New political party for retirees

Self-managed super fund expert looks to protect self-funded retirees.

New political party for retirees

The constantly-changing framework surrounding self-managed super funds (SMSFs) has caused one industry expert to set up his own political party.

Prominent SMSF author and commentator Grant Abbott has launched the SMSF party and outlined his plans to protect the current benefits of existing SMSFs and their members.

Mr Abbott claims that both Liberal and Labor had abandoned the SMSF sector and claimed it was time a political party was set up and prepared to stand up and defend the industry from further clawbacks.

“For existing SMSF members and superannuants, retrospective and immediate changes like the Coalition government imposing a $1.6m Pension Transfer Balance on existing pension balances is unsettling and in short, extremely unfair,” Mr Abbott said.

“With a possible incoming Labor Government seeking to reduce non-concessional contributions to $75k, getting rid of the five-year concessional contribution averaging, knocking out refundable franking credits and a possible lowering of the pension transfer balance cap – there is a need for not only protection of existing superannuation benefits but a promise of not making further changes.

“Once retired, the last thing a retiree needs is a change to their retirement income stream, particularly self-funded retirees who have chosen to look after themselves rather than rely on the aged pension.”

Some of the other policies that Mr Abbott has outlined outside of protecting current SMSF provisions include the provision of long-term government infrastructure bonds and allowing a parent’s SMSF to partially fund a first home purchase for a lineal descendent.

Do you own an SMSF? Would you vote for a party that aimed to protect the current benefits of self-funded retirees?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    4b2
    6th Feb 2019
    10:11am
    We do not need another political party. We need political reform. I do agree with the concept that once aperson retires the scheme he or she retires on should remain in place.
    Blinky
    6th Feb 2019
    12:25pm
    Yes, pensioners are always being threatened by pension reforms. The whole system should be set in stone.
    As I've pointed out before, superannuation only works if u have enough money n do not need e centrelink pension. If u have a little super, that counts as an asset n eats into your centrelink pension i.e. you only get a part pension. Big deal!!
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:26pm
    Blinky, superannuation is a disaster for those who have just over the assets test threshold. You need nearly double the threshold amount to be as well off as a pensioner with maximum assets.
    kram
    8th Feb 2019
    11:54am
    I totally agree with OnlyGenuineRainey, superannuation is a disaster for those who have just over the assets test threshold. Just hitting 70 and have no choice but to keep working (for myself) to top up my income to a pension level.
    There is no relaxing in retirement for many who are just over the asset test limit
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:13pm
    Likewise, Kram. Have to keep working. Happily, I have a great job with flexible hours, but I don't see how it's reasonable for people who saved well to be forced to keep working or accept a low living standard and be cheated out of fair tax benefits while those who didn't save as well live on the public purse.
    Linda
    6th Feb 2019
    10:21am
    A political party based only on the wishes of retired people seems a terrible idea. I too agree that arrangements made at the time of retirement should hold because at the time of retirement income is a set amount and plans are made around that. When changes are made then many who do have a financial adviser have to return to the drawing board and seek new advice which in its self is expensive. Elderly people are vulnerable. We don't need more uncertainty than already exists in the stock market which most of us who have retirement funds. Our combined funds are now the honey pot everyone wants to find the keys to and make raids upon. We need better laws and protections around protecting our own money from corrupt bankers and financial advisers.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:32am
    Make that SOME retired people, Linda - the self manager super fund lot ONLY. Hardly a voting bloc....

    Looks more like a continuation of the Politics of Division to me.... who is this guy a stooge for?
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:34am
    Where will the preferences go? That's the question....
    KSS
    6th Feb 2019
    1:00pm
    "Looks more like a continuation of the Politics of Division to me.... who is this guy a stooge for?"

    Get-Up most likely!
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:34pm
    I doubt get-up would be behind anything like this. Nothing on Get-up website either.
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:38pm
    Trebor, preferences go to whomever you want, just mark your ballot paper accordingly. You don't have to follow "how to vote cards" you know unless your like most of the Australian sheep
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    3:44pm
    Get Up is socialist and detests SFRs, so no, they would not back this. I agree with some of his policy ideas, but I don't agree with all of them and I don't think he's going about things the right way. Then again, given the extreme arrogance and dishonesty of Shorten and Bowen on the franking credits issue (and doubtless many others) and the arrogance, dishonesty and unfairness of the LNP, I don't know what anyone CAN do to improve the situation. Certainly, nobody in politics cares about truth or fairness - for ANYONE!
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:16pm
    What's wrong with a Retiree Party Linda? Once you get that with a braod support from the retirement community the government will leave retirees alone. As things stand now we are all fair game and the last 6 years of the LNP rat government as well as Shorten's franking credits announcement should make that clear.
    The benefit of joining together is STRENGTH IN NUMBERS. There are a lot of us and many more every year.
    "United we stand. Divided we fall". That's why we have been easy pickings. I read it on this website all the time when people with long held allegiances are unable to make their vote count and send the correct message. We'll all get what we deserve and it won't be pretty unless we can unite. Not sure the retirement community has that in them though.
    GeorgeM
    6th Feb 2019
    10:42pm
    Agree wholly with MICK, a Retiree party is definitely needed. However, this one is only for the SMSFs and is unlikely to achieve anything much as they are only interested in the richer group of retirees. The strength in numbers will only happen if ALL retirees are represented.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    11:50am
    I don't think the SMSF members are necessarily the 'richer group of retirees'' GeorgeM. Many are far worse off than countless thousands of pensioners who are being unfairly favoured, having manipulated to reduce their ASSESSABLE wealth. I guess that's why the focus on the self-funded. Currently they are the ones being persecuted and unfairly threatened. I agree the focus should be on 'retirees' as a whole, though. The objective should be a fair pension system AND fair taxation and treatment of super. Frankly, I don't see a problem with the transfer balance cap, except that maybe $1.6 mil is too low for a single person. I certainly don't object to a tax on high super balances. What is wrong is the appalling treatment of the less well off SFRs who are really struggling and seemingly the target of every attack - certainly the group currently most at risk given Labor's disgustingly unfair policy.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    6:22pm
    The RPA - Retirees Party of Australia - providing full health care and treatment for an ailing nation!!

    Hmm... isn't that taken somewhere.. oh, yeah ... Royal Prince Alfred... hmmmmm... might need a tweak .....
    GeorgeM
    7th Feb 2019
    9:28pm
    OGR, I know that all SMSFs are not rich (I said "the richer.." being the majority of them), however I also recall a Financial Industry suggestion some time ago that having & managing SMSF is suitable for those with $2 Million+ financial assets. Sure people with less than that have these, and good luck to them if it is working for them, however their risks (& costs) are higher than if they simply put their money into Industry Funds.

    Agree, Trebor, suggest RP instead of RPA - problem solved! (Luckily we don't have a Republican Party, I think!)
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    8:55am
    And how many members would be in that $2m fund? A very high number of SMSFs have 4 members or less and contrary to your opinion have less risk and much higher returns than union run funds. SMSFs do not give money to political parties, sponsor sporting clubs or sporting grounds, do not waste money on advertising to the brain dead to convince them that they are as close to perfect as you can get. HA HA HA!!!
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    8:55am
    And how many members would be in that $2m fund? A very high number of SMSFs have 4 members or less and contrary to your opinion have less risk and much higher returns than union run funds. SMSFs do not give money to political parties, sponsor sporting clubs or sporting grounds, do not waste money on advertising to the brain dead to convince them that they are as close to perfect as you can get. HA HA HA!!!
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    9:42am
    I agree with TREBOR, by its very name it strikes me as a party that is there to look after the interests of a very specific group of voters, it would also to my mind, be one that was drawn towards any legislation that helped big business make a profit. In other words, yet another branch of the Liberal Party.
    We do not need more political parties, we need to hold the ones we have to account. By introducing more Independents to the pool we are diluting the vote of those who actually think about who they place their vote with and strengthening the vote by those who will always without thought vote for the so called two major parties.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:24pm
    GeorgeM, that $2 mil (if a fund has that much) might be shared among 4 people - thus only $500,000 each.

    And any claim that you need $2 mil to be better off in an SMSF than in an industry fund is pure rubbish. If members are competent managers, they can be better off with just $200,000 in an SMSF. A certain software product designed for managing SMSFs has about 1 million funds under management and only about 4% have $2 million in assets. More than 70% have less than $1.5 mil and that's shared, in every case, by at least 2 people - often more.

    The latest ATO figures put the AVERAGE balance of an member of an SMSF at $564,000, so they are NOT by any means 'wealthy'. Mr Abbott is representing average Australians.

    That said, I'd like to see him expand his platform to all retirees, but I can't see how that can happen when there are so many selfish people supporting unfair policies that demolish the incomes of SFRs and SMSF members.
    GeorgeM
    9th Feb 2019
    8:49pm
    I was referring to the opinion of a finance expert, and yes, that is the problem he mentioned - too many SMSFs with low super balances have been misguided into creating their own funds, and his opinion (I think I would believe him rather than the two of you) wad that they are getting lower returns (after costs) and face higher risks.

    Also, no, Abbott is representing wealthier retirees (doesn't mean all are wealthy), he has NO interest in average people who certainly don't have assets large enough to be suitable candidates for create SMSFs. Unless they are very smart financially - very few are.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    12:26pm
    I disagree entirely, GeorgeM. I don't think Abbott is necessarily any more concerned with wealthier retirees than battlers. In fact, I think he's more concerned with those who are doing it tough. He's certainly concerned with FAIRNESS and security for all retirees. I think he very much represents the AVERAGE retirees, and you don't have to have large assets to be a suitable candidate for an SMSF. You simply have to value control. My own reason for using an SMSF is that my partner's history as a 'welfare kid' rendered him terrified of institutional control in any form, and conventional super funds are 'institutions'.

    I don't think SMSFs with low balances have been 'misguided' into creating their own funds. That's a view peddled by folk who profit from encouraging people to pay advisers or institutional funds. Their profit relies on people accepting their view - which makes them very biased, and not at all objective. Believe who you will, but don't be misled into thinking that people who profit from taking a particular position are more believable than the people whose lives are directly affected by decisions.

    Bottom line - we NEED protection for SFRs, and whether or not Abbott is doing everything right, he's providing something that is badly needed and that nobody else is currently offering.
    SFR
    11th Feb 2019
    12:34pm
    I don't believe he's representing the average retiree at all, if he was why isn't he forming a party for all retirees instead of a party just for an exclusive section of retirees.
    Sorry OGR I have to agree entirely with GeorgeM.
    Anonymous
    11th Feb 2019
    2:23pm
    Because the people he represents are the ones being unfairly threatened by Labor, and those who are objecting are being unfairly favoured by Labor and supporting Labor's demolition of the incomes of honest Australians who deserve better. When people stop bullying SFRs and supporting unfair treatment of them, I'm sure he'll happily include them in his representations. It's clear from the comments here that SFRs need exclusive representation by a party that respects them and is willing to fight for fairness.
    Ted
    6th Feb 2019
    10:41am
    No, no, no. Not yet another party, that’s the last thing we need. What do we know of this party’s policies in other areas, foreign affairs, the environment etc. Di agree though that retirees arrangements should be protected.
    Grateful
    6th Feb 2019
    11:14am
    Exactly why ALL superannuation should be based on an INCOME determined by relative contributions and managed by a single government controlled entity such as the Future Fund.
    Super should be certain in the absolute with NO risk and NO changes. The current "system" is an absolute shambles, it's like a lottery, and a new party is completely unnecessary and just needs a party with the guts to make the oh so obvious changes. But, there would be far too many "losers" viz banks, insurance companies, financial planners etc etc etc and THEY are to ONLY one's that governments, certainly this coalition one, are concerned about.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:30am
    As before - a long as that Future Fund is totally out of the hands of politicians past and present with vested interests and conflicts of interest, financial institutions with the same, and any other body intent on using it as a 'business'. Then it can develop a reasonable and reliable tax free component for everyone, and then limit super over and above, so as to prevent using it as a rort.

    A totally Independent Australian Future Fund including the current one plus all the normal contributions towards Social Security is mandated.

    Does that mean it will take over the functions of Unemployment as well? Or are the Unemployed hung out to dry?

    (bring on the jokesters - 'Don't Make Me IAFF!')
    PlanB
    6th Feb 2019
    11:24am
    OMG another political party AND with a name of Abbott -- NO WAY!
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    9:44am
    Only if he runs with a Costello. a proven comedy team.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:25am
    DUH - SMSF Party... catchment of a few % of retirees... but I suppose pensioners aren't retirees in the New Jargon, since they are government employees still..... and must perforce be on call to meet any demand placed on them by the government...

    What do some people use for brains and intelligence and intellect?
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    12:12pm
    I'm starting to see why a party might focus on the persecuted and unfairly treated and ignore the whims of those being unfairly favoured - given the selfish comments from green-eye monsters who enjoy taxpayer-funded pensions and want others ripped off to feed greed.

    It would be nice if we could all unite for a common cause, but first the green-eyed monsters here need to recognize FACTS and stop supporting evil just because it doesn't hurt them and they are envious of the situation they IMAGINE (wrongly) those hurt are in.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:27pm
    I agree that to stand a chance he needs to broaden his base.... and make clear his allegiances and such.
    Captain
    7th Feb 2019
    4:05pm
    Trebor, the number of SFR's is about 588,000, perhaps as much as 18% of retirees.

    The party is not limited to SFR's and those on aged pensions should be encouraged to join as they would form a larger voting bloc thereby preventing the major parties from attacking retirees as they have for the last 6 years.

    Just remember that many LNP or Labor voters don't necessarily agree with all the policies of their chosen party.

