Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

[sptrawler]

Yes my mistake, trying to talk to the missus and type is difficult.lol Still not a lot of people really.



I'll read the links tommorrow, I'm coping a bit of flak.

The good thing is, hopefully they will hit super hard with the white paper.
With a bit of luck all super won't be available untill pension age and no pension is available untill all your super is exhausted.
That sounds fair for everyone.

Hello K.Smith
Right I'm back, so 936 funds have over $10m.
And why did the govt drop the co contribution to $500.

O.K Well to make it fair, charge everyone their marginal rate minus 15% on contributions.
Nobody would put any extra in. The govt would get extra paye tax, unless the person decided to negative gear the $35k in property, or buy shares in a company that pays franked dividends at 30%.

Meanwhile the low income earners co contribution, I'm sure if you look into it there will be a reason.
It may be that $500 is the maximum that is being put in, so to drop it from $1500 to $500 isn't in reality an actual reduction just a budgetry reduction.


I'm not saying it doesn't need changing, just saying it might not work out the way everyone thinks.
But one thing for sure it will change, so don't worry too much, this government doesn't seem to worry about stepping on toes.

 

[Faramir]

It seems terribly wrong that the government co-contribution for low income people was reduced from $1500 to $1000 and then $500, given that they gain so little by doing the very thing that the whole purpose of super was about in the first place. On the other end of the spectrum ...
http://www.afr.com/p/national/tax_leakage_alarm_over_super_wealthy_kf7K4fYSDcSI1437kKAMUN

This is one beef I have against Super. I am low income and I took advantage of the Government co-contribution. I feel stupid putting money into something I can't get my head around. Now running my own business, if I want to, I can put nothing into Super. Many Business Owners have very little in Super. Many Advisors and newspaper columnists are crying out that it is a bad idea. Given the trend of this thread, maybe it is better to invest money back into the business or some other form of investment.

 

[Knobby22]

One thing for sure, I will bet the review into super hurts the lower to middle class 100 times more than it hurts the wealthy.IMO

Too true

 

[k.smith]

Hello K.Smith
Right I'm back, so 936 funds have over $10m.
And why did the govt drop the co contribution to $500.

O.K Well to make it fair, charge everyone their marginal rate minus 15% on contributions.
Nobody would put any extra in. The govt would get extra paye tax, unless the person decided to negative gear the $35k in property, or buy shares in a company that pays franked dividends at 30%.

Meanwhile the low income earners co contribution, I'm sure if you look into it there will be a reason.
It may be that $500 is the maximum that is being put in, so to drop it from $1500 to $500 isn't in reality an actual reduction just a budgetry reduction.


I'm not saying it doesn't need changing, just saying it might not work out the way everyone thinks.
But one thing for sure it will change, so don't worry too much, this government doesn't seem to worry about stepping on toes.

As to what happened to the super co-contribution, originally for $1500 and now $500 I found best explained here

http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/the-axe-falls-on-cocontributions-20111129-1o59m.html

''...The Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, said the co-contribution was being cut because the new low income super contribution would benefit more than three times as many people.
He said 3.6 million low earners were expected to receive the benefit, which refunds the 15 per cent contributions tax for those earning less than $37,000. It will be streamlined so the refund is paid automatically to members' super accounts without requiring them to lodge tax returns...."

I was speaking from the experience of my own circumstances, rather than appreciating the complete picture. I can understand that it was a better move for most low income contributors, thus will withdraw my comment. But as you point out, some things don't work out as everyone thinks.

Our circumstances were such that I (we) were better off with the co-contribution (over 60, SMSF both in pension phase, 80% loss suffered in 2008..but recovering Husband, 65, received a part aged pension this month ).

My expectations of saving inside super have always been to provide exactly what I understand super was designed for... an income in retirement, so I draw just the minimum amount as a pension. Make it last as long as possible.

Now that I have become more active in my investments and the issues surrounding them, I am aghast that one can withdraw lump sums to go on holidays or buy a new car, and THEN line up at Centrelink. And especially appalled that there seems no end to the amount of funds high income earners can place into super. I would support a ceiling on tax concessions (perhaps there should be a $$ limit on the 15% contributions tax one can "pay" inside super? Could that be implemented more easily than a ceiling limit on fund size? )And I would support a tax on lump sum withdrawals. imo, get the tax break, stay infor the long haul ..

ps...I have a term deposit outside of super which I was intending to place into my super account next month.
After consulting my FA, have decided to re-invest it outside of super for another 6 months.
To wait and see what happens after Jan 2015.

