Unexpected pay rise coming your way

     June 22, 2014
     NEWS.com.au

Millions of Australians are set to get a hidden pay rise on July 1 via their superannuation.      :)    

WOULDN’T it be great to land a pay rise without even asking for one? You are about to next week.

Millions of Australians are set to get a hidden pay rise from next week, when their compulsory superannuation payments are fattened from July 1, putting more money into their retirement purse.      :)

The rise to the superannuation guarantee (SG) will result in employees getting an additional 0.25 per cent superannuation — climbing to 9.5 per cent — dropped into their super kitty.

That’s an extra $10,713 for a 35 year old salary earner on $80,000 a year, and almost $19,000 if they are on $150,000. See below for more pay rise scenarios.

But while it is your money, the catch is that you cannot access it until retirement, and for workers on a package, the amount will come out of their take-home pay.

For most Australians the SG increase will not affect their take-home pay, but the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees’ chief executive, Tom Garcia, says the way workers will receive it will vary among employers.

“It depends on how your employment situation is set up. It will be a mix — for some it will come out of your take-home pay if you’re paid a package,’’ he says.

“If you are entitled to a wage increase then part of it can end up being this increase in the super guarantee.”

Garcia urges Australians to either check with their super fund to see if they are getting the increase or to find out how the 9.5 per cent calculation is going to be made.      ;)    

He also says it pays to check annual super statements to make sure the correct super payments have been paid.

Australians are also being urged to take note of the super contribution caps so they don’t get pinged for making payments that exceed the cap.

The concessional super caps are scheduled to rise on July 1 from $25,000 to $30,000 for Australians aged below 49 on June 30, 2014.

For those aged 49 years or over as of June 30 this year the concessional contributions cap is $35,000 — up from $30,000.

The non-concessional contributions cap will increase from $150,000 to $180,000.

Shadforth Financial Group head of advice John Barton says people should closely examine how much extra is contributed to ensure they don’t get slugged with penalties.

“You need to make sure don’t go over the cap and end up paying excess tax,’’ he says.

“One good thing the government has proposed is to make the penalties less onerous for people who go over the cap. Previously it was far too onerous.

“You should do your own personal planning on how close you want to go to the cap.”

Below, we took the average super balance for a 35 year old — $45,000 — and did some sums on the amount extra they can expect to end up with due to the increase from 9.25 to 9.5 per cent on retiring. It calculated in average fees, charges and assumes a retirement age of 70, and a balanced investment option.

For example someone on $60,000 will benefit with an extra $8,036 when they retire.

Salary

$60,000

9.25 per: $422,489

9.5 per cent: $430,525

Difference to your hip pocket: $8,036

$80,000

9.25 per: $521,593

9.5 per cent: $532,306

Difference to your hip pocket: $10,713

$100,000

9.25 per: $615,013

9.5 per cent: $628,206

Difference: to your hip pocket: $13,193

$150,000

9.25 per: $826,860

9.5 per cent: $845,702

Difference to your hip pocket: $18,842

Mr Abbott, what about the 12 percent super?.      :(

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 7:30am:

Mr Abbott, what about the 12 percent super?.      :(

Indeed, the younger workers must forego wages in their hands and have their money quarantined so they wont be able to claim the overly generous pension that the current crop of layabout retirees think is their birth right.
Sounds a tad selfish of the current retirees but don't tell them that.
their brains will explode

There are still some people that want their retirement.  Not everyone wants to work till they are 70, or for that matter should they have to.     :(

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 8:00am:

There are still some people that want their retirement.  Not everyone wants to work till they are 70, or for that matter should they have to.     :(

well the current crop of pensioners will retire at 65 on full and generous pensions.
meanwhile , through their selfish 'grey power" whinging and protest rallies, they will make the younger workers

1  support them in the luxury to which they have become accustomed.
2  forego pay rises and have money put into super where young people cant access it.
3  work til they are 70
4  pay for their own meagre retirement out of their super.

the age of entitlement seems over for everyone except the pensioner.

.......where does that extra money into super come from Mr Crook?

You will have to ask Mr Abbott that.  Didn't he say, people would get the 12 percent super after two years?.      :-?

Swagman wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 8:38am:

.......where does that extra money into super come from Mr Crook?

Crook philosophy........

http://www.chickennation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/2008-04-03_The_Videogame_Wizard-200x200.png http://earthsociety.org/freedomaustralia/files/2011/11/printing_money-150x150.jpg

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 8:46am:

You will have to ask Mr Abbott that.  Didn't he say, people would get the 12 percent super after two years?.      :-?

Good grief crook, it comes straight out of the pockets of the small business owner, just like your penalty rates.
keep trying to annihilate the movers and shakers and risk takers.
should devalue the country enough for our Asian neighbours to take over and then see how much super you get  :D :D

Howard should have increased super.

