Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print
Bandt more stupidity on Super (Read 3600 times)
Grappler Deep State Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male
Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #60 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:08pm
 
Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 11:33am:
Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:56am:
If you believe there are inequality then report it


That isn't how the gender pay gap works. When looking at overall trends and qualifications and experience, women due to sexism in society and the workplace, face many more hurdles than men in achieving decent pay rates and well paid positions. A female with the same qualifications and experience as a male, will generally only earn 70-80% of what the male earns over a career.

A company wouldn't just pay a female who does the same work as a male less, but a lesser dudebro "alpha" male employee generally will have a much easier way of working up than your average woman, companies at higher levels are generally always boyclubs and women who do get in generally have to internalize that misogyny or they get kicked out (which is why you get so many corporate women saying poo like "boys will be boys!", "just learn to play by their rules!"). I've been in organizations were women were hired simply based on the fact the male managerial staff wanted to have something to manipulate and bugger. I've seen in huge organizations at the executive level literal coke and hooker parties (idiots don't know Wall Street was satire and try to copy it), how many females will be happy with that?

There is also the issue that female dominated fields, even specialty skilled fields, generally pay less than male fields, even if that male field is far less specialized or skilled.

To put it at the most simplest analogy: if a company is a 30 story building and hierarchy is based on floors, generally a woman will never be able to get pass floor 20 no matter if she's a super genius and the entire company relies on her.


That's because she doesn't work the same hours etc over a career, and only wants the sweet ride.

There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors.

Are you suggesting that since women work average 32 hours to men's 41 (2011 Census), women should be paid at a higher rate?  They already are in many cases due to affirmative action that has slotted them into the soft jobs with the good salaries and perks.

Wake up and get with the program - one in twelve Australians is out of work - and women continue to whine about a 'wage gap' that accurately reflects the average hours worked?

Do the figures - if everyone is on $10 an hour (no 'wage gap') - women EARN $320 a week for hours worked - men earn $410... what is the percentage difference?

Easy.. just ask Longy.....  I'll do it for you:-

32/41 x 100 = 78.05%.. what is the alleged 'wage gap'?  "women only get 78%$ of men's wages"..... exactly right!  They EARN only 78% of men's wages by working.....

Well - Bug Army!!

Now can we all drop this non-issue and move on to the real issues and stop feeding whining women for a change?  Enough people have suffered as a result of this never-ending nonsense and insanity - are we to forever feed women more and more to the detriment of men in our society - let's move forward on reality for a change.

Most PEOPLE never get past floor one.. get with the program here... there is zero support for any of this ranting about 'poor women'.
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
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #61 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:11pm
 
hawil wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 11:24am:
The simple solution: scrapping the means-test of the age pension and scrapping all tax concessions for super, no one wants to look at, including Grattan Institute, because the top brass are benefitting most from the tax concessions.
There was hardly anything mentioned in 2007 when Howard introduced the tax-free super, as far as I know, no other country provides its rich citizens with such a huge legal tax-dodge.
Bruce Brammall  described it in his book "Debt Man Walking" on page 220


It was Keating that brought in the unlimited Super. Alan Bond took advantage of that loophole. LIBs closed the loophole

As for getting rid of the tax concessions - you are not saving any money in the immediate term. There's always a phasing in period.

If you don't have a phasing in period - you are going to have every accountants (about 50,000 of them) telling each one of their clients the government is screwing them. About 1 million votes impacted directly. Then these 1 million voters will tell their friends and families.

The whole idea about Super is the tax concession as per my initial post. Take that away and you won't win government for 20 years

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 #62 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:19pm
 
lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 2:24pm:
tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 1:20pm:
So, if you are over 60s, the income stream and lump sum from super is consider as tax free. 



The "income stream" is what you withdraw from super. You are taking the benefits. If you pay the money into super without accessing benefits, that is still in the "accumulation stage", and is taxed.
As the link posted shows - super benefits.



As per my initial post - it's about tax on the income. You can virtually have the same investment.

For example
$1M under your name invested into a Term Deposit compared to $1M under Super invested into the exact same term Deposit

The interest you earned under your name is taxed at your margin tax rate whereas the same interest you earned under Super is tax at 15% and in the Pension phase it's taxed at zero

A couple with $1M to their name earning $100K would pay about $4K in tax

The same couple with $1M in Super/Pension would not pay any income tax
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Kiron22
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 896
Gender: male
Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #63 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:22pm
 
Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:08pm:
There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors.


No economist or sociologist worth their weight will agree with you. The gender gap is an absolute fact proven across literally thousands of studies. It is caused by structural sexism and misogyny.

Also Sociologists already account for issues such as part time work and whatever, Literally everything is taken into account. Women earn less due to sexism and it's worse if you're a minority.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G6zKUEYYpwQC&pg=PA382&source=gbs_selected_p
ages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Bandt more stupidity on Super
Reply #64 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:26pm
 
Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:22pm:
Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:08pm:
There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors.


No economist or sociologist worth their weight will agree with you. The gender gap is an absolute fact proven across literally thousands of studies. It is caused by structural sexism and misogyny.

Also Sociologists already account for issues such as part time work and whatever, Literally everything is taken into account. Women earn less due to sexism and it's worse if you're a minority.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G6zKUEYYpwQC&pg=PA382&source=gbs_selected_p
ages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false


I also note they are citing references to the 80's and 90's

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 #65 - Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:30pm
 
The data does not explain the difference in pay gap for a male CEO compared to another male CEO.

But if it's male vs female then the easy conclusion is gender gap
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 
Send Topic Print