A very interesting read, but I doubt that those who should will....


Quote:

There was a lot of talk about unions ringing seniors, for example. And it’s true, when calling voters we didn’t screen on the basis of age. But the seniors union volunteers spoke to were not the silly old dears the Liberals imagine* them to be. (*...Read: "believe".) Most had watched politics for a long time. They remembered that at every point since Gough Whitlam proposed universal healthcare in the 1970s, the Liberals have fought against it. They remembered Malcolm Fraser scrapping Medibank. They remembered John Howard vowing to ­destroy Hawke’s Medicare. And they weren’t surprised by Mr Turnbull inviting the big banks to tender to run Medicare’s payment system. They also remembered how Medicare was created in the first place, through ­unions agreeing to forgo wage rises in order to fund it through the 1980s Accord.

*...My editorial comment.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/were-proud-of-mediscare/news-story/ed8d23e4491d953db4d6aa3d893782db

Can't access premium content.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

Can't access premium content.

That's alright, I've posted the important bits.

Try Googling 'We're proud of Medi-scare' and see what happens.
I managed to by-pass paywall by doing so.

You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again.

The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is.
So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore?

-Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced
-Look at co-payments
-Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK
-Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution

What's your solution?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution?

Just as privatising poles and wires worked in NSW.
Highest electricity bills in Australia.....

I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere?
The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid.
Where the fck is the money to come from?

And no ideas from Froggie.
Never mind Froggie, maybe there is a pot of gold somewhere that will miraculously turn up.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution?

I would say the best thing one could do would be to conduct an independent cost/benefit analysis.  It must be independent to avoid protecting the "sweetheart" deals pharmaco's have negotiated.  If there are drugs with dubious benefits, can them.  If there are better alternatives, replace them.

Also, no matter how much we try to put it off, we can't forever avoid facing the issue of when prolonging life at all costs becomes so wasteful that we all suffer. 

With respect Honky, that's not exactly Medicare. That's the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, but the same sort of problems exist. But how does the Australian govt take on Big Pharma?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere?

yes ... get rid of all the wealth fare and there is plenty of money to pay for it

Friggin dead-brained lefty wankers!!!!!!!

Only the progressive left can be proud of a blatant lie.

Lobo wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:50pm: You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution? Just as privatising poles and wires worked in NSW. Highest electricity bills in Australia.....

We already had high bills due to the subsidation of those with solar panels etc.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

Can't access premium content.

Here you go, in it's entirety




The Coalition and their backers are adamant. Despite decades of evil schemes cooked up by the dastardly unions the so-called ‘‘Medi-scare’’ campaign was the most sinister of all time.

Malcolm Turnbull’s election night speech was actually dedicated to how voters were duped by the sophisticated manipulation of union volunteers talking about Medicare.

Well, it’s nice to have your work acknowledged, I guess.

NSW was a stand-out state for Labor, with just about every marginal electorate falling the ALP’s way.

And unions did campaign hard on Medicare here.

Unions NSW coordinated countless protests in front of MP offices, calling on them to sign pledges saving Medicare.

Union volunteers, including thousands of nurses and other health sector workers, knocked on doors, supervised street stalls and made calls.

Medicare wasn’t the only issue on which unions campaigned. For months leading into the election, unions were busy talking to voters about workplace relations, education funding, jobs, the ­exploitation of overseas workers and much else.

But there’s no doubt Medicare was a key issue of focus — and it worked.

Now when something goes well, I think it’s natural to try to talk up how difficult it was.

    “Now when something goes well, I think it’s natural to try to talk up how difficult it was.”

Yet much as I enjoy the casting of unions as powerful agents of mind control, I have to be honest: most of the people we talked to were already scared about what the Liberals would do to Medicare.

And that’s the thing about so-called scare campaigns.

For people to be per-suaded that a party doesn’t represent their views on an issue, they have to pretty much believe it already.

Contrary to Mr Turnbull’s views, people aren’t easily manipulated chumps just waiting to be told what to fear.

