OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise.
But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well.
People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be.

While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole!

Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance.

Abbott is walking back from many election promises, I don't care it cements him as a one termer. If the dick thinks pensioners and the working class wil vote for him again he's more delusional than longweekend. Imagine a PM that thinks he can make cuts to the pension and health and get away with it? Too funny. ;D ;D ;D if he dumped this stupid PPL he would not need to piss off a big chunck of his supporters, he has a death wish, can't wait to see him full fill it.

You're the only Richard Cranium around here - correction: you're a standout.
If you followed the signals you would know that Abbott is not planning cuts to the pension in the near future, nor in health or education. He may be planning more efficient spending, for which he deserves support & praise.

has PUP been asked about that curly one? ::) ::)

he will probably want it increased he loves the poor people doesnt he?.

I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035.
All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work.

If they cant live off super from whatever age they decide to retire till 70 well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility.

As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate.

S.O.P Liberal party.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they decide to retire till 70 well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate.

I suppose that's you smithy - I don't recognise anyone with a funny hat.
Exactly right about the pension age. The relativity to life expectancy should have been recognised much longer ago. Only trouble is if life expectancy starts going backwards, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
I don't understand what you're referring to in your last point.

Standard Operating Proceedor

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:26am:

You're the only Richard Cranium around here - correction: you're a standout. If you followed the signals you would know that Abbott is not planning cuts to the pension in the near future, nor in health or education. He may be planning more efficient spending, for which he deserves support & praise.

;D ;D ;D ;D

stopping the ROT you mean..

the appalling waste we have seen over 6 years..

too much of it through incompetence

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:48am:

Standard Operating Proceedor

Not that, the sentence before that - the same old same old bit.
What are you referring to?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:26am:

You're the only Richard Cranium around here - correction: you're a standout. If you followed the signals you would know that Abbott is not planning cuts to the pension in the near future, nor in health or education. He may be planning more efficient spending, for which he deserves support & praise.

Making up lies won't help the basher anymore than it helps you.  Reported for personal abuse, you need some time to learn some manners and respect your superiors .

I thought that was your preferred standard of communication. If you want to lift the standard in future, let me know and I'll try to oblige.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17am:

OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance.

Pavlov says no.
If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings.
If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them.
This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings.
We should aim for fairness though.
I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole.
Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they [b]decide to retire till 70 [/b]well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate. S.O.P Liberal party.

They'll still have to work until Superannuation preservation age to access their benefits

If in economic good times and with a perfectly blue economic sky forecast I would have been astounded and opposed to the idea if a Labour govt proposed it.

That the Libs introduced it left me breathlessly globsmacked, and so I remain.

To get this through the party room and to keep opposition to PPL mute or limited, I think Abbott has used and is using considerable political capital. I don't think it will be dropped without a Lib party Spill. And that won't happen before the budget delivery.

Afterwards............

A lot swing on this budget  ;), both politically and economically.

My bet is that it wouldn't as bad as the pundits would have us believe but I await with an abated breath  :P.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:48am: Standard Operating Proceedor Not that, the sentence before that - the same old same old bit. What are you referring to?

Well lets just look at whats been floated.
2 examples of each

Protecting well off:
1) Scrap mining tax - we have revenue shortfalls yet this will be axed apparently because it strangles these poor companies.
BHP's after tax profit rose 80% last year, hardly strangling business

2a) PPL - we already agree this is ridiculous

2b) If revenue is the issue why shouldn't those who earn OVER 200K in super returns pay a nominal tax of 15 cents in every $ over the 1st 200K?

No instead of the above revenue measures we get,

Punish the less fortunate:

1) We have a $6 fee for GP visits - every doctor I know of only bulk bills concession card holders the rest pay full whack & only get about 40% back through medicare.
This go visit the doc for a chat is crap, people, well people I know only go as a last resort or for their yearly checks.

2) DSP user require an "Independent" doc cert - quotations around Independent because they will be anything but, paid by Gov & will have quota's.


I'd like to think our pollies are smarter than the above but it seems not, BTW I'd expect the same crap ideas from Labor.

Our political class ATM has anything but brains or class, a sh!thouse rat has more of both >:(

Alinta wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:35am: I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they [b]decide to retire till 70 [/b]well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate. S.O.P Liberal party. They'll still have to work until Superannuation preservation age to access their benefits

I've heard no talk of raising the access age so assume it will remain at 55 until I hear different.

