5th Sep 2018
Government scraps plan to lift retirement age to 70
Author: Janelle Ward
age pensioners

The Federal Government’s contentious plan to lift the Age Pension eligibility age to 70 has been jettisoned, with Prime Minister Scott Morrison announcing this morning that he will ask Cabinet next week to reverse the policy.

The official retirement age will remain at 67.

“The pension age going to 70, gone,” Mr Morrison told the Nine Network on Wednesday morning.

“Next week, Cabinet will be ratifying a decision to reverse taking the retirement age to 70. It will remain at 67... I don't think we need that measure any longer when it comes to raising the pension age.”

The decision to lift the official retirement age was made by the Abbott Government in the 2014-15 Federal Budget.

At the 2018 Federal Budget briefing in Canberra in May, YourLifeChoices asked then Treasurer Morrison whether the ‘zombie’ measure to raise the Age Pension age to 70 by 2035 was still on the table. He was reluctant to respond, instead highlighting the provision of residential aged-care places and home-care packages. When the question was repeated, he said: “Yes, this is still government policy.”

Under the 2014 proposal, the qualifying age for the Age Pension was to be lifted by six months every two years until it reached 70 in 2035.

It was estimated that the move would save the budget about $3.6 billion in the first four years.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said on Sky News today that Mr Morrison had discussed the policy with his Cabinet colleagues.

He said people who worked in physically demanding jobs would appreciate the move, adding: “You don't want some suit in Canberra telling you you've got to work until you're 70.”

Labor Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services Jenny Macklin exclusively told YourLifeChoices in April: “We are strongly opposed to this (zombie legislation). It is unfair. There is evidence that it would be harsh, particularly on those with difficult physical jobs, farmers, builders, nurses.

“The proposal is very unfair as low-income people already have a lower life expectancy.”

YourLifeChoices members have been vocal in their opposition to lifting the retirement age. Our Insights Survey 2018 revealed that only 7.8 per cent of members worked until they were 70 or older before hanging up their hats. More than three-quarters, or 76 per cent, had retired by the time they reached 65. The remaining 16 per cent were between the ages of 66 and 69 when they stopped working.

In YourLifeChoices’ June Retirement Affordability Index™, Emma Dawson, executive director of Per Capita, said that lifting the retirement age would bring significant problems.

“Many … citizens are already struggling to survive on Newstart while they wait to reach the retirement age and access the Age Pension. Lifting the pension age to 70 will add five more years to the wait for such citizens and drastically increase the likelihood they will enter retirement in poverty,” she said.

ACTU assistant secretary Scott Connolly said told YourLifeChoices that a dignified retirement was a goal that was slipping away for many.

“In America, people in their 70s work in hospitality and retail, rather than enjoy their retirement,” he said. “We will not accept the further Americanisation of our industrial landscape, and we will not accept working people shouldering an unfair burden when the big banks and multinational corporations are being (promised) … tax cuts.”

What does the change in policy mean for you? Had you already made plans based on the intended lifting of the retirement age?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Kathleen
    5th Sep 2018
    10:39am
    This won’t undo the damage the government has done with the bullying and destructive behaviours of some in the liberal party. People will not forgive or forget the disgusting behaviours of recent weeks and what led up to those actions. Women make up at least half of the voters and unless they are blind like Trump voters they will punish LNP severely in the upcoming election. Other contenders are already envisaging a win whether they be new candidates or the opposition or independents.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:04am
    Retirement age should have been raised along with life expectancy and not left where it is now so that people depend on the taxpayer for 30 plus years in retirement.

    Labor will raise the retirement age to 70 within their first term of government if people are stupid enough to vote them into power.
    maelcolium
    5th Sep 2018
    11:13am
    Yes they are running scared. The ALP are already seizing the reins of Government by writing to the Great Barrier Reef crowd and warning them they will claw back the half billion Turnbull handed out to support his mates on the GBR board. Statements have already been made on energy environment by the shadow Ministers, so all that's missing is an election. ScoMo has said it will be in August but I can't see it going beyond this year when Wentworth gets ravaged and Parliament is hung, relying on independents in the lower house to pass supply. It's unravelling and will gain in speed when the ALP starts to apply the thumb screws post Wentworth in Parliament.

    The LNP have only themselves to blame. From the nasty antisocial stance of the Abbotista Government to the flip flopping Turnbull fiaso pummelled in his own party by the right faction to a bumbling blow hard who has no credibility after jailing children, unpicking the superannuation system and weakening the OAP for many middle income pensioners while preaching his dubious Christian values - all a bloody great mess.

    We will look back on this LNP period as one where the Government in power acted as though they were in opposition. They were never ready to govern, but snuck in by the ineptitude of the ALP Rudd/Hillard/Rudd squabble and the moderate votes delivered by the migrant seats in inner Sydney. This time Queensland seats will wipe them out for other dubious reasons associated with the disaffected right of the National party. Meanwhile the citizens revolt is well under way except that neither of the major parties have a clue a to how angry people really are this time. If the ALP think Government is going to be easy they need to gird their loins against the walloping that will come from independents.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:30am
    Labor is certainly no where near ready to govern either and you think we have a dog's dinner now it aint nothing to what we will have with a Labor government.
    Kathleen
    5th Sep 2018
    11:45am
    maelcolium, the problem with independents they are often wishy washy and play games to get what they want. They need to be informed, intelligent and have firm ideas about policies and be tapped into their communities. Unfortunately, rarely does this happen. You do not need the likes of Pauline Hanson. People will vote labor or the Greens as they have not seen any recent impressive independents.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:53am
    One has to admire our ex PM. He was in politics because he wanted to be donating his salary to charity. When they no longer wanted him he quit and has moved on.

    We meed more people who want to be in politics for the right reasons and not for the money or any other reason to feather their own nest. We certainly need less of the new breed of career pollies.

    Unfortunately the type of people we need are simply not interested in being in politics today.
    Alexii
    5th Sep 2018
    12:43pm
    OG, When I retired I couldn't have done any longer in my job as I would have become a complete nervous wreck as it was extremely stressful. I was able to cope with casual work (just) for a number of years after that, but at least I wasn't full time and could say, "No" if I didn't;t want to go. You need to consider that many people can't work longer because of stress and hard also hard physical work.
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    12:51pm
    Why women specifically Kathleen?
    Kathleen
    5th Sep 2018
    1:35pm
    KSS, because of how the women have been treated in the liberal party. Julie Bishop is preferred by voters apparently to the guys but she was back stabbed. Women have been abused and stood over. Women in America may support Trump but Australian women will protest at the elections. Men will as well of course but women will feel the abuse and there are more than 50% women voters. One young liberal on Q and A said he would vote labor as a protest. My husband agrees with me but I felt it more as a woman. A black woman saying she will name and shame in parliament must have the Libs worried. A lack of women in the LNP side and with some leaving in protest so whether or not you vote liberal it is unAustralian to say the least!
    jackie
    5th Sep 2018
    1:39pm
    If these greedy fool had any brains he would bring it back to 60. He is too mean and stupid to do that.
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    2:00pm
    Until those making accusations actually provide the evidence and circumstances of being 'bullied' it is simply an allegation. You don't get to mage accusations and be believed just because you are a woman.
    Ms Bishop has been in politics for 20 years and was a fighting lawyer before that. She is no shrinking violet and gives as good as she gets. It was a three horse race and only one winner - and not the expected winner at that.

    The young Liberal saying he will vote Labor was Mr Turnbull's son! What do you expect? Must stand up for Daddy.

    You felt it more because you are a woman? WTF. Felt what exactly? It did not happen to you and you don't even know exactly what happened either, none of us do.

    I just don't understand your reasoning.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    2:31pm
    So son has spat the dummy because Dad didn't do what he wanted once again.
    Kathleen
    5th Sep 2018
    3:04pm
    KSS, I am guessing you are a guy!?
    The young one on Q and A was not Turnbull’s son as far as I know. He was very young, a member of the young liberals.
    There is plenty of evidence that supports the bullying. You are about to get some names although many have guessed already!
    Your language is unacceptable. Because you don’t like what others say that disrupts your right leaning complacency does not give you the right to be offensive.
    The voting was unfair as some were bullied into voting a certain way. It was orchestrated. In one instance demands were made to check ballots that were supposedly confidential.
    The very fact that these are strong women provides support for these allegations.
    Parliament will give them the opportunity to name and shame.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    3:10pm
    Just because someone doesn't get their own way today the bullying cry card is shown it seems.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    3:16pm
    This is the problem. I believe KSS is a woman and there is nothing wrong with her language.

    As long as we have this disconnect women will be walked all over. Julia Banks should have sent them slinking if she'd had the guts to do so. I've seen women do it. In fact in my union rep years, farmer years and army years I sent a few slinking off myself.

    These guys in Parliament deserve no special civility. If they were ever civil they certainly aren't now and the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:18pm
    So nobody should be entitled ™ to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their cunning investment approach, OG? Everyone must be in chains until seventy at least, so no slacking off just because you've set yourself up for life... that would be tantamount to requiring a politician to be able to draw pension early etc........ can';t have it these days... budget emergencies on all sides..

    A fair go for those who have a fair go.. or something like that....
    MICK
    5th Sep 2018
    3:43pm
    Correct TREBOR. OG has been masquerading as 'olbeid' lately. I initially thought he may have been Eddie Obeid but on closer inspection, yeah, its OG trolling for the government again.
    Not seen some of the trolls of late but I guess the amount of dirt coming out on the coalition lately meant they were pulled off the website until people forgot.

    OG - latest dirty coalition MP is leader of Victorian state government. Did you read about it on The Guardian today? The guy intervened and influenced the proper workings of the bureaucracy (a nice way of saying perverted this) to save his career. And then there is still the ongoing matter of Daryn Maguire dear boy. Speak up about these two.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:10pm
    Nope Mick. I have only just flown back from the other side of the world so I missed all the excitement of the past month.
    Jim
    5th Sep 2018
    5:04pm
    Mick how can you say the trolls have not been seen on the website, you are still commenting. I have to mostly agree with Kathleen, we need more women in parliament, but we do need to make sure that they are put in on merit, I am sure there are plenty out there, as far as the bullying goes there is evidence that it happens in both main camps as has been evidenced lately in the Labor party, and let’s not forget who orchestrated the removal of both Rudd and Gillard and gained the leadership of the opposition, I believe we need to get rid of Shorten and put Alby in charge then we might get someone we can trust.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:06pm
    Guaranteed Lifetime Income should have been raised along with life expectancy and not left where it is now so that people depend on the taxpayer for 30 plus years in retirement.

    Fixed for you, Ebergeezer (a legend in your own lynch mob) - no fee this time....
    MICK
    5th Sep 2018
    6:00pm
    Thanks Jim. I needed that...........
    Your comment sounds like the very destabilising Labor does not need. Why make such a comment? Albanese speaks well but I saw him in action again on Q&A with his mate Alan Jones next to him with a finely veiled support of the coal industry. No thanks!
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:04pm
    Damn, Rae - were you my former neighbour on the farm? Did you ever discuss Portsea with your tall neighbour... did you run all the pretty horses?
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:16pm
    Having met Albanese on several occasions he is not the easiest person to talk to and I doubt he is PM material at all.
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    1:05am
    Julia Banks? The $40 a day woman?

    **cue music**

    We have the means.... we have the technology ... we can create a fat cat women who can survive on $40 a day without any other input........... she can run faster.... ruin faster... talk faster without reason ........we just don't have the woman.....

    Don't you think this 'persecution of women complex' is somewhat dated?

    She said something utterly stupid - she showed she was utterly stupid... she paid the price....
    KSS
    6th Sep 2018
    9:14am
    So Kathleen thinks I am a man and Rae thinks I am a woman! Seems I have finally joined the gender fluid generation... hahahahahaha!
    Kathleen
    6th Sep 2018
    10:45am
    I used to think KSS was a woman but lately the voice seems different. Maybe t is both. I know people who use one name but two write, a male and a female.
    Now Julie has come out speaking about the bullying so there is no doubt it is real and not soft stuff but horrible!
    It is rampant and silences people. A few guys are guilty on here too with their hate for women.
    tisme
    5th Sep 2018
    11:01am
    and they can retire at 60. they continue to crucify the disabled wih that fraud they call NDIS , they continue to deny carers the same rights as all other Australians I am sick and tired of all of them
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:49am
    Way too many people today call themselves carers and care for may people who can care for themselves. I know of many single mother's who are carers for alder people just so they can get extra money from Centrelink.
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    12:55pm
    ANYONE can retire at 60 or at any age come to that tisme. They just don't qualify for the Government age pension.
    Kathleen
    5th Sep 2018
    1:40pm
    OG it is not easy to get a carer allowance or payment. My cousin applied many years ago when her husband had a quadruple by pass, severe diabetes, chronic back arthritis, but was turned down. No matter how ill you are if you can dress and shower yourself, make a meal, get around okay, you do not get it. You have to be physically disabled.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    2:27pm
    If you get cancer you can have someone on a carers allowance care for you. If you get old same thing. It is extremely easy to get a carers allowance and carer pension.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    3:18pm
    Yes a local woman got a carer's allowance for a child who was simply uncooperative. Had the child classed as having mental illness and got the allowance.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:19pm
    Ah - so the secret is out! It's only the peasants who require pension in retirement who must wait...it's good to see we're all on the same page there..... serious changes must be made to afford genuine equal opportunity to retire then .......
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:12pm
    Just put your uncontrollable kid on drugs and you will get the carers allowance. No drugs not allowance. So parents just get scripts written now for the allowance.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:35pm
    You're generalising and speaking through your hat again, Ebergeezer.. you have NO way of knowing what went into the situation of any carer or Pensioner or unemployed person, including DSP.

    That's up to the government - and last time I looked ... well - let me offer you a quote:-

    'The strength and majesty of our judicial system is founded on the exposition of the truth through a process of submission of evidence and argument to a body of neutral citizens and not through a process of imagery conjured by Madison Avenue public relations and a collection of uninformed celebrities'.

    -Ronald Marmo, prosecutor in case of Hurricane Carter.

    You should consider that in a broader sense than that of a self-interested prosecutor .. Marmo thought he had it sewn up, but he forgot that his comments apply to others including D.A.s who speak publicly.

    I've had this discussion before about Veterans and their often apparently skewed pension entitlements - it is up to the government to make the decisions, not some self-appointed group of vigilantes.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:53pm
    I wish I was Trebor but I know a lot more than you give me credit for I'm afraid. I have many friends who have worked for Centrelink.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:24pm
    I once pointed to a retired copper mate and said:- "There was once a fine figure of a man!"

    His mate (and mine) responded:- "He was NEVER a fine figure of a man!"

    There was never a Centrelink person who worked...... they obey and are instructed on every step.... das Vreithinking ist VERBOTEN!
    inextratime
    7th Sep 2018
    8:28pm
    I think you mean ''Freies Denken'' Trebor as in das -''Fries drunken ist verboten''
    HarrysOpinion
    5th Sep 2018
    11:07am
    Logical move or logical backflip if you like. Gearing up for early election? hmm?
    clarkey
    5th Sep 2018
    11:12am
    Lets blame Labor again Old Geezer! you have to be an lnp troll. Fairdinkum get over yourself! You seem to be comfortable with your retirement money! Why do you keep banging on about how bad Labor is/will be and how great you and the lnp are in your space and time.
    maelcolium
    5th Sep 2018
    11:18am
    Ignore the OG, he is a self preening product of the lucky rump of the baby boomers. He will tell you how hard he has worked but he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Not worth the bother really. He looks and sounds like an LNP troll so is better left to play with himself for which he shows remarkable aptitude.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:46am
    If I can do it anyone can so why do so many people fail to provide for their own retirement? Laziness and inability to live with in their means seems to fit the bill.

    Unfortunately I see it much worse under Labor than we have now> Taxes will be increase and all incentives for people to get ahead will be taken away. Heaven help those self funded retirees relying on franking credits to make ends meet too.

    Just been told Centrelink is putting a value on all their client's homes too. I wonder what the purpose of that may be?
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    12:56pm
    Well it was Labor who began the lifting of the age pension eligibility age clarkey.
    jackie
    5th Sep 2018
    1:43pm
    KSS...Yes it was Gillard that raised it to 67 but you would think that LNP would have learned from Labor's mistake instead of trying to raise it further and blaming Labor again. You would think LNP would have learned from what Gillard did to Kevin instead of copying them with what they did to Turnbull. I wish Australia had a Jacinta. Honest and in touch with her people.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    2:32pm
    Why should the government be required to support people for a third on their life on welfare? People should have to work longer to get the pension instead.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:22pm
    Becaause it's not welfare, OG - sorry to explain it to you again - it is Social security - a form of insurance bought and paid for out of taxation contributions of all Entitlement ™.

    Don't waste my time asking again why you don't get it - you've got your share... go write a book about your wonderful success story.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:28pm
    Trebor

    (in the UK) monetary assistance from the state for people with an inadequate or no income.
    "she was living on social security"
    (in the US) a federal insurance scheme providing benefits for pensioners and those who are unemployed or disabled

    In the US - there is a specific salary deduction for social security

    In Oz - the pension is welfare
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:09pm
    Prove it, olbie...

    Meanwhile:-

    http://arpq.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/old_age_pension.pdf

    And for the final nail:-

    http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/15/49/73/20/menzie10.jpg
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:14pm
    I agree pension is nothing but welfare.
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    1:08am
    You can lead a hearse to the altar... but you can't make him drink the holy water of truth....
    Old Geezer
    6th Sep 2018
    10:52am
    I would not want to Trebor.
    TMac
    5th Sep 2018
    11:14am
    Lesson is to teach our children to save for their own retirement and not rely on the pension...who knows what amount it will be in several decades time or at what age you will be able to access it.
    KB
    5th Sep 2018
    1:03pm
    TMac first sensible comment on this discussion. Keep telling my daughter to keep saving for the future None of us know what the future will be .
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:26pm
    Second lesson is to bring politicians to heel over their malfeasanceFund built up over decades.. and how they absorbed it into consolidated revenue so as to make it their plaything subject to their prerogative, while stealing $130Bn and sending it to The Caymans to ensure their own income from 'superannuation' (rort) is safe forever from any economic disaster they visit upon this nation and its people, and all without paying tax here.

    Let's get to the real meat here.. a lot of people've got a lot of knives and forks on their tables.. but they ain't got much to eat.. man - they gotta cut somethin'! (Bob Dylan)
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    11:16am
    The PM doesn't even seem to understand the difference between Retirement and Pension Age! In other comments (not reported here from 2015) he actually talked as if he was doing a favour for older people by MAKING THEM work longer! Yes, a dictator! He also called it "welfare" - as if it is a favour, ignoring that we all paid for it with the 7.5% tax impost included in taxes even now.

    The telling statistic min the above article is "More than three-quarters, or 76 per cent, had retired by the time they reached 65." Also, the fact that we have the meanest rules in the OECD meant to avoid paying pensions by putting a lot of Tests.

    The only real solution acceptable to the majority is to make Age Pension Universal - at least for those qualifying by Age (65 years, NOT 67), and Residency (say 15 years) with NO other Tests. No problem paying for it if the Govt introduces Minimum Taxes to make the Large companies and the wealthy pay minimum taxes without shonky deductions.

    Disgusting failure of priorities - by both major parties! All Retirees and Pre-retirees need to write to their MPs for this, and not vote for them (put sitting members last) if they don't agree.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:22am
    PM is right the pension is welfare paid to those who have no other means of support.

    That statistic of 76 per cent saying they had retired before 65 is miss leading and being used out of context. Most of the people could have retired because they had enough money so they no longer had to work.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    11:28am
    PM is wrong and so are you - as it has been paid for, and has been proved by many people several times in YLC posts. Just like he doesn't know the difference between Retirement & Pension Age! You don't get it too, so don't bother, your comments are usually just a jealous person's rubbish - paid for by the Liberal party. Go away, troll!
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:35am
    Unfortunately you like many others are very wrong George and live in a fairy world where you just think it is not welfare. It is welfare and is part of the welfare budget and will all ways be welfare while ever it is means tested in any way. Many of us have paid taxes all our working lives and still pay taxes today and even though we are well over retirement age their is no government handout for us. Yes we too paid the 7.5% which is really just part of our taxes nothing more too. You may have an argument that it is not welfare if it was paid to all over retirement age but that aint about to happen anytime soon.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    12:11pm
    OG, just because some donkey politicians in Canberra put in Tests doesn't mean it is not a right. Yes, we all paid for it, hence IT IS a right. And yes, I have strongly proposed Universal Pension as in my comments above - because it is a right. So why don't you join me and promote that too? Unless you are a part of the Liberal party propaganda machine!
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:22pm
    No it is certainly not a right but welfare. Just ask those who are well over retirement age and have to pay for those on welfare and receive nothing at all in return for all the taxes they have paid. It is simply welfare paid to those who have no other means of support. To believe otherwise you are living in fairyland.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    12:57pm
    It is a paid-for right, and it is NOT welfare just because some moronic politicians call it that. You can keep opposing it all you like but it won't change that fact.
    Maybe we have all got you wrong - maybe you work for the Labor party and are trying to ensure your nasty attacks on pensioners provokes them all to vote AGAINST the Liberal party! Ha! Either way, get lost, troll!
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:17pm
    George it has been paid for yes. It was used to build assets that produced income and invested. It's now all been sold. There is no income coming in. It's all been wasted or given to cronies and carpetbaggers.

    We are in public debt to the amount of $600 billion and private debt of $4 trillion, yes trillion dollars.

    Our Balance of payments is now a disaster and we will lose our AAA sometime soon when the Aussie dollar falls further. Then the IMF will come in again and there will be more austerity like the 2014/15/16 budgets. Yes the IMF came around then too.

    There aren't enough companies making profits to pay taxes. The miners were sold long ago.

    It's been paid alright and squandered on living above our means for far too long.

    The money is all gone. The assets are all gone. We'll be lucky not to end up like Argentina or Greece with what we have done. I can't believe people are still wasting money on foibles with what is coming at us.

    Now if we still owned everything including the resources and farms you might have a point but beggars can't be choosers even in Australia unfortunately.

    It's a damn shame and we could have maybe stopped it but we didn't.

    Have you missed all the tax cuts, the public service cuts followed by privatisation, the baby bonuses, the childcare rebates, the insurance rebates, on and on until there isn't any revenue left in the Treasury. How to ruin a country 101.

    I'd like a universal pension because right now I get nothing but I know it's never going to happen so I'm still being frugal and working at producing my own income. I will never ever trust a Government again.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:28pm
    Don't argue with OG - he'll just repeat the same nonsense over and over no matter how many times it is laid out for him chapter and verse. He is truly not a believable character here.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:10pm
    Again - for those without ears to listen and eyes to see:-

    http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/15/49/73/20/menzie10.jpg
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:23pm
    I for one don't read such rubbish.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:38pm
    Yes - truth does have a rather acid effect on empty rhetoric..... best you avoid it, OG.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:41pm
    Damn - 'empty vessels' is a better twist of phrase - something on which, as a true Irishman (mostly, but German and Scottish, too), I pride myself....

    Repeats:-

    Yes - truth does have a rather acid effect on empty vessels - best you avoid it, OG.
    MD
    5th Sep 2018
    8:20pm
    You tell em Rae, you're right on the money honey - right down to the "millions n trillions".

    But as the man on that TV ad was known to say; "But wait, there's more"- obviously another trick Chowna has up the Emperors sleeve eh?
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    9:09pm
    Rae, I can agree with much of what you have written here and in other posts below, and yes, I am aware of how successive Govts of both sides have blown OUR money and OUR assets.

    However, I am not as pessimistic as you, and believe the situation can change if the electorate finally wakes up - maybe in stages over years. I don't believe it can't be fixed, e.g. to pay for Universal Pension, as I mentioned Minimum Taxes can fix the funding pretty quickly. Also, even if they blew the Pension Fund in the past, they could re-create it gradually (into a separate Fund independently managed). However, the key for all this to happen is to generate enough momentum by retirees (millions of us) to throw out all sitting MPs of both major parties (and Greens) as a first step.

    So, bottom line - All Retirees and Pre-retirees need to write to their MPs for this, and not vote for them (put sitting members last) if they don't agree to fight for Universal Pension.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:30pm
    To undo the fearful harm, George... Rae.. I fear that a major revolution and forceful retaking of resources and governance by the people, of the people and for the people... must occur first.

    Clean sweep and start again....... and those who are currently traitors to their own should thank their lucky stars if I am their judge when that happens and not some Ayatollah type .... go thy way and sin no more....

    "So, bottom line - All Retirees and Pre-retirees need to write to their MPs for this, and not vote for them (put sitting members last) if they don't agree to fight for Universal Pension."

    .... and a fair go for those who've already MADE a fair go, often with next to nothing.

    Morrison made a big deal of a fair go for fair-goers (not Luna Park goers).... let him stand by those words.....
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    7th Sep 2018
    10:24pm
    OG, the LNP reduced or terminated pensions to hundreds of thousands. THAT'S CUTTING PENSIONS AND THAT'S PROOF THEY LIED. It is totally irrelevant why, or whether it was a good move or a sensible (in your opinion, or that of anyone else with your mean and bigoted reasoning). Facts are facts, and the FACT is that THEY LIED because they DID CUT PENSIONS.
    Mad as hell
    5th Sep 2018
    11:17am
    The LNP lied when they promised “...no cuts to pensions...” among other broken election promises. How do we know they are not lying now?
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    11:20am
    LNP didn't cut pensions at all in fact they have increase them.
    1984
    5th Sep 2018
    12:02pm
    No OG you are so WRONG. It was the LNP that increased the deduction of pensions to $3 for every $1,000 over the asset threshold which REDUCED pensions in most cases & in some CUT pensions entirely. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
    Labour are just as bad as this still went through parliament when it could of been blocked.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:08pm
    Pension rates were increased not reduced.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    12:14pm
    Yes, Mad as hell, they cut the pensions - for 330,000 it was reduced, for another 91,000 it was DELETED. This broken promise should be repeated by all retirees at every opportunity to ensure either the cuts are reversed, or the Assets test removed, or else to ensure this party is never elected again.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:18pm
    Those people were wealthier enough not to get the pension so that change was well over due and thank goodness the government made the hard decision on that one.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    12:59pm
    Hard enough for the Lib party liars / promise-breakers / anti-pensioners to get sacked now!
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:22pm
    Bit of lying going on too when something like 50% of non concessional amounts in pensions was suddenly deemed to be only 10% and a lump sum of $400 000 could be suddenly deemed to be $800 000. This Government is so desperate and hating of workers and unions that any semblance of truth has been lost completely.

    I can understand them making it as they have broken the revenue base and the Treasury is empty. They lie about good money management too. Not that the other Parties are any better. None of them can be trusted.
    Mad as hell
    5th Sep 2018
    6:15pm
    OG the LNP stole pension payments from 330,000 pensioners and that is a fact.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:51pm
    Those 330,000 should never have been given pensions in the first place so all they did was fix the problem they created. Yes I know the background on it and who was actually behind it personally. I never agreed with it as it was simply stupid people with such high lever of assets should be on welfare. Congratulations LNP for seeing your mistake and fixing it.
    Mad as hell
    5th Sep 2018
    7:07pm
    The LNP stole pension payments from 330,000 pensioners and that is a fact.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:37pm
    OG - pension rates are increased in line with a mythical set of values on rises in costs of living - FCS, son - politicians receive a pension for life INDEXED to inflation or to their own determined values... what makes you think that pensioners are not entitled to be paid enough on their insurance policy to keep them in the same standard year after year?

    How many different rules do you want, and how divided a society do you want ? surely at some point their comes to you the realisation that PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO LIVE! And especially after a lifetime of contribution to this nation, its welfare, and its future and the future for its people..... if you choose just once to look around, you will see clearly that this future has been thrown away by those handed the PRIVILEGE of handling and maintaining the nation on behalf of those people.

    ALL my aunts raised families and die the home fire work.... are you now suggesting that since they did not invest wisely, they should have nothing?

    Shame on you!! I rather thought they invested wisely in the well-being and advancement of their families....
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    7th Sep 2018
    10:36pm
    OG, whether or not 330,000 should or shouldn't have received pensions is not relevant. (Although the fact is that many genuinely NEED one, and have less income than pensioners. And by NOT receiving one they are actually being taxed at a rate of more than 100% as a penalty for saving!). What is relevant is that they had their pension taken away when they planned their retirement based on a law that said they should receive it. Therefore IT WAS STOLEN AND THE GOVERNMENT LIED. What should or shouldn't be done doesn't change the fact of what WAS done and what WAS promised. Seems your meanness and bigoted attitude have addled your brain such that you don't understand plain English.
    Jen50
    5th Sep 2018
    12:01pm
    Thank goodness. Despite longer life expectancies there are a lot of people who would really struggle to make it to 70 to retire or wouldn’t make it at all. I had to retire at 63 because of a chronic health problem caused by work related stress. I could cope with all kinds of pressure working in an office up until I was 60 and then it all started to become too much.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:09pm
    Stress means you were in the wrong job.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Sep 2018
    10:28am
    Right, so let's abolish all the stressful jobs, and guarantee everyone freedom of choice of occupation, and see how that works out! No pilots. No soldiers fighting on the ground. No search and rescue or firemen. No surgeons doing tricky surgery. The list goes on and on.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    12:05pm
    The consequences of those dreadful 2014/15 and 2015/16 budgets are beginning to be felt down on main Street. I imagine a lot of retail and hospitality business owners are ropeabe and letting the LNP know it.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    12:17pm
    Yes, I hope all Retirees join in too (and stop sleeping) to ensure the Lib party pays for their attacks on pensioners with more attacks likely in the future if they get elected again.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:19pm
    LNP has looked after pensioners very well so I have no idea what more you want.
    GeorgeM
    5th Sep 2018
    1:03pm
    Universal Pension, or else remove the Assets Test altogether (maybe even the Income Test - else, why don't Politicians have these tests?), or at the very minimum reverse the Asset Test changes from 2017 - you must be really dense if you couldn't figure these basics out yet.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:30pm
    George I agree with you but it's just too late. We simply can't afford it. It's not fair but nothing has been since around 1975 in my opinion.

    As to asset tests people could be a bit more realistic about valuing their stuff or sell off assets not producing income and buy income producing assets. Why should those who purchased expensive toys be rewarded for doing so?
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:14pm
    Well - someone has to suffer, and among those would be those who've over-invested in serial housing and such, and then will suffer a market collapse.

    Them's the breaks... at least they've had a sweet ride all the way to the bottom....

    When you use false equity to gain further false equity - you end up in a situation with no escape.... the Wall Street Crash showed that clearly with stocks and bonds heaped up using as 'collateral' the possession of stocks and bonds for which the holder was already in hock.

    When you buy an investment property without totally owning it, and then go to the bank which will loan you on some future pie-in-the-sky capital improvement - you are doing the exact same thing - and if you fall, it is your own doing.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:16pm
    Glad to see if you win then it's your own doing too.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:46pm
    Yes - but your idea is that those who don't win sufficiently are faulty vehicles... you advocacy of a guaranteed lifetime income for all is noted.... and appreciated.... of course, that will also have to be applied to those who serve lengthy terms of imprisonment - can't be left out to draw on the public purse at retirement age.....

    Terrific encouragement for enterprise and hard work that..... let alone honesty and good citizenship .......

    Of course, there's always the gulag principle.... those unworthy should simply be penned up in the wastelands.... one bowl of grass soup a day and hard labour until they generate their riches sufficient to be permitted back into the retirement community......

    See what I mean (partly) about your own lynch mob, Ebergeezer?
    HKW
    5th Sep 2018
    12:20pm
    Should somehow the retirement age still be lifted to 70 the murderous zionist bandits managing the Australian government will be responsible for thousands of suicidal deaths in elderly . That is the globalists genocidal plan anyway ...
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    1:05pm
    There is no 'retirement' age in Australia for most people (- judges and priests being notable exceptions and that is already 70 yrs). There is only an age at which you become eligible to apply for the Government age pension. And not everyone is 'entitled' to receive it.
    Crowcrag
    5th Sep 2018
    12:20pm
    At least Old Geezer is consistent. He trots out the same self glorifying information about providing for his own retirement and why can’t everybody be like him - cue uplifting music. The point is they did not, and that cannot be rewound. But they did, as taxpayers, pay their 7.5% pension contributions all their working lives. Cannot OG see that is a form of superannuation from which governments have profited from for years? They have even admitted this. I will gladly accept the 7.5% I paid for 50 years - plus the accumulated interest - in lieu of the pension.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:25pm
    It is definitely not a form of superannuation at all. It is merely taxes and you have no control over how it is used by the government. Superannuation is your money and you have control over how it is spent. Huge difference here.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:38pm
    Well if the Fraser Government had been beaten back then we would possibly still have a welfare fund and a universal pension and public health and education but Australia voted for what we have now.

    What don't people understand about Australia being sold out and going broke?
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:45pm
    Rubbish OG - that money was taken for that purpose and remains for that purpose.

    We do not yet live in a dictatorship of elected government....

    Thank you for referring indirectly to my thesis on The Divine Right (or otherwise) Of Elected Government. Historically EVERY despotic regime has been overthrown in one way or another..... when an elected government - as you so clearly state- is not bound by any duty to those it is paid to represent - it is clearly despotic.

    "It is merely taxes and you have no control over how it is used by the government."

    Are you serious, you petty Mussolini, you?

    I've outlined for you before the Stalinist and Hitlerist approach - and yet your persist despite my earnest attempts to educate you, in believing that 'the government' and its cronies at the 'top end' are The People ( who must be looked after) and the rest are just the cattle in the fields to be exploited at whim, even unto death.

    Thank you for your enlightening contribution into the mindset of the ruling class(es), and your validation of my themes...

    **face palm inserted*
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    12:21pm
    Problem for LNP is that lifting the retirement age to 70 is out on the table and no amount of backflipping will change it. We only have to go back to the GST to see how a backflip can be backflipped. Remember Mr Howard saying that the GST is dead, that backflip only lasted until after the next election where unfortunately the Australian Democrats gave the Liberal government the numbers to pass the GST through the Senate notwithstanding the Liberals had no election mandate to do so. Beware!!!
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    12:24pm
    Before someone remind me Ms Gillard also stated that the Carbon Tax would not be introduced by her government, again that backflip only lasted until she needed the Greens vote.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    12:27pm
    Eddy she also said that when she had rented offices in Canberra with 200 plus staff working on it too.

    Gillard had a bucket list she wanted ticked off no matter what. Hence the crazy things she did to tick them off.
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    12:39pm
    My point OG was not specifically about any individual or government or party, it was examples of backflips which were later backflipped. I an certain that since federation there have seen many political backflips which were later backflipped, I only used two from recent memory.
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    12:51pm
    Of more import to aspiring self-funded retirees is the preservation age gradually increasing to age 60. I know my children, who are in their late 40s and early 50s, feel cheated that they cannot retire and access their super at age 55. Do you think this would influence the next generations voting preferences?
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    1:09pm
    Again, there is no retirement age in Australia (except for a few notable exceptions like judges and priests and that is already 70 yes and has been for decades). There is only an age at which you become eligible to apply for the Government age pension and not everyone is 'entitled' to receive it!
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    2:00pm
    KSS, I hope you are not getting the wrong impression about retiring age in government service. Back in the 'old' days there was a compulsory retiring age of 65, judges and a few others were allowed to stay on until they were 70. In those days as a serving military officer my compulsory age was legislated as 55, although senior officers (ie Admirals, Generals and Air Marshalls) could be extended past age 55. These 'compulsory' retiring ages did not mean you could not retire earlier only that when you reached that age you were automatically retired.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:16pm
    I don't recall giving Gillard and Co any mercy on that issue - here or elsewhere, Eddy. nheither have most sensible people here - but the issue is the back-flip by Morrison on extending the pension age to 70... since it wouldn't pass the Senate.

    What happened to Morrison blaming Labor and that unelected swill for the dire state of the budget? MUST be an election year...... the old garbage hasn't worked - so they drop it for the Santa Claus act...
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    6:39pm
    My point, as stated earlier in response to OG, was that backflips could be backflipped when the political climate was less potentially damaging, like immediately after an election
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:57pm
    Too true, Eddy - promise the world and once elected... take it all away.

    I have a horrible habit of taking a cucumber in a supermarket and extending it as a Pinnochio nose... uttering:- "Under no government I lead will there be any GST!" or "There will ever be a Carbon Tax under a government I lead!"

    Equal opportunity all the way with me.....
    Wendy HK
    5th Sep 2018
    12:31pm
    Its a step in the right direction.
    Alexii
    5th Sep 2018
    12:44pm
    If they can reverse that decision they should now reverse the decision that was made to the assets test and cost many people dearly a few years ago now.

    5th Sep 2018
    1:01pm
    Morrison is not raising pension age and not touching franking credits for retirees
    Shorten wants to do both
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    1:04pm
    I agree.
    KSS
    5th Sep 2018
    1:13pm
    Don't forget many 'oldies' are also negatively geared property investors. Mr Shorten wants to take that too.
    Not a Bludger
    5th Sep 2018
    1:15pm
    Dead right - but those moaners & groaners and permanently outraged all of whom love the lefty trots with a passion only want your and my hard earned stuck in their mitts for free and with no strings attached.
    That is the significant imbalance with this publication.
    jackie
    5th Sep 2018
    1:46pm
    KSS....Every human on this planet should have a roof over their head. Negative gearing creates more homeless and the greedy more wealth. I wish those that are well off would learn to be grateful for what they have instead of always wanting more. Let others have some too.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:50pm
    Yes for once I agree with you but only because they will have to after the dismal economic management of the past 20 years or more.

    I'd be cancelling baby bonuses, childcare rebates and a lot of HECs bills that will never be paid as well.

    When a country is in the debt we are harsh consequences follow.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    2:24pm
    Welcome back OG.
    The leaners have been on a rampage on this site the last few weeks , attacking anyone who advocates greater personal responsibility and less dependent on welfare.

    Only a few of us like KSS and Not a Bludger here to hold the fort :)
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    2:30pm
    Without negative gearing we wold have more homeless and more people struggling to pay rents as the price would reflect the true cost of providing accommodation which is considerably more than what rents are today.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:34pm
    If you're getting a handout for free from dividend imputation - you are fairly in the sights. If you and the companies you deal with are honest, you will not lose one cent.

    As for negatively geared housing investment and shares - you roll the wheels on the poker machine and win or lose as they fall.... you are captain of your own soul and when you seek profit you take risks, same as anyone else, including a person who gets a job etc.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:35pm
    It wouldn't be so funny, olbaid, if Ebegeezer Scrooge actually had a valid point and not just endless empty rhetoric unsupported by facts.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:37pm
    Trebor - you describe our welfare (pension) system perfectly.

    You are the captain of your soul, and should seek to maximize your returns and live independently. However should you fall on hard times, the welfare (i.e. pension|system is there to help you
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:17pm
    It's not always that easy and simple, olbie - if it were everyone would retire with riches, and the economy would fail.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:21pm
    I certainly would not like to be renting when negative gearing is abolished and capital gains is halved. You will soon find out what the real cost of renting an abode is and not the subsidised rate you are now paying.

    You are right Trebor the smart people will not lose one cent but what it will do to our economy will be the problem. Capital will be hard to raise as investors will have dried up and invested elsewhere where the returns will be better. Off shore is looking very attractive if franking credits are not refunded.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:53pm
    Fear-mongering, OG - we've been through all this before. Reduction in negative gearing and CONCESSIONAL capital gains (you really should not be getting both) had zero effect on the market when there was a tentative attempt to bring those in. I can agree with a genuine business getting NG - it is unconscionable that it receive both NG and CONCESSIONAL capitals gains - that's two bites of the cherry.

    olbie - I'll try to get to the point of sufficient income to ensure retirement :-

    The only way to guarantee that is to guarantee that over the lifetime of every individual, that individual receives a sufficient income to guarantee a retirement package. That is awfully close to the concept so despised in the capitalist West - of everyone guaranteed the same income regardless of every other factor..... and most likely is the concept behind the current half-hearted and very faintly heard call for a National Wage.

    It also implies that even your lowest, dim-witted, drug-addled person will receive a guaranteed income adequate to provide for life, housing etc, AND a retirement package. Same with, no disrespect intended, those with mental incapacities and insufficiencies (there is a difference in military law) - one means you're crazy - the other means you're too damned dumb to be guilty. similarly your wheelchair-bound quadraplegic would receive the same level of lifetime income....

    Now you can argue the merits of all those different scenarios, and countless others including those thrust on involuntary unemployment for a long period of time (does that mean they should be paid an amount commensurate with their guaranteed lifetime income as 'unemployment insurance' during such periods?

    You can see where I'm going here....

    If there is any other option, I'm all ears..... but without such an option, we are either bound to a guaranteed lifetime income guarantee for every individual or to the current mess of social security and unemployment and eventual pensions.

    A National Lifetime Wage** is something being trialed in some Scandinavian nations as we speak.... I await the outcomes with bated breath... nah - not really - I sometimes have to remember to breathe....

    **Australia is not the only social security laboratory, complete with rats, on this planet.... we just do other things, such as DV, bullying, and so forth... the Dutch handle prostitution, the Swedes lifetime income guarantee, the Yanks (and their Southron Brothers) ultra-privatisation and capitalism rampant upon a field of oppressed workers and New Imperialism (as the Chinese also do complete with Emperor and New Mandarin class), Britain massive infusions of multi-cultural groups, Europe (the body of) massive intrusions of anathemic refugees.... and the rest.

    Welcome to Around The World with Trebor...... a sight for sore eyes ... either it relieves your eyes to read and understand, or it makes your head and eyes ache to think about.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    4:56pm
    I can see where you're going Trebor, to a marxists fairy tale la la land
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:49pm
    Ah, yes - but I simply pointed that out as one alternative, and I did so in a slightly disparaging way..... I didn't say I advocated it or that it worked (see my post about it having to equally apply to those on long-term prison sentences lest they fall into need for pension).... but it is one option to resolve Ebergeezer Scrooge's spleen over Pension Rights...
    Eddy
    5th Sep 2018
    6:59pm
    If you want to discuss negative gearing then get a few facts right. Negative gearing where one could offset investment 'losses' against other income was introduced by the Hawke Labor government in 1985 to stimulate property construction. The last reference I saw on negative gearing was that 93% went to existing properties not on new build. Therefore it seems fair to say that negative gearing for property, other than new build, is an 'unintended consequence' and could be repealed.
    I had a negatively geared investment property once but I sold it and vowed I would never do that again. I did not need the hassle of less than ideal tenants and the restrictions imposed on me, as the landlord, by the Residential Tenancies Act
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:53pm
    I once produced a live theatre show, which ran at a loss (many do), and the loss was offset against my income personally.

    There is nothing wrong with it in principle - the problem with serial housing negative gearing is that it has become an avenue for hoarding properties and NOT producing the results required by that Hawke decision, but instead leading to inflation and rising inequalities.

    I bought my farm in 1983 for $45,500.... now it is worth MILLIONS, and all due to property price rises in the big cities fueled by the triple demons of negative gearing, concessional capital gains, and the mandatory dual income family (MADIF)... it is no secret that the price of a house in a major city suddenly doubled and they ran away once the 'market' realised that many could afford to buy with two incomes instead of one.

    I know - I had one...... bought for $185,000 in 1992... now worth around $2.7M.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    11:22pm
    ... and a leisurely walk across parkland to the Waratahs home ground...
    floss
    5th Sep 2018
    1:40pm
    More lies from the Libs,it was the Senate that knocked it back.Now Morrison has tried to dress it up as his idea , bring back Mal at best he only told fibs half the time this excuse for a man tells fibs all the time.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    1:53pm
    Pity the Senate didn't knock back the asset/ income test changes isn't it? They've managed to refuse everything else.Of course they passed the Bail In too and that is going to hurt when our savings get stolen away. Bastard all of them.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    3:11pm
    Asset income test changes were a long over due move and that's why the Senate supported them.
    Rae
    5th Sep 2018
    3:30pm
    So is childcare rebates and rebates for private heath insurance and a heap of stuff but they only did that one thing in all of it. Amazing really.

    I moved my assets off shore. I don't believe a word they say now OG. Liars all of them.

    They broke the no disadvantage rule so you can't ever trust any of them now. This is just another Lie about the 70 thing. There will be no pensions at all by the time they are finished.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:31pm
    Rae - are you declaring your offshore assets and the income derived from those assets

    U need to do that in your tax returns every year
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:36pm
    Indeed, Rae - the entire gamut of what IS welfare as opposed to Social Security has never once been addressed, and the Pension and Unemployment Insurance have been picked out of the crowd on an ideological basis .. and a basis not supported by reality.

    There is no connection between Social Security and welfare.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:39pm
    Trebor - just because you say the pension isnt welfare doesnt make it so. Unless you are Jesus Christs dad , your word dont make it so
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:13pm
    Pension, social security and welfare are one the same.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    4:57pm
    Read the links provided, olbie - OG simply turns his eyes away.. like Buddha apparently when something goes wrong for a Cambodian or Laotian... they say that Buddha has turned his face.... though I wouldn't label Ebergeezer Buddha by any means.... he does not understand the middle way......
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    4:59pm
    Sorry Trebor, already I get bored when u write more than 5 lines in your post. Life's too short to read the nonsense written by leftist crazies
    Lots of them on the internet
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:52pm
    You mistake me, sir - I am distinctly in the middle of the road..... acquire patience
    Grasshopper... there is much to be learned by listening to many .... and knowledge fills a life with the exquisite knowledge of knowing....
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    5:54pm
    Nah - I've read too many of your posts to know that "You cannot be serious" John
    For if you were , you shhudda been put away a long time ago.
    And our excellent welfare system wud have taken care of the bills and pills
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:59pm
    Moi? Put away? DVA shrinks would lose their licence to practice.....
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    11:28pm
    If the figures and the statements are correct (still waiting on the counter-arguments) - that potential 15% concession/bonus for high income shareholders through not paying 15% extra tax on imputed dividends at 30% when their tax bracket is 45% - is Welfare Write Large.....

    Clearly a bonus for simply holding shares and for 'investing' in the nation...... for the 'big end' of town..... but not for the peons...... very Howardian.....

    Come In Spinners!! Answers required.... 50% of final mark.....
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    11:47pm
    Wrong !
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    1:15am
    Please explain?

    As the great urban philosopher from Ipswich said - a simple comment cannot stand on its own merit.... but must rather be explained in detail with support for all facets....

    Not as dumb as she looks Pauline Hanson.... in some ways...
    Anonymous
    6th Sep 2018
    1:23am
    Look Pauline
    Those taxpayers in 45% will have to pay an extra 15% tax on their dividend income over and above the 30% already paid by their company
    But of course if one is smart there are other deductions that may be applied to reduce the tax down to zero :)
    Rae
    6th Sep 2018
    6:51am
    Yes olbaid my accountant sees to it. I have no secrets held from the ATO and seeing there is hardly any tax paid in Australia apart from the PAYG it's just fine. I've never been anywhere near Centrelink.
    Charlie
    5th Sep 2018
    1:41pm
    Sorry I must have got it wrong, I thought I voted for the Libs but it must have been someone else. We all make mistakes.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    2:38pm
    I didn't vote for either the LNP or Labor as I simply didn't like the look of either myself.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    7:00pm
    Agreed..... nor the Greens....
    Andy
    5th Sep 2018
    2:58pm
    it has been said Morrison wants to change the pension to welfare we cannot allow that to happen. When the Government of the day drew up the pension they ruled that 2.5% of all taxes would be paid into the fund. this is what Morrison is after it is a very large amount of money, in fact, it would be interesting to see who has used some of that money for themselves Morrision being Treasuer would know only just to well what it is worth
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    3:08pm
    Well Morrison is right and it is welfare nothing more.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:15pm
    That eventually rose to 7.5%, Andy, and was never revoked... the original wording of Bob Menzies' statement on Social security Rights (Unemployment, Pension, disability payments temporary or permanent), included the phrase that 'levies would be taken from other income strands as required'... or very similar.

    As I've said before... damming a set of streams into one reservoir labeled Consolidated Revenue does not remove the obligation to pay those downstream who have a bought and paid for Entitlement to it.

    The successive governments of both 'sides' seeking to make that so are lying to us all.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:58pm
    Well - when you permit a high tax bracket person (45%) an offset of 15% for owning shares that are imputed... of 15%... I'd say that was fairly Welfare......

    Social Security is not since it has been paid for by generations of contributions......

    Let's argue the issue of the 15% and put the facts on the table, shall we? Too hard? 30% dividend imputation....no tax required..... even if your tax bracket is 45%... hence a bonus of 15% on top of your dividends.... that's how it reads.......

    Tax bracket of 27%? 3% of imputation returned as bonus... fair and right.

    Your turn.....
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    11:46pm
    Trebor - you’re wrong again my son
    There is no 15% offset or rebate
    Go to bed son
    Past your bedtime . Probably why you’re not thinking straight
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:27am
    Please explain? "if dividend imputation is paid, the shareholder does not pay tax"... so if the shareholder is in the highest bracket, he/she gets a bonus for having shares?

    It is not I who needs to go to bed, son - you need to lay out your reasoning and figures..... or you fail the course. You don't get away with personal stuff with me....... I'm immune.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    7th Sep 2018
    10:33pm
    Trebor, I agree with most of what you say here, but you are WRONG about dividend imputation. If I am in a 45% tax bracket (I'm not!) and I receive dividends on which the company paid 30% tax, I get a credit so that I ONLY pay my 45% and not the company's 30% as well. Otherwise, I'd be taxed twice on the same money and pay a total of 75%.

    On the other hand, if I earn too little to pay tax, why should I pay tax on dividend income? I wouldn't pay it on any other income, so why am I punished for having shares? The imputation credit is fair and correct. It simply adjusts tax CORRECTLY to the person's true marginal rate based on their total income, preventing excessive tax being paid just because the income comes from a particular source that is taxed in a different way to other sources.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Sep 2018
    10:21am
    BTW. Trebor. Did you happen to notice that the ONLY folk Bill Short-on-brains wants to take franking credits away from are those struggling on incomes too low to be taxable. He's not touching the 45%-rate high income earners. He's not touching pensioners with a secure government income. And he's NOT touching millionaires who rort the super tax benefits because you can only have $1.6 mil in tax free super pension phase now. The LNP already addressed the issue he CLAIMED to be concerned about. Now he's just forcing battling SFRs onto pensions by making them pay tax unfairly.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:14pm
    Roll out the pork barrel-we're having a barrel of pork.....

    On another forum this would be called 'jellyfishing'.... what is the sound of one jellyfish flopping?

    Revert it to 65 to get one over on your Labor 'opponents' who started this rot, and we can talk...

    You're right! NOTHING a government in the house can do is right!
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    3:17pm
    You can please most of the people some of the time but you can't please some people at any time.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:19pm
    You will never please the leaners
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:38pm
    We Lifters (with a capital L as opposed to Fat Joe's lifters' - a tame audience of sycophants who imagine themselves tycoons and captain of industry etc, when they are robbers and parasites) are easily pleased - just stick to reality.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:08pm
    If you collect welfare you are certainly not a lifter but a leaner instead.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:53pm
    Ah, yes - but their is a difference between a Lifter and a lifter.... one is a definition of reality, the other a facile line to throw off the tip of the forked tongue at a tame meeting.....
    Rae
    6th Sep 2018
    7:01am
    The real leaners are those few bankers and lawyers the Parties place in safe seats and promoted for just long enough to sell public owned income producing assets or to sign us up to who knows what deals. They then resign, take any spoils due and return to their banks or Boards without being charged with theft or treason. There have been a few lately haven't there? Are they real politicians or just business types working to produce profits for banks and corporations?
    MICK
    5th Sep 2018
    3:22pm
    I had to laugh. A government about to be thrown out of office needs votes. Oh yes....the retirees who we have plundered again and again. We'll throw them a bone and they'll vote for us.

    This ploy is to counter Labor which will do likewise anyway.

    NO WAY MAD DOG MORRISON!! You and your crooked lot are O.U.T. No discussion offer what you will. Nobody I know trusts you and everybody remembers what your lot has done to retirees and to many other low earning Australians.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:25pm
    You musnt know many intelligent people Mick

    Labor introduced the asset test and Shorten now wants to reduce retiree's incomes by taking away franking credits.

    Is there no end to Labor;s shafting of pensioners
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:42pm
    Been explained to you, olbie - if your franking credits are falsely based, as in neither you nor the company pay tax on their profits - one of you will be charged the cost of taxation on profit and rightly so. If you are dealing with honest shares you will not be touched, but where companies are rorting this scheme so as to afford huge extra benefit to the MAJOR shareholders (not you small fish - you're cannon fodder and only there to make it look good), they should be charged with tax evasion.

    I can see that Shorten and Co need someone like me to explain these things - they fumble the ball so much it looks like a Parramatta game this year, or a Manly one.... but I wouldn't take the job.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    3:43pm
    Maybe an AFL game - Australia's Forked Len - let's go Offshore somewhere......
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    3:46pm
    Trebor - u not making sense as usual. Franking credits IS tax paid by the company

    Also you never anwered my question of a few weeks back where u claim, companies have been paying out dividends year on year while making losses.

    How conveniently to spread lies and not have to be accountable
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    4:07pm
    People who don't own shares haven't got a clue so just repeat the party propaganda as they know no better.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:03pm
    Yes - the company pays that tax on YOUR behalf, same as income tax..... the question arises:- does the company therefore pay full tax on its profits, since paying tax on dividends as part of p0rofit are optional.... if it does not .. and if your income overall meets the tax standards after INCLUDING your imputation - you can get it free...

    If the company fails to pay tax on its profits.... it needs to be looked at. In the past I've tried to exclude individuals from this and provided figures endlessly to show what the reality is for MOST investors of Third Kind (those who've barely made contact) - the imputation MUST be included in their taxable income for calculation, same as income tax deducted on PAYE and sent on to The Guv'nah - failure to do so is an offence.

    I'm not altogether sure what shorten was aiming at with his bald statement on dividend imputation - but I think that's more an issue of his inability to make himself clear.... a worry in itself.

    In any case - canceling dividend imputation and leaving all to pay their own taxes would solve all the issues. Company pays tax on its profits - shareholder pays tax on his overall income. No problems.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:04pm
    MOST investors would see ZERO difference... provided they are honest in their dealings.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    5:05pm
    Avoid addressing your previous lies again Trebor
    U have no credibility whatsoever
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    5:40pm
    Trebor you really have no idea about franking credit at all so shut and stop confusing people with your nonsense.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    5:55pm
    Not a lie in sight, olbie - you are turning nasty, when I have endeavoured to be polite and simply explain.

    As for dividend imputation, Ebergeezer.. once again - simpler to simply abolish it and have everyone pay their taxes. The company earns - it pays ... the shareholder earns - he/she pays.

    To suggest otherwise is rampant theft.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    5:58pm
    Company AND individual should not both be taxed on the SAME income

    Now Trebor - explain how dividend can be paid by companies who never made a profit
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:01pm
    Each is a separate legal entity - each has earnings on which tax must be paid - what it does with those earnings has no bearing after tax has been paid.

    Obviously you are one of those receiving an unwarranted benefit from a false reading of imputation, Ebergeezer, and are running scared of having to pay tax on income. 30% paid to the taxman is simply income tax and is included in your gross income.. not ever intended to be a bonus. If you are receiving it as a bonus on an income, when it should be at least partly paid towards your tax burden on total income - you are rorting, no matter what the rules say. That means it is not being included in your total income...... if it simply replaces the same level of income on your total that you should be paying, then you get some or all of it back. It all depends on your total net income, and, as said, is the same as PAYE tax taken from gross earnings.

    You get what's left after taxation on your net income after deductions is calculated....

    I've been through it many times - get a grip, man.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    6:07pm
    Answer to the first part is Rubbish

    And for the zillionth time u avoided answering the second part. A lie u have posted and now run away from with ur tail betwix ur legs.
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:14pm
    A dividend by it's very nature can't be paid by a company that never makes a profit. Such a company can pay it's shareholders a capital return but where it gets it from if it hasn't made a profit I another matter.

    Dividends can only be paid out of current or retained profits.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    6:16pm
    Correct OG - Trebor has been caught out telling porkies

    Am so disappointed in him. A man who cannot admit to his lies. Bit like a labor party leader
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:20pm
    That Labor party leader has no idea what imputation credits are either.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    6:21pm
    No rubbish at all - that's what it says - and imputation must be included in gross income for taxation calculations.

    If indeed they are paid out of 'current or retained profits', OG - how then that the company pays no tax very often? And how does that in any way remove the burden on the recipient to include imputation in gross tax for calculation?

    Done properly, you may or may not get some back...every person with a small income will get it back or at least most of it .... if you have a huge income from elsewhere, and actually enter a higher tax bracket than 30%, you will lose it all. If you don't, it is a rort.

    Methinks that is the root of the argument from Shorten..... and I agree.

    Do you seriously contend that if you have a 45% tax liability on all other taxable income, you should simply receive that 30% withheld on your behalf as a gift? You should be paying an extra 15%.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    6:24pm
    OMG !!!

    Trebor - go learn the tax system. The individual will pay tax on his marginal rate after grossing up the dividend

    Companies cannot pay dividends out of retained losses - please get that into your fragile head
    Old Geezer
    5th Sep 2018
    6:47pm
    Trebor that person on a 45% tax rate will get all their franking credits refunded and they will pay a lot less tax than someone without franking credits on same tax rate. They effectively pay 45% tax on their income which includes and extra 15% tax on their dividends.

    Under Labor someone who earns less than $20,000 does not get a penny back of their franking credits and thus pays 30% plus on their $20,000 income leaving them less than $14,000 to live on. This is where Labor's proposed policy is so very wrong.

    So the higher your income the more of your imputations credits you keep and the lower your income the less of your imputation credits you keep. If you think this is fair then you have rocks in your head.
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    7:12pm
    DEFINITION of 'Dividend Imputation'

    A dividend imputation is an arrangement in Australia and several other countries that eliminates the double taxation of cash payouts from a corporation to its shareholders. Australia has allowed dividend imputation since 1987. Through the use of tax credits called "franking credits" or "imputed tax credits," the tax authorities are notified that a company has already paid the required income tax on the income it distributes as dividends. The shareholder does not then have to pay tax on the dividend income."

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dividendimputations.asp

    So what this is saying is that someone who is otherwise on a tax bracket higher than 30% will not pay tax on the income derived from dividends... that is clearly why Shorten is addressing the issue.

    Again - why should a person on a 45% tax rate receive a gift from the taxman of 15%? At that level of taxation they plainly are not in need of it.

    I posted weeks ago in this endless discussion that the wording clearly says that dividend imputation is considered as a part of overall tax liability - and the 30% calculated over the whole income. If it falls short, then more tax is incurred.

    Clearly the wording of the first statement benefits ONLY those on a tax level higher than 30%, and in the case majority shareholders, massively so.

    Again - they have no need for such largesse, and should be liable to pay the difference in tax over 30% on share income as well.

    This handling would guarantee that small shareholders do NOT lose out, since with a lax level under 30%, they would receive a partial refund on top of their dividend income.

    Methinks you are misreading the Labor position.

    The statement that it is 'double taxation' is false on the basic premise that the company and the shareholder are two discrete legal entities, and liable for their own tax, so clearly this was designed as a way for companies to not pay tax, and for those on higher incomes with a tax liability over 30% to pay less

    No wonder Shorten is looking into this. It's a rort for the fat cats.

    Under the same
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    7:18pm
    Here it is:-

    "Where a member such as an individual or company receives a franked distribution directly, they include the grossed up distribution (that is, both the distribution and any franking credit) in their assessable income. They are then entitled to a tax offset equal to the franking credit. This is called the ‘gross-up and credit’ approach".

    Repeats - ASSESSABLE INCOME! How then does that individual on a tax bracket over 30% NOT pay tax up to the rate of assessable income? It is included in ASSESSABLE INCOME and the 30% offset, "equal to the franking credit" ONLY - meaning that if overall tax liability is 45% - they owe 15% of dividend payment.

    Something has been going on that is not kosher... thank you for pointing it out OG.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    7:21pm
    Poor Trebor - he's confusing his little brain
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:17pm
    Not at all - actually I'm quoting chapter and verse.... YOU?

    From what I read from Ebergeezer here and that source that quotes '30% - higher tax bracket only pay 30%' - it is perfectly all right for Alumi Schoice, a multigendertrans from Farceland, to stand in as 'ceo' of Ausquantity Airships, receive a multi million dollar salary, and have $50M in shares as part of the deal..... receive the benefit of those shares , dividend of 2% = $1m ..... and cop a 15% = $150,000 bonus from the tax department for being so good as to own shares and 'invest'?

    Are you kidding me?
    MICK
    5th Sep 2018
    10:17pm
    You have no intelligence whatsoever olbaid....or is that Old Geezer.
    TREBOR understands dividend imputation. You clearly either have no idea or simply seek to trivialise it so as to confuse readers.

    You are essentially correct TREBOR and the fact that Australia is the ONLY country to have this tells the complete story. It is welfare for the rich.......or the next handout from a system which seeks to make rich people winners and poor people loses and slaves.

    My compromise to this is to have a THRESHHOLD for imputation credits after which it cuts out. Not hard to do but those at the top will fight to discredit this so that they do not lose one of their handouts. It'll work because average retirees do have many who struggle and it is correct that killing off this little earner will hurt those who have done everything not to be a burden on taxpayers. These people should be highly regarded rather than be attacked for doing the government a big favour and not lobbing onto the pension.

    We all need to write to Labor MPs to express this as it is in nobody's interests to see this crooked government led by malicious Howard left overs get back into office with the coming Murdoch campaign. Shorten needs to win this election and get into office and change a fundamentally flawed government of corporations for corporations and their wealth shareholders.
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    10:30pm
    WRONG !!!!!
    Duhhhhj
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    11:02pm
    WHY should company and shareholder not be taxed on the same income? It is NOT the same income - one is the income of the company as a separate legal entity - the other is the income of the shareholder as a separate legal entity.

    Do I get a concession on my taxable income, as a single income earner for family, for giving some to my dependants?

    Come in spinner.. I'm waiting with ready bat.....
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    11:10pm
    This has become the same old jolly argument over pension age...

    There IS a threshold for dividend imputation as a bonus - it's called the personal taxation system.... if you earn enough overall to put you into a higher tax bracket than the 30% imputed TAX.. you owe more.. pretty simple really. No way should you be receiving a bonus when you already are liable for a higher level of tax.

    Furthermore, the issue I raised clearly of 'separate legal entities' SHOULD be in play - a com-any makes an income - it pays ta.... an individual separate makes an income - he/she pays tax.

    This WAS set up as a bonus for the rich..... since those on a lesser income incurring a lesser tax rate would get a return of the difference anyway.

    I'm not a Labor man... but I see the point clearly...... but then my opponents seek to impugn my intelligence and sanity..... the last two shots in the locker after the 'racist', 'bigot', '-phobe' rounds - and after violence purely to establish control - the last resort of the incompetent.....
    Anonymous
    5th Sep 2018
    11:43pm
    Oh boy . Here we go again

    Someone on a 45% tax bracket already before dividend income will pay tax on gross dividend income at 45%

    Perhaps young Trebor youde is confusing your little ole self with non residents who pay tax at 30% on all Australian derived income and hence their full franking credits cover their tax liability irrespective

    Canada Oz , NZ have full imputation while others have partial imputation , discounted tax treatment of dividend income or have much lower corporate and income tax rates

    You have tunnel vision or to put it bluntly a very simplistic view on tax and the macro impacts of tweaking one without the other
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:31am
    AH! So you finally come to the party! Someone who incurs a 30% tax deposit, but who is in a higher tax bracket.... pays the difference!

    Thank you for once coming out and making a clear statement...

    That being the case - what is the argument over dividend imputation?

    What is the difference between a company paying its taxes properly - and a shareholder paying his/her taxes properly? You say none?

    Why do so many screech that they will lose if they don't receive imputation?

    Then why was there ever any need for dividend imputation?
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:50am
    Let me lay this out for you....

    The ONLY reason for dividend imputation was to ensure that shareholders and the tax office were protected from failure on the part of the company.... by lodging 30% in advance, like company tax or like PAYE - the Guv'nah ensured that in the event the company failed - as so many were doing and do to this day due to malfeasance and mismanagement (another issue - look back on Bond, Skase and Adler and quite a few other Gordon Geckos - and lately Slim Mehajer The Wop) - was to ensure that the shareholder retained at least 30% of investment return..... if the company failed you would still get back 30% of dividend regardless (all things being equal) provided that the government did not have a prior claim on all assets of that company ..... including the holdings of shareholders.

    Like company tax - the company could fail... but the tax man would still have some cash.. whereas the UNSECURED investor would be last in line for anything, including any return for inve3stment from the tax man.

    Ask some of the contributors here who've lost in company collapses that still leave their principals well loaded for life and ready to start again down the same path, while leaving their shareholders with nothing and bleeding into pension only for retirement after a lifetime of work and trust in buying shares?

    And you wonder why I call for a total review of company/corporation law and regulations?

    In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king..... and I only see what I see.... and I truly am only half-trained in this area... but I know what I know.....

    Circles within circles, my son..... stick around... you'll learn the ropes....

    You know the difference between myself (and others) and those scum I listed above?

    We are men of honour..... so get on the side of the angels.
    Anonymous
    6th Sep 2018
    12:56am
    Absolute garbage
    If your “logic” and absolutely nonsensical post wasn’t so hilarious I’d be crying into my dinner right now
    In fact I almost spat my bbq shrimp out as I was reading
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    1:26am
    Jesus, olbie - I try so hard to teach you truth - and you miss it....

    Dinner? You're in Africa? Or at least Pakistan?

    **coughs** why are you here then? Don't I know you from another forum?
    MICK
    6th Sep 2018
    10:39am
    The answer TREBOR is 'to stir the pot'. Never expect right wing posters to accept any logic as they seek to retain the money trail to the wealthy. You know how hard the big end of town is trying to retain franking credits. It makes up a significant part of their income and God forbid they actually pay tax.
    Old Geezer
    6th Sep 2018
    11:09am
    The big end of town doesn't like to retain franking credits. Just watch for all the buybacks in the next 12 months to get rid of the imputation credits ahead of a change in government.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Sep 2018
    10:24am
    Mick, for once the right wing posters are right and you and Trebor are WRONG. Dividends are paid from PRETAXED money. If the recipient isn't liable to income tax, they should get that tax back. And they should NOT be taxed twice on it.

    And by the way, Shorten isn't taking anything from those whose dividend receipt top up a healthy income. They still get their tax credits. The ONLY folk he's hurting are the battling SFRs with low incomes, and he'll force them onto the pension and save the nation NOTHING. It's plain stupidity what he's proposing to do, and smart Labor supporters will tell him so emphatically.
    Boomah52
    5th Sep 2018
    7:52pm
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/12/02/which-countries-have-the-highest-levels-of-poverty-for-pensioners-infographic/#1c749609216f
    MICK
    5th Sep 2018
    10:24pm
    Great link from a reliable source. I had no idea Australia was the second worst country in the developed world in their treatment of its retirees. Enlightening.
    Rae
    6th Sep 2018
    7:19am
    Yes MICK and it will get worse with foolish Parties playing class warfare instead of Governing the country for the People.

    The LNP has deliberately punished unionised workers who saved for their own retirement and the ALP plan to punish high income earners and business types who indulge in tax practises set up to advantage their investments.

    Tit for tat while the whole Country goes broke.
    MICK
    6th Sep 2018
    10:53am
    Yes Rae. The LNP is the party of the rich governing for the rich to send them as much money as it can get away with.
    What is lost in the class war the government and its rich supporters are waging is that the rich only remain rich whilst everybody else has money to spend. When that stops when people cannot pay their bills and there'll be strikes and protests in the street if the current situation remains unchanged. But what does the top end of town care as long as the dough rolls in.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    7th Sep 2018
    10:27pm
    Thoroughly shameful! What a disgrace our government is.
    Cheezil61
    5th Sep 2018
    8:47pm
    Why are people stupid enough to trust any of these clowns? As if we should believe they'll leave pension age at 67! Just more lies, looking for election votes !
    TREBOR
    5th Sep 2018
    10:21pm
    There are core promises and non-core promises... John Howard.

    Downe at Ye Olde Courte House:-

    'Yer 'Onnah, the prosecution has some core proof and some non-core proof..... the core proof proves nothing, but the non-core holds firm..."

    "Guilty!".....

    "Don;t you want to hear the evidence? Let alone see it as proof?"

    "No - this is an Australian Court - the term Kangaroo Court didn't come from nowhere, Counsellor!"


    Yeah - that'd really work out.......
    Rae
    6th Sep 2018
    7:21am
    Yes Cheezil. The lies come thick and fast at election time from all of them. Like Abbott and the no changes to pensions etc etc.
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:21am
    All are equal in retirement............ but some are more equal than others.....

    I leave you tonight.... tomorrow is another day....
    Anonymous
    6th Sep 2018
    12:30am
    How’s that different to any other aspect of life
    Perhaps you should stop measuring equality in terms of wealth - you seem to have a fixation on it

    Some men are born wealthy others have great wealth thrust upon them
    Some are born poor and amass wealth whilst other leaders squander what was bequeathed to them

    So please Stop with your ridiculous childish sayings already
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:57am
    Actually I don't... I consider equality in terms of treatment of individuals ... including many shareholders who have lost...

    The High Princess of Capital in Oz - Gina - reduced a 26Bn inheritance to 12Bn in five years..... some are born to greatness .. others are born to grate cheese.....

    I see you have a borderline capacity to understand sayings and witticisms... there is hope for you yet, Grasshopper... if you can see the allusions instead of the illusions, you are well placed to realise yourself....

    One reason I do not join the crusade to link you with Old Ebergeezer Scrooge is that you are not as hidebound and impervious to reason. I see a glimmer of hope in you.....

    Continue your studies, Grasshopper.....
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    12:59am
    I'm an insomniac.... the reasons you do not need to know...
    Anonymous
    6th Sep 2018
    1:02am
    PTSD no doubt .
    Probably something to do with having to look yourself in the mirror every morning
    TREBOR
    6th Sep 2018
    1:30am
    Perhaps - but never judge a man who spends time looking into the fire... for he may have spent many hours looking into the fires of hell....

    Old Greek saying...

    Add that he may therefore know flame from ash......

    Looking into that mirror - I do not see what so many fine femmes see in me.... just an ordinary man on his own path ....... but thank you for suggesting that I may be a force of nature....
    ex PS
    7th Sep 2018
    1:34pm
    Being able to look at yourself in a mirror is a good indication of self worth. I would imagine some on this site would find it difficult if not impossible, we can not hide our imperfections from ourselves.
    OnlyGenuineRainey
    8th Sep 2018
    10:18am
    Some here would be far too arrogant and self-centred to recognize their huge imperfections, ex PS. Like folk who ridicule people who suffer PTSD. It's a serious condition, olbaid, and one many suffer as a result of sacrificing their health and well-being to keep this country safe for the rich and privileged pigs who then ridicule and abuse them while rorting the nation's resources.
    ex PS
    9th Sep 2018
    7:01pm
    People who ridicule PTSD are more than likely those who have never considered sacrificing their personal safety for others. They are to be pitied, for they can never say they have reached their full potential as human being.
    Anonymous
    9th Sep 2018
    7:19pm
    Old Grumpy Rainey and ex PS - I was not ridiculing PTSD. I was concerned for Trebor, because I am aware of his sacrifice for the country.
    Might pay to mind your own business and not be too quick to judge. You have no idea about my life either
    Justsane
    7th Sep 2018
    2:32pm
    The statistic that says that life expectancy is increasing is true, but shows how real statistics can be massaged. The increase in life expectancy in our era takes into account survival from childhood diseases which used to be fatal, survival of women from childbirth, survival of young men in world wars. All these things do increase life expectancy, but they do not mean that a person who now dies at 85 would have died at 55, 100 years ago.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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