There was a lot of talk about unions ringing seniors, for example. And it’s true, when calling voters we didn’t screen on the basis of age.

But the seniors union volunteers spoke to were not the silly old dears the Liberals imagine them to be.

Most had watched politics for a long time. They remembered that at every point since Gough Whitlam proposed universal healthcare in the 1970s, the Liberals have fought against it.

They remembered Malcolm Fraser scrapping Medibank. They remembered John Howard vowing to ­destroy Hawke’s Medicare. And they weren’t surprised by Mr Turnbull inviting the big banks to tender to run Medicare’s payment system.

They also remembered how Medicare was created in the first place, through ­unions agreeing to forgo wage rises in order to fund it through the 1980s Accord.

Russell Matheson, who was replaced by Labor’s Dr Mike Freelander in the Western Sydney seat of Macarthur, now complains he saw Medicare “biting at the booths,” but his party did nothing about it.

That’s nonsense. The Liberals spent whole weeks ­insisting they would never hurt Medicare.

But the problem with countering a scare campaign based on your track record is you can’t just say “trust us”. You have to work really hard to convince people you’ve changed.

You have demonstrate to people in detail that you understand why Medicare is important and why you’d never sell it.

Do you remember Turnbull, Scott Morrison, or anyone else doing this?

It’s only a scare campaign if it doesn’t ring true.

Mark Morey is secretary of Unions NSW

Perhaps we could stop subsidizing PRIVATE HEALTH and make them earn their money in a proper free market place.

Maybe John Smith will advance a solution to the Medicare funding problem. I'm sure he recognises that it is unsustainable into the future on the present model and that we all want it to be sustainable.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from?

Cashed up baby boomers like yourself
Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start.

Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay?

Besides who told you it's unaffordable?

The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with.

Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but

---

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Perhaps we could stop subsidizing PRIVATE HEALTH and make them earn their money in a proper free market place.

it doesn't happen often Goose, but every now and then even you stumble into a good idea.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

Maybe John Smith will advance a solution to the Medicare funding problem. I'm sure he recognises that it is unsustainable into the future on the present model and that we all want it to be sustainable.

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

get rid of all the wealth fare and there is plenty of money to pay for it

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but

Brilliant meme

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:58pm: I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from? Cashed up baby boomers like yourself Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay? Besides who told you it's unaffordable? The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with. Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but

I for one am willing to pay a co-payment and not have it applied to people on welfare, but that won't be enough to solve the problem.

The entire health budget, including Medicare, is out of control and the day of judgement is fast approaching.
Interesting that you should bring up the UK. What is happening there with their once great NHS is what is our destiny here, ie over-crowded, under-funded and under-staffed.

Problems have to be faced not turned away from.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:

I for one am willing to pay a co-payment

good of you to lump an extra expense on everyone else. .. how noble of you.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

And no ideas from Froggie. Never mind Froggie, maybe there is a pot of gold somewhere that will miraculously turn up.

Not at all, bogie....

I never claimed to have all the answers, like some, merely pointing out the lies associated with the LNP crap about phoning 'old people in the middle of the night'.

Sorry that I have another life that prevented me from getting back to you straight away.

Now, I'm off again, so please don't hold your breath awaiting an answer to your next post......

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:27pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:58pm: I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from? Cashed up baby boomers like yourself Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay? Besides who told you it's unaffordable? The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with. Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but I for one am willing to pay a co-payment and not have it applied to people on welfare, but that won't be enough to solve the problem. The entire health budget, including Medicare, is out of control and the day of judgement is fast approaching. Interesting that you should bring up the UK. What is happening there with their once great NHS is what is our destiny here, ie over-crowded, under-funded and under-staffed. Problems have to be faced not turned away from.

I agree & we have discussed the issues of funding numerous times .

Cut Howard's wealthfare we are no longer in a boom to afford it
Limit Neg Gear to new homes only
Tax super earnings once a REASONABLE threshold has been reached at normal income tax rates - 60K is my line as you should have a roof owned by then.
Stop giving shareholders of Private health companies a 30 billion $$ boost each year.

There's a good start to being able to see a doctor.

It all about priorities as the poster points out.

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

Grendel wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:24pm: Perhaps we could stop subsidizing PRIVATE HEALTH and make them earn their money in a proper free market place. it doesn't happen often Goose, but every now and then even you stumble into a good idea.

I always have good ideas John... unlike you I can also be courteous. ;)

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

Only the progressive left can be proud of a blatant lie.

huhummmmmmmmm


Mark Morey is secretary of Unions NSW


very LEFT.

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

unlike you I can also be courteous

Do you realise that suggesting someone is unable to be courteous isn't exactly courteous, Goose?  ::) ::)

Grendel wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Perhaps we could stop subsidizing PRIVATE HEALTH and make them earn their money in a proper free market place.

[smiley=thumbup.gif] If we did that, Medicare would be fully funded without a tax increase.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:50pm:

You're talking ancient history Froggie. (snip) What's your solution?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

I asked you what your solution was?

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

And no ideas from Froggie.

Why did you wait for only 13 minutes before complaining about no response?  ::)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start.

So you only want $750,000 (or Less) in your super when you retire? Will it increase with CPI? In 20 years time at  CPI 3.6%, your super will be worth about half.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:27pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:58pm: I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from? Cashed up baby boomers like yourself Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay? Besides who told you it's unaffordable? The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with. Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but I for one am willing to pay a co-payment and not have it applied to people on welfare, but that won't be enough to solve the problem. The entire health budget, including Medicare, is out of control and the day of judgement is fast approaching.

The fastest-growing part of the health budget is the PHI rebate. Scrap that wealthfare and reallocate the funds elsewhere in the health budget, and the health Budget would be far more sustainable.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. So you only want $750,000 (or Less) in your super when you retire? Will it increase with CPI? In 20 years time at  CPI 3.6%, your super will be worth about half.

how does paying taxes on anything earning over $60k limit the amount in super? You should strive to earn $200 k a year in super earnings,  just pay tax on the additional $140k

Bam wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:27pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:58pm: I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from? Cashed up baby boomers like yourself Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay? Besides who told you it's unaffordable? The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with. Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but I for one am willing to pay a co-payment and not have it applied to people on welfare, but that won't be enough to solve the problem. The entire health budget, including Medicare, is out of control and the day of judgement is fast approaching. The fastest-growing part of the health budget is the PHI rebate. Scrap that wealthfare and reallocate the funds elsewhere in the health budget, and the health Budget would be far more sustainable.

Good idea

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:47pm:

how does paying taxes on anything earning over $60k limit the amount in super? You should strive to earn $200 k a year in super earnings,  just pay tax on the additional $140k

If DSmithy didn't want to pay that tax he needs to keep his super below $750k. Now if you pay tax at the top marginal rate on that 140K you will pay 45% plus the 2% budget repair levy as the fund earned over 200K. 47%, .$94K tax. Leaving 106K earnings in the kitty. Next year you will have a compounding effect. Less earnings because your capital was diminished, and probably more tax. That limits the super.

I notice you didn't address the CPI issue either.

Shame Shorty Shame!!!

You deserve to be dropped into the garbage disposal unit.

Shorty and Labor had nothing to offer except trillion dollar foreign debt so, like all Socialists, they lied to suck in the naive and gullible Lefties.

I will always laugh at Liberal supports crying about "lies"

1: The Libs are literally privatizing parts of Medicare, LITERALLY.

2: The Libs have been undermining medicare for decades and have a long history of "starving the beast" when it comes to public services, to get them ready for privatization.

3: The Libs slavish pandering to PHI is the biggest drain on the health budget and the Libs want to worsen it? I wonder why.

Also still can't remember any Liberal election campaign that wasn't based on lies, slander or a bullcrap three word slogan so for Lib supporters to be crying about a "Scare campaign" is just hilarious hypocrisy.

This coming from the party that thinks Copper is "faster and cheaper" than fiber.

;)

Great comeback there.

