Australian Politics Forum - Super Minister not so super

Makka

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 803
Gender: male

Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #30 - May 20^th, 2013 at 12:28am

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

scope

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1303
Gender: male

Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #31 - May 20^th, 2013 at 4:33am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Rider Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2669 OnTheRoad Gender:	Re: Super Minister not so super Reply #32 - May 20^th, 2013 at 7:55am 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Super Minister not so super
Reply #33 - May 20^th, 2013 at 9:23am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

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 #34 - May 20^th, 2013 at 9:54am

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