    Someone else wrote that this new party would have no stance on foreign affairs, etc. Well do they think that any Independent has a policy on that either?
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:28pm
    Sensible comment, Captain. Yes, pensioners should join because then the party could lobby for improvements in conditions for retirees across the board. The only reason for not supporting them is self-interest - an "I'm alright Jack, bugger you" attitude, showing no concern for anyone else, much less for fairness or the national interest. Sadly, we are seeing plenty of that here.
    GeorgeM
    7th Feb 2019
    9:20pm
    Captain, we are talking of a planned SMSF party, not a SFR party. There could be a difference in their numbers. I agree with Trebor, ".to stand a chance he needs to broaden his base.... and make clear his allegiances and such". There are 3 Million+ Retirees, and the naming of the party clearly suggest their focus is on a very limited group with no interest in anyone else...blindingly obvious. A person with such a narrow focus cannot represent all retirees. Now, if it was a Retirees Party (RP, not RPA, Trebor - short & sweet), 3 Million+ means a solid group of voters - one keeps hoping it would turn up.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    9:01am
    I think a few young people will join this party. There are many more young people who aspire to be SFRs these days.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    9:01am
    I think a few young people will join this party. There are many more young people who aspire to be SFRs these days.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:31pm
    Trebor, there is lobbying from the members of the party to change the name to SFR party, as it IS in fact representing all self-funded retirees - not just SMSF members. And of course it also represents a large number of younger Australians who are concerned about their retirement. Any intelligent young person would join to ensure that retirement policies are appropriate and beneficial for all, and that the hard-won savings of their parents and grandparents are not stolen by socialists, but are available for the use and benefit of those who saved and their offspring.
    SFR
    8th Feb 2019
    2:47pm
    So it's only the socialists who will steal from you, what about the money grabbing capitalist greedy LNP & top end of town or are they there to save you ha ha.. They have done an enormous amount of harm to retirees over the last 6 years
    Young people join the party for old farts, really, all the young people I've spoken to in their 30's & 40's don't care or even understand super & don't even give a thought about retirement & that includes my own kids when I've tried to bring up the subject.
    It should be a party for ALL retirees that way we are united.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    3:18pm
    I detest the LNP also, 1984, and I agree the party should be a party for all retirees, but it's hard to unite a group when a large number are so self-indulgent and greedy that they support ripping off any one they THINK might have a little more than them. When all retirees acquire some respect and decency and stop with the 'I'm okay Jack bugger you' attitude, I'm sure Abbott will welcome all of them into the party and stand up for all.

    All the young folk I know are very concerned about retirement policy, and furious that Labor is threatening their parents and grandparents unfairly - and also very aware that any threat to today's retires means a threat to their retirement as well. Any who don't share that concern are rather lacking in intellect.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    3:32pm
    1984, I would not vote for any of the LNP, Labor or Greens. The LNP & Greens have ruined the pretirement plans of over 450,000 part pensioners in the budget of 2014 and Labor plans on ruining the plans of approx 588,000 SFR,s with their Dividend Imputation policy. Independants for me.

    Many young people understand that any Govt is likely to change the Super rules at any time so they don't try to understand the existing rules. However as they get towards retirement they may begin to take more notice. By then it will be too late as their lack of interest will have already worked against them. We taught our children from a young age (about 5 years old) the wonder of compound interest.Now in their mid thirties both own their own houses.

    Lack of interest breeds lack of understanding and poor overall results. Just remember the five p's - prior preparation prevent poor performance.
    Seadove
    6th Feb 2019
    11:31am
    It's impossible to have a set and forget regime around SMSF. You don't think circumstances change in an economy that need to be addressed? A lot of people can be in retirement for 40 years and you think it's reasonable to stay static with money? You are dreaming. While we would all like to like in a Utopian society, it's not available. Assets and money need to be reviewed constantly to ensure best possible return. Look at the changes in our world from 1960 to 2000. Changing governments do change the goal posts and we all know that so you have to keep ahead of that and adapt. Complaining falls on deaf ears and no, we do not need another political party, especially one whose only interest is in the more affluent in our society. Object if you must but the majority of retirees do not have SMSF.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:33am
    Politicians and the like have no problem - they've got indexing = over-funded for life.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:31pm
    Check your facts before you spruik rubbish, Seadove. He is NOT only interested in the more affluent. He is interested in protecting a society that is in grave danger because people who are struggling for no better reason than that they saved to be self-sufficient are now being threatened with total demolition of their income, while well off pensioners are looked after. And when all those with SMSFs are wiped out by unfair taxes, there will be hundreds of thousand more pensioners and a lot less money to go around. Good luck to the poorest then! They'll need it.
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    10:54pm
    Many of the SFRs who will be affected by this change are already making plans. Spending down their hard earned capital to get the pension doesn’t figure in their equation. Sure, they are lobbying governments. However, they have a Plan B. You’re a bit behind the eight ball.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    11:57am
    No, I'm not, Sundays. The less wealthy SFRs ARE making plans to spend down and go on the pension, because THEY have no other realistic choices. The wealthier can probably find ways around this wrongful and grossly unfair policy that is being promoted with massive lies. But the poorer SFRs have limited options.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:32pm
    Forced into the neo-conservative design to spend down your accumulated assets before getting anything from the Guv, Rainey. Take 'em one at a time - your lot are first off the block -n or on the chopping block.

    Once GovCo gets everyone below a certain net worth onto pension, they can manipulate pension at will and use it as a bludgeon to get their way, force the peasants to do their bidding. It's not beyond the realm of thought that a future government should demand that pensioners sweep the streets to earn their pension.... like babushkas in Moskva do... old ladies 'earning' their daily bread by sweeping the snow from the streets while the fat cats cavort with models and gallons of vodka and suck up to Western business people for mutual mega-dollar benefit...

    Communism at its best.... and then there's a downside as well ...... then there's China... a true republic of the people as long as the top dogs get their massive cut and entrenched power and control to make billions for life... New Mandarins...
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:33pm
    Sorry - I do digress - I'm a 'globalist' of a different kind... I study and analyse global issues etc.... from a national security perspective....
    Captain
    7th Feb 2019
    4:13pm
    Seadove, some people spend years planning their retirement, (and changing their plans when necessary), and do not enjoy having those plans trashed when they may have been retired for a number of years. There should be grandfathering clauses for those already retired when changes are mooted.

    Trebor, your comment on Communism sounds like any Democracy.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:12pm
    Seadove, it's funny how those endorsing 'change' and ranting based on wild an invalid assumptions about SMSF members are the first to yelp at any suggestion of cutting the pension. Yet they cheer the demolition of SFRs' income by cutting it up to 30%.

    You would think DECENT people would stand for fairness for all - not just for themselves and others who rely on the public purse.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    6:24pm
    I know, Skipper - the differences are minimal.... and allegiance to any specific ideology is tenuous at best when money speaks all languages....
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:45am
    Nothing at all for retirees who are only on the OAP or part pension. Sounds like another top end of town greedy protecting the wealthy.
    Blinky
    6th Feb 2019
    12:16pm
    No one cares about centrelink pensioners mate there should be a party x them, as they are always subject to the whims of greedy treasurers who want to balance their budgets at the pensioners' cost!
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:22pm
    Exactly my point
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    3:48pm
    A lot of SMSF members are a long way from wealthy, 1984. Vast numbers of them are far worse off than the majority of pensioners. I don't agree with this man's mission, but please don't create more division and resentment with your invalid assumptions. Pensioners and SFRs need to unite to demand a fair deal for all. A little respect and a lot less jealousy would go a long way.
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:54pm
    OGR, maybe I didn't elaborate enough,
    A Retiree party is what is needed. However, this party is only for the SMSFs and doesn't encompass ALL retirees including those on an OAP. My take is this new party is only interested in the richer group of retirees. The strength in numbers will only happen if ALL retirees are represented by one party.
    I understand that some SMSF members are not wealthy but a lot are, same as any sef funded retiree who isn't in a SMSF.
    I don't disrespect anyone especially retirees & definitely not jealous of you or anyone else so maybe a little bit more respect & less jealously from would go a long way.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    10:45am
    My suspicions were aroused that this was a 'plant' party by one side or the other, when this dork limited it to SFRs and did not include the entire retirement community. That's as bad as Shortenski Sunovavich and his comment on pensioners and dividend imputation, and leaves me suspicious about this party as a whole.

    If this was fair dinkum he would not hesitate to say 'ALL retirees' - and that includes many on the ex-services system(s).
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    2:30pm
    I agree he should be representing all retirees, but you can't blame SFRs for feeling pensioners are being unfairly favoured and they are the target of attack, and therefore NEED representation. The pity is that so many pensioners support the attack and don't care a damn for decency or fairness as long as they are okay.

    Why would anyone want to include them in representation when they have that attitude? When pensioners stand up for fairness and decency and stop peddling Labor lies, I am quite sure Mr Abbott will happily extend his platform to include them. At the moment, most are aggressively opposing fairness to those he represents. It's a bit hard to stand for those who support a policy and also for those who rigorously oppose it.
    GeorgeM
    7th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    I agree with Trebor, this may be a "plant" party - see how much division it is already creating among Retirees!
    Paddington
    6th Feb 2019
    11:46am
    Retired people are grandparents so education is still important to them. The world they will leave for their children, grandchildren and descendants is top priority for them. It is not just about how much money they will have. Most elderly people are not that selfish, hopefully.
    Family values that include people being able to live a good life whether they are children, young adults, older adults and the frail elderly should always be what matters.
    Look after everyone not just one group, a party for all, a living wage for all, access to health care for all, a safe and healthy environment, etc.
    Just more scattering of votes and confusing forsome, no thanks!
    Farside
    6th Feb 2019
    3:56pm
    You are an optimist Paddington. Have you seen any evidence on this site to support your contention the top priority of retired people is the world they will leave to their descendents? I have not seen much support for creating a better world, more often short term thinking with themes of selfishness, envy and greed rather than ensuring long term quality of life for all.
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    9:49am
    Farside, that would be because any one who espoused such ideals would be labeled a lefty socialist and hunted to extinction. Things like cheap electricity and wall building are far more the preferred subject matter of this site.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    10:46am
    Now don't be so pessimistic you 2, it is such a nice day, shame to spoil it with negative thoughts, even though I suspect that what you 3 have written is correct.
    mike
    6th Feb 2019
    11:46am
    Self funded retirees need to be protected from politicians whose only interest is filling their own pockets from retirees savings, like Hockey and Turnbull, However with Shorten in the wings with his retiree tax grab, we now NEED to vote Liberal to keep Shorten out, The trouble with small political parties is that when they get wiped out at the elections, we dont know where their preferences go. Many will go to Labour and the Greens. this will get shorten elected and his tax changes. Even though I have lost faith in the Liberals, we now have to vote Liberal to keep tax grab shorten out
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    11:51am
    Vote independent & put LNP last followed by ALP then preference the rest, that way YOU know who gets your preferences.
    Seadove
    6th Feb 2019
    12:02pm
    There is no retiree tax, there is however a closing of a loop hole that Howard/Costello opened up for their rich cohorts so sounds like responsible actioning to me.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    12:12pm
    Are you from the UK Mike?, our party here is spelled Labor not Labour.
    Paddington
    6th Feb 2019
    12:36pm
    LNP is not popular with ordinary people who have experienced low wages and difficulties buying a home. People will not forget their bullying tactics to oust their moderate PM albeit he is a banker and very wealthy. He was still quite liked.
    They ignore the need to address global warming. The far right has too much power and are bullies.
    Even many people who would consider voting for LNP will not this time!
    LNP and their far right supporters are getting desperate looking at the lengths they are going to in the hope of mustering some votes.
    Off my list of choices this time for sure!
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:24pm
    And they are abandoning ship like rats
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:09pm
    Seadove, you are obviously swallowing Bowen and Shorten's blatant lies hook line and sinker. NOBODY ever got a tax refund without paying tax. It's NOT POSSIBLE. There is NO LOOPHOLE. Shareholders are taxed on their dividends. Rich shareholders and high income earners get a credit for that tax. Low income earners quite correctly get a refund - because they are not liable to pay tax. Same as when a PAYE or PAYG taxpayer overpays. They get the overpayment back.

    Consider this - if you still don't get it:

    Jack earns $200,000 a year.
    Joe has $6 million in super generating $300,000 per annum
    Fred has $900,00 in super and a $400 home. His income is $40,000 a year
    Ian is a pensioner with $300,000 in super and a $3 million home. With the pension, his income is nearly $60,000 a year.
    All are married. All bar Jack are retired and have no other income.

    All own Commonwealth Bank shares and get dividends.

    CBA takes 30% of the dividend due and pays to the ATO and sends 70% to the shareholders.

    Currently, all shareholders get a tax credit for the 30% tax taken, and those who are not liable to pay tax get a cash refund.


    Shorten says Jack and Joe should get a tax credit for the tax paid and pay less income tax. Wealthy pensioner Ian should get a tax refund. Poor struggling SFR Fred - by far the poorest - should get nothing back. The ATO should KEEP 30% of his income because he is poor.

    And you think THAT is acceptable? You have no more sense of fairness than Shorten and no more common sense than Bowen if you agree with that BS.

    If rich folk and high income earners are deemed to have paid tax on their dividend, how can the poorer person - whose dividend income was taxed at EXACTLY the same rate - be deemed to have paid no tax? That's idiotic, unfair and dishonest in the extreme. And it will push hundreds of thousand onto pensions and cost the country more than the current DI policy is costing. And BTW - Idiot Shorten is using 3-year-old out of date figures and most of his claimed savings don't exist because they were already achieved by the LNP changing the rules - only THEY did it in a way that only deprived the wealthy.
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    10:07pm
    What a lot of nonsense. If Jack’s income is $200,000 from working then when he lodges his tax return. He GROSSES up his dividend and adds it to his income on his tax return. instead of paying 42.5% tax on $200k he gets the 30% rebate in Franking credits. It’s a rebate to reduce the amount of tax owing so he doesn’t pay twice. It’s , NOT a refund.

    If Joe is generating $3000,000 from Super and he is over 60 then it’s all tax free. At the moment Joe is getting a refund of Franking credits as well. He is someone Shorten wants to clamp down on. He is investing the $6M in his self managed fund purely in bank shares to get a ridiculously high refund of Franking credits. It needs to stop

    For Ian to get $60,000 in income he is drawing down heavily on his super to top up his pension. It will run out. He will be exempt under Labor because he is a pensioner but then most people in Ian’s situation don’t really own $3 million dollar homes and his super is probably not self managed. It’s in an industry or retail fund put in by his employer for many years. The few shares he holds out of super only generate modest Franking credits refunded to help pay a few bills. Very fair, and acceptable

    I think Fred should get some refund but people like Joe have spoilt it with their greed. Fred will need to relook at his portfolio. Now if Fred had an income stream he would have to draw down 5% minimum a year I.e $45,000. Fred in this example is trying to preserve capital.its his choice.

