Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Deleted member]

As I said, the defined benefit scheme is in the past. The "contributions" have been made already. You can't tax them again retrospectively. So they haven't avoided anything. I'm also not sure what the situation is for them post 2007, did they have to open accumulation super accounts? If they did all contributions into those accounts would be subject to the applicable tax rate.

But anyway, contributions tax does not apply to withdrawals. However, were they should be taxed is on withdrawals before the age of 60. (even if I think they should have to wait until 60.

They are taxed before age 60. Albeit after a tax free threshold on some. But early release before 55 is taxed

 

[SQ421]

She was born in 1969, so the Sixties were her first decade...

Even my that logic, no one aged 43 could be in their sixth decade.

 

[Skyring]

Even my that logic, no one aged 43 could be in their sixth decade.

Nevertheless, Natasha Stott-Despoja is in her sixth decade. She is in the second month of the fourth year of her sixth decade.

 

[medhead]

They are taxed before age 60. Albeit after a tax free threshold on some. But early release before 55 is taxed

I didn't express it well. But that was what I was trying to say. They will be taxed when they get the money, unless over 60.

I guess the other point about politicians super is their salary while in office. We heard a fairly constant comparison CEOs of big companies during the Howard years. The constant view that they were underpaid for serving the country. Maybe the ALP does this as well, I just don't recall. As part of that salary argument a very generous super scheme couldn't be seen as part of the compensation. :?:

 

[777]

Nevertheless, Natasha Stott-Despoja is in her sixth decade. She is in the second month of the fourth year of her sixth decade.

Define *her* ...

 

[Skyring]

Define *her* ...

Natasha Stott-Despoja. She was born in July 1969, so she is now in the fourth year of her sixth decade. I am astonished that this is seen as questionable. I have counted them up on my fingers several times now, and I am quite certain of my figures.

 

[Deleted member]

Define *her* ...

Define 6th decade , this is going to be like the millennium thing where everyone thought 1999 was the end of the millennium ( a whole 12 months too early)

 

[Skyring]

Define 6th decade , this is going to be like the millennium thing where everyone thought 1999 was the end of the millennium ( a whole 12 months too early)

Well, I didn't. It was the rolling over of the yearometer digits that was fun, but the new millenium didn't begin until 2001.

I'm defining decade here as already noted: Sixties, Seventies and so on.

 

[serfty]

Nevertheless, Natasha Stott-Despoja is in her sixth decade. She is in the second month of the fourth year of her sixth decade.

If nothing else she is experiencing her 6th Decade ...

hmmm ... that means I'm experiencing my 7th decade ... funnily, I don't feel a day over 60 ...

 

[Pushka]

Well that's the choice we all have to make. Of course, super is a long term system really. The thing that frustrates me is that they have practically removed the ability to make larger extra contributions once your 50 or 55+, so no more $100K top ups later in life when I can afford it. Which means I really should be putting in extra now to compensate for that, but I can't afford it and paying the mortgage is going to give much greater returns. I don't think the system is broke, but there are significant limitations.

Yes, just as we reach the age where we can contribute much more, we no longer can. Sometimes I think this Government wants us to become dependent on the aged pension by reducing our ability to create the funds we need to be independent in old age. And hence, bring more of the fold into potential labor voters as traditionally they are kinder to welfare recipients than the Coalition. But that would require them to be long term thinkers. And then I realise it has nothing to do with long term vision, but all about ensuring they can get as much money into the coffers as they can NOW to pay for all the costly mistakes they are making.

Jeez, if Natasha is in her 6th decade I must be a centurion!

 

[drron]

The 60s were her first decade,the 70s were her second so now she is in the 6th decade in which she is alive.

And re old politicians super-their pension is indexed for life.Very,very generous.

 

[Skyring]

And then I realise it has nothing to do with long term vision, but all about ensuring they can get as much money into the coffers as they can NOW to pay for all the costly mistakes they are making.

Both sides fiddle with super. And rarely to my benefit.

 

[Deleted member]

The 60s were her first decade,the 70s were her second so now she is in the 6th decade in which she is alive.

And re old politicians super-their pension is indexed for life.Very,very generous.

Ok. I get it now

 

[Deleted member]

Well, I didn't. It was the rolling over of the yearometer digits that was fun, but the new millenium didn't begin until 2001.

I'm defining decade here as already noted: Sixties, Seventies and so on.

I think 777 had a good point, her decade or " the" decade

 

[Pushka]

I wonder if that is the "common" usage of the word decade though. It might be the correct usage, but not the one that most people use.

 

[serfty]

I wonder if that is the "common" usage of the word decade though. It might be the correct usage, but not the one that most people use.

I guess "To Live" a decade is not the same as "To Experience" a decade (or "To Live In" a Decade).

 

[Skyring]

I guess "To Live" a decade is not the same as "To Experience" a decade (or "To Live In" a Decade).

When I think back on the Sixties, I was missing an awful lot at the time. Hard to escape the Beatles, but.

 

[777]

Natasha Stott-Despoja. She was born in July 1969, so she is now in the fourth year of her sixth decade. I am astonished that this is seen as questionable. I have counted them up on my fingers several times now, and I am quite certain of my figures.

The reason i am asking to define *her* is that many (most of us?) would take "her" decade here to mean periods of ten years since she was born (a decade is simply a period of ten years not necessarily the fixed ones on the calendar). So *her* ages 0-9 are her first decade, 10-19 her second, 20-29 her third, 30-39 her fourth, and she would now be in her fifth.

What you seem to be defining it as is the Gregorian calendar's sixth decade since she was born. Which are the calendar's decades are not *hers* as measured if her life is the reference point.

 

[777]

Or to put it even more simply: Is her first year the days until she turns 1 or are they the remaining days of the calendar year she was born? Common sense says you count a person's years by reference to their birth and I see no reason why decades wouldn't be the same.

 

[Pushka]

Still hearing about SMSF and recouping the black hole, but Abbott has promised not to mess with people's super as our super savings belong to us. And this did not come from The Australian btw.