Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Old 23rd Apr 2015, 08:10
  #17061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,205
The main reason the super system is a mess is because both sides of politics keep messing with it . From the word go it's been used as a partisan political football to score cheap brownie points. I usually support Shorten, but I think he's screwed up with this. $1.5 million is not a huge superannuation package, and many of us who entered the workplace after the introduction of mandatory super will have larger superannuation savings than the current retirees, without really trying.

Of course, in the meantime, successive govenments between now and my retirement will no doubt mess it up even further.
And yes, the Canadian system sounds like a good one.
Worrals in the wilds is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 08:43
  #17062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by Worrals in the wilds View Post
I usually support Shorten, but I think he's screwed up with this. $1.5 million is not a huge superannuation package
worrals,

Don't be fooled: it is not a $1.5m limit, but a $75k limit which is currently the income from 5% of $1.5m.

Come a better interest return (8-10%) and the super-fund amount to produce that return is only $750,000 to $937,500. Hardly the domain of the rich and wealthy.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 08:48
  #17063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,205
Cheers, thanks for that.
For couples, is it individual or combined?
Worrals in the wilds is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 08:52
  #17064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
The whole thing is typical labor/socialist divisive politics. Its the same old tried and true method, a bit like nationalism. You notice every thing is prefixed with rich this, super rich that, and basically trying to create the myth of a wealthy elite class being the problem. They like to keep the them and us thing going.

In essence the way I'm going they can do what they like and it will never be a problem for me.. At the end of the day I don't regard anything under several million in a nest egg as being super rich.
rh200 is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 09:24
  #17065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by Worrals in the wilds View Post
Cheers, thanks for that.
For couples, is it individual or combined?
Not sure, as all the references indicate "a pension account", which generally covers a single account within a fund.

A fairly comprehensive description of the proposal and the pitfalls is here, from Superguide.com. A pertinent excerpt:

The ALP (Bill Shorten) claim the following: “This measure will affect approximately 60,000 account holders with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million and save around $9.2 billion over 10 years. This measure will not impact pensioners or part pensioners.”

Not true!

Bill Shorten promises that it will only affect account holders with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million. What nonsense! The ALP tried this trick last time and they lost financial credibility. The tax on pension earnings is likely to hit account balances as low as $500,000 in some years.

Here’s a basic lesson in arithmetic for the pollies. If pension earnings above $75,000 are taxed, and you say that only super balances in excess of $1.5 million will be affected, you are assuming all super accounts in pension phase earn 5% each year.

The long-term average annual return for a super account since compulsory super (SG) was introduced is 8% a year, according to figures released by Chant West. If we use this long-term average return, then those retirees with super pension account balances of more than $937,500 will be affected.

If we look at retirees holding Australian shares, then the investment returns may be higher, which means the pension earnings tax hits effects a much lower account balance. For example, let’s say a super pension account delivers 10%, which is not unusual in the odd year, when invested in growth assets such as shares. The new earnings tax would then hit account balances above $750,000, rather than $1.5 million balances, as Shorten claims.

For another comparison, I will use the median investment returns of growth super funds for the past 5 financial years (see article link at end of article for details on investment returns), to ascertain who could be affected by the introduction of a new pension earnings tax. As you can see, the new proposed tax is not based on your account balance, it is based on the level of earnings that you can produce on your account balance. In strong investment years, it will hit hundreds of thousands of super pension accounts.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 23rd Apr 2015, 10:13
  #17066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,205
Thanks, John.
And yes, rh200, I agree (it happens occasionally ).
It's a return to the Eat The Rich politics of the 1970s. IMO there's nothing wrong with a bit of Eat The Rich every now and again , but to be successful with their mainstream voters Labor have to be sure it's actually the rich they're eating.

Assuming the worst (that it cumulates partner super accounts), this is not a 'rich' super package. As an example, a bloke I worked with retired recently with combined super that's higher than that. He was a senior blue/yellow collar worker and his wife is a teacher. Granted, they had no children so his wife worked uninterrupted and their cost of living was lower than most (and he's a notorious tight-wad who has to be surgically separated from his wallet come shout time ), but two average Australian Labor voters who worked, paid off their average house and still had enough for a retirement 4WD and van to tour around in (the Great Australian Dream ) are now what Shorten considers rich.

Wonder if they'll still be voting Labor next federal election?

Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 23rd Apr 2015 at 10:24.
Worrals in the wilds is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 02:48
  #17067 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 885
The whole Bali Nine thing is sickening but the suggestion that a minute's silence should be held for them??

I thought that was reserved for those who had committed no crime yet been sent into a hail of foreign bullets by their own generals.

I am very anti the death penalty and feel very sorry for their families, but scum like these guys should be left to rot in prison like the other seven whose lives they destroyed not be made out to be some kind of heroes, especially so close to ANZAC day.
Clare Prop is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 03:10
  #17068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 73
Posts: 1,701
What??
I'm no proponent of the death penalty either - but that proposal left me speechless.
Their families can observe a minutes silence if they like.
The rest of us can breathe a little easier knowing that slime like that are out of circulation for good.


It's also going to give other people in the 'industry' pause for thought.
.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 03:19
  #17069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 76
Posts: 415
Latest:- Govt proposing to pay nannies to look after the children of the rich. Please note it will be means tested and will not be available to those earning more than $250,000 per year. I suppose that rules me out.

What planet are these people on?

Probably the thin end of the wedge. Next age pensioners will have to work for the pension by providing nanny services.

.
alisoncc is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 04:33
  #17070 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
but the suggestion that a minute's silence should be held for them??
I might be into that, whilst I'm sitting on the crapper, hmm guess it won't be to silent then.

Latest:- Govt proposing to pay nannies to look after the children of the rich
Where did you pull that one from, it was on the news this morning about the nanny system being trialled with the likes of police, nurse etc. Glad you think their over paid.
rh200 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 04:46
  #17071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
but the suggestion that a minute's silence should be held for them??
That suggestion is right up there with the ABC's suggestion on ANZAC Day that we should have a memorial for the conscientious objectors (the real war heroes of the Leftie latte sippers).

Like 'em or loathe 'em, the so-called Bali Two of Nine: their big mistake (which makes me suspect that their rehabilitation might be genuine) is that they're - (or at least one of them has been) offering Christian ministry to other inmates. That would go down like a lead balloon in Indonesia. Remember the very dishy lingerie model (Michelle somethingorother) who was busted for drugs in Bali and converted to Islam in prison and was then released? If this pair were playing the game by the Indons' rules, that's the route they'd have taken. The fact they haven't taken the Islamic conversion route has not helped their case.

As for the nannies: alisoncc, I reacted the same way that you did at first, but on reflection, it really is a step in the right direction. I think it doesn't go far enough. A far better option would be to allow one partner to employ his/her partner in a salary sharing deal, and if he/she doesn't have a partner, employ a nanny - but before tax. So if a parent is pulling (say) $80k a year, he/she can employ the spouse or a nanny for up to $40k a year and pay tax only on the $40k remaining after paying the spouse or nanny, while the nanny (or spouse) pays tax on the other $40k. That way, the government keeps out of it and drops all the myriad other child allowances currently being paid - and, if reports like the recent one from Adelaide are to be believed, widely rorted. While parents unable to cope without both working would enjoy the lower tax rates and two tax-free thresholds in return for giving up all those other child care benefits.

...and gosh some mothers might actually rear their own children. What a novel concept.
MTOW is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 04:48
  #17072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by alisoncc View Post
Latest:- Govt proposing to pay nannies to look after the children of the rich. Please note it will be means tested and will not be available to those earning more than $250,000 per year. I suppose that rules me out.

What planet are these people on?

Probably the thin end of the wedge. Next age pensioners will have to work for the pension by providing nanny services.

.
I made sure to get the opinion of the Fairfax media, so you could be shown to have misconstrued...again

Abbott government commits $250 million for nannies trial program

The Abbott government will spend almost $250 million on a two-year nanny trial, providing funding to about 10,000 children.

The trial, first reported by Fairfax Media last week, will provide funds for about 4000 nannies and target parents who do shift work, those who live in rural areas and those with special needs children from 2016.

Support for these groups is currently provided through an in-home care program, which has about 7000 places.
And from the ABC

"Key workers such as nurses, police officers, ambulance officers and firefighters, as well as other shift workers, are too often unable to access child care and take advantage of Government support because of the nature and hours of their work," Mr Morrison said.

"The same is often true for families in rural and regional areas and those who have children with special needs, for whom mainstream child care services are often inaccessible, lack the necessary flexibility or do not cater for their specific needs."
John Eacott is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 05:52
  #17073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Why quote the ABC if it is blatantly politically biased?
Hempy is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 06:06
  #17074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
Why quote the ABC if it is blatantly politically biased?
That's why.

Along with Fairfax.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 07:06
  #17075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 84
Any opinions out there about the "actors" who have insisted that Abbott "do something" to save the Bali 2.
One moron even implored Abbott to give the unfortunates 'diplomatic status' F.F.S !
bosnich71 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 07:45
  #17076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: On the Bay, Vic, Oz
Age: 76
Posts: 415
Note: my rant related to the cut-off point:

Please note it will be means tested and will not be available to those earning more than $250,000 per year.
So if you only earn $249,000 pa you would be entitled to government assistance to meet the costs of employing a nanny !!!
alisoncc is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 08:23
  #17077 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Any opinions out there about the "actors" who have insisted that Abbott "do something" to save the Bali 2.
I think most of them should stick to speaking lines that someone else has written for them. Whenever they come up with something they've made up themselves, they all too frequently show themselves to be an empty vessel.
MTOW is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2015, 11:42
  #17078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Any opinions out there about the "actors" who have insisted that Abbott "do something" to save the Bali 2.
Yea, I think they should go there and stand by them in unison. With a brave statement "that if you are going to shoot them, you shoot us too". Get rid of two lots of oxygen thieves.

Note: my rant related to the cut-off point:
Maybe you need to do some research on income distribution amongst populations, to get and idea of who's earning that amount and their long term prognostics.

All may not be what it seems, and the law of unintended consequences could come into play. These things are always a trade off on who you target, with the modelers getting it wrong more often than not.
rh200 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2015, 08:56
  #17079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,205
"Key workers such as nurses, police officers, ambulance officers and firefighters, as well as other shift workers, are too often unable to access child care and take advantage of Government support because of the nature and hours of their work," Mr Morrison said.
This is true. It is almost impossible for shiftworkers to get out of hours child care if they don't have family members who can help. Many experienced women in the above lines of work who would like to continue working (part or full time) have to change jobs or take desk positions (often at reduced skill level) once they have children. While I'm no fan of the current federal government, I think this is well worth trying if it enables experienced women to remain operational, should they want to do so.
...and gosh some mothers might actually rear their own children. What a novel concept.
Many do, while working 9-5. Like it or not it's become normal for mothers to work at least part time. However, women who are not 9-5 workers face many more hurdles wrt child-care than their dayworker sisters. The problem compounds when both parents are shift workers and have two rosters to juggle, which is not unusual in transport, law enforcement, health and emergency services sectors (among others).
Any opinions out there about the "actors" who have insisted that Abbott "do something" to save the Bali 2.
Yeah nah. Way too many opinions floating around out there already. I am very sorry for both families, and I wouldn't wish their plight on anyone. If I support any argument against the death penalty, it's that the penalty punishes the condemned person's blameless family. I thought Michael Chan spoke very well about it, with dignity and poise.

Other than that, and much as I am by the three ring circus and high drama that's been propogated by the Indonesian government and our own mainstream media*, I stick by my previous opinion; the Indons have the death penalty for drug trafficking, which they widely advertise. Their country, their rules. Most people I've spoken to over the past week have a similar POV; as previously stated, IMO the media (including Murdoch) has been far more vitriolic than the average person on the street. While it's interesting to see the Murdoch press tout for judicial mercy (there's a first time for everything) the MSM coverage has largely consisted of breathless anti-execution righteousness coupled with a ghoulish 'watch our coverage, we'll bring it to you first' voyeurism.

*Last night's seven news presenter cheerfully announced that their Sunrise News coverage would start early at 0500 'to bring all the lastest updates from the Death Island.' IMO their coverage even trumped their previous best 'crime porn' effort, where they live broadcasted footage from their news helicopter following the prison van carrying convicted murder G Baden Clay from the Brisbane Supreme Court all the way to the ing prison.
I'm sure it won't be long before they come up with something even more rank.

Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 29th Apr 2015 at 13:32.
Worrals in the wilds is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2015, 03:58
  #17080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 144
I agree Worrals, unfortunately the media does it again. We are all familiar with how pathetic and at times factually incorrect they report events in aviation and it seems with this they again reach a new low.

I oppose the death penalty, I make that very clear, however I oppose it everywhere and to everyone it affects and I remain consistent whereas the media just plainly hasn't. Remember the front pages of newspapers when they were first found guilty and sentenced? It was akin to "fry, piggy, fry".

And the disgraceful way that all the media (including the Australian media) crowded and intimidated the families heading to the island for the final time whilst at the very same time as showing that footage denouncing the treatment of the families on the voice-over.

We can all think what we like about those that were executed. However, I think we can find somewhere in our hearts for the families of the condemned. To hear the shots that would ultimately kill their children is a pain they will carry for the rest of their days.
Jeps is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.