28th May 2018
Australia’s wealthiest should be the Government’s next tax target
Australia’s wealthiest should be the Government’s next tax target

The 200 members of Australian Financial Review Rich List 2018 added 21.2 per cent to their personal fortunes with a collective total of $282.7 billion in wealth for this elite club.

The list named 16 newly minted billionaires, bringing the group’s tally to 76. Making up 38 per cent of those on the list, billionaires will soon comprise half of the wealthy people identified.

For the second consecutive year, cardboard king Anthony Pratt of Visy topped the list with a net wealth of $12.9 billion.

Property developer Harry Triguboff was next on the list, with $12.77 billion, followed by mining baroness billionaire Gina Rinehart, who has doubled her wealth in the last two years, with $12.68 billion.

This trio alone have collectively added $11 billion to their wealth over the past two years.

Mining moguls were prominent on this year’s rich list, although one in four rich listers made their money in property.

Two members of the top 10 are foreign-born Australians, Hong Kong native Hui Wing Mau at number four with $9.09 billion and Indian-born Vivek Sehgah at number nine with $5.88 billion.

The top 10 included familiar faces Frank Lowy from Westfield (number four with $8.24b), property developer John Gandel (number seven with $6.45b) mining investor Andrew Forrest (number eight with $6.1b) and casino king James Packer creeping in at number 10 with a ‘paltry’ $5.25 billion.

Somehow, miner Clive Palmer not only stayed on the list but was actually the biggest mover with his personal wealth increasing to $2.84 billion. Mr Palmer has been fighting legal battles all year but a significant win this year ensured his royalties from the Sino Iron project in Western Australia will keep flowing into his coffers.

Only 19 women made the list, eight of whom are billionaires, including Gina Rinehart and her daughter Bianca.

See the full Rich List at www.afr.com

Opinion: Why rich listers should be in the Government’s crosshairs

More than half of Australia’s age pensioners will run out of money before their next pension payment, according to the YourLifeChoices Retirement Affordability Index™ 2017-18.

An ever-increasing number of Australians are living around or below the poverty line, yet $49.6 billion was added to the coffers of Australia’s richest people last year alone.

Yes, the wealth gap is widening.

The 200 members of this elite club saw a collective rise in their personal fortunes to the tune of 21.2 per cent, and yet wage growth stagnates, Newstart and Age Pension recipients barely cover weekly expenses (if they’re lucky) and the rest of us struggle to keep up with rising rents and the cost of living.

More than 76 per cent of pensioners feel the cost of living is rising faster than the official inflation rate. Around 24 per cent find it difficult to fund everyday expenses.

No one is asking the rich to fund the Age Pension or to provide the $75 per week bump so desperately required by Newstart recipients. But it would be nice to know that these people – and their businesses – are paying the requisite taxes to help boost our welfare system and maybe make housing a little more affordable.

And yet the Government insists on handing the wealthy millions in tax exemptions, incentives to buy more property and charge exorbitant rent, and company tax cuts that history has proven will only benefit their bottom line even more.

Until these people pay their way, the wealth gap will widen, inequality will run rife, young families will never own a home and Australia will lose its reputation as ‘The Lucky Country’.

Let’s face it, the dream is already dead. When will the Government wake up and start taxing the ultra-wealthy instead of retirees?

That’s a question we’ve all been asking for years, but maybe the real question is: who’s really running this country?

The answer may be the 200 on the ‘List’.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Kathleen
    28th May 2018
    9:58am
    This was highlighted yesterday when the rally against Adani set up their rally in front of the PM’s house that looks like a block of flats. This was no accident! Various topics came to mind like downsizing, homelessness and the ever widening gap. How can people who have so much possibly understand the battler or the homeless. They can’t, of course. They are too remote from the problems of the disadvantaged and poor.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    10:22am
    There will always be 2 sides to society Kathleen. My wife and I fortunately are on the right side of poverty, touch wood but we all need to battle this most wicked of all governments in their desire to create a rich man's dictatorship.
    You may be missing the point leon. This government has no desire to collect taxes from either multinationals or the wealthy. These are the places where election funding comes from and one has to remember that the PM is himself a wealthy man using an offshore tax shelter to avoid the Australian tax system. That is not going to change whilst the current government is in power.

    We should all be seeking an end to political corruption, class warfare and decency lost. That is coming shorty and I can but hope that the PM and other wealthy criminals with their fraudulent offshore tax shelters find themselves on the wrong end of the ATO.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:39am
    Mick a change of government is not going to help anything. In fact I'd say tings are going to get worse for those below the poverty line as more self funded retirees put their hands out for the OAP.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    11:15am
    OG, we know your concern is for the rich. At least this article proves your BS about taking money off the wealthy is just that - BS!

    Why would more SFRs put their hands out for the OAP? Because THIS government has made so many worse off than if they had not saved. They are struggling on incomes of $40K a year and less while people who saved half as much enjoy $60K a year PLUS concessions. Why wouldn't they spend half their assets and put their hands out for an OAP, instead of handing 100% of the benefit of their extra savings to the taxman to distribute to people who saved less, but are still very well off in retirement? It might be different if the government had given more to the really poor, but not one cent to those who have no assets. Only extra income to those who have very healthy savings, but not quite as much as those who sacrificed and struggled to try to be self-funded.

    Mick is right and wrong. We need a change of government - desperately. But we DO NOT want the Labor Party in power. Somehow, we need to abolish BOTH major parties. Until we do, there is no hope for our society.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    11:32am
    Mick, I tried to make the point to you last week that you remind me so much of characters from Animal Farm - Snowball and Napoleon come readily to mind! I cant for the life of me work out how you can rationalize that we have a Robin Hood government in reverse - rob from the poor to give to the rich?? Doesn't pass the pub test, Mick! How in the hell could any body of individuals expect to get re-elected if they carried on with the nonsense you accuse the present government of? Like me, Mick, you have one vote. Yours is no more potent than mine, Malcolm Turnbull's or Gina Rinehart. Pity you don't look at the facts as verified by Treasury, that under the government's budget and proposed tax cuts, the well off will be paying more in tax than those earning less than $200k. But then that would destroy your basic rantings Mick, that all Labor good, all Liberals bad! Wouldn't it!
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    11:34am
    OGR we only have two choices of government in Australia now so we need to keep the best of two evils. Under Labor SFRs will suffer even further as their income is slashed by the no refund of franking credits etc.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:22pm
    Big Al - I asked you to put up or shut and PROVE that retail superannuation funds were outperforming industry ones by supplying figures for returns for the top 3 in each category. YOU DIDN'T. Funny that.
    Now you ignore the basic facts about the wealth transfer which is happening.
    PLEASE READ TODAY'S Guardian story where it details how the rich have increased their wealth by 21% IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS. And now demanding tax cuts to boot.
    Your post has no credibility other than being the normal advertisement for this government based on none of the real facts.

    I do not support either side of politics but unlike you I stand up for average Australians being raped by the current government with posters like yourself posting their feel good lies. Shameful!

    OG - laughable. No government in living history ever did worse to retirees than the current rich man's government. The facts and figures speak for themselves
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:31pm
    Mick that rich 200 list is only a guestimate by BRW and I even know people who should be on that list but are not. Same with super funds there are funds out there doing better than most but the are restricted funds and therefore are not listed. If you believe everything you read in the media then you know less than half the real story.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:39pm
    Mick you are correct that I haven't responded about best performing super funds, - basically because I am only interested in how mine is going (very well, thanks for asking!). However this percentage factor you are quoting above - is roughly in line with the increase in property values of houses in most suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne over the last 12 months. So how do you propose to 'punish' home owners in our two most populous cities, for having the audacity to own real estate? How dare they - profiting as they are at the hands of the poor and destitute! Another direct result of Turnbull policies, Mick?
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:57pm
    Many SMSFs are earning up around your 21% rate especially those invested in property.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    2:55pm
    Well - if being 'well off' means you are copping more than $200k, then it is blatantly obvious that you should be paying more tax than someone on $200k.

    I see no problem in paying at a higher rate for every dollar over $200k or whatever is the argument, Big Al.... those who do still only pay the same up to $200k as someone on a mere $200k....
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    2:56pm
    Are they paying tax on that 21%, OG.... or are you just citing gross figures?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:59pm
    Trebor, the government says the average superannuation return rate is 5%. Must be some suffering huge losses if ''many'' are earning 21%. As usual, OG is off in la la land having weird fantasies.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:23pm
    OGR all I can say most be a lot of people skimming off big profits out of super funds if the government has a figure of 5%.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:35pm
    More likely you are deluded, OG. I've never met anyone who can get anywhere near 20%. Most are struggling to get past 7. Keep dreaming.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:42pm
    If I am deluded then I am absolutely loving it's returns as it sure beats your struggling 5%.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:57pm
    You paying your taxes, Ebergeezer....or just breaking in a new pair of shoes while you wait?
    Adrianus
    28th May 2018
    4:11pm
    Its a little silly to be talking about a super fund's actual return. Nobody really knows. There are too many moving parts and a few stagnant ones. Industry Funds don't provide their actual return, however, there must be some serious money to be made if the advertising budget is an indication. Likewise SMSFs are very difficult to get a line on. Sure you could guesstimate and that's what APRA and the ATO does. Industry Funds like others can time their asset valuations to make them look good against competitors. Many Super Funds have assets with a 2 part ROA, income and growth. An assets growth is only realised when the asset changes ownership.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    4:40pm
    Big Al - we own real estate as well so let's not play the victim. The job of government is to get a balance. The current lot are wanting a dictatorship where the rich own it all. That is not government!

    For the record I gave YOU a chance to put your facts about superannuation funds after you kept running posts bagging union leaders. Whilst I agree that union leaders in the past were thugs I have no knowledge if this is still the case and your attack regarding unions on the Boards of high performing funds misses the very point that they do not suck the profits out of the funds because they get paid peanuts or nix and only act as protectors of the dough....which the top end of town wants to get its hands on. Union directors are not bleeding the funds and, like returns for the funds, you need to get the facts straight rather than post misleading information. I personally do not lean either way but I am not going to wear dishonesty,,,,which politics is full of. Hope you get where I am coming from.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    5:50pm
    Big Al - how is it that investment property buyers are now 'home owners'? Isn't that it stretching it a bit too far?

    Make that 'some union leaders in the past were thugs' - to match the still prevalent thuggery of the businesses they negotiate with - or try to.

    How is it thuggery for a union to strike when negotiations are not proceeding, but not thuggery on the part of management who lock workers out for the same reason?

    Let's try to keep up here, people.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    8:14pm
    And the poor guy who is abused, forced to work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, paid less than the award, and cheated out of his super contribution ''doesn't want to work'' and ''prefers welfare instead'' when he quits his job and appears at Centrelink. Of course nobody believes his complaint about the employer - if he even dares to utter it knowing the sorts of reprisals that happen.

    The poor man is ALWAYS wrong, no matter what the wealthy man's crime. And if he isn't wrong, the blue-ties will find a way to make it seem like he is.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:46pm
    OGR no one forces anyone to do anything they don't want to do.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:16pm
    Of course not - but sometimes they can take it or leave it.. WorkChoices, don' cha know? What's my choice? Take it or leave it....

    Of course not - they just create situations where there is little to no choice....
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    7:58am
    OG, you live in la la land. Yes, people ARE forced to do things they don't want to do. You have no idea what life is like for the truly disadvantaged in this rotten country. Children were stolen from their families, forced into child labour in appalling conditions, deprived of education (and everything else - even food!), kicked out into the streets alone and destitute on their 15th birthday, denied even basic knowledge of their family, still ''wards of the state'' and subject to hideous regulation even though not supported. Many ended in up prison. Others were forced to sign up for lengthy periods of army service - effectively imprisoning them until well into adulthood, and leaving them with no options when they were finally free to leave because lack of education and skills left them with nowhere to go. And then they are denied welfare if they ''don't want to work'' at the miserable, shit jobs that are offered - if any are! Refused the retraining they have a legal right to because some power-mad overpaid arsehole get his kicks messing up other people's lives, so declares them ''untrainable'', even though there is proof to the contrary.

    You need education, OG. You are so privileged that you have no idea what life is like for others, and so vile and judgmental and arrogant that you don't want to know. You prefer just to condemn people for being the victims of the worst kind of abuse and social exclusion.

    Now the government is refusing Newstart to people, declaring them not sufficiently disabled to qualify for DSP and not old enough for the OAP. What the hell are they supposed to do? I guess you would prefer they starve to death. I recall you declared my disabled child should not have been allowed to live. You are like Hitler. You want a world filled only with people you deem to be perfect, and everyone else exterminated.
    World Prophet
    30th May 2018
    8:41am
    The most amusing comment in this whole thread was made by Mick: "Whilst I agree that union leaders in the past were thugs I have no knowledge if this is still the case". Oioioi, you don't follow the news, Mick? Thugs of the CFMEU kind in the news regularly, The rip off of member by the health union? A number of other dodgy action? Yes, corporate Australia is equally as bad, but two wrongs have never made a right, have they. Yes, politicians have their snouts in the trough as well, but let's not have any illusions here. It is the same trough. One that rips off ordinary people all over the country. A crook is a crook, no matter where he hails from or how noble his motives. He is still a crook. And whilst many maintain they have not broken the law, their moral integrity has no merit.
    MICK
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:12am
    "Broken the law"? The only thing comical is your assertion that unions are the root of all evil. The reality is big business and the rich are the real problem with the top end blaming unions and any left leaning party whilst raping economies in the western world.
    Tax cuts for the rich? Tax havens left alone...for the rich? Subsidies for the rich?
    Please don't even bother with laments about "unions". These are either fabricated or if still existing the effects are so small in comparison to the fraud being run from the top end of town as to make them negligible. Of course right paid trolls have to invent something otherwise the fraudulent theft of public money would be shown for what it is.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    10:10am
    Surprise, surprise, surprise. What a surprise!
    And the rich now need a tax cut on top of this.

    Anybody who votes for this government would have to be rich, brain dead or an outright troll. Yes I know we have a few of the latter massaging opinion for their bosses on this website.

    Thanks leon. You put into print what retirees and average citizens already know: that corporate Australia and its funded government are plundering the 99%. I can hardly wait for the normal culprits to call 'leftie' and slag off Shorten as their response to an unwanted revelation.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:40am
    I just wish the government would cut company tax from 30% to 15% so we would have more revenue than we need.

    Anything is better than a country controlled by unions.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    11:04am
    Here we go again, anyone who dares have a different opinion is shouted down with the usual left wing rhetoric of being a troll or paid by their bosses or in your opinion brain dead, you are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your continued abuse of those that disagree. On some of your remarks regarding the PM and his wealth I would hazard a guess that you wouldn't have a clue as to how much tax he pays, this idea that his money is in tax shelters in the Cayman Islands or elsewhere has been discussed in various media, with many admitting that the PM does in fact pay his correct tax bill, but that comment doesn't sit well with the red brigade, the constant bleat worldwide by left wing commentators is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and that the poor are having to carry the burden of the tax bill, the truth is that the poor pay no tax in a lot of cases, so someone is footing the bill, if it's not the poor and it's not the rich, who is actually paying the tax? The argument surrounding this debate certainly has merit, and I fully support any sustainable effort to get people out of the poverty cycle many find themselves in, it's how we go about it that will make a long term difference, once you take money off the rich it's gone you can't keep going back to a pot that keeps shrinking, we need to push governments into providing cheap housing, just that one element will rid us of a lot of the poverty that exists in society today, neither party is even considering that course of action WHY.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:12am
    Bloody right wing apologists.... always shouting down anyone who calls a spade in the Caymans a spade...

