blah blah blah

pollie wollie

Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all.

It's ok because before the election Julia Gillard said she wouldn't ever have a carbon tax in her Government.

Actually, then again -

She also said she fully supports Kevin Rudd and wouldn't challenge him for the leadership.

And before the election before the last one, Labor promised not to remove the private healthcare rebate, not to touch superannuation, to keep the budget in surplus.


So I guess who knows - they seem to be completely unable to keep their word on anything?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 1:44pm:

Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all.

Why would they need a policy for a non-existent problem???

Do the greens and Labor have policies on contacting alien ambassadors???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 1:44pm: Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all. Why would they need a policy for a non-existent problem??? Do the greens and Labor have policies on contacting alien ambassadors???

No they will just mee too the Liberals policy on that one.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 5:30pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 5:22pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 1:44pm: Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all. Why would they need a policy for a non-existent problem??? Do the greens and Labor have policies on contacting alien ambassadors??? No they will just mee too the Liberals policy on that one.

Do you think the Libs have one???
I'd seriously worry about ANY Government that actually had a current (serious) policy for contacting aliens...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 5:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 5:22pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 1:44pm: Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all. Why would they need a policy for a non-existent problem??? Do the greens and Labor have policies on contacting alien ambassadors??? No they will just mee too the Liberals policy on that one. Do you think the Libs have one??? I'd seriously worry about ANY Government that actually had a current (serious) policy for contacting aliens...

Im sure the Greens have one...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 5:36pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 5:30pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 5:22pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 1:44pm: Did you leave the Liberals out of the survey because they have no policy at all. Why would they need a policy for a non-existent problem??? Do the greens and Labor have policies on contacting alien ambassadors??? No they will just mee too the Liberals policy on that one. Do you think the Libs have one??? I'd seriously worry about ANY Government that actually had a current (serious) policy for contacting aliens...

The USA do.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

It's ok because before the election Julia Gillard said she wouldn't ever have a carbon tax in her Government.

When was that tax enacted?

None out of 1



Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

And before the election before the last one, Labor promised not to remove the private healthcare rebate.

Current Policy:

The Federal Government 30% Rebate is not means tested. It does not matter how much you earn or the level of your family income. If you have hospital and/or general private health insurance that is a Complying Health Insurance Policy, you can claim the Federal Government 30% Rebate.

None out of 2



Quote:

not to touch superannuation

Do not think that is the correct quote - all governments tweak supper a bit - the Howard Gov made a number of changes.


None out of 3 (not sure but not worth counting anyway).


Quote:

to keep the budget in surplus

Both sides were promising the same thing neither were going to be able to deliver in the circumstances. Labor's promise was not actually to gaurantee surplusses.

"We will maintain a budget surplus on average over the economic cycle"

That means that when the cycle goes down they may not provide a surplus. (The cycle went down).


None out of 4.

When was that tax enacted?

Hey dopey do you think it won't be once Prime Minister Brown has control of the Senate?

whatsforme wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 8:44pm:

When was that tax enacted? Hey dopey do you think it won't be once Prime Minister Brown has control of the Senate?

Did PM Brown promise no carbon Tax?  

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 8:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 3:36pm: It's ok because before the election Julia Gillard said she wouldn't ever have a carbon tax in her Government. When was that tax enacted? None out of 1 WOW do you realy want to do this? Gillard has said a carbon tax is HER POLICY weeks after ana election where she ruled it out. ONE OUT OF ONE Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 3:36pm: And before the election before the last one, Labor promised not to remove the private healthcare rebate. Current Policy: The Federal Government 30% Rebate is not means tested. It does not matter how much you earn or the level of your family income. If you have hospital and/or general private health insurance that is a Complying Health Insurance Policy, you can claim the Federal Government 30% Rebate. The TRIED to means test the private health rebate.  trying to break an election promise is still an electin breach. TWO OUT OF TWO None out of 2 Quote: not to touch superannuation Do not think that is the correct quote - all governments tweak supper a bit - the Howard Gov made a number of changes. This sounds like your weakest point yet. Promising no changes and then making changes (and they were very significant ones) is an election breach. THREE OUT OF THREENone out of 3 (not sure but not worth counting anyway). [quote]to keep the budget in surplus

Both sides were promising the same thing neither were going to be able to deliver in the circumstances. Labor's promise was not actually to gaurantee surplusses.