    John Howard introduced refund of Franking credits in 2000. It’s a largess we can’t afford. The billions, yes billions even allowing for out of date figures given to a small section of the population needs to be used for the good of all. My children pay tax and it’s not to help self funded retirees but health, education, housing, infrastructure
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    12:00am
    And what about this scenario. Jill worked hard all her life. Her employer put money into a super fund, instead of a wage increase and she added to it in later life when the mortgage was paid off. Jill is married to Paul. He did the same. They were fortunate and didn’t suffer illness, job loss, or divorce. When they retired, they had $450,000 each is super. They have a bit of other money in the bank for unforeseen expenses. They don’t hold shares in their own name, or get a refund of Franking credits, or even dividends. They believe that their superannuation should be used to fund their retirement.
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:01am
    Sundays, A scenario not unfamiliar with mine actually apart from being single & not as much in super Totally agree that my super is to fund my retirement & make it last for as long as. If the rules change then I will review my strategy. Unfortunately OGR is only focused on his own FC as that's all he ever mentions these days. He must be in a bad position if he can't have a contingency plan already in place or at least thought about one as he's been given plenty of notice.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:38pm
    Sundays, you have it ALL WRONG. The guy with $6 million in super IS PAYING TAX and will KEEP HIS FRANKING CREDITS. Shorten IS NOT clamping down on him at all. His situation doesn't change one bit. And Ian is NOT drawing down on his super. His dividends plus franking credits plus pension for a couple come to close to $60K. But Fred is being discriminated against and persecuted, denied fair recognition of the tax taken from his dividend - WHICH IS TAX PAID SAME AS FRED'S AND JACK'S AND JOE'S - for no better reason than that he worked hard to be self-supporting.

    YOU ARE WRONG, SUNDAYS. Your Labor bias is blinding you to facts. Turnbull already addressed the problem you claim Labor is worried about. It's fixed! Labor is only attacking the poorer retirees and lower income earners - generally those with LESS than $80K a year income.

    I would have no issue with further reducing the Transfer Balance Cap so that individuals with $50K a year plus paid tax. I think $80K is too high. But Labor IS NOT DOING THAT. They are attacking people with incomes LESS than the OAP.

    And yes, Howard changed the law to be consistent with Australian tax policy. Even the OECD says that was the right thing to do for the economy and Labor will cause harm. Unfortunately, the change opened the way for some excesses, and the LNP took steps to remedy that. Perhaps more can be done, but Labor is NOT ACTING RESPONSIBLY OR HONESTLY.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:48pm
    1984, get your facts right. Leading investment advisers are agreed that there IS NO ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE STRATEGY for those SFRs with relatively low asset balances. Shares are the best returning investment. Property returns poorly unless you have a very large amount to invest. Managed Funds and most trusts have FCs attached. A diversified portfolio is going to include a substantial percentage in investments that have FCs attached. To move to foreign investment is risky. To move exclusively to property is not only risky but illegal. There IS NO SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE for those with assets below about $1.2 mil (for a couple) unless they are investment whizzes and can play for capital gain.

    It has been confirmed that 2.6 million members of institutional super funds are going to suffer heavy loss, and most of them don't even know it - let alone have any capacity to avoid it.

    Labor's policy is WRONG and should be opposed. It's being represented with blatant lies. It's hideously unfair. And there are abundant better options to accomplish the stated goal more successfully and fairly.

    Blaming the victim is NOT in the national interests. We should all be demanding Labor withdraw from this evil and structure a policy that is fair and workable and can be represented honestly without alienating their voters.

    This should not be an issue of which party you support. You can support a party's other policies without endorsing a policy that is wrong. If Labor voters lobbied for change, Labor would have to review. Then their chances of being elected would be improved.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    9:14am
    Sundays you are confusing yourself by your false claim that a franking credit is a rebate. Learn the difference between an imputation credit and a tax rebate. They are two very different animals.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    3:34pm
    Sundays, if Labor's policy is good, why do they need to lie about it? Why quote outdated figures and claim it's targeted at people with more than $2.4 mil when in fact it is targeted squarely at the less well off?

    And NO, it wasn't anyone's greed that spoiled anything. It's the incompetence and self-interest of Labor politicians who refuse to address the real problems with responsible solutions, but would rather clutch at lazy rubbish policies that do harm.
    jonboy
    6th Feb 2019
    11:56am
    We need a Pensioner Party to introduce Means Testing and no Pension if working rules BACKDATED, to save this Country.
    And Pensioners know what is RUINING this country and WE can do something about it.
    At present the rich Mongrels only look after each other, as the gutless Bank RC proved
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    3:22pm
    God help us if greedy pensioners ever got control and endorsed every proposal to rip off anyone who dared to save and try to be independent. It's bad enough now, with the penalties for saving so harsh that many contrive to be pensioners despite not needing to be. What we NEED is the means test ABOLISHED, because it's evil and unfair.

    What's ruining this country is the destruction of incentive and reward for doing what's good for the nation.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    8:40pm
    Jonboy, please explain what you are trying to say in paragraph 1.

    What do pensioners know about what is ruining this country?
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:03pm
    Yes jonboy, what is it pensioners are supposed to know?
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:12pm
    Most of them obviously don't know how fair taxation systems work. That's clear. And they don't know a pack of lies when they hear them. But they know how to be self-serving and support ripping off the people who work and pay their own way.
    BPiAChair
    6th Feb 2019
    11:59am
    I can understand the rationale behind the Labor policy but I believe the rules should be grandfathered for those retirees on an annual income below $100K who now rely on the Imputation Credits for their annual income and then start the news rules for new retirees and pensioners who can then structure their retirement income accordingly.
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    12:09pm
    I don't agree with any form of grandfathering as it only adds to the already complex Centrelink system. Why have one rule for some & another rule for others. If you don't like the rule change then restrucure just like you expext others to do.
    I'd be more than happy on an annual income of 100k as a retiree especially if it's tax free.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    12:15pm
    I would be over the moon if I had a yearly income of $100K or anything even near that figure.
    Paddington
    6th Feb 2019
    12:43pm
    You might have convinced me if you had said less than $30,000 per year per person which would still give a couple around $50,000 which is great in retirement.
    We never had $100,000 or anything like that raising a big family. We had the equivalent of just over half that, in fact.
    The trouble is that some people have unrealistic ideas of what others have to manage on.
    Captain
    7th Feb 2019
    4:29pm
    1984, what do you think the Labor proposal re Tax Imputation Credits is going to do?

    Pensioners and others get to keep their Imputation Credits however Self Funded Retirees will not get the same Credits, and even when the SFR becomes a pensioner, when their assets are below the threshold, they will still not receive the Imputation Credits. Is that fair?

    One rule for some and not the other.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:26pm
    So much misinformation here. It's highly unlikely that anyone with an income of $100,000 would get it tax free, and therefore they will likely KEEP their franking credits under Labor.

    The Labor attack is on people with less than $1.6 million in super, and at current average returns the wealthiest of these would be getting maybe $80K a year less administration and management costs. Where Labor is seriously unfair is that couples with less than $800,000 invested, earning less than $40K a year (and often significantly less) will lose up to 30% of their income. And when they are poor enough to qualify for a pension, they STILL won't get their fair tax refund. But those on pensions prior to March 2018 will continue to get TRIPLE handouts from the taxpayer even if they own multi-million dollar houses.

    I would support a further reduction of the Transfer Balance Cap, which I consider too generous. That would result in more of the affluent SFRs paying a little more tax. I CANNOT JUSTIFY stealing a small tax refund from people who genuinely need it to remain self-sufficient, and anyone who does condone such policy is selfish and unfair in the extreme.

    Labor is ONLY attacking strugglers - NOT THEIR WEALTHY MATES. Stop believing their lies and READ THEIR POLICY AND SUPERANNUATION LAW.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:33am
    And GeorgeM, when people don't believe what you say, sometimes it is necessary to shout to get the message across.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:15pm
    They disbelieve when you are wrong, Misty, or when they are committed to Labor Party propaganda and haven't the intellect to understand the true facts.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    12:16pm
    Any relation to Tony Abbott?.
    Paddington
    6th Feb 2019
    12:44pm
    Ha ha, fitstly, he needed a name change!
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:27pm
    Pakistan got it right. Abbott a bad lol
    Blinky
    6th Feb 2019
    12:27pm
    Another Abott? U gotta be joking? Is he also going to have another Hockey as his treasurer!!!
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    12:30pm
    No and no. By its very name it excludes Old Age Pensioners and those whose Superannuation is in Industry and Retail funds. Of course retirement incomes are important and we are all sick of governments of all persuasions making changes, but we need political parties also interested in the economy, health, education, energy prices etc. Sounds like a grab for cash to me. Why should SMSF have different rules to other super schemes eg being able to lend kids money from the fund to buy a house.
    Blinky
    6th Feb 2019
    12:33pm
    People who fund their own retirement r lucky not to have to depend on the humiliating n miserable Oz pension system. Good on them! Why pick on them! They r not a financial burden to the govt so leave them alone.
    What we should spend more time on is the Oz pension system n worry about improving pensioners' welfare n quality of life. Shorten n all politicians receive fat pensions x life, however, they are The Untouchables' ones. Why dont they suggest any changes to their pensions instead?
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:18pm
    Good question, Blinky. How come their franking credits are preserved? Why aren't they subject to their own stinking rules. If we can't afford the credits for struggling retirees, how can we afford to over-indulge rich pigs? $34 billion for them. A miserable $6 billion to keep retirees off the pension and able to maintain a decent living standard. I think saving the $34 billion would be much smarter - especially as those who benefit from it all have other income to live on and don't need the bonus.
    KB
    6th Feb 2019
    12:35pm
    No more political parties. We need a party that cares about pensioners and retires. A party that agrees to and stops messing around with pensions and super so people can live without the constant worry where the next pay check will come.
    KSS
    6th Feb 2019
    1:00pm
    Like any other single issue 'party', this SMSF party is on a hiding to no-where.
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:17pm
    As the cringing LNP desire.
    Huskie
    6th Feb 2019
    1:00pm
    According to the Australian Electoral Commission's Register of Political Parties there is no such party as the SMSF party. Not even a name close to it. They need 500 registered members to be eligible to be registered with the AEC.. Fact Check!
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    5:13pm
    Huskie, I’ve looked at this guy’s website and he says he has submitted his application and 500 names to the AEC. Guess what comes next: Number 1. Set up a bank account and accept donations plus already he’s thinking of changing the name!
    inextratime
    6th Feb 2019
    1:19pm
    If everybody received a set amount of pension at the age of 65 as per every other sane country in the world, irrespective of assets, I'm pretty sure that the massive amount of money saved paying thousands of staff, leasing thousands of offices, paying thousands in power bills, equipment and amenities would balance out. Those philanthropic souls who would like to defer the payment could do so. The big problem of course is what would you do with all those centrelink people and no pollie wants to increase the unemployment numbers.
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:32pm
    All those centrelink personell would still be needed in other welfare departments but they would be better equipped to do a far better job & also hopefully less waiting time phoning in.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    2:13pm
    inextratime, does that mean multi millionaires would also receive a government pension too?
    GeorgeM
    6th Feb 2019
    11:04pm
    Absolutely correct, inextratime, Universal Age Pension is the way to go, especially now that the system is totally stuffed. Ignore Misty's usual jealous comments, people like her are part of the problem that Retirees do not unite and act together - because such people have been bought by one party or another - in her case, Labor. I have previously explained to her that multi millionaires have paid heaps of taxes and would pay even more taxes on any pension received, so not only do they deserve it, but it's also not worth whinging about. The focus should instead be that the overall benefits for all will be huge, improve the economy, bring in fairness, and we will have reduced Govt admin costs as well.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    11:58pm
    GeorgeM, what part of I AM NOT GREEDY, OR JEALOUS, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?, judging from your reply to inextratime you have read some of my previous comments SO YOU SHOULD HAVE REALISED THIS FACT, I couldn't give a r-ts a-ce about who has what, as long as they are happy and healthy that is the main thing.
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    12:09am
    Yes Misty, everyone over 65 or 67 would receive the pension as they have also paid taxes & contributed to the local economy. The NZ pension pays everyone, they can't refuse it as it is their entitlement, most from what I've been told by fellow kiwis is that they donate it. Micheal Hill recieves the NZ pension & is also a philanthropist.
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    12:15am
    GeorgeM in all fairness to Misty she was asking a question & not getting uppity beacuse someone may get the pension that already is well off.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2019
    1:14am
    Thank you for that explanation 1984, I was just asking a question.
    GeorgeM
    7th Feb 2019
    9:49pm
    Thanks, 1984, I agree with your 1st comment. However, it is Misty's standard line, was not really a question, as she is jealous and doesn't want others richer than her / pensioners to get universal pension as she has stated in the past. She is also stupidly shouting, when in the past she has complained to OGR about shouting - more double standards! Her types of responses are what prevents the retirees acting together as one group in their common interest - and I mean responses from both Labor or Liberal types.
    My recommendation remains - vote against Liberal, Labor & Greens by putting such current MP / leech last in preferences! It is up to you who you want to vote for (it's a free country), but remember you are responsible for the Govt you get.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    12:11am
    GeorgeM you don't know what you are talking about, jealous, what rot, it is none of my business how much wealth you or OGR have, I couldn't care less how rich you both are, I am sick of you and others here saying OAP are greedy and jealous, you keep saying it often enough and I think it is you who are jealous and greedy. As for shouting, well just look at OGR'S comments and you will see who is shouting and I will vote for who I please thank you very much, I don't need any advice from you.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    12:26am
    Oh and by the way GeorgeM I read an article in 2014 that said 75 of Australia's ultra wealthy, earning an average of $2.6 million paid no tax, no Medicare Levy, no Medicare Surcharge, owing to Australia's tax concessions and loopholes, they had an average income of $85.00 so paid no tax, I don't think much has changed in the last 5 years.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:35am
    And GeorgeM as I said above, when people don't believe what you say sometimes it is necessary to shout to get the message across.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    3:30pm
    "I read an article in 2014 that said 75 of Australia's ultra wealthy, earning an average of $2.6 million paid no tax, no Medicare Levy, no Medicare Surcharge, owing to Australia's tax concessions and loopholes"

    Absolutely true, Misty. So let's ask pollies to find responsible solutions and close the loopholes, NOT persecute struggling LOW INCOME SFRs. Labor is doing NOTHING to address the rorts those 75 are using. They are ONLY attacking battlers. Yet you support them, based on wild assumptions that are totally invalid, assuming others have 'wealth' that they do not have at all. That's why you appear to be jealous - because you make those assumptions and support demolishing the lifestyles of those you make wrong assumptions about.

    Goodness, you even said outright that I should suffer for my choice to save while people like you are rewarded for their choice to spend. If that's not an indication of jealousy, I don't know what is.

    You can protest all you like, but you give yourself away. Your comments speak volumes.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    4:23pm
    Wrong, wrong and wrong again, OGR, when have I ever said outright that you should suffer for your choice?, I did say that people should be able to re arrange their finances so this FC change does not impact so badly on them and a lot of people are doing this.WHAT PART OF " I AM NOT JEALOUS OR GREEDY", DO YOU AND GEORGE M NOT UNDERSTAND?, HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS FOR IT TO SINK IN?.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    4:52pm
    See Misty, this is the problem. You don't even know what you say. You most certainly DID say I should suffer for my choice to save. And no matter how you shout protests, you give yourself away by your comments. Denials just don't cut it, because the message is very clear. But few who are jealous or greedy recognize their own failing, and most will deny it vigorously even if they know the truth in their hearts.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    5:01pm
    From your own comments here OGR you are the one who comes across as jealous and greedy,and bitter into the bargain, from reading other comments here I am not the only one who thinks this either. I expect an apology from you OGR for saying I said, that you should suffer, please show me the comment where you say I have said that.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:09pm
    Why would I be jealous, Misty? No. I'm just disgusted at the jealousy and greed of people who live off the taxpayer but want those who don't ripped off. Shocking and appalling greed and selfishness.

    Yes, you DID say it. And I asked for an apology at the time, but you would never offer one no matter how vile you comments. I don't care what you or other bludging leaches think, Misty. I am proud of the way I have supported myself and paid my way, and I'm proud that I have the intelligence to understand tax policy and I'm not dumb enough to swallow Shorten's lies. But then, I'm not a leaner either, so I don't need to suck up to Labor Party scum.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:38pm
    You can be as insulting as you like OGR, it only belittles you.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:51pm
    Show me the proof OGR, ask the staff at YLC'S to check and see when I supposedly told you to suffer, if you don't do it I will ask them.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:51pm
    I don't need to ask anyone, Misty. Unlike you, I have a good memory. And I'm not interested in trolling to prove a point to someone as irrelevant, unfair and nasty as a person who can afford to spend over $13K a year of taxpayer-handed-out money on animals but wants the income I EARN FOR MYSELF demolished by unfair tax.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    7:23pm
    There you go again OGR, assuming things that are not correct, how do you know it was my money?, I said I spent that amount but I didn't say it was all my money did I?. I suppose you would be happy to see the animals suffer rather then borrow to get them treated, I do have very supportive family who help out too. No you are not interested because you don't want to be proved wrong do you and I am sick of you bullying me, I the moderators are reading these comments from you and take action.
    GeorgeM
    9th Feb 2019
    9:12pm
    The only person who would object to an Universal Age Pension may be one who already gets it, sees no benefit for herself / himself, and does not want anyone else better off than themselves (as you mentioned multi millionaires - most of whom have paid lots of taxes) to get it. That person by definition is clearly selfish and greedy.
    In several posts in the past, I have also mentioned that the tax system is defective and many (not all) rich escape paying fair taxes, and have recommended a Minimum Tax system - that is a separate taxation reform (so I don't have to mention it every time), although I have also often linked it to be implemented at the same time as Universal Age Pension. I can't have been clearer in many past posts, which I am sure you would have read, but your Labor masters who are rich don't want to be taxed that way, so you never commented about that. Wayne Swan did ask for that, but the party voted him down, as they can't touch the rich!
    Keep shouting, it does you no good, and such bullying (doesn't give me the shivers!) can get you another such label!
    SFR
    9th Feb 2019
    9:36pm
    How simple & uncomplicated is the Kiwi universal pension. Australia would save 100s of millions of dollars just in administration by abolishing the current system & possibly generate further income by taxing all earning from work, assets etc. Shame the LNP & ALP are so entrenched in keeping it complicated or their own gain. And no Robo Debt on pensions ever again.
    New Zealand's public pension system, the New Zealand Superannuation (NZS), differs from those in many other countries. Its primary goal is to provide social protection rather than to replace earnings.
    The non-contributory flat-rate pension is paid to all residents fulfilling the residence requirements at the age of 65. The beneficiary must have lived in New Zealand for at least 10 years since turning 20 with at least five years spent in the country after the age of 50. The pension is financed from general tax revenues. *The residency requirements are set for discussion 2017/18.

    All benefits received under NZS are subject to income tax. The pension is paid regardless of whether the person is still employed or not. It is neither work nor income-tested. New Zealand has not legislated for a compulsory retirement age and employers are not allowed to specify a mandatory retirement age in employment contracts.
    https://www.pensionfundsonline.co.uk/content/country-profiles/new-zealand/99
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    10:05pm
    GeorgeM I hope that comment is not a reply to mine, maybe you and OGR are the same person, just using different names, I am not bullying anyone and as I have said countless times, until I am blue in the face you are the one who cannot read or understand what I have written therefore shouting is the only way to get your attention, you are rude and insulting, neither I or anyone else posting here has to put up with being called by all sort of insulting names.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    10:30pm
    Really GeorgeM , why pick on me, do you like bullying people incognito?, what about all the other people shouting here?, have you made any comment to them?, no of course not, and what about OGR, her/his comments are peppered with shouted words, I counted roughly 18 different comments with multiple shouted words, I did not count the one where there was only a single word, but that is ok is it?, for OGR to continually shout?, not just at me but at others commenting here too.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    10:52pm
    Shhhhh !
    Hello Darkness , my old friend ...
    I’ve cone to talk with you again .......
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    11:00pm
    With a name like that I wouldn't wonder.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    11:05pm
    Always knew you fancied me Misty
    But then I have that effect on most women with an active libido
    GeorgeM
    9th Feb 2019
    11:54pm
    Good night, Misty, sleep well with Lothario's thoughts! As I said before, all need to Ignore Misty's usual jealous comments (on this topic at least), people like her are part of the problem that Retirees do not unite and act together.
    Misty
    10th Feb 2019
    1:15am
    No GeorgeM it is crotchety people like you that turn people off, you are the one who is jealous, not me, and you obviously cannot understand plain english as I have told you many times I could not care less how wealthy anyone is, but it doesn't seem to sink in. Oh well I will just have to keep repeating this sentence until you do understand it.
    GeorgeM
    10th Feb 2019
    8:21pm
    Looks like you couldn't sleep after being called out! Maybe you need to seek mental help as your life seems obsessed with objecting to people better off than you getting a fair deal. Even if it means a better and wealthier country for all - check what 1984 wrote above, in addition to the many posts from many others in the past about this topic.
    floss
    6th Feb 2019
    1:34pm
    I may try the Sustainable Australia party the two major parties just can't keep their hands off our retirement income.Still hard to forgive J.Hockey, another Abbott i don't think so.I do trust Dick Smith so a vote for his party may be the way to go.
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:42pm
    A good alternative as Dick Smith will always put Australias interests first. And cut immigration as well as he's totally opposed to a huge population unlike LNP & ALP
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    1:42pm
    Paddington wrote: "the need to address global warming."

    Too bad it's a total scam eh Paddo?


    Devious “Science”: How The “globalwarming®” Scam Began

    In the 1995 IPCC report honest scientists concluded thet there was ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for human caused global warming.
    BUT, BUT, BUT, this wasn’t acceptable to the political agenda of “activist-disguised-as-scientitist” Ben Santer, so he simply OVERWROTE the scientific conclusions with a LIE that there was
    “a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

    The Honest Scientific Conclusions: viz: NO EVIDENCE OF HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING
    1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”
    3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
    4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

    Santer’s Replacements: viz: “a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
    1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”
    2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

    As Avery and Singer noted in 2006 …
    “Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Ben_Santer.pdf

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/a-history-of-dr-ben-santer-and-his-ipcc-trick/
    SFR
    6th Feb 2019
    1:47pm
    Global warming isn't a scam, those that oppose or reject it are the scammers. Nothing wrong in cleaning & keeping clean our planet for ma generations to come & if that means getting rid off fossil fuel fired energy as most big nations are & introducing renewable energy that will create new jobs & technology then so be it.
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    1:59pm
    1984 wrote "global warming isn't a scam"

    Oh yes it is!

    Most if not all global warming is disguised Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect.

    Rural climate stations show NO NET WARMING since at least 1930.

    Most of the "global warming" shown in highly tampered temperature charts is in URBAN areas near airports, tarmac, buildings etc while genuinely rural sites actually show COOLING or NO WARMING trends.

    Check out these charts which show NO NET RURAL WARMING SINCE 1930
    Climate Audit Debunks ‘no difference between rural and urban’ temperature trends
    https://climateaudit.org/2007/08/04/1859/
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    2:04pm
    1984 wrote "Nothing wrong in cleaning & keeping clean our planet"

    FYI: Colourless, odourless trace gas, plant food CO2 is CLEAN!

    WTF do you want to "clean up"????????????????????

    9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend
    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/9-graphs-that-prove-carbon-dioxide-is-our-best-friend/

    World Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters
    https://riskfrontiers.com/weather-related-natural-disasters-should-we-be-concerned-about-a-reversion-to-the-mean/

    NEW SCIENTIST: THE GREAT GLOBAL GREENING: Our new lush Earth THANK YOU CO2! http://ow.ly/H0AU7
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    2:18pm
    LUVCO2 I bet you have all your money in Coal. Unusually low weather disasters?, tell that to all the people who lost their lives in floods,earthquakes, fires etc all over the world and see what reply you would have got from them.
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    2:43pm
    Misty wrote: " tell that to all the people who lost their lives in floods,earthquakes, fires etc all over the world"

    You're obviously TOTALLY IGNORANT of climate history!

    FYI: Before virtue signalling politicians, grant hungry "scientists" and assorted climate activists, as well as gullible sheep like you, MOTHER NATURE WAS A B*TCH!!

    Here's a veeeeeeerrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy loooonnngggg list of past weather disasters for your MUCH NEEDED education, the current crop of disasters seems absolutely mild in comparison ....

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.htm
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    2:48pm
    Hey Misty, do you trust the IPCC or are they also "invested in coal"????

    THE IPCC AGREES: NO INCREASE IN EXTREME WEATHER MAR 2012
    IPCC skewers claims of link between extreme weather & "globalwarming®"! http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    2:53pm
    They probably are LUVCO2 and who believes those scientists and figures?,they can be manipulated all the time with technology nowadays
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    2:53pm
    Hey Misty do you trust the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) or are they also "invested in coal"??

    Global Warming and Hurricanes – NOAA says no measurable effect yet

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/global-warming-and-hurricanes-noaa-says-no-measurable-effect-yet/

    QUOTE: "It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly
    greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)."
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    3:01pm
    Hey Misty, even insurance companies aren't seeing any "climatechange®" impact on weather disasters

    “I love apocalyptic predictions” Buffet’s insurance company cashing in on "globalwarming®" hysteria

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101460458


    Buffett: Climate change has had no effect on insurance market
    Buffett: Climate change has had no effect on insurance market
    10:18 AM ET Mon, 3 March 2014

    The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

    While the question of climate change "deserves lots of attention," Buffett said in a "Squawk Box" interview, "It has no effect ... [on] the prices we're charging this year versus five years ago. And I don't think it'll have an effect on what we're charging three years or five years from now." He added, "That may change ten years from now."
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    3:05pm
    Hey misty here's a list of some past weather disaters when colourless, odourless trace gas, plant food CO2 was at "SAFE" levels!

    The “Great Storm” that had the intensity of a major Category 2 hurricane which struck England in November 1703.

    * The mega-tsunami that struck Taiwan and the 1783 comet impact hypothesis.

    * The severity of winter in the Upper Midwest of the United States during the last Little Ice Age. Refer to the winters of 1680/1681 and 1747/1748.

    * Massive firestorm that raced through Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan and into Ontario, Canada in 1871.

    * The severe winter of 1683/1684 when the English Channel froze.

    * The drought in Egypt due to a lack of the annual inundation of the Nile River that resulted in a Great Famine of 1199-1202.

    * The global droughts and famines of 1783-1785, 1876-1879, and 1895.

    * The three forms of microscopic diamond dust ice crystal (hexagon plates, hexagon columns and the deadly long prisms). The latter type occurs in diamond dust icefalls called by the American Indian name “pogonip” which translates to “white death”.

    * The tornado outbreaks that struck the United States in 1884 and 1896.

    * The Galveston Island hurricane of September 1900.

    * The great storms that struck the Spanish fleet in the Caribbean and the Atlantic Ocean during the summer of 1591.

    * The severe winters of 642, 763/764, and 775 when the Black Sea froze.

    * The effects of the Tambora volcanic eruption of 10 April 1815, which cause “a year without summer” in 1816.

    * The great Atlantic hurricane of 9-16 October 1780.

    * The Great September hurricanes of 1752, 1782 and 1804.

    * The Great Storm that struck Wales during the winter of 1171/1172.

    * The “day of darkness” in New England that occurred on 19 May 1780.

    * The great flood of 48 A.D and the great storm of 67 A.D. that struck England.

    * A typical winter in Boston, Massachusetts towards the end of the last Little Ice Age. (Refer to the winter of 1771/1772.)

    * The thunderstorm that struck Greenland in 1755.

    * The avalanche of snow in Italy in 1755.

    * The Atlantic hurricanes of 1553, 1559, 1590, 1591, 1600, 1601, 1605, 1622, 1644, 1666, 1680, 1689, 1694, 1715, 1719, 1722, 1747, 1751, 1752, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1775, 1776, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1791, 1800, 1804, 1813, 1815, 1817, 1825, 1831, 1870, 1873, 1893, 1899, and 1900.

    * Typhoons/Cyclones that struck

    — China in 1166, 1474, 1748, 1822, 1862, 1874, and 1881.