 

[sptrawler]

As to what happened to the super co-contribution, originally for $1500 and now $500 I found best explained here

http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/the-axe-falls-on-cocontributions-20111129-1o59m.html

''...The Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, said the co-contribution was being cut because the new low income super contribution would benefit more than three times as many people.
He said 3.6 million low earners were expected to receive the benefit, which refunds the 15 per cent contributions tax for those earning less than $37,000. It will be streamlined so the refund is paid automatically to members' super accounts without requiring them to lodge tax returns...."



I was speaking from the experience of my own circumstances, rather than appreciating the complete picture. I can understand that it was a better move for most low income contributors, thus will withdraw my comment. But as you point out, some things don't work out as everyone thinks.

Our circumstances were such that I (we) were better off with the co-contribution (over 60, SMSF both in pension phase, 80% loss suffered in 2008..but recovering Husband, 65, received a part aged pension this month ).

My expectations of saving inside super have always been to provide exactly what I understand super was designed for... an income in retirement, so I draw just the minimum amount as a pension. Make it last as long as possible.

Now that I have become more active in my investments and the issues surrounding them, I am aghast that one can withdraw lump sums to go on holidays or buy a new car, and THEN line up at Centrelink. And especially appalled that there seems no end to the amount of funds high income earners can place into super. I would support a ceiling on tax concessions (perhaps there should be a $$ limit on the 15% contributions tax one can "pay" inside super? Could that be implemented more easily than a ceiling limit on fund size? )And I would support a tax on lump sum withdrawals. imo, get the tax break, stay infor the long haul ..

ps...I have a term deposit outside of super which I was intending to place into my super account next month.
After consulting my FA, have decided to re-invest it outside of super for another 6 months.
To wait and see what happens after Jan 2015.

I'm in a similar situation, had to quit work do to ill health at 56, super was hit hard with gfc and now at 58 have to start a pension, so have all the pre 60 tax hassles.

Getting back on the super issue. From life experience, I know that any punitive measures to hit the few that have mega bucks in super, will have an adverse effect on the lower end, i.e us.

I just hope they change the ability to put money in, rather than change the taxation of funds already in there.

For example I have a friend the same age as me, who had a recent marriage break up. He has used what money he had left to buy a house, he still had to borrow money.
He is hoping to work to 67 and use some of his super to pay off the mortage. If he loses his job, he is hoping to be able to use his super to pay of the house.
His super is worth $90k, his mortage is $70k, he earns $50k.

With regard money outside of super, you and your husband can earn $18k each tax free outside super.
I know when I'm 60, i'll be going that way, but that is just my opinion.

 

[k.smith]

.....
Getting back on the super issue. From life experience, I know that any punitive measures to hit the few that have mega bucks in super, will have an adverse effect on the lower end, i.e us.

I just hope they change the ability to put money in, rather than change the taxation of funds already in there.

......

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/SuperannuationAndRetirement/supercharter/Submissions

There are quite a few new issues raised in some of the submissions here...
I haven't read them all

 

[FxTrader]

Now that I have become more active in my investments and the issues surrounding them, I am aghast that one can withdraw lump sums to go on holidays or buy a new car, and THEN line up at Centrelink.

Lump sum withdraw, cash splash then going on the pension is an attractive option for those with low super balances. If you only have a small sum in super it's never going to provide a sufficient retirement income anyway, no doubt this is how some view this option.

The bigger issue to me is how assets can be packaged to collect the age pension. Because the principle residence is exempt from the assets test, at your preservation age you can draw money from super tax-free and structure your assets in a way that could allow you to live in a million dollar plus home in retirement and still collect either a full or part pension payment. Your nearest financial planner can tell you all about it and many specialize in this area. The whole issue of millionaire property owners collecting a government pension is a vexed one that the government will need to look at eventually. Super savings should provide a retirement income stream and not be used as vehicle to manipulate finances to collect the age pension.

 

[k.smith]

Lump sum withdraw, cash splash then going on the pension is an attractive option for those with low super balances. If you only have a small sum in super it's never going to provide a sufficient retirement income anyway, no doubt this is how some view this option.

