14th Feb 2018
The solution to the retirement poverty trap
How to fix the Age Pension system

Retirees are hurting with one in four now living in poverty in Australia. Matt Grudnoff, a senior economist at The Australia Institute, has the solution. 

Rising electricity prices and housing costs are hurting many retirees. I’ll repeat those words – hurting many retirees. The stark reality is that one in four retirees is living in poverty.

There is considerable government and community focus on how rising costs are affecting young people, but retirees who rent are bearing the brunt of the price increases.

The Retirement Affordability Index™ was established by YourLifeChoices and The Australia Institute to shine a light on exactly these issues. The index for the December quarter shows that the cost of living is rising fastest for retirees who rent, the tribe on the lowest incomes and who can least afford soaring electricity bills.

The problems highlighted by our index are particularly stark when viewed in an international context. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ranks Australia as the third worst for rates of poverty among retired people in the 35 developed nations – behind Korea and Latvia.

Disturbingly, the organisation estimates that a quarter of retired Australians live in poverty, which is twice the OECD average of 12.5 per cent.

Australia’s retirement income system must be made simpler and the amount of money paid via the Age Pension must be increased to permit retired people to live in dignity.

What can we do about this problem? Are there solutions?

At the heart of the problem is an Age Pension system that is both inadequate and hugely complex. But there is a solution – a Universal Age Pension.

There are two parts to government support for incomes in retirement: the Age Pension and superannuation tax concessions. The means-tested Age Pension provides income support directly for those who qualify and superannuation tax concessions increase the value of workers’ super over their lifetime, making more funds available in retirement.

The means testing of the Age Pension results in pension payments being focused mainly on lower income retirees, while the far less means-tested superannuation tax concessions mean that the majority of the tax concessions go to high-income earners.

The Government likes to tell us that the Age Pension is unsustainable. However, over the past three years, spending on the Age Pension has grown by an average of four per cent a year, while superannuation tax concessions have grown by an average of 10 per cent per year. And Treasury predicts the concessions will grow by that same amount for the next three years.

This year, the combined cost of the Age Pension and superannuation tax concessions will be $80 billion. The problem is not that too little is being spent to support incomes in retirement, it is that too much of it is being spent providing a subsidy to those with multimillion-dollar super accounts, while many retired people continue to live in poverty.

A solution is to combine the two parts of the retiree income support into a Universal Age Pension. A Universal Age Pension would be a payment made to anyone over the age of 67, regardless of their income or assets. A similar system operates in New Zealand, which has a poverty rate of one in 10 compared with our one in four.

The main advantage of a Universal Age Pension is that the whole system becomes simpler. It reduces the cost of administration to both the Government and to retirees. No more having to work out if you’re eligible for a pension or part-pension. No more asset or income tests.

The rate of the Universal Age Pension also needs to be increased to tackle the scandalous rates of poverty among Australia’s retirees.

The Universal Age Pension would be increased from the current 30 per cent of total male earnings to 37.5 per cent of total male earnings. The single pension base rate would rise from $814 per fortnight to $1063 per fortnight and the couple rate by a commensurate amount.

This would be funded through the abolition of superannuation tax concessions.

If this occurred, not only would the Universal Age Pension be fully funded but the Government would also have change left over to the tune of about $15 billion per year.

The reason for this is that the cost of superannuation tax concessions has been rising rapidly and in the next few years is likely to be more costly than the Age Pension.

The superannuation guarantee – the compulsory 9.5 per cent of workers’ income that employers pay into employee super accounts – would continue. Without superannuation tax concessions, super balances would be lower, particularly for high-wealth individuals, but super would become a top-up to the Universal Age Pension.

The idea is that the Age Pension would be universally available and sufficient to sustain people in retirement. It would end the situation where the inequality in people’s working life is magnified by superannuation in retirement.

The Universal Age Pension would also improve older people’s participation in the workforce. The choice to work even a few hours has meant possibly having your pension reduced. With a Universal Age Pension, additional work will not change the amount received.

New Zealand, with its Universal Age Pension, has higher work participation rates for older workers than Australia.

The $15 billion per year that this policy change would save could be used to increase public housing stocks for retirees who don’t own their own home. This would further strengthen the safety net for retirees who rent.

The idea that the Age Pension is unsustainable and that we need to accept the high rates of poverty facing retired people is simply wrong. Reform does not need to break the budget. We just need to more efficiently and fairly distribute the money already being used to boost retirement incomes.

A system with integrity and fairness at its core should reflect the underlying purpose of having a pension in the first place: Every Australian should be able to live in retirement with dignity.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Tukkaman
    21st Feb 2018
    10:16am
    its so obviously a no brainer to follow the Kay-One DoubleEwe-One (KIWI) system that obviously works for a lessor economic power than Oz.
    Pick the eyes out of their methodology.....get a NGO inviolate mob to test drive a scheme suitable for us.

    I think they pay a tax structure if you get amounts of income above a point so the mega wealthy will pay a share.......something some are escaping now.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    10:25am
    Yes - income (etc) above pension enters the normal tax regime - not sure how they handle the tax free threshold or if it is from Dollar One.... I did figures on that once - lost somewhere now...

    Wait for the whines of the fat cat superannuants ..... they can't do figures - I think I worked out that under the tax-free threshold, a couple would need to already be getting $100k in super on top of pension before it would make any difference to the current setup.

    It's like the argument I put forward over massive salaries for the top dogs (such as my cousin's husband).. I calculated that his then salary of around $100k could be paid at $60k if he paid the same rate as Joe Bloggs on far less - no way would he come at that... he'd rather pay more tax to retain his 'status' as a high income earner.

    It's called snobbery.... nothing more nor less.... now wait for all the entitlement people who've 'earned' their money, obviously nobody else has but has spent it on piss and pokies etc ...... (ROFL emoticon required)...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:31am
    It would be good if super remains tax free for those over 60 too.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    10:49am
    Why? You already have a free ride on super.. now you want another? Is that something to do with the attitude that you've 'earned your money' but everyone else is a wastrel and a loser etc?

    You can't expect both a pension and not to be taxed on your incomes.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:53am
    I have already paid tax on the money in my super fund so taxing it again is wrong as it is a double tax on that money.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    11:30am
    You got a concession -you don't get a second bite...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:33am
    No concessions for me.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    11:49am
    Greed has no end Trebor. And the same people who attack anyone who points to the inequities in the system that disadvantage those who have modest savings are always the ones who scream loudest if it appears they might lose a little of their massive hoard. OG shouts down anyone who complains about an unfair means test, but threaten to end his fat and grossly unfair tax concessions and he bellows.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:00pm
    Problem is Rainey I just can't find any of those grossly unfair tax concessions anywhere in my affairs.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:04pm
    Of course not, OG, because like all the GREEDY PRIVILEGED, you think handouts to the wealthy are fair entitlements, whereas handouts to the less well-off are unfair indulgence. The rich NEVER admit to being over-indulged. They don't even see what is real. They live in la-las land - by choice!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:13pm
    No handouts for me Rainey.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:21pm
    The other one plays Jingle Bells, OG.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:56pm
    I thought it was Green Sleeves.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    8:44pm
    Perhaps Green Slaves....
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    10:18am
    Trebor Scheme - don't forget the tax on all income fringe benefits and 'giftings' deemed to be part of income.

    As usual, the common sense solution advocated from the coalface of society needs to be 'validated' by some 'learned body' before it c an receive any attention.

    Hence my creation some years past of 'The Learned Professor of BOSHT - the Bleedingly Obvious Stated in High Sounding Terms' - as a teaching tool.... 'learned professors' can preach about anything and it attains instant recognition.... the first example was our protest about annual burn-offs of the bush in remote areas which nearly killed me every year with smoke and heart troubles... then out of the blue a 'learned professor' from ANU came up with the same reasoning about burn-offs in remote areas - they achieved nothing but smoke.

    Suddenly the idea was 'mainstream'.... what a loser society it is when it needs someone who has spent years in academia to tell it how to run things on the ground.....

    Now we see this with the Retirement Packaging Scheme or System....

    All we need to do now is take it out of the hands of politicians and their mates, who see it as a fabulous Alladin's Cave of slush funding...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:24am
    It will probably only be enough to pay my tax every year if I am lucky so is no benefit to me at all.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    10:26am
    Thanks for the hoot - but I did tell you that once before - you'd be no worse off... you wouldn't have a bar of it.

    It shouldn't be a benefit for you - it is only to even out the current imbalances with the same rules for all in real terms.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:29am
    You mean a way of bringing me back down to your level. That just aint going to happen.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    10:51am
    'My' level? You were never that good and never will be. You are free to refuse a pension, but you will pay tax on your income and deemed income.

    (ROFL emoticon required again)...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:56am
    NO I don't pay tax on deemed income as one only pays tax on income actually earned. Then again that income is higher than any deemed income so maybe paying tax on deemed instead of actual income is a good idea.
    Rae
    21st Feb 2018
    11:32am
    When you think of it the "deeming" is a nonsense really. Only real income should ever be considered. You can't just make up stuff which is exactly what deeming is. Making up stuff.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:34am
    Deeming was bought in to make it easier to work out someone's income rather than working out their actual income. Imagine working the income out if every one had 50 different shares.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    11:34am
    You mean Centrelink doesn't 'deem' certain things as income? What about that assets test then......

    What about fringe benefits then? Free ride?

    What about gifting from your own company? Free ride again?

    Past concession on super?

    Past concessions on serial property ownership?

    Past concessions on company operation?

    Free rides are unsustainable and are causing the nation to borrow billions every year and will be a burden of debt passed on to future generations....

    (aaaaaaaah ... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha)....

    Told you long ago 'we' need to be looking at the sum total of government expenditure to find where the true black holes are.... not just pointing the finger at pensions and social security.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:42am
    Got none of those things.
    Old Man
    21st Feb 2018
    11:46am
    Hey BOB, not exactly a ROFL emoticon but you may find something to fill the gap here.
    https://www.alt-codes.net/smiley_alt_codes.php
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    11:59am
    There you go! Proof positive of why common sense fairness can NEVER prevail in this nation. The stinking HAVE TOO MUCH brigade are way too GREEDY. OG claims to live on very little, but now he's bellyaching at the prospect of having to pay his way in society for a change, so that those who worked much harder but were paid much less can have modest comfort in their old age.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:03pm
    I am more likely to benefit than lose from such a scheme. However it would be very selfish of me to endorse such a scheme as I simply don't need any more money to fund my lifestyle.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:05pm
    Which is why you started this dialog whinging about getting no benefit. It's called HYPOCRISY, OG.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:09pm
    So now because I disagree with a scheme that I will benefit from I now a hypocrite? I'm not whinging about anything but can't say the same about you.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:13pm
    You whined at the start. You changed your tack because you were called out. That hypocritical.

    Yes, I'm whinging about a scheme that costs the nation far too much and leaves 1/4 of retirees in poverty. I don't like supporting a BAD SYSTEM. My personal situation - which is perfectly acceptable - has nothing to do with my position or views. If everyone were as well off as me, there would be no problem and no need for change.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:14pm
    Well stop whinging and abusing people then Rainey as it has nothing at all to do with you.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:20pm
    No, OG. I'll continue to speak out against injustice and stupidity that is harmful to the nation. In a democracy (or even a PRETEND democracy), successful government and beneficial policy relies on the active participation of citizens who have the integrity to focus on what's good for the nation and the courage to speak out.
    Rae
    21st Feb 2018
    12:25pm
    Have you ever thought that it isn't all about you OG.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    12:31pm
    Some fine choices there,OM... thanks...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:35pm
    It's not about me at all as I don't get or need any welfare handouts from the government.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:38pm
    Your posts are ALWAYS ABOUT YOU, OG. Never any consideration for others, much less that national good.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:00pm
    Actually my posts have nothing at all to do with me.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:25pm
    I quote you, OG:

    It will probably only be enough to pay MY tax every year if I am lucky so is no benefit to ME at all.

    You mean a way of bringing ME back down to your level. That just aint going to happen.

    I don't get any tax concessions so you are barking up the wrong tree.

    Wrong I put lump sums that I had already paid tax on into my super fund. I didn't get any super instead of wage rises etc and I haven't had a job since super became compulsory.


    Just a small selection of posts that are typically nearly ALWAYS about YOU, OG.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:33pm
    So what my shoes are not a fit for everyone. I doubt if yours are either.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:44pm
    Obviously you can't read, or have a comprehension problem, OG. A quarter of retirees are living in poverty. Millions qualify for an aged pension. NO NO NO your shoes are NOT a fit for the majority. You are the exception - not the rule. So am I, but unlike you I don't focus on my situation except to confirm that I don't speak from self-interest. My posts support change that benefits the nation and the majority of the population. Unlike you, I support change that ends the welfare mentality and encourages endeavour and responsible lifestyle choices. I don't object to people having what they earned and deserve. I object to a system that drives manipulation and dishonesty and rewards overspending.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:46pm
    So I shouldn't be seeing so many OAPs crowding out coffee shops then with their fancy cakes and coffee? I can never understand why people do this as it's so expensive.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:47pm
    Or cruise ships patronised by 80% plus that are on welfare.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:40pm
    How do you KNOW any of these people are on OAP ONLY, Ebergeezer Scrooge? Do you follow them home and steal their mail?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:44pm
    They all tell me how well they are doing on the OAP.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:41pm
    And from comments by a handful you meet personally, you draw wild and insanely inaccurate assumptions, instead of considering REAL DATA? No wonder you get it wrong most of the time.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:52pm
    Now where does that real data come from? I don't know of anyone who tells the truth about their affairs so no such thing as real data.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:01pm
    Ah, so you admit to consorting with cheats and liars? No wonder you get such wildly inaccurate data and form such crazily wrong opinions.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:32pm
    Everyone is a cheat and liar and to tell me differently you would be lying yourself.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:36pm
    No OG. Only the cheats and liars tell themselves that to salve their guilty conscience. I don't lie to anyone - least of all me. And the government knows EXACTLY what I have, in every detail that is required to be stated.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:43pm
    One must ask why you have told the government anything if you are not on welfare. I have told them nothing and they have asked me for nothing.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:43pm
    I lodge tax returns OG. Like all HONEST citizens.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:44pm
    I also respond truthfully to census questions.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    8:45pm
    Same here, Rainey - jeez - I can ring ASIO and they say, "Hello, Bob"....
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:40am
    OG:-

    No - you're not a hypocrite for that... you have many other ways of attaining that status....

    and...

