Labor is being criticised for keeping voters in the dark about super

Labor is being accused of keeping voters in the dark about its plans for superannuation.

Labor is being criticised of keeping voters in the dark about super

Labor’s announcement of its plans for superannuation is still unclear, after the party refused to rule out a controversial tax measure announced by the Coalition in Budget 2016/17.

The anti-detriment payment, which is a payment passed on to dependents of super fund holders after a fund holder dies before retirement age, will cease from 1 July 2017. Labor’s factoring in of $5–6 billion in tax savings may be an indication that it will also ditch the anti-detriment payment, effectively leaving widows and orphans out of pocket.  

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has also expressed concerns about the $500,000 lifetime cap proposed by the Coalition in Budget 2016/17, but he claims that, should Labor drop the cap if elected, it would have to find $550 million in revenue over four years from other sources.

The Labor party has indicated that it would adopt most, but not all, of the Government’s proposed changes to super.

Mr Bowen has assured voters that, if elected, Labor will consult all available ‘resources’ before making a final decision on the $500,000 lifetime cap, prompting claims that the party is keeping voters in the dark over its plans for super.

"We're committed to raising the same amount of money as the government ... we'd like to consult with the sector, from government, with the resources of Treasury to ensure that any measures that we implement are implemented in a very fair manner. The government is the one committed to the retrospective tax changes," said Mr Bowen. "We've expressed grave concern about the retrospective nature of one measure in particular, the $500,000 cap. We want to sit down with the sector and work out the best way to proceed to raise the same amount of money.”

The Labor party was first out of the blocks with policies to change super tax concessions announced as early as 2015. The Turnbull Government followed suit in Budget 2016/17 with cuts to generous super concessions. The intent of the Coalition and Labor parties’ policies is similar, although the individual changes are quite different.

Since the beginning of the Election 2016 campaign, Labor has been critical of the Coalition’s superannuation changes, so it would now seem that Labor is being very cautious in accepting or reviewing any super policies.

Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald
Read more at The New Daily

What do you think of both parties’ superannuation policies? Do you feel you have enough information to make an informed decision at the polling booth? Or are you just totally confused and disengaged with the ceaseless tinkering with super?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    10:13am
    If we think that either side are not going to raise revenue in new ways then we're dreaming. Expect estate duties to come in at some time, probably in 10 years when the budget is still in the red.
    People need to get real. We cannot keep pork barrelling and spending like a drunk at the bottleshop. My issue is not new taxes. My issue is that we are going to see new taxes on workers and handouts to those who have been forging ahead for the last 3 decades and have no need of government assistance.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    11:46am
    I agree Mick the government is spending itself beyond it's revenue base. Either the revenue base has to increase or spending has to decrease.

    Notice that NSW is talking about abolishing the stamp duty on the sale of houses and having a land tax on all properties instead. Their reasoning is that is will help balance their budgets betters as stamp duty has too many peaks and troughs. Good for people who buy and sell properties a lot but just another cost to those who don't.
    Rae
    28th Jun 2016
    11:55am
    No way to stop it Mick. You can only plan ahead.

    Possibly using trust structures or even handing over assets to children legally with provisions.

    There has to be loopholes especially for those of us outside the welfare system who paid huge taxes, saved diligently and get no acknowledgement at all.
    Robin7
    28th Jun 2016
    1:19pm
    There should be no loopholes, and trusts are a loophole, every person should pay there fair share.
    A "fair share" is not an "equal dollar" amount, it is a percentage.

    If you have paid "huge taxes", then you have been earning huge money and can afford to have saved for your future.

    Workers on $34K(minimum wage) who spend half their income just on rent ($18K-to-24K = 1 room apartment) don't get a chance to save anything.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:33pm
    I suspect Rae that if estate duties came in then it would be like in the past: gift duty as well to stop people doing what you suggested and even financial controls to stop citizens moving money out of the country. The rats would find some way to get average citizens whilst leaving the door open for the wealthy to move on.
    Sceptic
    28th Jun 2016
    2:59pm
    I am guessing that by "we cannot keep pork barrelling and spending like a drunk at the bottleshop" you are referring to Government spending MICK. If that assumption is correct we are in complete agreement. The problem is the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending by all Governments, State and Federal. That is the only sure way. Revenue cannot be relied upon. Whether it is from taxation on individuals or businesses, it is dependent on business activity, and the Governments have only limited control over that.

    It is all very well to want to go to the high earners every time but you cannot expect the milch cow to keep on giving without the Governments showing a great deal more spending restraint. If this also means less welfare (the highest expenditure), then that is whet it has to be.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    3:21pm
    Or broaden the base. The tool of choice from the current lot.

    I have no dislike of rich people. What gets up my nose and up the noses of millions of Australians is that rich people find ways around their fair share and then post BS about creating jobs as a justification for avoiding paying their dues. That is where it starts and ends with me.

    I would support a set percentage tax of gross income paid by all. No dodgy ways out. Interested?
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    3:28pm
    Mick what is gross income?
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    3:48pm
    That's the earnings before accountants dodge it and come up with something called taxable income. As if you do not know how the system works.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    3:58pm
    Gross income to a wage earner is what they are paid before tax. Gross income to a business is what they get after costs have been written off and before the accountants do there bit so there is not much left to pay tax on.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    4:10pm
    YEP !! :-)
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    4:28pm
    We have a defacto estate duty now Mick its called capital gains tax and believe can that cut your inheritance down.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    4:50pm
    If this Internet was any slower today I would be doing last weeks Computing !! :-( :-( :-( Where's Me HIGH SPEED NBN Malcolm ???? :-(
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    5:04pm
    Robbo some of those taxable amounts in super funds can bite into inheritances as well.

    Labor new CGT will only take a bigger bite out of inheritances.

    Don't forget probate as well.

    I agree we already have a death tax.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:20pm
    My memory recalls that Capital Gains Tax used to be levied on the sale of an asset after CPI adjustment. That way investors paid tax on THE REAL GAIN. Given inflation that was fair, but because governments thought they could cream more off they changed the system. Now taxpayers pay tax on half of the gain and that is a poor return when there is rampant inflation and assets go up accordingly. So much for the history lesson Geezer.
    Whilst I am not sure I am of the understanding that there is no capital gains tax payable on inheritances.
    There is currently no tax on inheritance. Nor should there be as Australia is already highly overtaxed compared to our competitors.
    Strummer
    28th Jun 2016
    11:02am
    They are probably delaying it for one of two reasons:
    1: It's so good they don't want the Libs to steal it.
    2: It's so bad they don't want us to know about it yet.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    1:22pm
    3. They haven't got a clue.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    3:24pm
    4. They haven't got a clue.
    Sundays
    28th Jun 2016
    11:18am
    Trish Power on Superguide.com does a great job of detailing the super policies of the major political parties. I don't believe Labor have been that quiet. Given Labors links to unions, and the sad fact that a lot of early deaths happen in the workplace, I can't see them dropping the anti detriment payment.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    11:41am
    Taxpayers Australia put out a good article on SMSFs.

    https://www.taxpayer.com.au/News/29431/Budget_changes_will_hit_more_SMSFs_than_the_government_predicts__warns_BGL
    Rae
    28th Jun 2016
    12:00pm
    Plenty of people are already asking questions about how to close down a SMSF. It simply doesn't pay enough to cover the costs and sovereign risk unless you are very wealthy. Very wealthy people have SIVs etc in tax havens anyway. They do not trust the superannuation legislation roulette wheel so why should anyone else.

    It is also very restrictive and time consuming when investment outside super is often just as tax effective.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    12:13pm
    Super only becomes tax effective if your income exceeds the tax free threshold. After the age of 60 the earnings on super are tax free. So if you exceed your individual tax free threshold paying less than 1% in fees to save 20% plus in tax each year starts to make a lot of sense. Under the present system if structure correctly you can earn a lot of money after the age of 60 without paying any tax. Super is really just a tax effective vehicle to minimise tax.
    Alexii
    28th Jun 2016
    11:46am
    It makes one wonder if we seniors can have any trust in either of the major parties - or in the Greens too. Except that we can trust them to think of more ways to kick us in the head in our old age.
    FM
    28th Jun 2016
    11:58am
    Yes Alexii
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:38pm
    I suspect the Greens would come after boomers because their voter base is of the opinion that they (genYs) are hard done by and it is their parents' fault. And then there is the intellectually flawed immigration policy which would turn Australia into a third world country in time.
    I acknowledge though that the Greens would put the cleaners through the election funding rorts of both parties, especially the business owned Liberal Party which sells legislation in exchange for funding. The practise id corruption at the highest level which the mainstream media ignores........because it is also 'owned' by the big end of town.
    Sceptic
    28th Jun 2016
    3:00pm
    Not to mention the Union owned ALP MICK.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    3:23pm
    As usual you are back to union/Labor BS. Can't even address an argument on its merits.
    Of course you are offended by legislation which will nail your employer to the cross of corruption. Can't have that can we?
    Rae
    29th Jun 2016
    8:23am
    It was a speechless moment or two last night on The Drum when it was suggested "old people weren't important". Someone said "That's a bit harsh" but no one could refute the fact that retirees have been completely ignored in this election.

    If the retiree vote is squandered this election by ignorance and team favouritism then we will have no one else to blame. That is what the Parties count on. The rusted on old folk that can be treated like crap and will still give us their vote.

    Here is a perfect chance to demonstrate that government ignore the ageing at their own peril.

    I'm not holding my breath though.
    MICK
    29th Jun 2016
    9:30am
    I always say we deserve what we get. If older Australians let themselves be conned and/or are rusted on to their Party then they deserve what they get.
    I have been saying for some time that WE NEED TO VOTE AS A BLOCK and send a message. Try telling that to people who are losing their reasoning power though.
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    4:03pm
    What's the problem Sceptic, was your Mum scared by a nasty Unionist when she was pregnant with you?
    Bee
    28th Jun 2016
    11:47am
    Comment for Sundays - the web site you mention superguide.com doesn't appear to exist. When I went to it an add came up saying the domain is for sale for a 6 figure sum.
    Sundays
    28th Jun 2016
    11:59am
    My apologies, Superguide.com.au

    It is a great independent site on superannuation. Australian, but I forgot to add the au
    FM
    28th Jun 2016
    11:57am
    We are assuming that current recessionary financial conditions will never change. We have had what is probably the longest downturn since the great depression but as we know all downturns have eventually turned round and this one should in a couple of years. Government income greatly improves with improved economic conditions and taxes and income become more than adequate to cover expenditure. We need to be very careful not to condone cuts or increased taxes that will further impoverish people as these burdens as slow to be removed when prosperity returns.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:39pm
    That is what makes long term budgets (as opposed to planning) so inaccurate.
    Crazy Horse
    28th Jun 2016
    12:34pm
    Labor invented the Australian superannuation scheme. Labor has consistently raised employer contributions.

    The Liberals have never supported this just like they don't support anything that doesn't benefit their rich mates. They have frozen the scheduled increases to employer contributions.

    Only Labor can be trusted with superannuation. You can be sure that any changes Labor makes will benefit ordinary workers and retirees.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    12:47pm
    Labor has brought in every major change in society. We would have had no superannuation for average citizens or Medicare or NBN were it not for Labor.
    I don't want to sound like a billboard because I support neither side of politics but it is what it is: Labor brings in policies which bring some fairness and commonsense to politics and Liberals care not one iota about average people seeking only to send more and more money to the big end of town whilst taxing us all more. Wealth redistribution and class warfare. Never changes!
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    1:09pm
    Super does a great job in supporting the big multinationals with the worker getting only what is left after they have had their fill. Seems odd that Labor would support such a policy given that Labor brings fairness and commonsense to politics. If that isn't supporting their rich mates then what is?
    Retired Knowall
    28th Jun 2016
    1:39pm
    Labor did NOT invent Australian Superannuation. They only legislated for the COMPULSORY super. I had a Defined Benifit Super account in 1978. Converted that account to the one I have now in 1982.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:42pm
    Were it not for Labor then workers would not have one single dollar in superannuation. The LNP would repeal it if it could but any attempt to do so would see it voted out with the biggest margin in history. Of course the scales were tipped in favour of the rich with several decades of super concessions which flowed straight to the big end of town. Has anybody wondered why the mainstream Press never brought this ponzi scheme down? Not rocket science.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    4:25pm
    I commenced paying into a super fund in 1960 with the employer matching my contributions dollar for dollar. It was a condition of employment. I think a broad statement that Labor brought in super for workers is too general and misleading. Labor brought in compulsory super for those who didn't have any scheme available.
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    4:41pm
    Old Man. You are correct, but Labor think they invented the universe.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:26pm
    You were in the public service then Old Man.
    If Labor had not brought in superannuation for workers niemakawa then workers would have nix.
    As for the universe it is clear that the coalition believes that Labor is responsible for all ills and that it responsible for all good policy. Makes one want to peuk.
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    8:53pm
    Mick, you seem to forget that the SGC is not paid by the Company nor do they match dollar for dollar. The SGC is actually paid by the employee and is packaged as part of their salary/wage.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    9:17pm
    "Labor is responsible for all ills and that it responsible for all good policy. Makes one want to peuk."

    MICK, as you were so rude to another blogger, pointing out his/her lack of spelling ability, I will point out your mistakes as they come. The above is your latest spelling error. As you sow, so shall ye reap.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    9:29pm
    Peuk is Mexican for too much Takeela !! :-)
    Retired Knowall
    29th Jun 2016
    8:08am
    It's interesting that when the Govt of the time introduced a compulsory super scheme it is praised, but when a Govt legislates for other controls they are crucified for meddling in our lives. Super has been available since the early sixties, I started mine with the now defunct CML insurance, I was and have been a lowly paid worker. BUT I ALWAYS LOOKED AFTER MY OWN INTERESTS, not like the oxygen thieves that infect this site with their moronic posts.
    Rae
    29th Jun 2016
    8:32am
    We talk about a compulsory super scheme but it is anything but that. It is only compulsory for PAYG workers. Everyone else gets a choice of how to invest their savings. Or not as they choose.
    MICK
    29th Jun 2016
    9:35am
    Old Man: so you have gone from demanding "proof" for everything anybody says that you do not like to running the "rude" line.
    I may be upfront at times but at the very least I am not a rusted on troll who pretends to be politically correct as he spews out his venom without PROOF of any manner other than the normal tired old unions and pink batts garbage.
    I am pretty well sick of your crap Old Man (or is it Frank). Try it on somebody who cares.
    Julian
    28th Jun 2016
    1:17pm
    Idiots.

    And Bowen wants to be treasurer? On national TV last year was asked what the income tax brackets were. He had no clue.
    Robin7
    28th Jun 2016
    1:35pm
    ah - that's not true, it was the tax free threshold (~$18k), which seems to change every year.
    And the interview was supposed to be about superannuation changes, the tax free threshold question was from left field, late on a Tuesday night, with Alan Jones the interviewer.
    Having dealt with Alan Jones personally I can assure you the man is a terrier, shows no mercy and gives you no time to gather your thoughts.

    Being the best at rote learning does not make you a good treasurer, Hockey is brilliant at rote learning and yet Hockey is the worst performing treasurer since the Menzies era.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:44pm
    All pollies learn on the job Julian. They are tutored by the best economists in the business (if there is such a thing) and most turn out pretty well. In all fairness Bowen is no worse than Hockey and he made a pretty good case on the 7:30 Report a couple of nights ago so maybe needs the benefit of the doubt.
    Julian
    28th Jun 2016
    1:54pm
    Ah yes..the threshold.

    But really, you'd think he'd know something so basic. Jones isn't afraid to give to politicians and so has to be applauded for asking for the hard questions. (Apparently for Bowen, it was a hard one)

    After seeing him flounder, dodge and weave that question, he did nothing to fill us with a sense of confidence in the matters of finance. Organizing lunch money would be difficult for this guy.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    2:23pm
    I had a bad opinion of Jones after the 'she lied' campaign he ran against Julia Gillard. Especially as he is a self confessed card Liberal and did not run a 'he lied' campaign against Abbott. That was totally unfair given one lie against a a dozen and counting.
    I had to reassess Jones after Q&A last night. Jones went after the facts rather than the colour of the Party and he had some severe criticism of the government. Corman, who is not the sharpest tool in the shed at any time, was cringing on the panel and had no answer to either Jones or Plibersek who shredded the government's propaganda with the facts. The response from Corman was a look of embarrassment and resorting to quoting the normal non relevant BS they do when they are cornered.
    It was pleasing to see that after the normal failure of the big business media outlets to pursue the facts and the truth that Corman was crucified by the lies of his Party and had nowhere to wriggle.
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    4:15pm
    MICK, I would not take anything that Jones says to heart, most of his rhetoric is paid for comment, that is unless someone refuses to pay, then his vitriol is free.
    He has not been especially kind to the LNP lately because they booted his mate Tony out of the leadership.
    In most cases Shock Jocks are self serving megalomaniacs concerned only with making money and scaring the vulnerable old ladies who listen to and believe them.

    28th Jun 2016
    1:25pm
    The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:46pm
    Top award goes to you for that quote of the day. Be careful though....pollies are starting to claim 'abuse' by the general public.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    1:52pm
    Mick, if politicians stop telling lies, I will stop telling the truth about them. Fair enough?
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    2:16pm
    Priceless!
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    3:46pm
    Would the Honourable Member for Truthville please step forward ! And they all fell over Backwards !! :-)
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:28pm
    Surely you mean they went to the backbench.
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    4:19pm
    And the difference between a politician and a tick, the tick generally has its' fill and drops off the victim before it is sucked dry.

    28th Jun 2016
    1:35pm
    Labor, again, promises on giving the Australian residents something IF they are voted into office, just what it is, or to what extent, or if, or when all remains a mystery which won't be solved until AFTER the election is over, and then ONLY IF Labor wins, and ONLY IF Labor remembers that they made this promise in the first place. Sounds very much like the LNP AND Greens, doesn't it?
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    1:49pm
    The really important point is that Labor does not renige on significant promises like Abbott did with the Paid Parental Leave Scheme and that Labor does not introduce any nasties after the ink of the election dries. History has demonstrated that Labor does not massively betray voters like the LNP but who knows. It seems to be a changing world out there and only time will tell.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    2:02pm
    Mick, Labor are politicians who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy another tunnel and the Greens will promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. With the LNP instead of giving them a key to the city, it might be better to change the locks. As you have said, many times, "Vote independent".
    Jannie
    28th Jun 2016
    2:05pm
    I do not trust any of them, they only protect themselves.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    2:07pm
    Jannie, you sound like a wise lady.
    Anonymous
    28th Jun 2016
    4:37pm
    Give me a break Mick didn"t Julia say there will be no carbon tax in my Government and Wayne Swan say there will be no deficit every year he was treasurer. ( Is that bastard Swan still around)

    I tell you one thing if you lived in Victoria you would never vote Labor again This fool Andrews has ruined the state with his bullshit labor policies and its got to the stage where you have to buy a gun to protect yourself.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:32pm
    Yeah robbo...she lied. Agreed. So what about Tony Abbott's multiple lies? Never hear about those. Funny that.
    You need a gun in Sydney as well. Got nothing to do with Labor. Got everything to do with a failed judicial system constrained by nowhere to lock 'em up and governments not wanting to invest in jails.
    Do not know about Andrews. Not sure what your gripe is but at the very least I am assuming Andrews is not controlled by big business for big business.
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    2:38pm
    I do not see any logic for people to invest more than the SGC required by Government. In years to come with the ongoing taxation of Superannuation at the entry ,during and exiting all that will be left is a measly amount no greater than a Government pension. The Government pension as we see it today will not exist in another 20 years. It would be stupid of anyone to save for their retirement in this way and place more than the SGC in superannuation. Get out of Super and use your imagination, if you want a decent amount for retirement. As they say one door closes and another opens. Governments always playing catch up with the ingenuity of investors. Use you hard earned for YOUR benefit. Reduce your tax legitimately in anyway you can. Governments have only one real alternative to grab more cash and that is to increase GST, food included.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    3:29pm
    You miss the point that ordinary people are for the most part incapable of saving if they have money in their pockets. Never been any different. That is the whole point about super: they cannot (well??) touch it until retirement.
    As far super as an investment vehicle you won't find too many better. Paying 15% up front is better than paying tax unless you are a low income earner. And then the earnings of the fund also only taxed at 15%. At the end you get your money out tax free. Show me a better deal than that. Why do you think high income earners use super as an accumulation fund?
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    3:55pm
    You missed my point . The SGC is compulsory but I would not encourage anyone to put in more than that. In reality the SGC is a Government pension scheme as it has control over how much can be invested by individuals and the tax rates on such funds. Eventually all tax concessions will be abandoned. In years to come (not too far away) lump sums will not be allowed. Furthermore everyone will have to take a fixed pension, any residual balance left once a person is deceased will go straight into the Government's coffers. So why would anyone now put more than the mandated amount. The SGC is in effect a State Pension.
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    4:06pm
    Lump sums are not allowed now. However you can take out 100%. All that is required now is to change that 100%. I have been fighting a do gooder retirement organisation who in their wisdom wants lumps sums only to be taken out for specific purposes like new cars and holidays. Their whole proposal is simply ridiculous.

    I've been telling my kids not to put any more than is compulsory into super no matter how good an idea it seems because of the above reasons.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:39pm
    I do not disagree with your view niemakawa. Governments have been circling the supe pool of money trying to get heir grubby hands on some for years. They will at some time nationalise it and then what will be the difference between it and a government pension?
    The issue as I see it is that average people cannot manage money and most will blow good earnings on having a fun time....and then complaining at retirement that they are hard done by. Seen it all. So sad but such is life.

    I might think you have been not giving your children sound advice Geezer but only time will tell on that one. With your idea your kids should be investing in property, shares, other investments, etc. with whatever is left over. Buying an expensive car and/or holidays and living it up is a one way street: fun for a few years and then a dirt poor retirement. Good luck with that one.
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    4:30pm
    As I say to my son, why would you put extra money into a scheme where you don't know when you will be able to access it, you probably won't be able to take out a lump sum, any funds left over after he and his spouse dies will go to the government and the government reserves the right to change the rules at any time it likes. In other words you will lose all control of these funds.
    Governments have destroyed any incentive to invest extra into Super.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    3:20pm
    Yeah Right ! And the Libs aren't exactly the Sauce of Blinding Light Either !! :-(
    After this Mornings Talk Back Radio the Stooges must have cost them and Us Millions :-( :-(
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    3:46pm
    Do not listen to talkback. What have I missed?
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    3:52pm
    Mick.. You have missed where the Real Sauce of Sunshine Comes From !!
    The Liberal Party Headquarters !! :-) :-) :-)

    28th Jun 2016
    4:04pm
    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.

    - Plato
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    4:18pm
    Never a Truer word wasn't spoken !! :-)
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    4:55pm
    ANOUNCEMENT.. " Ladies and Gentlemen this train you have boarded for Katoomba is now going to Wollongong !!"
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    9:36pm
    Pretty bloody cold up at Katoomba today....unless you are going to Bleakheath.

    28th Jun 2016
    4:39pm
    This is a topic about superannuation generally and Labor's stance on it specifically. As happens daily, the usual suspects run off at the mouth on a different topic all the while promoting Labor. On topic, Shorten last night refused to say whether he backs the government's superannuation policy despite counting $2.9 billion in savings raised by the policy in his costings. When asked about why he had banked the $2.9 billion despite not backing the super policy, he said he needed to win government before detailing what super changes he would proceed with.

    Here we have a man who tells lies about Medicare, tells the media that he will be totally inclusive of the opposition should he be elected, despite showing savings by using a Coalition policy totally rejected by Labor in the Senate, and now not declaring what Labor's policy on super will be. How do we compare policies when Labor won't disclose theirs. As Garret once said; "Oh, don't worry about that. Once we get in we will change all that."
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    5:09pm
    I agree Old Man I don't think Bill is ready to be PM and his shorten economics leave a lot to be desired as well.