Pensions are being cut in terms of purchasing power and rebates being taken away—sound sense to increase super, it also gives the country a huge pool of capital to fund business expansion.

As for pensions being generous  ;D ;D ;D

Tony wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 9:30am:

Howard should have increased super. Pensions are being cut in terms of purchasing power and rebates being taken away—sound sense to increase super, it also gives the country a huge pool of capital to fund business expansion. As for pensions being generous  ;D ;D ;D

Way to generous.
pensioners , (who aren't complete drop kicks) should definitely own their own home.
this puts them at an incredible advantage over younger people. And yet, the pension is paid at a much higher rate then the dole and people on the dole would need a car etc to look for work.
pensioners just need a local aldi and a good supply of blankets. Most seem to think they are entitled to 2 $30,000 hip replacemetns and 2 $30,000 knee replacements and a yearly cruise on P and O.
what a selfish generation

The pension is not very generous at all.

You are arguing for NewStart to be increased? I think so too!

Re housing—look to govt policies like negative gearing and capital gains concessions and the FHOG. Pensioners had nothing to do with any of it.

Very confused mind there, full of resentment for some reason.

Tony wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 9:30am:

Howard should have increased super. Pensions are being cut in terms of purchasing power and rebates being taken away—sound sense to increase super, it also gives the country a huge pool of capital to fund business expansion. As for pensions being generous  ;D ;D ;D

......individuals can make their own contributions (shock horror  :o) instead of relying on handouts and  / or living out of someone else's pocket

And most do! D’uh!

Tony wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 9:42am:

The pension is not very generous at all. You are arguing for NewStart to be increased? I think so too! Re housing—look to govt policies like negative gearing and capital gains concessions and the FHOG. Pensioners had nothing to do with any of it. Very confused mind there, full of resentment for some reason.

I  resent the resentful and the ungrateful on behalf of those who have to lift these leaners .
The pensioner is a very loud creature. this is because it is spoilt. the down trodden working poor have no voice because  they don't have the energy to protest after their long days of toil. ;)

Yup, resentful and I just wonder why?

Tony wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 10:03am:

Yup, resentful and I just wonder why?

Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;).

Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street.

I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones.

yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block.

Hope that explains why for you.
Sheesh

I think NewStart should be increased, not reduced. You are aware that by denying NewStart for 6 months the lot of the working poor just got harder? Who just increased HECS?

If you need to resent someone why not resent those very few on $250K a year who will continue to get huge tax deductions by rorting superannuation (salary sacrificing just to pay less tax?) These tax deductions will soon exceed the amount paid out in pensions! Resent those.

Resent the pensioners who so arranged their affairs that they retired with $1.25m in assets and can claim the full or part pension. And probably have other undeclared assets.

This govt is ruling for the 1% and you should resent that if you have to resent anything! It is no longer the Liberal party but a Neoconservative party. Look to the US to see what that leads to—a $17Trn debt they can’t pay.

Trouble with all those figures is they do not give a starting age....... sorry - it gives one example of start at age 35.  so that's 30 + years of inflation etc.. not much in the kitty there to invest and live on the interest IF you ever get to retirement age.

You telling me that Joe Bloggs, 64, will magically get all this money added in?

Besides - those figures are pie-in-the-sky since the market goes up and down on investments and inflation takes care of the rest... all these 'retirement age' figures will do is supplement a government pension by the time Jo Bloggs, 20 gets there.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 10:14am:

Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh

What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners?

You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc.

How about we juggle it around -

a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street.

b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street.

WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all.

I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter?

Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right?

aquascoot wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 10:01am:

Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 9:42am: The pension is not very generous at all. You are arguing for NewStart to be increased? I think so too! Re housing—look to govt policies like negative gearing and capital gains concessions and the FHOG. Pensioners had nothing to do with any of it. Very confused mind there, full of resentment for some reason. I  resent the resentful and the ungrateful on behalf of those who have to lift these leaners . The pensioner is a very loud creature. this is because it is spoilt. the down trodden working poor have no voice because  they don't have the energy to protest after their long days of toil. ;)

And what were these pensioners in their past but those self-same working poor, building the society that paid for your education and comfortable life now, paying far higher taxes and interest rates on the promise that it was to grow the economy so that their pension years would be liveable.
Don't you expect to get what you paid for?
Why is it selfish for them to expect the same?
Your whinges would appear to be the selfish ones,  simply put as...ME  ME  ME  ME  ME !   ::)

As I thought, don't criticise the pensioners or point out their self interest.
They are on the government gravy train and very resentful of my justified resentment of their selfishness.
Of all the homeless in Australia, maybe 50,000 , how many are old aged pensioners.
Maybe 0

We can fund modest 0.25% annual increases to compulsory superannuation quite easily by abolishing bracket creep on income tax and instead index the income tax scales to inflation. Each year, bracket creep increases the overall tax on the incomes of Australians on average incomes by more than 0.25% each year.

