see; http://webofdebt.com/ by Ellen Brown and http://secretofoz.com/ by Bill Still.Bill has now thrown his hat in the ring for US Presidency under the Libertariarn Party.

The fundamental problem is the banks counterfeiting our currencies.

Adam Creighton,

If we had only one Python constricting the Australian economy, that being ‘compulsory superannuation’, its grip could easily be loosened. But in addition we have enormous blood sucking parasites that combined exceed in damage what the python inflicts to our economy.

Robert Menzies’ promotion of “the individual, his rights and his enterprise” could not take the country very far even if his regime had continued till to-day.

The ideal man of Menzies’ dreams was not one inspired by any sense of ethics; his qualities were essentially the ones of the man conceived by Labor ideologues. What was not equal between the two conceptions was only the amount of money in their wallet.

Margaret Thatcher’s liberalism didn’t do much for England for the same defect.

A political regime that checks the greed of a part of its citizens and leaves the other part’s greed unbound is a regime of discord and waste.

Where did “Greed is Good” take Mr. Christopher Skase?

I see the inception of Mario Monti in Italy as a novel solution. Out with politicians and in with experienced administrators that can eliminate the privileges politicians grant themselves and require a modicum or a limit to the extravagances of administrators of institution not under State control.

Give to Australians a Liberalism that does not equate the excesses of Communism and they will accept it.

The ‘other parasites’, I am sure, wouldn’t stand for long the pressure of a functional administration

Where did “Greed is Good” take Mr. Christopher Skase?
skeptic,
the same place the Public Service is taking the Australia we used to know.

...Why indeed would Tony, in all suddenness , change Liberal tack to agree to 12% compulsory superannuation contribution? How about the impending nationalisation of compulsory super contributions. This move allows Government to manipulate a huge windfall towards infrastructure projects, giving political advantage over dismal investment returns for contributors.

...In all possibility, no return when required at retirement age. This move must spell the end of lump-sum payments as an option, which is the available luxury for now.

...More evidence of highway robbery and trickery by the political elite, and another plunder of the working class, by mandating wage loss for political gain.

The problem with compulsory super and the problem without it are the same. People just don't care about saving until it's too late.

don't care about saving until it's too late.
Country Gal,
Yes & this is why we need a smarter & more caring & less corrupt a Public Service. Also yes, Super creates as many problems as if we didn't have it. We need to go back to a decent Pension which gives every citizen the opportunity to a decent existence. What's been happening is that the Public Service Super has been backed up by taxpayers funding to the detriment of the taxpayer. In a word it sounds like a great system up front but actually borders on criminal money laundering. I started Super 20 years ago & I thought it a good thing. Now I realise that it'll get me across the line but then what ? Super should be optional, the pension must be compulsory. Public Servants must be made to contribute to their Super like anyone else. It's Government's responsibility to ensure pension & health cover for everyone. If it can't manage that than it shouldn't be taking our money in the first place & let us manage ourselves.

Individual:

...I don’t wish to sound like a defender of the public service, but the reality of compulsory superannuation contributions, is the employer is mandated to contribute nine percent of the gross wage towards the fund. The public service is the Government workforce and as such the Government, as the employer of the workforce, is obligated, as are all employers in private enterprise, to contribute. One could argue that the burden on the tax-payer of the number of public servants employed is unjust, but not against the obligatory super contribution of nine percent.

...But as I pointed out in my post above, our “Tony” agrees to a greater burden on the tax payer by agreeing to an increase from nine to twelve percent, as a concept; the cynic would ask why: I answered that question above as well, the answer is, it becomes politically self-serving for him to agree, against the dictates of his own dogma, which is to promote "less" burden on the tax payer.

So to get around the issue of increase in the rate being a burden on employers, switch the rates outlined in awards, in enterprise bargaining and for those that have to negotiate their own salaries (professionals), to a total wage cost. From that employees have to wear the cost of superannuation and workers compensation and payroll tax to get back to their base figure. There will be no more cost to the employer to do it this way, and will be a hell of a lot more educating to employees. If they see what gets taken out of their total pay-packet they might
(a) care more about their super. At the moment for anyone under 50 its a mystery number that means little
(b) understand the total costs of employment - on-costs are enormous and most employees dont know about them. If they see how the ability of a business to pay them a better take-home wage is curtailed, there might be more pressure on government to do something about it.

Eg workers compensation schemes as they stand should be abolished. Apply a hefty penalty to an employer for any incident (that they cant insure against), and make it compulsory for employees to have income protection insurance. It gives them better cover anyway (covers them for illness and injury outside the workplace).