Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Super Minister not so super
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Super Minister not so super (Read 2033 times)
Makka
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 803
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #15 - 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"???
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #16 - 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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #17 - 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #18 - 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.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #19 - 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.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #20 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #21 - 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.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #22 - 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.


Smiley Smiley Smiley
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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #23 - 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Makka
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 803
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #24 - 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #25 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #26 - May 19th, 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.


Smiley Smiley Smiley
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.
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #27 - 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?
Back to top
 
AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #28 - May 19th, 2013 at 9:31pm  
longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 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.


Smiley Smiley Smiley
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  Smiley  Smiley  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
scope
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male
Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #29 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge