on 03-02-2015 11:51 AM
Though the PM tried, and I must admit almost succeeded to regaining some credibility at his Press Council speech on Monday, in the end he simply couldn’t help himself by once again putting his foot right in it.
I classify it as a failed, a fail because of the answer given to the second to last question re his justification for targeting the most venerable – including aged pensions – with his austerity program; “Intergenerational theft”. That is, as he sees it, those of our elderly who didn’t save enough during their working lives so they can self-fund their own retirement, are stealing from their children, by demanding the Government fund an aged pension which is marginally above subsistence level.
So let me introduce the PM to these so called thieves.
They are the people who started work prior to the late 60’s, and are already in receipt of the pension or who will shorty qualify.
When they started work wages were low and prices were high, with wages for juniors and women doing the same work being even lower – often substantially so.
When they started work and for most of their working lives consumer prices for essentials, as a proportion of actual net income were significantly higher. That is, no cheap throw away Chinese shoes, clothing, electrical goods and the like. For instance, if you wanted a TV you either had to save for over a year to get one, or rent one, or take a chair to the local TV store and sit in front of the display window so you could watch your favourite program for free. Then of course if owned a TV or a radio you had to pay for a licence, and inspectors were employed to ensure you had one
Whereas today first home buyer expects all the bells and whistle to be in included in the initial purchase price (floor coverings, new furniture, all the electrical necessities – TV, DVD player, CD player etc. central heating and air-conditioning, the list goes on and on, and on and on), when pensioners bough their first home, it was usually little more than as shell. Old sheets for curtains, no floor coverings, basic second hand furniture usually donated by family, with the only luxuries being a fridge and washing machine, usually bought on hire purchase, which had to be paid off before you bought other luxuries like a TV, toasters and other kitchen appliances, carpets, a hot water service and the like. I can still recall heating water in an old copper so we could have a bath (no shower) with everyone using the same bath water, because it wasn’t until 10 years after my parents bought their first home that they could afford buy and install a hot water service; and that was in the 1960’s
Then of course there were home deposits and interest rates. It was a time when people were expected to save at least a 25% deposit before you could even apply for a loan, with interest rates regulated, if memory serves, at 12.5%, and before you could get the loan you actually had to have purchased the house using bridging finance at a significantly higher interest rate, because the actual home loan application approval process usually took a year or more.
Then of course there were those with children. No paid parental leave, no baby bonus, no family supplement, no subsidised childcare, no subsidised after school care. Instead women were expected to leave the workforce as soon as they fell pregnant and if they didn’t leave voluntarily they got the sack. So to make ends meet, fathers more often than not were expected to, if available, to work significant overtime, and if not, find a second part time job to compensate for the drop in family earnings. Then once the children were of school age, mum could only work part time because the expectation was mum would be home before the kids got home from school. Then of course there were school holidays.
Then let’s not forget the fact that, for most, the Super Guarantee came far too late, in that it came into existence in the last half to quarter of their working lives, with most of what they were actually able to save being decimated during the GFC - and with little, if any, residual working life left to rebuild what was lost. I lost over half overnight.
Finally and most telling, when these people asked how in his environment (high personal income tax rates, high prices for every day consumer products, little if any assistance for families forcing people work long hours or a second job just to make ends meet let alone save), were they expected to save enough to retire on, the answer from successive LNP and Labor governments was “you work so hard and pay so much, and get so little in return, so we can guarantee, let me say that again “GUARANTEE”, that when you are no longer able to work, we can afford to pay you enough, so you can get by.
Yes there is intergenerational theft going on, but who is the thief. Is it the pensioner who is now only saying, return to me what paid, and you guaranteed to return when I needed it. Or is a government who wants to reduce pensions to below a subsistence level, so that they can continue to afford to provide to others those election winning benefits which pensions did without. Things like baby bonuses, family benefits, subsidised child and after school care, paid maternity leave, historically the lowest rate of personal income tax ever and historically the lowest interest rates ever, and to help pay for it, pensioners should accept an cut to aged pension so it will ultimately it below subsistence level. But then that their fault because if they wanted better, they should have saved more.
on 03-02-2015 01:18 PM
@tall_bearded01 wrote:You are actually right. It would appear that though the toll was to be eliminated, it was in fact retained and in fact increased to help pay for the harbour tunnel.
Therefore, if the bridge is sold then the tolls currently collected would be paid to the private sector with the public having to foot the bill re the loss in revenue need for the tunnel.
NB: My original statement was based on what was happing when I was posted to the School of Guns in the early 80’s. That is, 20 cents to cross the bridge one way for CBD bound traffic only,which was expected to be eliminated in its entirely in the next couple of years
The bridge should never be sold. There is no logical reason for public infrastructure to be sold when they have been paid for and are generating returns to the govts. Is the NSW gov seriously considering selling the Bridge?
on 03-02-2015 01:27 PM
The Commonwealth and in particular the Armed Forces are a perfect example as to how super be viewed before the mid-eighties.
There used to be what was called the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (DFRDB). To qualify you had to be a member of the Regular Defence Forces where you compulsorily paid 5% of you gross wage to the scheme, but you were not entitled to any retirement benefits unless you served 20 years or more, and if you got out earlier you got your contributions back plus bank interest.
That is super was for career employs only. The rest would have to rely on the aged pension.
on 03-02-2015 01:27 PM
on 03-02-2015 01:35 PM
I’m not sure if the NSW government is considering selling, and IMO they would be a fool to do so.
I do however recall that bridge's were used by Abbott as an example of the kinds of assets that the states could be sell so that state governments could use the money to invest in further infrastructure projects.
on 03-02-2015 05:41 PM
on 03-02-2015 06:12 PM
But then that their fault because if they wanted better, they should have saved more.
There are a couple of posters (or is it the same one?) who have said just this on this forum.
on 03-02-2015 09:10 PM
Yes, Polks, and I am always astounded about the ignorance of those posters. At first I was incensed and felt insulted, but then I realised that those people have no idea about our history or the develpement of this country or anything else before they turned 21.
The same atitude our Governement seems to have. My eldest daughter is older than any of the PMs consortium. No wonder we get such statements from those imbeciles whos main aim is to grab as much money as they can at any cost to the people who build this country.
Erica
on 03-02-2015 09:36 PM
When I first came to Australia in the early 60s I was surprised that there was no compulsory "National Insurance" scheme like the one we had in England. I was told that it was included in the income tax we paid. When Mr elephant and I married he was an electrician working for a contractor - no super scheme. Soon afterwards he took a job with the Government - WA Railways, and came under the Government Employees Superannuation scheme, which he was able to roll over when he started as a lecturer at TAFE. As a result he was able to retire ona pension equal to a percentage of his retiring wage and indexed to CPI.
When you are young and your life is taken up with bringing up five kids you don't have the time or energy to worry too much about the future and you certainly don't have the resources to save adequately for it, but we appreciate now how extremely lucky we were. If Mr Elephant had not taken that Government job we would be existing today on the Age Pension - thereby, presumably, stealing from the kids we struggled all those years to feed and educate.
on 03-02-2015 11:49 PM
The destruction of the NBN is intergenerational theft, big time.