Actually it was a misprint I calculated monthly contributions in yearly amount 20 years is $ 272,638.68, 45 years - 1,700,000.

I'm glad I made this mistake on a forum and not my tax return.

My point is I would make a much better return managing my own super, however the administration requirements which must be adhered to make it viable only to those whose funds exceed $250,000 (rich get richer I guess)

I'm with Graham on this. The Budget was, regrettably, exactly the kind of Budget you would expect from a government that has lost all credibility with the people, and has absolutely no clue what it stands for any longer.

It is not a Socialist Budget. It is not a Capitalist Budget. It is just a mish-mash of measures that create a few sound-bites, soon to be forgotten in the political dog-fight that will lead us to the next election.

But... oh, Arjay. What would we do without you!

>>Gough sought loans ;ie Kemlani of Arabic origin which defied the British Aristocracy monopoly on currency creation.In all reality the Arabic money has something of real wealth backing it;ie oil.<<

I suspect we may excuse you, on the basis that you weren't around at the time, but there are so many errors of fact in those two sentence-lets, that they are irresistible to a seeker-after-truth like myself.

For starters, Tirath Khemlani was Pakistani, and not of "Arabic origin".

There was no money, let alone "money backed by oil". Khemlani was a con-artist, not a businessman. He was only interested in his $100 million in fees. An early version of the classic Nigerian scam, most likely.

Here's a piece to refresh your memory. Or in your case Arjay, create one.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/How-the-loans-scandal-became-an-affair-to-remember/2004/12/31/1104344982914.html

Incidentally, knowing how you are a stickler for "real money", as opposed to debt, how do you feel about the fact that the loan - if it had ever eventuated - would have quadrupled Australia's overseas borrowings, overnight? And how do you feel about the twenty-year repayment schedule, that would have cost Australia $18 billion to repay a $4 billion loan?

Arjay, sometimes you are just priceless, and today is one of those days.

Phooey, I think it is extremely important to be cautious of any schemes or companies involved with the following name identifiers:

i, me, my, mi, you, your.

All of them involve "user payers" systems, higher costs combined with a diminution of services, and a global wealth distribution mechanism.

Pericles,you again miss the point.It matters not how incompetent Gough and his Govt was or the innocent shadiness of his loans.Why was Gough sacked by the GG then and this Govt that is far more corrupt/dishonest and inept,not sacked by our present GG?

I would not believe much of the Corporate media printed then as today.The fact is that Gough had secured loans at a lower rate of interest that the Central banks of Europe and Britian did not approve.Do you not realise that these banks have major holdings in all the oil companies,minerals,arms,pharma and Media in the West? They own and control us and you pretend to be free.

Take a look at this:

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/why-does-the-department-of-homeland-security-need-450-million-hollow-point-bullets

Not at all, Arjay.

>>Pericles,you again miss the point.<<

The only point I was making is that you don't actually put any thought into what you write, and consequently end up writing a load of rubbish. The day you get at least some of your facts straight is the day when you might - just possibly - find someone to take you seriously.

But I suspect that day may be a long time a-coming.

I note that you ignored the actual questions...

>>...how do you feel about the fact that the loan - if it had ever eventuated - would have quadrupled Australia's overseas borrowings, overnight? And how do you feel about the twenty-year repayment schedule, that would have cost Australia $18 billion to repay a $4 billion loan?<<

Any thoughts?