The bigger issue to me is how assets can be packaged to collect the age pension. Because the principle residence is exempt from the assets test, at your preservation age you can draw money from super tax-free and structure your assets in a way that could allow you to live in a million dollar plus home in retirement and still collect either a full or part pension payment. Your nearest financial planner can tell you all about it and many specialize in this area. The whole issue of millionaire property owners collecting a government pension is a vexed one that the government will need to look at eventually. Super savings should provide a retirement income stream and not be used as vehicle to manipulate finances to collect the age pension.

so many complications ! I think that you have a valid point that low balance super is problematic, fees eat into funds, there is an article in the SMH about that today

 

[k.smith]

Lump sum withdraw, cash splash then going on the pension is an attractive option for those with low super balances. If you only have a small sum in super it's never going to provide a sufficient retirement income anyway, no doubt this is how some view this option.

The bigger issue to me is how assets can be packaged to collect the age pension. Because the principle residence is exempt from the assets test, at your preservation age you can draw money from super tax-free and structure your assets in a way that could allow you to live in a million dollar plus home in retirement and still collect either a full or part pension payment. Your nearest financial planner can tell you all about it and many specialize in this area. The whole issue of millionaire property owners collecting a government pension is a vexed one that the government will need to look at eventually. Super savings should provide a retirement income stream and not be used as vehicle to manipulate finances to collect the age pension.

So many complications !

I think that you have a valid point that low balance super is problematic, there is an article in the SMH about that today...

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...tliving-their-super-funds-20140523-38s31.html


''...The superannuation system is among the world's most expensive, according to an April report by Grattan Institute, with Australians paying $20 billion in fees and expenses on their balances, more than three times the median charged in other countries. "High fees would not be a concern if Australians were getting value for money. But high fee funds are damaging our retirement savings," it noted.

Returns from these funds have been dismal. In 2012, for example, Australia was one of only two countries to post a negative rate of return, according to OECD global pension statistics. Over the five years to 2012, Australian pension funds lost 2.6 per cent.....''

While paying off the mortgage of one's principal residence makes some sense, wouldn't people then lean towards relying on super to pay off their home loans? And if it were deemed OK to pay off the home loan, wouldn't it be so easy to raise new mortgages against the home for other purposes...cars, boats, holidays ?

AS for including the family home in the assets basket to be able to weed out those that are "sitting", how can that be administered? Property values differ from state to state. The average house price in each state? above a certain level?

It seems to me that the more complicated things become, the more loopholes become possible. Such a huge kitty of super $$$ is attracting a lot of interests, and we are being bombarded with advertising for super constantly. And by the looks of the article above, it is going to get even more complicated. Choice, choice and more choice... !

I think we should do more about getting people to save in the first place.
Let kids experience the benefits of compound interest by hands on experience with their own bank account in the maths class...etc..

 

[FxTrader]

AS for including the family home in the assets basket to be able to weed out those that are "sitting", how can that be administered? Property values differ from state to state. The average house price in each state? above a certain level?

An issue that needs to be dealt with is - can I draw out my entire super balance (say $500k) as a lump sum from super tax free, pay off the mortgage on my million dollar home and collect a government pension? (Answer: Yes) In what way is this socially equitible or financially sustainable for our society?

Every council issues property owners with a property valuation (usually undervaluation) for rates purposes. This can be used as a basis for determining pension eligibility, whatever the upper limit assigned. The government can facilitate with the regulation and establishment of reverse mortages in coordination with the banks as an option for those property millionaires that don't qualify for the age pension but have inadequate savings to fund expenses should they elect to stay in their homes and not cash out. Tough decisions are required to address the issue of funding the retirement of an aging population including limiting lump sum withdraws and age pension eligibility.

 

[Judd]

''...The superannuation system is among the world's most expensive, according to an April report by Grattan Institute, with Australians paying $20 billion in fees and expenses on their balances, more than three times the median charged in other countries. "High fees would not be a concern if Australians were getting value for money. But high fee funds are damaging our retirement savings," it noted.

And why do you think the Financial Services Council (aka banks and AMP et al) have have promoted a call for a radical overhaul of the supervision of the SMSF sector - home for more than $530 billion and the *nation’s fastest-growing nest egg? Surely not because the industry and commercial super funds don't like SMSFs as they are growing quickly and undermining their market share? After all $530 billion x 1.5% is a mere $8 billion not going to assist with the funding of the lease on the Lambo. I mean really, such hardship is intolerable.

 

[sptrawler]

so many complications ! I think that you have a valid point that low balance super is problematic, fees eat into funds, there is an article in the SMH about that today

You should probably watch the Keating interview on Lateline, last week. It will be on the ABC website.

At the moment, the focus is on super being a pension replacement.