    NO, your shoes do not fit everyone...they can only fit you.....

    Thank you for your contributions....
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:25am
    OUR so you are an angel. Why not give your wings some exercise and fly away?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:26am
    Who is OUR? Me, I'm just an honest, law-abiding citizen with integrity. Lots of us around, BigBear. Sad that you aren't among them.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    10:50am
    Gee I thought you more of an angel that does nothing wrong as well.
    fearlessfly
    21st Feb 2018
    10:41am
    Well, Heaven Forbid that such a workable and fair system would get installed here ! Absolutely out of the question ! Why, that would mean the moronic Australians have yet again followed the lead of the Kiwis !
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    10:58am
    New Zealand can afford to pay a pension to all because their economy is booming now.
    fearlessfly
    21st Feb 2018
    11:09am
    Clearly Australia could also afford it if the dickheads in Canberra got their s%%t together !
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:14am
    Nothing wrong with our current OAP scheme.
    fearlessfly
    21st Feb 2018
    11:18am
    Are you serious ? Have you not read the content of the article above ?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:25am
    Yes I read it and it would not matter how much money OAPs got it would never be enough for most of them.
    Rae
    21st Feb 2018
    11:38am
    There is a lot wrong with it OG. One in 4 in poverty for a start and free money to wealthy people over a certain age.

    A fair society tries to treat everyone equally and our system isn't fair and the superannuation tax concession growth makes it far from sustainable.

    Changes will need to be made.

    Our economy would be booming too if the LNP stopped selling off assets that raise revenue and worked on getting deals that benefit Australia over the line rather than setting up policies so that the ALP will fail next time in office but that destroy the Nations prosperity as a consequence.

    Prime example is the 60 years of free, unlimited water offer to Adani. Madness.

    Or the Bail in laws passed last week we are not supposed to know about.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:45am
    Any money taken out of a super fund after 60 has no more tax payable. It was either taxed at 15% or 30% or tax at their marginal rate before it was put into super. So tax has already been paid on it. Most people with other income would be better off it wasn't tax free but came with tax credits.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    11:53am
    Except that if you had a low income, you got ZERO tax credits and paid the full rate on your super contributions. If you had a modest income, you got some minor tax credits. If you had a BIG FAT OBSCENELY HIGH INCOME you GOT HUGE CREDITS AND THE TAXPAYER FUNDED A LUXURIOUS RETIREMENT.

    That's the problem. The super tax concessions fund lavish retirement for the rich and do nothing for the struggling poor. But then the struggling poor are persecuted in old age by the GREEDY SELF-SERVING RICH who are never satisfied, despite getting MASSIVE handouts all their working lives.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    11:56am
    Our economy would boom too if the greedy stopped screaming for more and acknowledged that this proposal is sensible and economically beneficial. But the likes of OG will never let it happen. Far too self-serving. Got to keep the battlers down so the fat cats can continue to gloat. And only those who want to persecute strugglers and over-feed the rich would endorse the disgracefully inefficient, unfair and economically detrimental system we currently have. But sadly all the power lies in the hands of those self-serving rich gloaters!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:56am
    If you put after tax money into your super fund then because it has already been taxed then no tax is payable when you withdraw it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:01pm
    If you were well-paid, it WAS NOT TAXED FAIRLY and should be taxed heavily on withdrawal. Only those on low incomes paid fair tax on super contributions.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:07pm
    No point in putting money into super if you are going to get taxed a lot more than if you had left it out of super. Only a mug would put money into super and would get it out as fast as he could if it was put in super for him.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:10pm
    Oh, so according to OGs Illogic, a system that only benefits rich manipulators and persecutes those with fewer choices and/or those with less sophisticated financial knowledge is good. A system that works fairly for all and is economically advantageous to the nation is bad - because it doesn't feed obscene greed!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:26pm
    Nothing wrong with our system at all. The top 20% now pay 80% of the taxes and you wan them to pay more? Give them a break.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    12:33pm
    Rubbish - they do not... many a pie chart will show that.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:37pm
    A myth the greedy rich love to peddle. But it all comes down to how you do the sums, doesn't it? There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. And this 20% yarn falls into all three categories.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    1:30pm
    .. and they get 100% of the tax deductions.....

    You call that a system in balance?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:48pm
    It is easy to make a million. Start with 2 million.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:43pm
    Oh, so you have finally pulled back from that ridiculous nonsense about it being all due to hard work? About time!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:55pm
    I guess if you made your money by foul means than you expect everyone else did too. Unfortunately some of us worked while the rest partied and now they just don't get it does actually take a lot of hard work to be successful.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:03pm
    Most of us worked out guts out, but didn't get wealthy, OG. Because it takes a hell of a lot more than just hard work to get wealthy. You, of course, would know nothing about that, because you don't know what hard work is. If you did, you wouldn't denigrate those who slogged their guts out to make OTHERS well-off.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:23pm
    No nice clean silver platters for me either Rainey. I started with nothing like many others did but through a lot of hard work I got to where I am today.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:37pm
    Another of your fantasies! It's easy to tell who worked hard, OG. They support a system that fosters and rewards hard work, and they have empathy and compassion for the less fortunate. You are THE STINKING PRIVILEGED who has never experienced hardship and wouldn't know what hard work is. That is very apparent from your attitude, as almost everyone here has noted at some point.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:44pm
    No I don't have an empathy or compassion for those who partied while I worked hard. They are nothing but whingers who failed to provide for their own retirement.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:50pm
    Again playing God. How the hell would you know who partied? Plenty of folk who are needy in retirement wouldn't know what it was to party. They suffered crisis, illness, injustice... all sorts of reasons why they are hard up now. But self-serving presumptive ASSES with no decency or humanity can't accept reality. They have to make nasty untruthful assertions to salve their conscience over being so greedy.
    Sundays
    21st Feb 2018
    11:01am
    I can’t see one reason why this scheme wouldn’t work except the mentality of a Government that resents supporting the elderly even when all the benefits of such a scheme are pointed out
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:42am
    Spot on - what happened to Monday? (look for it online - an interesting movie)....
    BundyGil
    21st Feb 2018
    11:25am
    Great idea, Matt. However, the pensioners in poverty don't have the ear of the current federal government, the people with millions in super do and will fight tooth and nail to keep their tax deductible contributions
    tropic
    21st Feb 2018
    11:28am
    I can't think of any country with a more complicated system than Australia. It's as if they want to punish older people. I get a small pension from overseas. It's for life and no questions asked. All they want to know (once a year) is that I'm still alive. I hope that Labor will adopt the universal pension. With the Libs we have no hope at all.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:38am
    It is not very complicated at all. People fail to learn the rules before they fill out their application and do it all wrong.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    11:50am
    Any system in which people have to learn rules and manipulate is overly complicated, inefficient, and economically unsustainable. Australia's system is APPALLINGLY COMPLICATED AND PATENTLY STUPID. Anyone who defends it does not care about the interests of the nation or the majority, but is totally selfish.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    11:52am
    It is also selfish for those to take welfare when they don't need it too.
    fearlessfly
    21st Feb 2018
    11:57am
    Dead right OnlyGenuineRainy & tropic, every damned thing in Australia is Appallingly Complicated & Patently Stupid. Look at all the asinine different rules & regulations between the States, road rules, marine rules, education systems, the list goes on and on. I'm convinced Australia has been hijacked by the US Congress, so many half witted decisions have been made. How did the Australian mind ever develop in this direction ? Twenty years ago I used to admire Australians - today ? The country is a laughing stock.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:00pm
    So STOP screaming for WELFARE in the form of tax concessions you don't need, OG. You are GREEDY.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:07pm
    I don't get any tax concessions so you are barking up the wrong tree.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:08pm
    The other one plays Jingle Bells, OG. None of us are stupid.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:11pm
    I beg to differ on that one.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:17pm
    An arrogant person like you would. But arrogant people are generally not too bright. I suspect you are the least intelligent here, OG. Certainly you posts suggest very poor comprehension and perception.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:22pm
    Gosh are you sure you didn't over dose on your meds today?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:28pm
    I don't need or take meds, OG. I eat healthy and live healthy. I am rated as highly intelligent with excellent logical thinking and critical thinking skills and high levels of comprehension and perception.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:34pm
    ROFL
    Jacka
    21st Feb 2018
    11:45am
    sounds like a no brainer and makes a lot of sense once again the government wanting to look after younger people who are young strong fit yet so many do not wish to work as opposed to the older Australians whose ragged bodies that time has taken toll on can no longer work yet wish to and cannot find employment come on Canberra wake up, get your priorities right before it's too late. Cheers Jacka.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:07pm
    There's a major problem with this proposal Three problems, actually. It's common sense. It would work. It wouldn't feed the greedy rich.

    This government has no interest in anything common sense, much less anything that would work. And it CERTAINLY will NEVER consider any proposal that doesn't feed the greedy rich and maintain their privilege. So we can all forget it. It ain't gonna happen!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:19pm
    That's why we have such a welfare mentality in this country today. Heaven forbid anyone that gets wealthy as they are now seen as doing it by foul means instead of all the hard work they did while everyone else was partying away.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:24pm
    Wrong, Old Fool. We have a welfare mentality because our STUPID system rewards greed and manipulation and punishes honesty, integrity, hard work and responsible living.

    And yes, the majority of wealthy DID get it by foul means - or maintain it by foul means. Wealth comes mostly from inheritance or crime and is maintained mostly be exploitation of both labour and the tax system. It's all but impossible to get wealthy by honest means from a poor start, and certainly hard work does not generate wealth. The hardest workers are paid the least.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:28pm
    So you got your wealth by foul means then. I certainly didn't.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:34pm
    No, OG. I don't have any wealth. I got a home by building it myself, working weekends, nights and holidays for 10 years and sourcing materials from recycling businesses and junk yards, while living in very uncomfortable conditions. My partner and I made all our clothing, furniture and soft furnishings - almost exclusively from recycled stuff other dumped. And we taught ourselves to repair cars and appliances. We grew much of our own food.

    I am comfortable now because I continue to work and earn despite being well past retirement age, and I am very self-sufficient and a good money manager, and we own a nice home because of our own building efforts.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:38pm
    That what most of us did Rainey.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:40pm
    No, OG. Very few did that. Very few indeed. And you CERTAINLY didn't. If you did, you would not have the nasty attitude you display in your posts here. Real battlers have empathy and compassion and care about fairness.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:41pm
    And you claim wealth, OG. NOBODY got wealthy doing what I did. NOBODY. You can't invest the time it takes to do all of that and still earn a high income.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:59pm
    Real battlers can't stand whingers either as they get on with life instead of wasting their time and energy whinging.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:39pm
    You are the biggest whinger here, OG - whinging loudly every time anyone even hints at supporting changes to make life better for those who don't have it so good, and whinging endlessly that people who lost the pension under the assets test ''had it too good'' before, plus attacking anyone who dares to suggest or indicate support for positive change.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:59pm
    The change in the asset test was a positive change so now hinging from me about it.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:42pm
    Only fools who want to grow a welfare mentality and wreck the nation think it was positive.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:56pm
    So because I think it was an awesome idea that people who don't need to OAP don't now get it I'm a fool. Rubbish.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:15pm
    You think you are God, don't you? How the hell would you know who needs what? And why should people who can't pass the assets test be disadvantaged while much richer folk are grossly overindulged? The pension is nothing more than a negative tax. Those who got big tax concessions were overindulged unfairly, but they are the same GREEDY CREEPS who now begrudge the less well off who got NOTHING in earlier life a little comfort. SELFISH.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:30pm
    I pity anyone you come across who is wealthy Rainey if you say things like that to them.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:54pm
    I call it like it is, OG. If a wealthy person has integrity and human decency, I treat them accordingly. Sadly, most don't.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    7:14pm
    All the wealthy people I know are very generous and will help others whenever they can. I do the same myself.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    8:47pm
    ROFL....... *re-thinks*....... ROFL again...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    9:20pm
    ROFL, SMH and LMFAO.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:49am
    I've consorted with 'rich' people in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney, and drunk among them at the Foolgarah Hotel... they are primarily peasants in fine suits with no solid values......

    At one time at the Foolgarah, my dear lady friend was insulted by an 'Alan Bond' type - you know the type - a 'fire plug of a man' with a hostile countenance and a couterie of fine lasses who hung on his every word since he paid their way.... my lady friend wanted me to challenge him over that insult... instead I played him... and he become more and more irate with no real avenue to let it out..... I'm a bastard like that.... contributing to his inevitable heart attack....

    On another occasion, at the Double Bay Sailing Club, a very exclusive members only venue, I chose to leave when a friend was thrown out..... I didn't much like the clientele anyway - they had a sort of Mediterranean look of no class...... hardly my type at all....

