that you shouldn't recline your seat, especially on a short-haul flight, adding that the recline feature should be scrapped from airplanes. “Putting your seat back in coach is an unspoken thing most people don’t do. It’s really the airline’s fault because they’ve made coach so cramped and tight that putting the seat back shouldn’t even be an option,” one commented. “Airline seats simply shouldn’t be able to recline. It intrudes on the already very little space a person has on the plane for the person behind them,” another added. “Really it’s the airline’s fault for cramming so many people in such a small space. They don’t call it cattle class for nothing,” a third wrote. One user understood both sides of the argument, and blamed the airlines for making the seats so cramped. "It can be annoying sometimes to be behind someone with their seat all the way, but if the airlines didn't want to allow that, it wouldn't happen," they wrote. "You don't kick the seat like a baby. Blame the airline, not the person doing what the airline says is fine." Images: Twitter

Travel Trouble

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> The National Party’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/more-sanctions-for-unemployed-beneficiaries-under-national/">pledge to apply sanctions</a> to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/nationals-benefit-sanctions-plan-cruel-dehumanising-greens/">criticism</a>. Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages. In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in. One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs. The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans. People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week. With <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/132980318/auckland-mother-serves-up-cereal-for-dinner-due-to-rising-food-costs">rising costs</a>, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders <a href="https://figure.nz/chart/TtiUrpceJruy058e-ITw010dHsM6bvA2a">accessing one of the main benefits</a>. <h2>Our whittled down welfare state</h2> Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system. The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2023.html">pay a fixed weekly amount</a>. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week. Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html">accommodation supplement</a> and other allowances or tax credits. The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs. Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks. This problem has been building for decades. <h2>Benefits have been too low for too long</h2> In the 1970s, the <a href="https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/12967">Royal Commission on Social Security</a> declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”. But Ruth Richardson’s “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/124978983/1991-the-mother-of-all-budgets">mother of all budgets</a>” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/29/benefit-increases-will-still-leave-families-locked-in-poverty/">benefits are not enough to live on</a>. In 2018, the <a href="https://www.weag.govt.nz/">Welfare Expert Advisory Group</a> looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport. The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation. The Labour government has since <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders">increased benefit rates</a>, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-at-6-0-percent">sharp rise in inflation</a> since then. Advocacy group <a href="https://fairerfuture.org.nz/">Fairer Future</a> published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates. <h2>How ‘advances’ create debt traps</h2> When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment. For <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/27/very-stressful-beneficiary-says-he-cant-afford-msd-debt/">all other essential needs</a> – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back. There are several issues with these types of loans. First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future. As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0032/latest/whole.html">Social Security Act 2018</a> doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts. <h2>Contradictory policies</h2> Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit. Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored. This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40. The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt. People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need. <h2>Ways to start easing the burden</h2> So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income. Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt. Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low. When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on. The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold. However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212528/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, Associate professor - Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

“I run on bananas and coke cola": Kyrgios wades into doping debate

Nick Kyrgios has raised eyebrows over his out-of-pocket comments on the recent doping scandal surrounding the world of tennis. The Aussie champion spoke over current testing protocols in the wake of Romanian tennis player Simon Halep being slapped with a four-year ban from the game for doping offences. Naturally, many tennis champions from around the world have put in their two cents on the recent ban, as Greek player Maria Sakkari called out the measures for being "scary". She told a tennis news site, “One thing I can tell you for sure is the way they’re handling every situation with any player, any athlete, it’s just scary.” “We’re gonna get to a point where we’re not even gonna be taking electrolytes. Thankfully, I haven’t been in that position. I never want to be. I’ve been very careful with everything that has to do with supplements. But I don’t know what the process is, how things are done behind closed doors." Nick Kyrgios was quick to jump in to the debate, responding to Sakkari's comments on Twitter saying, “Ehhhh not really lol.” “I run on bananas and coke cola in 5 set battles. And my record in them speaks for itself." “Maybe players should just stop taking shady sh*t. Look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day and say yep I did it right. Not hard.” Fans soon came after Kyrgios, but he doubled down. Kyrgios responded to one Twitter user’s sledge by posting, “I’d imagine if I was taking similar things to be banned for 4 years I’d have about 5 slams. Potato”. Kyrgios has had a difficult season as he has been forced to take time off to recover from injuries to his wrist and knees. He has urged his fans to be patient as he works on his recovery, as he is determined to get back on the court. "To my millions of fans out there, I guess we just have to be patient,” Kyrgios wrote in an Instagram story, accompanied by a picture of him in the gym. “Trust me, I still have some fire left in the tank, my body just needs time to recover and get back.” Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Gen X dad’s odd punishment for four-year-old son sparks debate