"We will maintain a budget surplus on average over the economic cycle"

That means that when the cycle goes down they may not provide a surplus. (The cycle went down).


None out of 4.[/quote]

WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

Not one of your better efforts!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish. Not one of your better efforts!

Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though

Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.

Quote:

"We will maintain a budget surplus on average over the economic cycle" That means that when the cycle goes down they may not provide a surplus. (The cycle went down). and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

I think a very clear and precise position.

I am sure that if the Liberals had put that position you would have no problem fully understanding the meaning.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm: WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish. Not one of your better efforts! Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.

your response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm: WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish. Not one of your better efforts! Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.

What about this one...

"January 4, 2011, 1:08 pm
Send

EmailIMShare

DeliciousTwitterMyspaceDiggStumble UponFacebookPrint
The Federal Government has released draft legislation for its carbon farming initiative.

The scheme will allow farmers, land holders and forest growers to help to reduce carbon pollution through a range of activities.

They would be allocated carbon credits which could be traded on a national or international market.

The Government says feedback on the plan should be submitted in the next two weeks."

There is no national or international carbon credit market

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 7:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm: WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish. Not one of your better efforts! Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you. our response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise.

That was kinda my point.
Interesting though that he took the arguments of what is CURRENT Government policy - which is only the Liberal controlled opposition we have to thank for that!!

If there had not been Liberal opposition -

1) We would have a carbon tax.
2) We would have private healthcare rebate removed for millions of ordinary families
3) We would have further wholesale changes to super for people

All of which broke the promise of the pre-election campaign.

Not to mention the appalling blaming of John Howard for interest rate increases then when in office state 'we've done all we can do, it's a macroeconomic problem' when rate rises and cost of living increased.

That wasn't so much election promise breaking, rather poor form.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 7:12am:

your response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. .

Funny thing is She is still saying that there is no commitment to a carbon tax. The only present point is that it will be considered by the climate change committee.

The words you have used are not correct.


Quote:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-committee-will-assess-carbon-tax-julia-gillard/story-e6frg6xf-1225924750400 JULIA Gillard refused today to commit to a tax on carbon despite public pressure from BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers. The Prime Minister said the government would assess the options in “good faith” through the climate change committee. “I think the rule in, rule out games are a little bit silly,” Ms Gillard said this morning. “Obviously many members of the business community, Mr Kloppers included, have made statements and have called over quite a long period of time now for government to deal with the question of pricing carbon.” Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 7:12am:

and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise

A bit of a fiddle with self contribution amounts - whatever that means  (do you mean co contribution amounts) .

A few other periferal changes = Significant?

Quote:

Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.

so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.

and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 8:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm: WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish. Not one of your better efforts! Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you. our response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise. That was kinda my point. Interesting though that he took the arguments of what is CURRENT Government policy - which is only the Liberal controlled opposition we have to thank for that!! If there had not been Liberal opposition - 1) We would have a carbon tax. 2) We would have private healthcare rebate removed for millions of ordinary families 3) We would have further wholesale changes to super for people All of which broke the promise of the pre-election campaign. Not to mention the appalling blaming of John Howard for interest rate increases then when in office state 'we've done all we can do, it's a macroeconomic problem' when rate rises and cost of living increased. That wasn't so much election promise breaking, rather poor form.

I love how conservative loonies love to remind us of election promises.

You really want to start a list of the election promises between 1996-2007?  Let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend one side is so much better than the other.

Politicians are exactly that - politicians. They change and wriggle each time there is a change in public mood or in general circumstances.

So do me a favour and get over it.    After all, maybe they just weren't "core" promises?

