Shorten claims that a 2 years delay of Super WILL cost the average male $20K in retirement.

Presumably he worked this out by multiplying the $4500 by a return on capital

Interesting. Most financial planners are not allowed to promise $4500 WILL generate you $20,000 in retirement

This is the law administer by Minister Shortie himself

Yet Shortie is buggering up the rules he's upholding.

This is like the Pope/Mufti saying no homosexuality and then goes out buggering people

Shame on you Shortie

BTW - we would love to see how you got $20,000 from $4,500

come on macca you know full well when it comes to maths the whole govt fails...they conjure figures out of the air and the lefties on here suck it up...

hasnt swanny just madfe a $14bn mistake?????

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

its ok its only our money..

Its nice to see Abbott showing his true colours by trashing superannuation ...whats Abbottss taxpayer funded super worth?  ;D

adelcrow wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

Its nice to see Abbott showing his true colours by trashing superannuation ...whats Abbottss taxpayer funded super worth?  ;D

glad you approve! :o

you have no idea how he worked it out, but still feel compelled to say something stupid?

John Smith wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

you have no idea how he worked it out, but still feel compelled to say something stupid?

you dont consider $10.000 in interest pa on $4.500 is stupid?...

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 10:51am:

John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:47am: you have no idea how he worked it out, but still feel compelled to say something stupid? you dont consider $10.000 in interest pa on $4.500 is stupid?...

Here we go again,
It's not PA
Its over the life of the super account. Read what Shorten said and try to understand it.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:51am: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:47am: you have no idea how he worked it out, but still feel compelled to say something stupid? you dont consider $10.000 in interest pa on $4.500 is stupid?... Here we go again, It's not PA Its over the life of the super account. Read what Shorten said and try to understand it.

of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about.

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about.

They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods.
Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making).

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making).

yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election..

maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits...

as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be..

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:26am: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:51am: John Smith wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 10:47am: you have no idea how he worked it out, but still feel compelled to say something stupid? you dont consider $10.000 in interest pa on $4.500 is stupid?... Here we go again, It's not PA Its over the life of the super account. Read what Shorten said and try to understand it. of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about.

read it again it says The average man,
they aren't about to retire. but nice try at covering up your mistake.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making).

you mean those people with $1m plus who have earnings over $100,000
What do you have to say about Abbots super raid on low income earners?

cods wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be..

You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan.

And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts

Are leftards so freaking stupid??!!

Abbott's delay will save the government $3B per year and Labor is crying the

Labor's $300B debt is costing Aust $12B in interest per year and they say the interest payment is good for Australia

Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone"

Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"???

Makka wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:32pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts

He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie?
What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom?

Makka wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:36pm:

Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone" Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"???

MUMS working part-time would be among the hardest hit by Tony Abbott's plan to scrap a superannuation tax cut for 3.6 million people.

About 910,000 Victorians would suffer a hit to their retirement nest eggs under a Coalition plan to axe a $500 tax cut because it was part of the mining tax package, which it's promised to scrap.

The Federal Government axed a 15 per cent contributions tax on super for those earning up to $37,000.

Two-thirds of those who would be affected by the Coalition policy are women.

Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten said some of the lowest-paid workers, such as carers, cleaners and shop assistants, and many mums working jobs part-time, would be among the 30 per cent of workers affected.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-plan-to-scrap-superannuation-tax-cut-hits-poor/story-fndo6axq-1226609159132

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan.

howard was too busy coming up with the money to pay for Keatings 9% super that he neglected to actually put away. That's what the Future Fund is all about.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:42pm:

Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom?

Liberal $9B
Labor $87B

Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement.

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement.

It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component.
John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct,
There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off.
This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced.

what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number.

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. howard was too busy coming up with the money to pay for Keatings 9% super that he neglected to actually put away. That's what the Future Fund is all about.

:) :) :)
Howard was trying to come up with the money to pay the commonwealth super, that's the biggest laugh I've had in years.
The only reason the future fund was formed was Costello found himself with $50M dollars from the sale of Telstra and he seized on Simon Creans idea of the future fund.
Trying to fund the commonwealth super was not even
part of any policy by the Liberals until they sold Telstra. Stop trying to change history

longweekend58 wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number.

So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:36pm: Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone" Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"??? MUMS working part-time would be among the hardest hit by Tony Abbott's plan to scrap a superannuation tax cut for 3.6 million people. About 910,000 Victorians would suffer a hit to their retirement nest eggs under a Coalition plan to axe a $500 tax cut because it was part of the mining tax package, which it's promised to scrap. The Federal Government axed a 15 per cent contributions tax on super for those earning up to $37,000. Two-thirds of those who would be affected by the Coalition policy are women. Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten said some of the lowest-paid workers, such as carers, cleaners and shop assistants, and many mums working jobs part-time, would be among the 30 per cent of workers affected. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-plan-to-scrap-superannuation-tax-cut-hits-poor/story-fndo6axq-1226609159132

But they don't need to compensation because there's no carbon tax

if you want to discuss "cuts" and not understand why the compo was given then you can go F#cK yourself

have a discussion

understand the fundamentals

The compo came in because Gillard used it to bribe people about the carbon tax

Makka wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:17pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:48pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:36pm: Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone" Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"??? MUMS working part-time would be among the hardest hit by Tony Abbott's plan to scrap a superannuation tax cut for 3.6 million people. About 910,000 Victorians would suffer a hit to their retirement nest eggs under a Coalition plan to axe a $500 tax cut because it was part of the mining tax package, which it's promised to scrap. The Federal Government axed a 15 per cent contributions tax on super for those earning up to $37,000. Two-thirds of those who would be affected by the Coalition policy are women. Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten said some of the lowest-paid workers, such as carers, cleaners and shop assistants, and many mums working jobs part-time, would be among the 30 per cent of workers affected. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-plan-to-scrap-superannuation-tax-cut-hits-poor/story-fndo6axq-1226609159132 But they don't need to compensation because there's no carbon tax if you want to discuss "cuts" and not understand why the compo was given then you can go F#cK yourself have a discussion understand the fundamentals The compo came in because Gillard used it to bribe people about the carbon tax

Whats wrong hit a nerve did I , you don't like Tony's piss poor super plan  for  low income earners being brought up, I wonder why.
Combine that with his freeze of the super increase to 12% and maybe people may start to question his motives, can't have that now can you.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:51pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. howard was too busy coming up with the money to pay for Keatings 9% super that he neglected to actually put away. That's what the Future Fund is all about. :) :) :) Howard was trying to come up with the money to pay the commonwealth super, that's the biggest laugh I've had in years. The only reason the future fund was formed was Costello found himself with $50M dollars from the sale of Telstra and he seized on Simon Creans idea of the future fund. Trying to fund the commonwealth super was not even part of any policy by the Liberals until they sold Telstra. Stop trying to change history

the history is that they DID IT. your idea of facts seems to differ from most people. firstly you deny that howard had a better economy (not even Swan denies that) and now we have the Future Fund not being to pay for PS super...

idiot.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest.

you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you?

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:51pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. howard was too busy coming up with the money to pay for Keatings 9% super that he neglected to actually put away. That's what the Future Fund is all about. :) :) :) Howard was trying to come up with the money to pay the commonwealth super, that's the biggest laugh I've had in years. The only reason the future fund was formed was Costello found himself with $50M dollars from the sale of Telstra and he seized on Simon Creans idea of the future fund. Trying to fund the commonwealth super was not even part of any policy by the Liberals until they sold Telstra. Stop trying to change history the history is that they DID IT. your idea of facts seems to differ from most people. firstly you deny that howard had a better economy (not even Swan denies that) and now we have the Future Fund not being to pay for PS super... idiot.

I,m an idiot at least by your say so, funny you got everything wrong
My facts are part of Hansard , care to look up the inter-generational report by Simon Crean

Show me where I denied Howard had a better economy, go on tell the truth you made this up right?

Once again you have trouble reading, Commonwealth super IS PS super and you call me an idiot  :)  :)  :)

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest. you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you?

No matter the final amount the $96B figure is the one you and Costello use and call Labors debt but still you can't bring yourself to admit that your  claim of $9B is the final amount of Howards debt is wrong and the final amount paid included the $9B PLUS interest.
As I said before LW you are a hypocrite you want to include all of Labors interest but ignore the interest due on Howards debt.

scope wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:17pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:48pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:36pm: Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone" Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"??? MUMS working part-time would be among the hardest hit by Tony Abbott's plan to scrap a superannuation tax cut for 3.6 million people. About 910,000 Victorians would suffer a hit to their retirement nest eggs under a Coalition plan to axe a $500 tax cut because it was part of the mining tax package, which it's promised to scrap. The Federal Government axed a 15 per cent contributions tax on super for those earning up to $37,000. Two-thirds of those who would be affected by the Coalition policy are women. Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten said some of the lowest-paid workers, such as carers, cleaners and shop assistants, and many mums working jobs part-time, would be among the 30 per cent of workers affected. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-plan-to-scrap-superannuation-tax-cut-hits-poor/story-fndo6axq-1226609159132 But they don't need to compensation because there's no carbon tax if you want to discuss "cuts" and not understand why the compo was given then you can go F#cK yourself have a discussion understand the fundamentals The compo came in because Gillard used it to bribe people about the carbon tax Whats wrong hit a nerve did I , you don't like Tony's piss poor super plan  for  low income earners being brought up, I wonder why. Combine that with his freeze of the super increase to 12% and maybe people may start to question his motives, can't have that now can you.

No

You are stupid so I just took the opportunity to tell you to F#ck yourself

I was referring the Superannuation and the Accord and not Abbott's delay of Super

In addition - your stupidity not only in the Super area but also the area that the Super increase was due to the carbon tax bribe

No carbon tax - no need for Super increase

Makka wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 12:28am:

scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:27pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 11:17pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:48pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:36pm: Shorten says Abbott is cutting Super "to the bone" Delaying an increase from 9% to 12% means "cutting to the bone"??? MUMS working part-time would be among the hardest hit by Tony Abbott's plan to scrap a superannuation tax cut for 3.6 million people. About 910,000 Victorians would suffer a hit to their retirement nest eggs under a Coalition plan to axe a $500 tax cut because it was part of the mining tax package, which it's promised to scrap. The Federal Government axed a 15 per cent contributions tax on super for those earning up to $37,000. Two-thirds of those who would be affected by the Coalition policy are women. Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten said some of the lowest-paid workers, such as carers, cleaners and shop assistants, and many mums working jobs part-time, would be among the 30 per cent of workers affected. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/tony-abbott-plan-to-scrap-superannuation-tax-cut-hits-poor/story-fndo6axq-1226609159132 But they don't need to compensation because there's no carbon tax if you want to discuss "cuts" and not understand why the compo was given then you can go F#cK yourself have a discussion understand the fundamentals The compo came in because Gillard used it to bribe people about the carbon tax Whats wrong hit a nerve did I , you don't like Tony's piss poor super plan  for  low income earners being brought up, I wonder why. Combine that with his freeze of the super increase to 12% and maybe people may start to question his motives, can't have that now can you. No You are stupid so I just took the opportunity to tell you to F#ck yourself I was referring the Superannuation and the Accord and not Abbott's delay of Super In addition - your stupidity not only in the Super area but also the area that the Super increase was due to the carbon tax bribe No carbon tax - no need for Super increase

So in other words you got nothing except more abuse when abbots failings are brought to light.
So once again (just to piss you off) Abbot will delay the super increase and cut the super of low income earners and allow high income earners to earn more than $100,000 super without paying extra in tax.
Is that about right? simple yes or no will do

Actual headline should be -

Abbott gives workers a 0.25% wage increase!

Let the punters decide what to do with their cash, tell the government to bugger off out of your pay cheque.

scope wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest. you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you? No matter the final amount the $96B figure is the one you and Costello use and call Labors debt but still you can't bring yourself to admit that your  claim of $9B is the final amount of Howards debt is wrong and the final amount paid included the $9B PLUS interest. As I said before LW you are a hypocrite you want to include all of Labors interest but ignore the interest due on Howards debt.

if you want to claim interest on the $9B then you have to claim interest on the $96B.

this is the usual garbage from your usual 4th grader labor supporter who simply cannot handle the truth that labor left a huge debt and are now leaving an even larger one.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 9:23am:

scope wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest. you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you? No matter the final amount the $96B figure is the one you and Costello use and call Labors debt but still you can't bring yourself to admit that your  claim of $9B is the final amount of Howards debt is wrong and the final amount paid included the $9B PLUS interest. As I said before LW you are a hypocrite you want to include all of Labors interest but ignore the interest due on Howards debt. if you want to claim interest on the $9B then you have to claim interest on the $96B. this is the usual garbage from your usual 4th grader labor supporter who simply cannot handle the truth that labor left a huge debt and are now leaving an even larger one.

You are so thick, I have already done that, I,m not the one claiming that Howard only left a $9B debt.I accept the debt left by Labor was huge, it's you that won't accept the final debt left by Howard was more than the $9B that you claim.
Stop the BS Longweekend , you know your'e wrong and all you can come back with is pathetic schoolboy  insults. Grow up man learn to say "I was wrong"

scope wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 9:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:23am: scope wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest. you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you? No matter the final amount the $96B figure is the one you and Costello use and call Labors debt but still you can't bring yourself to admit that your  claim of $9B is the final amount of Howards debt is wrong and the final amount paid included the $9B PLUS interest. As I said before LW you are a hypocrite you want to include all of Labors interest but ignore the interest due on Howards debt. if you want to claim interest on the $9B then you have to claim interest on the $96B. this is the usual garbage from your usual 4th grader labor supporter who simply cannot handle the truth that labor left a huge debt and are now leaving an even larger one. You are so thick, I have already done that, I,m not the one claiming that Howard only left a $9B debt.I accept the debt left by Labor was huge, it's you that won't accept the final debt left by Howard was more than the $9B that you claim. Stop the BS Longweekend , you know your'e wrong and all you can come back with is pathetic schoolboy  insults. Grow up man learn to say "I was wrong"

Treasury says that Fraser left $9B. to say anything else is quite simply wrong and you have no reference or justification for it.

I look forward to your blaming Howard for the current govts $200B+ (and growing) debt when they started with ZERO.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

scope wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:54am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:23am: scope wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:11pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 7:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:52pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:42pm: Makka wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 6:32pm: scope wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:51pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:31pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:14pm: cods wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 12:04pm: of course!!! what about those that are just about to retire????..they are who I was thinking about. They've shown how much they care about self funded retirees cods. Raiding their super with tax rules changes to help plug the deficit gap (entirely of their own making). yes no govt should have that right... if they have too change super they should take it to an election.. maybe the libs are a bit too generous when it comes to helping those that can afford to put extra away.. but that doesnt give anyone the right to dip their hands in when it suits... as Gine just said mining isnt an ATM.. then neither should superfunds be.. You mean like Howard did when he stopped the super increase's at 9% instead of continuing  the increase to 12% as was the Keating plan. And he also grew the GDP by 100%+ in 12 years as well as paying off labor debts He paid of Liberal/labor  debts. why do you have to lie? What policies did he use to grow GDP by 100% or was that a by product of the mining boom? Liberal $9B Labor $87B Calling it Labors debt is a reasonable statement. It's not reasonable at all because in your haste to defend Howard you keep forgetting one vital component. John Stone claimed the debt was $12B which at the time the statement was made was correct, There are others who have claimed the debt was $38b or $39 B  by the time the debt was paid off. This is also factually correct because you haven't accounted for the interest that was paid whilst the debt was serviced. what a garbage answer. TREASURY - the people who actual record levels of debt - have it at $9B. and if you want to include interest then you also need to include the interest on the $87B of labor debt until 2005 when it was paid off.  no matter how you try and rejig the figures labor has the lions share of debt that howard paid off.  and abbott will not have to pay off twice as much and this time you cant add one cent from howard to the number. So what you want to do is ignore any interest from Howards debt but include the interest from Labors debt, Which is included in the $96B figure you and all the other liars like to call labors debt,  your'e pathetic you can't even figure out that the total $96B included all interest. you are even wronger than usual.  $96B was the debt figure in 1996.  do you think it was interest free from that point on???  you really don't get money, do you? No matter the final amount the $96B figure is the one you and Costello use and call Labors debt but still you can't bring yourself to admit that your  claim of $9B is the final amount of Howards debt is wrong and the final amount paid included the $9B PLUS interest. As I said before LW you are a hypocrite you want to include all of Labors interest but ignore the interest due on Howards debt. if you want to claim interest on the $9B then you have to claim interest on the $96B. this is the usual garbage from your usual 4th grader labor supporter who simply cannot handle the truth that labor left a huge debt and are now leaving an even larger one. You are so thick, I have already done that, I,m not the one claiming that Howard only left a $9B debt.I accept the debt left by Labor was huge, it's you that won't accept the final debt left by Howard was more than the $9B that you claim. Stop the BS Longweekend , you know your'e wrong and all you can come back with is pathetic schoolboy  insults. Grow up man learn to say "I was wrong" Treasury says that Fraser left $9B. to say anything else is quite simply wrong and you have no reference or justification for it. I look forward to your blaming Howard for the current govts $200B+ (and growing) debt when they started with ZERO.

You say this but at the same time you say I don't understand money, you claimed the interest didn't stop on the $96B but you want to ignore the interest on Howards $9B.
Your'e going round in circles contradicting yourself with every post.