US citizens to pay for Mexico’s Wall under Trump’s Bizarre Tariff plan
In Australia, you can (apparently) choose between a deposit for your first home or a smashed avocado sanga, but in the US, citizens are about to discover that the price of avocados can soar a lot higher.
President Trump has announced that the US will introduce a new 20% tariff on goods imported from Mexico to pay for the controversial “Wall” that will separate the US from its neighbour.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Air Force One Thursday that Trump was backing the proposal and had just discussed it with congressional Republicans in a private meeting.
Spicer dodged reporters’ questions about the impact of the border tax on American consumers, instead stressing the tax’s benefits for American workers.
“I’m not going to get into it,” he added when pressed about businesses that manufacture goods in Mexico passing along the tax to American consumers.
When it comes to fruits and vegetables, Mexico is the top foreign supplier to the US, so any such tariff is only going to increase the prices paid for these goods by US citizens.
In 2014, the U.S. bought $5.4 billion of vegetables and $4.7 billion of fruit from its southern neighbour. Just last week, Mexico shipped 53 million pounds of avocados to the US alone. That’s a lot of guacamole.
Sean Spicer, I’ve said this to @realDonaldTrump and now I’ll tell you: Mexico is not going to pay for that fucking wall. #FuckingWall
— Vicente Fox Quesada (@VicenteFoxQue) January 25, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The move follows a recent ‘not-so-subtle announcement’ from Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto that his government has little inclination to subsidise the construction of the barrier along the border.
theguttertrash.com 
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Did I mention that Trump is a major F***WIT
If the Democrats had proposed this type of taxation the Republicans would have been rioting in the streets and claiming interference in business rights to operate where and when they choose. True republicans are simply crawling up this guys arse just because he was elected. Obviously their beliefs and policies and subject to change at any time simply to be in power. As for business it is obvious they are terrified of the man and his threats. Remains to be seen what washes out over the 4 years of revenge and hate against anyone and anything that is not all the way with the USA. Hope our Government grows at least 1 ball to deal with the tyrant.
From what I’ve seen and learned so far the best way to tackle trump is to simply make a fun of his making a fool of himself …
This Dickwit’s self esteem and ego are wafer thin! Crispy and crackly …
More ultra super-coal power stations ideologically driven, gobbledegook from a coal owned LNP …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/27/coal-power-plan-twice-the-cost-of-renewables-route-emissions-reduction
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/diet/13-reasons-you-need-to-drink-more-wine/news-story/516e98b251b1745a61da2a6bdbc1e868
So don’t take my word for it! Drink more red! And with that I’m off!!
Currently relaxing in Noosa Heads, which is ok for Queensland
Currently relaxing in Noosa Heads, which is ok for Queensland
Just check for drop-bears if you go to Hastings Street! 😉
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/taking-the-deforestation-out-of-avocados/
the,,,,USA. Hope our Government grows at least 1 ball to deal with,,,,
# ,, somebody is deluding themself
# ,, oh shane, when was the last time you saw our govt develop the nads on anthing, and when it comes to the judgment lacking talkbull that has no nads at all, you really are holding out for a long shot.
# ,, armchair
URL,,,,Australian scientists have reacted with concern to the news that a US woman was found carrying bacteria resistant to an antibiotic called Colistin,,,,
,,,,Colistin is only issued as a last resort when other antibiotics do not work,,,,
,,,,In an article published in the latest issue of the Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy journal, doctors reported that a woman who experienced a urinary tract infection, from which she later recovered, was infected with a bacteria that was not able to be destroyed by antibiotics,,,,
,,,,The doctors discovered E.coli bacteria in the woman containing the Colistin antibiotic resistant mcr-1 genre. The mcr-1 genre was only first found in China in 2015,,,,
,,,,In Australia, Professor Michael Gillings, who is a professor of Molecular Evolution in the Department of Biological Sciences at Macquarie University in Sydney, said bacteria has developed resistance because humans are taking antibiotics unnecessarily and through their use as growth promoters in animals,,,,
http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2016/05/30/australian-scientists-worried-by-new-antibiotic-resistance-found-overseas.html
ausfood,,,,Lederman also referred to the re-discovery of phages which were used for medical purposes in the pre-antibiotic era and which are making a comeback in medical health and food production,,,,
# ,, acording to a doco l saw on the old-ussr not too long ago; the old soviet states don`t have as much superbug`n antibiotic abuse problems as teh-west; due to antibiotics being expensive or banned; so they are very advanced with phages. Won`t it be funny if neo-teabagism of the-west ends-up making the ruskies the super-pharma to the world. (-:
Tweet!
,
, ,
,
(-:
For Dogs sake Morrison just imagine how high their prices would be if they did have NG like we do you fool.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-scott-morrison-defends-negative-gearing-against-liberal-attacks-20170127-gu0g6u.html
DTST
Can only live in hope with this lot that are in power at the moment.
Can only live in hope with this lot that are in power at the moment.
But Malcayman is a multi millionaire “businessman” surely he is best suited to run the country, Shane?
Couldn’t Mr TurnAbbott advise Mr Morrison … he’s his boss, y’know?
Maybe we are missing something?
You don’t suppose they all benefit from Negative Gearing themselves!!!!
Is that why the Oath/Affirmation for ministers keeps changing?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/swearing-in-australian-parliament-explained
Based on the above we sack the bloody lot of ’em and start again … personally I’d like to see “the people of Australia” put back
It really is a case of fiddling while Australia burns …
TB
Malcolm could of course advise Scott Morrison however both of them are like so many other politicians and claiming Negative Gearing for their own benefit.
I truly would like to sack the lot of them as well, hold a new election and along with that election hold referendums for the following.
1) Politicians Salaries and Perks.
2) Negative Gearing
3) Same Sex Marriage
4) Reducing Tax for Business
5) Laws to prevent States bribing business to move with benefits provided by rate payers.
6) Royal Commission into Banks
7) Royal Commission into Franchises
8) Royal Commission into the theft of wages and time by businesses
There are plenty more. The reason I am for many referendums at each election is that many people vote for a certain party, however if you ask them about every policy there will be some they disagree with despite voting for a particular party.
EG Howard was voted for when he proposed the GST but most people voted for the Democrats to stop the GST in the senate while wanting Howard to win the election.They were then duded. A referendum would allow people to decide on important issues while still being able to vote for the party of their choice. All done at one election with 1 cost.
(“In Australia in particular, while we’ve had strong growth in house prices, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, that has been driven by classic economic fundamentals, not as a result of speculative bubbles or financing issues,” Mr Morrison told Bloomberg.)
Shane
The idea of linking so many referendums has appeal – but I fear it may confuse many people …
I’m quite happy to stand at the booth pencil in hand (why do we use pencils?) for ten minutes thinking about the best way to vote (even tho’ I’ve studied the form) … and, I suspect many here are too … the majority of voters I think will just whack down the advertising fodder they will have been fed for six weeks …
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M
Tiguboff (M link “financing”) sounds like an original Robber Baron … rob the peasants and race back to the castle to count the take!
Looks like one too …
As a kid I was taught English history in England … and the barons were supposed to protect their peasants … it wasn’t until about five years ago I read a history of the first millennium to discover The Robber Barons were just that … they’d rob the peasants and head for the castle!
Films still perpetrate the myth that castles were a safe haven for peasants … what bollocks!
The Robber Barons have NEVER gone away … they were suppressed in the 1950’s/60’s/70’s /80’s … and some of the ’90’s! … but they are back with a vengeance!
BTW, M, the FR links hit a firewall … but a flash of Murdoch and Jerry was enough!
Shane
Perhaps you should enter Parliament and become Treasurer and show us how it is done. Then we could sit down and have a laugh.
Then we could sit down and have a laugh.
I know who we’d be laughing at … although we’re well practised … neel’s a laugh a comment
Now off you go to bed … way too late for you … !
Neil
I would do a damn better job than the last few.
I would love to enter politics except for one reason. I cannot stand the personal intrusion and snooping into family members lives. I also would need enter as an Independent because I loath the duopoly. As an Independent you are attacked far more mercilessly. You will never get me bagging any family member of a politician as that is private.
I can tell you the first thing would be the removal of politicians allowances and rorts. The wage for even a backbenches is 400% higher than the average wage and probably 600% than the real average wage when you remove the top and bottom 10% of earners. The use of Skype would be mandatory unless dispensation is given. Overseas trips would be curtailed to essential trips only. Fact finding is not an excuse. All MPs accommodation and meals would be covered while in Canberra, and all the daily allowances and meal allowances would be removed. The allowance paid to MPs simply to turn up for work would be halted from day 1.
NG would be phased out at 3% reduction per annum starting at 97% and reducing by 3% per year. This would negate the false hysteria by the LNP that prices would plummet and rents would skyrocket. Any landlord using NG as their excuse to immediately increase rents would face the immediate cancellation of their NG benefit by 100%.
Taxes for business have been reduced by over 38% in the last 15 years, when in dogs name will they stop blaming taxes for everything instead of their own greed Neil in wanting to make more and more while screwing their workers. When will they be happy, not until they pay 0% which many of them do while making their fortunes in Oz while outsourcing jobs to overseas. So tax cuts stop. if you move your business or employees overseas you will face a tax on turnover instead of a tax on profit. One way or another you will pay your fair share of tax for the betterment of the country where you source your profit.
Compulsory Superannuation would be reversed back to Keating’s Original model where it was designed to replace the Aged Pension to remove this burden from the tax payer, and guess what Neil !! If Howard had left it alone it would be achieving just that and we would not have the need of this current nasty government screwing pensioners.
Many others as well, however your own blind allegiance rarely opens your eyes wide enough to see benefit.
Government needs to govern for all not just the top and their donors.
KL, I’m getting more depressed each day … in fact I’m currently organising a survival kit – bug out kit the Yanks call them – (seriously!) …
All the signs are there for one hell of a Big Bang coming to a
cinemaplace near you …The world is now almost completely run by greedy, arrogant, religiously motivated, self centred morons* …
*and Morrisons?
TB
I also think that Donald Trump signing the executive order regarding refugees and the banning of Muslims has not been thought out at all with retaliation already starting from other countries. Common-sense seems to have been replaced with hysteria and kneejerk reaction. Shoot first and Ask Questions later will result in this President facing some major crises and embarrassing back downs. Arrogance is not a quality most of admire.
Shane … good comment … fell on deaf neels I’m afraid …
I would now argue this point tho’ … If Howard had left it alone it would be achieving just that and we would not have the need of this current nasty government screwing pensioners.
I think Keating* actually threw pensioners to the wolves (not intentionally) and I came to that conclusion after the GFC … so many people we know lost hundreds of thousands of $$ in capital – and therefore income … we managed to save 80% of ours (you may recall John McPhilbin and I copped a lot of flack 12 months before the GFC … as we predicted the eventual world market crash …)
What we should have in Australia is a Super Fund that simply guarantees a 6% return each year for retirees …
Playing the stock market isn’t for everyone … until I consolidated all my capital into super I made quite a bit on the stock market … and as everyone here knows I lost a couple of thousand with Metal Storm (that’s always the gamble – and my only loss BTW).
I feel sorry for all those people who had worked so hard and then lost so much … that’s playing right into the Uber Kapitalist wet-dream … pensioners need to be protected by our government (ie society) not harassed … especially when companies that had helped to cause the problem were considered “too big to fail” … or, as our big four banks were, government guaranteed and then promptly gobbled up their smaller competition …
Reminds me of the Langoliers!
*the best Treasurer I’ve seen … and actually met in 1992 …
TB
Keating introduced Compulsory Super for all. This captured hundreds of thousands of workers who had no super at all. It was designed for the compulsory percentage to increase by 1% per annum to 15% of a persons salary. It was 9% when Howard was elected and he halted the annual increase. Just imagine the super that would now be held if it was allowed to continue. Keating did not cause the GFC, a greedy market did. All of us had a choice to put our super in aggressive or conservative. Most of the losses of the GFC have been clawed back unless you purchased individual shares for your own super. Balanced funds and Growth funds tend to have recouped their losses from that period.
You were only granted tax exemption status on a total of 6.7 times your final average salary, once you exceeded this point you had to pay normal tax. This was to stop the mega rich from rorting the system. Also the funds had to be taken as a pension at retirement, if you took it in cash you paid normal tax. The taking of a pension would result in the slow death of the aged pension as we know it and remove it from government costs.
Costello comes along and removes the 6.7 times rule and allows deductions of up to $1,000,000 per year allowing the rich to start to rape and pillage the system. He then declares that super taken as cash will be tax free, allowing the rich a river of gold to avoid paying their proper tax rate. It has now become a savings rip off system where you pay less tax and then take it all as cash while claiming an aged pension from the taxpayer. Keating had vision to save a future burden. Howard and Costello saw simply a way to give the rich a bigger tax break while screwing the whole system for the country’s future.
Compulsory Superannuation would be reversed back to Keating’s Original model where it was designed to replace the Aged Pension to remove this burden from the tax payer,
Super is not working. Apparently what is happening is that people cash out their Super when they retire and then use the money to pay off their mortgage if they still have one or buy a nicer home they usually could not afford.
It should be paid as an annuity. I may do the same. When i retire i could use my Super payout to buy some nice homestead on 40 acres of land with a creek, dam and then go on the pension.
Neil.
Just who do you think changed Super to be the rort it is now ?. Give you a hint. Read my previous comment.
TB
We did have a super fund of sorts that guaranteed a final result of 6.7 times your final average salary. It was the defined benefit funds. Companies were so happy with them when returns were in the 10 and 20% bracket because the returns actually absolved them of any compulsory contributions at all, however anyone could see that these returns were not sustainable forever and these funds were closed to new employees so that companies absolved themselves of any further responsibility to their employees. While those in the funds were given an option to stay or switch to normal super the literature and brochures virtually indicated you were and idiot if you did not switch. Funny thing was most employees switch because they knew no better, yet most management and CEOs stuck with the defined benefit scheme.
We need a super fund that guarantees 6% per year return and if it makes more it is held in a future account to cover possible years of shortfall. Something like Howard should have done with taxes rather than bribe us every year with tax cuts which cause unforseen budgetary problems in leaner years.
We need a super fund that guarantees 6% per year return and if it makes more it is held in a future account to cover possible years of shortfall.
Shane, that’s the point I was making earlier … I retired early and apart from the bit we lost in the GFC (I phoned my wife up while she was shopping! And said I’m switching it now) we have pretty much the same capital as we retired with … all my calculations are based on 6% … I have no super … The Minister does … (a planned event – we each had exactly the same when we pulled the pin) … and, we get some pension.
Just who do you think changed Super to be the rort it is now ?
Well my comment was that Super should be paid as an annuity otherwise most people will just spend it on something when they retire and then go on the pension.
Did Costello change that?
Neil
Yes he did. Read my last paragraph on my comment posted at 2.48pm !!
Neil
Of course it should be an annuity, so glad you agree with Keating.
I don’t think that’s such a great idea Shane. Many retirees still have a mortgage and it’s likely that the beat thing for them to do with their savings (which includes the super they’ve saved) is pay off some.of it.
—-
Thankfull getting out of Qld. Though Noosa Heads is more civilised than Brisbane, because it’s full of people from Melbourne.
…best thing…
ToM
The only reason super was created was an income for retirement. That is why it is called Superannuation. If you think they should repay their debt then repay it with savings. Compulsory super is not a persons savings they did not use their own income it is accumulation from a levy imposed on employers. Why should the taxation benefit of superannuation be extended to paying off a home loan with superannuation.
Check the definition of Superannuation. It is not a tax break to be able to clear debt. Although that is exactly what the LNP have done with it and have landed us with a future minefield in relation to supporting the elderly.
We have debt levels at old age due to property prices being out of control, mainly due to limited land release by developers to keep prices ridiculously high coupled with NG and foreign interests being able to purchase our land when we cannot purchase in their country. Things we will regret terribly in the future. Sad thing is everyone is out for themselves and the here and now. Not what is best for the country overall.
Many retirees still have a mortgage and it’s likely that the beat thing for them to do with their savings
Agree with Shane … I’ve just had visitors … he’s 88 she’s 76 … they have a mortgage of $430,000 and a half share in a commercial property that he claims is worth $3 million … asset rich income poor … think about it … (expected to make a killing! Now they can’t get a pension) … should they be able to hand over the property to the government in exchange for a pension I wonder?
Compulsory super is not a persons savings they did not use their own income it is accumulation from a levy imposed on employers
Disagree, Shane, compulsory super is in lieu of an annual pay rise … it is part of a person’s emoluments …
Sad thing is everyone is out for themselves and the here and now. Not what is best for the country overall.
Uber Kapitalist Disease!
Though Noosa Heads is more civilised than Brisbane, because it’s full of people from Melbourne.
You really are a nong, ToM, do they still drive around in cars with number plates saying “Victoria The Place to Be” … ’cause most of us say well fuck off back there then!
Mexican hypocrites all … we need to build a Trump wall!
Neil
Yes he did. Read my last paragraph on my comment posted at 2.48pm !!
In your last paragraph you said that Costello allowed you to take a lump sum cash payment without being taxed. But people could still take lump sum payments just that they would be taxed if i have read your last paragraph correctly.
You have not provided any proof that Costello changed it from an annuity system.
TB
Increases in the CSG were a trade off for wage rises I agree. However many were also given on the achieving of targets as well. EG if the company exceeds a certain target wage rise of 4% which included 1% CSG increase was increased to 5% including 1% CSG so in effect the CSG was a bonus on top of the standard wage rise. This happened with my previous employer.
People are entitled to consider that superannuation forms part of their income. It is simply compulsory savimg.
It kicked off with workers giving up inflation adjustments, and this is still about half the contribution.
If retirees would prefer to use their compulsory savings to their best financial advantage, that should be their choice.
I really can’t see any justification to prevent a 70 year old from paying off their mortgage.
I really can’t see any justification to prevent a 70 year old from paying off their mortgage.
Nor do I ToM … after all the keyword is “compulsory” …
… pity many employers still see it as a “company contribution” (and don’t pay it on time) … not as part of an employee’s remuneration for providing skills, knowledge and/or experience to the business …
No matter what opinions we have Super was not designed to do anything other than to provide an income stream at retirement and as such that is all it should do.
Most new employment agreements actually include the CSG as part of the total package giving a false indication of the annual salary.
When we spoke salary it was your actual cash salary and anything else was an add on.
Watched Malcolm on News 24 a few hours ago and he is looking rather sad and haggard. The top job seems to drain them all in a massive way no matter which party.
I really can’t see any justification to prevent a 70 year old from paying off their mortgage.
I can. The point is where do you stop? A lump sum payment encourages people to spend the money if they know once it is gone they can go on the pension. While i would have no problems with a 70 year old paying off his mortgage what if he then wants to go on a round the world trip?
Super should be paid as an annuity. And i doubt Costello changed Super from an annuity to a lump sum payment as Shane proclaims.
How much is the age pension NEEL?
I’m starting to think the family home should be included in the assets test. People shouldn’t be sitting around waiting for family members to die as a taxpayer subsidised wealth strategy. There might be more housing stock available too. Perhaps we could bring back death/inheritance taxes.
I know the IPA types are all for including the family home, so I might have to look into this a bit more, I’d be worried if the IPA and the others wanted to ensure that a wealth flow was cut off from ‘ordinary people’ and only the ‘already wealthy’ could benefit..
Neil
These are the exact words from my own Financial Adviser in relation to when cash from super became tax free. I could not locate exact timing and sought details from him.
“Costello made massive changes to the accessibility laws when he and Howard were in the big house.
I am thinking it was approx 2005.”
Hi AO
I used to think the family home should be included and then I met an 80 year old grandmother who was wanting to help her grandchildren while keeping her aged pension. She was asset rich and income poor. Her and her husband built the house she lived in for $28,000. They had lived there and raised their family and then he died and she is left.
Her house is all of her memories, her security blanket, her only home and where the spirit of her husband is.
The value of her property is now $2,470,000. After meeting her I could never ever imagine I would agree to her being forced to sell her home simply to be able to survive after being denied a pension based on her assets. After working for a bank for many years and being moved all over the place I myself have no attachment to any property at all, however this grandmothers house was more than a home it was her past, her life, her memories and her constant.
The elderly are already treated like second class citizens in our society these days and a commodity for making money at retirement homes and aged care.
I’m starting to think the family home should be included in the assets test.
Good Lord, KL!
We built this home 34 years ago! Paid for it developed it and maintained it … a HOME is not an ASSET!
Our kids have been told we leave here in pine boxes … its bad enough that other assets are included … like the family car … why?
I just read, Shane’s, comment above … and that describes my feelings exactly! Our grandchildren grew up here and our children … The Minister has developed and maintained a beautiful garden … we built all the external walls and laid all the paving, I even put up all the fencing!
I can assure you that our home isn’t worth a fifth of the – $2,470,000 – mentioned by Shane …
Including the family home is simply helping the corporates get away with not paying taxes!
+++++++++++++++++++++++
PHISHING SCAM PENSIONERS …
I’ve just reported a telephone phishing scam aimed at age pensioners … took the call fifteen minutes ago – Recorded voice advises a recent payrise, asks if you are a pensioner (press 1) Will be soon (press 2) or simply hang up … wait for a Centrelink officer to speak to you … naturally I hung up and went straight to the ACCC report a scam page!
These are the exact words from my own Financial Adviser in relation to when cash from super became tax free
Well Costello may or may not have made cash payouts tax free but that would still not have stopped people from taking their Super as cash instead of an annuity if they really wanted to.
i doubt Costello changed Super from an annuity to a lump sum payment as you say.
At the moment you can take your Super between ages 55-60 as a cash payment but you have to pay 15% tax on amounts over $195,000. The first $195,000 is tax free. I think over 60 there is no tax on cash payout but i could be wrong.
Neil
You can doubt all you want but I know it was Costello and Howard that allowed tax free cash payments. Before that they were not tax free under any circumstances.
You are correct there is no tax on cash lump sum payments once you reach retirement age. A terrible change by Costello and Howard. I am trying to find the actual date of the decision.
I am doubting that Costello changed Super from an annuity system to a cash payout system as you stated
You are correct there is no tax on cash lump sum payments once you reach retirement age. A terrible change by Costello and Howard. I am trying to find the actual date of the decision.
Good get back tome when you get the answer. But like i said you pay 15% tax on cash amounts withdrawn over $195K if you are between the ages 55-60.
Neil
Here it is
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/11/hypocrite-peter-costello-whinges-super-complexity/
Good reading for everyone actually shows what Costello did.
Neil
55-60 is NOT retirement age, that is a choice to retire at those ages.
Neil
Here it is
Well i quickly read through your link but i could not see anywhere Costello removing tax on lump sum payouts. All the tax concessions listed in the article seem to be to help people put more money into Super not take it out.
And i have never seen anywhere Costello changing Super from a annuity system to a lump sum payout system as you stated.
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
For the echo chamber.
,
https://twitter.com/cumguzzler99/status/825470373823127552
Appealing to the `mr-rabbit` demographic no doubt.
,
Where else would ya`get ya fakeNews from (-:
The Trump barrackers must be so proud.
I’m struggling to understand why Trump is so admired by Bolt, it’s not as if he reflects any conservative orientation. Trump is just a red neck loud mouth.
It’s interesting to note that Trump won the popular vote by about 2mill if California is excluded.
It’s interesting to note that Trump won the popular vote by about 2mill if California is excluded.
Your point, ToM?
(Trump is a good reason for compulsory voting IMO!)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Neil
Here is another link. Read the date that tax free lump sum payments will come into effect. It is 1/7/2007. Now who was in office before this date to announce the changes and who was treasurer at the time ?. Hint it was who was in before Kevin Rudd assumed office in December 2007.
http://www.smh.com.au/money/tools-and-guides/superannuation-guide–withdrawing-your-superannuation-20100531-wp51.html
Your comments saying Costellos changes helped people put in more money, yes the wealthy while they halted to a dead stop the CSG at 9% leaving the poorer with no increase to their super at all ( you know, the ones who cannot put away a few thousand each month because their salary each week only covers the bills). The super tax cuts were also for the rich.
Neil
Here is another link
well your first link was useless.
Read the date that tax free lump sum payments will come into effect. It is 1/7/2007.
OK it looks like you are right but i don’t know the full story. Perhaps Costello was simplifying the situation.
while they halted to a dead stop the CSG at 9% leaving the poorer with no increase to their super at al
Increases in Super come from pay cuts. I would rather have more money in the pocket than more money in Super
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The violence of the left again!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/nun-receives-death-threats-suggesting-mary-virgin
And at least one of the disciples was gay … maybe two … 🙂
Talk about fairy tails* … 😉
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would rather have more money in the pocket than more money in Super
And then you retire …
“”it looks like you are right but i don’t know the full story””
Wise words.
Just words from neel … the brain remains frozen in time …
“I would rather have more money in the pocket than more money in super”
The reason we are in such dire straits regarding the aged pension is because of that sentence.
Everything now and nothing for the future.
Super is a way of forced savings. If you removed the savings Australia has in super as a result of the CSG levy we would have nothing. It has created trillions in savings.
Shane
I am not sure Super is working. People are getting lump sum payments and then spending it on overseas trips and a nice new house. I think it should be paid as an annuity.
Neil
Once again that’s because Costello gave them cash free lump sum withdrawals. Super works if it set up the correct way like Keating did. An annuity comes from super Neil. Otherwise where do you think the funds to invest to be paid an annuity will come from ?.
Shane
I think you could take lump sums under Keating. I am not sure you are right when you said Costello removed the annuity thing. That is something you have not provided a link for.
The other things you said was that Costello allowed tax free lump sum withdrawals. You finally got around to providing a link for that. Thanks. However i do not know the whole story. I always thought Super withdrawals were tax free if you had retired. perhaps Costello was just simplifying the system. I found this but it looks like you are right.
https://www.superguide.com.au/accessing-superannuation/tax-free-super-for-over-60s
Background: The reason the former Liberal federal government introduced tax-free super in 2007 is that the then-treasurer Peter Costello realised, at the time, very few retirees were paying income tax, and the cost to the federal budget was not as big as the political goodwill benefits of delivering tax-free super to over-60s.
And
Note: Tax-free super has always been a feature of Australia’s retirement system but, before July 2007, you usually had to hire advisers and get involved in creative financial gymnastics to make it happen — not unlike what you still have to do to secure tax-free income when you retire before the age of 60. And before July 2007, how much super you could receive at concessional rates was limited.
Neil
I know I am right because Keating created the CSG Levy for the principal purpose of providing an income stream at retirement. Yes you could take a cash lump sum but you paid hefty income tax on it. If you took an income stream you received that tax free. So if you received even a small income stream it would reduce your reliance on the aged pension and as time went by and super became 15% the amount of people needing the aged pension would slowly reduce until it was not longer necessary. It was forward planning to reduce government costs which we all knew would skyrocket as the baby boomers retired.
Your last 2 paragraphs prove my point. It was political vote buying exercises by Peter Costello rather than good budgetary measures. As were many of Costello and Howards decision which are now crushing us in a budgetary way and will forever.
They were not the economic geniuses many claim.
What is a CSG levy?
“What is a CSG levy?”
Guffaw !
Instead of making fun of me why don’t you tell me the answer. When i saw CSG levy i thought coal seem gas levy
http://workplaceinfo.com.au/payroll/superannuation/superannuation-guarantee
Coal SeEm Gas
you have a point?
As an Australian who has had his family (four generations) fucked around by the USA … for years!
And we do not have a vote in the USA … I think it’s time to say … GET FUCKED — TRUMP’S USA!
I would just like to know what CSG Levy Shane is talking about. Coal Seam Gas? What is the CSG Shane is talking about?
As far as I can see every media outlet and commentator in the US is critical of Trump’s rudeness and arrogance towards Australia.
My friends there are say there is plenty of outrage.
Trump is a F**KWIT and I think Turnbull is showing good judgement by allowing the domestic political opprobrium to mount in the US without his encouragement.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2729136.htm
Trumbull has dealt with worse
… and I think Turnbull is showing good judgement by allowing the domestic political opprobrium to mount in the US without his encouragement.
Almost had me!
Neil
Compulsory Superannuation Guarantee. What Keating introduced which is the 9.5% your employer pays on your behalf.
You do understand that abbreviations can mean a number of things when you broaden your horizons of information.
Here is another link. Read the date that tax free lump sum payments will come into effect. It is 1/7/2007.
Thanks for that link shaneinqld. nils been running that ‘lump sum’ thing for a while now. I knew it was costello who screwed it up, but trying to find the info these days is becoming increasingly difficult.
It is the same now with the billions squandered to private colleges (when TAFE should be getting the money. The libs blame Gillard for bringing it in (which was stupid imo). But it was changes they made when they first came in that opened the floodgates. Then they sat back for a couple of years while billions flowed into #theirmates coffers.
Breaking!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/trump-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked-nationwide
but trying to find the info these days is becoming increasingly difficult.
Well it shouldn’t be. If information is difficult to find perhaps it is not important. Shane said Costello did 2 things to make Super worse
1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
2. introduced tax-free Super.
Shane has provided no evidence for the first point.
He has provided evidence for the second point so it looks like he is right there. But it may be that people could get tax free Super by doing certain things and Costello just simplified it. I do not know the whole story. I wish Walrus was here.
Shane has provided no evidence for the first point.
And s he pointed out, before it became tax free, it was too onerous to take it as a lump sum. Providing the tax free incentive basically made something that was available (as there was no law specifically prohibiting it) but not accessed (mainly because it wasn’t financially viable) now appealing to those able to afford it.
Costello didn’t ‘simplify’ it, he opened it up to rich retirees to be able to access even more of our tax dollars than before.
And we are paying for it now.
And s he pointed out, before it became tax free
Well i thought if you were over 65 and retired it was always tax free.
Well i thought if you were over 65 and retired it was always tax free.
Just a recap for the slower ones
If we haven’t already entered the era of dumb, it certainly feels like we’re hurtling toward it.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/agnotology:-understanding-our-ignorance/8123452
TomR
Not a great contribution to the discussion. I will admit i know nothing about Superannuation. But i do know something about ALP supporters. They are deceitful. Shane made two points
Costello
1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
2. introduced tax-free Super.
Shane has yet to provide any evidence for the first point. It looks like he is right about the second point. But it may be more complicated than Shane thinks.
Shane has yet to provide any evidence for the first point.
Consider the reasoning from my point as an example of what Shane may have meant from his first point.
Maybe get your mum to walk you through the finer points
Mate just spit it out. what is the answer?
Costello
1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
2. introduced tax-free Super
according to Shane.
Shane has provided no evidence for point one. He has provided some evidence for point 2 but it took a long time so i am suspicious of his link.
Shane has yet to provide any evidence for the first point.
Lump sums always existed, but nobody (or very few) took them, because, until they became tax free, they weren’t financially worthwhile.
How much clearer can I get?
The first point is this
Costello
1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
I have yet to see any evidence for that
The second point
Lump sums always existed, but nobody (or very few) took them, because, until they became tax free, they weren’t financially worthwhile.
Ok Shane has provided some evidence for that. But i don’t trust anything a ALP supporter says
Perhaps some other stuff was going on. Do i trust Shane? Answer = no i do not.
PS Walrus where are you?
PS Walrus where are you?
Penis Shell Walrus?
Pontificating Shit Walrus?
Phallic Slump Walrus?
Sorry, you’ll have to help me out here 🙂
But, as to the “lump sum”, it’s clear, there was no issue with it, before costello stuffed it up, as he did with so many things.
Chortle!
Having fun TR … blood on yer forehead yet?
Abbott wastes 5billion on his Aboriginal Advancement Strategy. Were the groups set up to fail or was it plain incompetence?
Abbott government’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy shows how not to spend $5b taxpayers’ dollars
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/analysis-how-not-to-spend-$5-billion-in-taxpayers-dollars/8240968
Parakeelia case shines spotlight on the problem of political corruption
http://the-pen.co/parakeelia-case-shines-spotlight-problem-political-corruption/
Abbott government’s Indigenous Advancement Strategy shows how not to spend $5b taxpayers’ dollars
Yep, and their next move will be to claim ‘throwing money’ (literally) at the problem doesn’t help.
Much like they are claiming now in regards to education, after they have wasted billions on that funding well to do private schools
Next is renewable energy?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Interesting” little “game” …
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
WOW!
Frederick Douglass
What a superstar!
=====================
We need more of this in Australia!
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/05/comedians-take-on-donald-trumps-heated-call-with-malcolm-turnbull
Keep up the good work Charlie Pickering and Shaun Micallef
“The idea that we are all going to sit in parliament and listen to a man who is turning the clock back on democracy, pushing misogyny and hatred of Muslims is a joke”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/04/labour-female-mps-trump-speech-boycott
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Neil
My final link for someone who is just as bad as climate change denier. No matter what the evidence you believe your own alternative facts.
https://simplersuper.treasury.gov.au/documents/decision/html/final_decision-01.asp
Debate form my side ended.
Debate form my side ended.
Shane in case you do not know i do not trust anything a leftie says. I think you are the most deceitful of people. You tell lies for political purposes. You made 2 statements
Costello
1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
2. introduced tax-free Super
So far you have provided no evidence for the first point.
On the second point your first link contained no evidence for your point. It was just a list of tax cuts to encourage people to contribute to Super. You finally got around to justifying your second point but it took a while. Why so long? Furthermore i do not know the full story. What was the tax rate before Costello introduced tax- free Super?
Why so long?
‘Cause you’re so fkn slow!
Furthermore i do not know the full story.
You never do … and never want to … do your own research … its easy to say “I do not believe you … ” Find out for yourself and then tell us.
You ask questions but refuse to accept the answers … everyone that discusses something with you finally stops! Its pointless … mulberry bush comments.
You ask questions but refuse to accept the answers
Well it was Shane who made the comments about Super which i was unsure if they were true or my. My experience is that Labor supporters do not care about truth but just trashing people they do not like.
I refuse to accept answers sometimes based on years of experience. Shanes motive is to trash Costello because he does not like him.
From Shanes link nil
From 1 July 2007, all lump sum benefits paid from a taxed source to an individual aged 60 or over will be tax free. There will be no RBL.
Which FURTHER verifies everything he has been saying (except 1 Changed from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system)
But when taken in the context of, it wasn’t viable before the lump sum became tax free, is akin to the same outcome.
Yes i saw that. And from my link
https://www.superguide.com.au/accessing-superannuation/tax-free-super-for-over-60s
Background: The reason the former Liberal federal government introduced tax-free super in 2007 is that the then-treasurer Peter Costello realised, at the time, very few retirees were paying income tax, and the cost to the federal budget was not as big as the political goodwill benefits of delivering tax-free super to over-60s.
And
Note: Tax-free super has always been a feature of Australia’s retirement system but, before July 2007, you usually had to hire advisers and get involved in creative financial gymnastics to make it happen — not unlike what you still have to do to secure tax-free income when you retire before the age of 60. And before July 2007, how much super you could receive at concessional rates was limited.
Looks like Shane is right but i may not be as big a deal as he thinks.
Looks like Shane is right but i may not be as big a deal as he thinks.
Duh! How many time have I read that … Looks like, Could be, Might be, Sounds like, FMFD!
neel, you are the ideologue … get over it!
TB
People condemn Howard/Costello because they hate them. Years of reading lies by ALP supporters causes me to be suspicious of comments.
The first lie i was told by ALP supporters was that unemployment went from 8% in 1996 to 4% in 2007 because Howard changed the rules. You work one hour/week and you are employed. Too bad that rule has been in use for forty years and Howard had nothing to do it.
Looks like Shane is right on point 2. But what about point 1?
Costello
1 Changed Super from an annuity system to a lump sum payment system
People condemn Howard/Costello because they introduced policies that stuffed up our system, gifting taxpayer dollars to the elites/wealthy, and dumping the bill onto future taxpayers.
TomR
I see you are in leftie laa laa land again.
You would vote Labor no matter what damage it did to Australia. I find it amazing the fairy tales you invent to justify your vote.
I kept questioning Shane because i don’t trust him based on previous comments.
Lefties tell lies for political purposes and to demonise people with different beliefs
I kept questioning Shane because i don’t trust him based on previous comments.
Yes, and he showed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the people responsible for our buggered up superannuation system is costello and howard.
For years you have been railing at super, mainly due to the fact that people take lump sums, and you blamed Keating for that and compulsory super.
Now we see, thanks to Shane, that it was fine when Keating devised compulsory super, but then costello and howard came along and screwed the pooch.
And you call the facts, with backed up evidence, lies.
If we haven’t already entered the era of dumb, it certainly feels like we’re hurtling toward it.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/agnotology:-understanding-our-ignorance/8123452