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

The ScoMo Government

Jump to new
I think the SMSF rebate did threaten a lot of tradies, most around here are subbies or self employed and their accountants are strongly urging SMSF as a way of encouraging old age funding.

Those working for wages almost certainly would be in industry funds but so many companies require their installers, subbies, repair and maintence type blokes to have an ABS or no work.
 
SirRumpole said:
Or paying higher taxes so other people can get a baby bonus or Family Tax Welfare.
Click to expand...
By the way, there was no baby bonus or family tax benefit, when we had our four kids in the 1970's.
Gough actually from memory brought in the single mother's pension then, before then when women got a black eye, they just had to turn the other cheek. There has been a constant change in welfare, to adapt to changing public demographics and needs both social and financial, I'm sure it hasn't finished changing yet.
 

I really don't know if child payments makes things better or worse. Some people who can't afford kids would spend the money on alcohol, drugs , booze or gambling, and others would do the right thing and spend it on the kids.

Maybe FTB should only be available to those on Newstart or below the median wage, but that's another election losing policy so it will never happen.
 
SirRumpole said:
Maybe FTB should only be available to those on Newstart or below the median wage, but that's another election losing policy so it will never happen.
Click to expand...
I suppose the problem with that is, those on newstart or below the median wage, might not pay any tax any way, so reducing the tax is probably difficult.
 
macca said:
I think the SMSF rebate did threaten a lot of tradies, most around here are subbies or self employed and their accountants are strongly urging SMSF as a way of encouraging old age funding.
Click to expand...

The message as received might differ between industries but the one I've heard for over a quarter century now has been pretty consistent.

Save for your retirement because the Pension won't be enough and with a not so subtle hint that it may not exist at all or at least not in a form that's at all desirable. Plus a firm reminder that anything in Super is subject to government control and can't be accessed until you're 60 (it was previously 55) so you need a decent chunk of it outside the system which means paying tax on it.

This whole issue is like many things in this country at the moment. Water, fires, climate, energy, taxes and so on all have something in common. We haven't stuffed up the plan or suffered some bad luck, we're not comparable to the tourist who misses the train because they didn't realise that it was a public holiday or their watch was slow.

No, we're akin to the clown who consciously decided to not check any train timetables and ranted about religion and being offended when someone at the hotel handed them one which they promptly ripped up and threw in the bin. As a country we haven't failed at planning but rather, we've consciously chosen to avoid any sort of planning at all across all sorts of things from how to collect tax through to how to keep the lights on. What we have now are the consequences of that failure - not a failure of planning but a failure to actually have any plan at all.
 
sptrawler said:
Gough actually from memory brought in the single mother's pension then, before then when women got a black eye, they just had to turn the other cheek.
Click to expand...
One of the better moves certainly.

Nobody should be forced to suffer physically due to economic circumstances leaving them trapped.
 
That pretty well sums it up smurf, the problem now is, as each Party tries to patch up the tax system, any changes are debated on social media so the plebs are much better informed.

Ten years ago, all the debating was done on the morning programmes by presenters on $500k a year, now that tripe is being challenged by people as happens on ASF.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just saying no one is dies wondering, they get all sides of the arguments now, which IMO is great.
 
Smurf1976 said:
One of the better moves certainly.

Nobody should be forced to suffer physically due to economic circumstances leaving them trapped.
Click to expand...
Yes I think that was the greatest thing Labour has achieved, I grew up in a violent family, Dad coming home from the pub and smashing everything including Mum, my brother and myself.
It wasn't fun and there wasn't any escape, a new Country, Mum and three kids no where to go.
The mid 1960's rent 10pound a week, dad earning 19pound a week, Mum getting two pound a week to feed us all and a thick ear if she couldn't do it.
Ah the good old days.
 
At least Albo doesn't lead with his chin and comes across as an honest genuine guy, that is a good start for labour.
If Labour can stop pandering to their 'mates', I'm sure they will win the next election, Albo needs to ignore Combet and all the other hacks and just focus on a vision for Australia he will kill it. IMO
 
Those over 50 in the car manufacturing, as smurf said, would probably not get work without heading bush. Also as smurf said those who couldn't get work, would probably have trouble getting welfare with the redundancy and leave payouts. I was made redundant at 56, and due to joint replacements can't pass a medical, also not eligible for the pension untill 66 1/2 so two and a half years to go.lol
I have certainly changed my personal compass, one swipe of a pen can change your whole future, it didn't happen but it did show how easily it could happen.
So I go back to my old proverb, "allow for the worst, hope for the best". I spent 40 years of hard work getting to where I am, what it has shown me is not to be silly by taking 40 years getting rid of it.
 
sptrawler said:
I was made redundant at 56, and due to joint replacements can't pass a medical, also not eligible for the pension untill 66 1/2 so two and a half years to go.lol
Click to expand...
That's the classic scenario that's in the back of the mind of anyone with any sense.