Example: Pay is $60,000.
Tax on $60,000 = $11,047 (18.41%)
3% increase = $61,800.
Tax on $61,800 =$11,632 (18.82%)
Difference = 0.41%

If the tax scales were indexed, the proportion of tax after an annual pay rise would be much the same. The difference could be used to fund an increase to compulsory superannuation without cutting take-home pay or increasing the cost to businesses.

Tony wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 10:22am:

This govt is ruling for the 1%

If this was indeed anywhere close to reality HTF does the Govt get elected?  ::)

The mob rules.

The mob lives out of the public trough and the public trough is majority funded by your 1%

Swagman wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 12:57pm:

Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:22am: This govt is ruling for the 1% If this was indeed anywhere close to reality HTF does the Govt get elected?  ::)

They get a LOT of help from that other neocon—Rupert Murdoch!

Notice what aquascoot has been doing in this thread. Trying to play off one group against another, when they are both in the same boat. Sad thing is, I don't even think he's a shill. What are we going to do with all these evil people when the day comes? :-/

Quickly dropped the crap about the pie not growing.

Says pensioners have it better than NewStart: true, so let us increase NewStart!

University changes—means rich kids not smart kids go to uni. That is gonna work out well down the track, NOT!

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 11:57pm:

Notice what aquascoot has been doing in this thread. Trying to play off one group against another, when they are both in the same boat. Sad thing is, I don't even think he's a shill. What are we going to do with all these evil people when the day comes? :-/

Not evil at all.
It is my legitimate opinion that the pensioners in society are pretty well looked after and that a lot of other groups

the young mentally ill
the young , at home, unemployed
the working poor who become ill
newly divorced dads from the working poor
the small farmer

In my opinion, these groups don't have much of a unified voice and if their is only so much cash to "splash' around (and this is the case), then splash a bit extra on these groups and not on the pensioners.

thoughts ;)

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 6:24am:

Unexpected pay rise coming your way      June 22, 2014      NEWS.com.au Millions of Australians are set to get a hidden pay rise on July 1 via their superannuation.      :)     WOULDN’T it be great to land a pay rise without even asking for one? You are about to next week. Millions of Australians are set to get a hidden pay rise from next week, when their compulsory superannuation payments are fattened from July 1, putting more money into their retirement purse.      :) The rise to the superannuation guarantee (SG) will result in employees getting an additional 0.25 per cent superannuation — climbing to 9.5 per cent — dropped into their super kitty. That’s an extra $10,713 for a 35 year old salary earner on $80,000 a year, and almost $19,000 if they are on $150,000. See below for more pay rise scenarios. But while it is your money, the catch is that you cannot access it until retirement, and for workers on a package, the amount will come out of their take-home pay. For most Australians the SG increase will not affect their take-home pay, but the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees’ chief executive, Tom Garcia, says the way workers will receive it will vary among employers. “It depends on how your employment situation is set up. It will be a mix — for some it will come out of your take-home pay if you’re paid a package,’’ he says. “If you are entitled to a wage increase then part of it can end up being this increase in the super guarantee.” Garcia urges Australians to either check with their super fund to see if they are getting the increase or to find out how the 9.5 per cent calculation is going to be made.      ;)     He also says it pays to check annual super statements to make sure the correct super payments have been paid. Australians are also being urged to take note of the super contribution caps so they don’t get pinged for making payments that exceed the cap. The concessional super caps are scheduled to rise on July 1 from $25,000 to $30,000 for Australians aged below 49 on June 30, 2014. For those aged 49 years or over as of June 30 this year the concessional contributions cap is $35,000 — up from $30,000. The non-concessional contributions cap will increase from $150,000 to $180,000. Shadforth Financial Group head of advice John Barton says people should closely examine how much extra is contributed to ensure they don’t get slugged with penalties. “You need to make sure don’t go over the cap and end up paying excess tax,’’ he says. “One good thing the government has proposed is to make the penalties less onerous for people who go over the cap. Previously it was far too onerous. “You should do your own personal planning on how close you want to go to the cap.” Below, we took the average super balance for a 35 year old — $45,000 — and did some sums on the amount extra they can expect to end up with due to the increase from 9.25 to 9.5 per cent on retiring. It calculated in average fees, charges and assumes a retirement age of 70, and a balanced investment option. For example someone on $60,000 will benefit with an extra $8,036 when they retire. Salary $60,000 9.25 per: $422,489 9.5 per cent: $430,525 Difference to your hip pocket: $8,036 $80,000 9.25 per: $521,593 9.5 per cent: $532,306 Difference to your hip pocket: $10,713 $100,000 9.25 per: $615,013 9.5 per cent: $628,206 Difference: to your hip pocket: $13,193 $150,000 9.25 per: $826,860 9.5 per cent: $845,702 Difference to your hip pocket: $18,842

The REAL difference is actually $400 per year or $7.69 per week!

