Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd, to repeat myself from a previous post, Age Pensioners should have their homes counted towards their assessment for the Age Pension. If someone can explain to me how it is fair that an Age Pensioner who rents a property and has absolutely nothing to their name receives the same Age Pension as someone with $100,000 in the bank living in a $2,000,000 house which they own, I will never speak of this topic again. Essentially, the government is funding older Australian's lifestyles because they know that they will be voted out if they take away peoples Pensions.. Right. So someone who scrimps and saves for 45 years, builds wealth and then retires isn't entitled to a pension because why exactly? Fuck you. If I pay taxes for 45 years I expect a a pension. (Caveat. A line should be drawn somewhere with regards to super and savings which it already is.) And BTW someone living in a $2 million dollar house can't eat some of that house or sell bits of that house off to pay for the electricity bill or pay the rates. A lot of folk in Sydney or the Goldie or Melbourne bought their houses 50 years ago for next to nix so why should they be punished. And another thing $100k in the bank would last you about 3 years taking into account food, utilities, rates, insurance, car rego etc. Wake up to yourself. Right. So someone actually works there entire life and that somehow entitles you to social security because...why exactly? What next? Social security benefits for people who don't commit crimes and go to prison? Social security for people who have nice manners? This is a topic in which I will run rings around you boy so keep the insults to yourself as you will just make yourself seem like a bigger fool. Now listen up as you are about to receive an education. There is already a "line drawn in the sand" and it encompasses more than superannuation and bank accounts. It's called an Asset and Income test and it is used to determine the level of social security in which an individual is entitled to on a fortnightly basis. In almost all cases, the family home is exempt unless the capital of the home is being used or can be used for income producing purposes i.e if you borrow against your principle residence to buy an investment property then the capital of your home will be partially included in Centrelink's Asset test or if your property is larger than 2 hectares i.e. farms. So yeah, you can quite easily unlock the equity in your home to generate an income in your retirement (Equity Unlock or Reverse Mortgage). Historically, housing prices in Australia have been at a level where an individual would not be able to use the capital to draw an income and in this is still the case in a lot of places in Australia but for the majority of homeowners in Sydney and Melbourne and other capital cities, there is enough equity in their homes where they will be able to apply for an investment vehicle that will allow them to cover their ongoing expenses. What I am saying is that, where people have the capability to fund their own lifestyles, the Australian tax payer will not be forced to chip in via the old Age Pension. People who purchased their homes 50 years ago are being rewarded now for their continued investment in the form of ever increasing house prices. The Age Pension for (some) homeowners is rewarding someone for already being successful and the government can redirect those funds to alternative areas like tax cuts for the people still currently working. A couple, living in their own home with $100k in the bank will receive a combined Age Pension of a little over $33,000 after tax. They also receive discounts on car registration, utilities and rates. If they needed a combined income of $40,000 p.a. and received a standard rate of return on there deposit of 3%, there $100,000 bank account would last 19 years. My argument, which I will break down for you so you will find it easier to address, is: 1. Why is it fair that the government provides an income to people who have been successful with their investments in their life? 2. Why is it fair that the government will make farmers to sell their family property because the government deems them to be big enough to generate an income but won't put wealthy Sydneysiders in the same position? 3. Why is it fair that when a person is unable to care for themselves and enters Aged Care, their home is included in their means testing but when an individual can take care of themselves, their home is excluded? What a goose. The pension is not about being fair, it's a right. It's the reward for busting your arse and paying taxes for 40 or 50 years. It's society's way of saying thanks for all your hard graft. It is so important that the blokes that drew up our constitution made an allowance for it. Perhaps you would like to take that up you objections with Henry Parkes. Otherwise fuck saving and trying create wealth, I may as well piss it all up against the wall and when retirement time comes I'll claim the pension. Is that what you want? What they really need to do in Australia is what they do in some countries and that's your pension is paid at a rate that represents how long you've worked and paid taxes over your lifetime. (How long you've worked not how much you've paid.) To put that in simple terms the longer you work and pay taxes the higher your pension. Bludgers and reprobates that only work for 10 years out of a 40 year working career get a pro rata amount. (With obvious exceptions such as housewives, the infirm and the disabled etc.) As for your point 2. A house is not an income producing asset if you live in it. A farm usually is. 3. Don't know enough about that. The Age Pension is definitely not a Right. You have a Right to a fair trial. You have a Right not to be discriminated against in your workplace. There is not Right in place where everybody is entitled to the pension, hence, not everyone receives an Age Pension. The Age Pension is not in the Constitution and is not a reward for paying tax for 40 or 50 years. Funnily enough, the people who paid the most tax in their life don't really receive much, if anything, from the Age Pension. The irony of your argument about there being no incentive to save and pissing everything up the wall because you can just claim the pension is that this is exactly what is happening now. People will buy their home and then they will spend every last cent because when they retire, they can just get the Age Pension. I don't agree that the government owes someone a favour because they paid more tax than others. Following up on point 2. A farm is only an income producing asset when you have the ability to work the farm. Difficult to do when you are looking at retiring. A home for a lot of people is an income producing asset. Again, there is a thing called a Reverse mortgage. 