Do we really need pensioners to be taking off their shirts to let us know that something is out of whack here?

The old people have done their bit (and more) in their time, and us pea hearted slaves and greedy imports just go along with the political repertoire that they are acting like children. Well they are not children; they would like to be treated at least as well as the import taxi drivers that took their protest to the streets.

What a hopeless and pathetic generation they have spawned.

On ya maddy, I agree that pensioners deserve a better deal.

I feel that many are just unable to cope with the bureaucratic maze, which they need to negotiate to receive all entitlements.

We see many who can play the system like a maestro, and others who cannot, unfortunately they dip out.

Simplify and improve.
Making things work simply, is one of the most difficult things to achieve.

Good to see people are still willing to hit the streets and protest, even if it is just about self interest.

So how much free money from the government do pensioners get?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 9:21am:

Good to see people are still willing to hit the streets and protest, even if it is just about self interest. So how much free money from the government do pensioners get?

Age Pensioners get about $270 a week.  I wouldn't call it free money, most of them paid taxes all their working lives and superannuation was almost unknown when they were in the workforce.  ::)

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 9:21am:

Good to see people are still willing to hit the streets and protest, even if it is just about self interest. So how much free money from the government do pensioners get?

I guess this means you eschew any government grants, pensions etc?

These dudes grew up knowing that they would receive a pension for the effort they put in and probably paid their share willingly.

It's pretty offensive to call it 'free money' as they contributed their fair share in preparation for their entitlement.

deepthought wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 3:36pm:

[ I guess this means you eschew any government grants, pensions etc? These dudes grew up knowing that they would receive a pension for the effort they put in and probably paid their share willingly. It's pretty offensive to call it 'free money' as they contributed their fair share in preparation for their entitlement.

Most of the elderly that I know get a War Widow's Pension and own their own homes.  They would be more than offended if they thought people like Freediver considered their pittance "free money".

Perhaps Freediver's oldies are still working to pay off the Mortgage?

People who are currently entitled to the Age Pension were born either before WW2 or during it.

Babyboomers are those born from about 1950-1960, so in the 58-48 age group and most would have been entitled to superannuation for most of their working lives to save for their retirement.  

$270 per week is a lot of money. How much is it getting reduced to?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 5:11pm:

$270 per week is a lot of money. How much is it getting reduced to?

You are wasting your talent running a Forum, mate.  You should be a stand up comedian.  ;D

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 5:11pm:

$270 per week is a lot of money.

Yes, it will pay your rent and . . .

Oh well, it will pay your rent anyway.

deepthought wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2008 at 5:11pm: $270 per week is a lot of money. Yes, it will pay your rent and . . . Oh well, it will pay your rent anyway.

The pension is too low it should be twice that amount and I think that Rudd should have given them a rise, but how do you address the issue? I mean they really need a serious rise . All that said its interesting to see the Liberals and all their huggers comming out and whinging about it, they had twelve years to improve the conditions for pensioners and failed .

Am I right that the pension hasn't been reduced - they were just protesting that it hasn't been increased? Isn't this just like the Unions asking for higher wages to 'deal with' inflation?

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 10:46am:

Am I right that the pension hasn't been reduced - they were just protesting that it hasn't been increased? Isn't this just like the Unions asking for higher wages to 'deal with' inflation?

If you understood economics you would understand that by not increasing it, it is being reduced.  Since the Liebor government started buggering Australia costs have blown out with all utilities and basics rising at a level not seen for more than a decade, fuel is at record prices and interest rates are where they were when Cheating had everyone by the balls.

Yet the pension did not increase.  Even more deliberately cruel was that when Cardboard Kev slashed the seniors bonus then caved in to public pressure and reinstated it he promised to make it a part of forward estimates.  He did not do that.  He broke his promise to seniors.  

And he rattled on about 'working families' until everyone threw up but not once did he bother to mention pensioners.  In fact he gave 'working families' a tax cut and an increase in the tax threshold but he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest.

Further to that by shifting the income threshold on the medicare income levy he encouraged hundreds of thousands to abandon private health which will cause the premiums to rise.  People on fixed incomes (read pensioners) will get hit the hardest by rises in private health.

So I suggest a look at the big picture mate.  As a leftard your focus is, as always, too narrow.

In fact he gave 'working families' a tax cut and an increase in the tax threshold but he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest.

Almost everyone got an income tax cut, including pensioners, if they were paying any.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 1:57pm:

In fact he gave 'working families' a tax cut and an increase in the tax threshold but he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest. Almost everyone got an income tax cut, including pensioners, if they were paying any.

Yes, almost everyone did.  "But he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest".

Why is it necessary to say it twice before you hear it?

Are you talking about super, or interest earned from other sources. If from other sources, it would be treated just like any other income and receive the same tax breaks.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 2:12pm:

Are you talking about super, or interest earned from other sources. If from other sources, it would be treated just like any other income and receive the same tax breaks.

I'm talking about what I said I was talking about - interest which is counted as income.  So it could come from savings for example.

But while almost everyone else got a tax break Cardboard Kev shafted the pensioners because they are not his union mates.

That's why I vote Liberal because we righties don't selectively and divisively support groups of people - we care about all Australians.

Quote:

If you understood economics you would understand that by not increasing it, it is being reduced.  Since the Liebor government started buggering Australia costs have blown out with all utilities and basics rising at a level not seen for more than a decade, fuel is at record prices and interest rates are where they were when Cheating had everyone by the balls.

There has been no real increase in 15 years - don't just apply it to to the Rudd govt.  Howard was in power for 12 of those years.  How the hell will Australia pay for an increase? There's no future fund for seniors is there?  


Quote:

Further to that by shifting the income threshold on the medicare income levy he encouraged hundreds of thousands to abandon private health which will cause the premiums to rise.  People on fixed incomes (read pensioners) will get hit the hardest by rises in private health.

That is only supposition.  There is no proof that "thousands" will abandon private health insurance.


Quote:

But while almost everyone else got a tax break Cardboard Kev shafted the pensioners because they are not his union mates.

That is a load of rubbish.  Howard during his reign of terror even ensured self funded retirees could get a pension.   Welfare almost doubled under Howard.   It is supposed to be for the needy.  Maybe when Rudd tightens means testing for some pensioners - especially those who choose to live overseas, the govt. can afford to give those that genuinely need it an increase.

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Quote: If you understood economics you would understand that by not increasing it, it is being reduced.  Since the Liebor government started buggering Australia costs have blown out with all utilities and basics rising at a level not seen for more than a decade, fuel is at record prices and interest rates are where they were when Cheating had everyone by the balls. There has been no real increase in 15 years - don't just apply it to to the Rudd govt.  Howard was in power for 12 of those years.  How the hell will Australia pay for an increase? There's no future fund for seniors is there?   [quote]Further to that by shifting the income threshold on the medicare income levy he encouraged hundreds of thousands to abandon private health which will cause the premiums to rise.  People on fixed incomes (read pensioners) will get hit the hardest by rises in private health.

That is only supposition.  There is no proof that "thousands" will abandon private health insurance.


Quote:

But while almost everyone else got a tax break Cardboard Kev shafted the pensioners because they are not his union mates.

That is a load of rubbish.  Howard during his reign of terror even ensured self funded retirees could get a pension.   Welfare almost doubled under Howard.   It is supposed to be for the needy.  Maybe when Rudd tightens means testing for some pensioners - especially those who choose to live overseas, the govt. can afford to give those that genuinely need it an increase.[/quote]

Of course there have been increases in the pension. It happens annually.  But the issue now is Cardboard Kev's economy which (using their own words) is 'out of control'.  With inflation now matching Cheating's of 15 years ago the pension needs to rise by that burgeoning amount or they are going backwards.  John Howard's Australia maintained an average 2.5% inflation for its entire term.  The pension incrementally rose to match inflation.  At the moment the pensioners are going backwards.

The 'proof' that thousands will abandon private health is in the Liebor Budget.  If you choose not to believe that bit what else don't you believe about the document?  Any other bits you think are 'supposition'?

And you supported my argument with the last bit of your rant.  That's exactly what I said.   We Liberals favour all Australians, we don't just slip our mates heaps and abandon pensioners to the wolves.  

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Quote: If you understood economics you would understand that by not increasing it, it is being reduced.  Since the Liebor government started buggering Australia costs have blown out with all utilities and basics rising at a level not seen for more than a decade, fuel is at record prices and interest rates are where they were when Cheating had everyone by the balls. There has been no real increase in 15 years - don't just apply it to to the Rudd govt.  Howard was in power for 12 of those years.  How the hell will Australia pay for an increase? There's no future fund for seniors is there?   [quote]Further to that by shifting the income threshold on the medicare income levy he encouraged hundreds of thousands to abandon private health which will cause the premiums to rise.  People on fixed incomes (read pensioners) will get hit the hardest by rises in private health.

That is only supposition.  There is no proof that "thousands" will abandon private health insurance.


Quote:

But while almost everyone else got a tax break Cardboard Kev shafted the pensioners because they are not his union mates.

That is a load of rubbish.  Howard during his reign of terror even ensured self funded retirees could get a pension.   Welfare almost doubled under Howard.   It is supposed to be for the needy.  Maybe when Rudd tightens means testing for some pensioners - especially those who choose to live overseas, the govt. can afford to give those that genuinely need it an increase.[/quote]

Yes I hate these bludgers who suck an ozzy pension and then choose to live on it O/S.

Does anyone know what the pension bill is? I am serious when I say they should get double I'd like to know how much that might cost.

Deepthought, unless you think Rudd created a special tax to apply to interest that seniors get, they will be getting the same tax breaks as everyone else.

Amadd wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 5:59am:

Well they are not children; they would like to be treated at least as well as the import taxi drivers that took their protest to the streets.

Can you elaborate on this?

wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 3:36pm:

Yes I hate these bludgers who suck an ozzy pension and then choose to live on it O/S. Does anyone know what the pension bill is? I am serious when I say they should get double I'd like to know how much that might cost.

I think that migrants who worked in Australia (and paid income tax) for a certain length of time (25 years?) receive a "part" Australian Age Pension should they return "home" to live permanently in their old age.  If they worked in the old country before migrating to Australia they would get a "part" Pension from that country as well.  It certainly wouldn't be enough for them to live in luxury.  Some migrants get home sick in their old age and never really considered Australia home.  :o

I have no idea how many Australians are on the Age Pension but I did read somewhere recently a figure of something like 350,000 Age Pensioners ... but don't quote me on that.

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 3:19pm:

Howard during his reign of terror even ensured self funded retirees could get a pension.

I think you are wrong there, Mantra. Self funded retirees do not get an Age Pension.  What Howard did was give them a special Pension Card so that they could claim reductions in pharmaceuticals and so forth.  I think that is similar to the Pensioner Concession Card that Age Pensioners get which allows them to travel on public transport at a reduced rate, cheaper pharmaceuticals, and be Bulk Billed at the GP (IF the GP Bulk Bills at all) and some Councils do offer reductions in Rates, etc.

Considering that the Age Pension for a single person is only $270 a week ($220 each for a couple) it is a pittance for those people to live on even if they own their own home. They still have to feed and clothe themselves, pay electricity, rates, phone, petrol, car maintenance etc.  If they don't own their own home they are stuffed ... there is a rental rebate but I think the maximum they can get is about $45 a week.

The Age Pension is Asset and Income tested too.  Everything you have (car, furniture, clothes, etc) are considered "assets". Your home is excluded.  If you have an investment property, that is income tested.  I was told by an elderly neighbour that each year Centrelink sends out a form to fill out ...  Centrelink wants to know how much you have in your bank account and whether your assets have changed (i.e. sold your car if you had one, taken in a boarder, etc.).  As if you could save anything on that pittance.  >:(

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 3:45pm:

Deepthought, unless you think Rudd created a special tax to apply to interest that seniors get, they will be getting the same tax breaks as everyone else.

No, they will be getting the same 'tax breaks' they always had.  But theirs doesn't change while almost everyone else's does.

So they got ignored while almost everyone else got something.  Cardboard Kev showed he doesn't give a sh!t for pensioners.  In that sense it is a typical Liebor budget where the most disadvantaged get shafted.

Quote:

I think you are wrong there, Mantra. Self funded retirees do not get an Age Pension.  What Howard did was give them a special Pension Card so that they could claim reductions in pharmaceuticals and so forth.  I think that is similar to the Pensioner Concession Card that Age Pensioners get which allows them to travel on public transport at a reduced rate, cheaper pharmaceuticals, and be Bulk Billed at the GP (IF the GP Bulk Bills at all) and some Councils do offer reductions in Rates, etc.

There are many self funded retirees receiving the aged pension neferti.  I know some of them personally.  Think back to those government advertisements a couple of years ago stating - even if you have never been entitled to a pension before, you will now under the coalition's new legislation (or something similar).

There are all sorts of whiz kid accountants making a fortune out of shuffling superannuation & investment funds around into pension strategies in order to fill this fairly recent legislation by the Howard government.  My neighbours live off the interest of their investments, but use their pension for the pokies - saves having to dig into their capital.

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

Quote: I think you are wrong there, Mantra. Self funded retirees do not get an Age Pension.  What Howard did was give them a special Pension Card so that they could claim reductions in pharmaceuticals and so forth.  I think that is similar to the Pensioner Concession Card that Age Pensioners get which allows them to travel on public transport at a reduced rate, cheaper pharmaceuticals, and be Bulk Billed at the GP (IF the GP Bulk Bills at all) and some Councils do offer reductions in Rates, etc. There are many self funded retirees receiving the aged pension neferti.  I know some of them personally.  Think back to those government advertisements a couple of years ago stating - even if you have never been entitled to a pension before, you will now under the coalition's new legislation (or something similar). There are all sorts of whiz kid accountants making a fortune out of shuffling superannuation & investment funds around into pension strategies in order to fill this fairly recent legislation by the Howard government.  My neighbours live off the interest of their investments, but use their pension for the pokies - saves having to dig into their capital.

They might be telling you porkies.

Pensions are subject to both the Assets Test and the Income Test.  Very little is excluded.

Self funded retirees do not get the Age Pension.

There is such a thing as the Seniors Concession Allowance which self funded retirees can get which is fairly recent.  This payment is income and asset tested too and paid to people who do NOT qualify for the Age Pension but are of Age Pension age. To get this payment they need to qualify for the Seniors Concession Card.   If they are on less than $40,000 (singles) or $80,000 (couples) they would qualify. That is probably what your "friends" are talking about. However, a $500 PER YEAR handout ($9.60 a week) wouldn't go very far at The Club.  ;)


Check Centrelink.  ::)

You're not making any sense Deepthought. Is there some kind of separate income tax scale for retirees? What is the income tax rate for retirees?

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 7:29pm:

You're not making any sense Deepthought. Is there some kind of separate income tax scale for retirees? What is the income tax rate for retirees?

Seniors have a different set of rules which impact on their income.  So the answer to your question is yes, there is a different set of tax scales for seniors.  It is very complicated as their income is affected by the Senior Australians Tax Offset, the Low Income Tax Offset, the Tax Threshold and the Medicare Levy.  Seniors are also means tested and income tested on their pensions.

The pensioners were left, right, left right out by Cardboard Kev's inflationary budget.

Are they generally taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-retirees?

Strong argument to increase aged pension

http://news.smh.com.au/national/strong-argument-to-increase-aged-pension-20080518-2fiu.html

The federal opposition says there is a very strong argument to increase the age pension, but has not yet committed to such a policy.

Quote:

Are they generally taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-retirees?

Senior couples aren't taxed until their combined income reaches $80,000 - so that's $80,000 tax free pa.  

A single person can receive up to $50,000 (I think) tax free.  

Yes, they do seem to get a good deal on income tax, but I guess there's no harm in protesting for more.

Quote:

Yes, they do seem to get a good deal on income tax, but I guess there's no harm in protesting for more

Greed has just escalated over the past decade.  $80,000 tax free and it's still not enough for some.  Single working people have to pay for this and what so many of these seniors have forgotten is that we still need to build Australia for future generations, not just think of making life comfortable for them.

There is a mentality where all these groups of people want to be rewarded for working - and they don't care who pays for it.  There will be no largesse for our young people as they mature and the last government has ensured that they slave to sustain these bribes to the older generations.

I hope Rudd toughens up the means testing as quickly as possible.  The screams of the greedy will be louder than those of the needy - that's a certainty.

It strikes me as a rather preverse incentive, given our labour shortage. Is it possible that some old people get more money by retiring than they would by working, because they are not taxed on interest etc?

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 8:49pm:

Quote: Are they generally taxed at a higher or lower rate than non-retirees? Senior couples aren't taxed until their combined income reaches $80,000 - so that's $80,000 tax free pa.   A single person can receive up to $50,000 (I think) tax free.

What rot.  Where do you get this nonsense?




freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 8:51pm:

Yes, they do seem to get a good deal on income tax, but I guess there's no harm in protesting for more.

You are more gullible than I thought.

Well, what do you think their tax rates are DT?

Quote:

What rot.  Where do you get this nonsense?

I may have made an error - but I can't find the site now where it gave those figures of $80,000 and $50,000.

I did find this in the Appropriation Bill 2006 - but I'm fairly sure it was upgraded sometime last year to the higher figures I mentioned.


Quote:

The tax offset is another measure for pensioners and senior Australians. Singles on an annual income of up to $25,867 and couples on an annual income of up to $43,360 will not be taxed. This is an excellent program for older Australians. They will be able to take advantage of the senior Australian tax offset. I commend this budget as one of the best Australia has seen.

Quote:

From 1 July 2007, more selffunded retirees may become eligible for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.  Changes being introduced from 1 July 2007 mean that some superannuation income streams will no longer be considered to be taxable income. This may result in your taxable income falling within CSHC eligibility limits. The income limits are $50,000 per year if you are single, $80,000 per year combined if you are a member of a couple, and $100,000 per year combined if you are a member of an illness separated couple. http://www.dva.gov.au/vetaffairs/june2007/page7.pdf

Thanks mantra.

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 9:38pm:

Quote: From 1 July 2007, more selffunded retirees may become eligible for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.  Changes being introduced from 1 July 2007 mean that some superannuation income streams will no longer be considered to be taxable income. This may result in your taxable income falling within CSHC eligibility limits. The income limits are $50,000 per year if you are single, $80,000 per year combined if you are a member of a couple, and $100,000 per year combined if you are a member of an illness separated couple. http://www.dva.gov.au/vetaffairs/june2007/page7.pdf

This has nothing to do with tax.  It is eligibility for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.  If you keep saying it poor old freediver keeps believing it.  Give the duffer a break.

mantra wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 9:29pm:

Quote: What rot.  Where do you get this nonsense? I may have made an error - but I can't find the site now where it gave those figures of $80,000 and $50,000. I did find this in the Appropriation Bill 2006 - but I'm fairly sure it was upgraded sometime last year to the higher figures I mentioned. [quote]The tax offset is another measure for pensioners and senior Australians. Singles on an annual income of up to $25,867 and couples on an annual income of up to $43,360 will not be taxed. This is an excellent program for older Australians. They will be able to take advantage of the senior Australian tax offset. I commend this budget as one of the best Australia has seen.

[/quote]


It's not as simple as that.  I already told you that the Seniors tax rules are subject to a number of parameters.  To get this tax offset for example requires satisfying all of four separate criteria.

I've been away from the forums for a bit.
In reply to Ray_A:


Quote:

Well they are not children; they would like to be treated at least as well as the import taxi drivers that took their protest to the streets.

Quote:

Can you elaborate on this?

Well the taking off of the shirts by the pensioners was a parody of the (mostly) mid-east taxi driver protestors who to took the streets demanding better security in taxi-cabs.

I've nothing against what the taxi drivers were protesting about, but shouldn't we also spare a thought for those who have dedicated their working lives to the betterment of this country prior to the arrival of many of those taxi drivers which were granted their demands?

As Mantra said: "Superannuation was hardly even known of in their day".

The pensioners of today are the ones to thank for any prosperity that we currently enjoy. It's far from being "selfish" to demand a reasonably comfortable retirement.
I wouldn't give up Jackshit for the betterment of this greedy nation if their treatment is anything to go by.

This has nothing to do with tax.

You brought it up DT. Do you remember making this complaint earlier in the thread?

In fact he gave 'working families' a tax cut and an increase in the tax threshold but he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2008 at 10:16pm:

This has nothing to do with tax. You brought it up DT. Do you remember making this complaint earlier in the thread? In fact he gave 'working families' a tax cut and an increase in the tax threshold but he did not do the same for pensioners who pay tax on earned income from interest.

The prosecution rests its case your honour and calls for the re-education of the offender.

Quote:

It strikes me as a rather preverse incentive, given our labour shortage. Is it possible that some old people get more money by retiring than they would by working, because they are not taxed on interest etc?

From where I stand Freediver, there is absolutely no labour shortage at all. The shortage is in the competitive pleb market.
Why have we been importing offshore labour when there are so many Australians who cannot afford to pay their mortgages? Because offshore labour is cheap and it drives down price of labour.
Meanwhile, the housing crisis is exasperated by this slave labour tactic.
Rudd is doing the same, although it's not widely advertised. He has  projected a rise in unemployment and concurrently has scope for increased immigration.
He's probably got his Mrs. profiteering from some employment agency in Samoa.

As much as I wanted Howard out, I think Rudd has almost reached his use-by date. He's given most of what he was ever going to give to bluff some trust out of the voting public, and now I'd like to see a new leadership with some more substance.
In short, I always wanted to take what we can get from Rudd and then piss him off.

yep, howard's been neutralized, but rudd's to be dealt with yet.
nothing's changed here, and i'm dead against more immigration, for any reason.
speaking as a "pension age" person, i hate what this country is becoming.
as i've said before, we, including any gov't, aern't running our own country.
if we were, thing would change more rapidly.
we need a much better welfare and health system here.
DR9.

There is a huge difference between an Age Pensioner and a Self-funded Retiree.  So don't go getting confused.

This thread was about Age Pensioners taking off their shirts in protest to Rudd not doing anything for them in the Budget!  :(

An Age Pensioner can own their own home and have up to $166,750 in the Bank and still get a FULL Pension of $270 a week as a single Age Pensioner.  A couple can have up to $236,500 in the Bank to get the full Pension of $220 a week each.

The tax rules changed last year so any interest received from the money in the Bank (or invested) isn't counted as "income" any longer.  However, if those Age Pensioners took a Superannuation Pension and rolled the rest over, their Super Pension is considered income and the Age Pension reduces by x$ per week/fortnight. These people get a Part Age Pension.

An Age Pensioner gets a Pensioner Concession Card.

The tax rules also changed with regard the need to lodge a Tax Return. Something like under $25,000 for singles and whatever for a couple, with the Tax Offset, etc, they don't need to pay tax.  Income above those amounts need to lodge a Tax Return.

Self-funded Retirees can get a Seniors Concession Card and I outlined the details in an earlier post.  Self-funded Retirees would have to lodge a Tax Return if their (self funded) income is over a certain amount.  They can NOT get an Age Pension.

The whole point of the matter is that there ARE Age Pensioners out there who do not own their own home, do not have money in the Bank and who have to try to survive on a mere $270 a week (single) or $220 a week (couple).  These are the people that need more help, not the Age Pensioner with money in the bank OR the Self-funded Retirees who own their own homes.

Mantra, as a side note, check your neighbour's "health care card".  If it is a Pensioner Concession Card they get the Age Pension (and have money in the Bank) if it is a Senior Concession Card, they are Self-Funded Retirees .... ;)

Quote:

This has nothing to do with tax.  It is eligibility for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.  If you keep saying it poor old freediver keeps believing it.  Give the duffer a break

It was this clause I was referring to - Changes being introduced from 1 July 2007 mean that some superannuation income streams will no longer be considered to be taxable income.

I did see something about the restructuring of tax on these amounts - I just have to find the information - and I will.


Quote:

Mantra, as a side note, check your neighbour's "health care card".  If it is a Pensioner Concession Card they get the Age Pension (and have money in the Bank) if it is a Senior Concession Card, they are Self-Funded Retirees

They did have a Senior Concession Card, it may have changed to a Pensioner Card.  They are self funded retirees with a large superannuation fund and investments - they also receive a pension.  I haven't got the audacity to ask them how they managed to achieve this - but I know they voted Liberal at the last election.

Thanks Nef. Can you give a link to where you got that from?

Amadd, all labour markets are experiencing a shortage. It is the resulting increase in wages that is driving inflation. That is, houses cost so much because people have that much money to pay for them. Plus, the shortage of builders is driving up the cost of building a house.

Quote:

That is, houses cost so much because people have that much money to pay for them. Plus, the shortage of builders is driving up the cost of building a house.

Is there really a shortage of builders?  This is the spiel the Victorian Master Builders Association is using to encourage mass migration to Australia. (sorry off topic)

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 9:05am:

Thanks Nef. Can you give a link to where you got that from?

The information on Age Pensions and the Senior Concession Allowance (and the relevant Pensioner Concession Card and Senior Concession Card) you can get off Centrelink

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/  Check under A-Z listings.

The information about Taxation is on the ATO link under Individuals

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/ then check under Retirement.

mantra wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 9:03am:

They did have a Senior Concession Card, it may have changed to a Pensioner Card.  They are self funded retirees with a large superannuation fund and investments - they also receive a pension.  I haven't got the audacity to ask them how they managed to achieve this - but I know they voted Liberal at the last election.

It would be rude to ask your neighbours straight out, obviously.  ;) If they have a Seniors Concession Card they are Self-funded Retirees and don't get even a Part Age Pension.

If they have the a Pensioner Concession Card they are "Age Pensioners".

They may have a large Superannuation Fund and elected to take a smallish Superannuation Pension and roll the rest over to be eligible for a Part Age Pension.  Under those circumstances they would get a Pensioner Concession Card.  However, they then cannot call themselves Self-funded Retirees ... they are Age Pensioners with a lot of money "invested".   ;D

Calling themselves Self-funded Retirees possibly sounds better to the neighbours.  :D  I really can't see the benefit of having a Part Age Pension as that only attracts the Age Pension Concession card (and a small Government "handout") which covers every benefit that the Seniors Concession Card does. Either way, some people seem to want to grab every dollar they can from The Government for some strange reason.   ::)

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 9:05am:

Amadd, all labour markets are experiencing a shortage. It is the resulting increase in wages that is driving inflation. That is, houses cost so much because people have that much money to pay for them. Plus, the shortage of builders is driving up the cost of building a house.

IMO FD, the labour shortage argument is a sham. It's just an excuse to bring in cheap labour.
The inflation that we are now enjoying is driven by high fuel and food prices, not wage increases. Real wages are far lower due to the current cost of living.

I have no idea how some people manage to put food in their kids mouths these days, and I have no idea how pensioners manage to survive on the poultry amount that they are given.

Meanwhile, banks and large companies are still making their record profits.

Food and fuel are only a small part of inflation. Most of it is wage increases, driven by people making lots of money. the labour chortage is genuine, however the extent to which it is a problem tends to be overstated. In my opinion, everyone making lots of money is a good thing. The genuine problem is that the benefits are not spread evenly. That is, not 'everyone' is making lots, but most are.

I saw Rudd on the 7.30 Report about the Budget and Age Pensioners the other night where he said something along the lines of "$500 Bonus plus $400 extra in the Utilities Allowance".  So I checked it out!

The $500 cash Bonus that Howard initiated, is (apparently) to be paid "before 30 June"  which is fair enough, but the people I know on the Age Pension (or Vet Affairs "Widow' Pension) do NOT know this.  Rudd "upgraded" the Age Pension utilities allowance from $107 (or something) per annum, paid quarterly to a quarterly payment of $125 ... difference $393.  

Hate to say this but Rudd was telling the truth!  :o Provided the $500 is automatically transferred into the Age Persons bank accounts and I expect that it will be.  Centrelink say nothing about it.

I'll keep tabs on the Aged Persons I know.  Most are happy with their lot anyway and throughout their lives SAVED for whatever they needed.   ;)  Needing and wanting is a different kettle of fish.   These people are now in their late 70's or mid 80's, they don't want much other than to be comfortable in their Old Age and stay in their own homes.

The Old People I feel sorry for are those who don't have a roof over their heads for whatever reason.  The can't possibly live on $270 a week, pay rent and feed and clothe themselves.  Who knows why they are in that situation. Perhaps they made bad choices years ago?

As a Liberal voter, I certainly don't believe that everyone is "equal" and ALL should get the same ... people who work hard and earn more than the average shouldn't be paying for those who didn't think further than tomorrow.  ;)

I do believe that Aussies are becoming a bunch of whingers.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 8:00pm:

Food and fuel are only a small part of inflation. Most of it is wage increases, driven by people making lots of money. the labour chortage is genuine, however the extent to which it is a problem tends to be overstated. In my opinion, everyone making lots of money is a good thing. The genuine problem is that the benefits are not spread evenly. That is, not 'everyone' is making lots, but most are.

Wrong again.  Wages are not a measure of inflation.   It is the price of a 'basket of goods' which is the measure of inflation.  You should brush up on your economics.

But it is odd you say that anyway.  If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?  Who is making all this money you speak of when the leftards are saying everyone is worse off?

Please explain how the story changes to suit your partisan viewpoint.

You are wrong Deepy. There are a couple of equivalent ways of measuring inflation. One is to measure wages. That is, wages are a measure of inflation. This is basic macroeconomics.

Deepthought you really should get yourself an intro to economics textbook and have a read. You cannot get away with pretending to understand economics.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 5:36pm:

You are wrong Deepy. There are a couple of equivalent ways of measuring inflation. One is to measure wages. That is, wages are a measure of inflation. This is basic macroeconomics.

It doesn't matter whether there are thirty different ways of macroeconomically 'measuring' inflation.  To determine the CPI in Australia the Bureau of Statistics uses the common or garden variety 'basket of goods'.  

Whether wages rise or fall in Australia is irrelevant and has no impact on the CPI other than a contributory affect on the 'basket of goods'.

You should brush up on the study of economics.

You also failed to respond to the whole post.


Quote:

But it is odd you say that anyway.  If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?  Who is making all this money you speak of when the leftards are saying everyone is worse off? Please explain how the story changes to suit your partisan viewpoint.

Whether wages rise or fall in Australia is irrelevant and has no impact on the CPI other than a contributory affect on the 'basket of goods'.

You are wrong Deepy. We were talking about inflation, not the reserve bank CPI. That CPI, and the 'wage index', are both attempts to measure the same thing - inflation. The only difference is the inaccuracies involved. A truly representative 'basket of goods' and a truly representative 'wage index' would be mearurements of the same thing.

Like I said, this is very basic macroeconomics. You cannot get away with pretending to understand this.

INFLATION:

A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 5:50pm:

Whether wages rise or fall in Australia is irrelevant and has no impact on the CPI other than a contributory affect on the 'basket of goods'. You are wrong Deepy. We were talking about inflation, not the reserve bank CPI. That CPI, and the 'wage index', are both attempts to measure the same thing - inflation. The only difference is the inaccuracies involved. A truly representative 'basket of goods' and a truly representative 'wage index' would be mearurements of the same thing. Like I said, this is very basic macroeconomics. You cannot get away with pretending to understand this.

As it is clear you don't understand this very simple fact and are unlikely to without getting an education in economics perhaps you would answer the question you keep so obviously scurrying from.



Quote:

But it is odd you say that anyway.  If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?  Who is making all this money you speak of when the leftards are saying everyone is worse off? Please explain how the story changes to suit your partisan viewpoint.

Deepthought I have an education in economics - at least enough to cover the simple stuff being discussed here.

Do you?

I knew it wouldnt be long before you had to tell someone how educated you are, dont resort to that, anyway didnt these pensioners ever hear of superannuation, most of them bought a house for 30 grand, have been on the pension longer than they worked for, if you didnt save, bad luck. My father never had a good job but still managed to put enough away for retirement.

Trust me lapaz, I have held off for as long as I possibly could, but there is only so long you can put up with someone who doesn't even have the most basic understanding of economics pretending they know what they are talking about and that you don't. It's like a backyard mechanic who thinks he has invented a perpetual motion machine pretending to understand thermodynamics.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 6:03pm:

Deepthought I have an education in economics - at least enough to cover the simple stuff being discussed here. Do you?

It is clear you should be asking for a refund.  

Tell me this, what does the Reserve Bank use as a measure of inflation and how do they determine underlying inflation.

And you can't keep fudging - I know the answers to these questions.  I want to see if you do (and I suspect you have no idea given your last few posts).

Meantime please don't keep ignoring this.


Quote:

But it is odd you say that anyway.  If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?  Who is making all this money you speak of when the leftards are saying everyone is worse off? Please explain how the story changes to suit your partisan viewpoint.

Have you ever studied economics deepthought, beyond looking up stuff on wikipedia?

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 6:23pm:

Have you ever studied economics deepthought, beyond looking up stuff on wikipedia?

I thought you would back pedal.  No worries mate.  I know you have no idea what you're talking about.  And now the board does too.

Does your educational institution refund?

So after I answer question after question from you, you won't answer a single one from me? Why not?

Have you ever studied economics deepthought, beyond looking up stuff on wikipedia?

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 6:26pm:

So after I answer question after question from you, you won't answer a single one from me? Why not? Have you ever studied economics deepthought, beyond looking up stuff on wikipedia?

Ha ha ha ha, you haven't answered a single thing.  You have squirmed, back pedalled, slithered and denied - then ignored every question put to you.

Try this for the tenth time.


Quote:

But it is odd you say that anyway.  If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?  Who is making all this money you speak of when the leftards are saying everyone is worse off? Please explain how the story changes to suit your partisan viewpoint.

Its spending that courses inflation, not how much you earn.

What is the strongest controller over how much people spend?

Neferti wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 5:13pm:

I do believe that Aussies are becoming a bunch of whingers.

In view of Lap's redommendation to get more POMS here, this could be a winning combination.

freediver wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:

What is the strongest controller over how much people spend?

Credit limits duffus... now go back and answer DT's question. We are all waiting.

It's a dumb question that makes no sense at all, but feel free to explain this 'usual leftard model' if you know what he is talking about. I haven't come across it before. Perhaps my education was lacking.

Credit limits only play a small role. Only a small minority spends as much as they can possibly borrow.

What is the main factor lenders use in setting a credit limit?

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 9:45am:

What is the main factor lenders use in setting a credit limit?

Would that be sub-prime credit limits? LOL...

Deepthought - If there are 'inflationary inducing'  "wage increases, driven by people making lots of money" how does this fit with the usual leftard model of people being far worse off under WorkChoices?


freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 9:45am:

It's a dumb question that makes no sense at all, but feel free to explain this 'usual leftard model' if you know what he is talking about. I haven't come across it before. Perhaps my education was lacking.

I'll simplify the question so you can understand then?

If most people, and you did use 'most' in an earlier post, are making lots of money, wouldn't have Work Choices play a significant role in that?

I'd say it played a minor role, at best.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 11:56am:

I'd say it played a minor role, at best.

How so?

By increasing demand for employees.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:02pm:

By increasing demand for employees.

How does an increase in demand for employees cause 'most' people to be making lots of money?

Obviously I am not suggesting that workchoices is responsible for more than a small part of the increase in demand. This will explain how it works better than I could:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Note that as far as the local labour market is concerned, the supply side is very insensitive (ie constrained, the 'labour shortage').

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:25pm:

Obviously I am not suggesting that workchoices is responsible for more than a small part of the increase in demand. This will explain how it works better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Note that as far as the local labour market is concerned, the supply side is very insensitive (ie constrained, the 'labour shortage').

If you are an Economist, Freediver, you are true to form.  I worked in an area that had 4 Economists and none of them agreed on anything and this was about "housing".  ;D

You could say the same about any group of people - scientists, doctors etc. They agree on the basics of their discipline, but disagree on the edges. The difference with economics is that 'the basics' is a much smaller body of knowledge. However, this is still within the basics (the supply and demand stuff from my last post anyway).

Note also the distinction between normative and summative claims. Most other disciplines are almost wholly within the summative, at least as far as the public perception of the philosophical territory is concerned. This is not true for economics. Economists are far more likely to agree on the summative and disagree on the normative. Of course, it's always the normative issues you here them arguing about, as they are the interesting ones.

BTW, I don't consider myself an economist. It's just one of my interests.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 7:03pm:

You could say the same about any group of people - scientists, doctors etc. They agree on the basics of their discipline, but disagree on the edges. The difference with economics is that 'the basics' is a much smaller body of knowledge. However, this is still within the basics (the supply and demand stuff from my last post anyway).

I should hope that medical people don't carry on like economists and scientists. Medicos need to ACT, not waffle on, or the patient is D.E.A.D.  I think I would rather have a Doctor of Medicine look after me than an Economist.  ;)


Quote:

Note also the distinction between normative and summative claims. Most other disciplines are almost wholly within the summative, at least as far as the public perception of the philosophical territory is concerned. This is not true for economics. Economists are far more likely to agree on the summative and disagree on the normative. Of course, it's always the normative issues you here them arguing about, as they are the interesting ones.

You should become a pollie.

normative and summative issues?  :o


Quote:

BTW, I don't consider myself an economist. It's just one of my interests.

I certainly don't.  No more than I am a medical expert, or can predict how many terms the ALP will be in parliament. ;)

Sorry, that should have been positive, not summative.

The distinction between normative and positive is a valuable one to understand, especially for politics. I often see the two confused on this forum, when you get two people disagreeing with each other but not understanding why. Or when someone describes a phenomenon and it is taken as support for a position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality.

For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_statement

In economics and philosophy, a positive statement concerns what is, and contains no indication of approval or disapproval. A positive statement can be factually incorrect: "The moon is made of black and gold cheese" is false, but a positive statement, as it is a statement about what exists. Positive statements are contrasted with normative statements.

Historical origins of the term could include reference to the philosophical notion of positivism.

Stop quoting Wikipedia, its a very dubious website.

yes, if we wanted to discuss with wikipedia we would go there.

You think they get the definition of words wrong?

Have you forgotten John Howards editing already.

lapaz62 wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 4:58pm:

Have you forgotten John Howards editing already.

Yes, Wikipedia is prone to editing especially when it is in ones vested interest to edit passages about oneself to make one look good ie: John Howard.

However, I think FD is quoting definitions from Wikipedia. I don't believe people would edit too much of the definitions that will detract from the true meaning of the word or phrase. For example, Wikipedia has a definition for the word geocentric which is accepted worldwide. I can't imagine anyone (beyond pranksters) would edit the definition geocentric to read "Geocentric is where FD thinks that the universe revolves around him" (Sorry FD  ;)).

Just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't automatically make it incredible.

:)

BTW, for the purpose of full disclosure I don't work nor do I contribute to Wikipedia.

;D ;D ;) ;)

Actually, they did a study comparing wikipedia to a standard encyclopedia. I think wikipedia came out either the same or better. Sure anyone can edit it, but it is very easy to remove bad edits.

They edited the Bible didnt they, nothing but the truth in there.

lapaz62 wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 6:24pm:

They edited the Bible didnt they, nothing but the truth in there.

LOL. I have to agree with you there.

;D

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:25pm:

Obviously I am not suggesting that workchoices is responsible for more than a small part of the increase in demand. This will explain how it works better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand Note that as far as the local labour market is concerned, the supply side is very insensitive (ie constrained, the 'labour shortage').

Freediver, I'm not even going to go there with wiki kinder knowledge. Surely you realise that many factors permiate the economy?

I am interested in the connection you are making between 'work choices', labour and 'lots of money' for 'most' people. You claimed there was an influence that work choices has effected... Albeit a small influence... But an influcence nonetheless.

The answer you give is supply and demand. Well, how has supply and demand within the labour market been effected by work choices?  

Where you say... Lots of money... What do you mean?

Asside from commodities, what is the next most significant factor driving the economy, if not work choices?  

Wikipedia is as good a source as any on the net. This is especially true for 'non-controversial' issues - like supply and demand.

Workchoices makes it easier for employers to take on employees by reducing the risk involved. Hence it increases demand. Another way of looking at it is a reduction in the transaction cost.

Note that Howard watered the legislation down significantly in response to an electoral backlash, to the point where many commentators saw it as little better than the previous legislation. However, I think the watered down bits only applied to existing contracts.

It's like pulling teeth ladies and gentlemen.

And how has this caused employees, who would have been employed regardless, to have 'lot's of money'?

Would seem to me that by making employer responsibilities less and so increase their demand upon the labour market, which wasn't necessary by the way, employees get less wealth.

And when you say lot's of money, what do you mean?

It's like pulling teeth because I am not going to explain the concept of supply and demand to you. I gave a link above to a better explanation than I could give. I assure you that once you understand that it will all be perfectly clear. If you don't make that effort, well, you will never understand will you?

duplicate

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 2:36pm:

It's like pulling teeth because I am not going to explain the concept of supply and demand to you. I gave a link above to a better explanation than I could give. I assure you that once you understand that it will all be perfectly clear. If you don't make that effort, well, you will never understand will you?

But I am well studied in Economics Freediver... formally and informally. I understand Supply and Demand... and I understand that it is not the dominant factor in the allocation of 'lots of money' to employees though work choices... Do you? In fact I question your claims entirely.

Scarcity is playing a role here that you ignore, that would give readers a better understanding of why work choices did not give people 'lot's of money'... would you like a Wiki Kinder link for that?

Quite clearly you have avoided answering the question because you are a waffling wankademic.

Talk about what you know about next time.

freediver wrote on May 23^rd, 2008 at 2:36pm:

It's like pulling teeth because I am not going to explain the concept of supply and demand to you. I gave a link above to a better explanation than I could give. I assure you that once you understand that it will all be perfectly clear. If you don't make that effort, well, you will never understand will you?

If wikipedia can explain things better than you dude why participate in forums?  Or is that the answer to everything for you?  

Post a dumb theory you just made up then if anyone asks you to explain it you state that Wiki is much better than you at it, besides which unless we have had the education you have we won't be likely to understand anyway.  So you're not wasting your valuable time?

Have you any idea how obviously false that is to the reader?

You don't fool me freediver, I went to primary school too.

Scarcity is playing a role here that you ignore

I am not ignoring it at all. In fact that link contains a brief description of supply side economics. Scarcity comes into the supply side. Whatever sensitivity the supply side has, you still need something to change in oder for that sensitivity to play a role. I said work choices only plays a small role. That hardly means I am ignoring all the other factors. In fact I believe it was you who kept bringing work choices up. Why, I still have no idea. I'm sure you're working up to some kind of point though.

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2008 at 12:29pm:

Scarcity is playing a role here that you ignore I am not ignoring it at all. In fact that link contains a brief description of supply side economics. Scarcity comes into the supply side. Whatever sensitivity the supply side has, you still need something to change in oder for that sensitivity to play a role. I said work choices only plays a small role. That hardly means I am ignoring all the other factors. In fact I believe it was you who kept bringing work choices up. Why, I still have no idea. I'm sure you're working up to some kind of point though.

I keep bringing it up because you are yet to explain it's small influence. I don't see it. I see the opposite. You are also yet to explain what you mean by 'lot's of money for most'. I don't see most people with 'lot's of money'.

You can post all the links you want but none of them are actually discussing what you are claiming.

Your wiki link, and I haven't read it, probably makes no mention of 'work choices' and very little reference if any to the 'means of production'.

Give up. You've been shown as a sham.

You think it has a big influence? A positive influence? It is absurd to expect someone to justify why it would have a small effect. If you think it has a significant effect, it's up to you to explain. Otherwise you are doing little more than demanding I counter an argument, or any number of arguments, that do not (yet) exist. You can't prove a negative.