    I spoke to one of the Labor candidates in a neighbouring electorate who knows me personally and politely said that I wasn't buying the Medicare lie and she should have a think about it as it could underline her credibility. However she continued to tow the party line.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:47pm
    That is exactly what Frank says Geezer. No great surprise then!
    You spoke to nobody and your post is in the same league as what is coming out of the mouths of Turnbull, Morrison, Corman and the like.
    SHorten not ready to be PM? At least you have half a chance of honest government. With the current government you have nil chance of that.
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    8:56pm
    Mick half of nothing = nothing
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    9:35pm
    And a politician in the hand is worth two in the bush.............
    Tomaso
    28th Jun 2016
    5:22pm
    Sceptic, re reduce government spending lol, start with their rorting and ridiculous salary's and bloody great pensions, "NOT"....
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    5:25pm
    :-) :-) That wont happen !! :-)
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    8:51pm
    Actually need to throw out the tax cuts for the rich and replace it with tax cuts for small business turning over less than $5 million a year. That has credibility. The Turnbull one is a $50 billion hit to our economy which will be pulled back with new taxes.
    That is better known as WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION: take from the poor and give to the rich.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    9:07pm
    Just heard on the News they will attack Welfare and Pensions if Re Elected !! Nothing New there !! :-( :-(
    niemakawa
    28th Jun 2016
    9:13pm
    Particolor, did that come from the lips of Turnbull or Shorten? I care for neither and will be voting for an emerging party that has real policies that put Australia first.
    MICK
    28th Jun 2016
    9:27pm
    Morrison claims to have found $2.5 billion in welfare savings. No more information, just a statement. About as believable as a prostitute on crack. No media attention either. Why does that not surprise me.
    particolor
    28th Jun 2016
    9:33pm
    I wont be voting for any of them either niem !! And Mick I think it came from Morrison ! :-)
    Old Geezer
    28th Jun 2016
    9:38pm
    The government might be owed it but will it ever get it back?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-28/election-2016-coalition-releases-election-costings/7550790
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    5:03pm
    I worked for a State Government that made a campaign promise to cut spending on Public Service wages. It spent millions on giving people VER's averaging $120,000.00 each, this was because the ones who left were the most experienced people who had been in the system the longest.
    When the Public Servants left quite a few were replaced by contractors, not consultants but contractors, the reason being that consultants are registered and reported against salaries expenditure, whilst contractors are reported against services.
    So what changed, not much, the government got to report that it had reduced it's wage bill which had actually increased because when fees to employment agencies were factored in the same positions cost more, the Public Servants who took VER's went to work for the employment agencies and found work in other government sectors or waited out their mandatory must not work for state government time restraints and went back to work for the state government.
    The point being, governments seldom achieve spending cuts, it is enough for them that you believe they do. I took a VER years ago, I was months away from retiring at 55 but the government offered to pay for half my new house so I took it. They obviously were not interested in saving money, they just wanted it to look like they were. To add insult to injury I was told by my boss to come and see him when my waiting time was over.
    Government is 50% smoke and mirrors if you think any differently you are dreaming.
    FEDUP
    29th Jun 2016
    4:56am
    Can see it now, it sticks out like a Brick!
    In the future, we the battlers, will be shafted by having to take our Superannuation in fortnightly increments. Exactly as a Pension. We will not be able to draw a Lump Sum, but will have to beg, just to pay off our house.
    Just make sure that you pay off your mortgage before you finish work.
    If Labor gets in, the tax rate on Super will rise, as they will want all Superannuation turned into pensions.
    niemakawa
    29th Jun 2016
    9:01am
    Fedup, as I mentioned in an earlier post the SGC is technically a State run pension fund. Future generations will as you say will be receiving "fortnightly increments" Also once deceased any balance left will be siphoned off by The Government. That is why I would not encourage anyone to make additional contributions over and above the compulsory SGC. The perceived tax benefits is not a good enough reason to do so.
    MICK
    29th Jun 2016
    9:27am
    A fortnightly payment is what a pension is. That is what super was always meant to do so one has to work out the balance.....as with life itself.
    niemakawa
    29th Jun 2016
    9:53am
    Mick, Superannuation was intended to supplement the State pension, which is a right for all those of pension age. You talk about balance does that apply to everyone or just a select few? Governments should start calling it (SGC) a State Pension Fund and not deceive people by hiding this FACT.
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    5:22pm
    Sorry MICK, you are mistaken, most people who signed up for Super in the 70's were sold the idea that at 55 they could close their Super Account and either take a lump sum or an annuity. There was no mention of Super replacing the pension. Most policies at that time were sold on the basis of having enough money accumulated to either leave work at 55 and have enough to last till retirement age or use it to pay off the family home. In these times that seems unfair or unrealistic, but it was what was promised.
    If the government wants to control Super it should start its own fund or is that called the pension? I am so confused.
    PIXAPD
    30th Jun 2016
    8:02am
    The full aged pension is enough to live on, even if you rent you can save $1000 a month, that's $10,000 a year you can save from the pension.
    particolor
    30th Jun 2016
    8:35pm
    You forgot to say you live in a Whirly in the Bush ! :-) :-)
    PIXAPD
    30th Jun 2016
    9:00am
    The notion that you need lots of Super is a myth...maybe the money hungry want loads of money.... the aged pension is plenty and you can save lots too.
    particolor
    30th Jun 2016
    8:34pm
    You live a SHELTERED LIFE !!
    ex PS
    3rd Jul 2016
    5:26pm
    I certainly agree that a couple does not need a million dollars in Super in order to live comfortably. We are self funded and don't spend much more than the pension annually.
    The big difference is of course is that we could if we had to. We are indeed fortunate.