    You earn here, you pay taxes here.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    11:26am
    Jim, the solution is easy - according to the wealthy and the LNP. Take it off the upper working class and middle class and make sure people can't rise above the station they are born to. Keep the peasants down and let the rich continue to party. Oh, and blame the poor for their situation. It's because they are lazy or drug addicts, don't you know?

    The LNP are doing a great job of crushing the middle and upper working class, and somehow convincing the poor to support the notion that it's ''unfair'' for someone who worked hard and saved well to have some savings in retirement. They distract from calls to do something about obscene wealth and tax avoidance by harping endlessly about ''the cost of welfare'', ripping off those of modest means, and blaming the poor for their situation.
    Tudge spoke at a very expensive dinner recently telling wealthy listeners what they wanted to hear - that we want to FORCE people off welfare and into jobs. But he didn't quantify where the jobs are. He didn't admit that most on welfare would love to be off it and working, if only someone would give them the opportunity.

    But let's cut company tax so CEOs and directors can give themselves a massive pay rise. They've admitted they have no intention of increasing wages or hiring more people, and economists have declared the cuts will not deliver benefit to the economy, but let's do it anyway. Why? BECAUSE THE GREEDY RICH DEMAND IT, and they will keep telling themselves - and others - lies to justify their demands and bullying until they get their way.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    11:37am
    OGR - once again you have come up with nonsensical drivel! It is Shorten who is planning to remove imputation credits from self funded retirees (despite what Mick reckons), so again your assertions are just a crock!
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    11:39am
    Again Trebor why is someone with a different opinion a right wing apologist, if you can show me some evidence that Turnbull is avoiding tax, then I might listen. Just for your information I vote Labor in state elections, in Federal I am a swing voter, although I would never vote for the Nationals who are the true right wing, Turnbull according to many commentators is a left wing Liberal, maybe that's the problem. I can only repeat my earlier comment cheap housing for the poor will go a long way to addressing poverty for many people so why are neither of the major parties even considering it?
    Kathleen
    28th May 2018
    11:46am
    Yes, I agree, how can anyone vote for the present LNP?!
    People seem to vote for the same mob regardless of their shortcomings.
    Also, the likes of Pauline Hanson have followers who do no research and have little knowledge and just listen to the hype from her.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    12:00pm
    Put Labor into power and the wealthy will just adapt to whatever they dish out but the poor wont benefit at all. I already have a plan to deal with Labor government and let's just say Labor won't get an extra cent from me in fact I will pay less in tax under a Labor government. However that is not good for us as a country at all.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    12:56pm
    I'm just holding up my end of the slanging match, Jim.... just business....
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:01pm
    Big Al, what Shorten wants to do is disgraceful, but it's only ADDING TO HARM ALREADY DONE BY THE LNP. My claims are not ''crock''. They are correct - as verified again and again and again by financial advisers, economists, actuaries, and countless other experts. And only the ignorant will deny it because the numbers speak for themselves. You have $400K, you get a substantial part pension and concessions. Add 5% return ($20,000 per annum) and you have easily $60,000+ in income. $800K yields only $40,000 and assuming you have a little cash as well (which you would need) you get no pension or concessions. Only a total dunce could think that's a good system.

    Big Bear has been here time and time again boasting that he gave his wealth away to be better off on a pension than he would be if he'd kept it. I can point to thousands of others.

    I don't agree with Shorten on franking credits. I think he's an absolute IDIOT to have put that policy forward and I doubt he'd ever get it passed, because it's patently unfair and detrimental. But the LNP should never have got their assets test change passed either, because it was clearly very unfair and detrimental. Just shows we have overpaid IDIOTS running the nation. Not 'second rate'' as Horne said in ''Death of the Lucky Country'' - but totally useless, stupid, corrupt, self-serving morons.

    As for blaming the poor for their circumstances and thinking you can force unemployed people into jobs that don't exist by starving them, and ending welfare or replacing pensions with cashless welfare cards is good for society - anyone who agrees with that is callous and disgustingly selfish and ignorant.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:24pm
    OG - and here we have it. YOU are plugging a tax rate of 15% for the rich. Of course when that comes the traitors will be calling for a 5% as other countries drop to that. The winners? THE RICH!!!!!! As you seek!
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:02pm
    Mick they pay nothing now so if they paid 15% we would be miles in front. If they did pay 30% you would be right but most don't.
    SGW
    28th May 2018
    2:51pm
    Trebor your right,

    you pay the tax in the country you earn the money or go forth and multiply somewhere else
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:56pm
    OG, I've heard some idiotic arguments in my time, but you really come up with some dopey claims. They are not paying what they should so give them the gift of a huge reduction and suddenly they will grow a conscience and do right? Yeah, sure. And pigs will fly!

    The answer isn't to cut the rate. It's to MAKE THEM PAY THEIR WAY.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:18pm
    International businesses can choose where they pay tax as that is the way international business works.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:00pm
    That's why 73 developed nations held a conference about tax capture from international businesses... and why there is a need for changes to tax rules so that they pay tax in the nation they derive profit from.....

    Pretty simple to me.... too hard for government hiding under its bed in case international business leave our shores and pay no taxes.... o ... wait.. they already do that.... apart from the profit they earn here.

    Nope - tax on profit you earn here is paid here at a mandatory 30% minimum. That'll solve the argument about the rate of taxation...
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    4:36pm
    Where is that profit earnt? That's the difficult question.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    4:44pm
    OG - "they are paying nothing now"? Correct for some and more and more likely setting up the fraudulent offshore tax shelters. The ones who are forced to pay their taxes are now wanting to achieve this via the tax system, which the current government is doing for them.
    Let's not play games. The corruption dressed up as politics needs to be stopped. This government won't because it is a player in the fraud. A Labor government, if it gets a majority, will. Up to the people for this election. Caste your votes. Your future.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    5:57pm
    On your transactions here.... not here there and everywhere.... HERE. that's where you pay taxes on your profits.... and let's not see any more of this multiple dipping on 'R & D'....

    Pretty easy - if you sell 1000 units worldwide (just for argument's sake), but only 10 in Australia, you do not get to claim tax concession/deduction here for R & D for 100 or 200 units.... you only get it for 10.

    All it takes is a public service and government with balls - something increasingly unlikely given affirmative action for forty years and the de-balling of the senior executive by placing them on contract and then giving those jobs to your mates or their wives and such, thus double guaranteeing a positive affirmation of your required 'policy'.

    Talk about El Granda Republica da San Austrador, where the entire state apparatus is designed to give the self-appointed elite everything..... jeez - with these Libs we could be in Stalinist "
    Russia...
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:49pm
    Trebor a lot of companies R & D make up the bulk of their pricing no matter where they sell their goods. It is up to them where the R & D is located not the country where they sell their goods. Tariffs could be used but unfortunately under our trade agreements they are now illegal.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:18pm
    Once again you show the clear need to change the tax laws, OG.. my son - you are a true gem.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    8:03am
    Trebor, when it comes to R&D I see difficulties. What happens when an inventor creates something in Australia, intending to sell the rights to a foreign country for mega-millions. The end product is sold abroad, but surely he shouldn't be denied R&D benefit for developing it? Then there are cases like one a relative was involved in - where the Aussie company offered the invention for sale but a global company ripped them off.

    I think we need to be reasonably generous with R&D support for fledgling businesses and strugglers. Maybe what we should do is limit it to businesses that can demonstrate low revenue and profit or that are clearly in start-up phase? Big business that is well established and has strong revenues should fund its own R&D.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:36am
    The top 40% of income earners now pay over 97% of the tax in this country. Now you want them to pay more. That's why a flat rate of tax is a great move by the LNP.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:13am
    You got a link there? You are dreaming, OG - the miniscule amount of tax they pay hardly touches the sides, whereas the 32%+ that the ordinary worker pays goes a long way.

    You benefit more, you pay more overall - but your actual percentage is lower, so stop whining.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    11:30am
    OG, you keep spreading these lies. Why? Scared of losing some of your abundant riches if the LNP are kicked out? Or do you really think people are stupid enough to believe your garbage?

    Flat tax destroys society. It forces the poor to pay for being poor and rewards the rich for being born with a silver spoon. Progressive tax was devised in recognition of the fact that 10% of a poor man's income is his children's bread and butter, but 10% of a rich man's income is just a little bit of that massive amount he can easily save - while still having everything he wants in life. Only a selfish, arrogant, greedy person supports progressive tax. It's cruel. It's unfair. It's socially destructive.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    11:38am
    Most wealthy people find ways of not paying the high progressive tax so it's useless. Better of to have a lower tax rate and them actually pay some tax. progressive tax only hurts those trying to succeed not those who have already succeeded.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    12:01pm
    Trebor just look it up and you will see that 60% of the population pay less than 3% of the tax in Australia today. That's an awful lot of people getting everything for nothing.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    12:51pm
    And it's a pack of lies. The poor can't avoid paying a massive portion of their income in GST, fuel tax, council rates, and a plethora of other taxes. To suggest they are getting ANYTHING for nothing is just arrogant BS.

    And on one hand you boast about the rich paying so much tax and the rest of us paying none, but on the other you claim the rich DON'T pay the high progressive tax, so the system is useless. Make up your mind, OG. You are contradicting yourself. In case you don't get it - because clearly you are not very bright - ''...them actually pay some tax'' proves your earlier claim untruthful. Thank you for admitting it was a lie!

    The answer to the tax problem is NOT to punish the poor for being poor and reward the rich. It's to plug the holes that the rich exploit and MAKE THEM PAY.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:26pm
    OG - the top 40% of income earners earn nearly all of the money in the country and they do NOT pay 97% of the taxes. You made that one up or likely picked this up from a Murdoch propaganda rag.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:34pm
    No Mick that came from tax statistics. Family earning under $60,000 get more from the government than they pay in tax too.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:01pm
    Not relevant OG - they still pay a higher percentage of their money in taxes - eventually through the cycle of taxation they return it all to the government, whereas the fat cats spend it or hoard it into avenues that don't pay tax.

    I don't see why those with that kind of destructive discretionary income should not pay income tax on their real earnings.

    They should feel honoured to pay more in dollar terms while retaining a far higher proportion in the same dollar terms.... and certainly privileged.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:37pm
    Can we at least get one principle clarified. I well remember when Keating did his rant about Kerry Packer, and had him hauled before either a commission of enquiry, or senate select committee, looking into tax paid by wealthy Australians. Remember when Keating had a go at KP because his daddy left him a TV station? Well Packer made the quite justifiable point that only a fool would not arrange his/her finances, in such a way as to minimize his/her tax liability. As a principle, I cannot fault this logic. Who wants to hand over more that they have to to a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, and have them determine how to spend that money? This is the point that seems to elude contributors such as Mick, and OGR. Not difficult to comprehend, in my opinion, but I guess we have to cater to all levels of intellect in this forum!
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:47pm
    Big Al, the point is that these same greedy self-serving folk who claim nobody should hand over more than they have to expect the poor and middle class to pay through the nose to maintain infrastructure and assets the feed their riches. Somebody has to pay. They use the shipping ports, railways, power lines, communication facilities, etc. They want educated people to work for them. They want workers whose confidence in the welfare safety net and retirement system give them incentive to work. Yet they think it's okay to NOT pay their fair share of cost to maintain all those benefits that they keep using to build their wealth. I think it's you lacking intellect - or maybe just common decency.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    4:49pm
    OG - let's not play with statistics. Provide some genuine figures:

    1. how many people earn < $60,00 pa?
    2. how many people/companies earn > $200,000?
    3. how many people/companies earn more than $1 million pa?

    The issue is never about playing games with statistics. It is about EVERYBODY, including companies, paying THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGES OF THEIR REAL INCOME. Not the dollied up figures. Not after income splitting with the family dog getting a part of the income, not with family trusts and offshore tax shelters.

    Pay the right amount and I'll be your buddy no matter what you earn.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    5:59pm
    .. and if the tax system was designed to capture income tax from REAL income, as generated by free gifts and extreme fringe benefits not currently listed, Big Kerry the Goanna would have been paying a motza.

    Which proves the entire point about the differences between the 'poor'/lowly paid, and the 'wealthy', and the very real need for a proper income tax review.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:01pm
    Same here - I don't judge people by their money etc - but by who they are..... I've come across business pigs I wouldn't permit into the club........ hardly the type to be invited for dinner....
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:54pm
    Mick I have no idea what people earn or how much tax they pay.
    MICK
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:14am
    OG - you know precisely what I am talking about but seek to pretend ignorance.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:10am
    Couldn't care less if they get richer - as long as they don't take from others to get there, such as by even considering in their sometimes very shallow minds that they should pay $2 a day or pay no taxes like everyone else has to.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    12:02pm
    Trebor the wealthy will do whatever they think is fair.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    12:59pm
    So will everyone else, including your friendly neighbourhood home invader or bank robber...... that's hardly a recommendation, OG - and perhaps you could explain why only the wealthy have any right to do what they consider fair....

    I suppose next you'll be saying that pensioners should all have to sell their home to fund retirement and thus not have any right to pass on any inheritance they may have in mind for their descendants... or that the family home should be part of the pension assets test...

    Are you and your kind guilty of class warfare as Mick suggests?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:03pm
    OG has already declared only the rich should have the right to enjoy the proceeds of their life's work, Trebor. He's already confirmed the rest should have it stolen from them, in his opinion, so that the rich can get richer. Yes, he IS guilty of class warfare.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:25pm
    Everyone should just pay their own way and not bludge on society.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:30pm
    "Fair" is not a word the rich understand. The do understand words like 'legal' (I can pervert the rules), 'discretionary' (I'll pay a few peanuts so that it looks good and they stay off my back), 'dishonesty' (I'll blame the poor for their plight) and 'arrogance' (I'll shut average citizens up by insulting and degrading them).
    Seriously OG I though you had an ounce of decency but you make me sick. Shame on you. Please rejoin the human race!
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:02pm
    .. and paying their own way means paying their taxes to that society, same as Jo Bloggs the secretary does .......
    tisme
    28th May 2018
    11:10am
    im a carer on a carer pittance with no money till pension day , cant afford to run a heater this winter
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:02pm
    I know your situation.... wish I could help.
    BrianP
    28th May 2018
    11:22am
    There are more of us poor and needy than the rich. Time to Rise Up against them while this is still a democracy. Vote them out. And more, much more.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    11:39am
    And who are you going to vote in?
    Grateful
    28th May 2018
    12:40pm
    Sadly, here we go again. Same old, same old, who simply do not realize that they are all shooting themselves in the foot, because, same old, same old, is what the politicians from both sides think of YLC.

    Here we have the perfect opportunity to have what could be a very valuable lobby for older citizens, but, with the boring repetition of those same old contributors with their same old arguments, the effectiveness of forums like YLC is completely lost in the political arena where it could count.

    Instead of just using this as a left V right political forum, it should be the source of logical and reasoned suggestions that will have the greatest effect on the public good, not of narrow, often selfish points of view.
    Both parties have read the contributors' points of view ad infinitum and in only being able to come up with all those same politically divided points of view, nobody with any influence bothers to even listen to what YLC puts up to them.
    Very sadly, a golden opportunity lost!!!
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:35pm
    The facts should always make up an argument one way or the other but a lot of factless slanging takes place on this website. Pretty easy to pick posters who avoid facts and come up with gross distortions, lies and mud. Not too sure all readers see this for what it is though.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    1:39pm
    Couldn't agree more, grateful, we just can't help ourselves sometimes, I guess human nature causes us to see only our own point of view, and our need to defend that point of view even against any other logic.
    Grateful
    28th May 2018
    2:28pm
    Mick and Jim how constructive could YLC be as a strong lobby for older Australians if posters confined themselves to simple, well constructed SUGGESTIONS, IDEAS, that are in the the interests of the common good, being something that is achieved by and for the community that is both just and moral.

    With elections on the horizon, ideas on what THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can DO to reduce the cost of gas and electricity, like the government taking back the costs of poles and wires (which are THE major reasons for the huge increase in our power bills) in the same context of essential infrastructure as bridges and highways and give YLC something tangible to lobby for.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    4:29pm
    Again Grateful, I couldn't agree with you more, there seem to be some very intelligent commentators on this site, if only they could put aside their own agenda's and come up with constructive suggestions, instead of trying to pit one side against the other, I am as guilty as any, so maybe attitudes need to change. I agree there needs to be change, unfortuanately we are stuck with a system that doesn't work as well as it could.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:53pm
    The problem, Jim, is the minute anyone highlights a concern or suggests a possible solution, the privileged who want to preserve the status quo at all costs come out shooting and divert the discussion with their arrogant untruths and their insults.

    I agree attitudes need to change, and I'm guilty of being distracted and getting personal at times, but I really have had a gut full of the vile self-serving comments from a handful of posters who obviously have it far too good and have not the slightest capacity for empathy or compassion, much less for concern about what's good for the nation as a whole.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:58pm
    BTW. I congratulate you, Jim, on your courtesy and consideration. It's refreshing to have someone occasionally concede that you may have a point and discuss matters intelligently and respectfully.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:09pm
    I hold no brief for Sidewalk Cafe University Quadrangle Labor (Labour after they took 'U' out of it), with their never-ending wacky ideas that 'equality' means equal numbers in spite of every other consideration, and which has no qualms about foisting a majority of the strident self-interested groups they entertain upon us all (The Unsuspecting Public) - but compared to this current lot of thieves and pirates and robber barons - they are just playing tiddley-winks.

    Their end game is the same - as close to absolute control in their hands as they can get, and self-enrichment of their own selected group(s), so I reside negative faith in them to actually do anything other than play their particular ideological game.

    I told you before - all our politicians with the exception of a few truly Independents, view such nations as China, in which the political Mandarins are also the mega-rich 'business' people, and have at their disposal every asset of the state, including its military, to further their own interests, with an avarice that would see their mouths watering. Monkey see - monkey do.... if the Chinoise (and a few others) can do it - why can't OUR politicians harness every asset of the state to their self-enrichment?

    Putin does it - Stalin did it.... Pol Pot etc did it.... Hitler's lot did it .... funny how the comparisons blur between 'right and left' when there is mega-money at stake.....
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:10pm
    Yeah - I like Jim, too, but saying those things is just nudging my funny bone and I can't help but retort....
    GeorgeM
    29th May 2018
    8:10pm
    Agree, BrianP, and also some refreshing ideas from Grateful and Jim. See also my separate comments down the page about some issues retirees can join up to push for with their respective MPds, while deciding whether to vote them all OUT (may be necessary right now).
    ph
    28th May 2018
    11:35am
    "In his 1976 follow-up book, Death of the Lucky Country, Horne clarified what he had meant when he first coined the term: When I invented the phrase in 1964 to describe Australia, I said: 'Australia is a lucky country run by second rate people who share its luck.'"
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    1:01pm
    Sounds right.... we're lucky since we are surrounded by oceans... there is an old IRA song about that....

    The sea, oh,the sea, long may it be, long may it roll between England and me, there's a sure guarantee that we'll always be free, Thank God we're surrounded by water...
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:05pm
    We would be a whole lot luckier if the elitist politicians who are stuffing the nation would all drown in that ocean.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:36pm
    And the rich who control the game.....FOR THEMSELVES!
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:38pm
    Those elitist politicians don't really run the country. It is the public servants that advise them that really run the country. The pollies are just there to work out the best policies the public servants offer.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:12pm
    Well both lots should go drown themselves, because they are ALL failing dismally.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:25pm
    They are only failing in the minds of the OGRs of this world not the majority of people in Australia today.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:34pm
    Wrong again, OG. Most Australians are disgusted with the failure running the country. Everywhere I go, all I hear is ''how do we get rid of the two party system and the losers feathering their own nests and bankrupting the nation.'' Certainly, the majority here think our government is failing dismally.
    Sundays
    28th May 2018
    3:47pm
    OG, that was the olden days when Public Servants gave advice without fear or favour. These days, senior bureaucrats are all on contract. They give the advice the Government of the day wants to hear. As soon as there is a change of Government out they go, to be replaced with more ‘Yes’ men and women
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    4:51pm
    OG - public servants run the country. That's my laugh of the day.
    The rich who fund politicians and also blackmail them run the country. You know that.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:12pm
    According to that song, the Saxons drowned in the Irish Sea... not sure about that historically.... but I know Henri VIII, Liz 1 and co found it very hard to conquer the Irish... and so did James 1 of England and VI of Scotland....

    Sundays is perfectly correct, as is Mick here.
    Rosret
    28th May 2018
    12:32pm
    "Until they pay their way." Good grief do you really have any idea. They pay all sorts of taxes, they risk everything, they work phenomenal hours, they employ thousands of people and they are the creators of the infrastructure of our nation. You and I have had the same chance in life to be them - we chose not to.

    CEOs on the other hand are employees reaping wages far in excess of their worth. Start there!
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    12:40pm
    ''You and I have had the same chance in life to be them - we chose not to.''

    Really, Rosret, I've read some IDIOTIC claims in my life, but that would be by far the stupidest! You may have had the chance to be them. I certainly didn't, and I suspect most here wouldn't have had a hope in hell.

    Firstly, many of the very rich inherited wealth. I inherited abject poverty. Secondly, many were blessed with mentors and guidance - advice about investing and business. Many of us had none of that. Many of the rich had the benefit of good education. Many poor didn't even have the chance to finish high school. Some didn't even get that far. How many of them were seriously psychologically damaged by serious abuse in childhood, or deprivation of family, community and culture? How many were forced into servitude or jobs they detested and locked for years into situations where they had no freedom and no opportunity?

    These people DON'T pay their way. They use every trick in the book to minimize tax, and they skite about it. They tell others to avoid tax.

    I agree CEOs are reaping wages far in excess of their worth. So are company directors and other senior executives. I agree we should address that. But don't pretend the filthy rich are paying their way. And certainly don't pretend that the rest of us had anything like the same opportunities. That just shows a complete lack of human decency.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    1:02pm
    Poor darlings - forced to pay company fees in order to exercise the right to company rorts.... and even those fees are deductions.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:17pm
    I agree Rosret we all had the same chance as wealthy to become wealthy. May just chose not to and didn't do what it took to become wealthy. Many people who were born poor have become wealthy simply because they di what it took to become wealthy.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:41pm
    Pretty close Rosret but remember that CEOs likely have offshore tax shelters and some have the time to be directors on the Boards of other companies so clearly not over worked. I went to a shareholder AGM last week where 2 directors on the Board were CEOs of other companies.
    Yes they are high;y overpaid but that is what you get when you allow corporate shareholders to vote on matters of pay. Because pay deals eventually flow through to all in the industry do you think they ever vote again these? Think Qantas CEO ALan Joyce who came away with $20 million last year. This should be illegal!!!!
    Rosret
    28th May 2018
    2:09pm
    No OGR I chose to put my family before career, I chose not to mortgage against my home, I chose not to get a loan to purchase shares, I chose not to go into private business for myself.

    The individuals who are billionaires not only have an idea, they have drive, initiative and an astute knowledge of business.

    There are those who inherit wealth or benefit from the wealth of others however we are talking about Lowe,Gates, Jobs, Rothschild, Johnson & Johnson, Zuckerberg etc. That sort of wealth doesn't come from going to work 9-5 and being a virtuous reliable employee. Unless of course you are a female Australian postal worker and you get promoted to CEO and paid $2.5 m a year - but she is still $97.5 m short of a billion.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:04pm
    So, OG -someone who has had neither the knowledge nor the contacts to 'succeed' in a tight school of cosseted people is of no value, and had every opportunity to become one of the rich?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:10pm
    Trebor, you have to make allowances. These stinking elitists couldn't live with their conscience if they admitted the truth. They have to believe their own hideous lies in order to have peace of mind.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:49pm
    OGR - you poor, sad, pathetic individual! Take a look at a bloke like Frank Lowy, who arrived in this country from Europe with basically nothing. There are many other examples - Peter Abeles, Harry Triguboff, the Grollo family in Melbourne - there are many migrants who arrived here post WW2 and started out in places like Bonegilla. By sheer bloody hard work, they made opportunities for themselves, prospered, and created work for others, at the same time. This is the multiculturalism we should be championing - and not bemoaning the fact that these people are wealthy, and therefore must be tax dodgers. How desperately unhappy you and your mate Mick must be, OGR, to live life full of such envy!
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:27pm
    Yes, Big Al - but if everyone was on the same level of success - there's be no market for those people to get into.

    Like everything else, spots at the top are limited...

    "OGR - you poor, sad, pathetic individual"??

    I don't think that was called for... treat others with the respect you would expect.....and in some ways I'[d hardly hold up some of those successful immigrants as being bastions of moral virtue and fortitude... peasants in Armani is more the style and with as much respect for those who work for them as the feudal lords they themselves escaped.

    You can take the boy/girl out of the mud hut....
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    4:57pm
    Big Al - how easy it is to gloss over the facts.
    Yes there are plenty of success stories in our great country. Lowy was one of many.
    Don't kid yourself that people like Lowy did not minimise his taxes and that his deductions were all legit. The issue today is tax evasion has become a fraudulent industry where the courts (the judges) do not cut proceedings short and make a decision. So the wealthy play the court game. Good for the legal industry which prolongs the proceeding so that all make a comfortable living. They should be short and swift and the intention of the law should be served rather than the dishonest semantics and legal schemes which they often give life to. Please tell me that offshore tax shelters where you send your profits to are fair dinkum. And while I am at it please tell me what would happen if 1 million wage and salary earners suddenly opened such accounts? Bang on please!
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:47pm
    Big Al, your rudeness and insults show you as a horrid person. Me poor sad and pathetic? Not bloody likely. I'm very happy, moderately affluent, and justifiably proud of my achievements in life. Unlike you, I have compassion and empathy and I'm a realist. I recognize problems that threaten our overall social and economic health and look for solutions, rather than just ranting about how some lucky people got wealthy. And yes, they WERE lucky. So Lowry came with nothing. Did he come burdened with psychological problems and physical injuries from years of childhood abuse and serious deprivation? Was he wrongly denied freedom to do the work he chose and was suited to, but instead forced - well into adulthood - to work in an environment where he suffered bullying and was utterly miserable? Did he find himself supporting a disabled child while struggling to escape poverty, and having to sacrifice all his dreams to pay for special care?

    There is a lot more to opportunity and advantage than meets the eye. I worked hellish hard. When I look back, I often wonder how I managed to endure the workload I imposed on myself, both to earn and to avoid any avoidable living costs. I have done well, all things considered. But my own experiences and those of others I know who have struggled with major challenges make me very alert to the issues our society faces and the potential for better economic policy.

    You don't have to be miserable to care, Big Al. You just have to be a decent human being.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    12:10pm
    OGR why do you insist in attacking anyone with a different opinion to you? It doesn't make you a better person at all.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:48pm
    Excuse me, OG. Can you not read? Big Al was attacking me, with vile insults. I merely defended myself. But bigots can never see the truth.
    GrayComputing
    28th May 2018
    12:41pm
    It is time for all of us to rant at our PMs to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules
    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly,

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:42pm
    "Human decency" from the current PM????? Rich man walking! You have zero probability of that happening.
    GeorgeM
    29th May 2018
    8:12pm
    I think all retirees should join up and agree on this one.
    Only moronic politicians who don't benefit would disagree - hence they need to be all voted OUT till they learn to listen to the people.
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    11:20am
    I agree George. Let's demand the reform YLC proposed in February We should all unite to demand a UP at no less than 37.5% of the average wage, with retirement income over and above the pension taxed at concessional rates, and change the superannuation concession to 15% below the individual's top marginal tax rate instead of the flat 15% that gives far too much benefit to the high income earners and not enough to battlers.

    There is PLENTY of money to fund retirement. The problem is that while the cost of the OAP is falling, and 1/4 of retirees are living in poverty, the cost of superannuation tax concessions is rising at 10% per annum, and 80% of the benefit goes to the richest 20%.

    We do NOT need to be subsidizing the retirement of the rich at an obscenely generous rate. It MUST STOP. No decent Australian would prefer to spend the best part of $80 billion subsidizing wealthy people's retirement than reduce aged poverty. Pensions MUST be the priority - and they MUST be assets test free, if not completely test free. We need to restore incentive and fairness.

    And for those who think the rich need a tax break, consider that 51% of income tax revenue in Australia comes from people earning LESS than $70,000 a year, and 27% of overall tax revenue comes from GST - with the majority of that coming from the poor and middle class. Then there is fuel tax, alcohol tax, gambling tax, and a host of other indirect taxes contributing to revenue. All of those taxes impact more heavily on the less well off than on the wealthy.

    We need a change of attitude in this country. We need to start seeing paying tax as a fair contribution to a healthy society - the fair cost of having access to infrastructure and labour cost rates that ENABLE people to profit and prosper. And we need to see aged pensions as a fair reward for decades of contribution to building a society in which people can - and do - achieve wealth, thanks to the infrastructure paid for by the entire populace and the fact that people offer their labour for far less than it's sale value so that business can profit. It's time for the greedy to stop their lies about the rich paying and the poor taking. Nobody ever got wealthy without using the poor and middle class to achieve their goal. THEY OWE SOCIETY A HUGE DEBT. Those who contributed to making them wealthy - which is ALL of us - deserve to be paid.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    1:03pm
    OGR I think the solution is fairly simple, as I have already commented, the government should invest in cheap housing for people who need to be looked after, neither party have even considered this approach, if you listen to the people that are most in need, their major gripe is with the cost of housing followed by energy costs, we were once able to provide cheap housing through the housing Commision also we provided cheap accomodation to the migrants that arrived here in the 50s onwards, most housing Commision homes have now ended up in private hands, I don't know who started this trend, but neither party has tried to reverse the situation, so that makes them all responsible .
    Not all socialist parties are extreme left wing, but many are using the politics of envy to further their aspirations. Their was a debate recently about the state of the economy around th world, the focus was on the argument regarding the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, part of the conclusion was that while the gap between the rich and poor was growing the overall wealth of all had in fact increased, we only need to look at our own lives over the last 70 years, I came from a very impoverished background, I was born at the back end of the last war, so I have some idea about poverty, things have improved enormously for most of us, people want to talk about class warfare it's mostly fiction employed by people to create a divide between us all in their attempt at the politics of envy, after all somebody must be to blame, so it must be the rich or the perceived rich, listening to most of the comments in this forum over the years has convinced me most of us are better off than those that have gone before us, there are some that are in urgent need and that is who we should be concentrating on, but neither of the main parties seem to have a clue about how they are going to achieve this outcome.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:20pm
    Jim, I agree more government housing would help, but NOTHING is simple, and housing will NOT solve the problems. Actually, the best thing that ever happened to me was being refused public housing. I'd likely have stayed poor if I had been given affordable accommodation. It was the desperate need to put a roof over my kids' heads that drove me to find a way to rise above poverty.

    Our biggest problems today have nothing to do with housing. They have more to do with inadequate incomes and unfair tax and pension systems that destroy incentive and crush modest achievers, while loading the coffers of the rich and persecuting the poor. They also have a lot to do with the psychological impact of blaming the disadvantaged for their difficulties and denying them self-respect (the cashless welfare card, for example).

    I also began life in poverty. Both my partner and I were orphans. We also suffered major abuse and serious injustice, plus deprivation of family and community and deprivation of any kind of freedom until late 20s, after having children - by which time freedom to pursue training or adult education was useless because we simply couldn't afford it while supporting a family. Add to that the illness and disabilities resulting from childhood abuse and deprivation, and a disabled child who cost the earth, and we had the odds against us at every turn. Yet we managed, by retirement age, to own a nice home and have enough savings to be punished by the LNP and made to wish we had saved far less - enough that advisers are telling us to take world cruises and blow half our savings to avoid having it taken from us unfairly for zero benefit to us.

    The problems are not ''simple'' at all. What is needed is a total mind-shift. We need to find a way for society to recover its soul. We need for the rich to grow a conscience and some integrity. We need for politicians to stop focusing on self-interest and over-indulgence of the haves, and focus on what's good for the majority.

    There IS class warfare happening. And the politicians are encouraging it, because division makes their job easier.

    Yes, we are better off than previous generations. That's undeniable. But the divide between rich and poor IS a growing problem, and unless it is addressed, it threatens to reverse the trends and destroy all the gains of centuries. And focus on those in urgent need is NOT any kind of solution. Many of them can't be helped. They are in urgent need because of their own lifestyle choices. Handouts only encourage those choices. Conversely, for those who are in urgent need through no fault of their own, the needs are often very hard to fill. Focus on urgent need ignores less urgent need that might grow over time. Prevention of future need is often far more practical than addressing urgent need after it happens.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:20pm
    Have you seen any of that cheap housing the government have invested in for the poor? I have seen new houses given to the poor only to come back six months later to find they have used the floor boards and built a big fire in the middle of the houses to keep warm. Poor simply don't care and abuse their cheap housing.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:44pm
    Jim - I would not argue with the rich getting richer if they paid their obligated taxes rather than use all manner of dodgy deductions and now offshore tax shelters to shift the tax burden onto dirt poor Australians. That is not human decency...but it is how this government and the wealthy work as a tag team.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    2:01pm
    You make some good points OGR, I don't agree with all of your statements, the major difficulty that most people complain about is housing costs, it is the single most expensive outlay for most families, if that was reduced or removed from some people's outlay then their lives would be a lot easier, even in this day and age people can still get on and improve their lives, just as you and I have done in the past, there have always be the rich and the poor that will never change, fortunately I was never abused so I can only imagine what that would be like and certainly I would have sympathy with any that have been subjected to any sort of abuse. Daily living costs are the biggest burden, if that can be improved then people's lives are improved.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:09pm
    And the abuse continues, with vile creeps like OG ranting about the poor not looking after their homes. I've seen wealthy people treat their homes like garbage too. And most poor people I know are very clean and carry out sensible maintenance. They have to, because they can't afford the costs to repair and replace.

    OG, your judgmental comments are disgusting. The world is made up of a very diverse lot. Many poor are industrious, honest, careful, clean, and clean-living. And many rich are disgustingly filthy, careless, abusive, dishonest, corrupt, etc. The big difference is that the rich usually have far more opportunity to learn how to care for things properly and how to live clean and healthy and productively. The poor who you speak of have often never had the opportunity to learn to do better.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:37pm
    Jim, I agree that people can get on and improve their lives. The issue is guidance and support. People who suffer abuse and deprivation are often so psychologically damaged that they simply don't know how to move forward. My partner and I were lucky, I guess, that we had a couple of good influences in our lives at critical points. They showed us how to rise above hardship and convinced us it was possible. One of the major residual handicaps we struggle with, though, is fear. We don't invest well because of paranoid fear of risk. We also suffer paranoid fear of political or bureaucratic interference in our lives. We have major trust issues that make dealing with bureaucracies very hard. We learned to distrust very early in life. Abuse and major injustice, mostly resulting from corruption in bureaucracies, convinced us that the system was the enemy and always out to cause us hurt. That's very hard to recover from - especially when you experience injustice in adulthood through ATO and Centrelink errors. And the unfairness we suffered through the assets test change sure didn't help either. Fortunately, I can keep working part-time, and for the first time in my life I have a job that is satisfying and pays reasonably, but it seems brutally unfair that I have to work because I saved well and if I had saved half as much I'd have a higher income without working.

    We've done reasonably well - through very hard work and living very frugally. Most we grew up with have not done nearly so well. It's easy for the privileged to blame them. One told me recently, at age 65, that he was a worthless person because even his own mother didn't want him. (She abandoned him after becoming seriously mentally ill.) That perception was reinforced daily in an orphanage where he was told he was ''the scum of the earth'' and ''had bad blood'' and ''would never amount to anything''. It's hardly surprising that someone who grows up that way doesn't achieve. And until recently there was not even acknowledgment of abuse in orphanages. There is still no real help to recover - no compensation, reparation, or assistance of any substance.

    There are far more people suffering these psychological handicaps than anyone realizes - for all kinds of reasons. Giving someone a house doesn't help. The age-old wisdom of ''give a man a fish'' is correct. If only we could teach these people ''how to fish'', we could solve their problems. But first we need society to stop judging and start listening and understanding. And that's a tough call, because the privileged don't want to understand. If they did, they would have to pay their taxes fairly and support better welfare systems. What they want is an excuse to blame the victims of social wrongs, so they can enjoy their party and tell themselves all is right with the world. We see that daily with this ''don't raise Newstart because it's better to get people into work''. Of course it is - IF THERE WERE JOBS!!!! Shhhh. Don't tell anyone there are none! Just pretend it's the fault of the victims.

    Inequality is now recognized as the most serious threat to global economic and social stability. When world leaders recognize the problem, it's not imaginary and it's not made up by the lower classes. It's real and it's disturbing. And there are no easy answers, but continuing to give tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of battlers - which is clearly the LNP's focus - can only make things very much worse.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:47pm
    OGR you can't give tax cuts to those who pay no tax.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:07pm
    OG NOBODY pays no tax. NOBODY. Everyone pays GST and fuel tax, if nothing else. NOBODY PAYS NO TAX.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:07pm
    They pay tax every time they spend a dollar, OG - you know that... so perhaps those under a certain threshold of income should have a card that says 'no sales tax, GST et al'..

    (I didn't know the GST et Al... damn... that's where he went)...
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:15pm
    Well.. there ya go - I also got the orphanage treatment... with two living parents - just goes to show, eh?
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:34am
    Actually, OG, you CAN give tax cuts to people who pay no tax. A noted US economist and actuary wrote an article, several decades ago, suggesting major tax and welfare reform that he evidenced would resolve a great many inequities and problems of lack of incentive. What he suggested was that we introduce a negative tax to replace all welfare. I guess it is a little like the UI, but not quite the same. The idea is that you pay tax on what you earn, and you claim deductions according to law, and if the result is less than $0, the government pays you - whether or not you paid any tax to begin with and regardless that the refund might exceed any tax you paid. He suggested this method should replace both direct and indirect taxes, so the poor didn't pay huge taxes via indirect taxation - because that is grossly unfair and imposes a hideous burden on strugglers. His proposal was to abolish all indirect taxes, substantially increase income tax rates, but allow everyone to claim a base deduction determined by their family situation (e.g. number of dependants), plus a range of other deductions depending on their circumstances. If the result is a negative, they get a cheque. Those in difficult circumstances can borrow interest free from the tax office in anticipation of that cheque, in order to meet living costs through the year. There is no welfare. The deductions include special deductions for certain sick, disabled, aged, carers, temporarily unemployed, etc. All welfare administration costs are abolished - saving billions.

    I'm not endorsing or approving the idea - just noting that innovative thinkers don't say ''can't''. They consider possibilities. We need more innovative thinkers in government rather than fools whose capability is limited to 'oh, that changed that x years ago. Let's change it back'' with no consideration for the different environmental factors that prevail nor for the reason for or benefits of the change.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    11:33am
    OGR they are not tax cuts but welfare.
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    8:26am
    OG, we all know that you would have the sick and disabled starving and those who have a shred of capacity left worked to death so the fat evil greedy pigs can wallow in their stinking wealth. You got your message across. You have NOTHING TO SAY that anyone needs - much less wants - to hear. So bugger off and leave the intelligent and decent folk to discuss SOLUTIONS to the social evils your ilk have created with their vile greed.
    KSS
    28th May 2018
    1:09pm
    More stirring up of envy politics!

    The top 5 industries represented by this 'rich list' are: property, retail, investment, resources and financial services. And these sectors are some of the countries biggest employers:
    retail: 1.287m;
    property: 1.167m (that's just construction, there are another .25m in rental, real estate services);
    resources: .352m (includes mining, electricity, gas, water);
    investment and financial services: .420m

    That adds up to more than three million employees and about 25% of the total workforce. (Another 25% are from the health, education and professional, scientific and technical services combined).
    (https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1718/Quick_Guides/EmployIndustry)

    You might like to keep that in mind when envy politics demands these wealthy employers be fleeced by ever higher taxes. When they take their business overseas where will those three million employees go?
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:28pm
    Agree the rich can do without the poor but the poor need the rich.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:48pm
    "Envy"? You are repeating one of Turnbull's favourite put downs meant to silence working Australians.
    If you want to talk about "employers" I'll put it to you that NOT ONE AUSTRALIAN would have a job if employers could avoid them. Not exactly as though jobs are meant to be a charity. They are a necessary evil for making money. I repeat MAKING MONEY!
    It is not envy. It is rage at theft and abuse. Please stop the crap KSS. Not working.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    1:58pm
    When they take their business overseas, others step in to fill the void. As long as there are consumers wanting product or services, someone will provide it. The problem is when consumption falls - which happens when the poor and middle class get poorer, and IS happening now.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:19pm
    Rather the opposite, Ebergeezer - the poor could do without the rich, but no way can the rich do without the poor.

    You don't understand the concept of economic/income variations as a promoter of economic activity, do you?

    If there were no 'poor' - who would be buying the products put out by the 'rich'? The other rich? How much iron ore would they buy? How many homes? How many cars? How many investment properties with nobody to rent them?

    Eventually nobody would be rich and they'd all be broke.

    The rich should fall on their knees and thank the 'poor' for being born and sustaining their lifestyle.
    Kathleen
    28th May 2018
    8:59pm
    OG, there would be no wealthy individuals or companies without the masses of poor to middle class actually. The wealthy are an asset only if they pay their taxes and spread some of their wealth to charities. Unfortunately, there are many loop holes that allow the super wealthy to evade taxes. But there are still a few billionaires who have done much good.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:21pm
    I'm left wondering how anyone could have a 'personal worth' of $4Bn, yet pay no taxes.

    A need for a full review of exactly how they accumulated that and how much tax they paid along the way.
    KSS
    29th May 2018
    7:56am
    You mean like car manufacturers have done OnlyGenuineRainey? Because that has worked so well here hasn't it? Or what about all the other manufacturing industries that went offshore? Where are the new ones stepping up to 'take their place'?

    You are quite correct that if customers want something they will get it where they can - and that is NOT Australia as the increase in on-line sales shows!
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    8:13am
    KSS, tax had nothing do with car manufacturers moving overseas. They were chasing lower wage structures. Lowering corporate tax won't change the fact that we are not competitive with wages, but the only solution to that problem is to make our people live in cardboard boxes and eat rice, like they do in low wage countries. Is that what Australians want? I guess the greedy rich think it would be great. Personally, I'd rather see the greedy manufacturers go overseas and the government ban or very heavily tax imports of the products those greedy mongrels produce. We don't have to buy from overseas. I always thought the ''banana republic'' was not a bad idea at all. We got along much better in the days when we weren't flooded with rubbish made in China. Globalisation has brought falling living standards, increased poverty and homelessness, increased unemployment and underemployment, and increased social unrest. Hasn't it been great?

    The government recently proved it CAN tax imports - even individual online purchases. So do it!
    KSS
    29th May 2018
    1:42pm
    People buy on-line Rainey because it is a great deal cheaper than just the 10% GST saving to do so (and in some cases the desired product or model is not available in Australia). Case in point, I just bought a new mobile phone - cost in Australia $899+ , cost on-line $499 including postage. Now add the 10% gst ($49.90) and even add the extra $5 parcel tax the Government wants to introduce from July and I still make a saving of $345. And the imported phone came from Japan - hardly a 'banana republic' with 'people living in cardboard boxes' although they do eat rice!
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:56pm
    Clearly you know very little about the lifestyles of poor Japanese and the extent of poverty there, KSS.
    MICK
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:19am
    KSS - the car industry was closed down in ignorance. Sure it was being subsidised but it generated tens of thousands of jobs. Now many of these previously employed people are on unemployment benefits and the country has to pay foreign workers to manufacture their cars.
    So who has won out of this? Not taxpayers - we now import cars. Not the budget - we now have to pay benefits to unemployed. Please explain!

