Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy

[Garpal Gumnut]

It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.
If you keep ramping up your household spending, when your wages aren't increasing. You end up bankrupt.
Unfortunately for us, the government doesn't go bankrupt, just hits us with more taxes.

But that's o.k because we think they are fabulous and brilliant and good managers. Jeez give me a break.

+1

Pity the small business owner.

They must hate Swan and Emerson.

gg

 

[McLovin]

Pre 1999 Unit Trust anyone? What about an unrelated private unit trust?

Howard government bought the borrowing rules btw, not Gillard.

Weren't pre-1999 unit trusts allowed to make loans to members of SMSF's even if the SMSF held units in the trust? It's not really the same as a SMSF borrowing money. I always though it was more about removing related party transactions. Maybe I'm wrong! pre-1999 was a bit before my time.

You're right on Howard bringing in those changes. If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.

 

[Some Dude]

It really doesn't matter, the change of government or GFC. The exponential government debt shows bad management.

Are you asserting the premise that when assessing the economic performance of a government, previous trends or external factors are not relevant?

Further, are you asserting that comparisons should be made on absolute and not relative values?

 

[sptrawler]

Are you asserting the premise that when assessing the economic performance of a government, previous trends or external factors are not relevant?

Further, are you asserting that comparisons should be made on absolute and not relative values?

No on the contrary, I am asserting that previous economic performance to a recognised constant is paramount.

Are you suggesting poor outcomes should be measured on different constants?

 

[Julia]

If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear. There's no need and if it blows up, it becomes the public's problem.

How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?

 

[Some Dude]

No on the contrary, I am asserting that previous economic performance to a recognised constant is paramount.

Are you suggesting poor outcomes should be measured on different constants?

The constant is trend, the absolute value, or the relative value, or comparison to other similar economies?

 

[McLovin]

How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?

Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?

Agree Julia, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

If a SMSF goes a/up, so be it.

Swan's deprecating attitude towards workers with SMSF, however, is unforgivable.

He and Labor will be wiped at the polls by the small business constituency.

gg

 

[sptrawler]

How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?

I think that was just a glib one liner, as was seen when an investment company went under.
Most smsf take responsibilty for their own outcomes, I haven't heard many of them complaining.
We can lose our own money, we don't have to blame someone else for losing it.LOL

 

[sptrawler]

Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?

Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:

At least smsf people have shown a sense of responsibility and saved, that would indicate they would not change their lifetime pattern.
Obviously it is a foreign concept tothe younger generation. You are so lost, vote labor, you need them.

 

[sails]

Is the black line the change of government or the GFC. You have stated your opinion about one but what do you believe is the effect of the other on that plot?

lol - why ask such a question when there is a note on the chart noting that the black line is the November 2007 election???

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:

Centre bloody link.

With an odd $900 here or there from the imbeciles who go by the name of the ALP.

gg

 

[McLovin]

Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:

Superannuation enjoys concessionary rates of taxation on both the contributions and the capital and income earnt. The idea being that you pay reduced tax on that income because in future years it will take pressure off the public purse to provide for you.

Different kettle of fish to someone paying income tax and then "p!ssing it up against a wall".

 

[sptrawler]

Superannuation enjoys concessionary rates of taxation on both the contributions and the capital and income earnt. The idea being that you pay reduced tax on that income because in future years it will take pressure off the public purse to provide for you. If someone wants to p!ss their money up against a wall that they have earnt and paid tax on, I could care less.

Well then don't complain if it blows up, you obviously don't give a rats either way.

A lot of older people haven't had the advantage of years in super, therefore they have had to forego a lot of lifestyle to get money in super.
For younger people it isn't as much of an issue 'Yet' LOL

 

[McLovin]

Well then don't complain if it blows up, you obviously don't give a rats either way.

What does that even mean?

 

[sptrawler]

What does that even mean?

Refer back to your post #47

 

[Some Dude]

lol - why ask such a question when there is a note on the chart noting that the black line is the November 2007 election???

Yeah, for some reason I didn't notice that earlier and then after the discussion zoomed in for a diagram I am drawing up and saw it. My bad <Looks for the emoticon where one puts on their glasses>

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Yeah, for some reason I didn't notice that earlier and then after the discussion zoomed in for a diagram I am drawing up and saw it. My bad <Looks for the emoticon where one puts on their glasses>

Don't feel bad Dude,

I too was in denial when Fraser buggered the economy up and ole Hawke/Keating came in.

Just look forward to a better future under Abbott/Hockey. your children will thank you.

gg

 

[Julia]

Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?

I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.

If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear.

Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I was seeking clarification with respect to investments going bad in Super. Public super funds are eligible for some compensation if they invest in something that goes bad, e.g. Banksia. SMSFs are not.
I thought you might have been referring to that.

Would you rather people didn't bother attempting to fund their own retirement with SMSFs? Rather just fritter away their income during their working years in the happy knowledge that the taxpayer will provide them with at least a poverty line income in retirement?

As sptrawler has said, at least people who are motivated to set up a SMSF, with all its legal obligations and restrictions, are making a genuine attempt to provide for themselves. I'd have thought that warranted approval rather than criticism.

Overall SMSFs are doing very well, outperforming most of the public super funds.
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you are apparently antagonistic toward the sector.


Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.

+1

gg