26th Apr 2017
Leading Liberals look to unseat O’Dwyer over super changes
Author: Ben Hocking
Super changes lead to Liberal unrest

A group of millionaires unhappy with the impending changes to superannuation legislation, which will see increased taxes on contributions for those earning over $250,000 from 1 July and reduced tax concessions on retirement accounts is taking responsibility for the campaign to unseat Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer at the next Federal election.

A group called Save Our Super, led by lawyer Jack Hammond QC, is spearheading the push to see Tony Abbott’s former chief-of-staff Peta Credlin preselected for the federal seat of Higgins, currently held by Ms O’Dwyer.

The timing of the push, just days after Ms O’Dwyer had given birth to her second child, was intended to cause maximum damage while allowing her little recourse to defend herself.

Mr Hammond, who appeared on 7.30 on Monday night, claimed that the campaign wasn’t meant to interfere with her maternity leave, but he was quite happy to joke about it when he went on the attack.

“It’s a complete, if you pardon the pun, misconception. It’s got nothing to do with her being on maternity leave,” he said. “They gave birth to an appalling policy.”

The policy changes, which were championed by Ms O’Dwyer when she was the Minister for Superannuation and Assistant Treasurer, sparked anger last year for being retrospective, penalising those who had already invested a great deal in their superannuation.

Ms Credlin has since denied that she is interested in standing for the seat of Higgins at the next election, appearing to scupper the plans of the Save Our Super group.

The new outbreak of infighting is further bad news for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, with former Prime Minister Abbott constantly appearing in the media to offer his criticisms of the Government.

The Liberals faced a strong challenge for the seat of Higgins at the last Federal election with high-profile Greens candidate Jason Ball finishing second on 42 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

Opinion: Attack on O’Dwyer unseemly and ill-timed

Jack Hammond QC may have a case about allowing the Government’s superannuation changes to be grandfathered, so the goalposts are not moved on those that have already invested their money or planned their retirement based on the old rules. But let’s face it, in this instance we are talking about people who can afford expensive financial advice to minimise the effect of such legislative changes.

However, the timing of his move, waiting for Ms O’Dwyer to be on maternity leave, is nothing short of despicable.

Making it a personal attack on Ms O’Dwyer when the changes were essentially the brainchild of Treasurer Scott Morrison only adds to the belief that there are sections of the Liberal party and its base that have an issue with women in politics.

This Government already has just five women in the 22-member Cabinet and the attacks on Ms O’Dwyer while on maternity leave will not do much to improve the party’s votes among women.

Ms O’Dwyer worked right up until the birth of her second child and is only taking six weeks maternity leave from her position.

Mr Hammond, who was an adviser to Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser in the 1980s, knew exactly what he was doing with the timing of his announcement.

Unfortunately any point he has been trying to make has been lost in the grubbiness of his attacks and the misplaced logic of going after a relatively junior minister.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    OlderandWiser
    26th Apr 2017
    3:28pm
    Where were these protestors when the less wealthy part pensioners were attacked? Oh, that's right. The protestors are the EXCEEDINGLY WELL TO DO. The only moderately well off battlers who slogged for decades to try to be as independent as possible in retirement don't count. Look after the rich you pigs. True LNP mentality.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    11:10am
    The wealthy OAPs lost only what they should not have been given in the first place. Anyone with those levels of assets simply does not need the OAP.
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2017
    12:45pm
    Exactly right, Rainey. Changing the Assets Test was ignored by this rich lawyer and his mates, but they jumped up and took notice when long-overdue caps were placed on the excessive use of Super by the rich for unlimited tax breaks. I thought LNP at least got the latest changes right, but obviously their rich supporters can't stomach that.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    12:48pm
    They also got those asset changes right too. Long over due.
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2017
    12:52pm
    Rubbish, OG. How much does LNP pay you to respond with so many posts?
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    1:00pm
    Ha ha funny as I have nothing at all to do with the LNP. I'm just one of those retirees that get punished with full prices plus some for everything. I pay a premium for everything so those on welfare can get a discount. Only OAPs on the full pension should get the pension card. Hopefully that will be fixed in the May budget.
    invisible sock
    27th Apr 2017
    3:10pm
    Perhaps you should move to New Zealand, OG, where all retirees get the Pension.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    3:17pm
    I go over to NZ regularly and anytime but summer is way too cold me. Made a mistake and went in October one year never again.

    Also I have no desire to be on welfare only to pay my fair share for everything and not subsidise everyone else as well.
    Oldman Roo
    27th Apr 2017
    3:42pm
    OG , you are the classic example of ignorance and usual attitude by the rich that it is their God given right that the rich must get richer at the expense of the poor .
    You only have one purpose on this forum which is to denigrate low income earners with a devious agenda .
    I would like to call you something that may not be printable as there i no point in proving someone wrong with facts and figures when he has the hide and conscience of an oxen .
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    3:47pm
    Yes you are right I do have one of many purposes and that is to make our society a better place for those who succeed in life because they don't give up.
    Retired Knowall
    27th Apr 2017
    4:38pm
    I for one would like to see your Facts and Figures Old Man Roo, so lets see them.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    4:50pm
    I would too Retired Knowall. We don't have to tread on anyone's toes to get richer and give to the poor not take from them.
    Oldman Roo
    27th Apr 2017
    7:49pm
    Retired Knowall , I know I would not bother to discuss these with OG - a waste of time .
    No disrespect , but I have not come across you on this forum before and for disclosing private details , I like to know what your credentials are to evaluate my situation in a sincere manner .
    Just in case you are of O.G.,s mould please do not waste your time and mine .
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    8:45pm
    Oldman Roo they broke their new mould the day I was born so I am one of a kind.
    Oldman Roo
    27th Apr 2017
    9:25pm
    O.G. , sounds a bit like the story of Frankenstein to me .
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    9:55am
    Sadly, OG, you are far from ''one of a kind''. We, in Australia, have far too many privileged pigs with no empathy or compassion and no respect for others. Many of them have ''MP'' after their names and are stuffing the nation with their obscene indulgence of the rich at the expense of those who work their guts out to keep this nation prosperous.

    The topic here is a millionaire protesting superannuation changes that affect the very wealthy, and the complaint I made is that he was silent about changes that hurt people nowhere near as well off as he is. It isn't about whether or not asset test changes were justified (and they absolutely were NOT!). It's about HYPOCRISY - objecting to changes that hurt the rich while remaining silent about changes that hurt people who had much less.

    Intelligent people are capable of staying on subject and acknowledging the validity of a comment, rather than peddling LNP propaganda and being offensive.
    Farside
    28th Apr 2017
    10:03am
    @Rainey, it is not hypocrisy for a QC to complain about changes that affect the wealthy and to be silent on changes that affect the less well off. It is hypocrisy however to think so and not impose the same obligation upon the less well off to complain about changes affecting the wealthy. In both cases it amounts to supporting simple self interest rather than the national interest.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    10:28am
    @Rainey the biggest hypocrisy is that those who are affected by these changes are those who don't need what has been taken from them. The asset changes were necessary to correct what should not have been given in the first place and the super was too good to be true for far too long. The problem is that there are simply too many people on welfare in this country and it needs a big haircut so that those who need it are the ones that only get it. No changes have affected anyone that had no alternative means of support.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:33pm
    The problem, OG, is that nobody knows who ''needs'' what, and there is no reliable way of determining need. The current system is stupidly unreliable and invalid and gives to spendthrifts and bludgers while punishing those who try hard to be self-sufficient but are challenged by difficult circumstances (as well as handing out liberally to the very well to do and the expense of moderately comfortable strugglers!)

    Only a total idiot would suggest that a bureaucracy could in any manner determine ''need'', much less that assets or income are a reliable measure of capacity to be self-sufficient.

    The current system destroys the economy and the society by rewarding indolence, manipulation, dishonesty, and irresponsible living and punishing all who do what is good for the nation. I can point to tens of thousands who qualify for pensions who are far, far better off than thousands who don't. It's simply a matter of whether or not you are willing (and able, given family circumstances and timing of political manoeuvres) to manipulate your situation.

    ''Need'' has nothing whatever to do with qualifying for an OAP, and only a stupid fool would suggest that a ''welfare'' system that purports to only look after those with no other means of support can ever be viable, let alone socially or economically efficient.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:58pm
    Rainey need is the same for everyone. Do they have other means of supporting themselves with the basics of life? If the answer is no then they don't. If they have lots of assets then they do.
    Retired Knowall
    28th Apr 2017
    4:48pm
    I am a qualified Financial Planner although I don't work in the industry. I received my qualifications through Deakin Uni some 15 years back when I was up-skilling in the financial area.
    I am an Engineer by profession and semi retired.
    What about you?
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    5:16pm
    Yes I looked at that Financial Planning course about 15 years ago when a friend was doing it. I didn't bother myself but I used to help her out with her assignments as I know most of the stuff in it. I had no use for formal qualifications so what was the point in jumping through the hoops.
    Retired Knowall
    29th Apr 2017
    11:43am
    My post was for Old Man Roo, not you as I believe most of your posts are irrelevant.
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:21pm
    So, OG, you think a fit, able-bodied person who has no health issues is needy because they have minimal assets - because they spent all they earned on luxury holidays and parties - but a cripple who needs personal care and household help and cannot do the most basic daily maintenance tasks and who needs disability-friendly accommodation, expensive disability aids, and expensive daily medication is NOT needy because he has $500,000 in the bank earning 2% interest? What an ignorant and idiotic suggestion. Just shows why this nation is stuffed, with fools like you presuming to try to drive policy decisions.
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:21pm
    So, OG, you think a fit, able-bodied person who has no health issues is needy because they have minimal assets - because they spent all they earned on luxury holidays and parties - but a cripple who needs personal care and household help and cannot do the most basic daily maintenance tasks and who needs disability-friendly accommodation, expensive disability aids, and expensive daily medication is NOT needy because he has $500,000 in the bank earning 2% interest? What an ignorant and idiotic suggestion. Just shows why this nation is stuffed, with fools like you presuming to try to drive policy decisions.
    Old Geezer
    1st May 2017
    11:43am
    Rainey what can I say but the cripple (your word not mine) has $500,000 in the bank which would make his life good for many years to come. Let's face it most would not live longer enough to spend it.
    Captain
    26th Apr 2017
    4:25pm
    Surely a low act to wait until Ms O'Dwyer is on maternity leave. Place the blame on Morrison the one who instigated the changes.

    Where was this lawyer and his protest when Hockey moved the goalposts for the workers who are not millionaires and forgot to grandfather the changes? Oh, that's right he was with Hockey and Cormann, sipping champagne and smoking cigars.

    Hard luck gentlemen, welcome to the same place as millions of Australian workers.
    Sceptic
    27th Apr 2017
    1:27pm
    Since when has pregnancy been an illness? So now women MPs cannot be criticised if hey are pregnant, had a baby, or I guess have young children?

    Many pensioners were protesting at the time that the asset test change was mooted, as it impacted on them. Now the people who are impacted by the super changes are protesting.The protest is always governed by the personal impact.
    Captain
    27th Apr 2017
    4:25pm
    Who said or implied pregnancy was an illness?
    johnp
    27th Apr 2017
    10:47am
    I agree with the comments here. Why hasnt the media taken this up and run with it so that the public is more aware of the attitude of these pigs ??
    Sen.Cit.90
    27th Apr 2017
    11:01am
    Same trough???
    Eddy
    27th Apr 2017
    11:02am
    John, why would the media take up this issue, could it be that the media bosses are millionaires too and are supportive of this push to unseat Ms O'Dwyer. As for the poor ABC they are occupied with their part-time presenters ANZAC Day controversy.
    I am surprised, and pleased, that Ms Credlin has kyboshed the idea that she take the seat. I hope she sticks to that position.
    This controversy looks like a bonus for the Greens
    GeorgeM
    27th Apr 2017
    12:47pm
    Maybe the right-wing media was hoping to run this campaign under the radar.
    Slimmer Cat
    27th Apr 2017
    2:18pm
    Obviously you people do not read a newspaper or you would know that it has been taken up by the media.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    5:36pm
    Skye News and others have also run with this story, in fact they still are.
    Hasbeen
    27th Apr 2017
    10:53am
    No wonder the country is a mess when government ministers think they are entitled to stop the world, just because they got a bit clucky. Maternity leave for government ministers for god sake, you've got to be kidding.

    Might be a good idea to remember being a minister is actually a 24/7, 52 weeks a year job, not something that can be done between feeds.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:58am
    Are you suggesting that married women have no place in politics>>?? Hmmm... this idea could be booted about a little....
    Rosret
    27th Apr 2017
    11:10am
    I must admit it is an interesting concept. Most politicians sacrifice everything. Put in the same boat I wouldn't stand for parliament with a young family to raise - my children and family are my priority always. When it comes to running a nation even taking leave is difficult. Watch what happens when Malcolm leaves the country for a few days!
    trood
    27th Apr 2017
    1:08pm
    Who cares? If you want to stay home with your kids don't
    stand for parliament, it's not obligatory, simple! When
    the coalition was elected this was the only person showing
    off by holding her first child for the official coalition photo.
    For the good of the party or ego?
    Wstaton
    27th Apr 2017
    1:31pm
    Some not very nice people commenting here.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:16am
    I only suggested it could be an issue for discussion - a (gasps) studiedly neutral stance........

    Perhaps we could return women to the status of not being employable once they marry... and in the interim offer them 2/3 wages for the same work...

    None of which has anything to do with the social security of having PPL and extended maternity leave as a 'right', and the impacts those policy ideas have on our overall economy and society.

    When is a person considered to be doing their job - or are some sacrosanct and still deemed to be doing a job when they are not....

    Sounds like the ancient claim by the Libs that the wharfies, for example, were 'ghosting'... so apparently one form of ALLEGED ghosting is wrong - but another is fine?

    Just saying (as an American lady I used to know used to do)....
    Dabbydoos
    27th Apr 2017
    10:56am
    Well said you three, that's why they are millionaires, use their power to protect their fortunes but not concerned when the average Joe is hammered relentlessly.
    Agree why aren't the media involved or have they been bought off.
    Batara
    27th Apr 2017
    11:04am
    Liberal Party values mate. No surprises here.

    I have no time for O'Dwyer - I consider her one of the least competent of current ministers, and in Turnbull''s ministry that is saying something. However, this scurrilous attack by a lawyer who has made his money exploiting the misfortune of common people is despicable. The only good thing I can see in it is another nail in the Turnbull Government's coffin.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:57am
    If he's a millionaire he has no need for subsidies for superannuation. Totally agree with the other comments, and this is another good reason to exclude those over a certain net wealth from having any political clout in this country. Too much self-interest and none for the nation.

    Vote the bloody lot out next time and start again.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    11:01am
    I see the cut down the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well again.
    Hawkeye
    27th Apr 2017
    12:50pm
    OG. Haven't you noticed how nobody bothers responding to your comments?
    Oops!!! I just did. Sorry everyone.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    1:02pm
    Well they might not respond but I still get my message across. You should see my in box!
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    2:59pm
    OG is allowed to make a comment as he sees fit. I certainly do not agree with the all but none do I find offensive. OG keep 'em coming. Pensions for all, no changes to NG, no changes to Super.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    3:19pm
    The LNP/IPA cut down everyone but the tallest of the poppies. Why should anyone get tax deductions for super. Nice to have but not necessary.

    I agree with a lot you say but not this one. Those earning $250 000 don't need taxpayer support to force them to save. They will save anyway.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:23am
    Couldn't care less if someone is a tall poppy - as long as they didn't get to be such by riding on government subsidies and other people's backs....

    NOBODY should get subsidies for super - it is savings pure and simple, and the earnings thereof should be taxed as income....

    There can be leeway for placing savings into a dedicated retirement fund... but still .... all income derived should be taxed equally.

    The current 'system' permits those with excessive discretionary incomes to put away funds to avoid tax every which way.

    As for O'Dwyer the person - meaningless to me since she is a lackey of government and a mouthpiece pure and simple. As an individual I know nothing about her - but I cannot agree that a person can take leave and still be doing their job at full pay.

    You work out your own budget to cater for your personal life - the government does not subsidise that any more than it does for anyone else.
    Farside
    28th Apr 2017
    8:47am
    TREBOR's comments are pretty much on the money.

    I would add that people deserve to be represented during absences from Parliament by their elected representatives, regardless of the reason. Each MP should have an alternate in the event of Parliamentary absences for leave purposes. The practice of "pairing" for Parliament related business should continue.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    10:00am
    I see OG is still all for cutting down the moderately successful battlers and reducing them to hardship, while subsidizing the obscenely rich ''tall poppies'' to get much richer. HYPOCRITE!
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    11:24am
    Nope just stating that the tall poppy syndrome is alive and well by the comments here. Moderately successful battlers are not any where near tall poppies. Beside why would one aspire to be a moderately successful battler? That's a failure in my books as they have failed to become battlers.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:04pm
    What a stupid response! It makes no sense at all. Nobody said a ''moderately successful battler'' was a ''tall poppy'' and nobody suggested that anyone ''aspires'' to be a moderately successful battler. Many battlers who work very hard become moderately successful. No doubt they aspire to be very successful and become ''tall poppies'', but battlers who start from a position of strong disadvantage do well to reach ''moderately successful'' status and should be admired, encouraged and rewarded. They are certainly NOT ''failures''. But privileged pigs like you, OG, want to cut them down, while promoting the idea that ''tall poppies'' should be lauded and subsidized by taxpayers.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    3:50pm
    A moderately successful battler by it's very definition is someone who filed to be a battler. No idea who would want to fail at being a battler but obviously if you say so Rainey these silly people exist.

    By the way you can either be successful or unsuccessful not have a foot in each camp wavering over the line trying to work out where you belong.
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:32pm
    Like all the ''aristocracy'' and supporters of feudal society, you, OG, can't stand to see a battler struggle and become moderately successful. You want anyone who rises above their station in life cut down and destroyed. Only the filthy rich should be looked after and allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains. Stamp on anyone else who has a go. You really are a miserable, nasty animal.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    11:04am
    Peta is stretching the Credlinability in seeking to supplant Ms O'Dwyer, BTW. She may have the clout with the Libs but not with the electorate, methinks.

    How much of a run do these people exp-0ect out of the public purse, anyway?
    Ted Wards
    27th Apr 2017
    11:13am
    This completely kills the myth that politicians are there to represent the average Australian. If ever anyone needed proof that politicians are only there for what they can get out of this, then this is surely it! Proof positive that they will lie, cheat and do anything they can to get maximum benefits for themselves.
    floss
    27th Apr 2017
    11:23am
    Did they support our older pensioners when they lost their pension.What a mob of greedy bastards these rusted on old Libs are.O.G WE HAVE HEARD YOUR RANT BEFORE JUST GO AWAY PLEASE.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    11:33am
    They didn't need to as the those OAPs that should not have been getting the OAP in the first place still haven't stopped whinging.
    Triss
    27th Apr 2017
    1:00pm
    Don't amswer OG, Looney. He writes the same words over and over again because he knows he irritates everyone. Just don't answer.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    1:03pm
    I can't wait for the May budget. Few more days of April then the countdown is on.
    invisible sock
    27th Apr 2017
    3:19pm
    OG, I hope you are not suggesting it will be a "nasty surprises" Budget?
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    3:29pm
    It is the first budget in the election cycle so it is a good time for a budget to makes some hard changes for the better. I'm expecting some of the things I have been talking about and will be disappointed if they don't make them.

    Do you want a copy of my wish list?
    invisible sock
    27th Apr 2017
    4:04pm
    A married couple can have income up to $77000pa and still get a part pension or assets up to $1m and still get a part pension.
    As you have said elsewhere, that you only have 10% of your wealth in Super, and still can't get a part pension, you must be very well off.
    What budget changes are you looking forward to?
    Sundays
    27th Apr 2017
    4:22pm
    I'd love a copy of your wish list OG as long as you remember that's all it is. Unless I'm mistaken you are not an elected represented, but someone accountable to no-one. Really, how would you know what is going to be in the budget. Everyone has their guesses and I've often been told by people 'in the know' what they think, but usually proven wrong.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    5:05pm
    Ok here is some of what I would like to see in the Federal Budget.

    House to be included in OAP asset test.

    All OAPs welfare to repaid upon one's death from their estate.