    28th May 2018
    1:14pm
    Of course they added to wealth . The run successful businesses and Invest their funds wisely
    The average Australians wealth would also have grown through investments in business, property, super and direct into the share market
    No time for superficial articles And politics of the left
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:23pm
    I agree without them the rest of Australia would be so much poorer.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:50pm
    And with the Indians rich people would be living in poverty too. Funny how that basic fact never comes up when right wing posters denouncing the poor.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:04pm
    Maybe it's tine for a nation-wide strike - both a work strike and a consumption strike - just to remind the rich arseholes that they actually NEED the working people both to work and to consume. This egomaniacal view that we need them is BS. If they drowned tomorrow, there would be plenty ready to take their place.
    Rosret
    28th May 2018
    2:15pm
    OGR - no there aren't plenty to take their place. They are the Olympians of the business world. Cut them down at the base and the rest of us hanging on the leaves fall too.
    Its not the billionaires its the people taking mega salaries that do not deserve it. Target the pay structure - not the high achievers.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:49pm
    Yes OGR where are our replacement car manufacturers?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:53pm
    Rosret, there are plenty to take their place. They are NOT exceptionally brilliant or talented. They had a lot of good fortune. Most could do what they do if given the same opportunities in life. But nobody is suggesting cutting them down - only making them pay their way fairly. It's not a big ask, and it's not going to hurt any of them, and the only reason they would leave this country is because of unmitigated GREED AND SELFISHNESS. They've done very, very well here. They ought to have the common decency to WANT to give something back - but no, they selfishly threaten to go elsewhere if they don't get everything they want on their terms.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:11pm
    ... and many of the 'poor' didn't have the funds to 'invest wisely' etc....

    The average Australian didn't have the residuel/discretionary to invest hugely in investments in business, property, super and direct into the share market.

    Come back, spinners, and let's hear it from the "I can live on $40 a day" brigade....
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:29pm
    Oh, come on Trebor. According to some here we were all born owning properties to mortgage and having bucket-loads of money to invest and take risks with. We just ''CHOSE'' not to! Unbelievable that anyone could think such crap, let alone write it. Surely they aren't stupid enough to expect anyone to believe it?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:38pm
    Trebor and Rainey - how much has your wealth grown in the last 10 years ?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:41pm
    Mine hasn't, Raphael. Not one cent. In fact, it's gone backwards, mostly due to huge medical and care costs to deal with health issues caused by serious abuse in childhood.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:49pm
    Anyone who hasn't made money in the last 10 years is certainly going to struggle when things get tough then.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:51pm
    That's probably true, OG. So maybe I should be given a little more help instead of abuse and condemnation, since the reason I haven't made money is because government wrongs when I was a child destroyed my chance of enjoying good health. But scum like you would rather just judge, condemn and blame. You really are SICK.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    4:14pm
    Rainey - if you had such serious medical issues , You should be getting most of it covered under Medicare .
    You said you are working and have a few hundred thousand saved and will not get pension.
    So you keep telling porkies
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    4:20pm
    Just do what the rest of us have done OGR. Get over it. I have had cancer twice myself but that doesn't hold me back from doing what I want to do. I travel overseas even though I can't get travel insurance because I am prepared to take the risk even if they are not.

    If you have too much money to get the OAP either rearrange you affairs or just wear it like other SFRs do.

    Life hasn't been kind to many of us but it hasn't held us back and I for one can't understand why people just whinge instead of just getting on with life as quite frankly whinging today just does not cut it. Too many other whingers so no one takes any notice of them.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:40pm
    The car manufacturers left because they could not compete due to poor management which lacked foresight and ability, so they went to a nation with cheaper labour costs, thus depriving the nation they left of wherewithal to continue to buy their products at the same rate while forgetting that those they pay far less to build them also cannot buy their products.

    So they will go bust..all they are doing is postponing the inevitable.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:39pm
    There's a huge difference between stating facts and whinging, OG. I don't whinge. I've said repeatedly that I'm very happy with my lot. I do, however, point out BAD policies that are causing hurt and damage. Just because I ''wear it'', doesn't mean I'm not entitled to point out what's wrong and lobby for change - for everyone's benefit. And I get that you are very ignorant and arrogant, but maybe you should educate yourself a little. Cancer is a physical illness. Psychological damage is very different. Fear of bureaucracy or monetary risk isn't something medicine or a healthy diet can fix.

    Raphael, there is a huge array of medical costs that Medicare does NOT cover. Just one example: My partner needs regular physiotherapy for a significant injury resulting from childhood abuse. Medicare only covers 5 sessions per year, and not even that if you need certain other health services. It does not cover treatment for psychological disabilities. It does not cover major dental work. It does not cover regular MRIs or bowel investigations. There are a host of things it doesn't cover, and some things it does cover but only if you wait a long time and accept any doctor, so there are times when we opt to pay a private specialist.

    I do NOT tell porkies, Raphael. Yes, I do have savings. And I continue to work. That does not make anything I've said about incurring high health and care costs invalid. Your insults are disgusting. You don't know anything about me other than what I share here, yet you presume to have some superior knowledge. Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong, and you just show yourself to be a very offensive individual.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:22pm
    How is that relevant, Rafe? It's actually grown by a huge percentage... enough for me to be looking at the big sailing boat again and a property overseas for holidays six months of the year.... and twenty years ago, after a lifetime of hard work integrity and loyalty etc, starting from that orphanage - I was living on the streets due to bad management and piss poor governance of this nation.

    I'm nearly 69 now... and that's no mean feat in this day and age of robber barons and corporate thieves.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    6:51pm
    you've done well Trebor. Just goes to show everyone with hard work and determination can succeed , be self funded and have a great life. Hence my issue with the whingers on this site.
    Feel like smacking these deadbeats and telling them to wake up and smell the roses
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    7:28pm
    I have to side with Rainey - stating the realities is not whinging.

    I quoted yesterday:- In battle millions of men may did, but each one dies alone.....

    I've long stated that every Veteran's story is different... ten feet away you can see something totally different and histories are not written about individuals.... that's in a different sphere, mind - but the point is that every single person has their own individual story - which is why any attempt to make all the same is doomed to failure - and that applies to the far 'left' as well as the far 'right'.

    Criticising a person for his/her personal story is not kosher.... you were not there, you did not see this....

    I've fought back from zero at least five times... slow learner..... and totally incapable of picking women.... sighs* .... a man may harm you - a woman can break you, and now they expect to run the show?

    No, thanks.
    Sceptic
    28th May 2018
    1:19pm
    This will bring them out of the woodwork. Knock the rich and make accusations that they do not pay their required amount of tax. The usual suspects will suck this up and come out swinging.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    1:22pm
    I'd say 60% of those in this country don't pay their way with pay less than 3% of the income tax collected.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:51pm
    The DON'T pay their obligatory taxes and that is the issue. Please talk about the cut in company taxes perhaps and then provide the real figures of the PERCENTAGE of their income they pay tax on. It ain't 48%. That is a given and you certainly do not pay that rate.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:01pm
    OG, you admitted above that the rich don't pay their way. Yet you claim the majority pay nothing, and it's ALL paid by the rich. Then there is obviously ZERO tax revenue being collected? Who IS paying? Oh, of course, that majority you falsely CLAIM don't pay ARE paying a massive slice of their income in indirect taxes, as well as paying income tax. But don't ever tell the truth. It doesn't serve your elitist agenda.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:31pm
    It will only get worse under Labor as people wont want franking credits so they will not see the need to pay tax and the company tax revenue will fall considerably.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:57pm
    That's why we need a way to get rid of BOTH parties, OG. Condoning the wrongs of one because the other is just as bad doesn't help anyone.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:13pm
    Fully one third of members of the business group don't pay one cent of their TAXABLE income, another third pay a proportion, and one third pay the required 30%...

    Hardly a recommendation of intergity, honesty, duty to nation and public and government, eh, but still they get the ear of government when it comes to tax working out time...

    Talk about self-important losers....
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    4:23pm
    If that one third who paid no tax paid tax at 15% it is likely to be more revenue than giving those who paid 30% a tax cut.

    Any one who pays more tax than they have to is simply stupid to themselves.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:40pm
    Why would they pay tax at 15% when they can already pay none?
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    5:04pm
    Mick you keep talking about truth and proof and yet you continue to raise the issue regarding a cut in company tax, it hasn't happened yet, so it can't be responsible for the current state of the nation, so you are only guessing about the result of a cut in company tax, it has been proven that the trickle down effect doesn't do what many of its supporters claim it can do, but what is not certain is the effect on increased employment that lower taxation has, so while it may not increase wages there are many that claim it can increase employment, quite often it depends on who is telling the story. Greedy people will always be greedy, if they can see a way of increasing their wealth then they certainly embrace it, if you employ more people and produce more product then you can increase your wealth, of course you could just take the tax cut and make a smaller amount more, but greedy people don't think that way, their aim is to make as much as they possibly can.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:25pm
    But the flaw in that argument, Jim, is that a business only ever hires as much labour as it needs to service its market - and no more. Cutting taxes to the business won't expand the market, and company execs have declared there is no need for more labour because demand isn't rising. Cutting taxes to consumers might result in higher demand and therefore more jobs, but cutting company tax does nothing to expand the job market because there is just no need for more workers until demand increases. And when it does, the extra sales pay for the extra workers. No need for tax cuts!
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    5:42pm
    Well again I can't completely disagree with your logic, especially if people get a tax cut they will have more money to spend, and if that is the case then employment opportunities can be created, it's the old argument which comes first the chicken or the egg, if more people are in work then there is the opportunities for more employment because more people have money to spend which they wouldn't have if they were on welfare, under labor's planned tax cuts the average wage earner would have an extra $20 a week to spend, I am not sure which option would create the most jobs.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    8:22pm
    Jim - the Guardian story today says it all. The top end of town is 21% richer over the past year.
    No point talking about being 'a little richer' or paying taxes when the top end get rich and pay zip taxes at the same time bleating for less tax. Their spokesman, the Business Council, recently called for a corporate tax rate of 15%. If they got that a few years later it would be 5% and then nix. Australians need to see the game and fix the corruption in Canberra which finances this. It is fixable if people do not believe the lies and vote for somebody who is not prostituted.
    Jim
    28th May 2018
    9:24pm
    Mick we both know very well where the guardian's political persuasion lies, that doesn't mean to say that everything they print is inaccurate just as anything published in the Murdoch press is not completely accurate, they both publish to gain attention and to sell newspapers, you talk about fixing the corruption and that's fair enough, but the corruption is rampant across the board, you asked an earlier commentator to prove that the unions were receiving money from union controlled super funds, it was published in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that the union has received millions in donations from the industry super funds, that money has been donated without the knowledge of the people that have their money invested in those funds, it was claimed that the cmfeu has recieved $5 million over the last 10 years, I am sure someone will come back that the big end of town has received even more, I don't know if any of the figures are true, but I wouldn't be surprised, if you say that we can't believe the lies from one side but that the other side hasn't equally prostituted itself I don't think that's credible, how you fix the problem I haven't a clue, and I haven't seen many credible suggestions so far.
    MICK
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:25am
    The Guardian is certainly left leaning as well as feminist and refugee/immigrant promotional, but at the very least this publication will not refuse to run both sides. During any election campaign the Murdoch media and other mainstream mastheads are completely biased. Don't take my word for it. When we get into the final 2 months of the next election do you own statistics. Turnbull will AGAIN get long sickening promotional cover at primary schools and children's hospitals whilst Shorten will get 5 second clips which say nothing. That is what propaganda looks like. It happened the last 2 elections and will start again shortly.
    libsareliars
    28th May 2018
    1:49pm
    Well said both Mick (10.22am) and Kathleen (9.58am). The LNP don't care that there are homeless and starving people out there, if they did they wouldn't be giving tax breaks to our wealthiest and would be giving those on Newstart, Youth Allowance and the pension a much needed boost in funding.
    MICK
    28th May 2018
    1:53pm
    Thanks.
    Funny how the usual voice of the government (above) keeps the crap coming. Never a true picture. Just more propaganda, slur and distorted information to fool the mentally challenged.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:00pm
    Newstart and Youth Allowance are the rates they are to stop people living on them permanently. Most get topped up every week by vouchers from charity and buy food from food shops for the poor. It is actually a good system as it makes people realise that it would be easier working than having to spend time and effort collecting these vouchers and using food stores with limited hours.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:02pm
    That's the elitist LNP theory. What the elitists and snobs ignore is that there AREN'T JOBS FOR THESE PEOPLE. They want to work. Only idiots think they prefer not to. They just want an opportunity. But scumbags would rather blame them and lie about them than actually admit where the problem lies and talk about solutions.
    Rosret
    28th May 2018
    2:19pm
    Of course they do - but you can't keep throwing a bucket of money at people.
    I agree the pay structure needs to be assessed however we do need to address the increase in the perpetual welfare cycle as well.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:30pm
    OGR People are not meant to live on Newstart and Youth Allowance permanently so it makes sense for them to be set lower than what is required for a person to live. Most do not want to work at all so need some incentive to look for a job. Most use a computer and apply for umpteen jobs they are not qualified for in about 10 minutes.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    2:48pm
    OG, stop telling yourself lies to justify meanness and selfishness.
    There are VERY VERY FEW who don't want to work. the vast majority would give their right arm for an opportunity. They DO NOT need to be ground further into poverty and denied self-respect, much less abused by arrogant judgmental elitists, to make them want what all of us want - a chance to show what we can do and achieve.

    Yes, they apply for umpteen jobs they are not qualified for, because there aren't any jobs that they ARE qualified for and arrogant privileged arseholes force them to make it look like they are complying with impossible requirements.

    Obviously, you have no concept of the hardships these people face, so you should shut up and stop abusing innocent victims of society's failures. You are LYING LYING LYING about the people you condemn. They want to work. They want to succeed in life. They just want society to stop trampling all over them and give them a chance.

    Rosret, the perpetual welfare cycle is a result of social failure. We won't address it until we stop blaming the victims and start analysing the real causes and trying to find valid solutions. People, by nature, want to feel useful and valued. They want to feel like they are achieving. They want to be respected and to have self-respect. That's human psychology. The perpetual welfare cycle begins when you convince someone that external conditions or some inherent failure in them that they can't control make achieving and being useful an impossibility. And SCUM like OG and Alan Tudge who keep ranting that they don't want to work are 90% of the problem. Shut these horrid people up and we'd have a far better chance of solving the problem. (BTW. This is something I know about, because I've been there and I've worked extensively with others who were in the perpetual welfare cycle. I've never yet met one who didn't want to be out of it. Even drug addicts don't want to stay addicts. But I've experienced first hand what happens when you try to break the cycle. Believe me, NOBODY who hasn't been there has an inkling of what the real problem is or how to address it.)
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    2:59pm
    OGR you might want to think that people want to work but you are so wrong on that one. Most unemployed people don't want to work they don't want the hassles of having a job. Why work when you don't have to? For many working costs them more than being on welfare with all the expenses of getting to and from work, clothes etc. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people say they can't wait to retire and get the OAP simply because it is better than working.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:03pm
    laborliar - who's starving out there .

    They lazy dolebludgers who spend their welfare on smokes and beers
    The few who live on the streets due to mental illness

    When was the last time you read or saw in the news that someone had died on starvation in Oz - except for maybe the odd case from eating disorder?

    save your lies for the mentally challenged labor rusted-ons
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:03pm
    No OG. YOU ARE WRONG. Nobody could be more wrong. You are full of so much bile and hatred and contempt and ego that you just can't deal with reality.

    Yes, people can't wait to retire so they can do the things they enjoy instead of being locked to a daily grind of boredom, often abused by bosses, exploited for miserable pay, and unable to find an ounce of satisfaction in anything during the working day. Clearly you have no concept of what it is to have to work in a shit job that you hate. That has NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO with the unemployed. They are BEGGING for an opportunity.

    I worked for less than the dole. It was unfair and cruel and wrong, but I did it. Most of my friends and colleagues did also. None of us would have preferred unemployment, and I can't find an unemployed person anywhere who would choose to be idle.

    You are disgusting with your dishonest abuse of the victims of social wrongs. But anyone who wants to denigrate and blame can make up lies to justify their nastiness. YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOCIETY TODAY.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:05pm
    we had had 20 + years of economic growth and are at full employment. Anyone who wants a job and is physically and mentally able can get one.
    Those on welfare choose to be on welfare - its a lifestyle choice
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:08pm
    That's the lie the privileged love to tell themselves, Raphael. But it IS a lie. Clearly you have never been unemployed. Welfare is NOT a lifestyle choice. It's forced on people by a failed society. Only an idiot would suggest anyone would want that life.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:10pm
    Rainey - I was on welfare for 3 months between when I left Uni and got a job.
    That was the only time. I managed to save on it as well
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:13pm
    People are more likely to die from using a knife and fork than of starvation in Australia to day. Yes that's right over eating not starvation. Only people who die of starvation are those in nursing homes who would see it as the only way to die as people are not allowed to choose when they wish to die. We are such a callous lot in that we look after our pets better than our people.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:18pm
    So the unemployed should be leaping into those millions of vacant jobs right now, all five minutes away from their home?

    Get a grip, OG...nobody wants to live on unemployment benefits permanently - that's just a load of garbage from this government in its struggle ti find an excuse for chopping away at those rights...

    Rafe - you been robbing their mail boxes and following them around again.. you seem to know a lot about their personal circumstances.... you seen the price of a carton of smokes these days or a few bourbon and cokes?

    How do you KNOW those people, who might look like riff-raff to you, don't have well-paid jobs? Just because a young bloke has tattoos and a beard and wears jeans doesn't mean he's not a highly paid tradie...
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:22pm
    I seem to be the only one that wears shoes when I go into my local Centrelink office.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:23pm
    Oh, Raphael, you were privileged enough to go to uni. That explains a lot. An educated idiot who knows nothing of the lives of the deprived but presumes to judge and gloat. Disgusting!

    OG, I never said people were dying of starvation, but many are suffering severe deprivation of necessities, and in a wealthy country that's inexcusable and can only result from greed and selfishness on the part of the stinking well-to-do.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:28pm
    OGR no one her in Australia is suffering deprivation of necessaries. A friend of mine has married a man in a third world country and people in that country all live on a complete lack of what we deem to be necessaries. Many things we use are not really necessary to live well.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:31pm
    Keep lying to yourself, OG. I'm sure it soothes your conscience - if you actually have one, which I doubt. Sad that you will never suffer as those you condemn suffer.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:24pm
    I pitied a man who had no shoes... until I met a man living on unemployment benefits.

    Perfectly true that you are not meant to live on it - you can't live on it....

    I want all these big mouthed politicians who reckon they could do it to put their lack of money where their mouth is. Let's SEE them live on $40 day without all their comforts.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    8:26am
    Aren't these people contemptible who justify social and economic wrongs by pointing to other countries where people are worse off, or to the few lucky ones who have succeeded outstandingly from nothing (nobody knows the truth of how or why or what advantages they had that others don't, but keep the lie alive!). It's the classic distraction technique. Just put BS out there to support the pretence that all is well and denigrate anyone who dares to expose the truth.

    Trebor, the big-mouthed politicians can safely accept the challenge to live on $40 a day, knowing full well that it will be for a limited period and they have millions and a fat pension to prop them up at the end of it. What we need is to BAN anyone entering politics who hasn't grown up poor, been unemployed for a considerable time, and experienced evidenced social injustice, proved the mettle to survive and get on moderately well in life, but is NOT anywhere near wealthy. Pay them the twice the standard pension rate, with the same expense allowances and retirement plan as applies to the average Australian, and reduce their wage if the national debt rises or unemployment, underemployment, poverty or homelessness increases - but pay them a bonus if it falls. Make the pension a fixed percentage of the average wage, permanently, so that it automatically increases if average wages rise and politicians get a rise twice the increase pensioners receive if they have performed well.

    We'd have far better people in parliament if we implemented that scheme. Alternately, start paying peanuts. Monkeys would do far better than the people we have running the country now.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    11:36am
    The only way to get better people into parliament is to pay them much more than we do now. People now earning $20 million a year running big companies are simply not interested in the peanuts offered in comparison by being a polly.

    I certainly would not be a polly for what is currently offered.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:55pm
    And those greedy CEOs and directors are precisely the people we DO NOT WANT in parliament, because they are the ones whose focus is overfeeding their rich and privileged mates.

    To get good people, we need to slash the pay and benefits to no more than average wages and get folk who understand life in the REAL WORLD making decisions that will benefit the majority.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    4:01pm
    The idea, OG, is to keep people like you OUT of politics. You are precisely the type who would wreck the country. We do NOT want your type.
    MICK
    3rd Jun 2018
    10:27am
    OG - your desire! Politicians overseas are paid much less than out lot. More pay will never stop them selling out to the big end of town. Only making ALL donations to political parties illegal in all its for forms will achieve that. Ask the bastards WHY they do not bring in laws?
    Grateful
    28th May 2018
    2:32pm
    Mick and Jim how constructive could YLC be as a strong lobby for older Australians if posters confined themselves to simple, well constructed SUGGESTIONS, IDEAS, that are in the the interests of the common good, being something that is achieved by and for the community that is both just and moral.

    With elections on the horizon, ideas on what THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can DO to reduce the cost of gas and electricity, like the government taking back the costs of poles and wires (which are THE major reasons for the huge increase in our power bills) in the same context of essential infrastructure as bridges and highways and give YLC something tangible to lobby for.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:01pm
    The cost of electricity and gas is imply not an issue for me as I use no gas and very little electricity. I use wood I harvest from my acreage to burn for warmth in winter. That said I haven't lit a fire this winter and rarely lit one last winter either.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:04pm
    Oh shut up you horrid gloating monster. Nobody cares about what you do. We all know you are not human and don't live on this planet, so just go away.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:05pm
    Sorry, Grateful - not you. I was referring to OG. I agree with your comments. I just wish the gloating over-privileged nasties here would go away and let us get on with discussing possible solutions.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:09pm
    Old Geezer is a great example of how one can live on very little if one is smart, diligent and focussed.
    Such a shame that people like Rainey would prefer not to use a little grey matter a bit of hard work and be self reliant . I suppose its easier to rely on the government and then complain that they need more
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:14pm
    Raphael I agree and the more you give most people the more they want. Enough is never enough.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:16pm
    Raphael, you are vile and disgusting. How dare you? I do NOT rely on the government - I don't draw one cent of pension or welfare of any kind - and I could teach 99% of the population - and almost certainly OG - a great deal about frugal living. I raised a family on next to nothing, AND paid 100% of the $100K cost of therapies for a disabled child. I worked harder than the majority of the population - 3 jobs, built my own home, renovated a car, built furniture, made all our clothing and soft furnishings, and spent hours daily in therapy and special education with my disabled child.
    Such a shame horrid creeps like you are judgmental bullies with no interest in fact or truth.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:20pm
    Why did you pay for those therapies for a disabled child? Most people I know go through the right channels and it is all free.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:25pm
    How do you know OG is telling the truth, Rafe? He's just another faceless commentator online... and how do you know anything about Rainey other than what she posts...?

    Ebergeezer's stories change so much he has just got to be kidding.... Rainey's never change.....

    Ebergeezer is correct - the more you give fat cats the more they want...... he is correct at times - but his reality focus is wrong 99% of those times..... I think that's a deliberate choice to stir up the discussion, since nobody can be that blind.... I mean trotting out the old saw about poor people tearing up the floor board for fires.... that one's been around for decades and it was originally only the Aboriginals who 'did' that, according to the urban myth.

    How would Ebergeezer see that unless he were a poor Kaffir living in a tribal compound? He seems to have one hell of a lot of stories of mingling with Social Security people and such....driving them to town to fix their problems... all cozy with Centrelink..... hmmmm.....

    You don't think he's Bleck and living in a fibro, do you?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:26pm
    Showing your GROSS IGNORANCE again, OG. It is NOT free. And often any government aid is conditional upon you accepting certain medical approaches which are actually designed to worsen the disability so that the doctors get ongoing income. I know parents whose children have overcome disabilities because the parents rejected the traditional medical approach. There are companies offering non-traditional treatments that actually work but are very costly. Lots of responsible parents choose to do what's best for their child - not what's easy. I was one of them.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:33pm
    OGR so you rejected help and now because it cost you heaps you whinge about it. Sounds like you didn't even try what they had to offer and paid the price.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:40pm
    No, OG. I don't whinge. I merely state the facts. And I didn't reject help. I met my responsibilities as a parent and did the best I could for my child. My child is now working in a profession, married with children, and coping very well despite a disability. I am proud of what I achieved and I think anyone who criticizes me for my choices is disgusting SCUM.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:46pm
    My disable child has done very well too and name his price for a job now. He is wealthier than I will ever be despite his disability. In fact I would say that it was his disability that helped him be where he is today.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    3:49pm
    And you bludged on the taxpayer to get him the help he needed to achieve that, did you? And now you criticize me for working hard and paying myself for the treatment my child needed to achieve.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    3:54pm
    OGR the help I needed wasn't available back then. We just used our instincts and did what we thought he needed and it worked well for him. We didn't get any help from the government as we refused to treat him with drugs but in hindsight I should have got those prescriptions and said he was taking them as it would have made life so much easier for us.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    4:45pm
    What about the help you obviously need right now, Ebergeezer?

    I'd be happy to pay taxes so you could get it......

    A rellie has two autistic kids - they can be eligible for help etc, but by the time they get past the waiting list, the kid's ages mean they are no longer eligible..... Catch-a 22....

    Another story change, Ebergeezer?
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    4:51pm
    Pay all you like Trebor but it's not me than needs any help. However I wonder about many others though.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:27pm
    Oh, you need help alright, OG. But the insane person ALWAYS thinks it's everyone else who is off their rocker and they are the only one who is sane. Just as the egotist always thinks he is the only one who is right and the rest of the world is wrong. You are both an egotist and insane. Sorry to tell you. You need help, but you won't get it - even if Trebor does pay - because to be helped, you first have to recognize your sickness. Clearly, you don't, and never will.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:52pm
    Nice to see that I'm being abused again so I must be right once again. Just love it when I get abused as I then know that it another win for me.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:26pm
    Throwing cabbages at the aristo in the tumbril who pontificated about 'eating cake' does not mean the aristo was right.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    8:14am
    Just like OG, the aristo was probably seriously deluded, Trebor. It's a sickness - and one that so far has defied any cure.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    8:16am
    OG, I wasn't abusing you. I was telling you that you need help - trying to help you, though sadly I think you are beyond it. The abuser here is you. You are constantly arguing for a disgustingly unfair and cruel society in which the rich prosper and the rest can go to hell. That's abuse!
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    10:33am
    So it's abuse to suggest a solution to a problem that is fair to everyone now. Well I think my idea of everyone getting the OAP if they want it and it becoming a debt on their estate is way fairer than the current system and is also less of a strain on the taxpayer as well.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:40am
    No, OG, it's abuse to condemn battlers to hardship while overfeeding the privileged, which is what you constantly assert should happen. Your idea of stealing houses from people who work for low wages or experience crisis (or their heirs) is disgustingly selfish, greedy, and downright vile - as well as being bad for the economy.

    Why aren't you proposing to take houses from the rich pigs who take billions (collectively) in excessively generous superannuation tax concessions etc. that they don't need. Oh no! They get WELFARE for free, because they are rich. Only the poor have to surrender their home to pay back the pension they earned and paid for over and over and over again. Get lost, creep!
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    11:31am
    OGR so it is OK for the top 40% of income earners to pay nearly 97% of the income tax collected but it's not OK the give people a concession to invest in super? No concession no super as why wold anyone tie up their money for decades without there being some benefit for doing so. I certainly would not.

    The rich don't collect the OAP so there is nothing for them to pay back.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:41pm
    You keep on with that self-serving LIE about 97% of the tax collected, OG. But is IS A LIE. And no, it's NOT okay to give rich people a 30%+ concession to build super that they don't need while giving low income earners NIL or even penalizing them with higher tax on their super contributions than applies to their wage.

    I have NEVER suggested stopping the super concession - only making it fair and reasonable: i.e. 15% reduction on marginal rates for everyone, so that the rich don't get a far, far, far bigger benefit than the struggling workers.

    The rich collect way, way, way too much, so there's a fortune that they SHOULD pay back. The OAP is recognition of decades of contribution to society - most of it grossly underpaid in order to allow the rich to profit. NO IT SHOULD NEVER BE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BACK. Only the most disgustingly selfish and greedy would even consider such a notion.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:52pm
    OG, in 2015, 51% of income tax revenue came from people earning BELOW $70,000 per annum. So you have made up your nonsense figures. The truth is that battlers provide most of the tax revenue in this country. Furthermore, the majority of the 27% of tax revenue from the GST comes from lower and middle income earners. So the vast majority of tax revenue comes from the LESS WELL-OFF.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    4:49pm
    Rubbish figures Rainey most families earning below $60,000 get more form the government than the income tax they pay.
    GeorgeM
    29th May 2018
    8:15pm
    Agree with your comments, Grateful. Unfortunately, being again sidetracked by right-wing paid trolls such as OG. We as a group (retirees) should join in and push for common interest ideas - I have listed a few myself in my separate post further down.
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    8:21am
    I agree, George. If only we could get rid of these lying trolls like OG.

    No, OG. Those are the CORRECT figures. You are lying to try to justify greed and selfishness, and that's disgusting.
    Old Geezer
    30th May 2018
    3:15pm
    OGR I'll repeat it as you didn't get it the first time. Families earning less than $60,000 get more back in welfare than they pay in tax.
    Anonymous
    31st May 2018
    7:13am
    OG, that's a gross exaggeration, because they DO NOT get more back than they pay when indirect taxes are counted - and they pay a huge amount of indirect tax. And I was referring to INDIVIDUALS who earn less than $70,000 per annum, not families. But again you fail your reading test.

    OG, I don't know why you are here. You have nothing in common with the rest of us. You have totally contrary interests - interested only in yourself and your filthy rich and selfish mates. You have nothing whatever to contribute to discussion. You seem intent on doing nothing but frustrating constructive debate and the circulation of sensible ideas and making stupid comments to alienate, anger and upset - all, obviously, with the goal of supporting the ongoing persecution of the working and middle class by the evil stinking greedy rich.