    — Vietnam 1881.

    — Bangladesh in 1584, 1699, 1737, 1767, 1787, 1822, 1831, 1876, 1886, and 1897.

    — India in 1737, 1749, 1782, 1789, 1833, 1839, 1854, 1864, 1867, 1875, 1876, 1882, and 1886.

    — Australia in 1795, and 1899.

    — Japan in 1828.

    * The great lightning storm that struck southern France in 753.

    * Powerful storms that struck the coasts of France, Spain and England in 1751.

    * Powerful storm that struck the western coast of England in 1757.

    * The great winter in Germany in 760/761, 1019/1020.

    * The Canadian winter of 1741/1742.

    * The severe European winters of 566/567, 821/822, 859/860, 874/875, 993/994, 1076/1077, 1114/1115, 1132/1133, 1149/1150, 1216, 1233/1234, 1305/1306, 1323/1324, 1363/1364, 1407/1408, 1433/1434, 1459/1460, 1490/1491, 1564/1565, 1594/1595, 1607/1608, 1620/1621, 1621/1622, 1657/1658, 1669/1670, 1680/1681, 1683/1684, 1691/1692, 1708/1709, 1739/1740, 1748/1749, 1753/1754, 1762/1763, 1766/1767, 1775/1776, 1781/1782, 1783/1784, 1784/1785, 1788/1789, 1794/1795, 1798/1799, 1812/1813, 1819/1820, 1829/1830, and 1844/1845.

    * The Chinese winters of 1445/1446, 1510, 1574, 1627/1628, 1655, 1691, 1749, 1751/1752, and 1863/1864.

    * The severe North American winters of 1696, 1697, 1716/1717, 1740/1741, 1742/1743, 1747/1748, 1761/1762, 1764/1765, 1765/1766, 1771/1772, 1779/1780, 1783/1784, 1786/1787, 1798/1799, 1799/1800, 1804/1805, 1806/1807, 1814/1815, 1816/1817, 1820/1821, 1830/1831, 1834/1835, 1835/1836, 1856/1857, 1863/1864, 1883/1884, 1884/1885, and 1898/1899.

    * The winters when the Nile River froze: 829/830, 1011, and 1691/1692.

    * The great winters of 1783/1784 and 1784/1785 in the Northern Hemisphere, followed by great spring floods as the snow melted.

    * Mild Russian winters of 1303/1304, 1753/1754, 1758/1759, 1818/1819, and 1821/1822.

    * This chronology is overflowing with times of Great Famines. Famines caused by excessive rainfall, droughts, hailstorms, severe winters, and summers robbed of the suns heat. Here is but a few examples:

    — China in 463-464, 1033, 1328, 1333-1337, 1354, 1458, 1476, 1522, 1787, 1810-1811, 1846, 1849, and 1875-1878.

    — Japan in 626, 1230, and 1782-1788.

    — Korea in 1784.

    — India in 942, 1022, 1052, 1327, 1345, 1396, 1556, 1596, 1630-1631, 1661, 1769-1770, 1780-1784, 1790-1792, 1802-1807, 1810, 1812-1813, 1823, 1832-1835, 1865-1866, 1868-1870, 1873-1874, 1876-1878, and 1896-1900.

    — Bangladesh in 1780-1784, and 1873-1874.

    — Pakistan in 1780-1784.

    — North Africa in 484 and 1784-1785.

    — Egypt in 966/967, 1064-1071, 1199-1202, and 1784-1785.

    — Iran in 1870-1872.

    — Western Europe in 1033.

    — England in 310, 680, 700, 1004-1016, 1234, 1239, 1257-1259, and 1314-1316.

    — Ireland in 963-964, 1116, and 1845-1851.

    — France in 869, and 1030-1032.

    — Scotland in 936-939, 954, and 1695-1699.

    — Italy in 410, 450, 538, 776, 1230, and 1347.

    — Belgium in 1587.

    — Germany in 1310-1319, 1347, and 1772.

    — Poland and Bohemia in 1281, 1312, 1315, 1737, and 1770.

    — Hungary in 1505, 1782, and 1808.

    — Finland and Estonia in 1695-1697, and 1867-1868.

    — Russia in 1024, 1128, 1212, 1215, 1230, 1445, 1600-1602, 1701, and 1891-1892.

    — Turkey in 1873-1876.

    — Mexico in 1454, and 1785-1786.

    — Cape de Verde Island and the Island of Sumatra in 1775.

    * The tornado that struck Charleston, South Carolina in 1761.

    * The ice hill at Shanghai, China during the winter of 1769/1770.

    * The dense fog in the Netherlands during the winter of 1790/1791.

    * The great hailstorm of 13 July 1788.

    * Many great hailstorms such as the ones that struck

    — France in 823, 1360, 1510, 1562, 1760, 1768, 1774, 1844 and 1865.

    — Italy in 1353, 1510, and 1834.

    — England in 130, 450, 459, 1479, 1697, 1765, 1784 and 1862.

    — Scotland in 1790.

    — China in 1724 and 1745.

    — Belgium in 1771.

    — Portugal in 1749.

    — Spain in 1829.

    — Mongolia in 1843.

    — Australia in 1796 and 1824.

    — The United States in 1878, 1882, 1894, and 1896.

    — Turkey in 367.

    — Hungary in 1808.

    — India in 1769, 1879 and 1888.

    — Germany in 1104, and 1767.

    * Many great floods such as the ones that struck

    — France in 580, 1543, 1755, and 1875.

    — Italy in 590, 1165, 1530, and 1627.

    — Spain in 1617, 1787, and 1878.

    — England in 1736, and 1763.

    — Scotland in 1829.

    — China in 11 A.D., 516, 792, 1117, 1310, 1330, 1332, 1342, 1391, 1459, 1467, 1507, 1541, 1549, 1573, 1590, 1609, 1797, 1833, 1845, 1854, 1875, 1887, and 1888.

    — India in 1787-1788, and 1814.

    — Egypt in 393.

    — Belgium in 1108, 1113, and 1134.

    — Norway in 1216.

    — Denmark in 1630, and 1646.

    — The Netherlands in 1219, 1228, 1287, 1374, 1396, 1421, 1521, 1530, 1568, 1570, and 1646.

    — Germany in 1300, 1362, and 1515.

    — Poland in 1534, and 1813.

    — Austria in 1830.

    — Slovakia and Bulgaria in 1813.

    — Hungary in 1875.

    — Russia in 1777, and 1824.

    — European in 1342, 1595, 1816, and 1817.

    — Mississippi River in the United States in 1543, 1785, 1813, 1844, 1874, 1882, 1890, 1892, and 1897.

    * The heat wave in

    — China in 1743.

    — France in 1793.

    — Italy in 1841.

    — Europe in 1817.

    — Australia in 1895/1896.

    — United States in 1896.

    * A sandstorm that struck Syria in 1813.

    * The tornado that struck Washington D.C. in 1814.

    * The drought that produced great fires in the peat beds of Europe in 1834.

    * The great brushfires in Australia known as Black Thursday in 1851. [Refer to Australian Drought of 1847-1860.]

    * Violent cloudburst and flashfloods in the American West described in 1874.

    * The great spring floods in North America in 1881 - 1884.

    * The blizzards that struck the U.S. during the winter of 1887/1888.

    * The severe droughts and forest fires in America in 1887, and 1889.

    * The great 3-day flood that struck the U.S. beginning 30 May 1889.

    * The electrostatic windstorms in the U.S. of December 1894, and January 1895.

    * Mudstorms of April 1895 & 30 April 1899; the black snowfall of 3 April 1889; and the black snow duststorm of 11/12 January 1895.

    * “Ignis Fatuus” (jack-o’-lantern or will-o’-the-wisp) of 1693/1694, March 1729, and 16 April 1897.

    * “Snow Rollers” of December 1895, and January 1898. * “Flaming Ocean” on 13 February 1785.

    * “Chain Lightning” (or bead lightning) on 18 August 1876 and in February 1894.

    * The legends of great dragons. Refer to 1189, 1214, 1221, 18 October 1224, 1452, 1512, 1519, 1605, 1608, 1609, 1660, 1667, 1735, 1739, 1749, 1773, and 1787.

    * “Pillar of Smoke” on 30 July 1662 and 5 May 1752.

    * The symbiotic relationship between reindeer and man. Refer to April 1737.

    * An ancient Roman castle buried under the Rhine River. Refer to 16 January 1750.

    * The ebony forest buried in Wales. Refer to 1171.

    * The ebony forest buried in the marshes of England. Refer to the summer of 1666.

    * The treasures from the Gothic Invasion buried in France. Refer to 1557.

    * The Temple of Hercules buried in Spain. Refer to 26 March 1731.

    * Unusual hailstorms of 25 May 1686, 14 March 1813, 26 March 1882, and 11 May 1894.

    * The forest that suddenly disappeared in Poland. Refer to 31 May 1783.

    * Meteors of 1526, 21 December 1876, and 19 March 1887

    * The people of France feared the millennial year 1000 A.D. marked the end of the world, so they stopped working; abandoned farming. And guess what followed!
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2019
    3:37pm
    Another one caught hook, line and sinker by the big boys.

    They are about to make a fortune out of natures climate change. I wonder if they would do the same if they did a similar thing about H2O.
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    4:14pm
    LUV CO 2. You have no credibility. I’ve also looked at the NOAA an it seems you have cherry picked their information to suit your agenda. Regarding Climate and Impacts, they state ‘impacts from climate change are happening now. Ecosystems and human communities are currently being affected. These impacts extend well beyond just an increase in temperature .....happening across the globe....multiple sectors’ etc.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    9:12pm
    LUVCO2 How can anyone believe any of those figures from early days, as I said before all figures can be changed and manipulated.
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    9:18pm
    Was all that early info double checked, and what instruments were used to achieve these figures and who wrote them down, were they done accurately?, can you answer me that LUVCO2?.,
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:21pm
    You crack me up with your BS LUVCO2. The only REAL information readers need is the graph on this link:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    The graph half way down the page says it all and I'll leave YOU to claim that NASA is conflicted, is controlled by Greenies and is sponsored by the Labor Party.
    Your 'evidence' is total contrived old old BS. So are you!
    Andy
    6th Feb 2019
    2:08pm
    no way that simple

    6th Feb 2019
    2:14pm
    Smsf retirees need protection from Shorty

    Not with another party - better to vote LnP and keep labor's grubby hands off the income of modest self funded retirees
    Misty
    6th Feb 2019
    2:20pm
    You have got to be joking Lothario, I was waiting for the joke of the day and it finally arrived, but I didn't think it was very funny Lothario, you are losing your touch.
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2019
    3:35pm
    Exactly right Lothario.

    Misty I have the joke of the day for you though.

    Labor is bringing in death taxes so spend all your money before you die.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    7:45pm
    Please explain, OG?

    "The Saturday Telegraph can today reveal the ACTU this week agreed to a plan to push for an inheritance tax, which was abolished in Australia almost 40 years ago.

    “An inheritance tax on the wealthiest estates can restore fairness to our tax system and ensure the very wealthy and big business pay tax,” an ACTU spokesman told The Saturday Telegraph.

    In a policy document signed off by ACTU members this week it states: “Consideration should be given to taxing inheritances in the hands of the beneficiary.

    “A lifetime threshold could be made available to the taxpayer with tax payable once cumulative inheritances exceeded the threshold.”

    Asked if Labor would consider an inheritance tax, Mr Shorten referred the question to shadow treasurer Chris Bowen, whose spokesman said: “Labor has no plans for an inheritance tax.”"

    http://morningmail.org/labors-suicide-death-taxes/

    Double talk headline and rhetoric in that article - Bowen said NO. re-state** “Labor has no plans for an inheritance tax.”

    Next ........... (next is not that I'd trust any politician as far as I could bully him/her in a party room).....
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:23pm
    How much do you get paid from the government for that advertisement Lothario. Thanks for the belly laugh. Lucky nobody who has read any of your posts believes one word of them.
    Start planning to get a real job after the election because your employer has been deserted by the top end of town and your 'living' is all but done.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:25pm
    Trebor, Labor also claimed its franking credit tax would hit the wealthy. IT DOESN'T. And they claimed it was a 'rort' because people got refunds who paid no tax. NOBODY DOES. In short, they are MASSIVE LIARS. You can't believe a word they say.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    10:53am
    Yes - each case needs to be looked at individually on a rotational basis, and the ATO does not even have the resources to do that. At most one in ten is checked every year, and then not in the context of every single finance earning attachment any person many have - but ONLY in the context of what they have in their retirement fund. Takes a lot of effort to check where the fingers are in many pies that accrue cash or kind for the cunning fat cats, and the ATO simply cannot do it.

    Like many facets of tax in this country - the machinery to actually check thoroughly does not exist, so many run through the holes laughing all the way.

    It is a distinct possibility that any one individual SFR could never be tax-checked - unlike the PAYE person, whose every transaction is wide open to the Tax Person....

    (this is what happens when you carry out a gender cleansing program in the PS, and get rid of cunning operatives such as my good self, who rock the boat too much)....
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    6:43pm
    How do you figure that, Trebor? Super funds have to lodge audited tax returns annually. Maybe those holding their assets privately are not scrutinized, but certainly members of super funds are.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    4:04pm
    I think you will find a vastly different ATO which is now heavily focussed on making sure every individual and entity pays the correct amount of tax. You only need to look at the enormous tax collected from foreign corporate tax entities. Their sophisticated data matching is worlds best. These advances were not possible without staff turnover because an upgrade in skills was required. As they say, to make the perfect omelette one needs to break a few eggs.
    neil
    6th Feb 2019
    2:23pm
    I am a SMSF owner and much of the money that comes to me, comes in the form of taxation concessions.

    My preference would be to get rid of super altogether and all us elderly to get a decent pension via the Federal Government.


    Long term infrastructure bonds sound very good though.


