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.
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.
Forum
Pages: 