    Most here are here to discuss SOLUTIONS. We have no interest in supporting the status quo and no interest in feeding the greed that prevails among the well-off. So you do not belong. Just go away.
    KB
    28th May 2018
    3:03pm
    The dream is not totally dead for some young people like my daughter who has saved for a house deposit. The government does want to collect taxes from the wealthy owing that they are reliant on them for their votes. The government must act to alleviate homelessness.Most people vulnerable are women who rely on shelters
    Linda
    28th May 2018
    3:27pm
    Often the ills of society due to poverty are swept aside by those who are so remote to reality of poverty that they can't fathom what the rest of us are talking about. If, the current government were considering the nation and the well being of the people in the nation then they would act differently and propose different arrangements. As it is, they travel in money circles, take money and favors back and forth from their circle of reality that includes their lofty circumstances. Read in the paper today, how bank penalties to underwrite national finance education body. This will include a new not for profit ngo. The yet to be named new body will be overseen by a board,k chaired by Paul Citheroe, and advocte for financial literacy. So their pals from the bank, will pay penalties to their pals in the game, who will then mange and distribute 65 million, including 40 million in community benefit payments . Commonwealth bank will add in another 15 million, to be directed to the new body. The new body will administer grants rather than do any actual work themselves. I am so skeptical that what this will be about is pass the parcel of the penalty money into the open hands of their in the know banking mates. This is simply too cosy and illustrates why we need a change of government. It looks like everything they do is to enrich folks at the top. They came kicking and screaming to the investigation of banking practices. We maybe do not know just yet the size of the penalties they will have to pay. Regular folks would be put in jail for the fraud carried out by these institutions but instead they may get a few fines. This is just one example of a host of programs that again, send the bucks to those who already have enough and then fight to reduce wages and make too many on casual employment. They don't seem to care if folks don't have a house to live in and can't seem to create a service that is usable for pensioners and others to even contact human services about urgent matters. I am completely dismayed and now of course they want to muzzle or even close our ABC. The spin in our local news paper makes me dizzy with bias, to the right. I will be happy to vote labor, they at least do know how to manage. And, as for voters, if all you do is look for your perk and lurk then in a way, you are letting the country down. Australia needs good education, and a good standard of living and vision. We need to do a lot better.
    Knows-a-lot
    28th May 2018
    3:29pm
    The rich are getting richer alright - at the expense of the poor... Bring on the revolution!
    john
    28th May 2018
    3:32pm
    The widening gap has been going on since the beginning of civilised man. Strong get stronger by staying strong and wealthy , and the plebs , like most of the population just get by , or don't get by. Human nature takes its course.

    There are more angrier plebs these days because the modern world has created the NEARLY THERE, class of people, those who have just enough , or just under enough in cash, but in assets quite a lot , but can't access the money. this is like being Mr Inbetween, and it is not good for the very wealthy , because eventually everything comes to a head , I can see this happening in the future, not that far away , where the unneeded billions of the supremely rich will be forcibly divided amongst the nearly haves, but the haven't gots will still remain the plebs of then world, perhaps a little better off than the past, but there will be turmoil of sorts and eventually serious wealth will be brought into line.
    I often wonder why any individual needs 4 billion dollars in personal wealth!
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    3:56pm
    I rather like that Cardboard King title.... perhaps we could have The Iron Ore Maiden .... The Late Developer (some time anyway).... the Cardboard King and the Late Developer could get together and develop units on the grand scale... cheap, too......
    Sundays
    28th May 2018
    4:36pm
    YLC, please don’t continue to confuse Pensioners and Retirees. About 20% of retirees over 60 are quite well off. Pensioners on the full OAP, generally are not. You have put retirees into Tribes, so you know this is true. We need better policies for the very poor. Nevertheless, there seems to be a Govt view that the wealthy and big business should receive generous concessions.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    4:54pm
    About 30% over retirement age are SFRs which is approx. 2 million with about 4.5 million on the OAP. Many SFRs earn less than the OAP so many spend less than the OAP. A couple needs over $2 million to get an income as good as the OP plus benefits and many don't have that much. Many will one day be OAPs as they spend down their wealth and the OAP cut off points rise to meet their wealth,
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    5:21pm
    You really are a master of contradiction, OG. (Read: Master of LIES). On the one hand you claim self-managed super funds are yielding 21%, and you howled me down when I said the government average was 5% return, claiming everyone should be getting at least 10%, and now you claim a couple needs over $2 million to be as well off as an OAP couple!!!!

    The truth is that many SFRs are living on less than the OAP, but that's primarily because of a STUPID assets test change (which, by the way, OG approved of - yet another contradiction!) that impacted heavily on those with between $830,000 and $1.1 million.

    The truth is that the average return is 5%, which gives a couple with $1 million a little more than an aged pensioner when concessions are counted, but SFR couples with $1 million or less are likely to be significantly worse off (in income terms) than they would be with $400,000 - which would net them about $60,000 per annum. Being worse off for having saved, many will divest their assets rapidly, or invest in more expensive homes. Others will drain them slowly - benefiting only the government and depriving themselves of any benefit for having sacrificed to save so much. Ultimately, most will qualify for an OAP simply because inflation will make their assets progressively less valuable and their income is unlikely to enable any further saving.

    Any couple with $2 million should be very, very well off and it's nonsense to suggest a couple needs that much to match the OAP. At even average return rates, $2 million yields $100,000 in income - more than enough for a comfortable lifestyle AND healthy savings to deal with inflation.

    That said, I agree with Sundays that we need better policies for the very poor, but we also need better policies to deliver incentives for people to save. Bashing those who worked hard and sacrificed to achieve modest savings is not sensible because if people reduce their savings, there will be far more dependency on the OAP and less to go around. The assets test change was stupid. Ultimately, it will impose heavy cost as it drives more savers to reduce their assets and discourages younger people from saving as much as they can.

    Ultimately, the best remedy for poverty is education and the extension of opportunity, combined with strong incentives to work and save as much as possible. Unfortunately, this government is doing everything wrong in this regard. The endless blame game, stripping battlers of their self-respect, punishing the victims of social failure, and taking from people who worked hard but giving not one cent of the savings to the poorest - these are all BAD moves that are making things harder for the battlers and causing social and economic deterioration. Sadly, Labor offers only policies that will do even more harm, so where does that leave us?
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    6:07pm
    about 15-20% of Australians are millionaire households
    that's pretty good by any standard
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    6:33pm
    That's if you include their Blacktown fibro shack worth $1.2m... but you can't eat fibro, and many of that 15-20% don't actually own the property - they pay mortgages for it.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    6:39pm
    OGR A couple with $2 million will have assets like cars, caravans etc that are worth $100,000 and they also need 3 years living expenses in cash. So you have to deduct about $400,000 from their $2 million. $1.6 million at the deeming rate of 3.25% gives an income $52,000 which is no where near your $100,000. That's how they work out a couple needs $2 million to be better off than the OAP plus benefits.

    I agree I could earn a lot more but I have many years of expertise in investing money whereas most people are not prepared to do what it takes to be able to invest their money well.

    A change in mindset is needed as well as education to see opportunities and take advantage of them. I used to take advantage of all sorts of opportunities but these days I only take the best of them as I simply don't need to earn lots on money any more.

    Labor has an employment policy paper out which may be good for employees but as an employer I'd be reluctant to take on more employees under such a policy. A good example is that one can't have a casual person to clean their house when they need them unless they are a contractor.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    6:42pm
    Trebor - they can sell up and move to the country
    But a lot of these whingers would prefer to stay put, go on the OAP and then complain it aint enough
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    7:35pm
    We've been through that, Rafe - if every pensioners/smaller SFR sold up and moved bush - that market would soon rise to equal the cities or sufficiently to make such a move not viable. Like the serial house hoarders, it was good at the start, but once too many go into the market it rose and rose and rose in cost....

    Why didn't I buy that house for $7k two hours from Sydney? Too tired to think straight on 18 hour days only to cop divorce, asset destruction, stung by management and left owed $100k, then sickness and injury... but I'm back......
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    7:36pm
    Would that it was as easy as an ore baron's daughter inheriting $25Bn to turn into $12Bn...... very astute there.....
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    7:46pm
    The number of people with more than $1million in assets rose from 234,000 in 2015 to 255,000 last year

    https://propertyupdate.com.au/guess-how-many-millionaires-there-are-in-australia/

    That's only 1-2% of our population.
    Anonymous
    28th May 2018
    7:59pm
    Goodness, the contradictions by the privileged blue-tie brigade are mind-boggling. Shows what happens when you deal in propaganda rather than FACT. Raphael says 15-20% of the population are millionaires. OG says only 1-2%. OG argues you DO need $2 million to be as well off as a pensioner couple, yet says the government did right by changing the assets test. Maybe he just loves seeing people bullied and hurt??? What other explanation can there be? Why would anyone approve a policy that crushes people who have less than half what it takes to match a pensioner in income?

    Seems to me we are dealing with over-paid, self-serving privileged who have no idea of reality but just want to bash anyone who isn't equally rich and privileged, or bowing down to those that are. Don't tell the truth. Don't put facts out there. The selfish greedy mongrels who want the LNP to continue its rampage will insult and abuse you, and throw a lot of lies out there, hoping to confuse.
    Old Geezer
    28th May 2018
    10:45pm
    OGR yes it was a great move by the government to change the asset test as couples with $1.2 million have enough money without putting their hand out for the OAP even though in the current low interest environment many would be earning less than the OAP by not investing their money well. However they still have a lot of capital to use as it is simply no good to them once they have departed this mortal world.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    7:47am
    What an idiotic comment, OG, from someone who recently said you'd have to have $2 million to be as well off as a pensioner! You really take the prize for stupidity!

    Robbing someone's heirs is no more justifiable than robbing them. People have a right to save to leave money to their children if that's their preference. The government supports gamblers and party-goers and folk who take extravagant holidays. Denying fairness to savers will wreck the country. But keep on with your BS. Clearly you want society destroyed. You are just waiting for the crash so you can buy properties for half their value and gloat over stealing the life savings of decent working people.
    Adrianus
    29th May 2018
    8:45am
    Rainey, your post is discriminatory and abhorrent bigotry. Sure people have a right to save and leave money to their children, but they also have a right to party, gamble and go on holidays. The sub $400k group is littered with the real battlers who live hand to mouth because of no fault of their own. Regardless of their circumstances, whether through illness, injury or frailty, these people deserve to be looked after.
    Welfare should not be used as incentive for people to save for their retirement, that is sending a very dangerous message.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    9:07am
    My post is NOT discriminatory or bigoted, Adrianus. It's you and the government who are discriminating - AGAINST SAVERS and in favour of spenders. Of course people have the right to party, gamble, and go on holidays. They DO NOT have the right to save to leave money to their children unless they can get very, very rich or have less than about $500,000 (for a couple). That's discrimination.

    Welfare should NOT be used as an incentive for people to overspend. That is sending a very dangerous message. And the OAP is NOT welfare - or at least should not be regarded as such. I paid my way for 40 years. I am just as entitled - morally and ethically - to a decent income in old age as people who chose to spend more freely. I am morally and ethically entitled to leave my savings to my children. But this STINKING VILE GOVERNMENT that you apparently support says - ''no, you saved so you lose. Spenders are rewarded.'' THAT is discrimination.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    9:13am
    And let's carry this further, shall we. Two couples have $830,000 at retirement. Couple 1 buys a modest retirement home and settles down to care for the wife's aging mother until she dies. They'd love to move into an expensive retirement community - like couple 2 did - and to take that $150,000 year long world cruise, like couple 2 did. They'd be delighted to get a pension, like couple 2 do. But no, they spend their $150,000 that they wanted to spend on a cruise on day-to-day living costs, and when the wife's mother finally dies, they no longer enough to have both the cruise and their desired retirement home. They saved the government a fortune - both by receiving less OAP and by caring for the wife's mother and keeping her out of aged care, but they suffer a massive penalty for that.

    Couple 2 put their parents into aged care - at government cost, because the parents have nothing. They have their expensive holiday and buy their expensive retirement home and get a full aged pension.

    THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. And it's also BAD for the economy.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    10:31am
    OGR that is nothing more than making choices to do things.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:37am
    True, and some deluded IDIOTS and self-serving greedy people think it's okay to reward certain bad choices and punish very good ones. Clearly they have no concern whatever for fairness, much less for what's good for the nation. No wonder this country is in such a mess, with that self-serving attitude prevailing so widely.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    11:29am
    No OGR people make choices for all sorts of reasons and most don't involve money. I know I certainly do.
    Adrianus
    29th May 2018
    3:04pm
    OG, you may be right about the situation we all find ourselves in being a result of the choices we have made throughout our lives. However, as Rainey eluded to in a previous post, the sub $400k group are less likely to have the matching wealth creation savvy as the above $800k group. I put this to you Rainey, if that is the case then the need for spending more on the Sub $400k group becomes more evident.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:36pm
    That's a wild and totally unverified assumption, Adrianus. What we need to do is look at income. If someone is struggling to achieve a living income, it is not relevant what assets they have. The fact that they put something aside for anticipated expenses later in life should NOT result in discrimination and deprivation. Plenty of the sub $400K group - especially those who retired after the assets test change was announced - planned deliberately to be where they are because they saw the advantage. Lots of the above $800K group did not have the opportunity to structure their affairs beneficially once a cruel and unfair change was announced. Many had already settled in their retirement home. They were already past the age when they could gift without penalty.

    I put it to you that if someone battled to save over $800K, knowing they would incur heavy costs in later life for specific reasons, they should not have to forfeit the benefits they saved for because they are educationally disadvantaged and can't achieve high investment returns.

    I also put it to you that there can be NO EXCUSE for the government's bloody-minded act depriving people who saved well to give to people who have substantial assets and healthy incomes and DID NOT NEED EXTRA, while totally ignoring the plight of those with nothing but an inadequate pension income. That act alone verifies that the LNP is not fit to govern.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    6:20pm
    How do you know who needs extra income OGR? I certainly don't. It was simply wrong that a couple with $1.2 million plus should be getting welfare so I'm glad the government changed the asset test. Those with nothing were compensation in a previous budget with an extra $30 from memory so it was the turn of those who did save a little bit to get a bit extra.
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    8:19am
    Well clearly nobody needed to end up with 50% more income than the people who were robbed for having saved a little more, OG. That's just ridiculous and only an idiot would approve of that.
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    8:19am
    Well clearly nobody needed to end up with 50% more income than the people who were robbed for having saved a little more, OG. That's just ridiculous and only an idiot would approve of that.
    Jtee
    28th May 2018
    9:06pm
    This week I have heard at least 3 commentators (politicians and other "important" people) say on television that we are a rich country and can afford to take more immigrants. Do these commentators live in the real world? We can't even look after our own.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:30pm
    Tell it to the 700,000 unemployed, the times two that under-employed, the pensioners and the bushies on part-time seasonal.

    Being a 'rich country' does not mean we can afford to take more refugees - it means that social balances HERE need to be addressed first - then we can take in five or ten refos a year.

    At the moment, all they are doing is adding to congestion in cities, with all the associated social problems, not least of all the division of this nation into ghettoes.
    TREBOR
    28th May 2018
    11:31pm
    A nation in which the 'wealth' is grossly unevenly spread is not 'rich' or prosperous by any means..... it is a nation in decline and on the brink of failure, and one overdue for a bloody revolution.