A point comes where the job you've got is the last one you'll get and should that end prior to your intended retirement date well then that's it, working is most likely over at that point and if you're under pension age then you'd better have some decent savings or investments otherwise you've got a problem.
 
On Morrison-the inquiry into McKenzie is being done by a person that he has the power to fire.What sort of credible result will we get from this?I see the labor party has come around to supporting an ICAC,lets hope the Centre Alliance reintroduce the bill.We can then see which members are in favour or not.Remember when Rinehart bribed Joyce with 40k...in a country with decent laws they both should have been led off in handcuffs.All Joyce had to do was pay the money back the next day.At least Dastyari bit the dust.
I believe Australia is a country where dishonesty is accepted in politics.
 
SirRumpole said:
OK, lets do it like franking credits, a cash refund of tax not paid.
Click to expand...
I think people are not thinking sensibly about the franking credit issue, which is exactly what Bill wanted and ultimately cost him his job.
If franking refunds is the big issue they made it out to be, they should have just stopped them, full stop. They were introduced 20 years ago, just say we are no longer refunding them at all.
To try and sell the fact that they are only unaffordable to SMSF's and low income earners was dumb.
Then add to that the fact they said, if you transfer your SMSF to an Industry super Fund, you can have your franking credits back.
It really didn't come over very well.
Like I said if they stopped the credits completely, we would be in surplus and have the debt paid off in a few years. Trusts instead of paying tax on 100's of millions of dollars pay nothing because the tax is washed with franking credits.
I don't mind losing them, because they don't make a lot for me, but I think that wasn't the driving initiative behind the changes and it was just a deplorable act.
Just my opinion.
 

Yes, I agree they should have stopped them totally.

Alternatively they could have said something like

"if you want to claim franking credits, show us on your Tax Return your total income including tax free super (which is not required to be declared at the moment) and if this income is less than the median wage you can keep the credits, otherwise they are reduced dollar for dollar by the amount your income exceeds the median wage".

That would not inconvenience low income people while clawing some money back from those who don't need the credits.
 
Yes there was a multitude of ways they could have addressed the issue, but I'm sure it was patched together to force SMSF money into the Industry Funds, because of pressure from their mates in the sector.
What made it obvious it was a hotch potch policy, was the fact they included those on welfare, then immediately it was brought to their attention they dropped them.
If it had been put through a rigorous process during development, that would have been highlighted in the early part, then that would highlight the disparity between those who are close to the pension cap getting a much better deal than those above it.
No it wasn't well thought out and it had holes blown through it, these days it has to be able to stand scrutiny, because with social media it is definitely going to get it.
They could have just said you can only claim $x of franking credits max, that's it everyone.
 
sptrawler said:
They could have just said you can only claim $x of franking credits max, that's it everyone.
Click to expand...
Lots of ways it could have been done but ultimately any tax which in practice can be avoided simply by having a lot of money is never going to be acceptable to most.

It would be essentially the same argument if the states hiked car registration fees but gave an exemption for luxury vehicles using the argument that anyone with a new $100K car has already paid a lot of tax so we need to hit some old guy with a 22 year old Camry and make them pay more. It won’t fly no.
 
Most of the guys I worked with were retiring self funded on super all poured money in when you could put in up to $100k per year and continued to pay in up to the before tax threshold.

60% would be hard Labour voters

I am self funded combination of property / downsizing and super all planned out 30 years ago its not that hard to do would have retired earlier but had to put kids through uni just kept working for their security.

"Gutting TAFE as has been done is a disaster." I would say criminal larger companies were becoming more and more reluctant to take on apprentices and why would you with 457 visas of which both sides of politics guilty.
 
That pretty well sums up what I did, like you say if you start early enough it isn't hard.
What i'm finding now is a lot of my ex work mates, who just had a good time, are all looking around for someone to blame for the crap position they find themselves in.
Some who were sparkies, became supervisors and planners, now hitting retirement, are still renting and wondering where all their money went.
It amazes me how many people have the, "why worry I could be dead tomorrow" attitude when it come to saving.
A lot are going to be using a chunk of their super to pay off their mortgage, others are just going to have to rent and a few are well set up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
M
The Night of the Long Prawn
Replies
0
Views
3K
Michael Cornips
M
R
Multiple Sclerosis: If you know of any MS patients
Replies
4
Views
6K
noirua
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...