Again, love to see these Liberal campaigns based on facts, the same party that still doesn't release costings or anything for it's "policies" (vague ideas) before an election.

One could be unkind and say sour grapes.

But what else would you expect with a shifty little creep like Shorty losing the election for you.

Shorty's shifty mug turns voters right off.

Shorty is simply unelectable and the sooner Labor stuff him into the garbage disposal unit the better for them.

Bam wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 4:27pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:58pm: I asked you what your solution was? Is there a pot of money you can find somewhere? The doctors, nurses, pathologists, radiologists etc all have to be paid. Where the fck is the money to come from? Cashed up baby boomers like yourself Tax super earnings over 60K at the normal taxation rate there's a start. Why is it when we reach the time in life we most NEED government services we suddenly are under no obligation to pay? Besides who told you it's unaffordable? The very same people who ALWAYS find the money if its something they agree with. Below is not Australian but UK, you get the jist but I for one am willing to pay a co-payment and not have it applied to people on welfare, but that won't be enough to solve the problem. The entire health budget, including Medicare, is out of control and the day of judgement is fast approaching. The fastest-growing part of the health budget is the PHI rebate. Scrap that wealthfare and reallocate the funds elsewhere in the health budget, and the health Budget would be far more sustainable.

You know as much about health funding as you do about tax avoidance, about enough to fit on the back of a postage stamp.
If it wasn't for the PHI subsidy keeping hundreds of thousands of people out of the inefficient, public service union run state health sector and allowing those mostly thrifty everyday people to access an efficient alternative, the whole shebang would come tumbling down.

And yet here you are, mouthing your Fabian socialist garbage and associating with this mob of ratbags who glory in supporting an attempted fraud on the voters.
But it didn't pay off did it because you deservedly LOST.

Lobo wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:50pm: You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution? Just as privatising poles and wires worked in NSW. Highest electricity bills in Australia.....

They're high because of decades of Labor and the Unions running things in NSW (into the ground).

Humphrey,

now that's tellin' him!!!!

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

Bam wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:43pm: The fastest-growing part of the health budget is the PHI rebate. Scrap that wealthfare and reallocate the funds elsewhere in the health budget, and the health Budget would be far more sustainable. You know as much about health funding as you do about tax avoidance, about enough to fit on the back of a postage stamp. If it wasn't for the PHI subsidy keeping hundreds of thousands of people out of the inefficient, public service union run state health sector and allowing those mostly thrifty everyday people to access an efficient alternative, the whole shebang would come tumbling down.

Why do you parrot such nonsense?  ::)

The PHI subsidy is a conspicuous waste of money. A considerable part of it is wasted on profits for the PHI industry and every dollar of profit is wasted money that isn't providing health outcomes. And many of the PHI policies themselves are incredibly wasteful. Running shoes? Gym clothes? Oh please. The PHI has grown fat, bloated and inefficient on taxpayer-funded largesse and removing the PHI rebate is necessary to make the PHI industry leaner and more efficient.


bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

And yet here you are, mouthing your Fabian socialist garbage and associating with this mob of ratbags who glory in supporting an attempted fraud on the voters. But it didn't pay off did it because you deservedly LOST.

And you've got nothing but personal abuse again.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:50pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:54pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:50pm: You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution? Just as privatising poles and wires worked in NSW. Highest electricity bills in Australia..... They're high because of decades of Labor and the Unions running things in NSW (into the ground).

What a load of rubbish - if that was the case, why did the bills climb so much AFTER privatisation?

On privatisation, the NSW public have been sold a pup!