    All true....
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:22pm
    So you consorted with the rich if could be in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I lived there once myself so know the sort of people you would have consorted with. They are not my type either.

    The wealthy people I know are like the people next door who most think are just ordinary folk.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:12pm
    Ah, so now you are admitting that you are choosey about your associations with the wealthy. In other words, you know how obnoxious most are. And having exposed your hypocrisy on the subject of savings, we can now all be content to write you off as a foolish old hypocrite who says whatever suits at the moment and has no sincerity, let alone humanity or respect.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    10:49am
    I only associate with the real wealthy not the would be if could be ones that most associate with being wealthy.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:17pm
    *falls about laughing*
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:07pm
    My wealth is in my character and humanity, both honed over years of hell.
    thommo
    21st Feb 2018
    12:27pm
    Our governments tamper with the age pension in various ways, including shrinking the assets test as from 1.1.17, so that aged pensioners, especially those on the full pension, get less and less.
    And those with a few more assets still get less and less, so that all pensioners get less and less.
    I lost $14K per year when this lousy govt changed the assets test as from 1.1.17, something I (and thousands of others) will never ever forgive or forget.
    The govt pulled the rug out from under us and stuffed up our retirement, which we planned based on legitimate criteria at the time.
    No mercy for this lousy government at the next election, and its time pensioners organised a voice in parliament, so that equity and fairness will be back in the equation.
    The CPSA claims to be the representatives for the aged pensioners, but they are as useless as tits on a bull. In fact, they supported Abbott and the Greens when they changed the assets test in the 2015 budget, claiming it would make the age pension "more sustainable".
    What a load of BS.
    All the politiicians had to do was recover lost tax revenue from the big end of town and rein in their own salaries and lurks and perks (including their life-long taxpayer funded pensions), so that fairness and equity prevails.
    But first we need to kick them out of office, and replace them with a new fresh team who 'promise" fairness (but no broken promises like those of Abbott and his cronies)
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:32pm
    Good thing they changed the asset test as it was way too generous and those who got les OAP didn't need it but it was nice to have while it lasted.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    12:36pm
    Says the greedy person who doesn't want change because it wouldn't benefit him, and who cares nothing for the harm done to the nation by making manipulation, cheating and irresponsible living much more beneficial. But of course he mortally HATES seeing battlers given a helping hand. Got to cut down the growing poppies. They might take some of his and his tall poppy mates sunlight!
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    12:36pm
    Assets = deemed income..... so when the new system comes in, those who are getting freebies will find them deemed as income.

    The principal reason this kind of scheme will never get off the ground here is that it will directly impact politicians and their mates who are in the retirement pipeline to paying no tax after a plentiful free ride.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:41pm
    ROFL
    thommo
    21st Feb 2018
    1:03pm
    The Old Geeser is obviously a LNP Govt stooge, who doesn't know the meaning of equitable fairness.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:06pm
    I don't vote for any of them so what sort of stooge does that make me.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:29pm
    Pull it again, OG. Do you seriously expect us to believe that crap when your political persuasion is so very apparent?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:37pm
    So you are telling me I should tell my lackey who turns up and marks my name of the electoral roll that they should vote for me a certain way. Quite frankly I couldn't care less.
    thommo
    21st Feb 2018
    1:45pm
    Well, a stingy stooge otherwise....
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:43pm
    A paid one who is not a citizen - he's already said he doesn't vote...... obviously he doesn't live here at all... he must be doing a Marlon Brando and beaming his stories in from an offshore island or a pirate radio ship....
    Charlie
    21st Feb 2018
    12:36pm
    What is so hard about increasing it. You take the existing amount of money and you add more.?
    GrayComputing
    21st Feb 2018
    12:41pm
    If the Liberal party wants to stay in power there is a very simple solution:
    Adopt the “NO ASSET TEST for pensioners” as your campaign slogan.
    The huge cost to tax payers of thousands of bureaucrats at Centrelink doing 24/7/365 invasive microscopic assessments of our last cents is super expensive.
    We do not care if a few “rich” or millionaires or super rich gets a pension. So what.
    Even Churchill got his normal pensioner payment in the UK.
    Centre-link’s pain to all pensioners is political dynamite which will explode in your and your governments face one day.
    It will be so much simpler and fairer all round to just cut out all this expensive Centrelink bureaucratic pension assessment workload.
    I predict the cost saving by reducing CenterLlink’s workload and overheads will exceed the cost of my no asset test plan !

    Michael please help to stop all these tedious and nasty visits to from Centrelink for a few dollars more or less in our pockets.
    If that is done then for the rest our lives we can avoid all the pain there is now when there is a trivial income-asset change.
    “NO ASSET TEST for pensioners EVER AGAIN”
    Captain
    21st Feb 2018
    3:56pm
    If all companies paid their fair share of Income tax there would be enough for all over 65 to receive a pension of approx $1,000/fnt.

    I have suggested before that by changing the current tax system and making all company and personal income taxable, we would most probaly have a maximum tax ceiling of 15/20%.

    Much too difficult for any of our politicians to grasp that idea. There again they would lose their donations from Companies, rich individuals and of their foreign investors.
    musicveg
    21st Feb 2018
    4:04pm
    Centrelink is overworked with all the paperwork, it would save heaps of money. Let's put it to a political vote and vote for those who will bring in Universal Pensions.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:26pm
    As a matter of interest, I wonder how much it would save in treatment for stress-related illness; how much profit and tax revenue the extra spending would generate; how many Aussies who can't afford to live in OZ would decide they could afford to stay at home and spend their money here; and how many would choose domestic holidays rather than overseas because they don't need to get rid of money to pass the stupid assets test?

    I suspect the real benefits would be far more substantial than any of can even guestimate.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:38pm
    It is now way cheaper to holiday overseas than in Australia so it won't make any difference.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:48pm
    Says the creep who thinks he's GOD and can read everyone's mind. I know thousands who would RATHER holiday locally, but need to reduce their assets fast and can do it far more efficiently overseas. And that's only ONE of the massive list of advantages to a universal pension.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:36pm
    Gee we certainly out of touch as it is now cheaper to take a holiday in Alaska than in Australia even with airfares included. Was only looking at a brochure a couple of days ago and the cost of Australian holidays was ridiculous compared to overseas ones.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    9:23pm
    The relative cost has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT. See if you can stay on track for once! Nah! Too hard for someone with no comprehension.
    *Imagine*
    21st Feb 2018
    12:44pm
    Of course a universal aged pension is the way to go. It releases the retired to do paid work, it allows those with extra funds to invest as they wish, without forever wondering how it will affect their pension and it will release tens of thousands of hours of government administration aimed at checking pensioner status. Just to name three benefits.
    As for the OG argument about super fairness. The super system was based on transferring wage increases to retirement funding. Imagine a worker in a part time job earning below the tax threshold of $18,200 they have their compulsory super contributions taxed at 15% - a wages loss to them. Whereas a person on $80,000 plus who pays 37% tax puts in a much larger contribution also taxed at 15%, an immediate wage gain of 22%. That is not fair in my world, but then OG and I are on different planets.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    12:55pm
    Wrong I put lump sums that I had already paid tax on into my super fund. I didn't get any super instead of wage rises etc and I haven't had a job since super became compulsory.
    *Imagine*
    21st Feb 2018
    1:19pm
    OG, what you, or I, did or didn't do is irrelevant in the scheme of things. My comment was related to today's workers paying compulsory contributions, not your personal history.
    My wife and I were PAYG wage slaves, payed into super and now are fortunate in that we have a well funded retirement. However, the system (if you can call it that) is far too complicated, it is unfair, it is inequitable, it is full of grandfathered rules that see pensioners with the same net worth being treated differently. Many who planned their futures as best they could, find themselves struggling financially. The whole shemozzle needs scrapping and replacing with a clear, simple, understandable, and equitable universal system. That approach can only be good for Australia and its citizens. I imagine it would also give us something more constructive to argue about than trying to defend the indefensible.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:26pm
    Absolutely right, Imagine. And all intelligent Australians agree.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    24th Feb 2018
    8:05am
    Many workers never see that super go into their super accounts. That's right their employers never pay it and they don't find out about it until they retire. It is too late then.
    GrayComputing
    21st Feb 2018
    12:45pm
    Copy of an e-mail I sent to Michael Keenan (my MP) and a Minister in the federal Government
    >>
    If the Liberal party wants to stay in power there is a very simple solution:
    Adopt the “NO ASSET TEST for pensioners” as your campaign slogan.
    The huge cost to tax payers of thousands of bureaucrats at Centrelink doing 24/7/365 invasive microscopic assessments of our last cents is super expensive.
    We do not care if a few “rich” or millionaires or super rich gets a pension. So what.
    Even Churchill got his normal pensioner payment in the UK.
    Centre-link’s pain to all pensioners is political dynamite which will explode in your and your governments face one day.
    It will be so much simpler and fairer all round to just cut out all this expensive Centrelink bureaucratic pension assessment workload.
    I predict the cost saving by reducing CenterLlink’s workload and overheads will exceed the cost of my no asset test plan !

    Michael please help to stop all these tedious and nasty visits to from Centrelink for a few dollars more or less in our pockets.
    If that is done then for the rest our lives we can avoid all the pain there is now when there is a trivial income-asset change.
    “NO ASSET TEST for pensioners EVER AGAIN”
    Captain
    21st Feb 2018
    4:02pm
    Grey computing, I hope you receive a response from your poll.

    I am still waiting for replies from our State MP, Federal MP and Federal Senator to questions posed to them in the last 18 months.
    Captain
    21st Feb 2018
    4:04pm
    That last word in the first sentence should be"politican".

    21st Feb 2018
    12:52pm
    Only Genuine Rainey - you came into this world whingeing, and you will go out the same way! Congrats on your consistency! What a terrible, annoying bore you are!
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    1:34pm
    Stop whinging about Rainey......
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:34pm
    I don't ''whinge'' Big Al. I speak out about a system that is bad for the nation. And I won't be silenced by anyone until it is changed.

    I have repeatedly said I am very well off and content. Not wealthy. Nowhere near. My assets are very modest indeed. But I am rich in all the ways that matter and I have a good life. I have nothing to whinge about, and I have never been a whinger. But I will continue to support the complaints of those who are suffering unfairly - including the taxpaying public - and I will continue to object to a grossly unfair, administratively hideous, and grossly unsustainable and uneconomical system that is harming our nation.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:36pm
    Those who benefit from the status quo will always whinge about those who seek improvements, Trebor. And the more unfairly the status quo advantages them, the more loudly they'll protest any hint of changing it.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:56pm
    It would make no difference to me whatever they did as I am not dependant upon welfare. Even if they raise the OAP it will never be enough as people will still live way beyond their means.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:46pm
    Again - you know this how, Ebergeezer? You follow people home, steal their mail, set spy cameras on their Centrelink interviews, have private detectives following them around to note their spending?

    What exactly is the matter with you? Apart from being a fantasist....
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:50pm
    Nothing wrong with me at all.
    musicveg
    21st Feb 2018
    4:11pm
    No one comes into the world whinging BigAl, your comments are nasty. Only Genuine Rainey is one of the few that make any sense on YLC, others are too selfish to understand the suffering of those who are not so fortunate. He talks about fairness and a Universal Pension is the only fair way to go. Anything else is too complicated, too cruel and too time consuming for everyone.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:25pm
    So it's fair to puts the thousands who work for Centrelink out of work?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:46pm
    It would be sensible to free them up to work in much more productive areas. Maybe if we had a sensible pension system there would be more entrepreneurs as there would be greater encouragement to work and strive and far less risk attached to having a go.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    1:26pm
    I agree that a Universal pension should be paid. I don't agree with a reduction in tax concessions for superannuation. I suspect they could get the money by getting companies to pay their fair share of tax. Notice I said fair not legal , at the moment most pay what they're legally required to. But the laws need to change to close loopholes.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:28pm
    I don't necessarily think a reduction of superannuation tax concessions is a good thing, but certainly they need to be restructured so that they benefit the lower income earners more and the higher income earners less. We should NOT be funding lavish retirements for the rich by giving tax concessions that the strugglers cannot access.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:35pm
    I do agree on taxing corporations, Tib. But sadly it seems it will get much easier for them to escape fair obligations.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    1:35pm
    Superannuation is savings set aside - you can't have both a pension and superannuation concessions.

    It's like the argument about CGT and Negative Gearing - you should rightly only get one or the other... not both.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    1:38pm
    Tib - remember what that actor said about Blade Runner - it was no good until he arrived in the plot - then it was beautiful...

    Something like that.... Rutger Hauer...
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:41pm
    Yes you can. Retire at 60 withdraw all your super and have a great lifestyle until you reach pension age of 67.

    I can't see the sense of negative gearing myself. Why own an asset that makes a real loss. Positive gearing is the way to go.

    CGT actually limits investment as any gains have to be shared with the tax man.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:46pm
    Exactly what's WRONG with the current system. You CAN have both if you are privileged. You can have it all, and the greedier and more self-serving and unethical you are, the more you can take - PROVIDED you are well-off. If you are a battler, you have bugger all and are tormented.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:53pm
    Welfare as in the OAP should only be given to those who have no other means of support. So what if someone decides to spend their retirement money on trips around the world, new vehicle and upsizes their house. It is their money.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    2:57pm
    I don't know that super concessions only benefit the wealthy. Whatever the universal pension is it won't be a very comfortable life style. The maximum that can be invested in a pension fund is 1.6 million, but at 4% that's only $64000 a year, hardly lavish. And while some may think that people shouldn't be getting a pension and super tax concessions remember that people who have a decent lifestyle will spend money which supports the economy while those on the poverty line add little to the economy and misery for themselves. I think people need to stop thinking a million dollars is a lot of money, returns Are not that high if you have to live on it.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    3:09pm
    Agree a million will soon be needed for a house deposit.
    Anonymous
    21st Feb 2018
    3:54pm
    There you go again Tib and OGR - lets bash the companies who are not paying tax! I seem to recall that Labor was in power from 2007 - 13 and what did they do to close the so called loop holes? Qantas hasn't paid tax in more than 10 years (including the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd debacle), and their solution for all our economic woes was to impose a carbon tax on all of us - how progressive! Look at what the (mainly) state governments are doing to your electricity and gas costs - these are impositions being felt by all in the community - large corporations, down to the battlers, as they follow the green brick road to fantasy land. Why don't you wake up to the fact that the left side of politics in this country could not organize a booze up in a brewery (and you two wouldn't be invited, anyway!).
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    3:57pm
    I wouldn't want to go anyway so no invite is good for me saves saying NO.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:53pm
    Tib, it's an indisputable FACT that superannuation tax concessions only benefit the well-off, because low income earners don't get a superannuation tax concession at all. They pay the same rate on super contributions as they do on their wage. But high income earners get a huge reduction for every dollar they contribute.

    I agree that a million isn't much if you have to live on the returns - especially if you are in early-stage retirement and have to conserve money for later years, and especially if you have extensive health or care needs or your house needs expensive maintenance or repair.

    A universal pension could be paid at a rate that would allow retirees to live in modest comfort. Currently we only spend 4% of GDP on welfare against other developed nations' 8-9%, so there's a lot of scope there to pay more, especially if we pull back on unfair and unnecessary tax concessions and tax companies more appropriately.

    Big Al, who the hell cares which party is to blame for what? It's not about blame or politics. It's about, for once, supporting calls to make policy that is good for the nation. I'm sure nobody gives a damn which party implements it. Get it right and the party will be supported. And rightly so.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:04pm
    The tax concessions on super are not very much money now as even high income earners can only put in $25,000 a year of which they now pay tax at 30%. Low income earners actually get their contributions top up by the government so it even it's self out now.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:11pm
    You don't understand finance or tax law very well at all do you OG? Low income earners get sweet stuff all compared to the massive tax concessions on $25K invested by high income earners. What an insult to even hint that it's ''all even''. Just shows how utterly self-serving and greedy you are and how much contempt you have for the real lifters in our society.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:26pm
    So you are showing your ignorance by not knowing about the government's super co-contribution system for low income earners.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:47pm
    A scheme that gives a minimal fraction of what it hands to the well off, and that the LNP wanted to cancel in the last budget.
    George
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:28pm
    Tib, agree mostly with your original comments - Implement Universal Pension as mentioned, but limit Super Concessions with Reasonable Caps, impose Minimum Tax on Companies and rich Individuals, and we will have a great working system - with no disadvantages / unfairness, which will also encourage savings and promote interest to keep working.

    A lot of comments on this topic which I have no time to read - YLC needs to impose a rule for maximum comments on a topic by any person - say 5 only per person (another useful Cap)!!!!!
    TREBOR
    24th Feb 2018
    12:49am
    Oh, I dunno, George... in the free-for-all there are points and solutions from all sides in many forms.... the observer only needs to sort through them and cherry pick (f that is the word) the most positive views.

    I personally believe the solutions to the retirement packaging debacle are here on this page... and it's interesting to note that certain paid bodies such as the one listed, now see it in the same way as the more level heads do....

    You may be only firing to keep their heads down on the other side.... but that's still a job to do...
    HS
    21st Feb 2018
    1:46pm
    This is too intelligent and too logical for the brainless in Government.
    David B
    21st Feb 2018
    1:46pm
    So how do we go about starting a campaign to push government into adopting a universal pension ??
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:47pm
    Hang ten a week until the rest get the message... that's what happens eventually, so why not start early?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    1:48pm
    Okay, Matt. You have the answer. So what are you and YLC doing about it?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:58pm
    Just whinging like everyone else.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:48pm
    Welcome to the Ebergeezer Scrooge Show - theme song "I Love Me And Don't You Forget It"...
    George
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:32pm
    Agree, OGR, Matt & YLC, Can you act????? Send a Petition?????
    Ignore the OG sideshow as it is all about himself (shows up as a selfish creep always).
    TREBOR
    24th Feb 2018
    12:53am
    It's just distraction from the discussion that he puts on, George... pay it no mind or just call him on his silly statements.

    Like all trolls - the best way is to leave them hanging with no retort space.. just don't rise to them -they're like the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail - with no arms or legs left they'll still come back and want to bite you to death.

    He has many lives, does our Old Geezer.....sometimes they contradict one another..

    Now where is Robi? Friday on the way home from his menial job and BS-ing at the pub with his herh-herh mates on his mobile is usually his gig.......
    floss
    21st Feb 2018
    1:49pm
    Never argue with a fool a wise person told me , just ignore O.G who is just a lonely person that craves attention.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    1:54pm
    Ha ha Most who know me would say I was exactly the opposite.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:49pm
    Prove it..............
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:53pm
    Not today it's too cold to expose myself.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    8:51pm
    Ah - the truth is out...... but only when it's hot .....(snuckles)
    Le Grump
    21st Feb 2018
    2:08pm
    "Yes I read it and it would not matter how much money OAPs got it would never be enough for most of them".
    OG......I think you are just a perfect twat...!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:09pm
    Good a dose of reality never hurts anyone.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:00pm
    You wouldn't know what ''reality'' was if it was personified and bit you on the behind. You live in la-la land and thrive on wild fantasy, OG.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:29pm
    Ahh so that is what happened to my arse.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:54am
    Not quite - I understand you are doing an eyeball search for it...... just turn your head and look backwards and you will see the opening.....
    floss
    21st Feb 2018
    2:17pm
    Well done Rainey Tib and Trebor keep pushing to have the wide gap between the have and the have nots reduced . Get Up and Dick Smith are thinking along the same lines, perhaps Australia can become the country I grew up in many years ago but I very much doubt it as greed seems to rule this place more so under a Liberal Government.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:30pm
    Take your blinkers off many people today have never had it so good in this country as they do today.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:55pm
    Yes 6% acknowledged unemployment, as high as 25% total un- and under-employed, thus foreshortened possibilities for any decent retirement via super, rampant crime, social issues up the kazoo, Blacks wanting to burn the place down, 'radicalised' imported Muslims wanting to chop people in the streets, gangs running riot in the same streets, violence on the rise, family disintegration, no real opportunities for many of the younger set, no genuine infrastructure to support the potential employment pool, distorted tax system that slugs the lowest paid, paid clowns like Pickering coming out with clangers like a united LNP under Dutton and Joyce would cut power costs (LMAO) and would cut the costs of QANGOS (what would Sophie and all the rest of the old mates club do for a living without Aussubs and such?) - what an absolute hoot.....

    I recall a cartoon about Malcolm Fraser saying : "You never had it so good!", and a worker retorting: "We never had it!"

    Told you you were a fantasist, OG....
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    3:35pm
    No one even locks their house around where I live.
    Captain
    21st Feb 2018
    4:16pm
    "Too cold to expose myself today" and "no-one locks their house around where I live". Antarctica is the only place where it is that cold ahd burgularproof if you are using this forum.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:31pm
    Sorry I'm not about to tell you the best place in Australia to live well.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:59am
    Tasmania - is it a curable mental illness?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    1:06pm
    NO that's just one of my summer destinations. Definitely not for me in winter as it's too cold for me if I can't just wear a Tshirt.
    old frt
    21st Feb 2018
    2:28pm
    Calm down comrades . Is it not fair that those who sacrificed and went with out through their working life now give so others can continue their squandering life style (there are some exceptions who were dealt a less than fair hand) . How many handouts do some want ?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:30pm
    I agree. Enough is never enough for most of them.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:58pm
    So - YOU'RE the one who's been following millions of people around, stealing their mail, spying on their jobs and interviews, monitoring the way they spend their money, and keeping track of every up and down in their lives, old frt!! And I thought it was only Ebergeezer Scrooge there alongside you...

    Heckle and Jeckle.... what a coincidence....
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:29pm
    Nay not me I just get others to do it for me.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:16pm
    So you admit to criminal activity?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:31pm
    Yes Rainey I am above the law and intend to stay there.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:43pm
    Well, now we understand why you are so disgustingly self-serving. Above the law - and engaged in criminal activity. No wonder you are so well off and actively in support of a stinking system that punishes the honest.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:33pm
    Now you have certainly broken that violin string.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    2:00am
    Above the law, eh? So you live in the high country... I love the snow..... not too sure about the snow jobs, though....
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    12:52pm
    Those confirmed insane are above the law, Trebor. It's hard to be above the law in Australia for other reasons. Maybe we should be making the obvious assumption in this instance?
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:50am
    So you are an angel and I'm the devil. I know who has the most fun.
    World Prophet
    21st Feb 2018
    2:36pm
    We are already paying for a 'Universal Pension' - see history below:

    1942 – 1943
    As a Wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax. Labor Prime minister (Ben Chifley) introduced three bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a Compulsory Contribution (levy) of one and sixpence in the Pound (20/-) on all personal income.
    Opposition Leader (Robert Menzies) stated that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate from other government income streams, that it should be shown separately on the Taxation Assessment and paid straight into a “TRUST” account, and not mixed with the General Revenue.
    Menzies said “The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.” and that “It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.”
    Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established The National Welfare fund as at 1/1/1946.
    A “Trust” Fund with the Parliament as “Trustee.” The Compulsory Contributions (levy) commenced as at 1st January 1946. It was shown separately on the personal Tax Assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the Special “Trust” fund and Welfare claims were paid out of the fund.
    The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 million pounds.
    1949
    Robert Menzies became Prime Minister and he introduced Bills to amend the acts governing the National Welfare Funds.
    The Compulsory Contributions (levy) was then grouped with the Taxation Assessment and appeared as one amount on the Taxation assessments and was paid as one amount straight into the Consolidated Revenue Account. The sabotage of the National Welfare Fund had commenced.
    The Opposition Labor Party had collaborated in this sabotage by remaining silent instead of opposing Menzies’ action.
    1951 – 1985
    The compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax continued to be collected and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Account treated as General Revenue and spent, until 1985.
    1974 – 1975
    Labor Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) abolished income test for all persons 70 years of age and over and paid pensions to all people over that age.
    1975
    Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser) cancelled the Whitlam legislation.
    1977
    Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser with Treasurer Philip Lynch) transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund Account (approximately $470,000,000) to Consolidated Revenue Account.
    1985
    Australian Labor Government repealed acts No. 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (The National Welfare Fund Acts). Thus the funds finally ceased to exist yet the 7.5% levy continued to be collected as a proportion of the Income Tax revenue. It also introduced the (much maligned) Income and Asset Tests, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax paying Australians from receiving Social Services Pensions.
    This money these self funded contributions paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are today worth far more than the amount of means tested pensions paid out.
    Actuaries have calculated the non-means tested entitlement due to each retiree, today is in excess of $500 per week.
    This surely debunks the politician’s claim that the current generation are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to pensioners. The obvious short fall has been swallowed by the Government’s Taxation black hole.
    The historical summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement as it was intended. Why? They had no mandate to do so, it clearly was not and is not the will of the people.

    The above only goes to validate my view of politicians.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    2:43pm
    If you haven't noticed we are now in a century. That stuff is nothing but old hat.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    2:58pm
    Yup - always been the case and still is... all bought and paid for.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    3:18pm
    This pot of gold was spent a long time ago.
    HS
    21st Feb 2018
    3:26pm
    Both, Liberal and Labor parties are guilty. Want to commit robbery while in government? Just change the legislation that enables you to pilfer unashamedly. Scoundrels !
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    3:29pm
    Nay they just gave it to those who needed it.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    3:38pm
    World profit where did you get this info I wouldn't mind it for future discussions.
    Triss
    21st Feb 2018
    4:40pm
    There are a few sites, Tib http://www.bfcsa.com.au/index.php/entry/the-truth-about-pensions-and-the-lies-of-our-leaders

    http://voiceofthepeoplelobbygroup.com/2013/september/truth_about_pensions.htm

    http://arpq.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/old_age_pension.pdf
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:58pm
    OG, your comment is mind-bogglingly ignorant. Gave it to those who needed it? What a lot of garbage! Nothing has ever been ''given to those who need it'' except a tiny tiny percentage of CURRENT tax collections. There was never any $470 million given to the needy. There would be no needy in Australia if that were the case. I believe much of it was squandered on a fancy new Parliament House. How many ''needy'' live there?
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:00pm
    No one lives in Parliament house so that was an even stupider statement.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:04pm
    It was you who said ''they gave it to those who needed it'', so if it spent on building a fancy Parliament House, YOU are asserting that needy people inhabit it - not me! Your comprehension is sadly lacking, OG.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:07pm
    So if they spent it on those who needed it then they didn't spend it on parliament house. I know who is sadly lacking in comprehension here.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:08pm
    That's what I said! They DID NOT spend it on anyone who needed it. Your statement was garbage.

    You really are losing it old man. Time for the dementia ward.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:20pm
    Mummm.... I've been thinking the same about you.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:34pm
    It was you who made the idiotic statement, OG. Or have you already forgotten. You do seem to forget most of what you say and confuse yourself constantly.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:36pm
    Yes I am confused. One minute your are too wealthy to get the OAP and the next you are down on your uppers.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    5:37pm
    Thanks Triss.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:40pm
    Never said either, OG. That's your overly active imagination at work again, dreaming up crap. I said I work. I'm NOT wealthy and I'm certainly NOT ''down on my uppers'' and have never even suggested either was the case. Why don't you take lessons in reading and comprehension before making a fool of yourself?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:41pm
    Oh, but as I recall, like most PRIZE ASSES, you ASSUMED things, and then claimed I had said what you ASSUMED. Examine the word, OG. It says those who assume are ASSES.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:51pm
    Now I really know who has lost it.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    8:55pm
    The pot of gold wasn't spent - it was merely borrowed and to be repaid with interest by politicians in hot pursuit of their personal ideologies... now they must continue to pay the pipers.....

    By spending it on other issues, politicians merely borrowed The Nation's stash... they're getting off lightly only paying what falls immediately due instead of repaying the capital.... sort of an interest only loan to these jerks.... meaning a higher end cost is inevitable...

    Stoopid is as stoopid does, as they allus say down in Green Bow...
    musicveg
    21st Feb 2018
    3:55pm
    Excellent idea, imagine those who cannot afford to treat themselves to dinner or lunch out, or buy clothes they need etc. will boost the economy by spending more. Imagine also the savings in centrelink wages, not having to sort all the entitlements out. We need to push for Universal Pensions and make it a political issue, vote for those who will fight for it.
    old frt
    21st Feb 2018
    4:00pm
    The 7.5% tax was only banking on people living 68-70years of age not 83 plus .All the experts today say you need to provide about 15 -17 % to be able to provide a liveable pension
    Captain
    21st Feb 2018
    4:22pm
    Old frt, no sure what you are getting at with the second sentence of your comment.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    9:05pm
    Tough titties..... the fools running that show could have changed things at any time........ no good whining now that they can't afford it... as long as they can afford a few million a year to run every politician there is no real problem with money.

    If what you say is true old frt - that is proof positive of the need for a Unibversal Pension Scheme properly laid out NOW - and not ten years down the track.

    Should've been done twenty years go instead of all the stupidity going on with social events that destroyed the nation.... if the super contribution had been put into that fund, once that fund was isolated again and kept out of the grasping hands of politicians and their mates, the till would be full now and there would be no arguments going on.

    Dont try to tell me the Canberra Clowns didn't know this was coming down - they pushed $130Bn offshore for their own retirement fund - an amount that should have gone into the Universal Retirement Fund, along with all the super contributions, instead of those being hijacked by funds and their fat managers.

    They knew this was coming all right - they secured their own income of hundreds of thousands per annum by taking OUR money, all $130Bn of it and whatever other 'levies' they choose to put in, to a tax haven and putting Peter Costello in control of it for their benefit. They just didn't want to include the rabble in their largesse of welfare for themselves.

    The ones who did this and who now stand by it should be hung.
    Rae
    22nd Feb 2018
    9:26am
    Yes TREBOR. I've been investigating that Bail-In law passed last week.
    Take a good look at it.
    If the "instruments" include superannuation then anyone holding super in a bank is crazy in my opinion. Probably doesn't but the wording is so open it could literally mean any funds held on our behalf by a bank.

    It certainly will include the Fixed interest and bond instruments making up our super accounts.
    I'm even a bit concerned about the "investment" account I hold funds in.
    When you look at how they snuck the legislation through it smacks of panic that the financial system could collapse at any point.

    Don't forget they took half of Telstra and half our gold into that fund.

    Trust them? I certainly don't.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    3:52pm
    The Bail-in law is a real concern to anyone holding cash in a bank. I'm currently holding more cash than I usually do as markets are starting to look a bit over bought.
    Rae
    23rd Feb 2018
    7:30am
    Not just cash OG. The use of the term "instruments" could include bonds and hybrids held inside bank superannuation. It could include a lot of things. A very loosely worded piece of law indeed and the way it was snuck through and unreported looks very dodgy.
    I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of politicians knew very little about it and understood even less.

    I also took profits a while back into a cash account and I'm not happy about this risk now at all.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:30am
    Laws like that make me feel happy that my money is safely tucked away in my grandkids houses instead of being in the bank. Love the current OAP scheme.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:27pm
    On that 'bail-in' issue - I posted elsewhere that if the banks managed to turn a few silk purses into sow's ears through their gambling on the stock markets etc, and collapsed - they would cop a hefty handout (welfare) from the taxpayer.... AND .... those whose accounts they've raided to prop up their own misdeeds will receive only what is available for 'trickle-down'.

    It is not beyond the realm of belief that a bank could deliberately run itself down while handing out megas to its 'insider group' and then use all the funds and taxpayer funds to keep going=, while still handing out megas to its insider group.

    Gordon Gecko alive and running in the banking system - at the same time as a severely proscribed 'royal commission' is looking at the banks..... or is it?

    I smell a lot of smoke in that screen...
    VeryCaringBigBear
    24th Feb 2018
    8:00am
    Well the banks wrote the terms of reference for the royal commission so don't hold your breath waiting for anything to come out of it.
    old frt
    21st Feb 2018
    4:00pm
    The 7.5% tax was only banking on people living 68-70years of age not 83 plus .All the experts today say you need to provide about 15 -17 % to be able to provide a liveable pension
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:19pm
    That's why the retirement age needs to be at least 75 or 80.
    Anonymous
    21st Feb 2018
    4:23pm
    Old Geezer, shouldn't you be back in your room getting ready for dinner - the bingo session is over, and the community singers have left the building. Now, pop that pill like a good little fella, and get ready for lights out....you've had a big day!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:27pm
    You are right I should be getting ready for dinner but I have to cook it first. Last count there are 6 for dinner here tonight so hopefully I can get someone to do the spuds.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:40pm
    15-17










    15-17% of WHAT? It all comes down to who pays how much tax. What we do know is that 4% of GDP is adequate to fund the pension as it stands today, so 7.5% should be adequate to fund a much more sensible and adequate system.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:50pm
    15-17% of one's wages is required to adequately fund their retirement.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    4:54pm
    What an idiotic statement, OG. That depends entirely on the wage. 15-17% of a high wage would be way more than is needed. 15-17% of a basic wage wouldn't be anywhere near enough. You really are showing your ignorance!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    4:58pm
    No you are the one showing your ignorance as one can't put any more than $25,000 concessional amounts into super so there is already a ceiling on high wage earners. 15-17% is what is required for the basic wage earner.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:07pm
    What rubbish. 15-17% of a basic wage is not only totally unaffordable, but not nearly enough given that basic wage earners get no tax benefits to load their coffers. $25,000 a year is a huge amount if paid every year (increasing, obviously, over time with inflation) over 40 years or so of working, but on top of that there are non-concessional contributions and other special contributions such as lump sum rollovers, and then personal savings as well - none of which is accessible to the basic wage earner.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:20pm
    Low wage earners get what ever they put into super topped up by the governments co-contribution system which more than makes up for any tax concession they would have received if they earned more.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:31pm
    You really can't do maths, can you, Old Fool. Low income earners get a pathetic $500 a year. Just a 15% saving reduction in tax on $25K (and most enjoy much more than that) is $1666. Then there is the fact that the earnings in the fund are concessionally taxed, which doesn't benefit the low income earner at all but gives the high income earner a further huge handout. Only a completely idiotic moron would call that ''equal''!

    No wonder superannuation tax concessions cost far more than the OAP. But we hear nothing but whining about the cost of the OAP because it's paid to the less well off, and nothing but screams of protest and threats of retaliation if we even hint at taking from the greedy wealthy who don't need their huge handouts.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:35pm
    Well Rainey super is nothing more than a vehicle to minimise tax so I don't know what your beef is at all.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:38pm
    What a dumb response! Of course it's a vehicle to minimize tax, devised by the greedy well off to cheat the rest of society and unfairly advantage themselves.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:40pm
    Nothing dumb about stating the obvious.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    5:47pm
    OG you're right there without the tax concession you wouldn't bother.
    Tib
    21st Feb 2018
    5:49pm
    OG sometimes I think Rainey doesn't like you very much :)
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:50pm
    Exactly Tib why have super with all it's restrictions and fees if there is no benefit or worse still costs one to have it? Cut the concessions and super balances will fall.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:52pm
    Then just rearrange them to be fairer and encourage lower income earners to save instead of dumping all the gold in the coffers of the rich. Would be much more advantageous to the nation.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:31pm
    You can rearrange the deck chairs how you wish Rainey but the will be back where they are now before you even realise it.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    9:10pm
    Nah - higher income rates + lower living costs should be the norm so that everyone can retire at 45, which will allow full employment of all the younger generations and permit a good few years of good living for the working people....

    Not a higher pension age at all or a higher retirement age.... utter nonsense. Somebody tap Julia on the shoulder and tell he she will not be getting a cent until 70, under the scheme her government brought in, and then she will be means tested and her outlays for the prior ten years will be examined for attempts at rorting.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    9:16pm
    Another totally WRONG self-justifying myth peddled by the privileged, OG. Yes, there will always be unequal distribution of wealth, but if you divided it equally today, tomorrow a very different set of people would be rich and many of the current rich would remain poor.
    Triss
    21st Feb 2018
    10:27pm
    Yes, Trebor, I remember when Julia left parliament she was screeching that her perks weren't enough. In spite of her $200,000 pension, plus an estimated $300,000-a-year ifor office and travel costs she insisted on an extra staffer and a second taxpayer funded office. Her request for a second office was denied.
    Like Old Geezer has said many times "No matter how much you give people it's never enough" but that seems to be right for the highly pensioned ex MPs rather than OAPs.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    5:13pm
    True, Triss. I actually don't think I've ever heard anyone who has nothing but the OAP complain that it's not enough. They may refer to having a struggle to get by, but they are generally very grateful for their pension payment. It's the much more affluent who never have enough and whinge constantly. And it seems the more they get, the more they whinge and cry for more.

    Now, after bellyaching for months that couples with barely $820,000 in assets were ''too well off'' and shouldn't get a part pension, OG is whining that the much fatter couple with $1.6 million in super and an $80,000 a year income is ''not earning much more than the OAP'' (Bet OAP's would LOVE to be getting close to $80K a year!).

    These demands to give give give give give to the rich never end, but the moment a struggler asks for a fair go they are bullied and insulted. Such hypocrisy!
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:28pm
    Well someone with $1.6 million in super should be earning a lot more than $80,000 if they have invested their money well. Just shows you how silly your 5% is in reality. It would not be hard to earn $80,000 with $820,000 in assets either.

    Problem is most people on welfare fail to live within their means and think that they are owed a good living instead of having to budget or ask for further handouts.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:36pm
    OG, you are sick in the head if you believe the crap you peddle. Of course many people with $1.6 million are likely to earn more than $80K. And if people with much less could earn more than 5%, they wouldn't want a pension. Those who object to being deprived CAN'T earn more than the national average investment return (as confirmed by the government). And very few could ever achieve the 10% needed to earn $80,000 on $820K. If they did, they would fail the income test and their assets would be immaterial. You just love to cut people down for striving and achieving against the odds. In your world, anyone who isn't wealthy should be poverty-stricken and trampled on. It's a disgusting attitude, but sadly all too common among the stinking vile privileged.

    Many people on welfare fail to live within their means because the amount they receive IS NOT SUFFICIENT to cover the soaring costs of accommodation, power, and other vital necessities, let alone the health and care costs many incur. Only the most disgustingly vile selfish mongrels blame the victims of cruelty for their hurt. But most OAPs live within their means and budget very well. They have to. There is simply no other option.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    10:09pm
    Centrelink does not care what your assets actually earn as they deem them at the deeming rate instead. So it is possible to earn more on your investments than what is allowed under the income test and still qualify under the assets test. That is why deeming works well for those who invest their money well.

    Any couple with $820,000 has more than enough to live on without welfare.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:34am
    Of course Centerlink fvours the PRIVILEGED and persecutes the strugglers. That's why nasty manipulators like you approve of the policy, BigBear. It torments the honest, ethical and less privileged, therefore you think it's good.

    No policy that pays people more to shed their assets is good for anyone. It's a disgrace, and only unethical manipulators with no conscience applaud abusing the taxpayer by exploiting the flawed system.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    1:03pm
    Same rules for everyone which is the way it should be.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:32pm
    The only tax concession there should be on superannuation SAVINGS is that the earnings of that super not be taxed.

    Then with the Universal Pension, over a working life of fifty years - that amount will multiply.... I'm not a mathematician (too boring for me), but that's how it works...

    The ONLY problem with that is the one Keating deliberately overlooked to sell this one - inflation and the decreasing buying power of the dollar.

    In that documentary 'Four Horsemen', the clear statement is made that the falling value of the dollar is primarily (if not entirely) due to the constant infusion into the economy of non-existent money created by the banks.

    Only the banks can loan you non-existent money and get you to pay it back in hard cash..... trouble with banks in the US went as far back as George Washington ........
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:36pm
    As far as shedding assets goes - those applying for pension should provide their last ten year's tax returns and bank statements, housing documents and such for review.

    If it's clear you've been shedding assets to family members so as to reduce your income to gain pension, you will be deemed to still have that money.

    Sounds tough, but still.... a Universal Pension would resolve most of those issues..... you can shed all you want - it will still not give you greater access to a Universal Pension, but it will affect those you give it to one day.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:43pm
    Lucky I had everything sorted well over 10 years ago now so nothing to deem there.

    Hopefully those who I have my money too will pay it forward to the next generations as well so it will have no effect on them either. They are already talking about doing it as it made such a difference to their lives.
    TREBOR
    24th Feb 2018
    1:02am
    Aha! (said the tax person) - special case requiring special attention... can't provide details over ten years ago - we'll deem you...........

