Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

We would be in dreamland if we thought taxes can stay the same if we keep coming up with new unfunded programs.

The existing programs were unfunded. It was Howard who left a structural deficit after using asset sales and other once-offs to fund his tax cuts and welfare largesse.

Had we had a proper Labor Government, they might have done something about it, but there are no Hawkes or Keatings in the current mob.

 

[cove]

I have been thinking that we have had a "B TEAM" running the Government and their financials have produced an F grade.
A number of folks criticize compulsory super but I am not one of them.
That money is growing as a nest egg for workers who would have had nothing.
That was a big call by Paul Keating and despite him being foul mouthed it has helped many save.

 

[drsmithy]

I have been thinking that we have had a "B TEAM" running the Government and their financials have produced an F grade.
A number of folks criticize compulsory super but I am not one of them.
That money is growing as a nest egg for workers who would have had nothing.
That was a big call by Paul Keating and despite him being foul mouthed it has helped many save.

It's a near certainty anyone under the age of 45 or so will never see all of their super paid out to them. If you fit into that demographic and are putting any more than the absolute minimum into super, you're playing a mug's game.

 

[amaroo]

It's a near certainty anyone under the age of 45 or so will never see all of their super paid out to them. If you fit into that demographic and are putting any more than the absolute minimum into super, you're playing a mug's game.

Big call.

I'm in the 45-46 bracket and really happy with our SMSF.

 

[Pukka]

It's a near certainty anyone under the age of 45 or so will never see all of their super paid out to them. If you fit into that demographic and are putting any more than the absolute minimum into super, you're playing a mug's game.

Well I haven't put any in recently not because its a mugs game though my SMSF is doing fine but because the worlds greatest treasurer decided to tax contributions at 30% rather than 15% if you earn over $300k so there's no incentive to lock up any more 'til I'm 60 (which is still 13 years away).

Hopefully TA will put things right and up the amount you can put away to a reasonable say $100k at a 15% deduction.

Lol cue howls of derision from the rabid lefties that haunt this thread

 

[cove]

Join National Seniors for their info on how much voting power the 50 and over have this election. They are 47% of this years election and will be more in 3 years time.

 

[drsmithy]

Big call.

I'm in the 45-46 bracket and really happy with our SMSF.

First lump sum withdrawals will be disallowed.
Then the retirement age, and the age you can access your super, will be increased.

Now, there are perfectly good reasons for both of the above to be implemented, but as with most other national social/economic/tax policies over the last 40ish years, it will be designed and timed to maximise benefits for baby boomers, and tough luck for everyone else. If you're at the very end of the BB demographic, you might get left out - conversely, they might go long so if you're at the beginning of Gen Y, you may get lucky and be included - hence "about 45".

EDIT: And I forgot to add, they'll be coming for the SMSFs next, to make it uneconomical (if not impossible) for anyone with a fund of less than $200-300k to work with (ie: just about everyone).

 

[drsmithy]

Well I haven't put any in recently not because its a mugs game though my SMSF is doing fine but because the worlds greatest treasurer decided to tax contributions at 30% rather than 15% if you earn over $300k so there's no incentive to lock up any more 'til I'm 60 (which is still 13 years away).

Indeed, let us all play a the world's smallest violin for the suffering and intolerable burden born by the top 1% of income earners. How will they ever survive retirement with only a few million ?

Hopefully TA will put things right and up the amount you can put away to a reasonable say $100k at a 15% deduction.

Undoubtedly. He's a textbook conservative and thus loves nothing more than reinforcing an entitlement culture and further entrenching the wealth divide with benefits for the rich.

Lol cue howls of derision from the rabid lefties that haunt this thread

Yes, those of us who think you should just be paying your fair share are "rabid lefties".

 

[Pukka]

Indeed, let us all play a the world's smallest violin for the suffering and intolerable burden born by the top 1% of income earners. How will they ever survive retirement with only a few million ?


Undoubtedly. He's a textbook conservative and thus loves nothing more than reinforcing an entitlement culture and further entrenching the wealth divide with benefits for the rich.


Yes, those of us who think you should just be paying your fair share are "rabid lefties".

Believe me I pay my fair share.

You should see how many FF points I have

 

[whatmeworry]

The Daily Show in the US has their own take on our election. Make sure you check out the video.
The Daily Show takes aim at One Nation and 'plonk-gate' | News.com.au

 

[BadgerBoi]

The Daily Show in the US has their own take on our election. Make sure you check out the video.
The Daily Show takes aim at One Nation and 'plonk-gate' | News.com.au

I had to turn off after his awful attempt at an Aussie accent. He made my ears bleed :shock:

 

[whatmeworry]

Tony Abbott has another foot in mouth moment.

[video=youtube;WfT7lGQ5mYE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfT7lGQ5mYE[/video]

 

[Deleted member]

It's a near certainty anyone under the age of 45 or so will never see all of their super paid out to them. If you fit into that demographic and are putting any more than the absolute minimum into super, you're playing a mug's game.

How so?
What is your proof ?

 

[Deleted member]

First lump sum withdrawals will be disallowed.
Then the retirement age, and the age you can access your super, will be increased.

Now, there are perfectly good reasons for both of the above to be implemented, but as with most other national social/economic/tax policies over the last 40ish years, it will be designed and timed to maximise benefits for baby boomers, and tough luck for everyone else. If you're at the very end of the BB demographic, you might get left out - conversely, they might go long so if you're at the beginning of Gen Y, you may get lucky and be included - hence "about 45".

EDIT: And I forgot to add, they'll be coming for the SMSFs next, to make it uneconomical (if not impossible) for anyone with a fund of less than $200-300k to work with (ie: just about everyone).

It's uneconomical now to have less than $200 k in a SMSF.
The problem is there are too many idiots happy to let misguided individuals have a self managed fund with bugger all assets.

Increase the retirement agent to what?
At the moment you can access super from age 55 So increase it to 60, 65?
I think you may in fact be referring to the age pension age which is a fair point

 

[cove]

For history buffs and others:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome will become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance"

Cicero ,55 BC

So, evidently we have learnt bugger-all over the past 2,068 years!

Thank you LH for sending me this

 

[Skyring]

For history buffs and others:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome will become bankrupt. People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance"

Cicero ,55 BC

So, evidently we have learnt bugger-all over the past 2,068 years!

I think rather it's that human nature hasn't changed much. Interesting that Cicero spoke when Rome wasn't quite the ancient superpower it later became; it wasn't even an Empire at that stage.

Pete, history buffer

 

[Moody]

I thought this was the election 2013 thread ... so why has it turned into a Super-Tax-Scams-R-Us discussion?

Thought for the day - why would any thinking woman vote for Tony Abbott?

[That should get things back on track!]

 

[Pushka]

Why Moody? Don't you like it when we find common ground?

What is scammy about anything we've said with anything written here about Super? There is nothing.

And trying to reignite the stupid misogyny rubbish again I see. I know lots of professional women who are disgusted with Gillard's nonsense and are also more than happy to vote the Coalition in. Myself included. Although unlike you I have voted for the opposite party also.

 

[get me outta here]

If my boss had said to me that I would've stamped on it immediately. This candidate has no choice of course but to look united whatever she may think or not think. It is an invidious position to be in. If only he'd stopped short in the praise as he was doing well, but to me, it's just that he still feels that he has not given enough praise unless he makes comment on her positive sex appeal. To me it feels as if being good at what ever your job is still insufficient in his eyes.

 

[Pukka]

I thought this was the election 2013 thread ... so why has it turned into a Super-Tax-Scams-R-Us discussion?

Thought for the day - why would any thinking woman vote for Tony Abbott?

[That should get things back on track!]

Ok well I'll start with my wife.

She has a high income & doesn't want to pay any more tax because she thinks the government wastes too much of it.

She employs people & would like a good dose of common sense injected into employment law.

She likes blokes that would rather do a half marathon than get their hair blow dried.

etc.

Oh and she's not some hairy legged tree hugger that would get offended if you said they looked sexy.

Which they're not by the way.