|
Corro, or c.g.i. Or wavy tin was invented around 1820, and the wurli is post photography, obviously.
|
Then there's the archetypal story of the aboriginal woman walking down the street in Alice with a big sheet of tin on her head ...... She'd just come from the divorce court and she got the house!
|
they don't allow preservation of the asset if there is not enough cash in the family to pay out the mortgage on the death of the second spouse, if that's the arrangement. It's just yet another form of middle class (and all too often upper class) welfare as far as I'm concerned. |
I went into one of these 'online' calculators for reverse mortgages and discovered that if I borrowed a fairly modest amount of around $250K after eleven years I wouldn't own a single bloody brick!
Bank of Bendigo operate a better system in some areas. You tell them how much of the value of your property you want to liquidate, they value the property and arrive at a percentage figure that they will take from the final value of the property after the last joint owner dies or the property is sold, no interest paid, the only losers are any relatives that thought they might be up for a big payout! Tough. |
I repeat my post from the previous page.....
I note that there has not been any mention of retired Politicians and their (obscenely generous) parliamentary pensions. |
MTOW, I agree with you. But that doesn't mean the problem goes away. The difficulty seems to be the specific nature of 'the family home' - a particular property and its place in a family. While all cash is the same stuff (I think the word is 'fungible'), each house and its location are unique.breverse mortgages etc are attempts to partially liquidate the asset. There is no issue partially liquidating a pile of cash - it's already fully liquid.
|
Re pollies' entitlements: this has been doing the rounds for some time now. Can't say I have a problem with its sentiments - but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see any law to curb these entitlements enacted by any parliament.
Author : Dr. Dale Kerwin School of Education MT Gravatt Campus, Grifffith University ph. 07 3735 5884 | fax. 07 3735 5991 | email: [email protected] Subject: Change the Entitlements I absolutely agree, if a pension isn't an entitlement, neither is it for politicians. They keep telling us that paying us an aged pension isn't sustainable. So then, paying politicians all the perks they get is even less sustainable! The politicians themselves, in Canberra, brought it up, that the Age of Entitlements is over: The author is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in Australia will have this message. This is one idea that really should be passed around because the rot has to stop somewhere. Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over: 1. Scrap political pensions as Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do. 2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) should participate in Centrelink. A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they're out of office. Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians. Terminated politicians under 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people. 3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians' retirement fund must be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue. This money can be used to pay down debt Politicians created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them. 4. Politicians no longer vote themselves a pay raise as Politicians pay should rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%. 5. Politicians should lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people. i.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare. 6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people. 7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/14. The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them. Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves. Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career. NOTE: The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our politicians should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work. If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three or so days for most Australians to receive the message. Don't you think it's time? THIS IS HOW YOU CAN FIX our Parliament and help bring fairness back into this country! If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete. If you wonder why concerned Australians are asking for your help, look at the figures below. REMUNERATION – SPECIFIED STATUTORY OFFICES Date of Effect 1 July 2014 Specified Statutory Office Base Salary (per annum) Total Remuneration for office (per annum) Chief of the Defence Force > $535,100 - $764,420 Commissioner of Taxation > $518,000 - $740,000 Chief Executive Officer, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service > $483,840 - $691,200 Auditor-General for Australia > $469,150 - $670,210 Australian Statistician > $469,150 - $670,210 “PAY FREEZE, NOT FAIR. SOB, SOB” Salaries of RETIRED Prime Minister and Politicians Office Additional salary (%) Salary as of 1 July 2014 Prime Minister 160 $507,338 Deputy Prime Minister 105 $400,016 Treasurer 87.5 $365,868 Leader of the Opposition 85.0 $360,990 House of Reps Speaker 75.0 $341,477 Leader of the House 75.0 $341,477 Minister in Cabinet 72.5 $336,599 Parliamentary secretary 25.0 $243,912 Other ministers 57.5 $307,329 Shadow minister 25.0 $243,912 Source: Remuneration Tribunal. The TOTAL annual wages for the 150 seats in the Parliament are: Prime Minister $507,338 Deputy Prime Minister $400,016 Treasurer $365,868 Leader of the Opposition $360,990 House of Reps Speaker $341,477 Leader of the House $341,477 Minister in Cabinet $336,599 Parliamentary secretary $243,912 Other ministers* $307,329 x 71 = A$21,820,359 Shadow ministers* $243,912 x 71 = A$17,317,752 The TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES (for 150 seats) = $41,694,311 - PER YEAR! And that’s just the Federal Politicians, no one else! For the ‘lifetime’ payment example (below) I used the scenario that: 1. They are paid ‘lifetime’ salaries the same as their last working year and 2. After retiring, the ’average’ pollie’s life expectancy is an additional 20 years (which is not unreasonable). It’s worth remembering that this is EXCLUDING all their other perks! SO, for a 20 years ‘lifetime’ payment (excluding wages paid while a Parliamentarian) Prime Minister @ $507,338 = A$10,146,760 Deputy Prime Minister @ $400,016 = A$8,000,320 Treasurer @ $365,868 = A$7,317,360 Leader of the Opposition @ $360,990 = A$7,219,800 House of Reps Speaker @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540 Leader of the House @ $341,477 = A$6,829,540 Minister in Cabinet @ $336,599 = A$6,731,980 Parliamentary Secretary @ $243,912 = A$4,782,240 Other ministers** @ $307,329 = A$6,146,580 x 71 =A$436,407,180 Shadow ministers** @ $243,912 = A$4,878,240 x 71 = A$346,355,040 Conclusions: TOTAL ‘life time’ (20 year) payments, (excluding wages paid while in parliament) = A$833,886,220 – OVER $833 MILLION EACH previous Prime Ministers including Gillard, Rudd, Howard, Keating, Fraser, Hawke, et al, add nauseum, are receiving $10 MILLION + EXTRA at taxpayer expense. Should an elected PM serve 4 years and then retire, each year (of the 4 years) will have cost taxpayers an EXTRA Two and a half million dollars per year! A$2,536,690. A 2 year retirement payment cut-off will SAVE our Oz bottom line A$792,201,909 *** NEARLY $800 MILLION. There are 150 seats in House, minus the 8 above = 142 seats, divided equally for example = 71 each for both shadow and elected ministers. This example excludes all wages paid while a parliamentarian AND all perks on top of that which include: Travel Hotels Secretarial Staff Speech Writers Restaurants Offices Chauffeured Limos Security Etc, Etc, Etc........... The present parliament of 150 seats will receive 20-year payments of A$833,886,220 less their annual salary x 2 years of A$83,388,622. [$41,694,311 x 2] “Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.” Doug Larson (English middle-distance runner who won gold medals at the 1924 Olympic Games in Paris, 1902-1981) YOU’RE RIGHT, YOU HAVE FOUND WHERE THE CUTS SHOULD BE MADE! ACTION: Push for a MAX 2 year post retirement payment (which will give them time to get a REAL JOB). Spread it far and wide folks. People should know. Dr. Dale Kerwin School of Education MT Gravatt Campus Grifffith University ph. 07 3735 5884 fax. 07 3735 5991 email: [email protected] |
You may agree with Dr Kerwin, but how do you make his proposal legal? Retrospectivity has a limited application in law. And who makes the law?
Even if changes were prospective only, who changes the law? The politicians. Can you really expect them to vote themselves out of financial security? In Australia at present, one of the best ways to catapult yourself into the top tier of income is to sit in Parliament for three terms. If you can do that, you can transform your life. Look at Gillard. In 1995, she was a solicitor, struggling to pay for modest renovations on a modest house in an ordinary suburb of Melbourne. Then she began her political career. In 1995 she was sacked by her employers and could no longer work as a lawyer. Then, after a period of unemployment, she became chief of staff to the Victorian premier. She was elected to federal parliament in 1998. Her income rose dramatically and she left about 15 years later as a very wealthy woman on a very large pension, and enjoying extensive benefits. Not bad for a dodgy little solicitor. |
RJM, the only way it will ever change is if Australia sees a 'Les Miserables' style revolution that succeeded and kicked the whole current system out and replaced it with something entirely different.
Knowing how many babies would be thrown out with the bathwater (apart from our money-grubbing ex-politicians) in any such revolution, I don't think there would be too many of us who'd be even remotely interested in seeing something like that come to pass. And even if it did, it would be about the safest bet in town that the bastards who took power after the event would look after themselves as well if not better than the current mob have. |
Its a weired twisted world when the conservatives start thinking and talking like socialists.:E
|
It's interesting to follow the election campaign in the UK. On current projections it looks as though they are about to descend into the same sort of political chaos that we endured when Gillard started her catastrophic turn and now with the Senate.
With an economy that seems to have turned the corner all the ultra lefties and nationalists are coming out of the woodwork and holding out their hands ... no, demanding with menaces would be more appropriate ... and promising catastrophe if the economic measures put in place to achieve the turnaround are not reversed and their demands for cash are not met. |
Etimegev .... I've just watched the 2nd. episode of a T.V. programme here in Oz, 'Inside the Commons', about life in the British parliament. Quite frankly it was frightening. None of the main players seem at all interested in running the country according to the wishes of the majority of voters ..... as for example a referendum on membership of the E.U. .....more a points scoring exercise over those they see as the opposition, whether in their own party or the other lot.
I live in hope that someone like Oliver arrives quite soon. |
None of the main players seem at all interested in running the country according to the wishes of the majority of voters ..... as for example a referendum on membership of the E.U. ..... more a points scoring exercise over those they see as the opposition, whether in their own party or the other lot. |
Rh ... "the EU is an important step to stop the cycle of violence" etc.
The problem is that the EU will probably lead to internal violence where the electorate eventually realises that democracy no longer exists. Unless of course in the future everyone ends up brain washed. Didn't some bloke once write a book about that ? |
On that topic, here is Aldous Huxley speaking at Berkeley in 1962. If you can spare the time to listen to it, it's very interesting.
|
RJM, the only way it will ever change is if Australia sees a 'Les Miserables' style revolution that succeeded and kicked the whole current system out and replaced it with something entirely different. The system is the system. Thats because both sides know that the EU is an important step to stop the cycle of violence that seems to plague mankind. As much as I like to take the p!ss out of it I tend to agree its the best way forward, if only we could get pest control in to get rid of the fruit loops. |
Worrals, did you read my third paragraph? I've added bold face to stress the point I thought I was making.
And even if it did, it would be about the safest bet in town that the bastards who took power after the event would look after themselves as well if not better than the current mob have. |
To be sure. But it's all Rudd/Gillard/Greens/the ABC/hostile
senate/mainstream medias fault.. |
Correct Hempy..glad you have,worked it out.
|
Agreed. Of course what defines a fruit loop (as opposed to a perfectly reasonable POV) is fairly subjective. The Greek issue is a classic, it is a failure of leadership at all levels, and over time, including Greece and the other countries involved. The Whole EU issue, entirely predictable. Societies should remain roughly Gaussian in their distribution, when you push to much one way or another, you flatten out that distribution, or at worse create a bath tub one, this tends towards instability. The question is, in our social evolution, who should give ground, well simply put, its the group trying to push for where we are going. Generally thats the left. The reason being, is the group that belongs where we are, or have been, have their values breed into them, that takes time to breed out. As such, the main political parties need to be smart enough to deal with that, and use nationalism and other tools in the tool box, with extreme care, they also need to have some lines they don't cross, and are bipartisan, no matter the cost. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:59. |
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.