topic Re: How true in Community Spirit

How true

***super_nova*** — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:22:46 GMT

Re: How true

the_great_she_elephant — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:33:35 GMT

I read this syndicated article in The Sunday Times this morning and as I have always found this guy's articles extremely sensible and apolitical I thought it might be well worth sharing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/barefoot-investor/less-left-to-spoil-grandchildren/story-fngu4eru-1226703119010

Re: How true

twinkles**stars — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:46:47 GMT

But Labor want to give out money too?

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:54:05 GMT

I don't think you can compare life in 2013 with life in Grandma's day. The average rent where I live is $450 a week, the avg house price about $550 000... pay that one one income.. not easily done unless you are in a high income category.

Parents (mothers usually) want paid parental leave because they have to have money to pay their mortgage/rent when not working while looking after a new baby at home.. a limited amount of time 6 mths.

People get parental leave payment for a limited amount of time. If the parents are on a high income and return to the workforce, they are paying plenty of tax.

Accepting money from the Govt for paid parental leave has nothing to do with loving or not loving your child or why you have children.

Re: How true

the_great_she_elephant — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 07:56:56 GMT

@twinkles**stars wrote:
But Labor want to give out money too?

Yes, but the Coalition scheme, while imposing a levy on big business will reduce company tax to all businesses by the same amount and the article explains the effect this will have on Super funds.

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:00:41 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
I read this syndicated article in The Sunday Times this morning and as I have always found this guy's articles extremely sensible and apolitical I thought it might be well worth sharing.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/barefoot-investor/less-left-to-spoil-grandchildren/story-fngu4eru-1226703119010

Love the 'slogans for bogans' comment.

The article above didn't give specifics about the franking credits tax though.

So a superannuation fund obtains a franking credit equal to the tax paid by the company. Those franking credits are currently calculated at a tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar.

When the Abbott-Hockey plan is introduced the franking credits will be calculated on the basis of 28.5 cent in the dollar.

They are worth less and so the retirees and those saving to pay for retirement cop the bill because Abbott and Hockey have simply swapped a tax for a levy aiming to lower the franking credit.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/19/economy/retirees-will-pay-paid-parental-leave-scheme

Re: How true

twinkles**stars — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:02:52 GMT

The opening post says she didn't ask for a cent, no mention of where it's coming from. Labor is aslo going to give it ou tot.....hence my post. Labor isn't giving the oldies anything either that I have heard of

Re: How true

the_great_she_elephant — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:03:08 GMT

@am*3 wrote:
I don't think you can compare life in 2013 with life in Grandma's day. The average rent where I live is $450 a week, the avg house price about $550 000... pay that one one income.. not easily done unless you are in a high income category.

Parents (mothers usually) want paid parental leave because they have to have money to pay their mortgage/rent when not working while looking after a new baby at home.. a limited amount of time 6 mths.

People get parental leave payment for a limited amount of time. If the parents are on a high income and return to the workforce, they are paying plenty of tax.

Accepting money from the Govt for paid parental leave has nothing to do with loving or not loving your child or why you have children.

Am, did you actually read the article - or only the heading? It has nothing to do with making comparisons between 'now' and 'then' or for how long an individual will receive the payment. It explains what the effect of the scheme will be on Superanuation Funds and, as a result, the income of retirees.

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:09:55 GMT

My comment you quoted, she ele, was in reference to the captioned photo in the opening post, not your link

People who say .. ra ra, I never got the baby bonus, paid parental leave etc so no one else should.. hmmm.

Most couples/families now do need 2 incomes to pay their basic living costs.. rent/mortgage and food.. no use comparing today with Grandma's day.

Is Grandma living on $19 000 providing a home and food for her children?

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:14:53 GMT

Paid parental leave has nothing to do with oldies of today (except as she-ele has pointed out.. the tax credits the now retired people receive will be reduced under the LNP policy.)

A retired granny wouldn't expect to get the same income as a working person.

Working Mum's might by swayed to vote for the LNP, retired persons may not vote for them over this.

Re: How true

***super_nova*** — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:15:45 GMT

@am*3 wrote:
I don't think you can compare life in 2013 with life in Grandma's day. The average rent where I live is $450 a week, the avg house price about $550 000... pay that one one income.. not easily done unless you are in a high income category.

When I got pregnant in early 1970s our rent was about $60 per week; we both earned over $100, which was above average. I think about $50 was the minimum wage. So not much different to now, just add 0. But, white goods cost then just about as much as they do now; to buy a fridge of washer was several months wages.

I have no problem with help given to new parents but not to give most those who earn enough to be able to have savings and get those who can least afford it to pay for it. Sadly that little detail will most likely escape those who lap up TA's 3 word slogans.

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:17:43 GMT

The rents have gone up here from around $270 p.w. to $450 p.w in the last 7 or so years . Wages have not increased that much.

People on average salaries need two incomes to pay those high rents/or a mortgage. In the 1980's one income would have been livable on, let alone in Grandma's day.

Re: How true

twinkles**stars — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:17:57 GMT

Oh come on now....white goods were no where near the cost of todays.

In the 70's I was earning a modest $200 per week. First block of land was $11000, house was $20000, brand new car $3000

Re: How true

the_great_she_elephant — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:33:16 GMT

Most couples/families now do need 2 incomes to pay their basic living costs

If paid parental leave is to help new parents cover their basic living costs, does that imply that the basic needs of high earners are greater than those on alow income?

Re: How true

***super_nova*** — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:34:49 GMT

Not sure where you lived, but in Melbourne very modest house cost over $30 000 in late 1970s. In Sydney in 1979, there was nothing under $60 000. Maybe out somewhere on outskirts, 50km from GPO.
here is some cost of appliances in the 70s:

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/70selectrical.html

As I said, i do agree that people need help at the time they have a new baby.

Re: How true

twinkles**stars — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:39:01 GMT

Outer East Melbourne, built a brand new house in 1978. 4 bedrooms with ensuite and family room, 2 story at the back.

Nova that site is American?

Re: How true

purple_haize — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:41:25 GMT

1976 my first hubby and me bought at 3 bedroom house in Melbourne Outer East for $16.000 on a 1\4 acre.

Re: How true

***super_nova*** — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:53:33 GMT

@twinkles**stars wrote:

Nova that site is American?

Yes, but surely appliences would not be so much different? There was a site that had Australian prices for 70s, but I cannot find it now.

According to BUREAU OF CENSUS AND STATISTICS the average male wage in 1969-70

NSW 77.40

VIC 77.00

QLD 68.40

SA 69.90

WA 74.90

TAS 70.00

AU 75.00

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/3CE0FD337A1F0AB6CA2575160010C5CC/$File/63020_SEP1970.pdf

Re: How true

cherry*135 — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 08:59:04 GMT

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
Most couples/families now do need 2 incomes to pay their basic living costs

If paid parental leave is to help new parents cover their basic living costs, does that imply that the basic needs of high earners are greater than those on alow income?

I think so, because a couple on a combined income of $300 000 would be able to afford a much higher priced house than someone on a combined income of $100 000 and the couple with the $300 000 annual combined income would have higher mortgage repayments to meet than the couple on $100 000.

Annual salary - is related to what is an affordable amount of mortgage payment/rent.

If a couple earning $300 000 p.a can afford to buy a house (with a mortgage) worth $800 000, should they not be able to do that, because a couple earning $100 000 p.a. couldn't afford to buy a house worth that much?

Re: How true

donnashuggy — Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:02:12 GMT

Liberal priorities are wrong because they don't have education as a priority so that more of the population can earn more with higher/better education.

They would rather invest in leaking fishing boats. Says a lot, doesn't it?