The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The kids will be alright with a generational future fund > Comments

The kids will be alright with a generational future fund : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 10/5/2013

As the Boomers struggle with super and jobs, a generational war chest is needed for their kids.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Cogent, credible, thoughtful, informative and well researched article.
Agree Malcolm!
So how do we create a generational fund and return true equity?
I mean, when I bought my very first home, I only had to find a little over 2 years worth of my take home pay.
Ditto the second and third.
Today's generations, may be looking at ten years worth of the average pay packet!
Rents in some cases, for something as modest as a cramped bed-sitter, may be more than the current single pension!
And landlords threaten to increase those rents if the nanny state nipple of negative gearing is removed.
We clearly need quite massive reform of the tax system, to first and foremost end now endemic and monumental tax avoidance.
The requisite reform would likely make the ATO, and most tax practitioners entirely redundant?
And this extremely powerful, pampered and often well to do group, will not go quietly into the night, but comeback with a misinformation barrage of biblical proportions, just so they can keep those well fed faces firmly fixed in the public taxpayers trough?
And given around 60% of us are economic illiterates, very few understand when the "clever" people are patently duping us or our highly convoluted mind-numbing system?
Well, we have constructed one of the most complex set of tax arrangements in history.
A forty thousand page tax act, with an alleged loophole per page?
As one visiting Republican Senator remarked on Q+A, "at some point complexity always becomes fraud."
We need an infrastructure roll-out!
We need tax reform that finally ends all avoidance and returns genuine fairness and equity!
And we need to return housing affordability, to more than a shrinking privileged few.
Genuine tax reform and a much larger roll-out of low cost public housing, would be a useful start in the right direction!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 10 May 2013 11:04:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First people need to understand what Norway has done.

Norway's government used the money saved by not having to import oil, and the money charged for their natural resource, to buy replacement foreign assets, the income from which will support the Norwegian economy as and when the oil resource is exhausted.

A fund invested in domestic government bonds is a waste of effort in a country with a sovereign currency. If you doubt this read Professor Bill Mitchell's blog on the matter. Prior to privatisation we already, as a community, owned substantial assets valued at much more than the existing rather idiotic Future Fund.

Australia is paying for current consumption by exporting natural resource assets, such as coal and iron ore, and not charging enough for the rights to export those assets. We have already wasted the opportunities that Bass Strait oil would have allowed.

The Labor Party initially had the right attitude to raising funds from the mineral assets but the wrong attitude about what to do with the funds raised. Their fund raising effort was watered down after tax deductible advertising expenditure by miners to distort democratic action by Labor under Rudd and Swan. That is a tax advertising loophole that should be slammed shut.

The Coalitions attitude was, and still is, wrong on all counts and the Norway Fund shows why. Norway used natural assets to protect the country's future well being. No Australian Government has never attempted such a long view approach.

Australia will eventually pay dearly for our dependence on foreign capital inflow. NZ has already, prior to the era of Helen Clark, suffered the trauma of that experience.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 10 May 2013 12:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, we have, according to some industry experts. Hydrocarbon reserves to our immediate north to rival or perhaps eclipse the entire Middle East?
Our Indigenous sweet light crude traditionally leaves the ground as a virtually ready to use sulphur free diesel, that needs only a little insitu chill filtering, to make ready to use in most diesel engines.
Moreover, most engines, diesel or petrol engines, will run quite happily on CNG, and produce around 40% less carbon emission as the first consequence.
And passing NG through a simple catalyst, converts it to liquid methanol, a substitute for petrol or Av-gas.
The fact that all refinery stages are virtually eliminated or unnecessary, means that the choice of ready to use Australian sourced fuel, further reduces total transport carbon emission by as much as 75%! Or, that portion of transport emission created exclusively in the refinery processes!
You'd think, if there were any genuine concern for the "reef", we'd be exploring and accessing the enormous natural wealth of much lower carbon alternatives, and the thousands of billions, we could likely access from it?
Early prospectors were led to their often huge oil discoveries, by something as basic as oil slicks! In creek water or after rain.
To date, we have literally hundreds of similar examples, or mystery oil slicks in our north eastern marine economic zone.
So what did our super intelligent and gifted pollies do?
Why lock it up for all time of course! Even as essential oil imports rose to 85% of our needs!
Arguably at the behest of some very powerful international multinationals, concerned only with protecting and enlarging the bottom line of an industry, already raking in over 4 trillions per!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 10 May 2013 2:35:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,
I assume you are talking about free flowing oil off-shore under the GBR rather than the extensive "proven" unconventional oil produced from oil shale by pyrolysis, hydrogenation, or thermal dissolution. Shale has to be mined usually as the oil is locked up as the solid, kerogen.

All oil is a depleting fossil fuel that ultimately puts carbon dioxide into the environment.

I am a supporter of Thorium liquid salt reactors and the latest information I have is available at;
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy--ORaxxbXdWnXK

Thorium reserves are extensive and would last for thousands of generations. The proposed generating plants produce little waste and can be made designed to be fail safe. The current discussion is around how such plants could be mass produced, as on the Boeing production line, to make cheap power available everywhere in the world.

