The Abbott Government

[rumpole]

I'm sure small business owners will feel great about that, they just have to wait for the productivity increase Ian is talking about, hitting their shop.

Small business owners should be subject to much less regulation than larger businesses imo. Coffee shop owners shouldn't have to pay penalty rates or be subject to unfair dismissal laws.

Once you get above the level where the business owners are not the managers then other dynamics like personality conflicts can occur that have nothing to do with an employees ability to do their job, and should be subject to some scrutiny from an independent party.

 

[Calliope]

I defy any left-leaner to find a flaw in this proposition espoused by Andrew Bolt. For once he gets it exactly right.

LABOR is worried. The public isn’t stupid, after all, and doesn’t believe governments can or should “save” jobs.

We’re all consumers now. If we want to save Qantas, we’ll fly it.

If we want to save our car industry, we’ll buy a Holden or Ford.

If we want to save SPC Ardmona, we’ll buy a tin of peaches.

And if we don’t buy that ticket, car or tin, the Government should get its hands out of our pockets. Don’t force us to donate to companies that didn’t earn our business.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-for-local-firms/story-fni0ffxg-1226849573464

 

[rumpole]

I defy any left-leaner to find a flaw in this proposition espoused by Andrew Bolt. For once he gets it exactly right.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...-for-local-firms/story-fni0ffxg-1226849573464

What he says is fair enough, but it's indicative of what happens when we let our industries get sold off to foreigners who think they can tell what we want from the other side of the world.

Let the foreigners depart, and then get the industries back in local hands. That requires government investment because the local business sector is too gutless to take any risks without some sort of government guarantee.

 

[McLovin]

What he says is fair enough, but it's indicative of what happens when we let our industries get sold off to foreigners who think they can tell what we want from the other side of the world.

Let the foreigners depart, and then get the industries back in local hands. That requires government investment because the local business sector is too gutless to take any risks without some sort of government guarantee.

When all else fails, fall back on good ol' fashioned xenophobia. You sound about 30 years out of date.

Look at all those foreigners, with no idea what Australians want. I'm sure you're shocked the Morphy Richards toaster isn't in there.



http://cdn.marketingmag.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/added-value-culture-aus.png

 

[rumpole]

When all else fails, fall back on good ol' fashioned xenophobia. You sound about 30 years out of date.

Look at all those foreigners, with no idea what Australians want. I'm sure you're shocked the Morphy Richards toaster isn't in there.

View attachment 57167

http://cdn.marketingmag.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/added-value-culture-aus.png

Microsoft, Google, it's easy to sell cr@p to people when you are a virtual monopoly.

As for BMW, I remember reading the motoring mags years ago that said that the GM Statesman and Senator were at least as good as BMW, except for the badge. You could sell some people a turd sandwich as long as it had the right badge.

 

[McLovin]

Microsoft, Google, it's easy to sell cr@p to people when you are a virtual monopoly.

It's not about sales, it's about brands.

But thanks for playing. I leave you in 1984.

 

[rumpole]

It's not about sales, it's about brands.

.

You are obviously one who falls for the brand hype. Lots of suckers in this country it seems.

 

[McLovin]

You are obviously one who falls for the brand hype. Lots of suckers in this country it seems.

Perhaps. But I can spot a troll a mile away.

 

[rumpole]

Perhaps. But I can spot a troll a mile away.

If trolling is expressing an opinion different to yourself, then...

 

[sydboy007]

Will be interesting to see how things change for access to the Commonwealth Seniors card.

I can't believe they set a $50K limit - that's in the 7th income decile for a single person income (863-1,054), but the Senior could be paying no tax on this so could be equivalent to the 8th income decile ie they could be beating at least 60-70% of the population on income and still received all the generous perks of the seniors card. Talk about age of entitlement with emphasis on welfare based on age not need.

Sadly Labor is already showing they will take the low road, but then Queensland Coalition MP Andrew Laming has also called for Seniors to rise up so I doubt we'll see any meaningful reforms.