You can forget all the rest, as it is the usual PR rubbish on what they think may happen, perhaps based on past history and given the once in history Global factors now in play, you can safely forget past history!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 8:43am:

You can forget all the rest, as it is the usual PR rubbish on what they think may happen, perhaps based on past history and given the once in history Global factors now in play, you can safely forget past history!

Correct....but don't forget the demographic factors as well.

The levels of 'social security' now enjoyed are unsustainable without significant productivity improvements.  Get used to it Crook.

Smokin Joey's budget is chicken feed compared to potential future budgets should you 'ochlocrats' get your way again.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Futuretaxpayers.jpg



 

aquascoot wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 6:57am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 11:57pm: Notice what aquascoot has been doing in this thread. Trying to play off one group against another, when they are both in the same boat. Sad thing is, I don't even think he's a shill. What are we going to do with all these evil people when the day comes? :-/ Not evil at all. It is my legitimate opinion that the pensioners in society are pretty well looked after and that a lot of other groups the young mentally ill the young , at home, unemployed the working poor who become ill newly divorced dads from the working poor the small farmer In my opinion, these groups don't have much of a unified voice and if their is only so much cash to "splash' around (and this is the case), then splash a bit extra on these groups and not on the pensioners. thoughts ;)

agreed.

Pfffft...

When I was a contractor I had to pay my own super.
When I was salaried, my super was part of the "package".
Now that I'm a casual on an hourly rate, my super is simply part of my hourly rate that's withheld by employer so on paper it looks like its being paid into a fund.

When I leave I'm going to have contact FairWork Australia to recover my super component.

You should get statements from your employer and your super fund.

Re pensioners: the very wealthy will be paid MORE than the pension from next financial year. Something aqua scoot didn’t mention. $150Bn per year gets paid to the wealthy—look up tax expenditures.

Andrea crapped on about the Boomers being selfish. Real clue to who is being selfish—look into the shares of income between capital and labor and the growing inequality that is causing.

Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

$150Bn per year gets paid to the wealthy—look up tax expenditures

That would be 36% of total expenditure?

The whole expenditure budget is $414 Bn

$145 B is the whole social security / welfare budget Source

Pretty big, isn’t it?

The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring.

Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring.

Its not really a rort (well ok it is but its a consequence of the ridiculous rate of tax paid by the movers, shakers, do-ers and wealth/pie creators.)
This rate will hit 50 % next year (Singapore 12%, south korea 9 %)

now you say the cost to the feds is 150 billion but this is patently wrong.
that's the cost if the wealthy put that money in a bank account and paid 50 % tax on the interest.
but if you did away with super concessions, the wealthy would (and rightly so) find other places to invest including leveraged shares, geared property etc etc and the fed wouldn't see an extra cent of revenue and you'd drive up geared property prices etc etc.

The best thing you could do is introduce a more sensible lower top marginal rate and encourage the pie creators to do more baking.

that abbott would raise the top rate reveals how much this big government , big welfare , socialist Jesuit has hijacked good rightward values.
shame on him ;)

Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:08am:

Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring.

That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers.

Quote:

You should get statements from your employer and your super fund

Zip has been paid in by my employer.
Question it and guaranteed I will not be allocated another days work.

I'll do what most do when they leave - claim it back then.

Swagman wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring. That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers.

Yeah, it is super. The 15% tax paid on super contributions rather than the applicable income tax rate. The very high income earners can salary sacrifice—more tax saved! FBT is full of rorts, negative gearing is a rort and on it goes.

Notice this Budget didn’t do anything to fix the rorts? Funny sort of Budget Emergency that doesn’t need to stop huge sums of tax expenditures going to people who don’t need it.

The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor—then they will panic and make things even worse.

Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:25am: Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring. That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers. Yeah, it is super. The 15% tax paid on super contributions rather than the applicable income tax rate. The very high income earners can salary sacrifice—more tax saved! FBT is full of rorts, negative gearing is a rort and on it goes. Notice this Budget didn’t do anything to fix the rorts? Funny sort of Budget Emergency that doesn’t need to stop huge sums of tax expenditures going to people who don’t need it. The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor—then they will panic and make things even worse.

not correct, anyone can salary sacrifice into super. Those on incomes above 80000 will get the most out of it, hardly the "very high income earners" you talk about.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:30am:

Quote: You should get statements from your employer and your super fund Zip has been paid in by my employer. Question it and guaranteed I will not be allocated another days work. I'll do what most do when they leave - claim it back then.

This is why we need tougher laws to stop this kind of abuse of superannuation.