A self-proclaimed Gen X dad has sparked a furious debate after a video clip of him punishing his four-year-old son went viral on TikTok. Wisconsin-based dad Derek Longstreth said he had no other choice but to make his young son, Truman, heave massive jugs of water across the yard because he hit his mum. “All right little man, let's go, you've got all these jugs to carry,” he told his son, as he showed five water jugs. “He hit his mom today, so, spanking is out of the question because you liberals made it so we can’t spank our children any more,” he explained. The father-of-one recorded his son struggling to carry the water jugs, but offered him words of encouragement as the boy tried to carry it across the yard. “Let's go, young man. I love you just so you know, but you're not going to hit your mom,” he said. “You can do it. I love you son but we don't hit women in this family.” Longstreth then explained why he chose to punish his son this way, and said that spanking your child is not allowed in Wisconsin. “He's four. We're not allowed to spank in the state of Wisconsin because some liberals are saying there are better ways.” “'Well liberals, what's the better way?” <div><iframe title="tiktok embed" src="https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2Fembed%2Fv2%2F7256440921728863530&display_name=tiktok&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tiktok.com%2F%40hamburgerjones23%2Fvideo%2F7256440921728863530&image=https%3A%2F%2Fp19-sign.tiktokcdn-us.com%2Fobj%2Ftos-useast5-p-0068-tx%2Fc29492b9251f41139161e469b64b4d0e%3Fx-expires%3D1689789600%26x-signature%3DRnuVqM3A6bo1miOskT3JdYiBlWA%253D&key=5b465a7e134d4f09b4e6901220de11f0&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=tiktok" width="340" height="700" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> After the father complained about the liberals, he continued to try and teach Truman a lesson, despite the child complaining that he “can’t do it” multiple times throughout the video. At the end of the clip, Longstreth asks his son: “Are you going to hit your mom again?” “No,” the four-year-old responded. Longstreth also made his son apologise for hitting his mum. The nine-minute clip has racked up over 1.9 million views, while many applauded the father for his “gentle” ways of parenting and disciplining his son, others slammed him for “abuse”. “Big respect to this dad. He gave the kid a hard job with encouragement and reassurance that he loves him as well as why the kid had to do it,” wrote one person. “This is honestly probably the best and most effective way to discipline your child. Every moment they do this they are thinking about what they did,” commented another. “Good dad, raising his son right, teaching him to never lay his hands on any women especially his momma. Very good,” agreed a third. “This is like so gentle yet so disciplining in all the good ways,” wrote a fourth. However, other viewers disagreed with the father’s method. “This is abuse.... I said what I said. I'm sorry he hit his mom though, talking it out is fine. He's too little for this,” commented one person. “Lol. When people ask what the next traumas will be, it’ll be every moment being a phone in their face. Did you need to post this? Pathetic,” wrote another. “You don't want him to associate work as punishment. how about no tv, no sweets, something that is usually a privilege. work is something that is good,” added another user. Images: TikTok

Family & Pets

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Kyle Sandilands has been censored during an on-air rant about Indigenous Australians. The radio shock jock clashed with The Kyle and Jackie O Show newsreader Brooklyn Ross as the pair discussed the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which would comprise of a body of First Nations Australians and Torres Strait Islanders who can advise the government on matters relating to the social, spiritual and economic wellbeing of their people. As the pair argued, lengthy portions of Kyle's opinionated rant were censored. However, some of his comments made it to air. “We have to actually give [Indigenous Australians] money and look after them,” said Ross to which Sandilands replied: “Nah, bulls**t!” “How about educating people and giving people the chance to build their own life like the rest of us did?” he suggested. Sandilands has made it clear that he is staunchly opposed to the Voice, as he doesn’t believe a reported $34 billion in funds should be allocated to Indigenous Australians as he thinks the money wasn’t having a positive affect on First Nations communities. “No one’s really putting all that $34 billion into fixing the real problem. They’re painting houses and giving them this and that,” Sandilands added, before mocking: “’We’ll rename Fraser Island!’” During his rant, he went on to criticise Welcome to Country traditions that have been adopted into everyday life, which involves a speech typically given at significant events by an elder or custodian to welcome visitors to their traditional country. “Look, The Project’s thanking people from the past [for] using their land. These things, they’re s**t!” he said. “No one’s better than anyone else. If they’re treated worse, that’s an issue." After staying silent for most of his tirade, Jackie O chimed in to say she agreed with that part of his outburst. “Thank you, Jackie. Jackie’s finally popped up," he sarcastically called listeners, before telling her: “I understand you don’t want to get involved in it.” Rightfully so, said Ross who made Henderson laugh when he said, “[An] angry man and a gay man arguing. And both of us white!” Image credits: KIISFM

News

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Proposal to put bars on Gold Coast beaches sparks debate

Teacher's wild salary sparks heated debate

Man's DIY speed camera sign sparks debate

"Ridiculous": Debate erupts over whether grandparents should be paid to babysit

Passenger sparks debate over travellers sleeping in aisle seats

Ranger's confrontation with mum sparks debate

Restaurant sparks debate over “age discrimination”

“Is this illegal?”: Mum sparks debate over divisive rubbish bin tactic

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

“I run on bananas and coke cola": Kyrgios wades into doping debate

Gen X dad’s odd punishment for four-year-old son sparks debate

Kyle censored during fiery on-air debate

Our Partners