When in fact the super system was introduced to be a suplement to the pension, to give working people a better retirement and enhance their old age as the pension was always a struggle.
The initial 3% super contribution, was in leiu of a pay rise under the wages accord.

That is being morphed into, if you have super, you don't require a pension or your pension should be reduced. I'm NOT talking about the fat cats scamming it.

These bloody politicians especially Labor need to re read the conditions super were implemented under. Jeez i get angry, the way history is re written.

Below is a good read.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...tliving-their-super-funds-20140523-38s31.html

I suppose what all these outraged Fairfax media people should be really jumping on.
Is the lie perpetrated on working class Australia, by Hawke and Keating, that the supersystem was designed to let you put money away to enhance your retirement.

 

[Julia]

You should probably watch the Keating interview on Lateline, last week. It will be on the ABC website.

I did watch that and didn't find it a criticism of the current compulsory Super as much as advice that we need to adjust savings programs according to the ever changing demographics of people living longer and longer.
As I understood what he was saying, he was recommending that a further 'insurance scheme' should be put in place to cover the possibility that people might live into their 90's and beyond.
He made complete sense to me, but I imagine politically it would be a hard sell.

At the moment, the focus is on super being a pension replacement.

When in fact the super system was introduced to be a supplement to the pension, to give working people a better retirement and enhance their old age as the pension was always a struggle.

Really? I wasn't living here when compulsory super was introduced so I've always assumed it was introduced with the aim that - over time - it would provide an alternative to the age pension. Even at that time demographers would have foreseen the blow out which inevitably would occur as more retirees came into the system with fewer workers supporting them.

How do you define "a struggle"?

eg A pensioner couple receives nearly twice as much as a single pensioner, but the single pensioner has the same council rates, insurance, phone, electricity etc. Who is struggling? Both kinds of households? Just the single pensioner?

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that compulsory super would have been introduced just to make life 'better' in retirement. Surely that should be up to individuals?
eg if they want to go for extended overseas holidays, update their car every year etc, surely it shouldn't be at the expense of the taxpayer and they should be prepared to save separately for that sort of lifestyle.

Where do you expect the money to come from to fund full age pensions, if not from compulsory Super, eventually?
From the same taxpayer who funds Newstart, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, Carer Pension, Sickness Allowance, Family Tax Benefits etc etc etc?
There will simply not be enough of them to balance the numbers of retirees with the baby boomers living as long as they probably will.

Surely politicians should be able to take into account changing demographics and other circumstances, such as diminished income from the once great mining boom etc, without being hung out to dry over the need to adjust community expectations?

I've just watched most of Joe Hockey on Q & A from last Monday and commend his patience.
Only one question I heard was not antagonistic and demonstrating a reluctance to accept reality.
Further, he was presented with outraged examples of questions that had no basis in fact, eg presumably people taking as gospel what they had read in the SMH or heard from Labor et al.
Mr Hockey managed to, without losing his calm, and in the face of overt antagonism from the host, disabuse most of these people from their erroneous assumptions.

Good on him for being prepared to face what he would have known would be a largely hostile audience and host. He is a far better communicator than Mr Abbott.

Below is a good read.

Do you really think so? One extract from this typical SMH approach:

But the industry is plagued by high fees and a narrow range of products for retirees to invest their savings in. Coupled with poor spending decisions by retirees - who often cash in their super and splash out on holidays and cars - it has meant more Australians are outliving their investments.

Well, duh! Perhaps don't spend up quite so prolifically on expensive holidays and new cars.
We all make choices throughout our lives. No reason retirement should be any different imo.

And if you don't like the fees in the public super funds, get financially literate and run your own fund.
Just for god's sake, stop whining!

 

[sptrawler]

I did watch that and didn't find it a criticism of the current compulsory Super as much as advice that we need to adjust savings programs according to the ever changing demographics of people living longer and longer.
As I understood what he was saying, he was recommending that a further 'insurance scheme' should be put in place to cover the possibility that people might live into their 90's and beyond.
He made complete sense to me, but I imagine politically it would be a hard sell.


Really? I wasn't living here when compulsory super was introduced so I've always assumed it was introduced with the aim that - over time - it would provide an alternative to the age pension. Even at that time demographers would have foreseen the blow out which inevitably would occur as more retirees came into the system with fewer workers supporting them.

How do you define "a struggle"?

eg A pensioner couple receives nearly twice as much as a single pensioner, but the single pensioner has the same council rates, insurance, phone, electricity etc. Who is struggling? Both kinds of households? Just the single pensioner?