Not to mention that you can blame your littletard for the way he dealt with the electorate over his 12 year reign of nothing. Mr "I'll promise you a pet hippo in the backyard if it'll get me your vote."  Now all we have is the media during elections running around crazy off their nutter waiting to hear the next one-liner, that is somehow meant to be policy.  And the electorate eats it up.  

Maybe if you actually got out of your little partisan bubble and start to think about politics more broadly we might actually get decent leadership and people with some convictions.  As it stands both are retarded and both lie out of their cracks just so they can score an extra vote here and there.  

And it's only rational people who understand this, and who don't bitch about it and whinge about it.  It's the nutters who let it happen that then will start crying at every opportunity.  Sad sucks.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

Quote: Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price. so what was this? and it was YOUR quote. and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?

See post above, Mr WFPAEDADMBRC. Sad sod.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

Quote: Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price. so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.

Since when does the market impliment taxes?




longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?

I do not even accept that their was a promise of no changes to Superanuation.

What the max self contribution including carry forward is $450,000 in one year.

Not enough for you?

Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace.
They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance.



PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive.

Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning.

"Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today.

"If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election."

Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced.

"That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said.

The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

There is no national or international carbon credit market

I think you mean 'YET' Sprint

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace. They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance. PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive. Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning. "Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today. "If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election." Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced. "That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said. The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.

1. If you parents needed real government assistance then I'm sure they wouldn't even have an ability to contribute $100,000.  If they do then quite clearly you are over-exaggerating their situation.

2. if you cared for your parents you would've accepted the idea of increasing company super contributions that came along with the SPRT.

Stop crying poor, hick whinger.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 12:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am: Quote: Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price. so what was this? and it was YOUR quote. Since when does the market impliment taxes? longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am: and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else? I do not even accept that their was a promise of no changes to Superanuation. What the max self contribution including carry forward is $450,000 in one year. Not enough for you?

Now you are just being contrary for its own sake. We could argue black and blue and you would still maintain the position that Gillard has not breached any election promises. You would take either some 'technical' out or you would just deny the truth.

and the superannuation promise issue isnt changed by virtue of the amount. NO CHANGE means no change not change that doesnt affect you. Your arguing style is beginning to sound like lastnail and that is not good.

Gillard promise NO CARBON TAX and is now actively working towards it. by any half-reasonable definition of the term, that is an election promise breach. this so-called Carbon Committee has an interesting qualification. No one is on the committee that doesnt already support a carbon tax. it was a PREREQUISITE for being on the committee. No tell me that is not a breach of an election promise!

You will of course. But the only one you are fooling is you.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace. They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance. PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive. Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning. "Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today. "If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election." Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced. "That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said. The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.

I think Buzz's disease is spreading. You may have noticed that normally intelligent and logical labor supporters are now abandoning that position and adopting lastnail-style rhetoric ie ignoring the facts and just adopting a position regardless.  Ive never been really enamoured by the thinking patterns of the average labor supporter since most of them have knee-kerk reactions rather than considered opinions. But now even the brighter ones says adelcrow and dna seem to be abandoning thinking for the buzz-like complaining and whining.

no one expects woody or lastnail to have a shred of logic or facts in their posts, but most other posters have ahistory of at least acknowledging them. It seems that when labor's support dips - as it is doing so heavily across the country - the integrity of labor dips with it.

We've seen the very public implosion of Buzz, a poster who was once a worthy debating adversary. Now we are seeing a whole slew of once-intelligent posters do the same thing. At this rate, vegy and pansi will soon have a lot of intellectual equals.

are ALL labor supporters bad losers?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

Now you are just being contrary for its own sake. We could argue black and blue and you would still maintain the position that Gillard has not breached any election promises. You would take either some 'technical' out or you would just deny the truth.

No I have not said that Gillard has not broken any election promises - just not this one - not yet anyway, It could get to the point that she does break that commitment but it has not happened and it may not.





longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

the superannuation promise issue isnt changed by virtue of the amount. NO CHANGE means no change not change that doesnt affect you. Your arguing style is beginning to sound like lastnail and that is not good.