If they're not paying the superannuation, it could also be a sign that the business is in financial trouble. When businesses are struggling for money, the first bill that most business stop paying is the superannuation.

ian wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:01am:

Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Swagman wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:25am: Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring. That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers. Yeah, it is super. The 15% tax paid on super contributions rather than the applicable income tax rate. The very high income earners can salary sacrifice—more tax saved! FBT is full of rorts, negative gearing is a rort and on it goes. Notice this Budget didn’t do anything to fix the rorts? Funny sort of Budget Emergency that doesn’t need to stop huge sums of tax expenditures going to people who don’t need it. The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor—then they will panic and make things even worse. not correct, anyone can salary sacrifice into super. Those on incomes above 80000 will get the most out of it, hardly the "very high income earners" you talk about.

It REALLY pays off for those on $250K pa or more.

It is a rort.

Aqua is wrong too—about ¾ of tax expenditures would be recovered if the rorts were stopped.

Then no more Budget Emergency, NewStart can be increased etc. Best of all—no change to private sector spending as the rich have no shortage of discretionary income.

Pity then the shambles reversed the first moves by Labor to tighten FBT rules and start removing the tax expenditures.

Our tax rates are not high among OECD nations as Bam stated. Just more Howard/Costello nuggets of brown stuff in the policy slippers. Abbott’s PPL is another rort for the wealthy.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 6:57am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 11:57pm: Notice what aquascoot has been doing in this thread. Trying to play off one group against another, when they are both in the same boat. Sad thing is, I don't even think he's a shill. What are we going to do with all these evil people when the day comes? :-/ Not evil at all. It is my legitimate opinion that the pensioners in society are pretty well looked after and that a lot of other groups the young mentally ill the young , at home, unemployed the working poor who become ill newly divorced dads from the working poor the small farmer In my opinion, these groups don't have much of a unified voice and if their is only so much cash to "splash' around (and this is the case), then splash a bit extra on these groups and not on the pensioners. thoughts ;)

I won't get bogged down by the circular hyperbole that is the sole purpose of your contribution to this board. Your posting history is comprised of fallacious assertions that get soundly rebuked almost immediately. You don't even give the impression of being a real person, merely an idealogical facade.

I'm watching you. :)

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2014 at 10:53am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:14am: Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners? You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc. How about we juggle it around - a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street. WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all. I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter? Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right?

I know it's hard to get your head around, but posters like aquascoot aren't interested in rational debate. They don't even begin to understand the real issues, they are not even paid shills; just attention trolls hijacking discussion forums for an attention fix. A psychologist would have a field day. ;)

ian wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 6:57am: Winston Smith wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 11:57pm: Notice what aquascoot has been doing in this thread. Trying to play off one group against another, when they are both in the same boat. Sad thing is, I don't even think he's a shill. What are we going to do with all these evil people when the day comes? :-/ Not evil at all. It is my legitimate opinion that the pensioners in society are pretty well looked after and that a lot of other groups the young mentally ill the young , at home, unemployed the working poor who become ill newly divorced dads from the working poor the small farmer In my opinion, these groups don't have much of a unified voice and if their is only so much cash to "splash' around (and this is the case), then splash a bit extra on these groups and not on the pensioners. thoughts ;) agreed.

Is that the 3rd instance now? ::)

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 2:25am:

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:14am: Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners? You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc. How about we juggle it around - a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street. WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all. I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter? Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right? I know it's hard to get your head around, but posters like aquascoot aren't interested in rational debate. They don't even begin to understand the real issues, they are not even paid shills; just attention trolls hijacking discussion forums for an attention fix. A psychologist would have a field day. ;)

Winston!!
I pride myself on being both rational and compassionate when it comes to the pensioners.

A lot of blokes, when their horses get old and can no longer work, they send them to the doggers for $400 a hit. I don't.
they have worked hard and they get to live out their life in a paddock , as befits their hard work.

BUT, what I don't do is the following....

when the vet comes out with the new vaccines, these go to the young horses.
when I buy supplements , these go to the young horses.
when I have to put the blankets on them in winter,(well my manager does) , these go to the young horses.
when we go on a trip, I take the young horses.

the old horses simply have to get used to that.
If an old horse came down and got into the best feed, helped itself to my new gear, gave itself expensive vaccines and jumped on the float declaring itself a "grey nomad" , I would have to take action, up to and including an injection of lethobarb.

there is a natural order to things and the young must be looked after before the old.

I'll ask you a question.

2 critically injured patients are in casualty after a bad road accident.
One is 10 and one is 75.
there is only one doctor.
Who does he attend first.

answer that and you can see why pensioners simply have got ahead of themselves in assigning themselves as priority 1. they aren't.

It is not the pensioners that are the problem. The other groups should also get more money.

Not only that, the pensioners some do some work, some do volunteer work, all pay tax—GST etc. The money pensioners get goes straight into the economy.

NewStart needs to be increased. If I have one fault with Swan it is he should have boosted NewStart.

Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:25am: Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring. That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers. Yeah, it is super. The 15% tax paid on super contributions rather than the applicable income tax rate. The very high income earners can salary sacrifice—more tax saved! FBT is full of rorts, negative gearing is a rort and on it goes. Notice this Budget didn’t do anything to fix the rorts? Funny sort of Budget Emergency that doesn’t need to stop huge sums of tax expenditures going to people who don’t need it. The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor—then they will panic and make things even worse.

Sorry the figure provided ($145B) is the gross welfare expense and it has nothing to do with super.

Your $150B figure is not even listed as an expense.

The 15% tax paid on super contributions is an incentive to save for individuals' self funded retirement.

Don't forget this money is the individuals' hard earned pay (not a handout) and they are putting it away and can't get their hands on it until their retirement hence the tax 'discount'

Self funded retirees will save the Tax-payer squillions.  It is not a rort.


Tony wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor

Propaganda.

The contribution of the 'rich' has been steadilly increasing against the increasing zero contribution of the so-called 'poor'.

It won't be the poor that drags the economy out of recession.

Tony wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:28am:

It REALLY pays off for those on $250K pa or more. It is a rort. Aqua is wrong too—about ¾ of tax expenditures would be recovered if the rorts were stopped. Then no more Budget Emergency, NewStart can be increased etc. Best of all—no change to private sector spending as the rich have no shortage of discretionary income. Pity then the shambles reversed the first moves by Labor to tighten FBT rules and start removing the tax expenditures. Our tax rates are not high among OECD nations as Bam stated. Just more Howard/Costello nuggets of brown stuff in the policy slippers. Abbott’s PPL is another rort for the wealthy.

Im not against removing super tax breaks for the wealthy but the idea that anyone salary sacrificing is rorting is wrong, it is providing for their future so they don t become burdens on the taxpayer like many are now who refused to provide for their own future. This is what is creating our welfare dependency, precisely this attitude of welfare entitlement. And the PPL is an excellent idea, only it should be capped and means tested. Women should be looking after thier own children and not dumping them in childcare centres, I would prefer a PPL scheme to subsidised childcare, better long term benefits for society as a whole. What is happening in this country is that exactly the wrong people are being subsidised to breed, those with low motivation, low IQs and entrenched welfare dependent cultural attitudes. The current welfare system as it is structured now  is effectively dumbing down the australian population progressively.

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 2:29am:

[ Is that the 3rd instance now? ::)

I agree with Aquascoots statements there, we should be prioritising assistance towards the young, in particular mental health. Aged pensioners are not priority number 1 in my book either.

Swagman wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Swagman wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:25am: Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:08am: Pretty big, isn’t it? The super rort is set to zoom exponentially, far more than pensions even with Boomers retiring. That's not super?  It's tax-payer funds going to non-taxpayers. Yeah, it is super. The 15% tax paid on super contributions rather than the applicable income tax rate. The very high income earners can salary sacrifice—more tax saved! FBT is full of rorts, negative gearing is a rort and on it goes. Notice this Budget didn’t do anything to fix the rorts? Funny sort of Budget Emergency that doesn’t need to stop huge sums of tax expenditures going to people who don’t need it. The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor—then they will panic and make things even worse. Sorry the figure provided ($145B) is the gross welfare expense and it has nothing to do with super. Your $150B figure is not even listed as an expense. The 15% tax paid on super contributions is an incentive to save for individuals' self funded retirement. Don't forget this money is the individuals' hard earned pay (not a handout) and they are putting it away and can't get their hands on it until their retirement hence the tax 'discount' Self funded retirees will save the Tax-payer squillions.  It is not a rort. Tony wrote on Jun 24th, 2014 at 11:04pm: The Budget is class warfare by the rich against the poor. It will result in a deep recession that the Libs will make worse by continuing to hit the poor Propaganda. The contribution of the 'rich' has been steadilly increasing against the increasing zero contribution of the so-called 'poor'. It won't be the poor that drags the economy out of recession.

quite true, the poor spend their money on trinkets from china. the rich spend it on growing their business and expanding their workforce.
giving money to the poor creates work for cheap clothing manufacturers in asia. it does nothing for OZ.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:36pm:

Quote: It won't be the poor that drags the economy out of recession. quite true, the poor spend their money on trinkets from china. the rich spend it on growing their business and expanding their workforce. giving money to the poor creates work for cheap clothing manufacturers in asia. it does nothing for OZ.

