These two, short sentences tell you a lot about our government and our culture:

1.    We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.  Funny how that works.


And here’s another one worth considering.


2.    Seems we constantly hear about how the Australian Old Age Pension Plan could run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second group didn't.

Gnads wrote on Apr 18^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:



So, you don't think the aged pension is 'welfare'?

But for anyone else it is, and they shouldn't be entitled to it?

Are you one of those who think DSP recips or the unemployed have never worked to 'earn' their
paltry 'benefits', and so are somehow 'undeserving'?

A bloke in his 50s loses his job and has to go on the dole. So you think the 35-odd years he's
worked count for nothing? That he hasn't 'worked for' his right to the dole?

But the aged pension is sacrosanct because they 'worked for it'?

Sophia wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

! Nice 

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 1:20am:



Quote:


I'll have what ever you're on ..... what a spaced out conclusion that is

Kat wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:


Good grief ... I must need a drink

Anyways no problemo ...... your questioning wasn't borderline pedantics or arrogance.

Shyte careful now... or we'll be accused of being a mutual admiration club or poofs.

Sophia wrote on Apr 19^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

total rubbish, the old age pension has always been financed from general revenue and was commenced in 1909, not the 1940's.

ian wrote on Apr 20^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:


From what I was told some time many years ago, by a very pro-active pensioner female, fighing for pensioners rights, that the pension, was boosted something further by a certain percentage, and put into a separate area of finance, specifically for pension old age payment, and yes, it was separate, but then put all together at some stage after the 1940's.
I can specifically remember being told that.
Might do some searching, but in the meantime Ian, if you have any links I would like to read some more about it...but then again, I don't think you do links?

Yep, I was right. After a little searching....here is a paragraph I think explains what I was trying to explain about separate areas of tax monies.

There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue

Doubts had arisen during the early forties about the constitutional validity of the Commonwealth legislation in respect of cash payments other than age and invalid pensions, which were specifically within the powers of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, a referendum was held in 1946 under which the Commonwealth sought an extension of its powers in the areas of social security and health. The referendum was carried. In 1947 the various social security cash payments were consolidated into a single Social Services Act

And as I was saying, all that separate extra tax paid, specifically for the pension, means, every pensioner that worked and paid taxes in all that time, deserved the pension, despite being asset tested.

Example re: the asset test, a farmer, having lived and worked all his hard life on a farm, say, 30 acres, the asset test would render him not elligible for the pension, because, the main home up to 5 acres is not asset tested, but the rest of the land is, and although it cannot be subdivided, is making it difficult for a farmer to stay at his home and land, because of that, even if it is only worth say, at the time, a couple of hundred thousand, but, someone living in a manor of splendor, up to 5 acres, and with a value of $2million, can get the full pension, but not that poor farmer, who would be forced to leave his home, and most don't wish to.

The point is, that all had paid taxes for their pension, they have a deserved right to it, despite any assets that were saved for show of something, or pizzed against a wall.
It should have made no difference, all pensioners should get the full pension. They earnt it via paying the extra tax specifically for that reason.

Now, the farmers asset test is changed, as this was such an unfair hardship, if one is on a property more than 5 acres, for 20 years or more, that property does not come under the asset testing for an aged pension now.
And about bloody time too!