You mean Like the way that Howard promised no changes to IR and then introduced workchoices or the way he said never ever a GST and then implimented one.

I doubt that many would think the change is substantial to limit the input into super in one year to a maximum of $150,000 I would not think unreasonable and would affect a very small number of people.




longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

Gillard promise NO CARBON TAX and is now actively working towards it. by any half-reasonable definition of the term, that is an election promise breach. this so-called Carbon Committee has an interesting qualification. No one is on the committee that doesnt already support a carbon tax. it was a PREREQUISITE for being on the committee. No tell me that is not a breach of an election promise!

Was their a promise to put people who disagree with global warming.

I think you are incorrect it is not a prerequisate to support a carbon tax just to believe that the problem is real. While I do not agree with having a PREREQUISITE it does not constitute a breach of promise.

Still the point is very much a promise to not impliment a carbon tax and I still do not see one on the horizon. In fact she has said that she is not locked in to that outcome and other solutions may be employed.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2011 at 10:48am:

Quote: Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price. so what was this? and it was YOUR quote. and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?

As you well know: despite recent changes, the Superannuation scam remains unconscionably costly, wasteful, inequitable and counter-productive!

As you know, it would be cheaper and more cost-effective to budget to pay the full aged pension to everyone earning over the official average full-time wage, than it is to dole out effectively-pre-paid pensions in the form of Superannuation Tax Concessions...

Just to jog your memory a little: -

https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=super_tax_concessions_final.pdf


Quote:

The great superannuation tax concession rort Research Paper No. 61 February 2009 David Ingles Introduction Superannuation tax concessions will cost the budget $24.6 billion in 2008–09 (Treasury 2009), rivalling the $26.7 billion annual cost of the age pension and constituting a fifth of income tax revenue ($130 billion per annum). Tax expenditures (see Definitions, Appendix A), of which the super tax concession is by far the largest, are one of the fast- growing areas of total government spending (see Figure 1). [...] 1. What is the incidence of the concessions? • The paper demonstrates that the tax concessions flow overwhelmingly towards the well-off, with those earning less than $34,000 per annum receiving almost no assistance and those earning over $180,000 per annum receiving the most. Astonishingly, the top five percent of individuals account for 37 per cent of concessional contributions. • The current concessions provide almost no benefit to low-income earners, including women working part-time, but an executive earning $300,000 per annum with a million dollar retirement account can receive $37,000 of concessions,2.5 times the value of the age pension, for every year of their working life. • Tax concessions for superannuation provide substantially greater benefits for men than women and this disparity will continue under current arrangements. • Allowable contributions are such that high-income earners could easily retire with $5 million in assets, which would then allow them to draw down around $500,000 a year in retirement, all tax-free. • The system has become so skewed that the annual cost of providing superannuation tax concessions to high-income earners is much greater than the cost of simply paying those same individuals the age pension. Providing tax concessions for superannuation as a mechanism to help insulate the budget from the cost of providing for an ageing population is not sensible. 2. Do the concessions provided to superannuation increase retirement income adequacy? • While the superannuation industry has succeeded in creating concern about the adequacy of retirement incomes, current policy settings will ensure that by 2030 average Australian workers will achieve 85 per cent of their pre-retirement living standard during retirement. Even the baby boomers, who will partly miss out, will gain a substantial supplement to the age pension and almost all will achieve a ‘modest but adequate’ living standard. • The paper finds that, while there is no doubt that tax concessions increase retirement incomes, the benefits of these concessions are so skewed towards the well-off that they undermine the redistributive nature of the Australian retirement income system. As a consequence, a situation has been created whereby the retirement income system will increasingly emphasise income maintenance after retirement rather than income support for retirees on low incomes. There needs to be a more appropriate balance between the two goals. • The higher an individual’s pre-retirement income, the more support the tax system provides to help boost post-retirement income. This shift in the objective of the retirement income system away from providing a safety net and towards maintaining living standards has occurred without any public debate as to whether such a radical change in direction is appropriate or whether it should be so highly taxpayer-supported. [...] The paper concludes that the current system of tax concessions is in need of fundamental reform: • it is too costly and the cost rises steeply with time • the system redistributes billions of dollars to the well-off • it distorts saving into superannuation with no guarantee that national saving is increased as a result. • it is complex, creates arbitrary categories of favoured and non-favoured contributions and makes no economic sense. It is time for change. [...]

