Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,843
- Reactions
- 10,681
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.
Pre 1999 Unit Trust anyone? What about an unrelated private unit trust?
Howard government bought the borrowing rules btw, not Gillard.
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?
How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?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.
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?
How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?
How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?
How does it become the public's problem if a SMSF blows up?
Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?
Is the black line the change of government or the GFC. You have stated your opinion about one but what do you believe is the effect of the other on that plot?
Mate, who the hell is going to pay the shortfall for those who have pi$$ed it all against the wall, when they retire.:1zhelp:
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. 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.
What does that even mean?
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>
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.Who's going to pay for the shortfall when they retire?
Many SMSFs have a Trust Deed which precludes any gearing. I doubt that many are doing much borrowing at all.If you ask me, SMSF's should not be allowed to gear.
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.
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?