As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
@debra9275 wrote:
After listening to parliament today and .barnaby Joyce right now discussing the price of carbon tax, I think it's pretty safe to say that what goes up doesn't come down. That leg of lamb is still going to be expensive.
and I never did find that $100 leg of lamb all because of the carbon tax - looks like all the fools who still believe the abbott spin about the carbon tax being an economic wrecking ball (haha LNP are the wrecking ball) will be crying when nothing goes down - gas, electricity, groceries all going up regardless, although i did read somewhere electricity might go down about $1 a week - wow i hope people think it's worth it. Our international reputation and our future going down down down.
email palmer, let him know your disappointment.
Yes, Ralph, it is a conspiracy
- Alan Kohler
- 13 hours ago
CBA
Gosh C&P's with tag team Kudos. no thought involved!.
nɥºɾ
Renewable energy isn’t driving your power prices up - it’s the soaring costs of infrastructure and wholesale costs that’s making it all add up.
The good news is, a strong Renewable Energy Target can actually reduce wholesale costs, therefore driving down your power bills.
Let’s ensure our power companies know we want them to save wind and solar: https://www.greenpeace.org.au/action/?cid=71&src=FB23
I shall do a C&P reply from the Australian:
Modelling for Dick Warburton’s RET review estimates that over the period to 2040 the RET will increase electricity costs by $12.8 billion. Deloitte Access Economics says the RET costs about $125 a tonne of carbon abatement — or five times the cost of the outgoing carbon tax.
While support for the RET owes more to ideology than common sense, the issue is now politically red-hot. Like Labor and the Greens, Clive Palmer wants to retain the RET. The Coalition is likely to support a “true” benchmark, which would see the large-scale RET target cut by about 15,000GW/h. Those who argue there are similarities between climate change policy and tariff reforms of the Hawke and Keating era confuse the liberating effect on business of globalisation with the stifling constraints of higher energy costs. There are chances for innovation and enterprise in promoting renewable energy use, but government has shown itself to be a poor judge when it comes to picking winners. The RET is more like industry protection of old; holding back innovation and featherbedding an industry that must learn to stand on its own feet. It is also holding back investment in other technologies that may be a better long-term solution for the planet — and the wallet.
I am all in favour of renewable energy production, but on a user pays basis. not a subsidised political football match of which very many do not understand the rules (science).
"feed-in tariffs and other subsidies being cut back in Germany, Spain and Britain, which are among the most enthusiastic supporters of global action to cut CO2 emissions. European governments are concluding the cost benefit of subsidising renewable energy does not stack up when put alongside the political and economic cost of rising electricity prices."
nɥºɾ
Losing confidence in your psuedo tag team ?
8x
.....then 5x
......now your post recommended value stands at only 3x kudos..... that's a 62.5% lose of confidence in these posts.
.....I should have included a graph......rats
But I will take the expert kudo 'loss' and 'skip' reading these flailing posts 
The point is that there are two types of financial planners or advisers (both words are used interchangeably): those who sell and those who don’t. Customers can’t tell the difference, which is the real point.
Sir Ralph, as he is now known, was in charge of CBA when the conduct for which his successor, Ian Narev, is now apologising took place. He gave an interview over the weekend in which he said: “Large organisations are always at risk of having these sorts of things happen. You deal with it. Certainly there is no way this is some form of conspiracy. It is just some deceitful people did some things that they should not have done.”
Actually it is conspiracy, and the government is in on it.
Banks use financial advisers/planners to sell products and reward them according to how much they sell. There are other people not employed by banks who are also called financial advisers and planners who don’t sell and are paid by their clients.
It is very difficult for customers to tell the difference between them, except that the second lot cost more. The one who is not a sales person will carefully explain that fact; the one who is, will not.
The system of financial advice is inherently and deliberately deceptive because the most effective sales environment is where the customer doesn’t realise he or she is being sold to. Banks use the term ‘adviser’ or ‘planner’ as a synonym for ‘salesperson’; clients think an adviser advises. It is, at heart, simply a matter of semantics.
The Coalition government is in on the caper. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has made some changes to the proposed Freedom of Financial Advice (FoFA) amendments to clarify his undying opposition to sales commissions for advisers/planners, but there are still plenty of carve-outs that allow banks to reward them for selling.
The ban on commissions is being narrowed down to specific products and “personal advice”, which allows commissions for “general advice” -- for example, aggregate product sales across several products -- or commissions to be paid as a share of total revenue above target.
Also, the amendments seem to allow payments that are not “payments”, as defined, such as soft dollar, employee share schemes, promotions and rebates.
The amendments also explicitly allow the payment of commissions for “execution services”, where the advice has been given by someone else. This “permissible revenue” is then allowed to be put into a pool and shared with other employees of the licensee -- including the advisers/planners who sold them. What a joke.
Banks will also be allowed to incentivise their advisers based on sales volumes, according to a balanced scorecard, which sets targets to be achieved to meet a 10 per cent bonus. What’s more, these bonuses can be paid on top of other conflicted remuneration.
Other carve-outs allow old commissions to be grandfathered. Without the client’s knowledge, where an adviser moves to another licensee, or where the client moves from a super fund to a pension, and wholesale commissions -- such as volume rebates -- are allowed to be passed onto advisers as well.
In other words, the government is deliberately constructing an absurdly complicated set of regulations designed to allow banks to continue using advisers/planners to sell their superannuation and wealth products.
Ralph Norris’ predecessor as CEO of Commonwealth Bank and head of the government’s new financial system inquiry, David Murray, won’t suggest anything be done about this either.
His interim report due out this week will not recommend any changes to a system that he helped design.