Lobo wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 3:08pm:

A very interesting read, but I doubt that those who should will.... Quote: There was a lot of talk about unions ringing seniors, for example. And it’s true, when calling voters we didn’t screen on the basis of age. But the seniors union volunteers spoke to were not the silly old dears the Liberals imagine* them to be. (*...Read: "believe".) Most had watched politics for a long time. They remembered that at every point since Gough Whitlam proposed universal healthcare in the 1970s, the Liberals have fought against it. They remembered Malcolm Fraser scrapping Medibank. They remembered John Howard vowing to ­destroy Hawke’s Medicare. And they weren’t surprised by Mr Turnbull inviting the big banks to tender to run Medicare’s payment system. They also remembered how Medicare was created in the first place, through ­unions agreeing to forgo wage rises in order to fund it through the 1980s Accord.

the fake message:

https://www.pedestrian.tv/images/article/2016/07/03/meditext1-619-386.png


Is it true that millions of these were sent out?
That would have taken a lot of technical help
& money.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1467499403/195

Shorten will personally blow the health budget when his elective skull re-shaping surgery comes due.

Operating theatres will have to be widened to enable the enormous head to gain access to the surgeon.

I believe that the MRI on his head blew up the MRI machine and this was one of the reasons that the government had to claw back some money from radiology.

And when the MRI was fired up, large sections of western sydney were blacked out , denying people the chance to watch Waleed on the Project .

Why do the Lefties have to tear each other to bits all the time ?

They are just like the Labor Party tearing itself to bits all the time.

Aqua,

you are not suggesting that Shorty has a swelled head ?

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:47pm: how does paying taxes on anything earning over $60k limit the amount in super? You should strive to earn $200 k a year in super earnings,  just pay tax on the additional $140k If DSmithy didn't want to pay that tax he needs to keep his super below $750k. Now if you pay tax at the top marginal rate on that 140K you will pay 45% plus the 2% budget repair levy as the fund earned over 200K. 47%, .$94K tax. Leaving 106K earnings in the kitty. Next year you will have a compounding effect. Less earnings because your capital was diminished, and probably more tax. That limits the super. I notice you didn't address the CPI issue either.

no one WANTS to pay tax ... that doesn't mean people are going into poverty.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

That would have taken a lot of technical help & money.

wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising

I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message



have you seen what advertising costs?

juliar wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

Aqua, you are not suggesting that Shorty has a swelled head ?

Shorty is just a bit of a weirdo, dont you think.
i mean hawke and keating...i'd like to meet those 2, but Gillard would just be like going on an awkward blind date, Rudd would be like that annoying nerdy uncle no one wants to sit next to and Shorten sort of seems like he had his sense of humour surgically extracted. He sort of creeps me out.

you look at pictures of martin bryant and you think..yep  weirdo.
you look at pictures of ivan milat and you think ..yep weirdo.
i get that same feeling when i see him on the telly.
just not warm and engaging,
if i ever do see him on telly though, i would think it would be on "embarrassing bodies".

or maybe Midsummer Murders as the villain

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs?

Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000.

Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament.

John Smith wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

no one WANTS to pay tax ... that doesn't mean people are going into poverty.

Where did I say that?

Still no answer on CPI increases.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:50pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:54pm: bogarde73 wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:50pm: You're talking ancient history Froggie. We might as well talk about the Dismissal again. The point now is that anyone with half a brain knows Medicare is not sustainable as is. So what do we do, bearing in mind there are very few if any ideological opponents anymore? -Outsource the processing to reduce costs, because we all know the public sector is bloody inefficient and overpriced -Look at co-payments -Raise the medicare levy substantially. . .TICK -Squeeze the practitioners . .dead end solution What's your solution? Just as privatising poles and wires worked in NSW. Highest electricity bills in Australia..... They're high because of decades of Labor and the Unions running things in NSW (into the ground).

Oh, dear....
Do they really let you vote??

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 7:56pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 3:08pm: A very interesting read, but I doubt that those who should will.... Quote: There was a lot of talk about unions ringing seniors, for example. And it’s true, when calling voters we didn’t screen on the basis of age. But the seniors union volunteers spoke to were not the silly old dears the Liberals imagine* them to be. (*...Read: "believe".) Most had watched politics for a long time. They remembered that at every point since Gough Whitlam proposed universal healthcare in the 1970s, the Liberals have fought against it. They remembered Malcolm Fraser scrapping Medibank. They remembered John Howard vowing to ­destroy Hawke’s Medicare. And they weren’t surprised by Mr Turnbull inviting the big banks to tender to run Medicare’s payment system. They also remembered how Medicare was created in the first place, through ­unions agreeing to forgo wage rises in order to fund it through the 1980s Accord. the fake message: https://www.pedestrian.tv/images/article/2016/07/03/meditext1-619-386.png Is it true that millions of these were sent out? That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1467499403/195

I don't know...How about you tell us.