    Only those on full OAP get the benefits. Far too many people getting discounts that others have to pay extra for.

    HECS debts to be recovered from OAPs estates.

    Scrapping of the NO Jab NO Pay as that is criminal.

    Newstart to be paid to those under 22 instead of their parents having to support them. This is a big area of hidden unemployment.

    More support for those with private health insurance.

    More free or near free parking areas for grey nomads. Everyone should be able to travel no matter what their budget.

    Company tax dropped to 15% or less so companies pay tax here.

    Everyone pays the same for prescriptions and to see a doctor.

    People should only be allowed to export the excess that Australians don't need not the current system of exporting and we get what is left if anything.

    That's a good start.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    5:43pm
    What do you mean OG by more support for people with Private Health Insurance?, please explain.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    6:49pm
    That 40% and 30% paid by the government is being erode year by year which is just stupid as people have to pay more not less.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    7:03pm
    @ Old Geezer, Not bad for a start but I do not agree with all the detail. I add my comments.

    If the house to be included in the asset test and the OAP paid from the estate, then to be fair those for those who do not have an estate then their debt to be passed to family members, Children Grand children.

    Scrap additional benefits for all OAP's

    Newstart allowance be made available for 1 year only, regardless of age.

    Company tax plus a flat rate of income tax at the same rate for individuals payable from the first dollar of income regardless of source.

    All pensioners to contribute to Medicare and take out PHI.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    8:48pm
    Sounds good to me except it breaks a few basic principles of law. One being others cannot be responsible for your debts unless they agreed to be at time debt was incurred.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    8:52pm
    Older homeowners need downsizing options

    https://nationalseniors.com.au/be-informed/news-articles/older-homeowners-need-downsizing-options?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Connect+516%3A+27%2F4%2F17&utm_content=Story+1%3A+Older+homeowners+need+downsizing+options&utm_source=www.vision6.com.au
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    9:56pm
    Simple enough - we pay everyone the pension, tax all income and fringe benefits above at the going rate for personal income, and place caps on what anyone can put into super before it becomes a tax concession. An indexed top superannuation savings amount could be implemented and well run, with the same rules for all including politicians and their public servant lackeys these days (since The Coward John Howard assassinated the top echelons of the PS and put them on contract - a prime Fascist move yet you all seem to remain blind to it), and any other savings above that are taxed on the income derived from them.

    Everyone suddenly equal for a change.
    Sundays
    28th Apr 2017
    7:59am
    Well OG, I doubt if any of your ideas regarding changes to OAP will be in the Budget. Way to harsh and political suicide
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    10:30am
    Word on the street is that a lot of my ideas are being considered.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:05pm
    OAP is not and never will be a debt to government - it has been paid for over decades of contribution to this society.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    12:46pm
    OAP is now welfare and there is no money pot put aside to pay for it. It is just part of the welfare budget.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    1:21pm
    Well you have really done it this time with your comment above OG, WELL AND TRULY BLOTTED YOUR COPYBOOK, OAP IS NOT WELFARE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAX DURING THEIR WORKING LIFE, I know I am shouting at you but nothing seems to get through to you on this subject does it. You come across as BITTER JEALOUS ANGRY OLD PERSON WITHOUT A COMPASSIONATE BONE IN YOUR BODY.









    t you OG, BAD MANNERS i KNOW BUOT
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    1:23pm
    Ignore the bottom line above I hit the wrong key.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    2:23pm
    No - there is no 'welfare' budget, the Social Security budget is part of consolidated revenue, and has always been funded by income tax and levies from other tax strands - nothing to do with any borrowings.

    I've given you the solution times many.... take it out of the hands of politicians entirely, as well as their mates, and treat all the same for retirement package.
    Bonny
    29th Apr 2017
    11:28am
    I agree with OG the OAP is welfare. If it is paid to those paid their fair share of taxes in their working life and only some get it then is certainly not an entitlement. So stop shouting and get used to the reality of the OAP being welfare.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    11:45am
    Sorry Bonny you are another one out of step with the majority commenting here, OAP IS NOT WELFARE AND I WILL SHOUT IF I WANT TO AS NOTHING ELSE SEEMS TO GET THROUGH.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    12:25pm
    @Misty, the majority of posters may well think the aged pension is not welfare however that does not mean such wishful thinking is correct. It has been explained many times however it still fails to get through to those determined to believe otherwise.

    There should be no argument as to whether or not it is an entitlement for the obvious reason that it is only available to those who are at least 65 years old with income and assets below the limits. There are also some who have convinced themselves it is somehow an entitlement tied to back to payments into the failed National Welfare Fund (itself a ruse to fund debt in the aftermath of WW2) more than 50 years ago however they are also confused.

    The problem is "welfare" is an ambiguous term that some consider pejorative and others neutral. There is a comprehensive explanation as to what counts as welfare spending at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend.

    Unsurprisingly to some, and possibly to the chagrin of many including yourself, the aged pension is considered welfare.

    "At its broadest welfare can be used to refer to all of the programs and services that make up the welfare state. This can include health and education, as well as income support payments such as the Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance."
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    12:47pm
    'At its broadest", maybe that should include all the perks and lurks the well off obtain through NG, GGT and all the other ways their accountants, financial advisors find to minimise the tax they pay that should be going in to the pot of money the Govt uses for everything, including so called welfare.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    12:50pm
    Since when has education and health been classed as welfare?.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    12:54pm
    @Misty, Perhaps welfare "should include all the perks and lurks the well off obtain through NG, GGT and all the other ways their accountants, financial advisors find to minimise the tax they pay" but it does not. The generally accepted welfare definition cannot be expanded to suit your particular beliefs.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    12:59pm
    @Misty, you ask "Since when has education and health been classed as welfare?" You cannot cherry pick random words and question them without context. Clearly the welfare definition includes specific family and support payments for these purposes.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    1:34pm
    Farside maybe the above, NG, CGT etc should not be included in welfare is your opinion but I still say it should be as the Gov t is missing out on so much extra tax that should be paid.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    1:54pm
    @Misty, it's not just my opinion that avoided taxes are not part of the welfare definition but also that of the Parliamentary Library, the courts and government administration. It's like a said above, some people refuse to accept the definition of welfare and then seek to impose their own definitions upon others. I can see why you think failing to collect avoided taxes is akin to welfare for the wealthy, and in a world ruled by dictionary and thesaurus you might have a point but it is tangential at best. The original contention being corrected is whether the aged pension is welfare, and it is.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    2:11pm
    Sorry Farside we will have to agree to disagree on what is and is not welfare.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    2:29pm
    @Misty, no apology required. As I said earlier the welfare definition still fails to get through to those determined to believe otherwise so no surprises you also do not accept it. You are not the first and unlikely to be the last to take the stance you are right and they are wrong. It is the nature of this forum there are diverse opinions and in some cases, like this, both cannot be right.

    Consequently, I have no problem at all with disagreement on things like definitions. Unfortunately it also means little will come from the discussion while we cannot agree on something as trivial as common language to define words used in the conversation. And this is also why older Australians will not have the political influence they so desire any time soon.

    Hopefully next time you will remember it is you and your "majority" on the forum that have the fringe view in the wider world and perhaps not be so quick to go after those who have the accepted view.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    2:45pm
    I totally disagree with your last comment here Farside, I think you will find it is the other way around, the "majority" and myself will far outway the views that you espouse, your views are certainly not the accepted views, rightly or wrongly so we will once again have to disagree.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    3:21pm
    @Misty, I am reminded of the proverb of leading horses to water and being unable to make them drink but such is life. The meaning of welfare when it comes to dealing with the government remains as below, like it or not.

    "At its broadest welfare can be used to refer to all of the programs and services that make up the welfare state. This can include health and education, as well as income support payments such as the Age Pension, Carer Payment, Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance."
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    3:48pm
    Farside it says it CAN be used and CAN be included, none of which means that is definitely included.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    3:58pm
    Touché MIsty. Indeed it does in summary say it CAN, what it does not say is it CANNOT, which is the contention of those who believe age pension payments are not welfare. I suggest you read the read the linked document which goes further into deconstructing the confusion around welfare the word.
    OlderandWiser
    2nd May 2017
    6:31am
    I just noticed the error in the post by ''invisible sock'. A married couple CANNOT have $1 million in assets and still get a part pension. The limit is just over $800,000, and that means that many with $500,000 or less, and any retired couple earning an income of over $40,000 a year, is likely to be far better off than the couple disqualified from a pension for having just over $800,000, and therein lies the ENTIRELY VALID cause for complaint. It's not greed driving objection. It's anger over gross inequity. Why should someone who saved $300,000 less be better off than the hard worker who saved more? Why should someone able to continue earning a substantial income be far better off than someone who, perhaps knowing they would be unable to continue working after age 65 due to health or the stress of their job, put aside a healthy amount of savings to try to ensure comfort in their later years?

    Those who accuse others of greed seem to be happily oblivious to the fact that a vast number of those claiming part pensions position themselves, by manipulation, to be better off than the honest folk who tried their hardest and were punished for doing so.
    Farside
    2nd May 2017
    8:13am
    @Rainey, granted there are particular combinations of circumstances that can adversely affect the transition arrangements between qualifying and not qualifying for government support however this is largely a function of the historically low interest rates on savings paid by banks. Would you hold the same view if the banks were paying 5% on savings deposits as they were five years ago?
    Old Geezer
    2nd May 2017
    2:12pm
    Rainey a couple can have millions and get the OAP. eg One is under pension age and has millions in super that is not counted.
    inextratime
    27th Apr 2017
    11:36am
    Can't help yourself OG can you ? Put the boot in wherever possible. When will you understand that not everyone is as clever, shrewd, intelligent (?) as you are. Many people have experienced circumstances that have left them in dire financial straights and right now are doing it tougher than you can ever imagine with your 400 grand stash. So back off for a change.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    11:40am
    Excuses, excuses, excuses. Not buying them myself at all. You have a choice whinge or do something about it. Most take the easy way out but not me.
    Triss
    27th Apr 2017
    1:04pm
    Like I said earlier, Inextratime, don't answer OG. He has a perfect right to his opinions like we all have but he is so out of tune with the majority here it's probably better to ignore him.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    1:10pm
    Ha ha so you think that if you ignore me I'll go away. Think again.
    Slimmer Cat
    27th Apr 2017
    2:23pm
    He may be "out of tune with the majority here" BUT I can assure you he is NOT out of tune with the majority elsewhere.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    9:12pm
    Want to bet Slimmer Cat?, I don't know what majority you are talking about but the majority of people I know, from all walks of life and most income brackets do not agree with you or your friend OG.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    9:34pm
    That's what they tell you but how do they really feel? Many people just say what they think people want to hear these days not what they really think.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    9:57pm
    OG is a 17 yo with a computer and a cellar...... don't bother.

    Yo godda link there, slimmer, so we can see this 'silent majority' you preach? (LMAO).... you lot never change, do you?
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    9:37am
    If that is the yardstick you go by OG then apply it to the majority you are talking about too.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    10:38am
    Agree I feel like a 17 year old at times but the old body tells me otherwise. Long time since it was 17 well back in the last century.

    Maybe I should get a cellar as I don't have one. Got both a shed and garage bigger than most houses so that will do me.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:39pm
    Where is my list of that 'silent majority', Slimmer Cat? What kind of servant to the people are you if you can't respond to a simple request?
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    11:55am
    Ok so what have you done about it OG?.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    12:10pm
    Many things. From getting refunds on faulty goods to fighting a case in the High Court of London and winning.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    5:41pm
    With all you seem to have done and know OG why aren't you running the country?.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    9:31pm
    It certainly feels like it around here sometimes with all the dramas.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    9:58pm
    Are you capable of governing for all or just for a self-appointed minority that includes you?

    Just asking..... ( learned that from an American lass)....
    inextratime
    27th Apr 2017
    12:09pm
    OG, You've done nothing but whinge on this forum for ever. Talk about the pot and the kettle!
    Your 'aving a larf.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    12:12pm
    I certainly don't whinge as that is nothing but counter productive! I act. For every post I make here I do ten more elsewhere.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    9:25pm
    @OG oh Mr Postman. Postwoman if you are a female and if not either then Mr Postwhat.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:00pm
    Of course you whinge, OG - politics of envy in every pore - someone might be getting a little cash from the Guv that you don't.. where's Bonny, BTW to tell us about the country estate etc?
    Not a Bludger
    27th Apr 2017
    12:27pm
    One doesn't have to be a millionaire to be entirely p--sed off with governments' constant changes and tinkering to superannuation - my money and no one else's.

    As retirees, my wife and I feel under constant threat from government, left wing "think"? tanks, sundry economists, sundry welfare advocates and putative social engineers - all of whom threaten our hard earned savings, house and super and have already driven right over the plans made by us under past rules/ laws, now changed.

    Those " millionaires" referred to were vocal at the last election and prior and deserve credit for finally getting the media attention these issues deserve.

    Well done and keep at it, I say.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    12:43pm
    As a retiree it does not matter what the government does with superannuation I have more than enough flexibility for it not to worry me at all. Then again I was not greedy and only have about 10% of my wealth in super. Blind Freddie could see that it would too good to last many eons ago.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:04pm
    Why do you have this need to make every issue about you, OG? If you have no interest or involvement in super - why discuss it in the context that you do? Would you like to pan the rich cats who are baying for Liberal blood over changes that affect them, when they couldn't give a rat's posterior about anyone else?

    If "it does not matter what the government does with superannuation " - why are you here today when others have a serious issue or two to discuss?
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    10:34am
    I do have many serious issues to discuss. One being that I have to pay full price plus extra to cover the discounts given to those who don't need them. The pension discount card should only be given to those on the full OAP and not to those who manipulate their affairs just to qualify.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:07pm
    Well - you do have many serious issues - let's leave it at that. we'll review the rest one at a time later....
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:44pm
    It's called 'narcissism'. Trebor - a terrible disease that renders people like OG totally selfish, self-interested, arrogant, nasty, and lacking in any capacity for empathy, much less compassion. It destroys all capacity to reason. It creates an incapacity to consider others and drives egomania that renders suffers convinced they are all-knowing, all-wise, and all-superior. OG has a very bad case of it, I fear.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    2:24pm
    Sounds like many a politician.....
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    2:25pm
    Ha ha Rainey you must be the only person on earth that thinks so.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    2:51pm
    I don't think so OG you are so out of step with what normal people think as I said before, jealous, bitter no compassion and probably very lonely. You may be very intelligent and have amassed a fortune in your life time but going on what you have commented here not a person I would want to associate with. I may be wrong, future comments will let me decide.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    4:13pm
    That's fine Misty as I have way too many others that want my time now anyway. I love being by myself best of all as I can do what I want to do and not worry about anyone else. Problem is it is just about to get busy around here now with the Friday afternoon happy hour.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    4:15pm
    @Rainey very unkind words when someone has a "mental" illness.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    4:23pm
    Water off a duck's back as I don't have any sort of mental illness. I can take just as much as I give.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    4:29pm
    @OG of course you do not it was just a parody. You seem to have all of your marbles. I will not agree with all of comments, but am never offended by any of them. You are normal. Others react through their uncontrolled emotions without thinking.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    4:34pm
    It just typical reactions from those who don't like what I say especially those with vested interests. I'm old enough now to see all the way through it and it even verifies my opinions.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:41pm
    "Water off a duck's back as I don't have any sort of mental illness"

    Only a true prophet crying in the wilderness would deny his own cause of prophecy....... he IS the LNP Messiah! He'll save us all from those demon socialists by robbing the poor after they are dead....
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:42pm
    (absolutely falls off the chair laughing at the precise hit on centre target there - "OAP will be a debt to be repaid on death" -GRAVE ROBBER!)...
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:43pm
    Even the vultures have the courtesy to leave the bones alone.......
    Waiting to retire at 70
    27th Apr 2017
    12:31pm
    "But let’s face it, in this instance we are talking about people who can afford expensive financial advice to minimise the effect of such legislative changes."

    Bit of not knowing the full detail you are indicating with that statement. With all due respect, I think you maybe confusing 'prudent' behaviour by many, with top end of superannuants behaviour.

    When the rules and regulations were set for superannuation, because I was approaching retirement, I thought it PRUDENT to structure my super in such a way to COMPLY with the law and to ensure I would NEVER have to call on the public purse to support me. Even though I didn't have a complete work life to contribute to super before reaching retirement age. Starting in the early 90's at 3% Employer Contribution (in exchange for 2 years with no wage rises), it now stands at 9.5% (frozen until 2022); still more than 25% below the "MINIMUM" identified in 1992 as required (i.e., 12%) to ensure at the end of a working life of 40+ years one wouldn't have the need to claim a pension. I had just under 20 years exposure to superannuation contributions to build an amount to live on when I retired. Hence some of the "generous" features offered in early days.

    Be all that as it may, I followed the rules, I was prudent in my expenditure and savings to achieve the outcome of not having to rely on my fellow Australians paying for my retirement.

    Where am I now because of the government's failure to 'grandfather' changes to super? At 70 I have had to come out of retirement and return to the workforce to make sure I NEVER have to seek a pension. Why because the 'robber barons' in our federal parliament:
    - who have NO freeze on super contributions, which stand at 18% (almost twice everyone else's),
    - who as a retired minister will receive a yearly payment of around $300,000,
    - who can claim half of their super when they retire, even if working full time (like 'Smokin' Joe' did at age 51),
    decided they couldn't tell the difference between people who were prudent ("lifters") and those who were the 'big end of town' scammers/politicians ("leaners").

    I will die ensuring I don't rely on the public purse, whilst politicians STEAL from it; sorry they "exercise" their Parliamentary ENTITLEMENTS!

    A 'plague on their household' and yours for being one of their ill-informed 'running dog'.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    12:39pm
    Well I guess we can't all live to 120!
    KSS
    27th Apr 2017
    12:32pm
    Seems to me its the media making this about Ms Dwyer's pregnancy.

    There have been rumblings about persuading Ms Credlin to stand for selection/election for some time now so nothing new there. Mr Hammond QC has as much right as anyone to protest about any Government decision. He has the right to take aim at his local politician if he thinks he is not being represented. He has the right to oppose any decision of this or any other Government and the right to disagree with and hold accountable those who made the decisions. He has the right to withhold his vote from the incumbent at the next election and he also has the right to bestow his vote on anyone he chooses. He has the right to be part of a group with like-minded people - its called 'freedom of association'. He has the further right to nominate, suggest, support and even finance a candidate to stand at the next election.

    So exactly what is the problem here?

    Oh that's right. Ms Dwyer, being a woman, has some sort of special dispensation that absolves her from any responsibility or accountability because she is on MATERNITY leave! And so we must all be 'outraged' on behalf of this poor, defenceless, new mother and give her a free pass whilst at the same time we 'hang draw and quarter' the RICH MALE who dares to call her on her performance in her elected role.

    Grow up! Move on.
    Kaz
    27th Apr 2017
    12:41pm
    I think it may be you with an issue KSS! People can have an opinion and right to complain - just like you say this person does.
    Kaz
    27th Apr 2017
    12:41pm
    I think it may be you with an issue KSS! People can have an opinion and right to complain - just like you say this person does.
    Triss
    27th Apr 2017
    1:18pm
    KSS, have you checked out the male politicians who are taking extended leave suffering from depression? Apparently they have "some sort of special dispensation that absolves them from any responsibility or accountability because" the poor things are depressed.
    KSS
    27th Apr 2017
    1:43pm
    Triss they are not being spread all over the press either.

    It is not the 'extended leave' that is the issue here. More that people and the media seem to think that, for no other reason than Ms Dwyer is on maternity leave, she should not be held to account.

    Kaz, exactly people have the right to complain. And Mr Hammond has done just that. Others are whinging about him for no other reason that he is 'wealthy' and justifying it because Ms Dwyer is on maternity leave!

    I just get fed up with people trying to make a case out of nothing and expecting the rest of us to jump on the 'outrage' bandwagon. Unfortunately women are at the centre of most of it (sometimes as in this case not by themselves) for no other reason then they are women/pregnant/mothers/ blah blah blah. It does no-one any good least of all the women themselves.
    Triss
    27th Apr 2017
    1:56pm
    You haven't read the same papers as me KSS, Telmo Languiller and Scott Ludlum have been all over the papers advertising their depression.
    Telmo Languiller is also being investigated over his expenses claims.
    KSS
    27th Apr 2017
    2:25pm
    But we are not being goaded to outrage over Mr Languiller being investigated whilst he is off work with depression are we? Yet we are over Ms Dwyer being criticised whilst on maternity leave which incidentally - as Sceptic points out - is not an illness!
    Triss
    27th Apr 2017
    2:55pm
    No, pregnancy is not a illness but creating a human being from scratch saps a lot of strength.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    9:37pm
    @Triss, fro the man I will agree.
    Kaz
    27th Apr 2017
    12:38pm
    They can certainly be a pesky protestor when it suits them for their own benefit
    4b2
    27th Apr 2017
    1:03pm
    There is no such thing as a low blow to politians. Especially those who take time out from their job who are supposed to be representing their electorate. When will they stop making changes to our superannuation plans and no change to their on safeguarded plan. Hypocritical the lot of them.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    1:04pm
    Never change is a way of life.
    Sceptic
    27th Apr 2017
    1:29pm
    Come on Ben Hocking, pregnancy is not a terminal illness, so stop making out that during maternity leave a woman is a delicate flower, not to be criticised.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    2:55pm
    She's had a baby so what! I can see no evidence of an attack from this article.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:06pm
    My kid's mother went back to making movies six months after.... a reasonable time is acceptable, but when you have a nation to run, perhaps some advance notice, stand down and allow a substitute.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:14pm
    I'm not slagging O'Dwyer here - while stating that I have zero brief for any Lib in the current climate, for for that matter any Lab or Greens - but the issue seems to me that someone who is handed full pay for leave cannot be the Minister or whatever at the same time.

    I disagree with PPL personally, since it is a drain on the resources of any 'business' including government,and is ultimately borne (sic) by those who are struggling to have any involvement, through either taxation when it is government employees (sic) or through prices when it is a private employee.

    EVERYONE pays for this kind of socialist experiment, and everyone is forced to.

    I say let those who wish to have family pay for their family - not everyone else. The ultimate socialism from an allegedly conservative government that gives not one hoot about the majority when it comes to socialism - and particularly about those who receive unemployment benefits and pension.

    Just today, on the news, Morrison was ranting about how there was bad government debt and good government debt - and stating that social security, including pensions, was 'bad' government debt.

    That is selective thinking and deliberately so - the same title could equally be applied to defence spending, or any other part of the government's borrowing into and spending from CONSOLIDATED REVENUE - the man is a blatant liar and a fool to boot, and deserves to be booted out at the next election.

    Even the idiots who predominate in Sutherland shire should realise that they have grand-parents, or parents on pension, and kids who can't get a freaking job!

    (this is like arguing with 'millennials' who seem to think that 'baby boomers' ripped off the till! ... while at the same time enjoying the wonders wrought by boomers)...

    The man is an idiot.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:17pm
    P.S. I could equally say that pensions and unemployment benefits are covered by taxation revenue, and have nothing to do with borrowing, since they are CORE issues of government, and everything else is 'bad' debt' since it is discretionary spending.

    What needs to be looked at is all the other expenditures of 'government' these days - NOT its core responsibilities as some kind of burden.

    We need a new government, and not from any of the current lot on either 'side' of the Tag Team.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:11pm
    Covering the Black Hole created by the shifting offshore of Wun Hundred And Thirty Bill-yun Dullahs for the 'futures fund', by borrowing, is Bad Debt!

    Just $130Bn of that borrowed money thrown down the black and endless maw of politician and public service retirement packages, and made up by borrowing......

    Just one very clear example...

    Then there's tax cuts for business - borrowed money fills THAT hole as well... so that's 'bad debt'....

    Morrison should be in a mental home.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    12:48pm
    Anyone who think OAP is anything but welfare should be in a mental home as they are deluding themselves.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    1:26pm
    OG I think you are the only one suffering from delusion here, go take a reality check and get in the real world for a change.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:55pm
    That's not what I am reading here at all.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    5:30pm
    OG you must have selective reading then.
    Farside
    29th Apr 2017
    5:34pm
    so Misty, now you want to be in the real world where aged pensions are welfare ;)
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    6:12pm
    I am in the real world Farside, it is others commenting here who are not.
    mIKER
    27th Apr 2017
    3:01pm
    The Prime Minister, Treasurer and Finance Minister all decided upon the superannuation changes backed by the Cabinet. Yet these millionaires bullies pick on Ms O'Dwyer.
    With supporters like these Ms Credlin would do well to keep away from Higgins, especially as Kevin Andrews will get dumped by the good folk up the road in Doncaster, if he doesn't retire soon.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    3:11pm
    No this is not justified. If those earning over $250 000 a year can't pay a bit of tax then that is sheer greed.

    They should be able to sort themselves on that much annual income.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    3:18pm
    They pay way more than their fair share of taxes already.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    3:33pm
    Why is it greed? They probably put in a lot more effort than many , it is their reward. All Super. should be taxed at the same rate for everyone.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    3:41pm
    Not the ones I know OG. Their corporations pay 30% less deductions. Like Warren Buffett says. His secretary pays more tax than he does.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    3:41pm
    Agree why shouldn't they get same rate as everyone else.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    3:56pm
    If and that is a big if, what do you think any Government will do with the additional revenue? Increase in pensions, increase in welfare, reduce the deficit? I doubt any of this would be the result. You complain about corporations sending their profits offshore, well our Government is doing exactly the same.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    5:50pm
    No they don't OG they get their accountants to organiser their financial affairs so they minimise it to the max, little or no tax paid.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    5:57pm
    I think they will need extra revenue once the markets correct niemakawa. Falling demand will cause huge unemployment. The current wage cuts and austerity measures are beginning to be felt already.

    Possibly all super should be taxed the same but it isn't. Mine was fully taxed and no 9% either. The 43% non concessional is now deemed 10%. If I can pay full tax and save and build a portfolio outside super on $42000 net then the guy on $250 000 can do the same I expect. Someone on that much money should be savvy.

    There has to be limits on tax write offs for wealthy income earners. These people will save anyway.They do not need tax concessions to invest money. The profits should be enough. 20.1% profit just last quarter. I use my money with no government help.

    We can barely pay welfare for the poor much less those on a quarter of a million a year incomes.

    The country has run out of revenue and is headed for a rude shock.

    If we had to cut services, increase medical costs, cut part pensions etc the least the high income earner can do is avoid taxpayer largess. They shouldn't want to be a leaner.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:18pm
    Define fair share of taxes in relation to income levels, OG....
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    10:34pm
    Anyone is free to engage an accountant for tax purposes.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    12:49pm
    Better to learn the rules yourself and then you will know how to play the game. Most accountants wont tell you to good stuff as they are too scared of getting audited and stay well on the safe side.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    6:32pm
    @OG I have used an accountant twice in the past on each occasion they were found wanting. One calculated that I owed tax, which was incorrect and the second gave me wrong information on my entitlements. Fortunately I carried out my own research on such matters. Never rely on anyone solely to look after your affairs.
    HDRider
    27th Apr 2017
    3:47pm
    Sorry, this is an attack on a policy, NOT on a FEMALE, stop playing these racist/female cards, it is ridiculous. You want to be a smug smart ass politician then you gonna have to take the heat, if you can't, then get out the dam kitchen!
    A QC smart ass, wealthy, greedy and wants more, just like all the pollies, so out of touch with real human beings in society, and other 3rd world country would revolt and string the lot of them up, and rightfully so!
    Farside
    27th Apr 2017
    3:55pm
    It strikes me as odd that this should be a contentious issue. Mr Hammond, despite being a QC, is as entitled as any other branch member to be ticked off with his local MHR and attempt to unseat her. It matters little that O'Dwyer is on maternity leave; why should her position be any more protected than an ordinary employee losing her job while on maternity leave? Perhaps consideration should be for temporary appointments during politician's absences. Don't like it - then look for a different occupation but the wheels of government do not stop because someone is on leave, regardless it is of the annual, maternity, sick or compassionate variety.
    mike
    27th Apr 2017
    3:56pm
    I agree, I voted for the BLASTED Liberals for the last 45 years, worked my guts out and saved hard for my retirement, only to see Bastard Hockey smash the retirement plans of all those who worked and saved, whilst the bastard called disabled rorters whilst he stuffed his own back pockets with SEVERAL multiples of $288 travel allowance to pay for a Canberra mansion he openly boasted he got through lying and cheating. I now changed my vote to Pauline Hanson.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    4:05pm
    Superannaution is controlled by Governments, they will do what they like with it. As the SGC is mandated very few can avoid paying into the Governments coffers. Within the next 5-10 years Super. will be paid as a fixed amount each month, similar to a Government pension. Lump sum withdrawals will not be allowed under any circumstances. Any residual balance upon the death of the contributor will be taken by the Government. Super. in reality will become a Government pension no more no less.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    4:45pm
    Agree super will one day be nationised. Anyone under 40 should only be putting bear minimum into super no matter what incentives are available.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    4:46pm
    Mike Pauline will not be around for the next election so who are you voting for?
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    6:06pm
    Superannuation was always a government ploy to steal worker's money and support an over indulged financial system.

    Glad I kept my personal savings right away from it.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:20pm
    I realised that in the early 1980's Rae, when I did the figures on costs and fees and taxes for running my own super then.... I could do better with that money myself rather than funding someone else's lifestyle.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    12:51pm
    Super is only part of the solution. Max out your own tax free income first and then use super for the rest of the tax free income. My super serves that purpose very well.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    3:59pm
    Has O"Dwyer made a complaint. I do not think so, just more leftist climbing on the band wagon to voice their leftist views. They care not about Ms O'Odwyer but only their own perverted mantra.
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2017
    4:24pm
    Yes you hit the nail on the head niemakawa I haven"t said anything for a while on this blog because of the left leaning panel members,one gets very sick of them.
    Farside
    27th Apr 2017
    4:43pm
    @niemakawa, the "leftist views" being what exactly and what is the bandwagon they are climbing onto? Please explain.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    4:48pm
    @Farside, you are by all accounts a left leaning so you know exactly what I mean. Farside, offside as usual, a red card for you.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    4:57pm
    recent example of how the leftists will get on the bandwagon when the person at whom a comment was directed made no complaint. Ile Nastase the ex-tennis player fro Roumania apparently was asked about the baby that Serena Williams is expecting. He said something along the lines of 'chocolate and milk'. Now the left picked up on this as being racist, not for the milk part of course. I think she has now been pressured into speaking out. This is how the left operate forcing their agenda wherever they can.
    Farside
    27th Apr 2017
    5:33pm
    @niemakawa, my leftist leaning views as you describe them are scarcely typical of the bandwagon the outraged are climbing onto. Is this something personal or is the medication wearing off?

