Australian Politics Forum - Bandt more stupidity on Super

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 48027 Gender:	Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super Reply #15 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:09am You can take your money anytime anyway, you just pay tax on your income. People would save using super, using a SMSF or buy shares etc to prepare for retirement and for financial security. Shouldn’t be tax free except for the first 9.5% of income (or whatever the Labor govt will increase the rate to in 2016/17.)
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #16 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #17 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:12am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:49am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:46am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:43am:

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:35am:

I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important.

What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on?

9.5% of the income earnt

Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this.

What gender pay gap is that?

In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience

There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination

If you believe there are inequality then report it

thats not true... women are still lower paid than males....unless you are in the highly qualified fields...

women lose more work time than males....if they take time off for their families their super stops...

females at the present time a retiring with far less money than a male...almost as if it cost less to keep a female.....

the gender pay gap you claim doesnt exist can be explained in other ways..

I have a friend who is a female engineer...she has worked in the mining industry for about 15 years and now has her master degree....she along with another female have just been made redundant at the smallish coal mining company they worked for.... they are reducing left right and centre..

they have however kept on a male engineer... whom the girls ran rings around....most of their co workers were horrified...but what can they do....its a male industry speaks for itself..you have no idea the discrimination that goes on in the work place that women have to face NOT men..

oh they got their pay out so no whinging...however being that type of industry it will mean both of them have to move if and when they find new employment.....as the downsizing happens you can betcha the females will be first off the line..

and so will their super.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #18 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:14am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed.

This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

So now you are referring to enforcement of the law

The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions

If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #19 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:17am

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:12am:

thats not true... women are still lower paid than males....unless you are in the highly qualified fields...

women lose more work time than males....if they take time off for their families their super stops...

females at the present time a retiring with far less money than a male...almost as if it cost less to keep a female.....

the gender pay gap you claim doesnt exist can be explained in other ways..

I have a friend who is a female engineer...she has worked in the mining industry for about 15 years and now has her master degree....she along with another female have just been made redundant at the smallish coal mining company they worked for.... they are reducing left right and centre..

they have however kept on a male engineer... whom the girls ran rings around....most of their co workers were horrified...but what can they do....its a male industry speaks for itself..you have no idea the discrimination that goes on in the work place that women have to face NOT men..

oh they got their pay out so no whinging...however being that type of industry it will mean both of them have to move if and when they find new employment.....as the downsizing happens you can betcha the females will be first off the line..

and so will their super.

As I said - family decisions

So the pay gap here is simply based on age in the absent of any other fact

They compare 55 old male against a 55 years old female

Education in training requires dedicated time. If they allocate that time to family then they won't be as trained or educated

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #20 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:21am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:14am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed.

This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

So now you are referring to enforcement of the law

The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions

If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same

How does who stays at home affect how much working people are paid?

Back to top

IP Logged

Jovial Monk

Gold Member

Offline

Dogs not cats!

Posts: 48027
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #21 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:24am

Yes cods, most females get paid less than males even now (except in the PS) and there is the problem of females leaving to have kids and care for their kids. Part time work is much more common for women too and that results in lower super on retirement. (In my first business I employed 2 full time and five part time employees, sometimes 7 part timers. All the part timers were women.)

Dunno a simple way to fix that. The Australian Age Pension is pretty mean compared to most other OECD nations. Lifting that would help. Women sometimes are asset rich, getting the house because of the kids in a divorce or death of spouse.

I support removing all tests on the Age Pension, it should just be “Are you 65yo? Here is the form to apply for the Age Pension.” Then the woman could downsize the house and not lose pension etc. This would only help some but not help women who are single etc.

Back to top

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #22 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:27am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:49am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:46am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:43am:

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:35am:

I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important.

What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on?

9.5% of the income earnt

Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this.

What gender pay gap is that?

In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience

There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination

If you believe there are inequality then report it

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed.

This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory.

I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #23 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:42am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:32am:

So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying:

Quote:

"We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said.

"Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do."

I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves.

Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money?

Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work.

Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget

The stupidity is the $500K life time limit

It shows the Greens have no freakin idea

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Kytro

Gold Member

Offline

Blasphemy: a victimless
crime

Posts: 3409
Adelaide
Gender: male

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #24 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:33am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:27am:

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory.

I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist.

When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #25 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:35am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:14am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed.

This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

So now you are referring to enforcement of the law

The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions

If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same

How does who stays at home affect how much working people are paid?

Training and education requires time and money

Staying at home means less time to be trained and educated

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #26 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:37am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:27am:

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory.

I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist.

When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

The issue with studies is you have to look at the assumptions they use

We are highlighting the gaps in the assumptions

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #27 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:40am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:42am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:32am:

So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying:

Quote:

"We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said.

"Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do."

I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves.

Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money?

Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work.

Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget

The stupidity is the $500K life time limit

It shows the Greens have no freakin idea

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.

At least use an accurate example droopy.

Nor over 30 years are they rich either.

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super Reply #28 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #29 - Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:45am

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:27am:

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory.

I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist.

When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

It can be difficult to tell, but that doesn't seem to stop people claiming that anything less than 50% women in senior roles is discriminatory. I can recall being in a position where a company wanted to internally promote a woman to a senior role because of pressure to have more women. The reality, is that there were ten more qualified and experienced men for the position. But they were accused of sexism just the same.

Sexism still exists in employment. We all know that, but it is being eliminated over time. There are not many examples of women being denied a senior position because they are a woman. There are some, but likewise the reverse is now also becoming a problem especially in government. They demand 50% women in senior roles and so less qualified candidates beat more qualified ones all in the pursuit of this mythical 'equality'

It should be equality of opportunity, not equality of gender.

Back to top

IP Logged