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that compulsory super would have been introduced just to make life 'better' in retirement. Surely that should be up to individuals?
eg if they want to go for extended overseas holidays, update their car every year etc, surely it shouldn't be at the expense of the taxpayer and they should be prepared to save separately for that sort of lifestyle.

Where do you expect the money to come from to fund full age pensions, if not from compulsory Super, eventually?
From the same taxpayer who funds Newstart, Youth Allowance, Disability Support Pension, Carer Pension, Sickness Allowance, Family Tax Benefits etc etc etc?
There will simply not be enough of them to balance the numbers of retirees with the baby boomers living as long as they probably will.

Surely politicians should be able to take into account changing demographics and other circumstances, such as diminished income from the once great mining boom etc, without being hung out to dry over the need to adjust community expectations?

I've just watched most of Joe Hockey on Q & A from last Monday and commend his patience.
Only one question I heard was not antagonistic and demonstrating a reluctance to accept reality.
Further, he was presented with outraged examples of questions that had no basis in fact, eg presumably people taking as gospel what they had read in the SMH or heard from Labor et al.
Mr Hockey managed to, without losing his calm, and in the face of overt antagonism from the host, disabuse most of these people from their erroneous assumptions.

Good on him for being prepared to face what he would have known would be a largely hostile audience and host. He is a far better communicator than Mr Abbott.


Do you really think so? One extract from this typical SMH approach:


Well, duh! Perhaps don't spend up quite so prolifically on expensive holidays and new cars.
We all make choices throughout our lives. No reason retirement should be any different imo.

And if you don't like the fees in the public super funds, get financially literate and run your own fund.
Just for god's sake, stop whining!

Julia if you watched the Keating interview, he said super was designed to help people have a better retirement, but it was designed to 80 years life expectancy.
The pension was always a minimal amount, it was only really made decent by Rudd, prior to him i think the single pension was about $13,000, so we are not talking many years ago.

Here is my memories of how super was born, from a workshop floor perspective.
Back in the late 70's early 80's post Whitlam, Fraser put in place a wages freeze as they had huge debt from Gough.
John Howard was his treasurer and it was quite funny, he was always on t.v appologising for stuffing up a bit like Wayne Swan. The difference was Howard picked up the nickname of honest John, Wayne wasn't so lucky.
Everyone got sick of the wages freeze and prices kept going up.

So along comes the Jimmy Barnes of politics, Bob Hawke, the working class hero.
The promise i remember was he would do away with import parity pricing, as fuel was a tax on the working man, needless to say he didn't, instead he introduced the current fuel excise with indexing.lol

Unemployment and interest rates were very high, I remember going for a job in Perth in 1982 in a small business employing 4 people, there were 170 applicants.
Anyway Hawke/Keating and Kelty(ACTU) decided the best way forward was an agreement between the unions and the government.
The unions agreed to not pursue wage rises outside the industrial wages commission, who the government controlled and wage rises would be linked to cpi.

Well non of the payrise(from memory) ever equalled cpi and when the workers kicked up the unions shut them down, told them they didn't have union support and risked personal litigation.
This brought down wages in real terms and also brought down unemployment and inflation.
Anyway in 1992 the super gaurantee was introduced and 3% was put away instead of a payrise.

It was started because Australians had no savings and the banks borrowed all their funding overseas.

Here is a link to Keatings interview, it starts off fairly dry but gets interesting from around the 10minute mark. He more or less says the claim that super is a huge tax burden is a furphy by treasury. Also it is being talked up by the media, wow would you believe that, Tony looked aghast.lol

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-...gevity-tax-to-supplement-super-income/5440986

With regard Hockey on Q & A, I loved the young lady that said she was being made redundant in Canberra by the Government, and wouldn't be able to recive the dole for six months as she was under 30.
Hockey said by the current rules you wouldn't be able to access the dole untill your reduncy ran out anyway.
She showed how stupid she was, those rules have been around forever, if you get 12 months redundancy pay, you cant claim the dole for 12 months.jeez
Tony jumped in trying to save the day" she aaaasked ana anaother question" what a dick.

 

[banco]

AS for including the family home in the assets basket to be able to weed out those that are "sitting", how can that be administered? Property values differ from state to state. The average house price in each state? above a certain level?

A million dollar asset is a million dollar asset whichever way you cut it. If you don't want to sell it that's fine but don't expect to get the pension.