3. When someone applies for Aged Care, the value of their home is taken into consideration less a deductible amount. This is to prevent people from sitting on assets which can be used to help fund their lifestyle. This will eventually be the system for the Age Pension but not for a while. listing something in a constitution does not define whether it is a right or not. otherwise we would have virtually no rights in australia. and people that pay the most taxes do get something. roads, police, defence, politicians managing the country, schooling, hospitals, parks, wildlife preservation, industrial investment, most of the shit you do every day of your life has been influenced by the investment of taxes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is not a Right nor is it in the Constitution. It is not there for people who pay the most in tax. It is generally for the people who have not paid anything in tax. My argument is that the way Centrelink assesses the family home when considering Age Pension entitlements is outdated and does not reflect the needs of people who genuinely need social security to maintain some sort of dignity. My job is largely based around retirement planning and, although I don't come across many people without a home and not much money to their name, when I do the, the gap in there quality of life is enormous. You might say "serves'em right for not thinking ahead" but the truth is many people are just unlucky in their lives. Illness and injury can hit without warning and when it does, it can be hard to recover. Also, people get made redundant at times in their life where they are unable to find work again and take time out to retrain. It effects their net wealth and ability to save. What I am saying is that the Age Pension should be a safety net, not a reward.
I mostly agree with you and we've discussed this last time you posted. I don't like the idea of people having to move out of the house that they've lived in all their lives which is why I think I suggested some sort of sliding scale based on house value and the amount of time the person has lived in the property. It can get complicated but people parking all their money in their house so that it can be inherited by their children while living on the taxpayer (the pension is paid after all with money from current taxpayers not the tax money the retirees paid when they were working) is not right. A reverse mortgage is fine in theory but bad luck if you've scrimped and saved and built wealth to pass onto your children which of course you can't do if you wind down the equity in your home. As for the constitution. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html . http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/defining_moments/featured/age_and_invalid_pensions The national importance of the subject was shown by the fact that the Constitution included provisions for monetary allowances. During debates at the Melbourne Constitutional Convention, no delegates disagreed with the idea of pensions, but they did disagree over whether it was best for the states or the Commonwealth to administer it. However, section 51 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to legislate for: (xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions; (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
And McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children?
Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down.
From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism.
You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd, to repeat myself from a previous post, Age Pensioners should have their homes counted towards their assessment for the Age Pension. If someone can explain to me how it is fair that an Age Pensioner who rents a property and has absolutely nothing to their name receives the same Age Pension as someone with $100,000 in the bank living in a $2,000,000 house which they own, I will never speak of this topic again. Essentially, the government is funding older Australian's lifestyles because they know that they will be voted out if they take away peoples Pensions.. Right. So someone who scrimps and saves for 45 years, builds wealth and then retires isn't entitled to a pension because why exactly? Fuck you. If I pay taxes for 45 years I expect a a pension. (Caveat. A line should be drawn somewhere with regards to super and savings which it already is.) And BTW someone living in a $2 million dollar house can't eat some of that house or sell bits of that house off to pay for the electricity bill or pay the rates. A lot of folk in Sydney or the Goldie or Melbourne bought their houses 50 years ago for next to nix so why should they be punished. And another thing $100k in the bank would last you about 3 years taking into account food, utilities, rates, insurance, car rego etc. Wake up to yourself. Right. So someone actually works there entire life and that somehow entitles you to social security because...why exactly? What next? Social security benefits for people who don't commit crimes and go to prison? Social security for people who have nice manners? This is a topic in which I will run rings around you boy so keep the insults to yourself as you will just make yourself seem like a bigger fool. Now listen up as you are about to receive an education. There is already a "line drawn in the sand" and it encompasses more than superannuation and bank accounts. It's called an Asset and Income test and it is used to determine the level of social security in which an individual is entitled to on a fortnightly basis. In almost all cases, the family home is exempt unless the capital of the home is being used or can be used for income producing purposes i.e if you borrow against your principle residence to buy an investment property then the capital of your home will be partially included in Centrelink's Asset test or if your property is larger than 2 hectares i.e. farms. So yeah, you can quite easily unlock the equity in your home to generate an income in your retirement (Equity Unlock or Reverse Mortgage). Historically, housing prices in Australia have been at a level where an individual would not be able to use the capital to draw an income and in this is still the case in a lot of places in Australia but for the majority of homeowners in Sydney and Melbourne and other capital cities, there is enough equity in their homes where they will be able to apply for an investment vehicle that will allow them to cover their ongoing expenses. What I am saying is that, where people have the capability to fund their own lifestyles, the Australian tax payer will not be forced to chip in via the old Age Pension. People who purchased their homes 50 years ago are being rewarded now for their continued investment in the form of ever increasing house prices. The Age Pension for (some) homeowners is rewarding someone for already being successful and the government can redirect those funds to alternative areas like tax cuts for the people still currently working. A couple, living in their own home with $100k in the bank will receive a combined Age Pension of a little over $33,000 after tax. They also receive discounts on car registration, utilities and rates. If they needed a combined income of $40,000 p.a. and received a standard rate of return on there deposit of 3%, there $100,000 bank account would last 19 years. My argument, which I will break down for you so you will find it easier to address, is: 1. Why is it fair that the government provides an income to people who have been successful with their investments in their life? 2. Why is it fair that the government will make farmers to sell their family property because the government deems them to be big enough to generate an income but won't put wealthy Sydneysiders in the same position? 3. Why is it fair that when a person is unable to care for themselves and enters Aged Care, their home is included in their means testing but when an individual can take care of themselves, their home is excluded? What a goose. The pension is not about being fair, it's a right. It's the reward for busting your arse and paying taxes for 40 or 50 years. It's society's way of saying thanks for all your hard graft. It is so important that the blokes that drew up our constitution made an allowance for it. Perhaps you would like to take that up you objections with Henry Parkes. Otherwise fuck saving and trying create wealth, I may as well piss it all up against the wall and when retirement time comes I'll claim the pension. Is that what you want? What they really need to do in Australia is what they do in some countries and that's your pension is paid at a rate that represents how long you've worked and paid taxes over your lifetime. (How long you've worked not how much you've paid.) To put that in simple terms the longer you work and pay taxes the higher your pension. Bludgers and reprobates that only work for 10 years out of a 40 year working career get a pro rata amount. (With obvious exceptions such as housewives, the infirm and the disabled etc.) As for your point 2. A house is not an income producing asset if you live in it. A farm usually is. 3. Don't know enough about that. The Age Pension is definitely not a Right. You have a Right to a fair trial. You have a Right not to be discriminated against in your workplace. There is not Right in place where everybody is entitled to the pension, hence, not everyone receives an Age Pension. The Age Pension is not in the Constitution and is not a reward for paying tax for 40 or 50 years. Funnily enough, the people who paid the most tax in their life don't really receive much, if anything, from the Age Pension. The irony of your argument about there being no incentive to save and pissing everything up the wall because you can just claim the pension is that this is exactly what is happening now. People will buy their home and then they will spend every last cent because when they retire, they can just get the Age Pension. I don't agree that the government owes someone a favour because they paid more tax than others. Following up on point 2. A farm is only an income producing asset when you have the ability to work the farm. Difficult to do when you are looking at retiring. A home for a lot of people is an income producing asset. Again, there is a thing called a Reverse mortgage. 3. When someone applies for Aged Care, the value of their home is taken into consideration less a deductible amount. This is to prevent people from sitting on assets which can be used to help fund their lifestyle. This will eventually be the system for the Age Pension but not for a while. listing something in a constitution does not define whether it is a right or not. otherwise we would have virtually no rights in australia. and people that pay the most taxes do get something. roads, police, defence, politicians managing the country, schooling, hospitals, parks, wildlife preservation, industrial investment, most of the shit you do every day of your life has been influenced by the investment of taxes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is not a Right nor is it in the Constitution. It is not there for people who pay the most in tax. It is generally for the people who have not paid anything in tax. My argument is that the way Centrelink assesses the family home when considering Age Pension entitlements is outdated and does not reflect the needs of people who genuinely need social security to maintain some sort of dignity. My job is largely based around retirement planning and, although I don't come across many people without a home and not much money to their name, when I do the, the gap in there quality of life is enormous. You might say "serves'em right for not thinking ahead" but the truth is many people are just unlucky in their lives. Illness and injury can hit without warning and when it does, it can be hard to recover. Also, people get made redundant at times in their life where they are unable to find work again and take time out to retrain. It effects their net wealth and ability to save. What I am saying is that the Age Pension should be a safety net, not a reward.
I mostly agree with you and we've discussed this last time you posted. I don't like the idea of people having to move out of the house that they've lived in all their lives which is why I think I suggested some sort of sliding scale based on house value and the amount of time the person has lived in the property. It can get complicated but people parking all their money in their house so that it can be inherited by their children while living on the taxpayer (the pension is paid after all with money from current taxpayers not the tax money the retirees paid when they were working) is not right. A reverse mortgage is fine in theory but bad luck if you've scrimped and saved and built wealth to pass onto your children which of course you can't do if you wind down the equity in your home. As for the constitution. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html . http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/defining_moments/featured/age_and_invalid_pensions The national importance of the subject was shown by the fact that the Constitution included provisions for monetary allowances. During debates at the Melbourne Constitutional Convention, no delegates disagreed with the idea of pensions, but they did disagree over whether it was best for the states or the Commonwealth to administer it. However, section 51 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to legislate for: (xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions; (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
All that part of means is that the federal government (and not the states) have the power to write laws, not that people have the right to get an old-age pension.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
luuckee
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 74,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I agree with mcjules. Its not ideal that a pensioner has a big sum tied up in a house and then get welfare. Better for the broader economy to have some of that money invested in a productive asset class. If you are collecting a pension you cannot say you have 'planned ahead'.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd, to repeat myself from a previous post, Age Pensioners should have their homes counted towards their assessment for the Age Pension. If someone can explain to me how it is fair that an Age Pensioner who rents a property and has absolutely nothing to their name receives the same Age Pension as someone with $100,000 in the bank living in a $2,000,000 house which they own, I will never speak of this topic again. Essentially, the government is funding older Australian's lifestyles because they know that they will be voted out if they take away peoples Pensions.. Right. So someone who scrimps and saves for 45 years, builds wealth and then retires isn't entitled to a pension because why exactly? Fuck you. If I pay taxes for 45 years I expect a a pension. (Caveat. A line should be drawn somewhere with regards to super and savings which it already is.) And BTW someone living in a $2 million dollar house can't eat some of that house or sell bits of that house off to pay for the electricity bill or pay the rates. A lot of folk in Sydney or the Goldie or Melbourne bought their houses 50 years ago for next to nix so why should they be punished. And another thing $100k in the bank would last you about 3 years taking into account food, utilities, rates, insurance, car rego etc. Wake up to yourself. Right. So someone actually works there entire life and that somehow entitles you to social security because...why exactly? What next? Social security benefits for people who don't commit crimes and go to prison? Social security for people who have nice manners? This is a topic in which I will run rings around you boy so keep the insults to yourself as you will just make yourself seem like a bigger fool. Now listen up as you are about to receive an education. There is already a "line drawn in the sand" and it encompasses more than superannuation and bank accounts. It's called an Asset and Income test and it is used to determine the level of social security in which an individual is entitled to on a fortnightly basis. In almost all cases, the family home is exempt unless the capital of the home is being used or can be used for income producing purposes i.e if you borrow against your principle residence to buy an investment property then the capital of your home will be partially included in Centrelink's Asset test or if your property is larger than 2 hectares i.e. farms. So yeah, you can quite easily unlock the equity in your home to generate an income in your retirement (Equity Unlock or Reverse Mortgage). Historically, housing prices in Australia have been at a level where an individual would not be able to use the capital to draw an income and in this is still the case in a lot of places in Australia but for the majority of homeowners in Sydney and Melbourne and other capital cities, there is enough equity in their homes where they will be able to apply for an investment vehicle that will allow them to cover their ongoing expenses. What I am saying is that, where people have the capability to fund their own lifestyles, the Australian tax payer will not be forced to chip in via the old Age Pension. People who purchased their homes 50 years ago are being rewarded now for their continued investment in the form of ever increasing house prices. The Age Pension for (some) homeowners is rewarding someone for already being successful and the government can redirect those funds to alternative areas like tax cuts for the people still currently working. A couple, living in their own home with $100k in the bank will receive a combined Age Pension of a little over $33,000 after tax. They also receive discounts on car registration, utilities and rates. If they needed a combined income of $40,000 p.a. and received a standard rate of return on there deposit of 3%, there $100,000 bank account would last 19 years. My argument, which I will break down for you so you will find it easier to address, is: 1. Why is it fair that the government provides an income to people who have been successful with their investments in their life? 2. Why is it fair that the government will make farmers to sell their family property because the government deems them to be big enough to generate an income but won't put wealthy Sydneysiders in the same position? 3. Why is it fair that when a person is unable to care for themselves and enters Aged Care, their home is included in their means testing but when an individual can take care of themselves, their home is excluded? What a goose. The pension is not about being fair, it's a right. It's the reward for busting your arse and paying taxes for 40 or 50 years. It's society's way of saying thanks for all your hard graft. It is so important that the blokes that drew up our constitution made an allowance for it. Perhaps you would like to take that up you objections with Henry Parkes. Otherwise fuck saving and trying create wealth, I may as well piss it all up against the wall and when retirement time comes I'll claim the pension. Is that what you want? What they really need to do in Australia is what they do in some countries and that's your pension is paid at a rate that represents how long you've worked and paid taxes over your lifetime. (How long you've worked not how much you've paid.) To put that in simple terms the longer you work and pay taxes the higher your pension. Bludgers and reprobates that only work for 10 years out of a 40 year working career get a pro rata amount. (With obvious exceptions such as housewives, the infirm and the disabled etc.) As for your point 2. A house is not an income producing asset if you live in it. A farm usually is. 3. Don't know enough about that. The Age Pension is definitely not a Right. You have a Right to a fair trial. You have a Right not to be discriminated against in your workplace. There is not Right in place where everybody is entitled to the pension, hence, not everyone receives an Age Pension. The Age Pension is not in the Constitution and is not a reward for paying tax for 40 or 50 years. Funnily enough, the people who paid the most tax in their life don't really receive much, if anything, from the Age Pension. The irony of your argument about there being no incentive to save and pissing everything up the wall because you can just claim the pension is that this is exactly what is happening now. People will buy their home and then they will spend every last cent because when they retire, they can just get the Age Pension. I don't agree that the government owes someone a favour because they paid more tax than others. Following up on point 2. A farm is only an income producing asset when you have the ability to work the farm. Difficult to do when you are looking at retiring. A home for a lot of people is an income producing asset. Again, there is a thing called a Reverse mortgage. 3. When someone applies for Aged Care, the value of their home is taken into consideration less a deductible amount. This is to prevent people from sitting on assets which can be used to help fund their lifestyle. This will eventually be the system for the Age Pension but not for a while. listing something in a constitution does not define whether it is a right or not. otherwise we would have virtually no rights in australia. and people that pay the most taxes do get something. roads, police, defence, politicians managing the country, schooling, hospitals, parks, wildlife preservation, industrial investment, most of the shit you do every day of your life has been influenced by the investment of taxes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is not a Right nor is it in the Constitution. It is not there for people who pay the most in tax. It is generally for the people who have not paid anything in tax. My argument is that the way Centrelink assesses the family home when considering Age Pension entitlements is outdated and does not reflect the needs of people who genuinely need social security to maintain some sort of dignity. My job is largely based around retirement planning and, although I don't come across many people without a home and not much money to their name, when I do the, the gap in there quality of life is enormous. You might say "serves'em right for not thinking ahead" but the truth is many people are just unlucky in their lives. Illness and injury can hit without warning and when it does, it can be hard to recover. Also, people get made redundant at times in their life where they are unable to find work again and take time out to retrain. It effects their net wealth and ability to save. What I am saying is that the Age Pension should be a safety net, not a reward.
I mostly agree with you and we've discussed this last time you posted. I don't like the idea of people having to move out of the house that they've lived in all their lives which is why I think I suggested some sort of sliding scale based on house value and the amount of time the person has lived in the property. It can get complicated but people parking all their money in their house so that it can be inherited by their children while living on the taxpayer (the pension is paid after all with money from current taxpayers not the tax money the retirees paid when they were working) is not right. A reverse mortgage is fine in theory but bad luck if you've scrimped and saved and built wealth to pass onto your children which of course you can't do if you wind down the equity in your home. As for the constitution. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html . http://www.nma.gov.au/online_features/defining_moments/featured/age_and_invalid_pensions The national importance of the subject was shown by the fact that the Constitution included provisions for monetary allowances. During debates at the Melbourne Constitutional Convention, no delegates disagreed with the idea of pensions, but they did disagree over whether it was best for the states or the Commonwealth to administer it. However, section 51 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to legislate for: (xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions; (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;
All that part of means is that the federal government (and not the states) have the power to write laws, not that people have the right to get an old-age pension. The point is they were clever enough to foresee the need to provide pensions. Proponents of introducing a pension argued that a person had a right to live out their old age free from poverty because of their contribution to the community through a lifetime’s hard work. They also argued that the pension had to be free from the stigma of charity, and that a universal government scheme funded from general revenue was the best policy. Several colonies debated the possibility of providing an old age pension, either by establishing Royal Commissions or commissions of inquiry through their legislatures. This was in line with international developments – New Zealand, Denmark and Britain were all engaged in similar policy debates.
And also to Van Wilder up there. A home you live in is not an income producing asset.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+xFIFA should buy all the rights off PES and make it all encompassing. All in order to create a better game. I hate the rights being scattered. what does PES have?
|
|
|
|
|
Bundoora B
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd, to repeat myself from a previous post, Age Pensioners should have their homes counted towards their assessment for the Age Pension. If someone can explain to me how it is fair that an Age Pensioner who rents a property and has absolutely nothing to their name receives the same Age Pension as someone with $100,000 in the bank living in a $2,000,000 house which they own, I will never speak of this topic again. Essentially, the government is funding older Australian's lifestyles because they know that they will be voted out if they take away peoples Pensions.. Right. So someone who scrimps and saves for 45 years, builds wealth and then retires isn't entitled to a pension because why exactly? Fuck you. If I pay taxes for 45 years I expect a a pension. (Caveat. A line should be drawn somewhere with regards to super and savings which it already is.) And BTW someone living in a $2 million dollar house can't eat some of that house or sell bits of that house off to pay for the electricity bill or pay the rates. A lot of folk in Sydney or the Goldie or Melbourne bought their houses 50 years ago for next to nix so why should they be punished. And another thing $100k in the bank would last you about 3 years taking into account food, utilities, rates, insurance, car rego etc. Wake up to yourself. Right. So someone actually works there entire life and that somehow entitles you to social security because...why exactly? What next? Social security benefits for people who don't commit crimes and go to prison? Social security for people who have nice manners? This is a topic in which I will run rings around you boy so keep the insults to yourself as you will just make yourself seem like a bigger fool. Now listen up as you are about to receive an education. There is already a "line drawn in the sand" and it encompasses more than superannuation and bank accounts. It's called an Asset and Income test and it is used to determine the level of social security in which an individual is entitled to on a fortnightly basis. In almost all cases, the family home is exempt unless the capital of the home is being used or can be used for income producing purposes i.e if you borrow against your principle residence to buy an investment property then the capital of your home will be partially included in Centrelink's Asset test or if your property is larger than 2 hectares i.e. farms. So yeah, you can quite easily unlock the equity in your home to generate an income in your retirement (Equity Unlock or Reverse Mortgage). Historically, housing prices in Australia have been at a level where an individual would not be able to use the capital to draw an income and in this is still the case in a lot of places in Australia but for the majority of homeowners in Sydney and Melbourne and other capital cities, there is enough equity in their homes where they will be able to apply for an investment vehicle that will allow them to cover their ongoing expenses. What I am saying is that, where people have the capability to fund their own lifestyles, the Australian tax payer will not be forced to chip in via the old Age Pension. People who purchased their homes 50 years ago are being rewarded now for their continued investment in the form of ever increasing house prices. The Age Pension for (some) homeowners is rewarding someone for already being successful and the government can redirect those funds to alternative areas like tax cuts for the people still currently working. A couple, living in their own home with $100k in the bank will receive a combined Age Pension of a little over $33,000 after tax. They also receive discounts on car registration, utilities and rates. If they needed a combined income of $40,000 p.a. and received a standard rate of return on there deposit of 3%, there $100,000 bank account would last 19 years. My argument, which I will break down for you so you will find it easier to address, is: 1. Why is it fair that the government provides an income to people who have been successful with their investments in their life? 2. Why is it fair that the government will make farmers to sell their family property because the government deems them to be big enough to generate an income but won't put wealthy Sydneysiders in the same position? 3. Why is it fair that when a person is unable to care for themselves and enters Aged Care, their home is included in their means testing but when an individual can take care of themselves, their home is excluded? What a goose. The pension is not about being fair, it's a right. It's the reward for busting your arse and paying taxes for 40 or 50 years. It's society's way of saying thanks for all your hard graft. It is so important that the blokes that drew up our constitution made an allowance for it. Perhaps you would like to take that up you objections with Henry Parkes. Otherwise fuck saving and trying create wealth, I may as well piss it all up against the wall and when retirement time comes I'll claim the pension. Is that what you want? What they really need to do in Australia is what they do in some countries and that's your pension is paid at a rate that represents how long you've worked and paid taxes over your lifetime. (How long you've worked not how much you've paid.) To put that in simple terms the longer you work and pay taxes the higher your pension. Bludgers and reprobates that only work for 10 years out of a 40 year working career get a pro rata amount. (With obvious exceptions such as housewives, the infirm and the disabled etc.) As for your point 2. A house is not an income producing asset if you live in it. A farm usually is. 3. Don't know enough about that. The Age Pension is definitely not a Right. You have a Right to a fair trial. You have a Right not to be discriminated against in your workplace. There is not Right in place where everybody is entitled to the pension, hence, not everyone receives an Age Pension. The Age Pension is not in the Constitution and is not a reward for paying tax for 40 or 50 years. Funnily enough, the people who paid the most tax in their life don't really receive much, if anything, from the Age Pension. The irony of your argument about there being no incentive to save and pissing everything up the wall because you can just claim the pension is that this is exactly what is happening now. People will buy their home and then they will spend every last cent because when they retire, they can just get the Age Pension. I don't agree that the government owes someone a favour because they paid more tax than others. Following up on point 2. A farm is only an income producing asset when you have the ability to work the farm. Difficult to do when you are looking at retiring. A home for a lot of people is an income producing asset. Again, there is a thing called a Reverse mortgage. 3. When someone applies for Aged Care, the value of their home is taken into consideration less a deductible amount. This is to prevent people from sitting on assets which can be used to help fund their lifestyle. This will eventually be the system for the Age Pension but not for a while. listing something in a constitution does not define whether it is a right or not. otherwise we would have virtually no rights in australia. and people that pay the most taxes do get something. roads, police, defence, politicians managing the country, schooling, hospitals, parks, wildlife preservation, industrial investment, most of the shit you do every day of your life has been influenced by the investment of taxes. That is exactly what I am saying. It is not a Right nor is it in the Constitution. It is not there for people who pay the most in tax. It is generally for the people who have not paid anything in tax. My argument is that the way Centrelink assesses the family home when considering Age Pension entitlements is outdated and does not reflect the needs of people who genuinely need social security to maintain some sort of dignity. My job is largely based around retirement planning and, although I don't come across many people without a home and not much money to their name, when I do the, the gap in there quality of life is enormous. You might say "serves'em right for not thinking ahead" but the truth is many people are just unlucky in their lives. Illness and injury can hit without warning and when it does, it can be hard to recover. Also, people get made redundant at times in their life where they are unable to find work again and take time out to retrain. It effects their net wealth and ability to save. What I am saying is that the Age Pension should be a safety net, not a reward.
agree within the confines of the current growth orientated capitalist society. people should be granted the freedom to retire safely regardless of their financial position. its the least we can do for each other.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
perthjay85
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. Holding wealth doesn't just mean better lives for their children. It can set up generations. My parents busted their as creating a very successful business that has set our family up for a few generations at least. It's a wonderful thing.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. Holding wealth doesn't just mean better lives for their children. It can set up generations. My parents busted their as creating a very successful business that has set our family up for a few generations at least. It's a wonderful thing. I'm not anti-wealth generation or holding onto wealth if you can. We're talking about something very specific which is the exemption of the home in the asset test in the aged pension. I think it's wrong to force Mavis who has been living in her Double Bay house for 80 years out just because the price skyrocketed. There are however people that buy more expensive houses so they can hold onto that money and go onto the aged pension.Those people could have used some of that money to support themselves for a while. This is the current system, personally I like the idea of basic income and if we had that we could do away with a lot of the bureaucracy, make things more efficient and all this discussion would be irrelevant.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. I can see by the rate in which your replies are being posted that I have inspired you to educate yourself on the subject of social security and the options available for people when they reach the age of retirement, so there's something I guess. Mate, I understand why you think the way you do. I talk to people everyday about retiring and the Age Pension and I would say that around 95% think just like you.They have paid their taxes and they deserve something back. Even the people with $1mil in the bank, $1mil in super and an investment property in Mosman believe they are entitled to the Age Pension. My opinion is not a popular opinion hence it being posted here but your point of view is neither clever or unique. You are defending the rights of the wealthy to receive subsidies from the government. It's called middle class welfare and there has to be a better way.
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
Toughlove
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 814,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids. Whatever. We have different opinions which won't be resolved here. I grew up in a different era before Super was even a proper thing. Now of course the landscape has changed an old fogies are clinging on to what they thought was a right to a pension as a reward when they started work 40 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids. Whatever. We have different opinions which won't be resolved here. I grew up in a different era before Super was even a proper thing. Now of course the landscape has changed an old fogies are clinging on to what they thought was a right to a pension as a reward when they started work 40 years ago. Despite my differing opinion, I do spend a reasonable amount of time at my job helping people get the most out of the Age Pension and I am more than happy to help anyone on this forum do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xFIFA should buy all the rights off PES and make it all encompassing. All in order to create a better game. I hate the rights being scattered. what does PES have? Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids. Whatever. We have different opinions which won't be resolved here. I grew up in a different era before Super was even a proper thing. Now of course the landscape has changed an old fogies are clinging on to what they thought was a right to a pension as a reward when they started work 40 years ago. The pension has been asset tested for as long as I can remember (at least 20 years). The exemption on the home you live in I agree with but I think it needs limits as it can (and has) been exploited. Anyway, I agree whatever :laugh: 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids. Whatever. We have different opinions which won't be resolved here. I grew up in a different era before Super was even a proper thing. Now of course the landscape has changed an old fogies are clinging on to what they thought was a right to a pension as a reward when they started work 40 years ago. The pension has been asset tested for as long as I can remember (at least 20 years). The exemption on the home you live in I agree with but I think it needs limits as it can (and has) been exploited. Anyway, I agree whatever :laugh: You need to stop conceding when debating. Back yourself and your opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. Holding wealth doesn't just mean better lives for their children. It can set up generations. My parents busted their as creating a very successful business that has set our family up for a few generations at least. It's a wonderful thing. I'm not anti-wealth generation or holding onto wealth if you can. We're talking about something very specific which is the exemption of the home in the asset test in the aged pension. I think it's wrong to force Mavis who has been living in her Double Bay house for 80 years out just because the price skyrocketed. There are however people that buy more expensive houses so they can hold onto that money and go onto the aged pension.Those people could have used some of that money to support themselves for a while. This is the current system, personally I like the idea of basic income and if we had that we could do away with a lot of the bureaucracy, make things more efficient and all this discussion would be irrelevant. I agree with this. In my job I do a lot of work around 'developing areas' where people have houses built in the 60's for peanuts in the middle of Surfers Paradise worth millions now. I have a problem with screwing people simply because they bought a house in what is now (40 years on) a developers wet dream. This is going to continue to be an issue as the baby boomers age though. In 15 years or so when my parents retire I think the welfare demand is going to be very constraining for our economy. Particularly so given how many 20-something year olds these days are studying their 4th degree, 'finding themselves' or smoking cones all day and contributing nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
New Signing
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Women's football is a waste of time
|
|
|
|
|
The Dudist
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
@New Signing
That's definitely an unpopular opinion. And quite frankly I have no idea how you concluded as such.
|
|
|
|
|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
Technology in football is a good thing. Any league that can afford it (ie professional league) should have it.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWomen's football is a waste of time Harsh but I find it boring as hell to watch.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAnd McJules why exactly is it wrong to own your own home, pay taxes for 45 years and then not pass on your hard earned to your children? Why should you be punished because you've planned ahead and done well. You should be congratulated not dragged down. From what I've read from Vanlessen he appears to be an avowed free market capitalist, which is fine, but the above smacks of the worst parts of socialism. You've got money when you retired. Well we'll punish you for that. I think there's plenty wrong with holding onto "excessive" amounts of money in an asset and living off taxpayer money (i.e. money that could be spent on other things that could increase the nation's productive capacity) until you die just so you can hand that wealth over to your children. I'm not often on the same page with many of Vanlassen's ideas but this one is mostly reasonable.There are challenges with how you legislate it fairly but it has merit. I go back to my original point then. You may as well not bother striving to create wealth and a better future for your children who will, in all likelihood, put that money to good use in a 'productive capacity' in any number of ways. If they're are waiting until they're dead to make their children's lives better then they're doing it wrong. They're don't have to be mutually exclusive. When I peg it I hope to leave something to my kids besides fond memories of picnics in the park. So do I of course. To take it to the extreme, why should I need to spend any of the money I earn? I should get the pension while I'm working so I can give the money I earn from my job to my kids. Whatever. We have different opinions which won't be resolved here. I grew up in a different era before Super was even a proper thing. Now of course the landscape has changed an old fogies are clinging on to what they thought was a right to a pension as a reward when they started work 40 years ago. The pension has been asset tested for as long as I can remember (at least 20 years). The exemption on the home you live in I agree with but I think it needs limits as it can (and has) been exploited. Anyway, I agree whatever :laugh: You need to stop conceding when debating. Back yourself and your opinions. My whatever was sarcastic :laugh: A big problem with internet forums though is people that don't know when to stop arguing. The debate has been had, I've made my points and he's made his. Nothing more to say.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWomen's football is a waste of time I go out of my way to avoid women's sports.
|
|
|
|
|
Heineken
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 49K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWomen's football is a waste of time I go out of my way to avoid women's sports. What? Hot chicks. Short Shorts. Long athletic legs. What's not to love?!
WOLLONGONG WOLVES FOR A-LEAGUE EXPANSION!
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Popular sports (Football, Cricket, Basketball, Baseball, Tennis, Golf) should not be at the Olympics
Unless they work out an edited version of them ie Rugby Sevens (fast 4 tennis perhaps?)
|
|
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWomen's football is a waste of time I go out of my way to avoid women's sports. What? Hot chicks. Short Shorts. Long athletic legs. What's not to love?! Rugby 7s had hotter chicks. I was watching the french game though to be fair.
|
|
|
|