Australian Politics Forum - Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #15 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:22am

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

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

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

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #16 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:24am

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.

Roll Eyes

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #17 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:25am

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #18 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:27am

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:37am by Grappler Deep State Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #19 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:29am

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #20 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:31am

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

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.

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...........

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:38am by Grappler Deep State Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20508
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #21 - 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

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #22 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:40am

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

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.

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.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #23 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:42am

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

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.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14212
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #24 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:43am

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-ra...

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #25 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:47am

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.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85079
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #26 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:50am

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....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #27 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:56am

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.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #28 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:57am

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.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34972
Gender: male

Re: Why doesn't Abbott renege on PPL
Reply #29 - Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:57am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged