- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 10,841
- Reactions
- 14,996
attend a workplace and being productive can be two different things,
- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 6,158
- Reactions
- 9,889
Too true but if the Govt of the day was really serious then that scenario could be challenged.
Front up do next to nothing and get nothing back in the way of remuneration.
Over the years I have on occasions emplyed Centrelink recipients and none had any intention of doing a day's work.
When I was asked by the powers that be why I didn't require the services of one of their bludgers, I retorted I was tired of doing the work of 2 while listening to the belly-aching coming from the so-called hired help.
- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 10,841
- Reactions
- 14,996
not just Centrelink-link recipients have had similar problems with those 'anointed from above ' i remember one who already had a steady in-house job but was doing 'overtime ' to ease financial pressures .. paid for 8 stayed for 4 and earned a nick-name in one hour .... Speedieee ( given by a 70 year old fat , balding and deaf contractor who was coming down with chickenpox )
the good part was the summer-heat at midnight was too much for him so he stopped coming for 'overtime ' the week before Xmas
for the second time in my life i learned heat was my FRIEND ( it culls the unworthy )
said anointed went on to knife the two superiors become department head and need two extra staff to run that section ( badly )
but it is all digital now that little rort turned into a website .. and i'm retired so ...
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,518
- Reactions
- 11,754
Our local council wants to put up rates by 33% when the inflation rate is 6%.
Looks like everyone is in on the act.
Looks like everyone is in on the act.
- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 10,841
- Reactions
- 14,996
even councils don't believe 'official statistics ' as this proves ( a normal greedy council would only hike double CPI )
You make a good point.
I am one of those who is still alive as a consequence of expensive health care and pills.
As a retired person, for years I've had my nose in the public trough. SMSF tax-free retirement pension (which I still receive but now from an industry fund) with refund of excess franking credits; personal tax refunds due to franking credits, etc. All legal.
Some time ago I underwent radiotherapy as an out-patient for cancer. It was done privately due to the waiting times through the public system and the cancer would have spread during that time.
The cost was over $20k yet my out-of-pocket costs was about $3k due to Medicare refunds (public money i.e. taxpayers). Included in the treatment was medication over 18 months. The scripts cost (wholesale) between $400 to $1,000 for which I only paid the co-contribution of $40. The rest was funded from public money i.e. taxpayers. Even for my medical appointments the Medicare rebate was increased to 80% of the fee charged.
If I compare my income to someone in the workforce earning the same income as I now have, I don't have a mortgage or HELP debt or childcare expenses or education expenses of children as they may possibly have.
With a restructure of my financial situation, I now pay tax on my personal investment income and I have absolutely no objection to that. My philosophy is, after sucking on the public teat for so long, to pay tax at this point of my life is not an onerous task and it's equitable. It has not inhibited me from doing what I want, when I want.
I think it may be getting to a situation where the cry will be Enough! when it comes to various Government concessions. There will be a lot of angst and hand-wringing from various vested interests but if society wants a number of Government services funded something has got to give.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,518
- Reactions
- 11,754
Negative gearing, capital gains tax deductions ?
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reactions
- 23,454
The good thing is Belli you probably worked and paid taxes for most of your younger years, this in turn helped support your parents generation and probably assisted those the same age and younger who chose a life of substance abuse and welfare.
If you had chosen a different lifestyle, you may well not be in a position now, where you can afford to support yourself through your later years and if your health fails you will pay a considerable amount of your wealth to access nursing care.
I know people who did and still do chose a life of substance abuse, who now are having their teeth removed and replaced on the public purse and will be on welfare for the rest of their lives and have been so until now.
The Government has to make it attractive for people to work and save for their own retirement, while paying for those who don't, if that stops so does the workers.
The more the difference between working and welfare closes, the more humans will chose not to work, that's life unfortunately.
Countries have tried to make a society where everyone gets the same whether they work or not and they all ultimately collapse.
Effort unfortunately has to be rewarded for humans to put in the effort, the alternative sounds nice, but it will always cause resentment from those who carry the load.
I will assume most of us know of or about those who abuse the welfare system @sptrawler. However, I wouldn't be prepared to extend that across the whole system or claim it is extensive. Governments from around the early 1970's have raised the spectre of welfare bludgers and it's been politically useful but the actual numbers are small.
As has been clearly stated in the preface of the report Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme:
However, I'll leave it to other posters to determine their attitude on that matter.
As has been clearly stated in the preface of the report Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme:
However, I'll leave it to other posters to determine their attitude on that matter.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reactions
- 23,454
I wasn't infering that welfare bludging is rife, I was pointing out that those who work and not only pay their own way, but also pay for all the other services that the Govt provides, shouldn't be made to feel guilty for enjoying some benefits when they retire and start living on the money they have set aside for themselves.
That is why death duties are active in most western countries, so those that have worked to support the system can enjoy the spoils of their toil and when they die a percentage is removed to help offset any benefits given to them in rerirement.
We seem to be going through a phase where endeavour, effort and reward is scorned. It seems to be eminating from the very rich in society, but I don't see them offering up their mansions as refuges for those that they are championing.
I wouldn't say that a middle class self funded retiree, living a fairly modest life in a modest suburb, is any less deserving of assistance to keep them off the pension, than someone who has saved less is deserving of the pension.
Appologies for the spelling etc I'm on the phone.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,518
- Reactions
- 11,754
Maybe welfare bludging by individuals is minimal, but I wonder what investigations have been carried out regarding "organised" welfare fraud by criminal groups including identity theft , multiple claims using the identities of dead or homeless people etc.
Where there is a large amount of government money available, you can be sure that there are crims involved somewhere.
Where there is a large amount of government money available, you can be sure that there are crims involved somewhere.
- Joined
- 28 August 2022
- Posts
- 6,158
- Reactions
- 9,889
Every now and then a story pops up on Tv about some low life who has been scamming Centrelink for usually some time and pocketed a large some of money. Another one is the Carers and NDIS in what appears to be rorted beyond belief
Absolutely there is and not only welfare but also including the ATO and programs such as the NDIS. Trouble is it takes a long time to investigate them: resources, evidence, etc.
The Australian Institute of Criminology published a paper over a decade ago on the issue:
plus a recent paper on fraud against the Commonwealth.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,518
- Reactions
- 11,754
Are you sure you are not a lawyer ?
I can assure you I am not. However, I did receive a good backgrounding in research from a mentor who was my late wife. It was also a task I had to do when I was one of those wasteful and useless public servants. I'm pretty so-so at it though much to my shame..
- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 10,841
- Reactions
- 14,996
came across at least one of those as well .. worked night shift so he could visit the various dole offices ( and do 'job interviews ) in SE Queensland , the shift foreman blew the whistle and took the car license number to give to the authorities turns out the car was registered to aged lady in North Queensland and the staff there probably didn't even know his first name ( DSS have no record of a claimant in that name ) and as soon as the whistle was blown he vanished two steps ahead of the police
probably still at it 30 years later
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 26,983
- Reactions
- 23,454
It is interesting how quickly, the amount required for a comfortable retirement has climbed, for those who retired 10 years ago the nest egg required would have been much less.
Also the sum required will rely on the age pension supplementing the self funding, will that be possible as the tax base diminishes and the drain on it increases, as is expected?
www.smh.com.au
From the article:
The Association of Superfunds Australia (ASFA) releases their retirement cost of living benchmarking quarterly. The latest numbers say that single people who will be eligible for the age pension, and own their own home outright will need an annual income of $50,207, while couples will need $70,806 to afford a comfortable retirement.
Assuming a lifespan of 88, they say that single people need to have a superannuation balance of $595,000 and couples will have to have a balance of $690,000 when they retire.
These comfortable retirement budgets assume a certain standard of living that most people want to be able to afford, but certainly not everyone will be able to. It expects that you’ll have a lifestyle that includes the purchase of comprehensive health insurance, owning your own reasonable quality car, and can afford to buy fashionable clothing and footwear fairly regularly.