    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    5:56pm
    niemakawa and Roby, it seems to me there are more "lefties" as you 2 like to call them in the coalition these days then in any other party.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    8:19pm
    @Misty, yes that is correct. Lib/Lab/Greens are globalists and all speak the language of the 'Left". They actually oppose Capitalism and are part of the UN plan to destroy the so-called middle class. I give FOS a couple of more years before they start banning certain forms of social media and punishing those that do not conform to their style. It is already happening in WE , Germany, Sweden, Belgium. Just be thankful that the President of the USA , Mr Trump, is doing his utmost to protect FOS. The EU commission is pulling out all stops to prevent Marine Le Pen from becoming the next president of France. They say she is anti-EU, anti-Immigration, anti- euro, which she well maybe but for good reason.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:21pm
    Define 'left leaning' and 'right leaning' for us - so we can work from a common yardstick....
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:23pm
    How does Serena Williams come into this discussion, por favor?

    We live in Australia - not some global brotherhood of everyone or some global economy run by a self-interested and self-appointed elite...

    Let's solve our own backyard before we worry about Serena.... as if anyone on a pension or super gives a damn...
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    10:44pm
    @Trebor, your own Government is globalist. That is the point. You need to open your eyes dear chap. Do not expect Libs/Lab/Greens to solve Australian problems, they are not interested. Consider voting for a party that puts Australia first, then you may have a chance.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:19pm
    Indeed they are - but at the same time the governance of this nation is a mish-mash of socialist and capitalist mechanisms - and the current result is something bordering on chaos.

    Whatever 'my' government may wish to behave as - I oppose globalism as well as ultra-socialism, and the end results from either extreme left or right are the same - both are oppressive of and despotic of their people.

    Globalism is another failed policy that has allowed offshore thieves to rape this nation while any who oppose that have no power and no say.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - if we Lock The Gates BOTH ways, and install our own rules - only those prepared to play by the rules will operate here, and if this nation is such a sought-after provider of resources - we are in the position to dictate our own terms, not to bow down and kiss the feet of every offshore investor who will remove most of the profits from these shores.

    Only a total fool or an idiot would sign up to such a contract, which is like a farmer signing a contract to allow a foreign person to harvest his crop of wheat, then offer him back wheat to make his own bread at a 'global' price, with all value added, including freight etc around that globe, even when the wheat hasn't even moved on inch.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:20pm
    My eyes are wide open - that's why I have stated times many that I oppose globalisation..... and that is why we need a total change of government here to one of the people, by the people and for the people.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    6:58pm
    @TREBOR. You say you oppose globalisation, as any rational thinking person should do, IMO. So you should not vote for Libs/Lab/Greens because with all of these parties that is what you will get.
    Fready
    27th Apr 2017
    4:21pm
    Kelly O'Dwyer cannot be trusted with the truth so she is fair game. Here is what she said in Parliament when in Opposition "We on this side have given an undertaking not to muck around with superannuation … We understand the importance of certainty when people are sacrificing and saving for their retirement. We understand the importance of good and responsible economic management so that the government does not have to put its hand in the pockets of the retirement savings of Australians. It is quite, quite wrong. That is why we will stand up for all Australians who want to work hard … and be rewarded for their efforts. They should not be penalised.”
    Alan and Bob are the same age with the same family size and the same income. Alan spends all his disposable income on lifestyle whilst Bob saves for his retirement and to help his family get an education. Guess which one qualifies for a tax payer funded pension.!! Alan is the "leaner" and Bob is the "lifter".
    People on this site should stop "bagging" self funded retirees. I have been paying into super since 1958 and I keep reading offensive remarks about people being independent in retirement. We all had similar opportunities. Some took them and some didn't.
    Last week it was reported that just 3% of tax payers pay 30% of all tax collected by the ATO. Be careful that you don't get what you wish for.!!
    Anonymous
    27th Apr 2017
    4:27pm
    Yes I know a few Alan and Bobs ,Fready and I hope Bob is enjoying his retirement and bugger Alan.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    4:36pm
    I am not a self-funded retiree and I agree with your comment. You should be getting an aged pension as it is not only your right but your entitlement. Those that failed to even put a cent away for their retirement years are the greedy ones, expecting to live (sponge) of those that did, always complaining that the pension is not adequate and they demand more. All pensioners IMO should make a contribution to the medicare levy, pay tax, even if that be at a lower "pensioner" level.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    4:42pm
    I agree Fready and you only have to read the comments people make about me a fully self funded retiree. Ever wonder why most people are not self funded retirees? Answer it is hard work accumulating wealth and keeping it. We are certainly builders not leaners or lifters.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    6:14pm
    Yes Fready I agree. I also agree it is hard work and like you OG I'm still at it day after day building wealth and trying to keep one step ahead of the moves. It takes time and effort. I suppose the high income earner feels the same way.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:25pm
    Niemie - why should you have the discretionary income to put a heap way, and then get a pension? You've already had your fair share - why rubbish those who were forced to live on the dregs?

    Do you REALLY imagine that anyone would want to go through life on the Unemployment Benefit lifestyle?

    We've been through this a thousand times, and you still don't listen.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:22pm
    I, for one, don't 'bag' SFRs - but your posited scenario is false - ONLY those with a fair amount of discretionary income can become SFRs... at the very least you need a minimum amount to even apply for that status.

    You viewing of two extremes over the same income etc is a very false picture.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:25pm
    Fready, I agree entirely with your Alan and Bob comparison, and that the pension system is wrong to reward the spenders and punish the savers. But your statement ''We all had similar opportunities. Some took them and some didn't.'' is patently incorrect, unfair, and grossly insulting. We DID NOT all have similar opportunities. That's dreamland crap peddled by the ignorant and the nasty who choose to ignore the harsh realities of a very sick society.

    Do you suggest that the fellow stolen from his family in infancy and abused and deprived in an institution, then pushed out at age 15 to stand alone with no skills, no job training, no education, no support network, and nobody to care about what becomes of him has ''similar opportunities'' to the guy whose affluent parents put him through university and guide and support him into a professional career? Does the fellow who had to leave school at 15 and take a labouring job to support his younger siblings after his father's accidental death have 'similar opportunities' to the fellow who finishes school and then is inducted into trade training? Does the educationally disadvantaged son of a labourer have ''similar opportunities'' to the son of a financial planner who grows up learning about profitable investment and risk management?

    The current pension system is grossly unfair and detrimental to economic growth and social health, and the fact that it rewards irresponsible spending and punishes savers is just one of its massive failings. But to suggest that everyone had the opportunity to become self-funded is to display extreme arrogance or gross ignorance.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    1:32pm
    Rainey I think there are a few commenting here who have never heard of the people you are commenting about or if they have, shut it out of their mind, as it may make them feel uncomfortable with their holier then thou outlook on life and they don't want that.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:47pm
    Yes Misty. You are correct, sadly.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:52pm
    Rainey the only reason why I was allowed to stay at school was because the government paid my parents to keep me there with the bonus that I could help out in the meagre family business. Otherwise I would have been sent out to work at 14. But by staying at school they got a double whammy. I then got a scholarship to uni and it paid me more than if I got a job so it was a no brainer to go to uni. There were no silver spoons in my upbringing infact at times it was shared spoons if any at all.

    Fready is right we all have similar opportunities and some took them but most didn't. It is as simple as that.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:48pm
    Jesus, Rainey - you've been reading my auto-bio.....

    "Do you suggest that the fellow stolen from his family in infancy and abused and deprived in an institution, then pushed out at age 15 to stand alone with no skills, no job training, no education, no support network, and nobody to care about what becomes of him has ''similar opportunities'' to the guy whose affluent parents put him through university and guide and support him into a professional career?"
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:49pm
    That's what Hokey-Pokey Joe said, OG - he swept the floor of the family business, poor soul ... but he forgot to mention that his grandmother was a property investor on the North Shore of Sydney long ago.....
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:28pm
    OG, you are showing your gross ignorance, arrogance, and self-serving attitude. You got to go to school, moron! You HAD PARENTS, arsehole
    ! You didn't grow up in an orphanage, abused and deprived. You weren't forced out into as cruel, uncaring world at age 15 with no skills or education, psychologically unbalanced due to abuse, never having held a coin in your hand, having no decent clothing, and with nowhere to sleep and not a soul in the world to give a hoot what happened to you, much less to offer you shelter, comfort or advice. You have no idea what life is like for the truly disadvantaged, and you are far too arrogant and pig-headed to try to learn. You would just prefer, like Hockey and Turnbull, to lie to the world about being ''self-made'' and pretend that the world is the ideal place you tell yourself it is. You are vile and disgusting.
    Joy Anne
    27th Apr 2017
    4:56pm
    Yes Rainey totally agree with your comments. You have taken from less wealthy part pensioners and that is totally unfair as they saved for 40 odd years for retirement. Howard took the Pensioners Fund and put into his coffers when he was in as we were paying 7.5% out of our wages to support pensioners. LNP love doing this to the less able to and will continue as long as they are in.
    Old Geezer
    27th Apr 2017
    5:09pm
    Those who lost their pension due to asset test changes had more than ample to look after themselves.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    6:16pm
    So has the guy on $250 000 a year you'd expect. Ample to look after themselves and save without tax breaks.
    Rae
    27th Apr 2017
    6:17pm
    Then again if they stupid enough to put good money into something with as much sovereign risk as Superannuation to save a bit of tax they deserve the consequences.
    Farside
    27th Apr 2017
    9:26pm
    @JoyAnne - "Howard took the Pensioners Fund and put into his coffers when he was in as we were paying 7.5% out of our wages to support pensioners."

    Really? Are you referring to Chifley's National Welfare Fund set up post WW2 as a smokescreen for unpopular wartime tax rises on lower income earners or something else. If so it was the Menzies government that folded the National Welfare Fund money into general revenue. The fund remained in name until the 1980s when the enabling legislation was repealed. You have had more than 50 years to get used to the idea, a generous time frame in anyone's language, so chill and move on.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    9:29pm
    It is a disgrace. I advocate pensions (aged) for all, means testing is mean. I have no sympathy for those that have made little contribution to their own welfare, yet expect others to support them.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:26pm
    I've given you the answer, times many.
    TREBOR
    27th Apr 2017
    10:27pm
    You get your pension, you pay tax on all your income derived from ANY savings and on fringe benefits - no exceptions.

    That'd bring our political class to heel for a change.
    Misty
    27th Apr 2017
    10:33pm
    Niemakawa maybe you should join OG and head off to New Zealand as some one commented here before, apparently everyone there gets a pension regardless of income or assets.
    niemakawa
    27th Apr 2017
    10:37pm
    @misty come along for the ride. Too many losers and scroungers in Australia, who barely lift a finger to help themselves, yet always crying poor. There are no poor people in Australia, it is a myth.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    9:43am
    If that is what you think niemakawa then I don't know what part of Australia you inhabit but wherever it is you had better leave it for a while and get out in the real world you may find you will have a different opinion then. Come to some of our small country towns and you will see what struggle street really looks like in Australia.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:27pm
    However you wish to cook it - Social Security has always, since its inception, been funded from a portion of income tax and levies from other taxation strands, and there is no reason to alter that. Social Security is a CORE issue of government - not a hanger-on, and is funded through taxation, not borrowing.

    All that needs to be done is to remove those funds from the grasping and lying hands of politicians and into an entirely separate fund run by an elected board which includes an OAP, and into which the current 'futures fund' will be returned and folded, and all future levies will be added, and where all will be treated by the same rules for retirement package.

    There endeth the lesson.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    12:28pm
    Sometimes with massive cancer the only solution is massive excision.......
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    12:45pm
    Not any longer the OAP is now welfare and only should be given to those who have no other means of support.
    Captain
    28th Apr 2017
    1:14pm
    OG, are you able to tell me when the Aged Pension became welfare as your post implies it was not welfare once.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:14pm
    The OAP is a moral entitlement. It is only dishonestly called 'welfare' by the corrupt and greedy privileged. It should be paid to everyone. The current farcical and inequitable system is bad for the nation as it encourages and rewards irresponsible living and discourages and punishes the kind of endeavour that is good for the economy.

    Better than 90% of those who qualify for the OAP are, as niemakawa correctly points out, lazy and irresponsible (or manipulative or downright dishonest). They are being rewarded for bludging and overspending, or ''working the system'' to unfair advantage, while those who chose to save to give the next generation in their family a fighting chance to achieve a comfortable lifestyle are denied fair benefit from their savings.

    Battlers who worked and saved hard are being stripped of their savings to gift to bludgers, cheats, manipulators, spendthrifts, gamblers, drinkers, and a tiny handful of genuine paupers who are left to struggle with far less than adequate means after a lifetime of hardship due, perhaps, to physical or mental incapacity, chronic ill-health, or having suffered major crisis or injustice.

    It's a very sick system that is destroying our economy, and only the very sick and mentally deficient endorse it.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:23pm
    As far as I am concerned the OAP was always welfare nothing more.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:24pm
    Rainey real battlers would not have enough savings to be stripped of them.
    OlderandWiser
    28th Apr 2017
    1:45pm
    That depends on how hard they worked and how frugally they lived, OG. Many real battlers have savings, and are being cruelly hurt by current bad economic policies, as is the nation's economy. You are a very ignorant person.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    1:54pm
    Rainey they are simply not battlers if they have any more assets than what is allowed for the full OAP. Most battlers have nothing.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    2:36pm
    "As far as I am concerned the OAP was always welfare nothing more. "

    Your personal opinion is noted - now move on since it does not accord with reality.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    2:41pm
    Awesome and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden too?
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:16pm
    Dream on. OG. One day you might actually encounter the real world and acknowledge that there are tens of thousands of battlers who have savings as a result of BATTLING, and are being cruelly punished for their efforts. But the privileged pigs of this nation just can't cope with reality. It makes them uncomfortable acknowledging the cruelty and injustice they support to feed their greed.
    Old Geezer
    1st May 2017
    10:27pm
    Statistics don't show battlers with savings because battlers don't have savings. if they did then they would no longer be battlers. No real battler has been punished and have been rewarded with higher OAPs.
    Farside
    28th Apr 2017
    2:04pm
    You could be forgiven for thinking "Leading Liberals look to unseat O’Dwyer over super changes" was a straight forward discussion topic.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    2:52pm
    Never happen... issues are always complex.... and many-faceted.... that's why you need me as Ye Benevolente Dictatore....
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    3:02pm
    Makes for interesting reading though doesn't it Farside and helps to pass the time, not that I have a lot of spare time, babysitting my 6 and 7 year old grandsons keep me grounded and in touch with reality.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:51pm
    Looxury, Misty! We have to travel 100km each way once or twice a week to baby-sit grandies and take them swimming etc..... build 'em up and get 'em fit for the War Of Life....
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    2:08pm
    Never a chore though it it TREBOR, I wouldn't have it any other way, we waited a long time for these 2 so they are very precious.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    3:38pm
    I would suggest that many of the posters here are in a very low tax bracket / pay no income tax. Yet these same people demanding that those that are actually keeping the country going now want the taxpayers to pay more. Selfish people.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    3:46pm
    I agree.
    Farside
    28th Apr 2017
    3:47pm
    I read somewhere that most people received more in government handouts than they contribute in taxes. I wonder how many posters would fall into this category?
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    3:51pm
    Most families earning less than $60,000 receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Also 60% of the population pay no tax so it's us 40% that do all the building for those 60% to knock down.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    3:57pm
    @OG so there are more "leaners" than "lifters", Joe Hockey was correct then.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    3:59pm
    NOT SELFISH AT ALL, WHERE WOULD YOU 3 BE WITHOUT THE PEOPLE IN THE LOW INCOME TAX BRACKET?, WHO WOULD DO YOUR MENIAL TASKS? how awful that would be, you may have to do your own cleaning, gardening, mowing etc, for everyone there is a place in the world so live and let live I say.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    4:11pm
    What menial tasks? I do my own cleaning, washing, gardening, mowing, shopping, cooking and everything else. I have no one else to do them.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    4:12pm
    @Misty, I do all of those things and I even wipe my own.... There is a place but everyone make a contribution and that means all pay income tax. There should be no tax-free thresholds and income tax should be paid from the first dollar. Same for medicare, everyone should pay the levy.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    4:26pm
    Everyone pays tax every time they buy something and OG as I said before I don't wonder you live alone with an outlook like yours.
    Farside
    28th Apr 2017
    4:29pm
    @Misty - I'm not sure why you would think the low income tax bracket makes a difference to me or the performance of my menial tasks but it's funny you think it might, especially since at least one of my co-accused considers me a bleeding heart lefty. Isn't that right niemakawa?
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    4:33pm
    @misty, yes it is called GST. Different to income tax. If you are a pensioner of one form or another you should be paying income tax and the medicare levy. This is the area the Government needs to do some work.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    5:00pm
    Your wrong there as I don't live alone. I have been married for longer than I can remember and regularly have young people staying with me so they can get back up on their feet. Got 2 of them at present.
    Old Geezer
    28th Apr 2017
    5:00pm
    Your wrong there as I don't live alone. I have been married for longer than I can remember and regularly have young people staying with me so they can get back up on their feet. Got 2 of them at present.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    5:09pm
    @Farside. So which category would you place yourself? Capitalist,Socialist,Communist, Fascist. I know I am a capitalist and a patriot. Please let me know your political status.
    Misty
    28th Apr 2017
    6:30pm
    What is it OG?, one minute you say you do the cooking, cleaning, mowing etc as you don't have anyone else to do them and the next you say you are married and have 2 people staying with you, doesn't any of them help out in the house?.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:53pm
    Those on low incomes may receive more benefits - and rightly so - those on high incomes manage to hide their incomes very well - wrongly so.

    No comparison when it comes to net gains from government largesse - the rich win by a country mile.
    TREBOR
    28th Apr 2017
    6:55pm
    Besides - wasn't the aim of all this technology and social and economic improvement to make life easier for everyone? Thus meaning there is a dire need to re-arrange the finances of all so as to actually achieve that.

    Time for some of these profiteers to get off their high horse - before they are pulled down. In that second case, they will repent the evils of their ways on the scaffold.
    niemakawa
    28th Apr 2017
    6:58pm
    @Trebor. Is there enough scaffolding for all the "leaners". on which to repent their evil ways.?
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:11pm
    If the lower income earners were paid what they are worth, they could and would pay taxes and ask for far less in benefits - or nothing. But then the rich wouldn't be rich because they couldn't profit from paying their workers less than they are worth. Paying someone for what they produce would eliminate scope for profit and destroy capitalist economies.