Personal choice and a desire to live above the pension is perhaps a lofty goal. Apparently not so for everyone!!

BTW Welcome back to the forums. your contributions have been missed - altho I disgree with close on everything you say! School holidays still being hell???

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

BTW Welcome back to the forums. your contributions have been missed - altho I disgree with close on everything you say! School holidays still being hell???

Cheers Longy - we're not long back from a short but very enjoyably trip to the USA (on my youngest son's dance performance and workshop tour)...

Actually, we didn't venture more than a 2 hour drive beyond Anaheim - nor far beyond the usual tourist attractions - so our experience of the USA was limited...

Nevertheless, we very much enjoyed our little escape from reality - and we made the most of the opportunity for family bonding...

I hope that the silly season provided some worthwhile bonding experiences for you and yours...

Equitist wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 10:04am: BTW Welcome back to the forums. your contributions have been missed - altho I disgree with close on everything you say! School holidays still being hell??? Cheers Longy - we're not long back from a short but very enjoyably trip to the USA (on my youngest son's dance performance and workshop tour)... Actually, we didn't venture more than a 2 hour drive beyond Anaheim - nor far beyond the usual tourist attractions - so our experience of the USA was limited... Nevertheless, we very much enjoyed our little escape from reality - and we made the most of the opportunity for family bonding... I hope that the silly season provided some worthwhile bonding experiences for you and yours...

You probably didnt miss much. as time goes on, i think less and less of the USA as a place of promise; more a place of despair.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 10:04am:

Personal choice and a desire to live above the pension is perhaps a lofty goal. Apparently not so for everyone!!

Personal desire to live above the pension is definitely a lofty goal for some - but less so through choice for those who are unfairly deprived of Superannuation subsidies...

Apparently, not everyone is as equal as everyone else...under the top-heavy Superannuation scam - since some who would never have qualified for the Aged Pensions any event are effectively receiving multiple pre-paid Aged Pensions throughout their working lives whilst others (who will necessarily be a drain on future pensions) are receiving zip or very little in private wealth subsidies along the way...

As you well know, the current system is not only terribly unfair - but it is also grossly uneconomic and irresponsible and it needs to change...

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 10:45am:

Equitist wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 10:42am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 10:04am: BTW Welcome back to the forums. your contributions have been missed - altho I disgree with close on everything you say! School holidays still being hell??? Cheers Longy - we're not long back from a short but very enjoyably trip to the USA (on my youngest son's dance performance and workshop tour)... Actually, we didn't venture more than a 2 hour drive beyond Anaheim - nor far beyond the usual tourist attractions - so our experience of the USA was limited... Nevertheless, we very much enjoyed our little escape from reality - and we made the most of the opportunity for family bonding... I hope that the silly season provided some worthwhile bonding experiences for you and yours... You probably didnt miss much. as time goes on, i think less and less of the USA as a place of promise; more a place of despair.

Agreed - what I did see of it was rather surreal...

From my conversations with people who were working in the theme park and Hollywood precincts, it was clear that their mundane day-to-day lives were very separate from the over-the-top glitz and glamour of the industries that they were servicing...

The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live.

Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find.
I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide.

Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be.
I am sure many will disagree and that is their right.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 12:23pm:

The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right.

as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 12:23pm: The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right. as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel.

With the cost of living HALF that of Australia, you've got a damn sight more chance in San Diego than you do in Melbourne....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 2:08pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 12:23pm: The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right. as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel. With the cost of living HALF that of Australia, you've got a damn sight more chance in San Diego than you do in Melbourne....