It also assumes that you will want to run air conditioning for heating and cooling. It budgets for you to take one domestic holiday to visit family per year and a simple international holiday every seven years. And it affords enough for you to participate actively in leisure activities like going to the club or the movies.
It does not offer you enough money to take regular holidays, undertake sizable home renovations or maintain and upgrade a fancy new car, allowing only for modest renovations every 20 years. And it certainly does not allow for rent payments, although if you are eligible for a part-pension you will also be able to qualify for rent assistance which will offer some support. Nor does it accommodate the payment of significant body corporate fees.
A comfortable retirement budget allocates enough money to afford top-level private health insurance, which we know costs somewhere close to $3000 for a single person and $5500 for a couple.
It also factors in funds for specialist visits and pharmacy purchases. Finally, a comfortable budget allows for occasional restaurant meals, takeaways and home delivery, and an occasional store-bought coffee too.
Also the sum required will rely on the age pension supplementing the self funding, will that be possible as the tax base diminishes and the drain on it increases, as is expected?
How much do we really need to retire in comfort?
It seems like such a simple question, but the answer is more complicated than you think.
The Association of Superfunds Australia (ASFA) releases their retirement cost of living benchmarking quarterly. The latest numbers say that single people who will be eligible for the age pension, and own their own home outright will need an annual income of $50,207, while couples will need $70,806 to afford a comfortable retirement.
Assuming a lifespan of 88, they say that single people need to have a superannuation balance of $595,000 and couples will have to have a balance of $690,000 when they retire.
These comfortable retirement budgets assume a certain standard of living that most people want to be able to afford, but certainly not everyone will be able to. It expects that you’ll have a lifestyle that includes the purchase of comprehensive health insurance, owning your own reasonable quality car, and can afford to buy fashionable clothing and footwear fairly regularly.
It also assumes that you will want to run air conditioning for heating and cooling. It budgets for you to take one domestic holiday to visit family per year and a simple international holiday every seven years. And it affords enough for you to participate actively in leisure activities like going to the club or the movies.
It does not offer you enough money to take regular holidays, undertake sizable home renovations or maintain and upgrade a fancy new car, allowing only for modest renovations every 20 years. And it certainly does not allow for rent payments, although if you are eligible for a part-pension you will also be able to qualify for rent assistance which will offer some support. Nor does it accommodate the payment of significant body corporate fees.
A comfortable retirement budget allocates enough money to afford top-level private health insurance, which we know costs somewhere close to $3000 for a single person and $5500 for a couple.
It also factors in funds for specialist visits and pharmacy purchases. Finally, a comfortable budget allows for occasional restaurant meals, takeaways and home delivery, and an occasional store-bought coffee too.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,289
- Reactions
- 17,772
Capital gain tax deduction a rort? seriously
Buy something 100$ today 10% inflation
Sell it $121 in 2 years you have made zero real term profit yet we are taxed on 10.5 ..yet not 21 and you consider that a rort ,?
The fact that there is a capital gain tax without any indexation is pure stealing.
- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 10,841
- Reactions
- 14,996
wait until unrealized capital gains .... would they be a one-off ( per asset ) or annually
in some greed knows no boundaries
in some greed knows no boundaries
Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 11,946
- Reactions
- 8,205
Capital gains tax creates revenue in addition to the income tax, the 50% discount is just a recognition that not all the capital gains are actual profits, a large part of capital gains come about because of retained earnings that have already been taxed.
For example, if a company earns $1 it pays $0.30 in company tax, leaving it with $0.70.
If it retains and invests that $0.70 it’s likely that its share price on average should rise by $0.70 creating a $0.70 capital gain, if that $0.70 capital gain is tax it’s essentially double taxation, so investors get a 50% discount and only pay tax on half their capital gains in recognition that a large part of the capital gains is just retained earnings.
———————
Negative gearing comes about because of the fact that we only tax profits, if some one is silly enough to get up their affairs as to generate a loss then obviously that doesn’t create taxable income for them.
However, one man’s loss is another man’s profit, so the loss on the interest they pay will increase the profits of the banks and depositors, and they will pay income tax on those profits.
Similar threads
