- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,743
- Reactions
- 24,718
I think the concern for me with young people accessing their super is it can fuel a rise in house prices that are already relatively high indexed to wages. The money presumably finds its way into the bankers hands that would otherwise be used for whatever supe funds use money for.
Here is another symptom of our times.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/cont...-bongs-to-luxury-sailing-20150313-142hmp.html
I have four kids, all in the early to mid 30's, non went to uni.
But they are a lot more affluent than I was at their age, my wife still doesn't spend anything on hair colouring, false finger nails or designer clothing.
What the kids spend on themselves make me cringe, but hang on I'm the baby boomer selfish generation.lol
I still look for the bargain, and yes pick up the 5 cent pieces, the kids can't be bothered picking up. They laugh at me and say "dad don't pick it up, it isn't worth anything".
I just shrug and say "old habits die hard".
These same kids I took along roads to pick up aluminium cans, to take for scrap metal and gave them the money. So they would appreciate the value of it.
Shows, that was a waste of my time. lol
We really do need a reality check.IMO
Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are on track to destroy one of the most commonly held beliefs in Australian politics, namely, that the Coalition are better economic managers than Labor.
Indeed, smashing this "truism" may be one of their few lasting legacies.
The budget papers ... show that the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent. In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.
In a similar vein, in the last 30 years, there have been 10 occasions when the tax to GDP ratio has been below 22.0 per cent of GDP and all 10 were under a Labor Government. To put simply, the Howard government was a high taxer, while the current Labor Government is a lower taxer.
In terms of government spending, there have been only five years in the four decades leading up to 2012-13 when real government spending was cut in real terms. None of those cuts were delivered by a Coalition government.
The myth of Coalition economic management
As economist Stephen Koukoulas noted back in 2012, Howard and Costello were accorded a respect their actual economic record didn't deserve:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-12/dunlop-the-myth-of-coalition-economic-management/6308704
In relative terms, cars have never been cheaper, white goods have never been cheaper, electronic goods have never been cheaper. Actually there isn't much that relative to wages hasn't got cheaper, also there is a lot more choice now than there used to be.
I would doubt that, for all Abbotts highlighted faults, most would prefer someone who stands up for their beliefs.
So they were the highest taxing, yet yourself and others bag them, for giving out personal tax cuts?
At the moment we don't take enough tax to cover our running costs, and everyone is bagging that.
They were high taxing and returned the budget to surplus.
Then they reduced personal tax rates, to stimulate spending, borrowing and investment.
Isn't that what everyone is saying is needed now? Isn't that why the reserve bank is reducing interest rates?
No one is arguing against the fact that Howard bought elections handing out middle class welfare along with tax cuts during a revenue boom setting up future governments with a structural budget black hole. Rudd also went along with the ride on his 1st election win.
All I hear is Labors wasteful spending fine answers simple just stop those wasteful spending policy's why hasn't Abbott done that?
They ended up in a revenue boom along with selling assets (Telstra alone was $70bil) Howard and Costello as a result were hailed as economic genius's.
Howard said interest rates would always be lower under the Coalition looks like he was right as we head towards our 1st recession in a while under Abbott.
All I hear is Labors wasteful spending fine answers simple just stop those wasteful spending policy's why hasn't Abbott done that?
They ended up in a revenue boom along with selling assets (Telstra alone was $70bil) Howard and Costello as a result were hailed as economic genius's.
I give in, get Labor back in, let's see how that goes.
Being fair, it isn't a subsidy of $85,000 per person for power and water, but don't let facts get in the way of your story.
I'm finding it amazing, how every unsustainable issue is now finding a champion for it.
Maybe the government should put forward a plan, that allows those who feel strongly about an issue, being able to have tax deductible payments taken from their pay to support it.
If then there isn't the money forethcoming, they can examine the validity of the cause.
Just watched Tony Jones try and tie up Hockey, bloody rude, interjected and tried to push his agenda.IMO
When Jones harped on about Hockey's suggestion that young people can access their super, I wish Hockey had said " Tony would you prefer to own your own home in retirement? Or have $200k more in super?"
Jones and all the rest are just idiots.IMO
I don't think using super to buy ridiculous mortgages is right in the current market, but I don't think going into retirement without a PPR is good either.
To just ridicule the suggestion, and throw it out because of media generated hype, is dumb also.
Why couldn't there be joint super/ government estates established, where crown land and FHB estates are established.
Just hope the government puts up the top tax rate to 60% as it was 30 years ago, that would give Jones and all the fat cats something to bitch about.
Rather than sitting back "killing the pig", while spruiting their concern for the little guy.
Absolute dicks.IMO
He has sold out on virtually everything he and Hockey stand for robbing the poor to give to the rich ahla US Republican nutter territory.
.
If Tony Abbott thinks remote communities aren't viable, he can start with Tasmania
Date
March 14, 2015 - 9:30PM
Tony Abbott has done all Australians a favour by raising the question of the economical viability of remote communities. He is surely right to wonder if we can continue to spend large sums of money in areas where there are no real jobs, and little in the prospects of finding them. People, it seems, are going to have to move to where the work is.
Because he was dealing with a question about the defunding of Aboriginal outstations, there were some who drew the conclusion that he was confining himself to their situation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed he was privileging Aboriginal Australians, as John Howard did before with the Aboriginal intervention, with a scheme he means to make of general application. It's a great idea, so why should not our first people be the first to know, or to experience the benefit.
The proposal is about saving future generations from the unconscionable burden of intergenerational theft, Labor's debt and deficit nightmare and the churlish refusal of senators to adopt last year's budget.
Advertisement
As luck has it, it may emerge that Abbott will not be discriminating in favour of Aboriginal communities as he develops his plan to make everyone, and everything and everywhere viable. That's because there are bigger targets, as a result of which they may have to wait their turn.
As we shift people away from unviable areas and communities, we can flog the vacated real estate, perhaps to Tonga. Or Kiribati, sinking into the ocean. Or New Zealand, China, the United States, perhaps even to Israel or the Islamic State.
This could solve our foreign debt problems for all time, and put a smile on every face. Let others face the problem of making such areas viable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?