I'd say its about an even chance for the 1st 6 mths or however long their unemployment goes for but once that's gone Australia is miles ahead.
Things are cheaper but then again wages are lower.
However if you have a good job & a nice place to live BOTH are great.
Then again if you have those 2 things anywhere's good.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 2:08pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 12:23pm: The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right. as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel. With the cost of living HALF that of Australia, you've got a damn sight more chance in San Diego than you do in Melbourne....

Methinks that you are conveniently neglecting to mention that there are also significant wage and welfare differences - and that the USA has a remarkably large number of people struggling with incomes at below-subsistence minimum wage level (or less)...

Equitist wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 3:46pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 3:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 2:08pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 12:23pm: The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right. as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel. With the cost of living HALF that of Australia, you've got a damn sight more chance in San Diego than you do in Melbourne.... Methinks that you are conveniently neglecting to mention that there are also significant wage and welfare differences - and that the USA has a remarkably large number of people struggling with incomes at below-subsistence minimum wage level (or less)...

Such is life.

When people make these USA-Australia comparisons, they seem to leave out the most obvious and salient difference. Can you imagine what this country would look like if Aboriginals were 11% of the population?

In every rural town in Australia, there is a small, isolated neighbourhood that is sort of terror incognita to the rest of the people in town. It is invariably the housing estate where the Aboriginals fester. The United States has a minority problem several orders of magnitude higher than does Australia. You take those unbreachable areas of Australian towns like Dubbo and times them in size by eleven; twenty four if you include Mexicans, and you get the United States. That's where most of its social pathology resides. People who act like that country has no welfare have no real idea of it's social system, either.

West Dubbo is a mini-Detroit.

JC Denton wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

When people make these USA-Australia comparisons, they seem to leave out the most obvious and salient difference. Can you imagine what this country would look like if Aboriginals were 11% of the population? In every rural town in Australia, there is a small, isolated neighbourhood that is sort of terror incognita to the rest of the people in town. It is invariably the housing estate where the Aboriginals fester. The United States has a minority problem several orders of magnitude higher than does Australia. You take those unbreachable areas of Australian towns like Dubbo and times them in size by eleven; twenty four if you include Mexicans, and you get the United States. That's where most of its social pathology resides. People who act like that country has no welfare have no real idea of it's social system, either.

You live in a unique area, Imp, until I moved to a rural area I'd never met any indigenous person, many living in the cities would be the same.
BUT, what also surprised me was that these areas were set up by us "white folk" to keep the "blacks" out of town, so in a way we created the problem by ostracising them.

skippy. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 4:08pm:

JC Denton wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 3:55pm: When people make these USA-Australia comparisons, they seem to leave out the most obvious and salient difference. Can you imagine what this country would look like if Aboriginals were 11% of the population? In every rural town in Australia, there is a small, isolated neighbourhood that is sort of terror incognita to the rest of the people in town. It is invariably the housing estate where the Aboriginals fester. The United States has a minority problem several orders of magnitude higher than does Australia. You take those unbreachable areas of Australian towns like Dubbo and times them in size by eleven; twenty four if you include Mexicans, and you get the United States. That's where most of its social pathology resides. People who act like that country has no welfare have no real idea of it's social system, either. You live in a unique area, Imp, until I moved to a rural area I'd never met any indigenous person, many living in the cities would be the same. BUT, what also surprised me was that these areas were set up by us "white folk" to keep the "blacks" out of town, so in a way we created the problem by ostracising them.

And that was the pre 70s thinking   :(

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 19^th, 2011 at 2:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 19th, 2011 at 12:23pm: The United States is, and remains, the best country I have ever been fortunate to live. Admittedly I have lived in only a handful of countries but I speak as I find. I have a terrific living standard, it is half the cost of living in Australia, I have a rented house in a beautiful gated community in La Jolla just outside San Diego and I enjoy the benefits that the world's only superpower can provide. Australia is a nice place, but the USA in my humble opinion is an infinitely better place to be. I am sure many will disagree and that is their right. as long as you can afford it. otherwise it is a tough, uncompromising, crime-filled hovel.

And as long as you can 'afford' the medical insurance....