    The real leaners in our society are the tax-dodging profiteers who exploit defenceless workers to make their millions and then employ fancy accountants to escape their tax obligations.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    7:06pm
    @Farside. I am waiting for you to expose your political leanings. Which side of the fence are you on are you a fence sitter, and do not like to take risks? Which ever way the wind blows, perhaps is your favourite position, no commitment or trust in your own convictions.
    GrayComputing
    29th Apr 2017
    11:00am
    How can we define where well earned success becomes sheer greed and gluttony?
    After your first 10 million yacht what else would make you more happier? Maybe 2 yachts and Napoleonic brandy at $8000 a glass?
    The super rich organised the last great financial crisis and robbed us of half our middle class wealth and they are still not happy with that, they want more.
    Psychopaths the lot of them.
    "Let them eat Mac's" is the today phrase of the super rich .
    We are well over due for 1 billion ordinary people to man the barricades and bring back real democracy and a true CommonWealth.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    11:37am
    GrayComputing that comment should get OG and niemakawa busy replying I should think.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    11:47am
    And now Bonny has joined the ranks so watch out, all we need now is Frank to put his 2 penny worth in and the old gang is back.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    4:59pm
    It it quite obvious that too many people are not saving to supplement their retirement. Any Super. changes should focus on the so-called low-income earner/ low income tax payers. Anyone that earns less than $60,000 p.a should have their SGC increases to 15%, no exemptions. This will provide extra funds for them on retirement and an added incentive to earn more than this amount, then their SGC will be reduced. This group already receiving tax payer benefits far and beyond any other.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    5:25pm
    Nuemakawa maybe the reason they are not saving is because they cannot afford any more then what they are already saving, not everyone has oodles left over from their pay packet to put into savings.
    One of my sons barely makes ends meet each week, 2 small school aged children, mortgage payments, household bills etc soon eats away at a one salary household.
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    5:26pm
    Sorry niemakawa that should have been an i there in your name not a u.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    5:32pm
    @Misty it is a "forced" saving, they will get used to it and it will not blow the budget. One common thread that is prevalent among you and many others is that you all target the so-called rich, yet I can't see any talk from you about how the so-called low income earner can try to help themselves. You seem to encourage this group to be reliant on taxpayer funded handouts rather than providing any worthwhile solutions to their predicament. an extra 6% of salary/wage will not break the bank.
    niemakawa
    29th Apr 2017
    5:33pm
    @misty. nothing to be sorry about I am not a snowflake nor do I take offence at anything.
    OlderandWiser
    29th Apr 2017
    4:41pm
    All this stupid talk about who should or shouldn't get an OAP ignores the most basic reality - that means testing is BAD FOR THE ECONOMY. It makes it profitable to manipulate and cheat, and beneficial to be lazy and irresponsible, and it punishes the responsible living style that builds a healthy society and a healthy economy. THAT'S STUPID!
    Misty
    29th Apr 2017
    5:20pm
    Agree Rainey.
    Dollars over Respect?
    30th Apr 2017
    9:39am
    What a darstardly deed indeed!
    Jack Hammond has lost his case and 'credibility' before he even starts - if he is 'spear-heading' a self-interest group named 'Save our Super' which represents the super-wealthy - especially if it is in anyway connected with Ms 'Cred'lin (surreptitiously Tony Abbott/the extreme right). Been there, done that! Leave past failures in the past, learn from them...and p-l-e-a-s-e move on!!! The outdated Superannuation rules were meant to benefit the average Australian who has worked, paid taxes and contributed to our society, to allow them to provide for a 'reasonable' retirement, not for already wealthy people to continue to excessively, and greedily, abuse to build their dynasties. Such people cannot answer the question: "When is enough, enough?"
    Farside
    30th Apr 2017
    10:29am
    Whatever his beliefs, Hammond is as entitled as any other Australian to promote Credlin he wants to represent him in Parliament. Turnbull stacked his branch to overthrow a sitting member so it's not like it hasn't been done before. This should not be a contentious issue unless of course you fear O'Dwyer might lose her preselection and have to run as an independent.
    inextratime
    30th Apr 2017
    5:12pm
    OG - I can tell by the number of posts you make on this site that you have nothing better to do with your time but to deliberately throw hand grenades about at will to create as much attention as possible, Pretty sad really. A megalomaniac narcissus with nothing better to do, getting their jollies off by constantly posting stuff that basically says "I'm all right jack"' and to hell with the rest of you. Well guess what. People are not reading your rubbish because you are as transparent as glad wrap on a glass bottle.
    niemakawa
    30th Apr 2017
    5:23pm
    Speak for yourself. I read his comments, many have value and to the point. I do not agree with all of his (?)comments nonetheless I enjoy reading them. Sometimes the truth hurts and too many posters showing their extreme sensitivities and crying foul.
    Misty
    30th Apr 2017
    7:06pm
    I too read them, it is always good to get another point of view even if we don't agree with them, after all isn't that what lifechoices is all about?, boring if we all had the same outlook on life and nothing to comment on here.
    OlderandWiser
    1st May 2017
    6:28am
    I read them, but I agree with inextratime that they generally reflect a narcissistic personality and extreme arrogance and disrespect for others. OG is often extremely offensive and very nasty, and I find his constant harping that the moderately comfortable who worked hard and saved well should be stripped of all benefits while the super-rich are continually indulged hideously objectionable. His attitude toward those born to severe disadvantage - e.g. with serious disabilities - is even more offensive. His attitude is destroying a once great country. Sadly, most of our politicians hold the same selfish and self-serving views.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    10:04am
    I am starting to wonder if OG deliberately comments the way he does just to get every one riled up and posting in reply.
    Farside
    1st May 2017
    11:12am
    You have to wonder what the original post has to do with the topic but since it was raised I am happy to respond. I appreciate the diversity OG adds to the forum as he holds views similar to a significant cohort in the wider community who are not necessarily watching this forum. It is clear he manages to easily rile a particular group who viscerally object to his core values such as welfare being only for those without other means to support themselves, using savings to support retirement, repayment of welfare received by asset wealthy, personal responsibility and so on.

    I don't think he deliberately intends to fire Rainey and others up however the pattern is as predictable as night follows day to anyone who has watched the forum for a few months. The exchange typically begins with OG expressing an opinion that invites controversy. He then defends it against personal attacks and biases that degenerate into a tirade of personal abuse that gives pause to wonder more about the motivations and values of his nemeses than those of OG. I don't recall OG responding in kind despite the provocation to do so.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    12:17pm
    Farside I don't think many asset rich but income poor farmers would agree with Og and your view of what is, and is not, welfare Farside but it does make for interesting reading.
    Farside
    1st May 2017
    12:38pm
    @Misty, I agree some farmers would disagree with OG but they are also far from being a homogenous group. Farms are businesses not entitled lifestyles. Simply put some farms farm badly in a financially irresponsible way such they deserve to go to the wall. Some farms cease to be relevant and disappear. Others have tried to farm responsibly, provide for poor seasons, not over-capitalised etc but found it hard going in the face of sustained drought, floods, heatwaves, bugs etc deserve continued support. Few farmers however tend to live off the public teat for much of their working lives and then retire on the sale of their assets.

    To be fair to OG, his comments in relation to asset rich, cash poor tend to focus on those living in million dollar houses while putting their hands out for pensions.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    1:09pm
    I do agree with much of what you have said above Farside but it is a worry when any farm disappears, so many young people are leaving the land now I don't think city people appreciate how hard farm life is, just take it for granted there will always be fruit, veges and dairy products in the supermarkets,never giving it a though as to where it came from or might not be here in the future in the same quantities.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    1:11pm
    Sorry to get off topic again.
    Farside
    1st May 2017
    1:28pm
    @Misty, absolutely it's a tragedy when good farms disappear and farmers exit the sector. One of my pet peeves is urban sprawl over surrounding farmland and greenbelts. Australia has such scarcity of fertile arable land that we can ill afford to cover it with roads, buildings, houses and other urban trappings. Another is that consumers are happy to squeeze farmers so they find it difficult to make a decent return on investment.

    My grandparents' dairy farm and all of those farms around them slowly disappeared with the closure of the local butter factory and rise of global operators resulting in kids leaving the district. This story has been repeated across Victoria despite investment in new technologies, methods and infrastructure to raise efficiency. The key to keeping people on the farm is to make them viable businesses, which is easier said than done in a global world with indiscriminate consumers simply looking for cheapest price.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    1:43pm
    Maybe children should be educated more at an early age about where their food comes from, you often see on TV when children are asked about where their milk comes from they say, a bottle/carton in the supermarket, no idea it comes from cows.
    Farside
    1st May 2017
    2:02pm
    @Misty, children's awareness is a start but it is their values as adult consumers that will ultimately make a difference to local farmers. Today too few consumers favour local over imported produce when price is a consideration. Similarly too few are willing to eat second grade fruits and veg (the ugly stuff that is perfectly good for cooking) causing these to go to stock feed and landfill. Tastes for preserved fruits and veg have changed further depressing demand. This makes it attractive to large overseas producers to dump product here keeping prices low. It is not easy for our farmers to compete globally, especially when global competitors are receiving government subsidies.
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    7:09pm
    I caught the tail end of a news item last night something about not discarding the fruit and vegs that might have a spot or 2 as so much is wasted, as you say, I buy the ones from Woolies called the ODD BUNCH, have you seen them?, I have bought potatoes, carrots , lemons, don't know if they do any thing else but they have all been very good and quiet inexpensive.
    niemakawa
    1st May 2017
    7:17pm
    @misty yes wait until it catches on then the purveyors of this "tarnished" F & V will re-brand them as "designer" quality. Of course many will fall for such nonsense ( as they do with organic foods) and jump at board at a premium price. What a marketing tool!!!
    Farside
    2nd May 2017
    12:36am
    when I lived in Belgium it was possible to buy fruit and veg as grades 1 to 4, where grade 1 was perfect and conformed to EU specs, grade 2 still great condition but maybe some blemishes and misshapes, grade 3 as you would expect and grade 4 pretty much for soups and sauces. You could buy very ripe food at very reduced prices to compensate for lack of shelf life. Seems to me there is an option to sell fruit and veg that does not conform to the supermarket specs through growers markets, coops and direct; a win-win for all.
    niemakawa
    2nd May 2017
    12:39am
    @Farside . and the winner takes it all. BTW what fence are you siting on today? Everyone loves a winner.
    Farside
    2nd May 2017
    1:14am
    @niemakawa - still curious I see but I sit on no fences. I am surprised you have not deduced my politics from my comments over the past year.
    niemakawa
    2nd May 2017
    2:01am
    @Farside. Thanks.
    Misty
    2nd May 2017
    10:18am
    I wish they would do that with our fruit and vegies here Farside, it would certainly help farmers and low income families wouldn't it.
    niemakawa
    1st May 2017
    5:27pm
    This article re: the upcoming election in the UK is worth reading.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/low-tax-means-win-election/
    bay bridge
    1st May 2017
    7:46pm
    Has anyone actually asked Peta Credlin about her supposed entry into Politics?
    niemakawa
    1st May 2017
    10:58pm
    Supposed or Suppository !?!?
    Misty
    1st May 2017
    11:29pm
    Peta Credlin said it was news to her, not interested anyway.
    Farside
    2nd May 2017
    12:53am
    Jim Hacker: First rule in politics: never believe anything until it's officially denied.
    Misty
    2nd May 2017
    1:58pm
    Just officially announced, David Gonski and the PM together, the PM announcing new funding for Australian Public Schools, Gonski is here to stay, at least for the forseable future.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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