+1. Superannuation tax breaks are not handouts - it is thieving less. Middle class welfare is BS too.
+1 As I said even though it is wrong we unfortunately need a transition which luckily we have started (even if it is still not the best thing and is unlikely to actually exist in the way it is currently sold by the time I reach my "retirement"). +1 on whoever it was that mentioned our obligations to retired war widows etc. +1 even if exact details can be argued about. I think much progress was made under the Libs to moving away from a permanent dole capability but still shite Higher education is in a bubble with whatever subsidies we currently have being completely arse-about w.r.t. the future capacity of the education generating wealth vs bleeding yet more wealth.
The pension is the reward for a life time of taxes .I'am sure all of you(except AUSPM) will be arranging your affairs when you get to retirement age to scam what you can get out of centerlink I know I will ,even if you have close to a mill in retirement you will still receive some form of benefit .if there is no dole the crime rate will be thru the roof maybe you all want to go down the septic tank way ,food stamps and drug dealers on every street corner and yes pensioners should get more money, but only if they have spent at least %75 of there working life in aust.and not just lobbed into the country on a boat or plane as welfare refugees
That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. How can you "give out" a tax break? Either way taxes are being paid to the ATO, the ATO is not giving anything. It should read "we will be stealing less tax from superannuation".
If that's the case the pension should be funded from past tax contributions, not future earnings of the next generation. Also I know a lot of people who came to Australia and never paid income tax, yet they receive a pension for the rest of their life. Anyone who thinks the pension will be there in ten years is fooling themselves.
In my dreams. I'd love them to build a hospital. I can only hope. Instead they build an NBN, insulate roofs, house boat people, give it to everyone else as carbon tax compensation, give themselves pay rises.. etc. Lucky my internet speed will be faster though - that was value for money for me, huh?
Has anyone ever lived in a country that doesn't have social security (pensions or unemployment)? And has comparatively low tax. I have, and based on my experience, I don't think the lack of social security increased crime rates.
Maybe they were allowed to have sticks that go bang the local milk bar got robbed last week stole $35 dollars and 3 packets of ciggies ,slashed the owner with a knife .you guessed it a dole bludger
Only the ones who depend stealing on stealing your next pay cheque, for the rest of your life. I'd be the first one to sign something to the effect of "I'll pay full price for all future hospital visits for my family, in return for no income tax for life.". The whole income tax idea of "Give us 40% of your income, and we'll do all these good things" doesn't sit well with me. Income tax is theft. What kind of altruistic government taxes you then turns around and spends it to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan killing innocent people ... Did they ask taxpayers if it was OK to do that? There is no accountability for government actions. They're too big and too invasive.
They must have a way better culture (family based) then the every man for themselfs culture we have here
I think that probably sums it up. Better family culture, rather than reliance on the state to feed them.
No worse than someone stealing from my earned wealth to pay for it, making me and my family impoverished in the process without recourse or even right of complaint. Last I checked, I had no say in it either and worse, derive no benefit from it as well. In fact, it's directly detrimental to my position. So what's worse? What's moral? What's just? Who's need is 'greater' and justifies the forced act? Who makes that choice? At what point do we justify it as an act of ethics and morality and at what point do we call it a criminal act? It cuts to the core of the debate not just in a practical sense, but equally as much an ethical one. Fact is, people want to be subjective on an issue that has a clear line in the sand. If you take (forcibly) from someone else, it's theft - no matter what the cause or reason, yet if you protest you're being robbed (depending on WHY you're being robbed and WHO will benefit from you being robbed), you're cast as mean spirited? Go back to the clips I linked above to see how irrational that conclusion could possibly be.
Auspm..Even Ayn Rand in her last days accepted social security for medical expenses. Comment Please Regards Errol 43
Is it mean spirited to steal from a young family to pay their pensions, knowing full well that young family probably will never receive a pension? They also had arguably the most favorable Australian economic conditions for most of their adult life, yet most of them didn't bother to save for retirement. I know of many pensioners who pay advisers/accountants to maximize every cent they can get from the pension, by changing investments, spending cash, gifting cash to children (to fall below asset tests), investing in (undeclared) fine art/bullion before applying for the pension.
You undermine & dismiss the entire philosiphy based on the one perceived contradiction of a select individual in their entire lifetime. From the birth of this philosiphy with Aristotle, some 2350 odd years ago - to today - you seek to dismiss the credibility of the ideology because Ayn used social security on her deathbed, rather than die on principle and be a martyr? For who? You? Are you serious? The layman likes to treat Objectivism like a religion and assume any lapse of reason or judgement by a single individual is enough to undermine the entire ideology, which in itself shows clearly how irrational the naysayers of the arguement can be. Even worse, they view any spokesman for the ideology as a constant and that any single contradiction - for ever - should be viewed as proof definitive of the fact it doesn't work. This coming from a collection of people who lament and scorn joe sixpack for calling them tin foil hat wearing gold bugs. The hypocracy of such attitudes is honestly mind boggling. Look, I really don't care what or how people think in regards to Objectivism. You're entitled to think, act and believe in whatever standards you are comfortable with and no one is saying otherwise. Ayn was no martyr. She was no saint. She had as many faults as any other human being on the planet. Her views on sexuality and intimacy I found rather disturbing. But I don't let personal judgement cloud the message. On her ideology, built upon the principle of reason as an absolute, she was spot on and I am not so stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater dismissing the message based on perceived, flawed personality traits. People who make comments like you have above Errol I'd daresay have never read any of her works, appreciate or honestly understand the foundations of Objectivism and simply want to ride the 'anti-Rand' bandwagon. Ayn wasn't the only proponent of the philosiphy, nor the sole originator. She was just an easy target for the masses because she wasn't afraid to be confrontational & because her ideology undermines the entire paradigm that we bear today as a moral & ideological absolute. It doesn't mean she was wrong, nor should people be so ignorant as to dismiss the principles based on personal bias or events of contradiction.
Yeah lets stop the aged pension and kick them out on the street to fend for themselves . cant have all them rich old people having a life can we . maybe we could put them down if they dont have enough money to suvive there old age .and give there homes to the young families with kids because they deserve it more . What a bunch of arseholes