 

[qldfrog]

as I see it, the pension should be merged in a a single minimal welfare safety net;
be irrespective of age and be VERY low: a subsistence only level;
This minimum subsistence income would ne the same for each individual: 20y old newstart, disability, etc
It would not be in any way an incentive and should not be provided to anyone with any assets now;
if I am unemployed tomorrow,I will not received a cent ever until bankrupt;
Some will say we should not change the rules halfway, but rules for me have been change again and again and i pay, i do not recive... so not that keen on hearing winging...


I am amazed by the fact that as a top percentile working taxpaper, i am doing all my self funding planning on earning 60k a year (for a couple) saving with two incomes our whole life.
I will spend my whole life taxed to the max aiming at this, while current pension is distributed without much check and is around 30k a year (more than half what my ultimate aim is after taxes) to some people who may have spent their life boozing gambling or not even work ever!
Where is the fairness there? And if there is no fairness, you seed potential social and economic drama, or incite peope to rort the system;

Abbot budget is a disaster but it has the merit of raising the issue.

 

[Julia]

It's interesting to consider all the perspectives on welfare, isn't it. Qld frog regards the pension as much too generous, whilst it seems most of the people receiving it feel extremely hard done by and believe somehow they have prepaid an entitlement to something much more, to the point where - even though there are actually no cuts to be made, just a change as from a few years hence in the way increases are indexed - they are full of outrage (commendably egged on by Labor and Fairfax) and apparently about to expire prematurely because they will be completely unable to afford a maximum of $70 p.a. to visit their GP.

And so many of them are saying how Gen Y have such a sense of entitlement!!

Ferrett: I don't think too many people would disagree with you over broken promises, but I wonder how many promises relating to what Abbott et al said prior to this last election have been broken?

Certainly the proposed $7 co-payment constitutes a breaking of the promise to make no changes to Medicare, and there might be other examples which you or other people can clarify.

But eg as I've just described above, people have managed to believe their pension is going to be cut when it's not, and when afaik, any changes to the indexing of future rises will not occur until after the next election. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Ditto the claims by Fairfax and the ABC that lowest income groups will be 'taking a cut of x%'.
That implies their actual Newstart, Sickness Allowance/whatever is going to be reduced.
I don't think that's right at all in most instances but rather future increases will be at lower rate.
Again, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong in this interpretation. I also don't know anything about family tax benefits and how they work.

I'm a bit surprised that people are so astonished that Mr Abbott has broken any promises.
Don't we all remember when he said it was only a promise if you had it from him in writing?

There seems to be a bit of rewriting of history going on with the impression being cast about that people voted enthusiastically for Mr Abbott in the belief that he would carry out everything he said before the election, that he had no history of being extremely tricky (?shifty, even) over the time he has been in parliament.

Isn't what really happened that the electorate had just decided Labor had to go, for entirely valid reasons, and the Coalition were elected by default?
Perhaps I'm unfairly cynical, but I never had any expectation that an Abbott government would be anything like the government run by John Howard, and don't know why anyone else would either.

 

[Julia]

PS to above post:
Another clear broken promise was "no new taxes", then telling high income earners they would be paying a deficit reduction 'levy'.

 

[medicowallet]

Right on Julia,

The average joe doesn't understand the difference between a cut on an expected rate of increase vs a real cut.

AFAIK, what you are saying is correct, and that this future spending was put in by Labor et al. as a poison pill to make a future LNP coalition look like the bad guys when they reversed the unsustainable pseudo-promises.

Quite "clever' really

MW

 

[qldfrog]

Isn't what really happened that the electorate had just decided Labor had to go, for entirely valid reasons, and the Coalition were elected by default?
Perhaps I'm unfairly cynical, but I never had any expectation that an Abbott government would be anything like the government run by John Howard, and don't know why anyone else would either.

totally agree Julia, it was very painful for me to vote Abbot: you could have given me a Costello or a Turnbull and I would have planted posters in my front yard; But i still had a fine hope i was maybe wrong: Tony Abbott is a Rhode scholar (my spelling?) and I have a lot of respect for that;
but no, redneck attitude toward science/solar energy; integrist vision on economy; so will i join the voters for the next clown palmer or others at the next election;
At least he stopped the boats, but all the rest has been disappointment after disappointment;
A nation succeeds on vision, shared aim, well not with T Abbott
Anyway i divert and the vision for super is:
do not count on anything in your older age;
I was naively still thinking that after 90 if i reach it I might be able to rely on some help;
well forget it, and i will probably be taxed heavily on my self funded retirement income: the ants have to pay for the cicadas...