    Neil.
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:26pm
    Australians used to have a universal pension paid for by workers via deductions from their pay. The right wing government of the day rolled this into Consolidated Revenue and then slowly took it away. Theft! Now they want to do the same with the large superannuation pool and I'll bet they'll eventually try the same scam.
    Good luck to anyone who has money in super. It'll be stolen and then when you retire you'll be refused a pension if you have even two razoos to rub together. This looks to be the plan from what I have been reading for the past couple of years.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    10:54am
    Why do you lie so much Mick
    Labor gave us asset andincone teeted pension
    Prior to that we had universal pension
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    12:06pm
    Mick isn't exactly lying, Lothario, but he forgets that LABOR introduced the means tests.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:38pm
    .. which should be abolished...... and non-revenue incurring assets are yours 100% and are not the property of the government to deem or decree about... bought for out of after tax money they are above consideration.. your Windbag or boat etc should be left alone as bought and paid for...

    Bought and paid for assets should never enter the equation... they've paid their dues already.
    Troubadour
    6th Feb 2019
    2:24pm
    OK or the well to do retirees with lots of assets and big super.
    Not for us basic retired people living on a Pension and minimum savings.
    Still with the have and have nots.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:22pm
    What rubbish, Troubadour. Your income may be low because you didn't save much, but it is secure. And Shorten isn't threatening to wipe out your lifestyle as penalty for being self-sufficient. Many retirees affected by Labor's cruel unfairness are far worse off than hundreds of thousands of pensioners. They are struggling to get by without draining all their savings for the sole benefit of the taxpayer and having to claim a pension. They are being dealt with VERY unfairly. Someone wants to stand up for their rights. Only the most selfish and greedy would comment as you do. You are living on the taxes of the children of the people he is trying to defend. And many of those he's standing up for are HAVE NOTS - while plenty of pensioners are doing very nicely thankyou.

    Every decent informed Australian should be rigorously opposing Labor's unfair tax on POOR SFRs (because they are ONLY attacking the poorer. High income earners and rich SFRs retain their tax benefit. Labor is LYING about who they are targeting. Retirees with more than $1.6 million retain some benefit from franking credits and the more they have, the more they retain. It is only those with LESS who lose.
    Stop being divisive and disrespectful. Retirees need to unite, not let jealousy divide them.
    Aussie
    6th Feb 2019
    2:28pm
    Another bullish waste of peoples times and money ..... just a joke and yes I agree with 4b2 ...we need a political reform or introduction of Bill of Rights for everybody to respect our rights
    LUVCO2
    6th Feb 2019
    3:35pm
    Hey Misty, more food for thought, you can think for yourself can't you?

    UHI (Urban Heat Island effect):
    All Warming In NSW And Victoria Is Due To UHI
    11, 2014 by stevengoddard

    I did a survey of the ten oldest stations in New South Wales And Victoria.
    Three rural stations were not included because of obvious problems with the data, but none showed any warming.

    The two URBAN stations at Melbourne and Sydney both showed strong warming, and both have disastrously poor siting of their thermometers in the middle of large cities.

    By contrast, all of the RURAL stations show a long term cooling trend, with some recent warming.
    MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE ASN00086071
    DENILIQUIN (WILKINSON ST) ASN00074128
    BATHURST GAOL ASN00063004
    SYDNEY (OBSERVATORY HILL) ASN00066062
    CAPE OTWAY LIGHTHOUSE GSN ASN00090015
    BOURKE POST OFFICE ASN00048013
    WAGGA WAGGA (KOORINGAL) ASN00072151
    FORBES (CAMP STREET) ASN00065016
    INVERELL COMPARISON ASN00056017
    GUNNEDAH POOL ASN00055023

    The only conclusion which can be derived from this is that Australia has not warmed long-term, and that BOM claims of record temperatures are due to UHI and/or data tampering.

    For all GHCN stations in Australia, there is no net warming since 1880

    https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/understanding-the-hottest-year-evah
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    4:18pm
    Misty, ignore this Bozzo. He can’t read but is making it up as he goes along, cherry picking data, ignoring the truth
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    4:26pm
    Steven Goddard for example says he has a A in Geology and a Masters in Electrical Engineering. So not really a climate change expert. He is a little known climate change denier who has been forced to backtrack on some of his assertions but LOV CO2 if that’s where you get your facts from, the they must be true. Lol
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:29pm
    Yeah. A total lot of BS. The fact that this turkey has so many old nonsense figures indicates he is well funded by the coal industry to debunk the obvious. Oh yes.....January was the hottest on record and Bourke had 21 consecutive days over 40 degrees. These sorts of figures have been repeating almost every year for the past 20 years.
    Ignore the crackpot. He is irrelevant.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    6:27pm
    This discussion of climate change is becoming overheated..... if it goes on it will melt the ice caps....
    Old Geezer
    6th Feb 2019
    3:37pm
    If yo want to get your message out there then what better than a political party.
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:29pm
    For once I have to agree with you.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    10:55am
    Well.. yesterday OG said that the banking RC was a witch hunt that caught no witches - he was half right - it wasn't a witch hunt but the witches have now flown courtesy of Morrison Escape airlines...

    Impossible to catch witches that have been let out of the net....
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    10:56am
    OG should get a job as a spin merchant.......
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    1:39pm
    Wonder if I could spin a book titled 'Ratlines', which covers such things....??? so many ideas.. so little time....
    Adrianus
    6th Feb 2019
    3:45pm
    There are 600,000 Self Managed Super Funds in OZ. I'm not sure how many members are in each fund, but this is a voice worth listening to. I' listened to Bill Shorten confirm to Barry Cassidy that he is not backing away from his attack on retirees, older workers and SMSFs. The CFMEU has backed Shorten with many millions of $$$ to win this election, despite calls from Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd to distance himself from the unions. There is a lot riding on this election.
    M J
    6th Feb 2019
    3:51pm
    Yes I will support this polital party as older people are so vulnerable especially for those who have chosen to look after themselves and not relying on the age pension have not have a fair go .
    Adrianus
    6th Feb 2019
    3:52pm
    I just received this email from a committee formed to act as a voice for retirees who may be effected by this unfair, discriminatory massaging of the imputation system.

    Dear Adrianus,

    Thank you for signing our petition to maintain the current dividend imputation system.

    We strongly believe it is unfair to change the rules on self-funded retirees, older workers and low income earners.

    You can also encourage your friends and family to sign our petition and share it on social media by clicking these links: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

    If you would like to have your voice heard on this issue, you can write to your local Federal Member of Parliament. A sample letter is included here and you can find your local Federal Member here.

    Thank you for your support. If you have any questions please contact me or Communications and Marketing Advisor Vincent So on (02) 9247 6755.
    Kind regards,

    Geoff Wilson AO
    Chairman & Chief Investment Officer
    Seadove
    7th Feb 2019
    1:30am
    Tim Wilson's cousin, enough said.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2019
    8:43am
    Yes and I heard that taxpayers money is being used by Tim Wilson to support this committee.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    12:05pm
    If that's true, that's a good thing, Misty, because his committee is seeking a fair system that will BENEFIT all Australians - rather than a cruel and unfair attack on poorer SFRs while the rich continue to party and the pension system is overloaded by struggling SFRs moving onto it because they can't survive when paying 30% more tax than is due.
    Farside
    7th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    Wilson is just a self-interested lobbyist pushing his own agenda. Rest assured most SFRs will get over it and reorganise their assets accordingly, just as they did back in the day when Howard and Costello made changes that exclusively benefitted them.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:27pm
    And how would you know how many will suffer irreparable harm, Farside? But obviously you just don't care."

    While ever there are lazy, sloppy, ill-informed politicians devising bad policies, we need the Tim Wilson's of this world to expose them. I hope he's doing so honestly and ethically, but certainly SOMEBODY needs to stand up for the people who are being threatened with such serious harm. And it's clear the selfish here don't give a damn and won't speak out. But I'll bet if there was a proposal to cut the OAP, you'd all expect support for a protest!
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    8:50pm
    Farside, why did you not take advantage of changes that Howard and Costello made that would have benefitted you in particular? Lack of knowledge perhaps. If so why be jealous of others that did their homework.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:04pm
    How do you know he hasn't Captain?.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:13pm
    By his comments, Misty. If he had, he'd understand franking credits and oppose a wrongful policy. It's only those who are ignorant of the facts who agree with Shorten's vicious and unfair attack.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:45pm
    Well there must be quite a few of them out there OGR, a poll on Sky News tonight, a right wing media outlet if ever there was one, had the following result for the questions asked about tax reform.
    Do you agree with the Capital Gains Tax Reform, the Negative Gearing Tax Reform and the Imputation Credits Reform.
    Results.Yes: 74%
    No: 22%
    Undecided: 4%
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    11:29pm
    Misty, waiting for Farside to respond, thank you.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:03pm
    Not surprising, Misty, given the convincing LIES Labor has told. And lumping all together is grossly misleading. Many would agree with some of those reforms but not others.
    Capn Dan
    6th Feb 2019
    5:10pm
    Single issue parties are a joke. Not much of a reason to form a party except to seek an income stream. No vote from this pensioner.
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    5:35pm
    Registering a new political party takes at least 12 weeks, so he’s probably missed the boat for the next election
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:15pm
    Not to seek an income stream, Capn Dan. To RETAIN an income stream that is being unfairly threatened while YOURS is guaranteed by the children of those who are being unfairly deprived - many of whom are far worse off than tens of thousands of pensioners. Have some respect for the people who pay for your retirement.
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:32pm
    You miss the point Dan. Numbers win and folk who want to feel good lose. When has it been any different?
    Sundays
    6th Feb 2019
    10:42pm
    That’s a bit rich OGR. Many pensioners worked and paid tax their whole life. They have children who pay tax too. They are entitled to the age pension. Don’t act as if you’re somehow better because you are ‘self funded’ but still demand a refund of Franking credits when you’re not paying income tax and already taking advantage of the low tax environment that is super. Franking credits should be for taxpayers to reduce tax nor given as a tax refund.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    12:03pm
    It's Captn Dan who is 'a bit rich', Sundays. I acknowledge many pensioners worked hard and paid tax all their lives. I never said anything to the contrary. And I don't claim to be 'better' because I'm self funded. I just resent this disgusting attack on the poorer self-funded and comments like Capn Dan's that imply that seeking to protect the incomes of SFRs is somehow wrong.

    Facts are facts, regardless of the appalling jealousy that motivates selfish comment and support of bad policies. Many SFRs are far worse off than tens of thousands of pensioners, and it's disgusting that some here support ripping them off further and demolishing everything they worked so hard to achieve.

    And get your facts right. NOBODY IS GETTING A TAX REFUND AND NOT PAYING TAX. NOBODY! Franking credits are PROPERLY REFUNDED because they ARE TAX taken from the income of people who are not liable to pay tax. Just like PAYE and PAYG is refundable if more is paid than is owed. Stop supporting Labor's hideous lies.
    Your last sentence is idiotic. If money is taken from Joe's and Fred's dividends and given to the ATO, it is simply NOT POSSIBLE for Joe's money to be tax that reduces his liability (because he's wealthier) and Fred's to NOT be tax because he's poor. That is just stupid.

    ALL overpaid tax should be refunded, otherwise the tax system is grossly unfair.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    1:31pm
    I will support who I like.

    Franking credits only became refundable since 1 July 2000 when Howard decided to help his rich mates. Prior to that the Tax paid by the company was imputed to shareholders by way of a tax credit to reduce income tax. At that time an individual paying no tax would get nothing back, they just kept the cash part of the dividend they received. The rest went to consolidated revenue to be used for the good of the nation. Labor want it back this way, and I agree with a couple of exemptions.

    You clearly understand nothing about how taxation works but then anyone who has all their money in Australian Shares purely to get eneough Franking credits to live on is not that smart anyway. You saw, or were told by someone about a loophole and went for it. The system has been abused and it is only a matter of time until it is wound back. Why should an individual in a SMSF receiving a tax free pension through their super of upwards $100,000 per year also get Franking credits refunded in many cases worth many thousands of dollars. By this yardstick Joe the Taxpayer is hardly wealthier. The country can’t afford it. Why should taxpayers pay for this largess. Those with super in industry or retail funds don’t get Franking credits refunded. Why should those in self managed funds get different treatment. Taxation rules change all the time. Make new plans.

    I’m certainly not jealous of you or anybody else but don’t cry poor. Its insulting our intelligence. If you have $900,00 in your SMSF you are ok. Anyone else retiring with that amount in Super would be very happy. Super whether self managed or otherwise is meant to be used for your retirement. When I read some of the submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry in Franking Credits, it was impossible to feel sorry for those having to sell the holiday house, or reduce their overseas holidays!

    Also, if you actually read what Captain Dan wrote (instead of making every post about you) he was saying that people who form political parties based on single issues are in it for themselves, the only income stream this Abott is interested in is his own
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:05pm
    You really have no idea do you, Sundays. Not a clue! Or else you are a Labor troll peddling their blatant lies.

    An individual receiving a tax free pension through super of upwards of $100,000 KEEPS THEIR FRANKING CREDITS as a credit against tax paid on the income from the balance over $1.6 million. I would support reducing the transfer balance cap further, personally, because I think it's too high. But I DO NOT endorse STEALING the tax paid on dividends from struggling SFRs on LOW incomes - and that is what Labor is doing. They are NOT taking ANYTHING from the wealthy.

    I don't feel sorry for a lot of those making submissions to the inquiry either. A lot of them ARE very well off. But those with just above the assets limit are really struggling and NEED their franking credit refund.

    Tax is taken from dividends. Labor agrees that is the case, and endorses allowing wealthy people and high income earners to claim a credit for the tax taken. Therefore, it is ridiculously illogical and blatantly dishonest to claim that the same deduction made from a poorer man's dividend and sent to the ATO is NOT tax and therefore not refundable.

    This is NOT ABOUT WEALTHY PEOPLE. Labor isn't attacking wealthy people. It's attacking people who are marginally self-funded and struggling to retain enough savings to last them for the rest of their lives. Their efforts are saving the taxpayer around $50,000 a year (for a couple) and all they ask is a FAIR refund of tax taken from their dividend that isn't payable.

    Only the most selfish and dishonest would deny them that fairness.

    And how the hell do you know whose income streams Abott is concerned about? Obviously you ASSUME he's as selfish as you are.
    DavoWA
    6th Feb 2019
    5:43pm
    Would I vote for a new political party which focussed on the needs of older Australians? Absolutely. Particularly if it focussed on trying to support those retirees who at least made an effort to try to become self-sufficient in their old age. In any case, there is absolutely no way that I would vote for the current crop of Labor and Coalition Parties. Mr Abbott can't help his name. That's an accident of birth. Lets see the detail of his platform before we assume that he'll be as bad as his namesake. In any case, the best that such a new party to hope for is to get one or two senators onto the senate crossbenches. Personally, I think that would be a good thing - more diversity, more debate, more accountability - keeping the other B*****ds honest.
    Lilo Lil’s Mum
    6th Feb 2019
    6:47pm
    This is an unashamed grab for a LIBERAL party vote. Why? Because this man is so cynical about older people that he feels he can bamboozle them into voting for this party when they have no hope of ever forming government, so older people’s vote would be wasted on them. It’s not wasted to him though because he can then give his preferences to the LNP thereby by subterfuge can fool you into voting for someone who will help older people. Well if you vote for this party you’ll get exactly the help you got for the last 5 years of an LNP government. Think hard before you give your vote to someone in any party that has no hope of forming government....this is the reason so many small parties are forming and people turning independent. They know retirees are disenchanted and will move their vote. But wthose they vote for will just give their preferences to the same old party they didn’t want. Life choices should make sure they are not used this way for propaganda. I love my Lifechoices for facts...not for “news” dressed up to fool the electorate.
    Anonymous
    6th Feb 2019
    9:12pm
    WRONG WRONG WRONG Lilo Lil's Mum. You obviously DO NOT understand the voting system.
    HE CAN'T GIVE A VOTE TO ANYONE. Only the voter can choose where to allocate preferences. He may well SUGGEST they allocate them to the LNP, but it's up to the voter. If they are stupid and can't think beyond responding to his recommendation, that's THEIR fault, not his.

    Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid voters in Australia. It's time they woke up and stopped acting like dumb sheep. Preferences are allocated SOLELY by the voter marking boxes on their voting paper. NOBODY can dictate where a preference vote goes. NOBODY.
    MICK
    6th Feb 2019
    9:34pm
    You are missing the real point Mum. By having numbers you get pressure and that brings results.
    Retirees are already a significant section of the nation. Large number of us and growing. If we all voted the same way there'd be a landslide and the parties who abuse us, Liberal and Labor, would not dare try it on.
    Lilo Lil’s Mum
    6th Feb 2019
    9:40pm
    Of course I understand the voting system and yes the voter may allocate their own preferences BUT they rarely do, they follow the how to vote cards handed to them. So I say again, voters should not give their vote to someone who they think is independent or, as in this case, a party that they think will represent retirees against whoever forms government, when unwittingly placed preferences means they’ve given the value of their party to the very party they thought represented them the worst. By the way, try respectful debate instead of throwing insults at me......the worst politicians do that but if their policies and arguments are good they don’t need to be impolite.
    Lilo Lil’s Mum
    6th Feb 2019
    9:51pm
    Mick, yes it looks that way I agree but then you have to assume this man is really working for all retirees not just rich ones....and whether his motivation is real and genuine. I’m probably very cynical regarding political strategists but I believe some cynicism is necessary. Small parties and independents don’t always have any real and genuine motivation, sometimes it is indeed a cynical use of voter naïveté to funnel preferences to a major party. It happens. I tend to believe that if someone is real and genuine about reform they would openly join a major party and try to change policy within as only a major party would have a hope of ever having power to change it.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    11:56am
    You can't change policy from within, Lilo Lil's Mum, unless you are a long established and highly respected member of the party. Unlike the far more sensible UK system, the Australian political system doesn't allow members of major parties to cross the floor and conscience vote. Therefore, the ONLY option is to form a rival party. And I say again, NOBODY can give YOUR preference to anybody. Preferences are allocated by the voter. If the voter is lazy or careless, that's down to them. Don't rubbish a man doing good because some voters are irresponsible.
    Dyadco
    6th Feb 2019
    7:40pm
    There are so many issues with SMSF's and the Pension that its hard to know where to start.
    In an IDEAL world, one where politicians didn't look after themselves at the expense of their electorate, ALL pensions provided by the State would be identical depending on assets and time worked. However, this is a fantasy and will never happen.
    However, the issues regarding SMSF's where the owners of the fund relocate overseas are draconian to say the least (50% tax per year on the total fund holding!!) and then if one tries to apply for the Age Pension, even though having worked in Australia for over 40 years, you have to be resident for 2 years to qualify!! Who can afford to relocate to Oz in their 60's to apply and then have to live there with rents and living costs at these levels? Its simply wrong.
    TREBOR
    6th Feb 2019
    7:47pm
    If you've relocated overseas, live with it.
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    12:48am
    Dyadco, I know many expats who did come back & live in Australia for those 2 years to qualify for their pension & as soon as they qualified back overseas they went.
    Rules are rules & like it or not you have to play the game.
    You can live cheap in Australia for 2 years, caravan or similar, you don't have to live in a major city, & don't buy shit you don't need so you have less to get rid off when you relocate back overseas.
    johnthesailor
    6th Feb 2019
    9:07pm
    Omg what a brilliant idea! Nothing like the last Mr Abbott. I am a pensioner but totally agree there are so many topics that need total support from a party representing self funded retirees. Almost every aspect of government needs to be viewed by the real people and a large portion of the real people are self funded retirees. I would love to stand for that party to just try to rectify the first few hundred wrongs that I have personally identified!!!
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:12pm
    Well done, johnthesailor. Nice to see a pensioner who isn't so totally self-absorbed that they are content to see the lifestyles of struggling self-funded retirees destroyed.
    Adrianus
    7th Feb 2019
    10:48am
    Let me make one thing clear to all those who have made comments which reflect a tone of envy and jealousy. Members of a SMSF are not rich. There are far too many restrictions attached and limitations for the rich. The rich don't bother with a SMSF.
    Members of a SMSF are just smarter. And that is why they will never vote for a Shorten government. Shorten knows this, and that is why he is attacking this group with a discriminatory tax.
    The success story of the SMSF is evident. 96% of all super funds and growing at an alarming rate. Conversely Union run funds are losing members at an alarming rate.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2019
    11:13am
    Where did you get those figures from Adrianus?
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    12:20pm
    plucked them from mid air like all his drivel. He is like all the other LNP trolls, full of BS
    Adrianus
    7th Feb 2019
    12:54pm
    Educate yourselves.
    Misty
    7th Feb 2019
    5:04pm
    Oh so you have no answer Adrianus?.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    8:46am
    I understand that some posters may be on very strong medication, but that is a discussion for another topic.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    9:37am
    I think I have to agree with Adrianus, there are 588,000 (approx) SMSF's and several hundred Super Funds, (Industry and Retail).
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    9:44am
    Your answer is not relevant to the question asked Adrianus.
    ardnher
    7th Feb 2019
    11:26am
    Would you vote for a party that aimed to protect the current benefits of self-funded retirees?

    no!
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    11:51am
    Oh no! Don't stand for fairness and decent treatment of people who saved to try to look after themselves and save the taxpayer. Just persecute them. You must be a Labor Socialist, bludging on the taxpayer and always demanding more of SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY.

    7th Feb 2019
    12:08pm
    Based on the vile and disgusting comments here by pensioners, I am tempted to lobby for a 30% cut in the OAP. Seems a lot of selfish folk are content to take handouts from taxpayers but want anyone who doesn't overtaxed and ground into poverty. Nasty!
    Misty
    7th Feb 2019
    12:12pm
    Most OAP worked hard all their lives and paid tax, it is the tax they paid that is funding their OAP.
    Adrianus
    7th Feb 2019
    12:23pm
    Rainey, we should all be hoping Scott Morrison stays as PM. He wants to see the OAP increased and no discriminatory tax on SFR's.
    SFR
    7th Feb 2019
    12:28pm
    OGR you are one very nasty person. All you think about is yourself. No respect or consideration for anyone else but yourself. With all this nastiness you must be a very unhappy person, not good for your personal health.
    When the ALP become the government of the day we'll see what happens, can't be any worse than the current lot of greedy buggers & if they are then out they go after their term.
    Correct Misty that's why we need a universal pension based on the NZ model to start with.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    1:50pm
    A very nasty person and a petulant child demanding everyone share her views. If you don’t you’re a Labor Socialist or a bludger. OGR, why don’t you lobby for a 30% cut in the OAP, let the world see who you really are instead of hiding behind a pseudonym on this site using disgusting language to try and make a point
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    1:54pm
    OGR just speaks the truth
    You 3 are nasty to SFR’s and anyone who disagrees with your leaner mentality . You only care for yourselves and not about anyone who has worked hard to save and invest for retirement . To you , Shorten can take away the fruits of their hard work over decades - in fact you rejoice in it
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    2:24pm
    Yes Lothario. Seems these folk think it's fine for Labor to steal everything an SFR has worked hard for, but then they rant about the pension not being enough. They have no concept of fairness or decency at all. I think the nasty folk are those wanting to demolish someone's income, not someone objecting to their selfishness.

    No, Sunday, I would not campaign for a reduction in the pension. In fact, I'd be more likely to support an increase because unlike the selfish commenters here, I care about others. But I also care about fairness and respect, and I am appalled at the lack of it displayed here. I worked hard for what I have, and it is NOT reasonable for anyone to suggest I should now be robbed of my savings for no better reason than that I saved to be self-sufficient. I paid my way. I have a MORAL RIGHT to benefit from my endeavours. Pensioners cost the country heavily. I cost nothing but a fair refund of overpaid tax. Only the most disgracefully unfair and greedy person would support a suggestion that that refund should cease.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    2:28pm
    I’m an SFR Lothario, who worked very hard to be self sufficient in retirement, but I do support a universal pension and policies for the good of all not just some indvduals
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    2:33pm
    Fair taxation is for the good of all, Sundays. Ripping off one sector of the community for no better reason than they are self-funded but struggling with low assets and income is certainly NOT beneficial to anyone. Most Australians believe you should pay tax according to your income and circumstances, NOT according to whether or not you invested in shares - and certainly NOT only on the condition that, having invested in shares, you have low assets and income.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    3:06pm
    Don’t get your hopes up on what most Australians want. Many don’t even understand Franking Credits and aren’t affected. Most Australians would not support some SMSF receiving cash refund in excess of 1 to 2 million dollars but rather see that Money go towards health and education. I know that’s not you,but this is the group you’re caught up with. I live in an area which has approximately 800,000 people aged over 65. Less than 250 people turned up to a meeting to protest against Labor’s Franking credits policy. No wonder Chris Bowen was able to say ‘if you don’t like our policy don’t vote for us’.
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    4:57pm
    And that's my point. Obviously Australians are NOT VERY INTELLIGENT, because NOBODY is getting a cash refund of $1 - 2 million dollars. The LNP stopped that by introducing the Transfer Balance Cap. A lot of fools are believing Labor's lies, and are too ill-informed even to recognise that THEIR income will be badly affected by Labor's wrongful policy.

    There won't be any money for education or health because the LNP got there first, and Labor is only persecuting marginally self-funded retirees - who will go on the pension and cost the nation more - and low income earners, whose super will be reduced and will have less for retirement.

    There are thousands opposing this wrongful policy. Over 1000 have made written submissions in opposition. Clubs are forming specifically to fight this evil. Only the unbelievably selfish and the unbelievably ignorant endorse it. Anyone with a brain knows that you can't get a $1 million cash refund of franking credits holding less than $1.6 million in super assets, and anyone with enough assets to earn $1 million in franking credits KEEPS THEIR CREDIT AND GIVES LABOR NOT ONE CENT.

    Sorry, Sundays. I've said it all before, but obviously you are sadly lacking in intellect and just don't understand plain simple FACT.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    6:52pm
    The fact is that with the transfer balance cap, anything over $1.6M had to be commuted or rolled over to an accumulation fund. This did put a cap on the refund of Franking credits. The wealthy SMSF moved a thing over over $1.6 M into accumulation mode but kept the investment in Australian shares. An accumulation fund pays concessional tax of 15%. However, the Franking credits are worth 30%. So at the moment they are refunded the 15% difference. Under Labor the refund will be limited to the liability of the Fund.

    The tax office states the majority of SMSF have between $1 to $5 M in assets. That is still substantial revenue.

    Despite your scaremongering all the large retail and industry funds are not affected and there will be no change. I could explain it, but you’re not up to it
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    7:36pm
    Correction. The majority with substantial assets moved everything over $1.6m to an accumulation fund to keep their money in a low tax environment. The cap is limited to 30% of Franking credits for the first $1.6m in pension mode and 15% in refund of Franking credits in accumulation mode. They do not keep the 15% refund under Labor. With our ageing population, do you really think this is sustainable. Young people will not vote on this issue, They are much more interested in climate change, and getting decent employment.
    Sundays
    7th Feb 2019
    7:48pm
    And yes you have said it all before, the misinformation, the exaggeration, the insults, the name calling, the jealousy . Time to give it a rest. Save it for your club. My tip though is stick to the actual facts, and try to use some manners when making written submissions if you want to be taken seriously.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    8:42am
    Gotta love these Labor voters. Ignorance is bliss I suppose, particularly when it doesn't effect them personally. Never mind that it will effect their children and future generations. Once these politicians introduce a tax it is very rarely reversed.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    2:10pm
    Worse, Adrianus, it sets a precedntl If it's okay to overtax self-funded retirees just because they are self-funded retirees with limited means, then it's okay to tax a red headed PAYE earner just because he has red hair. Who knows how far this sort of discriminatory nonsense might be carried.

    Yes, Sundays, those with substantial assets pay 15% tax on super in accumulation mode and get 30% back, so address that. Fix the tax system. But no! Lazy politicians would rather reverse a good reform and ignore the wrong and the hurt. Too lazy and incompetent to devise responsible solutions to problems. And it appears Labor supporters are too selfish and nasty to support demands that politicians do better. Take the ''I'm alright Jack bugger you'' attitude. Maybe you should have some manners and show respect for people who are being dealt unfair blows, instead of being so self-absorbed that all you can do is rant in support of evil that doesn't hurt you.

    And you are DEAD WRONG about it not affecting those in institutional super funds. It has now been exposed that 2.6 million workers in institutional funds WILL be impacted adversely.

    Young people SHOULD be concerned about this issue. It's THEIR future.
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    2:51pm
    A vote for the Liberals is a vote to degrade the quality of life of our grandchildren, we have caused the current problems we have with climate change and the economy, are we going to make things even more difficult for those who come next by electing these climate change deniers yet again. They do not even believe what they are saying, they are just saying what the need to in order to win an election.
    we will get the government we deserve, just think about those who will have to live in this world after we have gone.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    3:25pm
    I detest the LNP, ex PS, but a vote for Labor is a vote for destruction of the economy and pain for all. The FC policy is dangerous enough, but it's the tip of the iceberg. Labor cannot be trusted. Their lies and lazy policy should sound loud warnings.

    I am thinking about those who have to live in this world after I'm gone, and God help them all if we have socialist and communists ruining the economy.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    4:25pm
    Reds under the bed scare campaign again OGR?, what next I wonder.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    4:46pm
    No, Misty. Just the sad facts. Labor has shown its incompetence and its dishonesty.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    4:53pm
    And it really is sad, because I was tempted to think Labor was the lesser of two evils. I despise the LNP. But nobody with a brain could support Labor after the lies they told to support that ridiculously harmful and irresponsible FC policy.
    ex PS
    9th Feb 2019
    8:36am
    It seems the ALP made a big mistake by telling us what they intended to do. The Liberals would have either kept it quiet or lied about an unpopular policy.
    Yes it seems we are not ready for truth in government.
    There is only one political party that has demonstrated incompetence and dishonesty, it has given us years and years of it, not just one part of a much larger policy such as Franking Credits.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    9:19am
    Ex PS - you are such a one eyed labor nutter
    Try thinking for a change and show a bit of balance
    Big Kev
    7th Feb 2019
    3:17pm
    This is like that Geoff Wilson bloke. Aliberal in sheeps clothing
    Anonymous
    7th Feb 2019
    5:13pm
    Or maybe a decent man with the interests of the nation at heart rather than just those of the self-serving greedy who want pension handouts but want others robbed of their life savings.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    8:28am
    Regardless of his politics, he appears to be motivated by the need to help his clients from Bill Shorten's discrimination.
    You cant trust Bill Shorten to govern for all.
    ex PS
    9th Feb 2019
    8:45am
    Grow up Adrianus, no one governs for all, that is why we have parties that represent the left the right and those in between. The notion of a government that can please everyone is a fantasy. Someone has to miss out, I just think it is time for the privileged to do some of the lifting.
    I think this individual is motivated by profit, he will be another Liberal hanger on because it will help him to make money. Apart from that, if he gets into politics, will he not have to distance himself from the industry he supports in order to demonstrate a lack of bias.
    The ALP represents workers and Unions, the Liberals represent business and investors, so what, so it is and will always be, its life get over it.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:01pm
    You think the privileged should do some of the heavy lifting? So do I. That's why I OPPOSE a tax that is squarely aimed at the NOT PRIVILEGED hard workers who are struggling to achieve enough income to be self-supporting. Take the $34 billion paid to the rich folk who have substantial other income to live on. Oh no! Not the stinking Labor Party thieves. Can't have Shorten and his rich mates paying a little more out of their massive incomes. Got to rip off the poor struggling SFRs who have bugger all to live on and can't get a pension until they drain all their assets for the benefit of folk who have heaps more.

    The ALP does NOT represent workers and Unions. It represents rich union bosses. And Shorten's policy is clearly designed to ONLY hurt the battlers. Not one cent being taken from the 'privileged'.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    5:01pm
    You think the privileged should do some of the heavy lifting? So do I. That's why I OPPOSE a tax that is squarely aimed at the NOT PRIVILEGED hard workers who are struggling to achieve enough income to be self-supporting. Take the $34 billion paid to the rich folk who have substantial other income to live on. Oh no! Not the stinking Labor Party thieves. Can't have Shorten and his rich mates paying a little more out of their massive incomes. Got to rip off the poor struggling SFRs who have bugger all to live on and can't get a pension until they drain all their assets for the benefit of folk who have heaps more.

    The ALP does NOT represent workers and Unions. It represents rich union bosses. And Shorten's policy is clearly designed to ONLY hurt the battlers. Not one cent being taken from the 'privileged'. At least the LNP is honest about it's motives.
    Gee Whiz
    7th Feb 2019
    3:27pm
    Our current bunch of political bludgers will never ever reform a system that continues to put money into the pockets of their rich friends.

    Weather the establishment of a new political party will do any good is hypothetical.

    From what I've seen once a new party or independent is elected to government it takes about ten seconds for them to become as rotten as the previous bunch who promised they were going to work hard for the electors.

    I'm still waiting for that squadron of pigs to fly over.
    TREBOR
    7th Feb 2019
    6:30pm
    Careful - you might offend the Muslims......
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    2:29pm
    That's the problem, as soon as we elect someone, they become politicians.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    2:43pm
    If only that were true ex PS, instead they become puppets.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    4:16pm
    This will be the first election that the LNP have decided to roll up their sleeves and get down in the gutter with Bill Shorten and his union mates. Should be a cracker!!!
    Tempers are already showing as Matt Thistlethwaite spat the dummy because he couldn't get his way closing down those against Bill Shorten's discriminatory franking credit policy.
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    5:01pm
    Probably a better description.
    ex PS
    9th Feb 2019
    8:46am
    The Libs will have a climb just to get up to the gutter.
    Adrianus
    8th Feb 2019
    4:18pm
    This is the question..

    If a taxpayer pays too much tax to the ATO, should they get a refund??
    Yes or No???
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    4:39pm
    According to Bowen and Shorten, NO. According to the greedy pensioners here, NO. Of course different strokes for different folks. If it's their son or daughter paying too much out of wages, then I'd be willing to bet they' would shout YES YES YES YES YES.
    ex PS
    8th Feb 2019
    5:07pm
    The real argument is, if you pay no tax, why should you get a tax refund? Basically Tax payers are being asked to refund tax to those who did not pay any. I am one of those who gets Franking Credits and I don't feel I deserve them.
    Our children are paying extra tax to give us tax breaks that we should not be entitled to.
    Misty
    8th Feb 2019
    6:05pm
    Oh, you have opened a can of worms by saying that ex PS, OGR will be on you like a ton of bricks.
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    6:07pm
    Ex PS is speaking thru his behind
    It is a refund of overpaid tax
    Anonymous
    8th Feb 2019
    9:04pm
    ex PS, NOBODY ever got a refund of unpaid tax. NOBODY. And NOBODY is asking for a refund of unpaid tax. The tax IS paid, but not owed. Therefore it IS REFUNDABLE. And only an idiot would suggest otherwise. Cleary you don't own shares and don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. Just believing stupid idiotic BS from Labor Party morons.

    Tell me this. If no tax is paid, then how come Labor politicians and their rich cronies get a credit for tax paid? Either what is taken from the dividend and sent to the ATO is tax, or it isn't. You can't change it depending on who paid it.
    Captain
    8th Feb 2019
    11:35pm
    ex PS, why single out one section of the community to not receive Dividend Imputation Credits but allow other sections of the community to receive them?

    Blatant discrimination that could lead to High Court challenges.
    ex PS
    9th Feb 2019
    9:23am
    Franked Dividends have a Franking Credit attached to them which represents the amount of tax the company has already paid. Franking Credits are also known as Imputation Credits. You are entitled to receive a credit for any tax the company has paid.......
    Not my interpretation, this came directly from Mister Google.
    References to tax being paid, but not by the share holder, by the company that controls the shares. So why do you feel that you are entitled for a tax rebate from the Tax Payer? If the company wants to give it to you as they do fair enough.
    OGR, Lothario, when was it that the companies contacted you both and asked you to pay your share of the taxes concerned. It seems that this tax is just another cost of doing business, it is not a personal income tax at all.
    Notice how I seem to be able to make a point without name calling and personal abuse.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    9:26am
    Nice to see a sensible explanation here without abusing or bullying anyone who may have a different opinion.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    4:56pm
    exPS, I'll accept that it's the company paying the tax and I shouldn't get a refund when Bill Shorten accepts that rich people shouldn't get a credit for tax paid by the company and not by them. It's the SAME deduction from the SAME dividend and sent to the SAME ATO, so it simply cannot be tax that should be credited to a rich man but not tax that should be refunded to a poor man.

    Sorry, your Labor bias is showing and you are making no more sense than they are. Seems some here lie when they claim they want the rich taxed more and the battlers given an even break. What they really want is to steal from those who don't rely on the taxpayer for their livelihood. Time to cut pensions, I think, since so many are so selfishly demanding the livelihood of those who worked harder and saved better should be wiped out.

    Misty, it's not a matter of opinion. We are talking about FACTS and people's livelihood. You can't have it both ways - though Shorten wants to. If it's tax when it's taken from his dividend, it's tax when it's taken from mine, and I bloody well want it back, because unlike him, I don't have other income to live on and I can't afford to lose it. But keep on feeding his greed, you Labor voters. It WILL come back to bite you.

    And no, the company DIDN'T contact me and ask me if I wanted it to take 30% of my income and donate it to the taxpayer. It complied with law and paid tax that the law said should be refunded to me if I didn't have a tax liability. Just like any other tax should be refunded if it isn't owed. It was tax from MY DIVIDEND. Not from company income. The company owns NOTHING. The shareholders ARE the company. There is no entity without them, because a company is nothing more than a collection of shareholding owners.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    4:56pm
    exPS, I'll accept that it's the company paying the tax and I shouldn't get a refund when Bill Shorten accepts that rich people shouldn't get a credit for tax paid by the company and not by them. It's the SAME deduction from the SAME dividend and sent to the SAME ATO, so it simply cannot be tax that should be credited to a rich man but not tax that should be refunded to a poor man.

    Sorry, your Labor bias is showing and you are making no more sense than they are. Seems some here lie when they claim they want the rich taxed more and the battlers given an even break. What they really want is to steal from those who don't rely on the taxpayer for their livelihood. Time to cut pensions, I think, since so many are so selfishly demanding the livelihood of those who worked harder and saved better should be wiped out.

    Misty, it's not a matter of opinion. We are talking about FACTS and people's livelihood. You can't have it both ways - though Shorten wants to. If it's tax when it's taken from his dividend, it's tax when it's taken from mine, and I bloody well want it back, because unlike him, I don't have other income to live on and I can't afford to lose it. But keep on feeding his greed, you Labor voters. It WILL come back to bite you.

    And no, the company DIDN'T contact me and ask me if I wanted it to take 30% of my income and donate it to the taxpayer. It complied with law and paid tax that the law said should be refunded to me if I didn't have a tax liability. Just like any other tax should be refunded if it isn't owed. It was tax from MY DIVIDEND. Not from company income. The company owns NOTHING. The shareholders ARE the company. There is no entity without them, because a company is nothing more than a collection of shareholding owners.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    4:57pm
    exPS, I'll accept that it's the company paying the tax and I shouldn't get a refund when Bill Shorten accepts that rich people shouldn't get a credit for tax paid by the company and not by them. It's the SAME deduction from the SAME dividend and sent to the SAME ATO, so it simply cannot be tax that should be credited to a rich man but not tax that should be refunded to a poor man.

    Sorry, your Labor bias is showing and you are making no more sense than they are. Seems some here lie when they claim they want the rich taxed more and the battlers given an even break. What they really want is to steal from those who don't rely on the taxpayer for their livelihood. Time to cut pensions, I think, since so many are so selfishly demanding the livelihood of those who worked harder and saved better should be wiped out.

    Misty, it's not a matter of opinion. We are talking about FACTS and people's livelihood. You can't have it both ways - though Shorten wants to. If it's tax when it's taken from his dividend, it's tax when it's taken from mine, and I bloody well want it back, because unlike him, I don't have other income to live on and I can't afford to lose it. But keep on feeding his greed, you Labor voters. It WILL come back to bite you.

    And no, the company DIDN'T contact me and ask me if I wanted it to take 30% of my income and donate it to the taxpayer. It complied with law and paid tax that the law said should be refunded to me if I didn't have a tax liability. Just like any other tax should be refunded if it isn't owed. It was tax from MY DIVIDEND. Not from company income. The company owns NOTHING. The shareholders ARE the company. There is no entity without them, because a company is nothing more than a collection of shareholding owners.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    5:54pm
    Once was enough OGR.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    6:19pm
    Others were observant enough to note that the website was malfunctioning, Misty, leading to loads of repeated comments. Sorry you didn't notice. Or maybe you just wanted an excuse to attack again. You do a lot of that.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    6:54pm
    As do you OGR, repeatedly.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    6:55pm
    As do you OGR, repeatedly. Oh and btw you can delete the repeated comments as I did today, or maybe you were not as observant enough to see that.
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    6:57pm
    If you hit the refresh button the comment goes straight away and does not multiply.
    Anonymous
    9th Feb 2019
    7:25pm
    Misty - why are you being bitchy?
    Never mind , don’t answer that , we know already
    Misty
    9th Feb 2019
    7:59pm
    I think you have the name wrong Lothario.
    SFR
    9th Feb 2019
    8:57pm
    Lothario, butt out with you sexist nasty comments, if you can't contribute to the topic without attacking anyone then DON'T comment at all. simple

    8th Feb 2019
    4:44pm
    On reflection, I think I might join. I don't agree with all their policies, and I'd like to see them expand the range of folk they will represent. I'm sure policies on foreign affairs, climate change, etc, etc. will be formulated over time as membership grows. But there are a couple of huge points in Abbott's favour.

    (1) He clearly has a healthy respect for the value of hard work, enterprise and responsible living. We need a party that understands the importance of encouraging and rewarding those values, not punishing them

    (2) He and his members are people with money management skills. They know how to run a budget. If they can transfer those skills to the Federal budget, that would solve a lot of problems.

    (3) They care about older Australians. Neither of the major parties, nor the Greens, give a damn obviously. We need a party that cares about this large forgotten sector of the population.
    Adrianus
    9th Feb 2019
    12:32am
    Agreed. I'm with you Rainey!
    ardnher
    10th Feb 2019
    2:44pm
    I will not vote for a new political party at all.
    Adrianus
    10th Feb 2019
    7:11pm
    exPS, you are another poster who has no idea. You need to understand the difference between a Tax Rebate and a Tax Credit. Those who oppose Bill Shortens discriminatory changes to the imputation system are not asking for a Tax Rebate. Educate yourself.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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