FYI - 1 in 10 tax dollars goes to the aged pension already

 

[sptrawler]

Will be interesting to see how things change for access to the Commonwealth Seniors card.

I can't believe they set a $50K limit - that's in the 7th income decile for a single person income (863-1,054), but the Senior could be paying no tax on this so could be equivalent to the 8th income decile ie they could be beating at least 60-70% of the population on income and still received all the generous perks of the seniors card. Talk about age of entitlement with emphasis on welfare based on age not need.

Sadly Labor is already showing they will take the low road, but then Queensland Coalition MP Andrew Laming has also called for Seniors to rise up so I doubt we'll see any meaningful reforms.

FYI - 1 in 10 tax dollars goes to the aged pension already

I'm suprised you haven't mentioned the pension rise Tony is giving out.

Oh no, its not about the minimum pension for a couple, going upto $32,500/anum with $200k in the bank and a McMansion worth $3m + get the seniors card .

It's about screwing the self funded, that have saved $1m in super and are getting $35,000 in term deposits.lol
Make them pay for the frugality, that will teach everyone to spend instead of saving.
Thank god for karma.lol

 

[Julia]

It's about screwing the self funded, that have saved $1m in super and are getting $35,000 in term deposits.lol
Make them pay for the frugality, that will teach everyone to spend instead of saving.
Thank god for karma.lol

And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.

There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded: might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
That would be a very short sighted approach imo.

 

[sptrawler]

And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.

There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded: might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
That would be a very short sighted approach imo.

Yes, and then all Syds worries come home to roost.
Everyone has a minimal amount in super, get maximum pension and had a great time on the way.lol

However, the government has upped the after tax limit to $180k/anum, which if they play around too much with the rules, will end up as you say "no one putting extra in".

So one hopes the Government isn't as short sighted.

 

[sydboy007]

And that demonstrates the very message that the government would be sending to future retirees if they penalise self funded retirees on the small concession they receive via the CSHC.

There comes a point when people are just going to say, to hell with making the effort to be self funded: might as well spend up before reaching age pension age and qualify for full or substantial part pension.
That would be a very short sighted approach imo.

Should a single person on 50K tax free, or couple on 80K tax free be receiving welfare when the Abbot Government believes people earning less than $18K a year should PAY extra tax for their super?

CSHS provides access to PBS medicines at a greatly reduced prices, and up to $300 / qtr in supplement income. It doesn't make economic sense to me that we provide welfare to relatively well off people.

Yes, and then all Syds worries come home to roost.
Everyone has a minimal amount in super, get maximum pension and had a great time on the way.lol

However, the government has upped the after tax limit to $180k/anum, which if they play around too much with the rules, will end up as you say "no one putting extra in".

So one hopes the Government isn't as short sighted.

How much of a retirement income should the Government provide tax incentives to achieve? Between the tax foregone and the $20B or so in fees siphoned out by the industry, it would be cheaper to just provide everyone with the pension.

The great lark is to load up on debt, take out a lump sum to pay it off, holiday, new car then get the full pension while sitting on a small fortune called the primary residence. The aged pension cost to the budget has increased by $13B a year in a decade. It's an unsustainable system. The aged budget is already over $50B a year and the boomers have barely begun retiring or increasing the demands on the health budget. How does a rapidly shrinking tax paying population keep things running? We peaked at 1.5 workers per dependant in 2010. By 2020 it'll be just 1.4 and 2030 down to 1.3.

The top 5% of income earners receive over 20% of Government funding for super. Why? It's quite likely these people would have enough assets to not be eligible for a pension, so why do they receive around $3.3B in annual funding on their contributions? Why do the millions of low income earners pay 15% more tax on their contributions than income earned, or at best get a 4% reduction in their tax?

 

[sptrawler]

How much of a retirement income should the Government provide tax incentives to achieve? Between the tax foregone and the $20B or so in fees siphoned out by the industry, it would be cheaper to just provide everyone with the pension.?

Ask yourself, how much effort it would take you to save enough to supply yourself with a $32,000 dollar pension.
Also we are talking about saving it over the last 30 years.
For a comparison working on on inflation of 5% in thirty years you will have to have saved enough to better a pension of $94,000/ year.
Then to better a pension or equal a pension of $94,000 at 4% return(which are current rates) you will need to have saved $2.5million.
While your neighbour spends everything, has a ball and gets $94k, then someone tells you, What's your problem.lol

The great lark is to load up on debt, take out a lump sum to pay it off, holiday, new car then get the full pension while sitting on a small fortune called the primary residence. The aged pension cost to the budget has increased by $13B a year in a decade. It's an unsustainable system. The aged budget is already over $50B a year and the boomers have barely begun retiring or increasing the demands on the health budget. How does a rapidly shrinking tax paying population keep things running? We peaked at 1.5 workers per dependant in 2010. By 2020 it'll be just 1.4 and 2030 down to 1.3. .?

Most people who have substantial sums in their super tend to take it as a self funded pension.
Those who have low amounts tend to spend it and access the government aged pension.
So again, your focus on wanting to penalise savers, and promote spending.

The top 5% of income earners receive over 20% of Government funding for super. Why? It's quite likely these people would have enough assets to not be eligible for a pension, so why do they receive around $3.3B in annual funding on their contributions? Why do the millions of low income earners pay 15% more tax on their contributions than income earned, or at best get a 4% reduction in their tax.?

How many of the top 5% of income earners will access a government aged pension?

Forget about the top 5%.
Think about the 'joe average'.
Most people fall into the middle to low income earners
Some have saved enough, by doing without, to self fund.
Some have spent everything and recieve the equivilent of $850,000 in the bank at 3.5%.
I know who I feel sorry for.

 

[sydboy007]

Ask yourself, how much effort it would take you to save enough to supply yourself with a $32,000 dollar pension.
Also we are talking about saving it over the last 30 years.
For a comparison working on on inflation of 5% in thirty years you will have to have saved enough to better a pension of $94,000/ year.
Then to better a pension or equal a pension of $94,000 at 4% return(which are current rates) you will need to have saved $2.5million.
While your neighbour spends everything, has a ball and gets $94k, then someone tells you, What's your problem.lol

Not sure what you mean by inflation of 5%. We've rarely had a full year of inflation above 3% for a couple of decades now. Why does the hard working single gen x on $50K get access to little to no benefits, yet a single pensioner can earn similar amounts tax free but avail themselves of a number of Government benefits?

I'd say you could achieve a $32K pension in todays dollars with roughly $800K in various ILBs and floating rate corporate bonds with some higher yielding hybrids for a bit of extra cash as reward for the extra risk. Plenty offering relatively safe 6-7% yields. Anyone accepting a 4% yield is either lazy or far too conservative for their own good.

Most people who have substantial sums in their super tend to take it as a self funded pension.
Those who have low amounts tend to spend it and access the government aged pension.
So again, your focus on wanting to penalise savers, and promote spending.

What do you consider a low amount? If someone can take out $150K to tart up the house and pay off the mortgage etc how is it good for the tax payers left to fund their full pension. $150K in some ILBs would provide around a 4% REAL cash flow yield indexed to CPI each qtr - $500 extra income each month. Shouldn't the system be designed to minimise the revenue drain on the budget?

Currently the age pension asset rules encourages over investment in housing. I've lost count of the times pensioners in those news paper columns have been told to renovate and then get centre link to reassess their pension eligibility now they've lowered their assessable asset base. Why does a pensioner with a $1M house - plenty would have this if they live in a capital city - have a good chance to gain a full pension, but a pensioner with a $1M share portfolio will most likely get nothing? With housing representing up to 80% of a households wealth, why is it excluded from determining who gets access to the aged pension? I'm not saying assess the full value, but it's going to be increasingly hard to justify providing a full aged pension to someone with a high level of relative wealth to the younger gen x and gen y who have been priced out of the housing market due to boomer investors and increasingly foreign investors.

How many of the top 5% of income earners will access a government aged pension?

Forget about the top 5%.
Think about the 'joe average'.
Most people fall into the middle to low income earners
Some have saved enough, by doing without, to self fund.
Some have spent everything and recieve the equivilent of $850,000 in the bank at 3.5%.
I know who I feel sorry for.

How can we forget about the top 5% when they're receiving the equivalent to 10% of the current pension expenditure in super subsidies, and that's just on their annual contributions? Wouldn't we be better off targeting super in a much more economical way? Why do the poorest people on < 18K pay more in super tax than they do on their taxable income. The whole super system is designed to provide the greatest assistance to the rich.

$3.6B a year would build a decent toll free road or fund a major mass transit upgrade in a capital city. It's not small change. I'd prefer to see it added to the bottom 3 income decile super accounts so when they retire they do have a balance big enough to provide a reasonable top up to their pension.

 

[sptrawler]

Pointless continueing the 'super' loop.

How about this for a missed opportunity, Lynas, they mine the rare eath minerals in W.A.

However they decided to build the processing plant in Malaysia, well it has gone frrom bad to worse for them.
Maybe if they had processed it here, they would now be making a profit.

It just looks like, they are being held to ransom.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/21918028/lynas-flags-need-for-more-cash/

By the way I have no interest or holding in them, just see it as another company trying to rip out our minerals and value add offshore.

It really is the root cause of our problems.IMO

This is the issue the Government has to address, value adding here, is just as easy as in Malaysia.

 

[sptrawler]

It's also funny that the Government can talk about antiquated rules from the 1930's requiring an overhaul.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-11/berg-time-to-ditch-antiquated-media-regulations/5311800

When the Government system is older and more outdated, also it costs us a fortune in taxes to support:

Federal politicians(from all parties) and their staff, then their pension entitlements.

State politicians(from all parties) and their staff, then their pension entitlements.

Local government costs and their pensions and entitlements.

This system was put in place when, the only way of getting information across the country, had to be done by surface mail(ship).

Therefore a State government was needed to make local decissions, now we have instantaneous communication, it negates the requirement for so many levels of government.IMO

Why is it, the average worker, has to pull in his/her belt?

Maybe a bit of self appraisal, is required from politicians.

 

[sptrawler]

This is an interesting headline in the SMH

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...rnaut--who-do-you-believe-20140313-34oxf.html

Well I for one would think Tony Abbott, has a miriad of current experts to make current decissions, from current information.

Bernie Fraser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Fraser_(economist)
Was Governor of the Reserve Bank from 1989 - 1996.
Since then I've seen him mainly in commercials for Australian super.

Ken Henry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Henry_(public_servant)
Was actually appointed by Costello.
The Labor Party used him to assess the current tax system, then acted on very few of the recomendations.

Ross Garnaut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Garnaut
He actually reported carbon capture, carbon storage and clean coal technology hopefully would be available within 20 years.

The problem is IMO taxing electricity generators, when there isn't any alternatives, just puts up the price of electricity. As trainspotter said.


So in a nutshell why would Abbott use these guys. Labor didn't

 

[sydboy007]

Pointless continueing the 'super' loop.

How about this for a missed opportunity, Lynas, they mine the rare eath minerals in W.A.

However they decided to build the processing plant in Malaysia, well it has gone frrom bad to worse for them.
Maybe if they had processed it here, they would now be making a profit.

It just looks like, they are being held to ransom.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/wa/a/21918028/lynas-flags-need-for-more-cash/

By the way I have no interest or holding in them, just see it as another company trying to rip out our minerals and value add offshore.

It really is the root cause of our problems.IMO

This is the issue the Government has to address, value adding here, is just as easy as in Malaysia.

Boils down to the fact that the processing of rare earths leaves over radioactive wastes. Not highly radioactive, but high enough that it's an issue to deal with.

Lynas believed things would be easier to do in Malaysia, but the locals have - probably rightly - jacked up over it as they don't quite trust their Government to ensure the proper treatment of this waste.

Only have to look at the Morwell coal mine fire to see how things can go wrong when you let companies self assess their obligations.