Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
sptrawler said:
If you read the superannuation thread, he puts $50b of it down to super tax concessions.
I think he is cherry picking, to support ideological arguement.
These same fiscal issues were present when Labor was in government, he said nothing, now the coalition is in, he can't shut up.
Any coalition sugestions, he is unwilling to entertain, so what is the point in debating when all he wants is an audience.IMO
Click to expand...

Please don't misrepresent what I've said.

I've complained that the super tax expenditures are around $30B with the industry and retail funds skimming $18B a year, while the SMSF sector is probably another $5B a year.

So to resolve an aged pension problem of $35B we're costing ourselves over $50B with the cost escalating rapidly. to me that is not sensible policy. I've complained of this when labor was in Government.

As for not supporting any current Govt policy, I've said I support the indexation of fuel excise and believe it was one of Howard's worst decisions, up there with tax free super and removing of RBLs.

There's nothing else worth supporting in the budget. PPL - no thanks. School Chaplains - nope. Medicare co payment - I would if it was better targeted. Deficit levy - it's a band-aid solution not meaningful reform. Removal of the carbon and resources taxes - not unless Abbot can replace the revenue more fairly.

I'd be interested to know what you currently support from last Months budget.
 
sydboy007 said:
Please don't misrepresent what I've said.

I've complained that the super tax expenditures are around $30B with the industry and retail funds skimming $18B a year, while the SMSF sector is probably another $5B a year.

So to resolve an aged pension problem of $35B we're costing ourselves over $50B with the cost escalating rapidly. to me that is not sensible policy. I've complained of this when labor was in Government.

As for not supporting any current Govt policy, I've said I support the indexation of fuel excise and believe it was one of Howard's worst decisions, up there with tax free super and removing of RBLs.

There's nothing else worth supporting in the budget. PPL - no thanks. School Chaplains - nope. Medicare co payment - I would if it was better targeted. Deficit levy - it's a band-aid solution not meaningful reform. Removal of the carbon and resources taxes - not unless Abbot can replace the revenue more fairly.

I'd be interested to know what you currently support from last Months budget.
Click to expand...

Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.

IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees. Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.
 
Knobby22 said:
But they are Australian citizens. How can he stop them coming home? Also, how can he prove that they were Jhadi and not just visiting relatives? I don't think there will be a problem with locking them up as it is against the law to fight foreign wars.
Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for Jhadi but WTF is Abbott saying there is no process of law in this country.............
 
Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.

Surely this legislation that they have pushed into parliament is so indicative of Abbott and his total disregard for any semblance of integrity.

Anger as Coalition waters down financial advice laws

Consumer groups and industry super funds have hit out at the federal government's decision to push ahead with controversial changes to financial advice reforms.

Under changes to be introduced from July 1, the government will abolish a 'catch-all' provision for advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.

It will also exclude general advice from conflicted remuneration rules and remove the requirement for investors to 'opt-in' to authorise ongoing fees every two years.

The changes follow months of debate and speculation over the amendments to the future of financial advice (FOFA) reforms, introduced under Labor in response to a series of corporate collapses.

Consumer group Choice said the changes would wind back essential protection for consumers seeking financial advice.

''Conflicted and poor financial advice has cost consumers billions and in too many cases led to people losing their homes and life savings,'' chief executive Alan Kirkland said.

''This is why consumer protections were originally needed and exactly why they should not be removed.''
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...advice-laws-20140620-3ahyl.html#ixzz35BZFODyk
 
IFocus said:
Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.

Surely this legislation that they have pushed into parliament is so indicative of Abbott and his total disregard for any semblance of integrity.

Anger as Coalition waters down financial advice laws



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bank...advice-laws-20140620-3ahyl.html#ixzz35BZFODyk
Click to expand...

Stagger me! I have to agree with IFocus.
 
From Alan Kohler

Redraft the bloody FoFA bill, Minister

he Senate committee is telling Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to redraft his FoFA bill, but is trying not to say it too loudly. So Alan Kohler says he'll do it for them: REDRAFT THE BLOODY BILL, MINISTER!

In a way, the two Senate inquiries were around the wrong way. The ASIC inquiry should have concluded before the other one began.

The ASIC one has been looking at what happens when advisers are paid commissions and don't act in their clients' best interests, and the inquiry into FoFA amendments has been looking at what to do about it.

So the Minister should wait for the second half of this opportunity (the Senate's report on ASIC's performance and the dreadful consequences of conflicted financial advice that it will contain) to think again before reacting to the suggestion from the FoFA committee's report that he redraft the amendments.

Maybe if he does that - and he also thinks about why he went into public life in the first place - Australia's hapless users of financial advice will end up with a good result.
Click to expand...
 
IFocus said:
Low life Abbott government backing the big end of town to screw the punters how disgusting.....where is the outrage from the Abbott lovers here.
Click to expand...
Abbott lovers? I can't think of even one on this forum.
Perhaps you don't bother reading the Superannuation thread. There has been plenty of derision there about the watering down of FoFa.
 
Abbott lovers? I can't think of even one on this forum
Click to expand...

Well I'm one and proud of it.:xyxthumbs
He may not turn out to be as great a PM as John Howard but compared to the labor rabble that was previously in Government he has integrity in spades.

However I do think they are wrong to water down the FoFa.
 
Based on what I heard on the news, the basic idea is to remove responsibility from those giving financial advice should they end up losing someone's money.

OK, what next? Plumbers not responsible if they flood the house due to not connecting the pipes properly? Electrician isn't responsible if their faulty workmanship causes a fire or electric shock? Bus company not responsible if the bus isn't maintained and ends up crashing with injuries or worse to everyone on board?

The possibilities are endless with this line of thinking. As for financial advice, the only rational response for ordinary consumers is to steer well clear of anyone calling themselves a financial adviser and do their own research on forums such as this one. :2twocents
 
Junior said:
Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.

IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees. Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.
Click to expand...

Fair points, but do you think we should be able to manage our retirement funds a lot cheaper than we currently do?

The Norwegians are able to run their SWF that has accumulated all their gas and oil income and it now stands at around half of the 1.8T in super saved here. They run it all in house at a cost somewhere between 0.001 and 0.002%. So what are we doing wrong?

There needs to be a move away from the FUM model, but I doubt that will happen while the FIRE sector has the major parties in their deep pockets.
 
Junior said:
Hi Sydboy, I think your analysis of cost vs. saving is overly simplistic.

IF there was NO superannuation system that same pool of assets would be in the individuals hands (well...whatever % wasn't spent as it was earned)....and so it would still be invested somewhere, whether that be investment properties, shares, managed funds etc. and would still be subject to fees. Accounting, agents fees, fund manager, stockbroker, financial planner, bank, legal etc.
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time junior

I have tried to explain this to him multiple times with the alternatives eg neg geared property actually costing the govt more

What he doesnt understand is that the 1.x trillion makes profits which are taxed and are a great revenue stream

What peoplecwho dont pay the top marginal rate (or even worse no net tax) fail to understand is that even with some concessions you are still paying truckloads of tax, probably as a resukt of sacrificing something low to mid income earners were too lazy to do

Smacks of whinging to me
Barking up the wrong tree
Attacking thecpeople who give the most
Tall poppy
Poor understanding of the real world and the risks and stresses of many high income earners

Mw
 
waza1960 said:
Well I'm one and proud of it.:xyxthumbs
He may not turn out to be as great a PM as John Howard but compared to the labor rabble that was previously in Government he has integrity in spades.
Click to expand...
:)Fair enough, waza. I'm also much happier with Mr Abbott than I was with any of the Labor leaders.
And he's gaining confidence, despite all the detractors, with more fluent speech being especially noticeable.

Just having a small go at IFocus for the expression "Abbott lovers" which seemed unnecessarily derisive.
 
Top