The points I made comparing the Norway situation to the Australian Future Fund are quite valid.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 10 May 2013 3:49:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good point Rhosty, of course the other take is that the Boomers are going to spend the inheritance and then blob on to the age pension. The post war generation don't like to be portrayed as selfish prats stuck in the 1960s and the majority of them aren't.

The simple fact is that most have not got enough super and they will live on and on.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 10 May 2013 3:59:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Foyle, free flowing sweet light crude and natural gas.
Why, we can be reasonably sure that the Townsville trough has 5 billion barrels, and maybe as much as fifteen.
Because we are reasonably sure of that trough, we could buy an off the shelf Platform, for around a billion.
A billion barrels of virtually ready to use diesel, would repay all outlays, with the remaining oil supporting outlays for say a further three platforms?
Which could then be sited on another very promising very much larger trough, just a little further out? And there are several other promising geological features worth looking at!
Traditionally, Australian sulphur free sweet light crude leaves the well head needing only a little insitu, chill filtering, to remove sand particles and soluble wax, that makes that black smoke and or, clogs the injectors on a cold and frosty morning.
The addition of around 4.7% methanol, also assists reducing the smoke, by producing a much cleaner total burn.
Many gas wells produce condensate, (LPG) and gas exiting, below zero.
The pipes may need a little warming to stop frozen condensate interrupting the flow.
This naturally occurring super cold flow, would serve to provide the chill, factor required in chill filtering any sweet light crude.
I'm also a fan of cheaper than coal Thorium, and things like rapid rail, which would negate much of the need for trucks, buses and planes.
Also agree with Cheryl, and her usual for her, pragmatism.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 10 May 2013 6:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,
The information I could find shows the Saudi reserves as 265 Billion barrels and the OPEC in total as about four times that.
I suspect that the GBR reserves are unlikely to prove to be anywhere near that.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 10 May 2013 11:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, Some more knowledgeable industry experts may well disagree.
But lets assume for a moment that our total reserves of sweet light crude were limited to just 100-150 billion barrels and much larger reserves of NG?
We could and should access it for the simple reason, in use from well head to harvester, it produces 75% less carbon pollution than the highly refined stuff we are importing and using now, understand?
Alternatively and given our economy simply can't support importing an increasingly expensive 85%+ of our needs!
Somebody will decide and allow the shale oil projects to re-emerge.
This product, with all its processing and refining processes, produces 400%+ more carbon pollution, than our traditional sweet light crude.
Simply because our sulphur free sweet light crude can be used almost as is, with just a little filtering, rather than highly energy dependant and carbon creating processing and refining!
The stuff we currently pump into our petrol tanks, has already gone through a doubled refinery process before it hits our shores, and lets not dismiss the transport component from halfway around the world, as insignificant!
Or the ramifications of an increasingly volatile Middle East, or what price we may soon pay at the bowsers, thanks to our patently obtuse reliance on mostly fully imported and highly refined fuel products.
Finally, we will need considerable time and capital, to convert our economy over to a carbon free one.
Where do you suppose that capital is coming from?
Our shale oil reserves perhaps?
And while our total carbon contribution is small? Shale oil has the potential to quadruple it!
Whereas, our own reef resources, in widespread use, have the capacity to quarter it!
Given, for sound economic reasons, we must have one or the other!
Which alternative provides more threat to our remaining and already decimated reef?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 11 May 2013 11:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foyle, the current problem is the type of vehicles we make and use!
Were we to produce and use carbon fibre vehicles, powered by CNG fired ceramic fuel cells, we would have electric vehicles, with a better range and more power and torque that conventional variants!
Moreover, given ceramic cells don't actually burn fuel, but produce energy in a chemical reaction, virtually the reverse of electrolysis, the emission product is mostly water vapour.
There is therefore, i.e., no real reason to spend a veritable fortune on electrifying rail line tracks, for the purpose of rolling out rapid rail.
Given the combination of on-board CNG and fuel cells, (easy enough on a train) would provide the same power, and given the source, possibly a good deal less total pollution as a bonus.
Making CNG>fuel cell powered carbon fibre vehicles here, would give us the whole wide world as our current market!
Which would be protected for some time by patents, our current lead in moulded carbon fibre production, and simple lead time.
Just this market as our sole province for a time, would allow us to become a virtual manufacturing power house.
As would the widespread introduction of publicly provided, cheaper than coal, thorium power!
As would long overdue, major tax reform and vast simplification, that then in turn, completely removed compliance costs, or current endemic avoidance.
Even so, just the latter two, would see the high tech energy dependant industries of the world beating a path to our door.
And in so doing, cement in place, a far better future for the next generation, than that their parents enjoyed!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 11 May 2013 11:52:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many thanks Rhrosty,

When I read << Cogent, credible, thoughtful, informative and well researched article >>, I saved myself the bother of reading it. Your critical assessments have become the hallmark of “Article killer”.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 11 May 2013 4:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy