This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
I'd suggest that they want to keep their negative geared investments and super tax breaks as much as anyone else.

Why do you think that they did nothing about this for the 6 years they were in ?
Click to expand...

I agree with you absolutely about this. So they will only soak the rich in ways, which will not affect themselves personally. Hence the amount of ‘soak’ revenue will be lower than it otherwise should be and the predicament I outlined earlier will be exacerbated.
Either way the Labor party will still find ways to spend money faster than they can collect it and irrespective of the absolute amount of ‘soaking’ that they can actually achieve.

This is a world-wide phenomenon. It can never be fixed by a change of Government anywhere. ‘Natural forces’ will ultimately fix it – i.e. a world-wide financial Armageddon that gives neither voters nor politicians choices about their respective ‘free lunches’. All ‘free lunches’ will disappear down the black-holes of world debt. It will not be pretty when it happens but it is coming.
 
SirRumpole said:
If you are going to say that your generation is worse off than previous ones, you may like to mention the current mortgage interest rate of around 4.5% compared to the 18% that some of us paid.
Click to expand...

this RBA graph shows the lie to that claim. Just look how easy it was after 2 years during the high inflation high interest rate environment compared to recent times.



the entire article is well worth a read - http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2013/sp-so-230413.html
 

sydboy007 said:
this RBA graph shows the lie to that claim. Just look how easy it was after 2 years during the high inflation high interest rate environment compared to recent times.
Click to expand...

I can't see what you a referring to in the chart. Doesn't look like that much difference to me.
 
It's not just Tony Abbott that has trashed his Government reputation for good governance

The treatment of the Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs has been a disgrace. Trying to force her resignation, attacking her personally for the report on children in detention (as distinct from addressing the report).

Latest story is how George Brandis insisted that his staff member be present when Gillian spoke with the Opposition Attorny General Mark Dreyfus. I'm surprised that her ofice hasn't been wired and her computers bugged "for security reasons". George Brandis is quite capable doing that.

What a pig...!


http://www.theguardian.com/australi...taffer-overseeing-meeting-with-gillian-triggs
 

So much for a free country when people can't talk to each other without a commissar in attendance.
 

What else would you expect from that communist paper, the Guardian...Lenore Taylor is so biased towards the Green/laborParty..That is the sort of reporting you would expect from her.
.
The fact is, Gillian Trigg was advised by Tony Burke and Chris Bowen to hold the report until after the 2013 election..She lied about those meetings at the senate inquiry and was well and truly caught out.....That stuck out like the dog's proverbials.
 

I think Gillian Trigg's political leanings was known by the Liberal party hence the concern and the reasons for being extra careful.
There appears to be a good case for bias of the commission in my view. It would be nice of public servants were seen to above the political fight as used to occur rather than part of it.
 

Does that include not appointing people with very right or left leaning views to chair Govt reviews?

Is it appropriate to say have Dick Warbuton running the RET review when he's been very outspoken against wind farms?

Surely if the Govt is paying your salary to run a review then for all intents and purposes you are a public servant during that period.

Fortunately, even with hand picked / stacked reviews they've turned out to provide the Govt some very uncomfortable advice, with Hockey going on about how the Murray review was a report for the Govt, not by the Govt, and did not reflect offical policy.
 
I agree completely Syd.
The Dick Warburton incident was a slap in the face to the Australian public. Probably the most obvious and among the worst political appointments of all time and another reason why I can't stand this Abbott Government.
 
Bintang said:
I can't see what you a referring to in the chart. Doesn't look like that much difference to me.
Click to expand...

The claim made was that people today have it so much easier because interest rates are not 18%

The chart I provided from the RBA shows just how much disposable income is being feed to the mortgage monster these days, and it's comparable to when interest rates were 18%.

The blue dotted line shows you how much income is required after 2 years of repayments, and the current low interest rate period turns out to be not quite as easy as the high inflation high interest environment before financial deregulation.

People buying property today don't get inflation doing a lot of the hard work for them, especially when it was common to be getting wage rises 3 or 4 times what they have been lately.

But hte real point I'm trying to make is why is it fair to have what is the largest asset for the majority of households be excluded from determining access to the pension, especially when the relatively small group of over 65s has something like 1/3 of the wealth of the country. Is it fair that when the wealth of most younger generations has been going backwards there is push by older Australians to force through cuts to Govt spending that go more to younger / poorer people than wealthy older retirees?

Is it sensible for the Govt to flag to people that investing in housing could be the most tax effective retirement strategy, because you'll be able to sell up, downsize or rent and have investable assets well above the current pension asset test that will not impact on access to the pension? Why do income taxes have to be higher, or the GST raised just to keep the current very generous pension asset & income tests? A couple can earn over $73K a year tax free and still get a part pension. That up there with a working couple earning the median wage each after tax, and significantly better if you look at it from a disposable income basis.
 

Knobby, Triggs was equally critical of both political parties in the most recent report about kids in detention with a Liberal supporters name on the report (Wilson) strange Abbott hasn't mentioned that.
 
I am surprised no one has mention the obvious about Abbotts recent behaviour over the Bali 2

After praising the Coalition I fine now they are happey to play politics over there now certain execution.

Once you start pointing fingers at the Indo's its all over

The Bali 2 will now be executed no if no buts Abbotts behaviour was I think for local consumption nothing more it would have gone against any advice from the diplomats.
 
IFocus said:
Knobby, Triggs was equally critical of both political parties in the most recent report about kids in detention with a Liberal supporters name on the report (Wilson) strange Abbott hasn't mentioned that.
Click to expand...
Gillian Triggs showed her bias late last year with her unsubstantiated claims about armed guards on Xmas Island and that detention camps were like prison.

Meanwhile, the current government continues to solve the problem at the source,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-19/asylum-seeker-boat-intercepted-off-cocos-islands/6152002
 
Did you read the last two paragraphs of the post you quoted ?

It wasn't about just wanting it to happen to someone else.
 

Abbott carried on like an idiot. He must have known better then to try and blackmail the Indo's. Not sure if he needed to w hore himself out to the media like that to score brownie points.
 
drsmith said:
Did you read the last two paragraphs of the post you quoted ?

It wasn't about just wanting it to happen to someone else.
Click to expand...
This is what from your post I quoted and responded to:
I stand by what I said in response which is essentially that a reverse mortgage type of scheme would work for people determined to stay in their very expensive homes whilst drawing full pension, and too bad if it's unpopular.
Doesn't matter if it's a tax debt or access to full pension.

The present system is broken and unsustainable so some unpopular decisions will have to be made.

Syd has repeatedly laid out sensible suggestions for what needs to happen.
 
I agree with what you are saying Julia-or else taxpayers are funding capital gains windfalls for those with expensive homes.
The pension scheme is a safety net,not a scheme to allow some to benefit disproportionately.
The ones most opposed would be those that will inherit .
 
By only considering part of that post though in your response, you're considering it out of context.
 
drsmith said:
By only considering part of that post though in your response, you're considering it out of context.
Click to expand...
I don't know why you're going on about this. I don't think I'm obliged to comment on every part of all of your posts.

As it happens, I don't entirely agree with the latter part of your original post (the top two paragraphs from which I responded to), perhaps unusually because I more often than not do agree with you and make that clear.

So I just expressed what I feel strongly about, ie the unfairness of people living in multi million dollar homes and drawing full pension when a perfectly reasonable option like a reverse mortgage exists.

I don't care whether it's popular or not to change the status quo. Part of the reason we're in the current situation is the vote buying by successive governments in handing out tax cuts, middle class welfare etc, to the point where it has become an expectation.

It's time for the government, whether Labor or Liberal, to have the courage to take some unpopular decisions and for the opposition and the Senate to start being realistic in support.
Just my , of course.
 
Sorry to be discursive, but couldn't find a more specific thread for this, so I'll try it here.

The author argues that the US should stay neutral on Ukraine. I don't know enough of the background to hold a position, but certainly the article reads well, and I love the last sentence (under).

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-should-be-neutral-on-ukraine-2015-02-06?page=2

...If the U.S. is to have a role in the Ukraine conflict, it should be as mediator. Otherwise, it’s a European affair. You cooked it, you eat it.”
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
947
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...