At last we agree on something - apart from using the cash to increase welfare, and, in reality, PPL etc are simply offering wealthfare to people with no genuine need for it.

The money saved should go into VALID infrastructure - not another skyscraper monument to stupidity or another 'motorway' or 'public utility' so mates can make a profit for doing nothing - say.. something like the GAIA projects...

On that note - what are Big Toe's planned infrastructure initiatives?

Anyone getting my drift yet?  How bizarre is it for a 'government' to crow about being a government of infrastructure, yet at the same time effectively a government of disposing of all utilities?

Oh - sorry - being a government of infrastructure means pumping tax money into projects that your cronies can be 'CEO' or 'board member' of.

::)

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:26am:

You're the only Richard Cranium around here - correction: you're a standout. If you followed the signals you would know that Abbott is not planning cuts to the pension in the near future, nor in health or education. He may be planning more efficient spending, for which he deserves support & praise.

"more efficient spending" = cuts by another name.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:35am:

I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they decide to retire till 70 well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate. S.O.P Liberal party.

and your position on those with illnesses and incapacities (as opposed to disabilities) that accrue with age is?.........

Should they have the option to go on pension early or be on NoStart or its equivalent, to save a few bucks?

What about those who, in our current dismal 'employment' environment, a result of government policies, fall through the cracks and don't have mega-super (a rainbow to chase, BTW, since the mooted huge amounts for the many will mean nothing by the time they get to time to collect, due to inflation etc) to draw on?

They get to go on pension early since they are too old for a job now and probably, like me, have multiple injuries that come back at you daily, taking turns to give you curry?

Does this apply to our service personnel as well?  I note that in Cuba military etc get to retire early due to the stresses etc of the job and contribution to country.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

I thought that was your preferred standard of communication. If you want to lift the standard in future, let me know and I'll try to oblige.

Just steer clear of name-calling, personal attack, etc and stick to the issues.  If you can defeat an argument with fact, please do so.

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:17am: OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance. Pavlov says no. If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. We should aim for fairness though. I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole. Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc.

Thank you for your kind offer to make up the shortfalls in their living costs from your own bank account.......

I will assume, for the good of your emotional and physical health, that, on this KapYong Day (3RAR, 1951) you are not including our service personnel...........

Abbott will not dump his PPL because it is his "signature policy" despite the fact it has very little support even within his own party.....The claim it will lift workplace participation for woman is very dubious and has not been supported by any independent study and is only supported by the Greens in Parliament who want to reduce the cap to $100 000 instead of the $150 000 proposed by Abbott.

The real problem with workplace participation is the affordability and availability of child care which will affect woman way past the 6 months they will be well supported to care for the baby.....The money would be much better spent making child care more affordable if an argument can be made that this will in fact increase workplace participation for woman!!!

Personally I agree with Bogy that the scheme should be dumped altogether and families should plan and make sacrifices if they want to have children like our parents had to.....Paying huge amounts of money to support a lifestyle is exactly the thing the Liberal party has been telling us needs to end!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:17am: OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance. Pavlov says no. If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. We should aim for fairness though. I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole. Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc.

Yeah but it is harder to steal when you get older, running from cops, and the store detectives, with a xmas ham up her knickers almost killed aunty mabel.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:34am:

Abbott will not dump his PPL because it is his "signature policy" despite the fact it has very little support even within his own party.....The claim it will lift workplace participation for woman is very dubious and has not been supported by any independent study and is only supported by the Greens in Parliament who want to reduce the cap to $100 000 instead of the $150 000 proposed by Abbott. The real problem with workplace participation is the affordability and availability of child care which will affect woman way past the 6 months they will be well supported to care for the baby.....The money would be much better spent making child care more affordable if an argument can be made that this will in fact increase workplace participation for woman!!! Personally I agree with Bogy that the scheme should be dumped altogether and families should plan and make sacrifices if they want to have children like our parents had to.....Paying huge amounts of money to support a lifestyle is exactly the thing the Liberal party has been telling us needs to end!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Why would anyone wish to increase women's workplace participation?  Not so long ago I posted figures that women now held 51% of jobs, and that the number of part-time jobs had increased massively as well - meaning that in reality women held the majority of part-time work.

So if we are discussing pure figures of numbers working in jobs available - women do not need more workplace participation.  So what is Big Toe suggesting?  Women should hold down all the full-time jobs first, then get time off for dropping kids...?

Isn't that discrimination against men?  (already in place BTW in the public service etc).

If anyone out there can find sufficient full-time jobs for all so that all can get greater workplace participation - I'm all ears.


ADDS:-  Maybe Mother should become childcare again and save money instead of going to work and stressing out over all the factors involved, thus leading to marriage failure and life failure for the many.

That would certainly put a dent in the unbalanced economy derived from the MADIF....

Just saying... what amazes me about this PPL nonsense is how much it benefits those women with no need for it, but does buggar all for those who do need it and could genuinely benefit from it.

As before - any woman with a $150k income also has a hubby with a $150k income - they can't make ends meet on $300k, and take responsibility for their own children out of that?  Every woman I know who has borne and raised her own kids says this is nonsense.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:26am:

You're the only Richard Cranium around here - correction: you're a standout. If you followed the signals you would know that Abbott is not planning cuts to the pension in the near future, nor in health or education. He may be planning more efficient spending, for which he deserves support & praise.

Joe Hockey is warning Australians to brace themselves for a new era in which government services they have taken for granted will require a co-payment or be means-tested or provided by the private sector.

In a speech ahead of next week’s release of the commission of audit’s 86 recommendations for reining in government expenditure, the treasurer has made it clear that the $40bn a year the government spends on the aged pension is squarely in the budget razor gang’s sights.

The government has already flagged raising the pension age, over time, to 70, but in the speech to the Spectator magazine in Sydney on Wednesday night, Hockey signalled the changes might be broader, possibly targeting the large number of people on part-pensions or receiving government health concession cards.

“The $40bn we spend on income support through the age pension is much more than we spend on defence, or hospitals or schools each year. It is our single biggest spending program,” he said, pointing out that between 2010 and 2050 the number of people age 65 to 84 is expected to quadruple.

And the vast majority of over-65s receive some form of government payment.

“Of Australians over the age of 65, four out of five receive a full or part pension. If we also take into account the concessionary health card, then only 14% of older Australians receive no government payments,” Hockey said.

“And the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is the tenth largest category of spending. Nearly 80% of the scheme’s expenditure is attributable to concessional recipients.”

The seniors health card is available to pensioner couples with an income $80,000 a year or singles with an income of $50,000 but has no assets test.

But prime minister Tony Abbott is also insisting that the government will keep its election promises, one of which was “no changes to pensions”.

“We will keep our commitments, because the point I keep making, if there is one thing that we learnt from the fate of the former government, you cannot say one thing before an election and do the opposite immediately afterwards,” Abbott said when asked about mooted budget cuts Wednesday.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/joe-hockey-issues-new-warning-of-razor-gangs-cuts-to-pensioners

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

and your position on those with illnesses and incapacities (as opposed to disabilities) that accrue with age is?......... Should they have the option to go on pension early or be on NoStart or its equivalent, to save a few bucks? What about those who, in our current dismal 'employment' environment, a result of government policies, fall through the cracks and don't have mega-super (a rainbow to chase, BTW, since the mooted huge amounts for the many will mean nothing by the time they get to time to collect, due to inflation etc) to draw on? They get to go on pension early since they are too old for a job now and probably, like me, have multiple injuries that come back at you daily, taking turns to give you curry?

I meant to say something about this too.
I believe, with an increasing pension age, we need a new welfare payment - a transition to pension payment - to cover these situations.
We can as a nation afford genuine welfare like this if we cut out the crap, such as I referred to in my opening post.

That's what you get with a 'Treasurer' who can only see things in simplistic terms based on some dumb ideology of spending - rather than what that spending does and where it goes.

Choice - offshore $50bn to buy chintzy fighter jets/fund your mates' 'mining projects'/offer super breaks to those who spend it overseas

>  or  <

Onshore $40bn to pay for paid for pensions?

2B or not 2B in Hockeyspeak = zero.

The man and his advisors are fools....

possibly targeting the large number of people on part-pensions or receiving government health concession cards.


buzz, I personally know people who are in non-necessitous circumstances who receive both a part-pension and a concession card.
The assets test is too generous, particularly in its treatment - or not - of annuities.
It should not be beyond the intelligence of our govt elite to devise a test which will sort out those who need a part pension and those who don't.

Of course the Howard govt  I think bears a lot of responsibility for this, but then those were different times and different economic expectations, or maybe normal human exhuberant foresight.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

and your position on those with illnesses and incapacities (as opposed to disabilities) that accrue with age is?......... Should they have the option to go on pension early or be on NoStart or its equivalent, to save a few bucks

DSP until they reach 55 then access super & keep DSP until 70 then move to AP


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

What about those who, in our current dismal 'employment' environment, a result of government policies, fall through the cracks and don't have mega-super (a rainbow to chase, BTW, since the mooted huge amounts for the many will mean nothing by the time they get to time to collect, due to inflation etc) to draw on?

The changes won't come in until 2035(if at all) & as stated those reaching 55 by then will have had super paid for them all their working life.
If they for whatever reason don't own their home, haven't made extra contributions, haven't saved & invested for their golden years then well sorry.... TOUGH.

What has happened to personal responsibility?


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

They get to go on pension early since they are too old for a job now and probably, like me, have multiple injuries that come back at you daily, taking turns to give you curry?

DSP until 70 then AP


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

Does this apply to our service personnel as well?

Do they live in our society or above it?
Of course it applies.


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am:

I note that in Cuba military etc get to retire early due to the stresses etc of the job and contribution to country.

Cuba also has free medical for everyone.
Socialist paradise, the loops will go crazy with this comment.

But more seriously I've always been a fan of the Scandinavian model of high tax quality services, why we as a nation continue to follow the US model of F.U JACK I'm rich, when study after study put the US at the bottom of every quality of life survey from healthcare to happiness & Scandinavians at the top just defies logic.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:31am:

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:06am: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:17am: OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance. Pavlov says no. If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. We should aim for fairness though. I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole. Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc. Thank you for your kind offer to make up the shortfalls in their living costs from your own bank account....... I will assume, for the good of your emotional and physical health, that, on this KapYong Day (3RAR, 1951) you are not including our service personnel...........

3 square meals a day and a roof over their head.
If you want a motorhome to cruise OZ in airconditioned retirement comfort, you really are from the age of entitlement.

War Veterans pensions?

If you peeled spuds in the camp and never saw a bullet fired, you can join the lower payment I propose.

If you saw active service, maybe a sliding scale.
An extra $5000 a year for each confirmed enemy kill.
This is also a way to add incentive to the military and boost productivity.
Our naval heroes probably saved us $1,000,000 per person per boat towed back.
These guys deserve a special pension.
I'd pay it at the rate of  a retired MP.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:47am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:27am: and your position on those with illnesses and incapacities (as opposed to disabilities) that accrue with age is?......... Should they have the option to go on pension early or be on NoStart or its equivalent, to save a few bucks? What about those who, in our current dismal 'employment' environment, a result of government policies, fall through the cracks and don't have mega-super (a rainbow to chase, BTW, since the mooted huge amounts for the many will mean nothing by the time they get to time to collect, due to inflation etc) to draw on? They get to go on pension early since they are too old for a job now and probably, like me, have multiple injuries that come back at you daily, taking turns to give you curry? I meant to say something about this too. I believe, with an increasing pension age, we need a new welfare payment - a transition to pension payment - to cover these situations. We can as a nation afford genuine welfare like this if we cut out the crap, such as I referred to in my opening post.

Yes - I did note that in your opening post - good work - take a jelly bean.

I suppose the idea is about what does and does not constitute a pension right (I do not accept that a pension is not a paid-for right - it is) and under what conditions.

That applies to part pensions where the recipient has an income above a certain level already.  for pension to cut out entirely you need an income of nearly $50k - not bad if you ask me....

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/income-test-pensions

It's all here... multiply by 26 and you get an annual figure - at which you may still hold a healthcare card, touted as one of the cost factors involved (by Fat Joe anyway).

Single:-  $47,881.60 p.a.

Couple:-  $73,247.20 p.a.

Not too bad I'd say.

What level of income support do you consider appropriate to a transition to pension?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 10:17am:

OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance.

