'Australian disease' has entered its terminal phase

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Im confused by super doesnt the business you work for pay it? and there raising it slowly to 12% if thats the case i think it should be taxed they could tax it at 2 or 3 percent and youd still be infront compared to the super you get today? or am i wrong?. This money business isnt my strong suite.

Yes it is paid by your employer. and is about to raise to 12%. In effect that means our employers wil pay us 9% less in our everyday pay packets. we cost them salary plus super Plus etc etc. the increase to 12% will cost them more which will need to be passed onto the purchasers of the goods and services we produce in our jobs. But we get the long term benefit of forced savings but we have no real say on how the money is used.

It is our pension, the baby boomers and earlier generations didnt have their pensions taxed? why should we and we have been promised a tax free super. Cant change the rules on us. we are depending on it.

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by b0son

Ford didn't export. Holden exported bugger all, and what little they did was at a loss. Toyota exported, but again, at a loss.

For all intents and purposes, our car industry was also a self-service industry. Exports need to bring money into the country, not send it out.

I would rather look at servicing ourselves, including making products to service our country rather than just selling everyone elses stuff, there is no reason that the manufacturing industry should be on the death bead, but it will always need protection from the outside

[CAMS290]

Compulsory super was only introduced in 1992 and only at 3%, you would be surprised at how little some retirees actually have. I know quite a few self employed tradesman that don't have enough super to be self sufficient.

Reverse mortgages have been around for years but not "compulsory" reverse mortgages that might be the only way to fund the aged pension.

As from July 2014 those that need high level care will be subjected to the same criteria as those in low level care. http://tinyurl.com/m4q59hp

They are looking at increasing the retirement age from 67 to 70 and when you retire you probably won't be able to access your super to fulfill that life long dream to buy that 4WD and caravan to tour Australia.
1) You will be drip fed your super in regular payments like receiving the pension.
2) You may be too old and incapable of towing a caravan by this stage.

There is no doubt in my mind that this country is in for some serious challenges in the future and at some stage there will be huge reforms to try and address the problems.

[xbgt75]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Im confused by super doesnt the business you work for pay it? and there raising it slowly to 12% if thats the case i think it should be taxed they could tax it at 2 or 3 percent and youd still be infront compared to the super you get today? or am i wrong?. This money business isnt my strong suite.

Yes the business pays it but 14 or so years ago when the plan for Super increases was rolled out businesses started building it into your "package". So instead of earning (eg) $50k plus super they changed it to a (eg) $56k package including. So when Super goes from 8% to 9% you actually get less in your hand. If you still get $x/hr or $xx/pa PLUS Super then you are not affected when it goes up.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Whoever or whatever they are they can keep their ******* mits of my super.

Previous generations had the promise of a pension as thanks for their lifetime contribution. The retirement age was determined based on life expectancy such that the pension would only be paid for a reasonable short time. Of course the life expectancy of Baby boomers is so much better than expected but their health is as expected meaning longer periods of reliance on the healthcare system than had they just lied down and died.

Younger generations have had superannuation forced onto them to reduce reliance on the state once they cease working, a greater propensity for self funding their retirement, the age of which will be increased to match life expectancy and further reduce the likely impost on the community. (UK has started this process)

The question is how does our society pay for the baby boomers who had promises made and collectively are in no position to change direction now only a decade away from all of them being retired and dying and until they are just a memory they still wield significant financial, social and political clout

JP

I dont agree with the government taxing super, however it will happen, I dont know how old you are so I cant comment if your super will be taxed or not, but chances are if you are not a baby boomer you will be taxed.

I dont know how Australia will pay for the baby boomer and I think Australia has an obligation to them (and no I am not one of them) Part of the reason why I think Australia needs to conserve and encourage industry, we need as many people contributing (paying tax) as possible, spread the load as much as we can.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Whoever or whatever they are they can keep their ******* mits of my super.

Previous generations had the promise of a pension as thanks for their lifetime contribution. The retirement age was determined based on life expectancy such that the pension would only be paid for a reasonable short time. Of course the life expectancy of Baby boomers is so much better than expected but their health is as expected meaning longer periods of reliance on the healthcare system than had they just lied down and died.

Younger generations have had superannuation forced onto them to reduce reliance on the state once they cease working, a greater propensity for self funding their retirement, the age of which will be increased to match life expectancy and further reduce the likely impost on the community. (UK has started this process)

The question is how does our society pay for the baby boomers who had promises made and collectively are in no position to change direction now only a decade away from all of them being retired and dying and until they are just a memory they still wield significant financial, social and political clout

JP

But the current generation is making productive use of everything the previous generation and the generation before "made" for us. So why shouldn't they get their pension, health care and so on. They did the hard work - didn't they?

Likewise our generation needs to be doing something productive to sustain the next generation.

Instead we have a bunch of well educated Gen X and Y's who are nothing more that self centered A'holes, lazy to the back teeth resenting everything especially old people, expecting everything dished to them on a platter and still not happy when it is. No wonder Australia is in the mess it is in.

[CAMS290]

To get a handle on how bad things are put this into perspective in 1990 the unemployment rate was 5.6% and the interest rates were around 17%.
We now have an economy that has historically low interest rates @ 2.5% and unemployment rate of 6% and growing in Victoria.

BTW Any persons that work over 1 hour per week are counted as employed and are not in those figures................Up sh#@ creek with a barbed wire canoe anyone ?

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The problem is, we at the moment can't do sweet FA with whatever superannuation funds we have accrued over the years. Unless you go self managed, take the funds and buy bullion...

An old adage:

- You don't hold it, you don't own it.

Something I've thought about lately but it is a pain in the big A. Self managed into property and/or blue chip shares.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by CAMS290

you would be surprised at how little some retirees actually have.

Doesn't surprise me actually. I look at some of these oldies who live in long-term caravan park dongas or in state housing flats and wonder at how they came to be in that space. And I wonder when I look at some of these grey nomads who sell their houses to buy new assets that depreciate (caravan and 4x4) what they are going to do when they get too old and crotchety to travel any more, yet no longer have the old bricks and mortar as security but need care or whatever

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

But the current generation is making productive use of everything the previous generation and the generation before "made" for us. So why shouldn't they get their pension, health care and so on. They did the hard work - didn't they?

Likewise our generation needs to be doing something productive to sustain the next generation.

Instead we have a bunch of well educated Gen X and Y's who are nothing more that self centered A'holes, lazy to the back teeth resenting everything especially old people, expecting everything dished to them on a platter and still not happy when it is. No wonder Australia is in the mess it is in.

Not saying they cant have their pension, and demanding that after my contributions I am afforded the same respect and what has been promised me is delivered upon. If that doesnt happen then my annual sacrafice of 3, 6, 9 and soon to be 12 percent forced savings was for nought as I could have used it better myself.

I think to claim a whole generation as lazy is foolish. The big difference is attitude not inteligence, work ethic or focus. A bit of research will prove that, different generations have different ideals and experience differentr situations and respond differently which confuses someone else who doesnt understand as they themselves are different.
Just like on AFF we come at the same topics from very different backgrounds and experiences and that shows in the plethora of responses good or bad or in anothers view bad or good.

I dont resent old people, I just want to be able to eat them!

JP

[BHDOGS]

So there upping our super which means we get less money now, it will also cost more for the services and goods we make for other people to buy? which we cant access to were 70? this doesnt seem like a good thing

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

they could always stand down ingovt and let labor take over and re introduce an employment agenda , starting with science , and big business taxes . throw some $$$$ out there to save some companies and introduce new innovative economic energy investment , all being financed by revenue created by resources and banking taxes and essential services .
but that would be too easy , and further more , it wouldnt allow individuals to rip our wealth away and take the profits of our soil .
SOMEONE HAD TO SAY IT .

GOING BACK TO BASICS LEFT WING - WORKERS PARTY .
RIGHT WING - MANAGEMENT PARTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY

what could possibly go wrong?

[cheap]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Not saying they cant have their pension, and demanding that after my contributions I am afforded the same respect and what has been promised me is delivered upon. If that doesnt happen then my annual sacrafice of 3, 6, 9 and soon to be 12 percent forced savings was for nought as I could have used it better myself.

I think to claim a whole generation as lazy is foolish. The big difference is attitude not inteligence, work ethic or focus. A bit of research will prove that, different generations have different ideals and experience differentr situations and respond differently which confuses someone else who doesnt understand as they themselves are different.
Just like on AFF we come at the same topics from very different backgrounds and experiences and that shows in the plethora of responses good or bad or in anothers view bad or good.

I dont resent old people, I just want to be able to eat them!

JP

Isn't that exactly the same point old people have, they also don't want to be duded from the promises made to them. Also don't misquote me.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by fte50

Funny that, I spoke to a fella from SPC tonight and he tells me they are still being made redundant.
Didn't elaborate further as he was busy ... I myself am confused.

The bail out is on condition SPC must retain at least 500 workers so obviously redundancies will be occurring but overall the industry survives.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Isn't that exactly the same point old people have, they also don't want to be duded from the promises made to them. Also don't misquote me.

Mate, Im not arguing against them. They have a valid right to claim the pension. I ask how are we going to pay for it with the issues explained and alluded to within this thread. I propose we eat them, they cant claim the pension when they are fodder.
Again we seem to be at odds though! aguing the same point.

Which quote did I missuse? Is it this one

Originally Posted by cheap

Instead we have a bunch of well educated Gen X and Y's who are nothing more that self centered A'holes, lazy to the back teeth resenting everything especially old people, expecting everything dished to them on a platter and still not happy when it is. No wonder Australia is in the mess it is in.

In my reading of the above quote you state we are in a mess becuase Gen X and Y (Im gen X) are less than satisfactory. I dont think it's fair to say this, we are different to baby boomers and gen Y not bad but different.

I dont mean to be mean but its sure fun this banter we should get beer.

JP

[mr smith]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Something I've thought about lately but it is a pain in the big A. Self managed into property and/or blue chip shares.

The reason for the current property rise that is going to end in tears. I have to commend the property industry for lobbying the super regulators to allow people to get their hands on their super to have a play with the money.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

So there upping our super which means we get less money now, it will also cost more for the services and goods we make for other people to buy? which we cant access to were 70? this doesnt seem like a good thing

No. You don't get less money. Super is paid by your employer on top of your wage to your Super Fund.
It is an extra cost to Business that gets added to the things you buy.


This compulsory super on wages is, IMO, is just a extra slush fund for financial institutions to play with. And it is your money, remember.

In the relatively short time of Compulsory Super in Australia, there have been 'corrections ' in the market. Such as the recent GFC for one.
Your money has been spent by these institutions on their life style and gambles. You fund that.

The right-off so they don't have to pay back your money, is in market crashes, depressions etc. Super, everything, takes a hit.
The lost money never has to be paid back.

If you think that if you are starting work now, and will have 50 or more years of super payments there when you retire in the future, then you have great faith in Governments and Financial Institutions.

[mr smith]

If govts were serious about retirements, super would have gone to govt projects so we all benefit, govt would have more money and we all have a guaranteed pension.
Current set up is just a wad of money for business to play with. Can you imagine the discussions in the business community as super was being rolled out? There would have been some serious money made.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

No. You don't get less money. Super is paid by your employer on top of your wage to your Super Fund.
It is an extra cost to Business that gets added to the things you buy.

What will end up happening is that in the next rounds of wage negotiations, employers will factor in the extra super they have to now pay, and you will either get a greatly reduced rise, or none at all. Some employers no doubt are already resisting wage rises in preparation for a rise in super.

Really, with unemployment on the way up, clearly the economy can't support it and the super increase shouldn't be happening. It will cost jobs.

[stazza]

I blame them bloody unionist extremists.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

No. You don't get less money. Super is paid by your employer on top of your wage to your Super Fund.
It is an extra cost to Business that gets added to the things you buy.

Sorry to have to disagree with you but the reality to an employer is that the compulsory contributions still get factored into the total remuneration cost per employee.

So, yes,it does factor in as part of the negotiations.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by stazza

I blame them bloody unionist extremists.

Seems to be Tony's scapegoat, so why not?

Politics 101, when things start going bad look for a scapegoat to blame your issues on.