    The problem with rorting all of its guises is that it demands the introduction of a totally controlled society.......

    You sure you want to go there? Isn't it much, much better to live in a society where 99% of the populace are honest and ethical and not allow the crypto-fascists any entry?
    TREBOR
    24th Feb 2018
    1:04am
    Pensions and unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, DSP etc are not welfare (anyone).

    Welfare has many guises, but those bought and paid for strands of social security have no guise - they are right there in front of everyone - which is why they are copping the flak while the rest get away scot free...
    old frt
    21st Feb 2018
    5:43pm
    Thanks OG. Some people don't understand compulsory super levy i.e. max $25000. 15-17% super guarantee levy would provide a great super pension for the majority of workers,those on minimum wage would be able to draw full OAP at retirement time plus a nice little supplementary super pension ,but like you OG I believe the OAP will be consigned to history and those in our society who have been on welfare all their lives -from school to OAP will still be asking for more handouts .Welfare supplement cards for the less well off will be the way of the future
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:45pm
    That's what the vile privileged want - to denigrate and scorn the disadvantaged and continue loading the coffers of the rich with taxpayer dollars. Thoroughly disgusting!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:46pm
    Agree those welfare cards are on their way so that people spend welfare money as it was intended. It is a good thing too.
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    5:48pm
    No Rainey it is absolutely necessary that welfare be only spent on what it was intended to be spent on. It will actually help the disadvantage make better choices and live a better life.
    Anonymous
    21st Feb 2018
    5:55pm
    Now come on OGR and OG, you have both had a big day - time to put your slippers on, take your pills, and let the nurses strap you into bed! Got to get ready to fascinate us all with your wit and wisdom tomorrow!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:57pm
    Never happen, OG. Welfare for the FAT CATS will live on forever. Only the genuinely disadvantaged will be trampled on and persecuted. And very few will be helped by a disgusting system of cards that denigrates and restricts ability to economize and save. It's a rort to line the coffers of the rich. Only a self-serving NASTY moron claims that disadvantage = inability to manage income.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    5:59pm
    Interesting that its the morons who got this nation heavily into hideously high debt and who need $28K a year PAY RISE to live, who are accusing frugal pensioners of not managing their tiny incomes sensibly!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:32pm
    They deserve every cent of it to put up with certain people in this great country.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    9:13pm
    Maybe those certain people will one day start sending them to the guillotine, OG - it's happened before when people began to wake up to false governance. In recent memory it happened in Iran.... just like the French Revolution, enemies of the state were executed in large numbers.... same with Cuba.. same with every popular revolt, even those that were sidetracked by special interest groups...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    9:14pm
    NOBODY deserves that sort of increase while people are living in poverty, unemployment is skyrocketing, and the national debt is going through the roof while living conditions are deteriorating for most.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    2:11am
    AND more and more are living under the bridge in one of many ways..... For the Record - I've lived under the bridge and slept in the parks...for most of my life I didn't drink, gamble or do anything but work my fingers to the bone in loyalty and service (you'll get there one day - read my books) ... and that was my reward for doing so for thirty five years.....

    I once said to an old Digger mate that once upon a time I was paid to sleep under trees in the rain.... now I did it for free...

    Now I'm back on my feet..... but nobody gave me a free ride... I'd like just one day of those free rides...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    12:00pm
    I have a similar story, Trebor, though I never lived under a bridge or slept in a park - just in very shabby accommodation and often in a half-built shelter with no conveniences. I never had a free ride either, but now people who have much more make nasty assumptions and vile accusations because I put forward or support ideas that I believe would improve things for everyone. Interestingly, those who attack me confirm they ''played the system'' to take more than they were morally entitled to. Yet they are the first to wish hurt on others and to denigrate those of us who are honest and ethical.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:18pm
    I got lost in the bush one time and slept in a cave with my dog and we kept each other warm.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:13pm
    Once again making it all about you, OG, with no attention to the subject under discussion. If you can't keep up and contribute positively, just go away. You make yourself look foolish.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:38pm
    Did the dog ever get over the experience?

    21st Feb 2018
    7:39pm
    help I have run out of hankies and my guitar strings need replacing, reading the sobbing of the "only genuine rain" comments, where is his umbrella? I just wonder how one contributor to these columns can come up with such a load of absolute ignorance of what the article is about, it makes one wonder if the proverb "were you born stupid, genuine rain, or did you have to study?" has ever rang truer, surely even you can see you can't beat o.g. on logic and reasoning when you get off the issue by attempting to become a social worker and having a beef with him/her at the same time. stop making a fool of yourself!
    Old Geezer
    21st Feb 2018
    8:27pm
    Well said.
    TREBOR
    21st Feb 2018
    9:16pm
    Give it up, heemie, you couldn't hit a messenger at ten paces with a shotgun... and you're no better, OG, for joining in like a gutter snipe.

    Do you have an argument to offer, maybe a few facts and figures, or are you content to simply rubbish others, heemie? If you have no valid comment to add to the discussion, you've got nothing to add...

    Good day to you both....... on yer bikes...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    21st Feb 2018
    9:25pm
    Neither of them can add anything intelligent to a debate. It's always the case that those who can't contribute positively and constructively ridicule those who do.
    TREBOR
    22nd Feb 2018
    2:13am
    My greatest concern is that they have no idea that they have nothing to contribute.... and they don't care...... that's a worry.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    7:58am
    Agree. Some people think it is their God given right to bully anyone that disagrees with them into submission. I do admire OG for his tolerance and refusal to give an inch to them.
    Rae
    22nd Feb 2018
    9:38am
    Intelligent people talk about ideas. The rest talk about other people. Simple really.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    11:55am
    OG isn't tolerant, BigBear. His persistence is in repeating nasty personal accusations based on totally untruthful ASSUMPTIONS, no matter how often he's told he's got it wrong. Everything is based assuming his own circumstances are identical to everyone else's, and therefore if people aren't as wealthy as him, they ''partied and wasted''. That is NOT tolerance.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:35am
    I have to agree with OG most did party instead of providing for their retirement. Many people I know who are self funded retirees were on average at best wages during their working life. They just invested a bit if what they earned for the rainy day. Compounding kicks in and wealth follows.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:38am
    Another playing God and pretending to know everybody's personal lifestyle. Yes, many did party, and they are now enjoying full pensions after living it up, while those who DIDN'T party are being stripped of their savings. And stinking vile people approve such unfairness.

    If I'd had AVERAGE wages or anywhere near AVERAGE, I'd also be self-fiunded. The people who are being kicked in the guts didn't get anywhere remotely close to average wages, or - like me - experienced major crisis, illness, disability, etc. that drained their savings.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:05am
    A universal pension will have as many problems if not more than the present system.

    The biggest problem is that people will assets that are under ulitilised and perform badly like they did before the asset death was introduced. They only way to stop this is deem the assets and add it to their taxable income.

    This would not be good for our nation at all.
    Rae
    22nd Feb 2018
    9:40am
    Very good idea. Assets certainly need to come into the income mix somehow.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    11:48am
    Under-utilization of assets should not be - as it is now - a punishable offence leading to income loss. Vast numbers who under-utilize assets do so because they don't have access to knowledge or assistance, yet they are treated with contempt and deprived in response. That is cruel and inhuman. I under-utilized assets at one time when I SHOULD have been receiving a pension temporarily but didn't because of the assets, but nobody cared that the under-utilization was a result of a local council error, and I simply had no options. I was trying to sell the asset, but a council stuff-up made it unsalable and incapable of returning income.

    Owning assets should NEVER prevent someone getting income unless it can be demonstrated that (a) they are returning at least equal to the income lost - which is NOT the case under current legislation - OR they can be shown to be DELIBERATELY under-utilized to increase entitlements unfairly. What is astonishing is that the most under-utilized asset - the lavish family home - is not considered, AND the person who gave everything away to manipulate to get a pension he isn't morally entitled to is the same person who is screaming for those who retain their assets honestly and try to be as self-sufficient as possible to be persecuted. Disgraceful!
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:32pm
    Any asset not being utilised well is increasing one's entitlement unfairly.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:29pm
    Rubbish, OG. If people can't achieve income from their assets, they are as entitled as those who don't have assets to be supported. Punishing people for saving when those savings aren't benefiting them much due to adverse economic conditions is just plain vile and disgusting.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:37am
    OGR it astounds me that people have such assets in the first place. I guess those get rich schemes are just too attractive to same.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:28am
    Showing your gross ignorance again, BigBear. Get out more and learn about the world instead of thriving on arrogant assumptions. You might be very surprised what you learn. Nothing to do with 'get rich schemes''. Quite the opposite. Most who suffer heavy disadvantage and work and save hard to escape it are VERY risk averse. They fear anything but the most conservative investment.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:39pm
    WHY would it not be good for our nation???
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:43pm
    People accumulate assets over a lifetime of work - it is their right to use them as much or as little as they choose... a boat or a Windbag is not a cash-earning asset, unlike a shares portfolio or property portfolio... or loans in advance to family so as to secure repayments in kind......

    If a government wishes to punish an non-cash earning asset holder for selling that asset, by claiming that income to be a cause for taxation etc or pension reduction, then that asset should have received tax concession along the way.... like any other business..

    As usual, governments want to be able to make up the rules to suit themselves..... sorry - we don't pay them to do that....
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:44pm
    Why should a person pay full after tax money for a boat or Windbag or whatever that is NOT a cash-earner - and then pay tax on its return after sold? Hardly fair...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    25th Feb 2018
    6:58am
    If they are over age and the miserably low limit for a full age pension, they effectively pay tax on it every single fortnight for the rest of their lives! What a disgrace!
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:24pm
    Spot on, Rainey. They are paying a second tax for owning something they bought with after-tax income.

    I recall Hawke coming up with something similar but the other way to work out that shareholders shouldn't pay tax on dividends because the company giving them already paid tax and it was a double tax.

    Works that way - same should apply to OAP and Retirees. Again, it is everyone's eight to gather assets of their choosing - not just the rich and well-off - and to pass those on to their descendants if they so desire. After all - most people bought those assets on the money left over after they paid income tax - and unless the government wishes to give tax concessions on those assets during the working life, it has zero right to claim a tax on them after retirement.
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:27pm
    AND (does this on purpose after an argument with a kid marker at a uni - where I cited that the same emphasis usage was used in the New England Journal of Medicine)... AND - if that asset holder sells that asset, such as a boat etc, they should not incur a further tax on any income derived from that sale - since it was bought with after tax money and was not treated as a business asset during its lifetime.
    MD
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:50am
    Whether OG's hubris, intransigence and sheer bloody mindedness is worthy of praise - much less debate - is neither here nor there. His, as with all contribution, is simply opinion. Whether opinion based on knowledge, learning or wisdom is a matter for individual consideration when drafting a reply. Substance seems to be the stuff of fairy floss.

    Whether replacing or substituting our existing Australian welfare payment with a 'universal wage' and establishing justification on the basis of other countries findings could well be a matter of conjecture. For starters population mix, ie, demographics within European countries will have little in keeping with Australian's isolationism. Is our existing welfare state the reason that prompts "economic refugees" to attempt clandestine arrival and would a Universal wage exacerbate the situation ?

    Welfare, in any form, regardless of whether judged to be fortuitous or folly will yet be claimed by many, scammed by some, shunned by very few and collectively lambasted as inadequate by most everyone whether well off or destitute: if most comment above is indicative.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    12:47pm
    Quote from recent news release:
    ''Assets in Australia’s compulsory pension savings system, known as superannuation, have increased nearly ten-fold in the past two decades. Assets aren’t expected to peak for another 20 years, with estimates of the system’s ultimate size ranging from A$3.5 trillion to A$5.1 trillion.''

    How on earth can this stinking government claim the cost of retirement is excessive and rising too fast with that amount of retirement savings and that sort of growth? All this says is that there is massive mismanagement and unfairness in the system that is ensuring only the wealthier of our population are benefiting from this huge hoard of riches. Clearly, all this talk of the cost of retirement rising is dishonest, or our government has got its policies all wrong! (Which intelligent voters know to be the case)
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    4:11pm
    Only being able to have $1.6 million in a super pension fund is hardly excessive. On your 5% return it is little more than the old age pension plus benefits.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    5:05pm
    But people a couple with barely more than half that amount has ''had it too good'' and should be persecuted. One rule for the stinking privileged and another for the working class battler who strives and achieves moderate success. What a nasty hypocritical attitude.

    5% of $1.6 million is $80,000 - almost 2 and a half times the OAP couple rate, OG. Something seriously wrong with your logic or your mathematical ability! And what sort of stinking hypocrite says the poorer couple should spend their capital while whinging that a couple with twice as much is hard done by?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    5:07pm
    Nothing stopping people having more in super, just in an accumulation account that isn't tax free, so the limit has nothing to do with this discussion.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:16pm
    Why would one want to have more than $1.6 million in super?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:26pm
    Of topic again, OG! Honestly, brain cells missing everywhere! Who cares why anyone has money in super. The point is THEY DO. There is a massive amount of money in super and it's growing fast, and therefore the government is talking MAJOR BS when whinging about the so-called growing cost of retirement. The money is there. The issue can only be mismanagement on a massive scale.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    10:01pm
    Read a newsletter only days ago about those with more than $1.6 million taking their money out of super as it simply wasn't worth leaving it in super and paying tax on the earnings.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:30am
    How stupid would that be? They would pay far more outside super. The super rate is still a concessional 15%. Anyone with that much wealth is going to pay much more outside of super.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:04am
    The wealthy invest their money where they get the best return they can and most do better outside super even though super is only taxed at 15%. There are way too many restrictions and extra costs not to mention the risk of nationalising super that make investments outside super so much better. eg Cost of owning a residential property in super costs nearly twice as much in interest and has a lot more fees and taxes than if one was to buy it outside super. Not to mention the restriction on who you can rent it too.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:37am
    Obviously a lot of people put money into super, OG, or we wouldn't have such a massive pile of wealth there that is growing fast. What SOME people do is not relevant.
    TREBOR
    24th Feb 2018
    1:12am
    And Malcolm wants to put that cash at the disposal of the US government as an investment in highways and such...

    I suppose we'll all just have to accept our genuine status as a third world nation with dirt tracks..... the off-roaders will be pleased...

    http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519302752
    VeryCaringBigBear
    24th Feb 2018
    7:56am
    Well we are in all but name another state of the US or is it a province of China?
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:29pm
    Austrochine - the southern region of China... it's a book concept I'm working on...
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    1:01pm
    The problem we have in Australia today is that our politicians are committed to supporting vested interests in preference to solving problems in a way that's good for the nation. Just look at health. Still, despite the conclusive proof that natural and alternate medicines often work far better than traditional, medical benefits and Medicare payments for natural health treatments are minimal, but we can get handouts to feast on expensive drugs that have hideous side effects. I've seen naturopaths, acupuncturists, psychological counsellors, and physiotherapists successfully treat conditions that doctors couldn't address, yet you can get Medicare benefits to go to the doctor every week but only 5 visits a year to these often far more effective specialists.

    We have similar issues with the pension system. Common sense just does not prevail. They keep making it more and more complicated and more and more unfair and introduce more and more incentives to cheat, manipulate or become an irresponsible big spender. Nobody seems to look at the logical solution, which is either a universal age pension, or at very least a simple system that limits access to the pension only on the basis of actual income or income deemed at the current prevailing interest rate, so that there is NO incentive to waste, cheat, or manipulate.

    Unfortunately, we are virtually powerless to elect a government that will not be ruled by vested interest groups.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    3:53pm
    It would not matter what the pension system was it would have loop holes that could be used for some to get bigger benefits than the rest.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    4:57pm
    That's a defeatist attitude. Let's not try to fix what's broken because we can't make the system perfect! What a ridiculously destructive approach! No wonder the country is in a mess when people have that attitude.

    Perfection may be unattainable, but we can do 10,000 times better than we are doing now, and we ought to all be demanding the government try. Thank goodness there are folk with the intelligence and common sense to support demands for change.

    But of course, OG, people who are benefiting from the current BAD system don't want change, do they? They are too selfish to want anything fixed in a way that might obstruct their exploitation of the current flaws.
    Old Geezer
    22nd Feb 2018
    6:14pm
    Nice try Rainey but I don't get any benefit at all from the current welfare system. That's right not even a Health Care Card. So how can I be selfish in not wanting the system changed to something that could be much worse than what we have now?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:27pm
    Worried about being taxed, I would guess, OG. Clearly you benefit somehow or you wouldn't be so angry at every suggestion that change is needed. Or is it that you are so nasty by nature that your only focus is ensuring others suffer hurt?
    VeryCaringBigBear
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:41am
    OG must be very wealthy if he is worried about being taxed as an UNIVERSAL pension would pay the tax on a lot of income. Guessing most self funded retirees would benefit more than anyone else.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:24am
    He's made it clear he IS very wealthy, BigBear, which is why he despises strugglers with modest savings and wants them beaten down to poverty. Most refer to such people as SNOBS. Can't abide growing poppies. Only the tall should be allowed to live.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    10:30am
    Agree OGR. I do see myself as a Sensitive Newage Old Bloke.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:36am
    Nothing ''sensitive'' or ''new age'' in hating growing poppies and wanting everyone who isn't rich to suffer. It's just plain vile and disgusting, and very few young folk would condone such nastiness.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:52am
    Funny young folk absolutely adore me.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:48pm
    He's Santa Claus (not Santa Callous) - next week he'll be Napoleon.... they get to role change a lot....

    22nd Feb 2018
    5:56pm
    old rainey even the thought of you putting anything intelligent or heaven forbid make a constructive comment to these articles will make the odds of winning tatts a cinch.
    as for labor mick's, sorry tremor's, anyhow same person, same computer, different days commentary, comment's, I am a firm believer in the saying never give a sucker a second change however in your case I"ll give you the opportunity to stand at 20 paces and read your comments after if their are any
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:09pm
    If you can't make intelligent comment, attack those who do, heemskerk99! You are showing your gross ignorance here.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    9:53pm
    There you go again Rainey bullying anyone who dares disagree with your biased ideology. It is not heemskerk9 that is showing gross ignorance here.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:22am
    You are a nutter, BigBear. Heemskerk99 is the bully. I was merely politely defending. Read it again and this time TRY to be objective and understand.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:51am
    NO OGR you are the real bully here.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:50pm
    heemie - after that first strike you claim someone else is bullying?

    You are delusional.. take your tablets....

    If you reckon Mick and my computer are the same - SHOW ME!

    Or don't say it again....
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:50pm
    You just annoyed me, lad..... now show up or ship out.....
    Dragrush
    22nd Feb 2018
    7:03pm
    I don't understand all the economic theories that are being presented here by "experts" who seem to want to make comments on every topic but I do understand that the impact of the asset reduction using a $3 per $1000 taper to cot the previous pension rate and forcing many retirees and pensioners to dig into thier limited savings. I have estimated that around 300,000 of us have shelled out on average about $20,000 from the savings in the past year to try and balance the books and that alone has been pumped into the economy with a multiplier effect of around 4 to 5 . That works out to about 5 billion extra into the system but is there any recognition of this contribution by us seniors .....none whatsoever. The pension loan scheme is the best means for us to top up out pensions but at what cost???? why does the government charge the cumulative interest at 5.5% and why make it a cumulative debt. The Centrelink example showing where a older couple take out a modest PLS and 20 years later find that the debt is around 75% of the house equity.

    If our experts want to do something ...look at improving this scheme first .
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    22nd Feb 2018
    8:23pm
    I suspect you haven't done any research to confirm anyone shelled out $20K from savings, Dragrush. According to my financial adviser, more than 95% of those impacted by the changed assets test blew large sums on overseas holidays or home upgrades to requalify for the pension. They studiously AVOIDED spending in the local economy where possible, and apart from the big splurges to dispose of assets, they reduced their overall spending. They actually TOOK MONEY OUT OF THE ECONOMY, as you would expect would happen when 300,000 people have their income slashed.

    The ludicrous part of this debate about the cost of pensions is that EVERY CENT PAID IN PENSIONS GOES BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. The cost of paying pensions is negligible in reality, because that income generates tax revenue (GST, petrol tax, alcohol tax, cigarette tax, gambling tax, council rates, etc.), jobs, and economic growth. Forcing people to spend their savings merely means they are more likely to be more dependant later, and spending to stimulate economic growth is drastically reduced.
    VeryCaringBigBear
    22nd Feb 2018
    9:58pm
    I just can't see people breaking a life time habit and going on a spending spree no matter what. The guilt of it would stop them in their tracks. Your financial planner is full of BS.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:12am
    ASS-um-ption, BigBear. What you can't see is irrelevant. It's happening. They feel compelled to respond this way, because they know that they have three choices:

    (1) spend up big and have the fun they missed out on earlier
    (2) suffer a grossly inadequate income
    (3) give all their hard won savings to the government to hand to people who didn't work and save as hard or to manipulators like you

    The choices aren't palatable. None of them. But the first is by far the most appealing and that's the one they are adopting.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    10:05am
    Oh dear OGR you just don't get it at all. Many people are now too old and not healthy enough to spend up big and have fun.

    People who now fail the asset test don't have an inadequate income as they have lots of capital to spend instead.

    They are giving no savings to the government at all. All that has happened is that they like the rest of self funded retirees have to look after themselves.

    Unfortunately you are very wrong on your assumptions.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:34am
    You are brainless, OG. If they are spending capital, they ARE giving their money to the government. And if they are spending capital, their income must be inadequate or they would spend INCOME instead. You make no sense. As for them being too old to have fun - many who were hit by the assets test change are in the best time of their lives to have fun, but have three decades ahead of them to suffer hardship because they are FORCED to shed their hard-won savings for the benefit of those who did not save.

    It's you who is TOTALLY WRONG with your self-serving ILLOGICAL BS.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:45am
    Gee you really just don't get it all. If you saved money for retirement then you are a fool not to spend it on your retirement. It's useless when you are six feet under.

    Gee I thought the prime of one's life was in their 20s. Like me some must think they are still in their 20s and that's why we have so many accidents and falls. 80% of hospital admissions are from falls now.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Feb 2018
    7:07pm
    I'm in my late 60s and this is the best time of my life. My 20s were terrible. I was living in poverty and killing myself trying find a way to escape a life of frustration, overwork, and general misery.
    But I may well live to 100 or more, given the longevity of my ancestors. Like many, I want my savings to last, but greedy selfish pigs insist everyone who isn't wealthy should be ground down to live their final years in poverty.

    And who said I saved for retirement? I didn't. I saved to leave money to my disabled grandson, who will need it. And I think its disgusting that greedy self-serving people insist savings should be taken from those who worked and saved and given to a government that is wasteful and incompetent. People who save should have the same rights in retirement as people who didn't. Otherwise, you create a welfare mentality in which people have no incentive to work or save. Which is precisely what is happening thanks to the stupidity of the greedy. And it's the stupid who endorse the dumb policies that create a welfare mentality who scream loudest in protest against it! Mind boggling idiocy!
    Old Geezer
    26th Feb 2018
    3:55pm
    If you saved for your grand son why isn't the money in a trust for your grand son so it doesn't get counted as an asset for the OAP? That what most people do. Stop whinging and learn the rules so you can play the game.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    27th Feb 2018
    4:45pm
    Because at this point in time he doesn't qualify for a disability trust and any other trust would disadvantage his parents, OG.

    You are a sicko. You have no idea what issues others face, yet you pretend to know everything and claim the right to denigrate everyone.
    Old Geezer
    28th Feb 2018
    1:12pm
    Well OGR he can't be too disabled then as a lot have trust set up for them when they are very young.

    22nd Feb 2018
    10:25pm
    rainy, oh rainy you are so wet behind the ears, stating "every cent paid in pensions goes back into the economy", maybe you could tell us which country's economy as the latest stats show 33% of those receiving oap are living overseas as are 39% of those receiving the disability pension and even these stats are being questioned as many believe they are much higher!
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:15am
    If that's the case - and I suspect it's a gross exaggeration - then tighten the criteria for pensions to people living abroad. I think there are cases where pensions to people living overseas are justified. For example, if very elderly or disabled pensioners have a child living abroad who will care for them, and nobody in Australia who can, then they should not be penalized for going where there is care. But just choosing to live abroad is a different matter. That said, if the pension wasn't so dreadfully mean and the system didn't try to push everyone down into poverty, people would be much keener to stay in Oz.

    It's not hard to get policy right. It just takes common sense. But there's NONE of that in our government. There is only ''which vested interest should we favour this month'', and total corruption.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:54pm
    It does - every transaction as those dollars pass from hand to hand incurs tax and within a short time that dollar is back in the hands of the government - those on the lowest incomes spend every dollar back into the economy...

    Discussing those who live overseas is not the issue raised..... and one purchase of a holiday offshore by a fat cat equals more than a few pensioners living offshore.

    I'm vaguely planning to spend part of the year offshore.....
    Dragrush
    22nd Feb 2018
    11:08pm
    Thanks for your input response Rainey ----however - I haven't been a forum member long enough to judge whether your comments are substantial or just plain waffle . I actually was looking for your feedbackand others regarding the Pension Loan Scheme as I feel that I am having to dispose of my hard earned assets just to be able to meet daily bills and living costs. Prior to the asset change I was on a married couples part pension of $ 1050 per fortnight and it was cut back to $ 600 pf after the reduction . A pension loan will bring my pension back up to a reasonable level but at what cost to us . I am 75 and in reasonable health and have possibly another 7 or 8 years ahead of good life but I dont want to blow all my assets just to get a decent life style and then end up owing Centrelink $500.000 in accrued interest and pension repayments. Just for the record I do know many high income earnmers who live on waterfront canal properties worth over a million that dont have any assets because they shifted ownership to their kids or suchlike. These people get a full pension and the other perks like assisted living because they claim not to be able to care for their waterfront mansions. What say you to these issues .
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:09am
    That's precisely my point, Dragrush. The legislation ENCOURAGES people to grossly overinvest in housing or spend up big on overseas holidays, because having modest assets is harshly punished. It's BAD policy.

    Most people I know who were kicked in the teeth with asset test changes would never consider borrowing on ANY terms, because they got where they are by avoiding debt other than home loan debt and they knocked themselves out to pay off their homes as fast as possible. Most have a strong aversion to debt - and certainly fear it when they are too old to take extra work to pay it off if things get sticky.

    Personally, I believe there should be a universal age pension - or at least the pension should be income-based only. It does NOT benefit the nation to make it uneconomical to save for old age.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:56am
    So OGR what has that got to do with the Pension Loan Scheme?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:31am
    Everything, but obviously you didn't read the part about people being resistant to borrowing. Poor comprehension, OG.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:50am
    Nothing at all.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    9:20am
    A little off topic, but many here have referred to the fact that if taxes were collected properly, we could comfortably afford fair pensions. Actually, we can anyway because Australia spends about half what most developed nations spend on welfare, BUT the article

    https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2018/02/20/faulty-assumptions-company-tax-cut-plan/

    makes interesting reading for the ill-informed. Australia's company tax rate is LOWER than the new low US rate already. It does NOT need to be reduced. The US lower rate is only the 43% federal tax. Companies pay state tax and social security levy ON TOP OF THAT. The US system is much more complicated than Australia's but has far less concessions and loopholes.

    Companies in Australia pay very low tax relative to the rest of the world. The quoted rate is generally meaningless, because you have to understand all the complicated add-ons and subtractions.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    10:00am
    Companies in Australia also pay state and local government taxes which for some is as much as or more than the company tax they pay.

    Sure we could pay more but it would make the debt burden to China even bigger on our next generations.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:18am
    Wrong again, OG. Paying more in welfare would NOT make our debt bigger if tax was levied properly. Companies in Australia pay LESS TOTAL TAX than almost anywhere else in the world (possibly excepting UK, Switzerland and the Caymans)

    And the bottom line is, if you want the opportunity to make profit in this country - and they DO make healthy profits - PAY FOR IT. If you don't like paying tax, relocate to Antarctica and don't engage in any activity here. There will always be someone to take your place. Where demand exists, suppliers rise. The society was far healthier when we had more smaller suppliers and less monsters, so we should be very happy to farewell the greedy monsters.

    We need companies run by people with integrity and a social conscience. And lower taxes will NEVER achieve that.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:25am
    Many of us self funded retirees rely on those monsters to make enough money to live well in retirement. So you wish to deny us that so we can go back to the old days of shortages and having to make do with what we have. I certainly don't think so as I have never had it better than what it is today.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:30am
    And BTW, more welfare payment = more spending = higher business profit = more jobs = less unemployment = less demand for welfare = more tax revenue = more growth, and so the cycle continues. Far more beneficial to EVERYONE than tax cuts that only benefit the well off.
    Old Geezer
    23rd Feb 2018
    11:48am
    More pubs, more bottle shops and more pokies is more like it.
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:56pm
    The fees and other charges companies pay is to compensate for their lucrative tax deductions...... basic company tax at 30% is a way of saying you must pay a minimum.... and that minimum must be reasonable... and it's only on profit anyway... or declared profit...
    TREBOR
    23rd Feb 2018
    8:57pm
    In a service industry based economy, those pubs, clubs, bottle shops and the healthcare system are the true drivers of the economy... don't knock a few old piss-pots hitting the pokies.....
    Old Geezer
    24th Feb 2018
    4:25pm
    No wonder our economy I underperforming the rest of the world.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    24th Feb 2018
    6:59pm
    We are underperforming because the government is inept and giving everything to the greedy who hoard it off shore in tax havens. And now they want to give them more. It take SPENDING to generate jobs and tax revenue, and the way to increase spending is to increase incomes for the low to middle income earners, not load the coffers of those who already have more than they can spend in ten lifetimes.
    Old Geezer
    25th Feb 2018
    10:39am
    It is about time our struggling businesses got a tax break. They can employ more people and have some more leisure time to spend their money.

    Many retirees invest in companies and could do with a little more income from their investments in this low interest environment. They too will have more money to spend in the economy.

    I now know why you are not wealthy OGR. You don't have the right mindset to succeed. You can't go forward as to do so is something that is abhorrent to you and something you despise. I used to help teach people how to change their mindset for success and you are typical of most of the people I helped. You are unfortunately one of those who if they won the lotto would be worse off after they won than before. Everyone who wins lotto should be taught how to handle money as most can not. My kids used to ask me if I won a million in the lottery what would I do with it. My answer was invest it and make it into 2 million. How many people could do that?
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Feb 2018
    10:53am
    OG, either you make a lot of wild assumptions about people you know NOTHING at all about, or another poster's comment that you are in fact a troll is correct. (I strongly suspect the latter, since you are so inconsistent and hypocritical, and your comments evidence a total lack of humanity).

    I am not rich because both my partner and I suffered serious disadvantage and injustice, resulting in major long-term health issues, lack of education and skills training, and lack of opportunity. We also faced some major challenges - such as a special needs child who cost us the equivalent of 5 houses when we were struggling to pay off one to live in! Unlike many, we paid our debts in full. We could have gone bankrupt and started over, had we had the mentality YOU seem to applaud. We chose to be ethical and honest.

    When we finally found a way to escape the poverty trap, we achieved remarkably and while we are not wealthy - due to a very poor start in life and some conscious spending choices - we have more than probably 70% of retirees and far more than 99.9% of those who had similar early life experiences.

    If I won lotto, I would certainly NOT be worse off than before. You are disgustingly arrogant and grossly ignorant to make such an assertion. But I may not focus on making 2 million, because I don't need 2 million and find it far more satisfying to use some of it to help others achieve their life goals.

    I DO in fact have the mindset to succeed. Many who know us have commented that had we had less misfortune, we would have achieved something remarkable, because we are creative and extremely innovative, have excellent problem-solving skills, and a detailed understanding of business finance and management.

    We CHOOSE our lifestyle, because SOME THINGS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY OG. Like PEOPLE, for example. And JUSTICE - the pursuit of a fairer deal for the disadvantaged and victims of wrong by government and bureaucrats. CHARITY - to support the sick and disabled who struggle to access proper care and treatment.

    Success is NOT about being rich. Only the lowest scum on this earth associate material wealth with success.

    Success is being able to live life on your terms and support the right of others to live life on their terms and to be treated with respect.

    Success is about being a good citizen and a good friend. It's about standing up for what is right, and showing empathy and compassion for those who struggle or suffer.

    YOU are the LEAST SUCCESSFUL PERSON HERE, OG. And I have no desire to EVER achieve your warped, sick and twisted definition of ''success''. It is the definition adopted by greedy, selfish, self-serving people who lack the qualities that set humans apart from animals and enable most of us to get along in a civilized society.

    God help the poor deluded souls who listened to anything you claimed to be able to teach - because you know NOTHING about success, only about getting rich, gloating, and denigrating others.
    Old Geezer
    26th Feb 2018
    11:54am
    Those comments further my realisation you have the wrong mindset for success. Many I have taught have been in much worse circumstances than you have and they have done very well.

    I know lots about success and have been honoured for my contribution in helping others lead better more fruitful lives.

    I don't whinge and I don't allow others to whinge either. I don't accept the word "can't" from anyone and remind them the word is "wont" instead. I have taught my kids the same and they have achieved more success then I though possible.

    I just laugh at those who try to bring me down to their level and think fools you should be aspiring to my level instead.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    26th Feb 2018
    2:12pm
    And I laugh at egomaniacal know-nothings like you, OG, who get your kicks from PRETENDING SUPERIORITY. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm a million times more successful than you can ever hope to be. And your comments are so ridiculous and laughable that they evidence a man whose brain has been warped completely beyond redemption by ego and greed, and who has no understanding of what matters in life.

    Get lost, jerk! The last thing anyone needs is a self-serving deluded fool like you telling them how to live. If you advised anyone, it's no wonder society is going downhill fast.
    Old Geezer
    26th Feb 2018
    2:25pm
    Just more evidence of a wrong mindset for success.
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:37pm
    We don't have an effective economy OG - that's why it is under-performing. It has no solid underpinning of consistent employment in producing industries, and instead relies on service industries such as banks, loans, serial housing ownership... all bought with non-existent money and thus not worth the paper they aren't printed on.

    I suppose you could say 'we' produce resources - but that is so limited and largely owned by offshore corporations of both kinds - Country And Western - on and Eastern.. All of our big cats in that arena utilise tax havens, so the 'governments' respective are forced to get by on royalties... which amount to nothing like the value of the exported resources, and only add to the end cost BACK to the local end consumer.

    Just a tax on the individual by another means....

    then I suppose you could say we offer education and healthcare (healthcare is now over 12% of the employment market - hence the ascendancy of Ged Kearney to the ACTU and now into politics to shore up her retirement packages)...

    Talk about some never having enough...... and it's not just your 'righties'.... anyone with a snout in the political trough in any ways is into it up to their ankles.
    old frt
    26th Feb 2018
    5:05pm
    OGR it is time to cut that tree off your shoulder and get on with life before it becomes to big a burden to keep carrying everywhere . Most people have a story to tell about hardship at some point in their life, but we don't go on and on ,build a bridge - get over it
    Old Geezer
    26th Feb 2018
    6:23pm
    Agree time to bury the past like the rest of us have and get on with life. It makes no sense to me to keep bringing up the past and carrying it as a burden.
    TREBOR
    26th Feb 2018
    11:39pm
    Tell that to the Jews, the Ukrainians, the Irish.... any number of groups....

    You reckon that people should just forget a multi million dollar heist out of their retirement packaging fifty years ago (or whenever) and the consequent abuse of the same people by the parties of those who stole it?
    Old Geezer
    27th Feb 2018
    12:14pm
    Definitely as it never existed.
    TREBOR
    27th Feb 2018
    1:30pm
    Might do what I did last time - encapsulate the views here and pass them on to that group - see what they think of coal face views.
    TREBOR
    28th Feb 2018
    2:22pm
    I have endeavoured to encapsulate all the views here – difficult when trying to avoid all the bickering caused by The Few over the Usual Suspect ideas. You may correct me if I'm wrong on anything you've said. I will forward this on.

    Tukkaman – New Zealand type pension – pension to all – tax income. Get a Non government body to work it out.

    Old Geezer – keep super tax free after 60.

    Trebor – Universal pension and tax income, fringe benefits and gifting from companies. Pity it takes a learned body to come up with what ordinary people already know.

    FearlessFly – follow the Kiwis

    Sundays – would work except for government.

    Tropic – Australian system too complicated.

    Jacka – sounds like a no-brainer but government will stuff it up.

    Thommo – government tinkering in the past has made it worse than it was.

    Charlie – Easy to increase pension – just add to it.

    GrayComputing – abolish assets test.

    Captain – capture tax in full from all.

    Imagine – universal pension is the way to go. Frees up pensioners to be more productive.

    VeryCaringBig Bear – many don't see super because employers don't pay it in.

    Tib – Universal pension and ensure tax is paid by all properly. Tax laws currently allow rorting.

    World Prophet – We are already paying for a pension, but it was hijacked by politicians into consolidated revenue.

    musicveg – it would enable people to live better.

    old frt – the % put from income tax was only worked out for people to live 68-70. suggests 15-17% is a viable figure based on expert opinions.

    OnlyGenuineRainey says 15-17% of low incomes is unaffordable.

    Trebor – Higher income levels and lower living costs should be the norm so that people can retire at 45 and allow the next group to come along.

    Trebor – the only part of super not taxed should be what is earned on it while it is accumulating. (Not sure I put that right. After it is drawn and a pension given, it should be taxed as normal (not sure if that's quite right – the deposited amount is already taxed but should not get concessional tax – the money earned while that cash is lying fallow should not be taxed since it could be used elsewhere – opportunity loss. The super payout amount per period, when in receipt of pension as described, should be included as income and taxed accordingly).

    Trebor – there should be safeguards against 'asset shedding'/gifting away prior to pension age as a deliberate ploy to avoid income tax.

    old frt – some don't understand superannuation levy, and it should be 15-17%.

    VeryCaringBigBear – comments on under-utilised assets. (with no asset test what is the issue?).

    OnlyGenuineRainey – cites the level of funds held by the retirement packaging and future probable amount at up to $5.1 trillion.

    OnlyGenuineRainey - politician's commitments are elsewhere than to the general good.

    Dragrush – the assets taper changes have made it harder.
    Jtee
    8th Mar 2018
    9:07pm
    Sounds good and easier than juggling the Centrelink jungle. Work hard, save and benefit in your retirement unlike the current system where you are regarded as "being very lucky" because you saved instead of spending and then had the reward of being eligible for a lower pensionpayment due to the 2017 assets test. Maybe some aspiring politicians might like to bring up the idea (as listed above) of a Universal Pension as a policy and have a really good chance of being elected.
    patti
    8th Jun 2018
    1:33pm
    A universal pension system makes a whole lot more sense than what we currently have. I would be funded by everyone paying into a fund from their income, and everyone would be entitled to a living amount on retirement. Some really wealthy people would possibly not need to access it, but can if they wish to do so. No-one should be exempt from this. Only then can we say we are showing the respect our senior citizens deserve.
    cat
    13th Aug 2018
    12:38pm
    Wow such a lot of arguments that make commenting a problem. I am just going on 70 I get a small pension from the uk through my deceased husband $180-200 a month. I don't know how I'd do without it. It means I keep my small car although its 17 years old and is now needing various repairs which are hard for me to pay for. I save up for a year if I want to go on a weeks holiday. In that time I cant pay for anything else. That $1000+ a fortnight sounds wonderful. I still think people who are rich enough to have more than that coming in a fortnight should NOT get a pension to keep all things equal. I rent from the housing trust - thank goodness-, I have 3 cats, I don't smoke, drink or go out very often. I don't use the heater unless I really have to and the same with the a/c. My favourite occupation used to be walking but with back and neurological problems probably caused by diabetes 2 (inherited) I don't walk far any more. My computer is a lifesaver! I'm lucky to have a good friend to do craft with and visit and talk to. I'm lucky to have 3 grandchildren 2 of whom are babies. Also my sons and daughter in law. I'm not complaining about my lot financially, I'm sure there are people much worse off. But none of us should be. We need Statesmen in Parliament and forward looking politicians, the kind that built the country years ago. Not the ones who only worry about their own pockets and play at politics.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles