It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by minux, Apr 4, 2011.
So glad I didn't vote for either of them lol
Neither did I.
Edited previous post if you're interested.
eeeeeeeexcelent contribution to the debate there guys :thumbsup:
My prediction, election, Labor wins
I dunno, Labor was really on the nose on the lead up to their second term. Traditionally most Govts get two terms.
While yes, unpopular at the moment, not to much has gone wrong really. Its more just harsh decisions.
They can sell this though. It all comes down to IMO how the budget looks in a years time. If the debt has started to come under control they can really sell it.
very, very early to call that one. Although - it will be a fascinating battle if there is a DD election come August. It's a very big chance. I hope like #### Labor don't get back in. As Terry Maccran put it, right now we have the situation where the firemen are getting blamed for the fire by the arsonists. I just worry how much of the dumb public will believe it :/
News Ltd journo supporting a conservative government? Well I never!!
In other news, as a confirmation that there is a first time for everything, C Pyne (in the bum) dropped the c-bomb in parliament. Bronnie picked him up on on it. Shorten at times may well be a ####, but no need to use such language in parliament lol Keating's insults I found were funny......
The likelihood of a double dissolution isn't all that improbable after the budget announcements.
Labor and the Greens had already shown their intentions in relation to the carbon tax, which was one of three major Coalition election undertakings. The recent re-election in WA didn't really help the Coalition cause and now, with the Opposition, the Greens and the PUP indicating their intentions to block various key Budget strategies, the Coalition's job of running the country and honouring their pre-election pledges is looking almost impossible. I doubt that Abbott and Co will tolerate the situation for very long and an August/September re-election, IMO, is very likely.
The question is, what percentage of the electorate that voted for the Coalition last time will have been so disenchanted with the budget that they would be prompted to vote the other way and put Labor back in? How many are prepared to overlook their personal situation and look at the much large picture (ie the economy), before voting?
Finally, if Labor was re-elected, just what would they do to repair the damage, given that they seem to feel that there is no problem anyway and our Triple A rating will keep us out of trouble?
So in sumnary, Shorten and his band of Muppets are ripping into the budget effectively on the basis of it making Australia not a nice place to live.
They all truely belong on an episode of ACA as people who fell into the "credit card trap".
It seems that Labor are only interested in themselves and getting into power playing up to the Australian public saying "Look, Abbott is so evil, hesngoing to take some money out of your pocket, vote for us and we'ok give it back and more". The issue being that what Abbott and his goverment are trying to do is ensure that there will be something left in the piggy bank for tomorrow rather that looking only at today.
The issue is, a majority of people are selfish and self centred, so will eat up Labors hype.
And I still cannot fathom why Labor are running around waving a banner how bad the retirement age becoming 70 is.
That is one policy that is 100% logic. People live longer so should receive the pension later in life.
Or are we suggesting that if say the average age of the population became 160 tomorrow the pension should still be available at 65?
Labor is doing it's usual thing and making running the country a popularity contest. They are like a parent who gives their obese child candy all the time because the child gets upset otherwise.
I realize it didn't come from your pre-approved official media source but your (and others here) continual dismissal just because of the source just doesn't cut it. Which bit of the comment is wrong?
Oh.... And with all the brew-ha-ha over the medicare co payment..... Anybody ever consider the first person to introduce it was the working mans friend mr Bob Hawke in '91??? It was $2.50 per visit which in todays money is around $6 (a few cents shy). It only lasted 3 months and was abolished when Keating knifed Hawke in their leadership fight.
(I hope parliamentary documents are an approved source of media)
Don't get sucked in to the spin. It's not the retirement age.
Sorry, my bad. "Pension eligibility" age.
Retirement age is whatever the hell you make it.
there was an interesting comment made on the radio today. cannot remember which station. all I remember was it was an AM station of some descript.
it related to the bean counters at workplaces and jobs in the near future.
in no specific terms they said, its become increasingly harder for an older person to get a job yet they are increase the pension age.
pretty much pointing to what happens to them inbetween.
they did say that the whole 10k (over 2 years) to hire an over 50 isn't always going to work out right.
more pointing to manual based workplaces.
and they also pointed to the ailments that impede some people from continuing said jobs. even if it isn't serious, but can hinder movement or ability. (ie eyesight)
have to say, I do wonder what will happen to some of those people who do not get the chance to climb some corporate ladder.
this referring to those who work on the tools for most of their days.
just think of a concreter, bricky or builder. its not like they will likely have a massive super account.
now before you all jump for my throat I haven't said I am against raising the age or anything. it just seemed interesting what was said.
will just be interesting to see what happens from here
What happens when the oldies cant get a job, they then go on Newstart, which is less than the pension, so the gov save money anyway. Win, win for them.
I am one of the "older" people who has health issues, am lucky at the moment that I have 2 part time jobs, but both of those could go at any time. One of them involves some heavy lifting, which I cant do anymore due to back and neck issues(heavy truck mechanic by trade), but I am lucky my employer values some of my other knowledge, so keeps me on.
I have tried to get full time work, but in a small town, and my age(61 this year), I dont get a look in
Seems like not everyone is going to pay their fair share after all
Loopholes like this should be plugged
No Cookies | The Courier-Mail
The extended life span does not mean the body breaks down slower, it just means you may live longer before you die. You'll still be as good or as bad as people were in the past at 65, it's just modern medicine makes death wait longer to claim you. If you saw my mother in law, she's 71, you wouldn't think she could have worked to 70, she looks 90. Bent over, scoliosis, back operations etc are the major probs but she has others. I'd post a pic to make the point but my wife won't let me. Actually she just said I could if I blurred her face so if you want to see what 70 can be like let me know. Some can, but many can't keep going on working.
If you work in a body intensive industry wouldn't it make sense to invest more into your future so you can retire earlier on your own funds and not rely on the pension? This is what shits me about this country now, it has become such an entitled society. If you cannot work until 70, start doing something about it now. It only effects those born after a certain time so many can invest smarter now to retire earlier and more comfortably later. Sadly, people think the employers contribution to super will be enough...we need to re-instate the tax breaks on super investment to allow everyone the chance to fund their own retirement and pension.
Well that's not quite right either. Lets look at say.... concreters - one of the hardest trades out there. Modern OH&S regs & work practices, modern machinery etc make it far far far less strenuous than it's ever been. Same goes with most other physical trades out there. What a lot of people are missing is that people currently approaching retirement age for the most part have worked at least the first half (or more) of their career without the benefit of many many machines and production techniques that today we take for granted.
Firstly - in a lot of cases people simply cbf'ed changing as getting into/out of fringe benefits short term can be a real bitch. Secondly, such things are easily closed via an amendment in the legislation as it goes to the senate.
Unfortunately the "workers party" have removed near any incentive for that to happen. Why they decided to remove everybodies incentive to provide for their own future beggars belief. I hope it's right near the top of this governments priority list to re-institute the low taxation for super contributions.
im not making excuses for people.
just wanted some others opinions.
just putting it out there. so a bricky, on not a flash wage, who cannot add extra into super etc. they don't really have a choice now do they?
wouldn't mind hearing how you would go from something like that. not everyone has the chance to invest as others can.
and no I don't agree with many handouts.
having tax breaks on super would be good. but didn't they recently cap it at $25k or something?
I know a few blokes who would have loved to put more into their super. as they are going to retire soon, but some cap screwed them over.
and don't worry minux. I am in a body intensive industry. and have started planning ahead because I have the ability to do so and know compound interest would add up over time. it is just unfortunately. some people who wish they could do such a thing do not get the chance to do so.
Even the humble bricky does very well for themselves these days. For some reason trades around the auto industry seem to be well behind in pay than near everything else.
Separate names with a comma.