I agree, now is the time for less loopholes & less largesse, particularly when it is not appropriate!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:22am:

Alinta wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:35am: I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they [b]decide to retire till 70 [/b]well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate. S.O.P Liberal party. They'll still have to work until Superannuation preservation age to access their benefits I've heard no talk of raising the access age so assume it will remain at 55 until I hear different.

It's 55 if you were born before 1960.

If you were born after 1964, it's 60.

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:17am: OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance. Pavlov says no.

You mean Pavlov's dog says no ...


Quote:

If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings.

Less superannuation contributions from the wealthy. Cry me a river and float a boat on it.

Low income earners actually pay **MORE** tax on their super! 15% vs zero if their income is below the tax-free threshold. They are the ones that need to be encouraged the most. Yet they are punished the hardest.

Taxing all super at the marginal rate is equitable. I would encourage saving with a 15% tax reduction across the board - the wealthy get the same 15% reduction in their top rate as the pauper living day to day. Contributions made at the tax-free threshold get a 15% co-contribution. It is fair, it is equitable, it encourages savings, and the wealthy still get more because they save more. EVERYONE wins. Though I would limit this tax concession to 20% of after-deduction income.


Quote:

If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them.

Poor logic based on zero knowledge. What actually happens is that welfare gets entrenched precisely BECAUSE the payments are too low. Of course, the job hoarders don't want the unemployed to compete fairly in the job market, they would rather push them down and KEEP THEM THERE.


Quote:

This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings.

This is ambiguous. (Super or welfare?) I assume you're talking about superannuation here.

A few issues interact that together discourage savings. Bracket creep takes away about 15% of a typical pay rise. Thus, pay has to go up by about 0.5% of total pay more to overcome bracket creep. I would rather we abolished bracket creep and at the same time use this extra 0.5% pay increase over inflation each year to bump the level of compulsory superannuation up to 15% over time. We can also fund this by productivity improvements. Another issue that must be addressed is that it is legal for an employer to count extra salary-sacrificed super contributions as a part of the compulsory contribution. This employer rort must be abolished if we want to encourage savings.


Quote:

We should aim for fairness though. I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole.

Why? The dole is over $50 a week too low by the reckoning of a wide range of organisations. Better to increase the dole back to the spending power it had 25 years ago.


Quote:

Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc.

They have little capacity to do extra work to supplement their income, especially aged pensioners That's why they are paid more.

I would rather we looked after our elderly with a reasonable income. The current level of the aged pension is about right, though the cap for rent assistance is not generous enough. It is less than half of actual rents these days and is in need of overhaul.

Alinta wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:22am: Alinta wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:35am: I have no problem with the pension age being lifted to 70 from the muted 2035. All boomers will be either dead or already receiving it & thanks to Keating all Xer's , Y's & OO will have had super co contributions since starting work. If they cant live off super from whatever age they [b]decide to retire till 70 [/b]well, to my mind that's not the governments fault or the tax payers responsibility. As for the rest I've heard.......same old same old, protect & reward the already comfortable whilst demonising & punishing the less fortunate. S.O.P Liberal party. They'll still have to work until Superannuation preservation age to access their benefits I've heard no talk of raising the access age so assume it will remain at 55 until I hear different. It's 55 if you were born before 1960. If you were born after 1964, it's 60.

Born in 64 = 28 at the start of compulsory super.

More than enough time to have your affairs in order, you would also be 71 in 2035 meaning you will have already been accessing the aged pension for 6 years.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

buzz, I personally know people who are in non-necessitous circumstances who receive both a part-pension and a concession card. The assets test is too generous, particularly in its treatment - or not - of annuities. It should not be beyond the intelligence of our govt elite to devise a test which will sort out those who need a part pension and those who don't. Of course the Howard govt  I think bears a lot of responsibility for this, but then those were different times and different economic expectations, or maybe normal human exhuberant foresight.

This is beside the POINT

Abbott went into the election on a pledge of ...



NOT TOUCHING PENSIONS ( ... see Hockey statements)


NOT TOUCHING MEDICARE ( ... $6.00 GP TAX)


NOT TOUCHING GONSKI REFORMS ( ... already scrapped)


NOT CUTTING ABC/SBS FUNDING ( ... highly predicted)

Abbott's PPL is dumb vote winning election promises at its worst.

Further to our earlier conversation Bogy


Quote:

HEAVY LIFTING Joe Hockey continued his pre-budget softening-up exercise with his speech at an event for the conservative magazine Spectator Australia yesterday. It went largely as expected. Australia's finances are unsustainable, he said, and the government is committed to repairing them. On his list of 'Large and Fast Growing Programmes' he singled out the aged pension (1st), aged care (8th) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (10th) as increasing faster than the economy is growing. But he didn't mention defence spending, which is 2nd on that list and which is also increasing faster than GDP growth. Nor did he mention that the government's Direct Action climate policy was outside the terms of reference of his Commission of Audit, whose 900-page report is to be publicly released next week. Also outside the Commission's ambit was Australia's extraordinary system of tax concessions to its wealthiest residents, the highest among developed nations relative to GDP. Superannuation tax concessions, for instance, are growing even faster than the aged pension despite costing the budget about the same amount. The government has the burden of showing why it intends to cut spending without addressing tax concessions. It hasn't discharged it yet. Perhaps it will on 13 May. Russell Marks, EDITOR

Protecting the well off
Punishing the less fortunate

Point raised above:-

How is it 'punishing' the super contributor by imposing a equitable taxation etc system that covers all equally?

What punishes low income earners in super schemes are the same rate of costs = higher proportional costs, of running the scheme.  Not only that, but the opportunity does not exist for those on low incomes to enter into a personal super scheme, with all the tax dodges inherent in that venture.

The whole system needs a massive overhaul if it is to be fair dinkum.

aquascoot wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:06am:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 10:17am: OK, so it's very odious to walk back from an election promise. But if the election promise is fundamentally wrong, as this is, in scale and principle, it's better to acknowledge your mistakes and ditch it. The Labor scheme should be ditched as well. People shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer to have kids. It's their own responsibility, always was, always should be. While he's at it, he should ditch all tax concessions on superannuation. Every clause & loophole! Do both these things and there will be ample funds to increase welfare proper - newstart, disability, pension - as well as get the budget in proper balance. Pavlov says no. If you punish the superannuation contributors, you will get less of it. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. If you reward the welfare recipients, you will get more of them. This is a bad thing for a country which desperately needs savings. We should aim for fairness though. I would reduce all welfare benefits to the level of the dole. Pensioners (old age and disability) should not receive more than those on other benefits. They don't have the added cost of looking for work etc.

Wrong.

Quite the opposite needs to happen - the dole MUST be raised to the level of the pension.

NOT vice-versa.

smithy,

"Singling out" those things as growing faster than revenue is not the same as saying "we have to cut those things now".
What he could very well be saying is look, we have certain things in our expenditures that are booming. If we are going to continue funding those things at a reasonable level, there will have to be cuts in other things as well as a reappraisal over time of the parameters for pensions etc.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 1:55pm:

smithy, "Singling out" those things as growing faster than revenue is not the same as saying "we have to cut those things now". What he could very well be saying is look, we have certain things in our expenditures that are booming. If we are going to continue funding those things at a reasonable level, there will have to be cuts in other things as well as a reappraisal over time of the parameters for pensions etc.

Yes - that is the nub of it - Parameters for Pension - not pension per se, and I doubt Lord Joe of the Hock has any idea of the difference, judging by his inflammatory rhetoric about punishing old ladies in wheelchairs while sipping the finest champagne and sucking off the fat of the land...(repeat until it gets home)....

MANY of the better-off pensioners have adequate means to not have to call on welfare, and that includes the undeniable fact that many such still retain the opportunity to write off many things as 'costs of running' their super fund - an opportunity not afforded to those compelled to take or leave a high-cost PAYG scheme.

That is what needs to be looked into - not pensions as such.

We need an entirely new super scheme.....

The reasons the simian wants his ridiculous PPL:

1. The simian’s daughters dreamed up the ridiculous scheme.

2. By putting a lot of money into PPL instead of childcare—less women can work. The simian, like Hitler, thinks the place of women is children, church, kitchen.

Side effects of the evil stupid scheme:
1. There will be a huge range of price rises as big businesses passes on the 1.5% levy. The carbon price effect will be mild in comparison (and compensation well targeted.)

2. By lowering company tax 1.5% franking of dividends will be less, affecting individual investors and super funds.

Stupid, evil plan that the other conservative Party, the Greens will support.