Don't forget the link....

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament.

Are you saying that 2M messages were sent out??

Lobo wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament. Are you saying that 2M messages were sent out??

That's just a rumour - no one seems to know yet.

The police will find out.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament.

It has nothing to do with parliament, Booby.

The Labor Party can spend their money on anything they like.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:59pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament. Are you saying that 2M messages were sent out?? That's just a rumour - no one seems to know yet. The police will find out.

Oh...
You mentioned 'millions', earlier, so I thought you might have known something that no one else seems to know.

So it boils down to a wild guess, or LNP bullshit, being thrown up by you.

Thanks for clarifying the matter.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Still no answer on CPI increases.

If you don't think you're super will last, save some more. Just don't expect to get it tax free.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000.

2 million now? funny how that number goes up all the time. You try direct advertising to 2 million potential customers, see how much change you get out of $160 k

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament. It has nothing to do with parliament, Booby. The Labor Party can spend their money on anything they like.

But it's at least illegal & obviously immoral.

If Shorty did this then he's in trouble.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament. It has nothing to do with parliament, Booby. The Labor Party can spend their money on anything they like. But it's at least illegal & obviously immoral. If Shorty did this then he's in trouble.

Nothing illegal about it, Booby.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

But it's at least illegal & obviously immoral.

:D :D :D
you should be illegal

We're proud of being truly independent, and of being ready to fight for real at the next election.

Gird yourself for true - the battle is just beginning.

The Medi-scare campaign itself was a bit of a low act in itself, but some good may come of it in the form of unintended consequence.

Hopefully all political parties have seen how farquing with Medicare is political suicide and Australians want public health.

So just as the success of One Nation was a pseudo referendum on Muslim immigration, Medi-scare was a pseudo referendum on Medicare :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 9:37pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 9:36pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 7:56pm: That would have taken a lot of technical help & money. wrong ... there are companies that do this for you and fairly cheaply as compared to other forms of advertising I found one that was $150 set up, $48 monthly fee, and .08c per message have you seen what advertising costs? Ohh right - so  2 million messages would cost $160,000. Wow - there will be some great questions in parliament. It has nothing to do with parliament, Booby. The Labor Party can spend their money on anything they like. But it's at least illegal & obviously immoral. If Shorty did this then he's in trouble. Nothing illegal about it, sir Bobby.

You mean just like your lifestyle?

not that there's anything wrong with it.

lee wrote on Jul 13^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 13th, 2016 at 5:47pm: how does paying taxes on anything earning over $60k limit the amount in super? You should strive to earn $200 k a year in super earnings,  just pay tax on the additional $140k If DSmithy didn't want to pay that tax he needs to keep his super below $750k. Now if you pay tax at the top marginal rate on that 140K you will pay 45% plus the 2% budget repair levy as the fund earned over 200K. 47%, .$94K tax. Leaving 106K earnings in the kitty. Next year you will have a compounding effect. Less earnings because your capital was diminished, and probably more tax. That limits the super. I notice you didn't address the CPI issue either.

Where did I say I didn't want to pay tax, & why don't you people understand we have sliding tax scales.
The 60K I mentioned is tax free therefore the 18K after is also tax free, 18 to 37 -19 cents, 37 to 80 - 32 cents and so on, effectively giving a retiree a 78K tax free spending per year.

PS the 45 cent rate kicks in at 180K meaning with a taxable income of 140K they NEVER pay it.

When did super change from retirement funds for the individual to intergenerational wealth transfer?

I await your sob story on how they will be eating dog food.