Unfounded nonsense.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:25am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:14am: Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners? You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc. How about we juggle it around - a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street. WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all. I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter? Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right? I know it's hard to get your head around, but posters like aquascoot aren't interested in rational debate. They don't even begin to understand the real issues, they are not even paid shills; just attention trolls hijacking discussion forums for an attention fix. A psychologist would have a field day. ;) Winston!! I pride myself on being both rational and compassionate when it comes to the pensioners. A lot of blokes, when their horses get old and can no longer work, they send them to the doggers for $400 a hit. I don't. they have worked hard and they get to live out their life in a paddock , as befits their hard work. BUT, what I don't do is the following.... when the vet comes out with the new vaccines, these go to the young horses. when I buy supplements , these go to the young horses. when I have to put the blankets on them in winter,(well my manager does) , these go to the young horses. when we go on a trip, I take the young horses. the old horses simply have to get used to that. If an old horse came down and got into the best feed, helped itself to my new gear, gave itself expensive vaccines and jumped on the float declaring itself a "grey nomad" , I would have to take action, up to and including an injection of lethobarb. there is a natural order to things and the young must be looked after before the old. I'll ask you a question. 2 critically injured patients are in casualty after a bad road accident. One is 10 and one is 75. there is only one doctor. Who does he attend first. answer that and you can see why pensioners simply have got ahead of themselves in assigning themselves as priority 1. they aren't.

Your analogies bear no relation on how funds should be allocated in the national budget.

You are clearly insane.

ian wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 10:42am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:29am: [ Is that the 3rd instance now? ::) I agree with Aquascoots statements there, we should be prioritising assistance towards the young, in particular mental health. Aged pensioners are not priority number 1 in my book either.

I worked you out a long time ago ian and from then on realised the futility of any sort of genuine engagement with you. You always flee into semantics lawyering or circular arguements, when invited to rationalise your position. Best you stick to +1'ing those people like aquascoot, who aren't afraid to make fools of themselves.

The 15% tax on salary paid into super to encourage saving is fine to an extent. Those on high incomes use it to reduce the tax they should pay.

A number then arrange things so that they retire with a low income but high assets and get the pension as well.

THOSE are the selfish ones!

Not only that, pensioners are largely past working and for those without super the pension is all they can get. The working poor have the chance to better their lot in life!

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2014 at 4:05am:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:08am: Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:25am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:14am: Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners? You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc. How about we juggle it around - a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street. WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all. I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter? Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right? I know it's hard to get your head around, but posters like aquascoot aren't interested in rational debate. They don't even begin to understand the real issues, they are not even paid shills; just attention trolls hijacking discussion forums for an attention fix. A psychologist would have a field day. ;) Winston!! I pride myself on being both rational and compassionate when it comes to the pensioners. A lot of blokes, when their horses get old and can no longer work, they send them to the doggers for $400 a hit. I don't. they have worked hard and they get to live out their life in a paddock , as befits their hard work. BUT, what I don't do is the following.... when the vet comes out with the new vaccines, these go to the young horses. when I buy supplements , these go to the young horses. when I have to put the blankets on them in winter,(well my manager does) , these go to the young horses. when we go on a trip, I take the young horses. the old horses simply have to get used to that. If an old horse came down and got into the best feed, helped itself to my new gear, gave itself expensive vaccines and jumped on the float declaring itself a "grey nomad" , I would have to take action, up to and including an injection of lethobarb. there is a natural order to things and the young must be looked after before the old. I'll ask you a question. 2 critically injured patients are in casualty after a bad road accident. One is 10 and one is 75. there is only one doctor. Who does he attend first. answer that and you can see why pensioners simply have got ahead of themselves in assigning themselves as priority 1. they aren't. Your analogies bear no relation on how funds should be allocated in the national budget. You are clearly insane.

Sooooo budgets aren't about priorities.
If we have 20 billion to spend and we have options in

education.
infrastructure
health
defence
welfare.

Our decisions have nothing to do with our priorities and I am clearly insane for suggesting governments spend according to such priorities.
interesting take Winston
F minus ;)

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2014 at 4:14am:

ian wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 10:42am: Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:29am: [ Is that the 3rd instance now? ::) I agree with Aquascoots statements there, we should be prioritising assistance towards the young, in particular mental health. Aged pensioners are not priority number 1 in my book either. I worked you out a long time ago ian and from then on realised the futility of any sort of genuine engagement with you. You always flee into semantics lawyering or circular arguements, when invited to rationalise your position. Best you stick to +1'ing those people like aquascoot, who aren't afraid to make fools of themselves.

I think if ian is suggesting more spending on mental health, this may assist you winston ;)

aquascoot wrote on Jun 26^th, 2014 at 7:05am:

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 26th, 2014 at 4:05am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 7:08am: Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:25am: Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:53am: aquascoot wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:14am: Tony wrote on Jun 23rd, 2014 at 10:03am: Yup, resentful and I just wonder why? Resentful because I have a good sense of whats fair and the pensioners dont ;). Do you think the pensioners are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. I would like to see pensions cut and more money go to the younger ones. yes, I am resentful that the selfish are pandered to by successive governments, and only because they are  a massive self interested voting block. Hope that explains why for you. Sheesh What does the plight of the working poor and the students with HECS set for a better life than we ever had, have to do with the plight of pensioners? You can't simply make some arbitrary line there and say one group are better off etc. How about we juggle it around - a) Do you think the pensioners working poor are hard done by and the working poor pensioners and young students facing massive HECS are on easy street. b)  Do you think the pensioners young students facing massive HECS are hard done by and the working poor and young students facing massive HECS pensioners are on easy street. WTF is wrong with you?  Most of those pensioners have worked damned hard to have very little by today's standards....  I, for one, sacrificed my own home (something I never had outside of that) to guarantee my children's future, and manfully worked 18 hours a day so every idiotic idea of 'government' and 'management' could ruin it all. I EARNED my pension ten times over - when you can say the same - provide details, or are you just another Joe Hockey with the priv school and sweet ride fully fed education, and somehow that means you 'worked' harder and smarter? Or are you just another rip-off merchant like Joe and Co who think they are better and more suited to run the show as some sort of right? I know it's hard to get your head around, but posters like aquascoot aren't interested in rational debate. They don't even begin to understand the real issues, they are not even paid shills; just attention trolls hijacking discussion forums for an attention fix. A psychologist would have a field day. ;) Winston!! I pride myself on being both rational and compassionate when it comes to the pensioners. A lot of blokes, when their horses get old and can no longer work, they send them to the doggers for $400 a hit. I don't. they have worked hard and they get to live out their life in a paddock , as befits their hard work. BUT, what I don't do is the following.... when the vet comes out with the new vaccines, these go to the young horses. when I buy supplements , these go to the young horses. when I have to put the blankets on them in winter,(well my manager does) , these go to the young horses. when we go on a trip, I take the young horses. the old horses simply have to get used to that. If an old horse came down and got into the best feed, helped itself to my new gear, gave itself expensive vaccines and jumped on the float declaring itself a "grey nomad" , I would have to take action, up to and including an injection of lethobarb. there is a natural order to things and the young must be looked after before the old. I'll ask you a question. 2 critically injured patients are in casualty after a bad road accident. One is 10 and one is 75. there is only one doctor. Who does he attend first. answer that and you can see why pensioners simply have got ahead of themselves in assigning themselves as priority 1. they aren't. Your analogies bear no relation on how funds should be allocated in the national budget. You are clearly insane. Sooooo budgets aren't about priorities. If we have 20 billion to spend and we have options in education. infrastructure health defence welfare. Our decisions have nothing to do with our priorities and I am clearly insane for suggesting governments spend according to such priorities. interesting take Winston F minus ;)

This is what I'm talking about, there is no point in attempting to reason with you. Your entire posting history is a litany of fallacious assertions getting shot down in flames, only to be replaced by fresh fallacious assertions in a circular pattern ad infinitum. In order to avoid providing reasoned consideration of the topics at hand, you prefer to heap fallacious deflection upon fallacious deflection. As I've stated, your contribution is purely based on attention farming. You are a non-intellect on this forum and possibly a criminally insane one.

You get an A+ for that aquascoot. ;)

Winston Smith wrote on Jun 26^th, 2014 at 4:14am:

ian wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 10:42am: Winston Smith wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 2:29am: [ Is that the 3rd instance now? ::) I agree with Aquascoots statements there, we should be prioritising assistance towards the young, in particular mental health. Aged pensioners are not priority number 1 in my book either. I worked you out a long time ago ian and from then on realised the futility of any sort of genuine engagement with you. You always flee into semantics lawyering or circular arguements, when invited to rationalise your position. Best you stick to +1'ing those people like aquascoot, who aren't afraid to make fools of themselves.

Lol, how is this semantics? My position is quite clear, i cant help it if my arguements are intellectually above your head.

Bam wrote on Jun 25^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 25th, 2014 at 12:36pm: Quote: It won't be the poor that drags the economy out of recession. quite true, the poor spend their money on trinkets from china. the rich spend it on growing their business and expanding their workforce. giving money to the poor creates work for cheap clothing manufacturers in asia. it does nothing for OZ. Unfounded nonsense.

As usual.

Life_goes_on wrote on Jun 24^th, 2014 at 10:04am:

Pfffft... When I was a contractor I had to pay my own super. When I was salaried, my super was part of the "package". Now that I'm a casual on an hourly rate, my super is simply part of my hourly rate that's withheld by employer so on paper it looks like its being paid into a fund. When I leave I'm going to have contact FairWork Australia to recover my super component.

The ATO will do an investigation too.