    We're gonna need a few bigger, better greased, and automated guillotines...
    musicveg
    3rd Jun 2018
    3:37pm
    Those three commentators are only interested in making more money, the more people the more they can make. We are allowing 200,000 legal immigrants in each year, cut this back and then you can bring in more refugees. Seems employers rather employ immigrants than Australians these days. Price of housing goes up because of the demand and property developers make more money etc. Rich get richer, the poor get pushed down further. People my not starve but they are malnourished from lack of quality food and the burden on our health system increases.
    niemakawa
    29th May 2018
    2:38am
    The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer This is the one and only aim of Lib/Lab/Greens. As a group they are all socialists Parties, a system that has failed and will always fail the people. The only people who gain are the rich. Democracy is dead in Australia as it is in most Western nations.
    Adrianus
    29th May 2018
    6:28am
    Rainey, you're new at this class warfare business aren't you?
    You'll find you get more support when you attack the wealthy, the giants of industry and the big taxpayers. Attacking the $400k battlers who have $60k incomes is not getting traction.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    7:43am
    Adrianus, my interest is in facts - exposing them to create greater awareness of where the problems lie in our society and hopefully inspiring people to support movements for change. I am not ''attacking'' anyone, and I certainly wouldn't ''attack'' a battler with $400K. I am merely pointing out that the government got it seriously wrong and is hurting the economy and the society. Which to me proves conclusively that we should have no faith in their claims that company tax cuts will be good for the nation - especially given evidence to the contrary from other countries and their own admission that analysis proves them wrong and they are relying on ''gut instinct'' only.

    I'm not interested in attacking the wealthy - only in supporting demands that they pay their way in society fairly, which at present most do not.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    10:28am
    OGR You certainly attack me but I love it as it means that I am right in what I say.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:35am
    Keep dreaming, OG, you poor deluded fool. Insane people seldom realize they are insane, and egotists and narcissists are incapable of acknowledging their flaw.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    10:56am
    Gee I just love insults.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    12:38pm
    I sense a bit of sexual tension between Rainey and OG
    GeorgeM
    29th May 2018
    1:13pm
    While I agree with many of the posts from OGR (and many from Trebor), I have to commend BrianP's comment about voting them all OUT, as well as sensible responses from Grateful and Jim. This Govt, as well as the previous Labor Govts, are the cause of the serious inequity we have with the wealthy avoiding paying their fair share of taxes, and using massive loopholes in the rules enabling them to maximise their "welfare" through tax benefits from the Govt, while Retirees, especially Pensioners, and others on lower incomes have been repeatedly knocked around the head. To extend the thinking from the commentators noted above, I suggest this group should act sensibly, and I propose all should agree on the following:

    a. Limit YLC comments to a topic to Maximum 5 from any individual - we need to stop PAID POLITICAL hacks, such as OG, from flooding the site with brain-dead right wing liberal party posts for their personal gain - which then also lead to a similar flood of responses from the other side.

    b. Retirees need to JOIN TOGETHER and VOTE OUT all current seat-warmers (especially all Liberal and Labor) MPs to get a fresh crop, using their combined strength. No harm in increasing Independents or any other party people who may support Retirees - can only be good for all of us!

    c. Retirees as a group should JOIN TOGETHER and demand UNIVERSAL PENSION for all simply on the basis of Age (65 years) and Residence (say 15 years) with NO TESTS.

    d. Retirees as a group need to JOIN TOGETHER and demand a MINIMUM TAX SYSTEM in which all Companies and wealthy MUST pay Minimum Taxes without any Deductions (say 20% for companies, and 30% for Individuals as they contribute 7.5% for pensions). If any Deductions are allowed, the rates could be adjusted upwards but only allow Deductions for LOCAL expenses, i.e. not allow Overseas costs for Outsourcing, Interest or Products used.

    Seriously think YLC should focus on such positive measures instead of simply promoting discord, or setting one group against another, and allowing unlimited scope for a...holes to deliver unlimited number of posts drowning out other sensible comments.
    Old Geezer
    29th May 2018
    3:00pm
    George I am not a paid political hack and do not vote for either Labor or LNP. You can send me a cheque if you wish though.
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:29pm
    Some good ideas there, George. We should definitely band together to demand a universal pension and a fair tax system. And common sense says we have to vote out all LNP and Labor MPs and get some fresh blood. We need to send a message to the current crop that we've all had enough of them, and we will not tolerate their arrogance any longer. Australia needs change that benefits the majority and the nation as a whole - not this continual bowing to the demands of the greedy well-to-do.
    MD
    29th May 2018
    8:05pm
    "get some fresh blood" - the source of which will likely be from the ranks of suckers like you and me. What on earth is it that prompts anyone to think that this countrys' saving grace rests with a chosen few - anyone - as opposed to the incumbent lot ? You're all dreamin!
    The nett result of which is clearly expressed by the many and interminably humdrum posts repeated ad nauseum, ergo:-
    "unlimited scope for a...holes to deliver unlimited number of posts drowning out other sensible comments."

    That most contributions play to a packed gallery of like minded, blinkered vision, one track polemicists is neither here nor there.
    The gentle art of persuasion was never won in the Colosseum, most winners therein were lions. Thumbs down, or in modern parlance - 'like' (not).
    Adrianus
    30th May 2018
    7:47am
    George, I can see you have put a lot of thought into that post. I agree with Rainey, some good ideas there, particularly the idea of limiting posts to only 5. This means you have one more on this subject and Rainey? Whoa, Rainey has that many we may not see a Rainey post for quite some time.

    Another thought. Since your post manages to alienate about 20% of retirees, coupled with Rainey's envy of the sub $400k class alienating the rest. That leaves just the 330,000 who have been adversely affected by the threshold changes of 1/1/17. You may find it difficult to JOIN TOGETHER very many. But good luck!
    Anonymous
    30th May 2018
    8:16am
    Adrianus, I think you have a comprehension problem. I don't ENVY anyone. I merely state FACTS about the assets test change being unfair and detrimental. It's nothing to do with who has what. Anyone who can't comprehend that it IS wrong is not too bright! We should ALL be uniting to demand what is wrong is fixed, and one of the things that is PATENTLY WRONG is an assets test that renders people who saved well worse off for having done so. It's got nothing whatever to do with envy and nobody should be alienated by me pointing out an unfairness. Decent people support change that's right for everyone.
    GeorgeM
    30th May 2018
    12:07pm
    Adrianus, I appreciate your comment that I have put a lot of thought into the post. However, I am surprised by your comment about my suggestions alienating anyone as it defies logic! No one is disadvantaged by my suggestions (including the "sub $400K class" as you term it - who may also receive increases in pensions once companies actually pay Minimum Taxes), not even the well-off retirees who will also get Universal Pension. There is also the added benefit for many by getting Centrelink off their backs!
    Thanks, OGR, you are 100% correct.

    What strikes me, Adrianus, is your clear attempt to discredit these suggestions and create divisions between retirees - which can backfire with the retirees not being able to use their collective strength if they get sucked in by your divisive comments. So, kindly reveal your motive - are you a Liberal party rep?
    Adrianus
    30th May 2018
    3:01pm
    Ha Ha Ha, George you're funny.:) How could someone possibly oppose an idea as good as the one you presented? Simplistically put, we raise taxes on business to fund the welfare for over 65s, who no longer need to prove that they need welfare. Don't know if you realise but that has already been done. Businesses are paying 9.5% of wages into retirement funds.
    I'm over 65, never received a dollar of welfare during my lifetime. So that would benefit me personally, but I couldn't do it. Julia Gillard once sent me a cheque and I know it was to buy my vote so I sent it back. It wasn't easy, because Centrelink told me they have never handled such a request. Said they weren't set up to receive money only to give it out.
    Lets be reasonable. We have forums so people can exchange ideas and opinions. I'm not saying I'm right or more right than you and Rainey.
    I want Australians to stop thinking in terms of solving problems by throwing cash at them. And if theres not enough cash then raise taxes. I want this cycle to stop.
    JFK may have been talking about flying to the moon when he said, "we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." However, we could also apply that logic to balancing the budget before things go south. The knock on effect of a flat economy of course is, among other things, a reduction in government spending. We can only borrow so much.
    GeorgeM
    31st May 2018
    12:01am
    Forget it, Adrianus, you haven't answered my question whether you are a Liberal party rep, and you continue with diversionary comments (e.g. our entire last meaningless para) which can only be intended to confuse issues - the question is why, what is your motivation?
    Businesses are not giving anyone 9.5% wages as a favour (reflects right-wing thinking) - it is simply part of what's called a Salary Package which includes Super, hence it's employee's well-earned money and is NOT a substitute for Age Pension for which all income tax payers have paid 7.5% in their tax rates throughout their working lives here.
    Implementing Universal Pension would simply bring us into line with all advanced, civilised countries, and there is NO argument against it and no one is alienated, as it will only lead to more incentives to save & earn and actually lead to more taxes (painlessly) as well!
    Minimum Taxes will only affect the tax evaders (happy to alienate them) and no one else, and I DID NOT suggest increasing any taxes.
    So, unless you are a Liberal Party rep, or a tax evader, or someone unable to comprehend that we need more fairness in Australia (OGR's comment is very relevant here), you should be welcoming the ideas which I put forward.
    Comprehend, finally?
    Anonymous
    31st May 2018
    7:07am
    Adrianus, the money to fund a universal pension is already being collected by the government. It's being wasted on administration and policing and gifted to the richest 20% in obscenely over-generous tax concessions on superannuation - tax concessions that ARE NOT available to those on very low wages, who actually need help to fund retirement, and are NOT needed by those who gain the most benefit.

    The cost of the OAP is very small at present, and falling, but the cost of those tax concessions is massive, and rising at 10% per annum. The government has repeatedly been urged to do something about them, but it is reluctant to take much from the wealthy. It has no problems, however, persecuting the poor and lower middle class.

    George is absolutely spot on with his comments. We should be very happy to alienate tax evaders, and those who avoid tax legally but unfairly. And a universal pension would simply bring us into line with civilized countries and finally show some respect for our senior citizens. It would also restore incentive and enable more spending in old age, which would reduce the cost of public health and drive growing business profits, tax revenue and job opportunities. It is good policy. Conversely, needs-based welfare drives increasing poverty and homelessness, increased health problems, and exploitation by cheats and manipulators.

    We all paid for our retirement one way or another. The 9.5% now being paid is paid by EMPLOYEES - NOT BUSINESSES. Employees sacrificed pay rises in return for that benefit. But long before that happened, employees sacrificed pay rises and suffered tax increases to fund their aged pension. All who don't receive one are being cheated.
    Hoohoo
    31st May 2018
    6:34pm
    The rich are dependent on the poor & desperate, to do the heavy lifting jobs that actually produce the profits for their employers. Trouble is these days, the jobs are increasingly casualised & people are working their bums off (& wrecking their backs & knees) for what? No holiday pay & no sick pay. So, no money for private health insurance & other things rich people just automatically have, like a house.

    The casualised workforce is the main reason why the gap between rich & poor, haves & have-nots, is widening. And the bastards that be have even cut their Sunday penalty rates!

    What's infuriating is to see politicians & pen-pushers saying we need to work until we're 70, before a person is able to qualify for the OAP. How can you expect 69 year olds to work in manual labour? The rich have no idea what it's like down the bottom of the ladder. Struggle street is a world away from their mansions.
    musicveg
    3rd Jun 2018
    3:42pm
    I agree with your comments, it is amazing how they keep saying there are more jobs created when most of them have been casual and temporary jobs with lower pay. They may also be counting Uber drivers etc. The burden on our health system is already growing and will grow more if people are forced to work so long and the young cannot get into the workforce because people cannot retire.
    GrayComputing
    1st Jun 2018
    2:06pm
    It is time for all of us to rant at our MPs and Senators to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules
    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly,

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Hoohoo
    1st Jun 2018
    4:08pm
    Agreed, Graycomputing. Then people who are earning more than the OAP should pay tax like any other income earners. It would stop all the wastage of time & effort of people trying to arrange their financial affairs so they still get the pension's welfare perks (like the Health Care Card).

    Many retirees on this site have really been diddled by trying to be self-funded in an honest way (not hiding their wealth in Family Trusts, etc.), only to then be denied the perks of the OAP, while some other very wealthy people are still getting all the perks which I don't believe they are entitled to.
    Hoohoo
    1st Jun 2018
    4:21pm
    Even though it is Labor policy, I really think we have to scrap negative gearing & any other such benefit that's only available to the well off.

    The owners of farms should be the only people able to set up Family Trusts, because their family members work & contribute to the running of the farm. Most Family Trusts are simply tax-free havens which the rich have used to their advantage for too long.
    Adrianus
    2nd Jun 2018
    9:00am
    Hoohoo, you do realise that by trying to "scrap negative gearing" you actually create more of it?
    mike
    3rd Jun 2018
    1:13pm
    The Liberals have been targeting the working muddle class. First Hockey called diasbled rorters and smashed the retirement plans of all those who worked and saved, Then Turnbull promised to return the pensioner concession card to those who lost it due to Hockeys draconian changes but again he lied. Only those who had between $813000 and $1.25mil received it. Those who had LESS than $800000 and subsequently lost it later that year DID NOT. So the liberals are continuing their attacks on the working middle class, I voted Liberal for 50 odd years but cannot stomach their lies any more. I now vote One Nation.
    musicveg
    3rd Jun 2018
    3:44pm
    If you vote One Nation your vote will help Liberal anyway, so I would suggest you look at some other smaller parties or independents, you have clearly not done your research. One Nation have been teaming up with Liberals for some time now.
    musicveg
    3rd Jun 2018
    3:54pm
    Why do people need to be this rich? I just cannot see how they can ignore the suffering of others, whilst they live it up. Greed and power is really evil. It is not about taxing the wealthy it is about making sure they pay what tax is owed and stop the avoidance schemes. Everyone is paying tax when they spend their money, poor pay rent, buy food, pay utility bills etc. They have no money left to invest. This keeps the economy turning. Take away the money for the poor and crime will rise as it has already done so much in the last 10 years. Are not people blind to this? Stop saying there are jobs for all when there is not. A lot of people cannot even find permanent housing so how can they get a job? We are bringing in skilled workers from overseas instead of training Australians. School leavers struggle to get jobs because older people cannot afford to retire and the Government wants to make it even harder. CEO' s need to earn less and pay their workers more. Rising wages will help the economy when people can spend more, but rising profits for the wealthy does not create anymore spending, they have everything they need. 200,000 legal immigrants are year are putting pressure on housing and infrastructure, we need to curb this. I am looking at voting for Sustainable Australia Party but worried where the preference votes will end up, so I am still undecided.
    GrayComputing
    3rd Jun 2018
    4:38pm
    It is time for all of us to rant at our MPs and Senators to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules

    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.
    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too .
    That is peanuts to them not enough for a good vintage champagne.



    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    GrayComputing
    3rd Jun 2018
    4:38pm
    It is time for all of us to rant at our MPs and Senators to take action for human decency and a huge stress reduction for pensioners

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules

    Even poorer New Zealand has a NO ASSET pension so it is cheaper and user friendly.
    Why worry that few million$ earners get it too .
    That is peanuts to them not enough for a good vintage champagne.

    Do retired and retiring people really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Does your MP really like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do MPs normally compassionate persons let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    Some opposition and independent MPs stand to lose their chance at being part of the needed government changes

    We all need to tell our MP that these criminal asset tests for a pension must be dropped now.
    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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