A couple of days ago I watched a current affairs program which showed how an elderly lady struggled with her pension.
It is sickening to hear of the obscene salaries of Judges & Ceo's. Also, there are so many useless Bureaucrats & Academics who are on over-the-top taxpayer funded salaries.
Then we have those who go into liquidation with obscene amounts of money in their accounts which is owed to people. How often do we hear "what price a human life". I don't know how much a person is worth but a value of $240 a week really isn't that much, is it ?
Obscene is all I can think of. Very socialist indeed !
Anyone out there can provide some taxpayer funded salary figures ?

Some years ago I structured a mortgage on a house for a couple well beyond pension age. They wanted a few thousand to pay out a creditcard debt and do something for one of their grand children.

The mortgage would save them $50 a week over their credit card debt.

The house was their only asset. I asked them about superannuation and they said they have never bothered with either superannuation or insurance.

Whilst you say “an elderly lady struggled with her pension.” I have to ask, what consideration did she give to her old age when younger?

My partner has salary sacrificed for ten years and has recently been told her accumulated pension funds will ensure she has a pension which will more than cover her daily needs.

I myself contribute more than $1,000 a month to super, and then have other sporadic government and miscellaneous contributions which get tossed in to the pot.

I have also carried employment protection insurance for the past 20 years and which I have made 2 claims on.

“Very socialist indeed “

I am no supporter of socialism or the fraudulent claims and illusions promoted by socialists. The deception is a political one which foments envy of the wealthy by the less wealthy without considering what the less wealthy can do to improve their own circumstances, if they were to adopt the practices of the wealthy.

That Australia is not an overtly socialist country is a good thing. The general wellbeing of folk in USA and the western democracies is a lot better than the general wellbeing of those in the old Eastern Block or Russia, who experienced “socialism” in the very real and practical sense.

Whilst the goals of socialism might well be considered by some to be “laudable”, what actually happens in practice to people is abysmal.

What you may consider to be obscene is up to you. What I consider “obscene” is the notion that any government can tell me how much I am allowed to earn or how I am allowed to spend what I earn.

Col_Rouge,

"Whilst you say “an elderly lady struggled with her pension.” I have to ask, what consideration did she give to her old age when younger?"

You have made valid points, however, this elderly woman may never have had a job - one doesn't have to go far back when women didn't work - and when they did it was for fairly low wages - and generally only if they were unmarried.

I believe that employment only of unmarried women was virtual "law" in some places, such as Broken Hill. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

If she had been married, perhaps her husband had been at the bottom of the wage scale necessitating them live on everything he earned.

One really has to know the factors of individual cases before we can make fair assessment.
However, I agree on much of what you say.

I also agree totally with Individual.

Some receive obscene payment and pay-outs. None really can justify such. The exception are those who have created businesses employing many like Bill Gates, or perhaps someone working away in a research laboratory, and on a virtual pittance, who discovers a cure for cancer.

I have to agree with Danielle. Many older people were raised to believe that they worked and paid their taxes and at the end of the day the government would look after them. Not for free but from the taxes paid for this purpose. I think there was even a separate pension type fund that would be used to fund the pensions (before Superannuation became the domain of the private sector). I don't know whatever happened to that money I guess into went into general revenue.

Even at my age, 47 I remember my first job after University did not pay Super. I don't think I was paid Super until I joined the public service and then I took time out to raise my children who are now teenagers. Many women older than me did not work again once they had their family. This was the norm.

It is obscene some of the salaries that are paid to CEOs particularly to those who do not prove value for money but are still paid huge bonuses to boot despite poor company performance or worse, collapse while the creditors (other hard working business people, consumers and shareholders) go begging.

col rouge & Danielle,
thank you for your input. As i expected replies of that nature I shall now address the following.
Both these replies are very valid indeed.
we have two very common views on the same problem. If someone has not sufficiently contributed during their working life towards their retirement is it really both technically & morally their own fault ? My personal view is no ! I put this failure of input for future pension funds squarely at federal governments of both political parties. For instance; How can anyone expect people to pay into a pension fund that doesn't exist. I'm referring to pre 1970. Many workers had to go from job to job, thus not being in a position to make contributions. Please take into account that not everyone was/is working in the Public service or is in business. Those on casual wages had hardly enough to live on let alone have enough to pay into a fund. If we should not look after such people then how come we look after drug addicts & other people who don't contribute one iota towards their pension.
As a society WE MUST ENSURE that EVERYONE contributes. For every Dollar earned we should take 10 cents for our future. I mean EVERYONE, rich or low wage worker. That will ensure sufficient funds for the retired to have a dignified existence. If we can support inadequate Artists then surely we can support workers who wore out their bodies & mind to keep Bureaucrats comfortable.

Many can not contribute those who can should do so at 15% this would let those who could not pay as they worked a better life after work.
Superannuation is self interest if anything is but how would some on very pow incomes pay it?

Danielle

“elderly woman may never have had a job “

The important words are “may never have”

Those words allude to the speculative nature of the condition you seek to raise.

Again we are all responsible for our own domestic budgeting and living within the limits of our incomes. I have to forego things I want to fund the things I need, like superannuation.

I am only prepared to apply the same constraints to everyone else.

“One really has to know the factors of individual cases before we can make fair assessment.”

That is Why I asked

“what consideration did she give to her old age when younger?”

Thanks for your agreement

“Some receive obscene payment and pay-outs.”

I make a distinction between the public and private purse.

The salary of the CEO of a private company is a matter between the CEO and the shareholders and no one else.

The salary of every civil servant merits the attention of every tax payer.

Individual “For instance; How can anyone expect people to pay into a pension fund that doesn't exist.”

Opportunities to save for old age have existed for a long ling time, although payments to them might not have received tax office blessing as “tax deductibility”.

Some individuals saw opportunity in foregoing immediate consumption to buy investment property.

“Many workers had to go from job to job,”

I have done that all my working life. I have been paying into an AMP super fund since 1987 as well as another fund which I set up when I stopped having to pay child maintenance to my ex-wife.

In 1970 “Those on casual wages” were a rarity, compared to today (I include myself among those who are “casually employed” )

“how come we look after drug addicts & other people who don't contribute one iota towards their pension.”

I agree, why should we look after the well being of junky parasites ?

actually the junky “lifestyle” helps eliminate pension costs

I have planned for my retirement since age 18, when I decided to study for professional qualifications.

I myself contribute more than $1,000 a month to super, and then have other sporadic government and miscellaneous contributions which get tossed in to the pot.
Col Rouge,
You are very fortunate to have that much income to afford more than a $1000 a month to contribute. That's more than a pension. The government contributions are normally more than the personal contribution. So, you are in actual fact still not contributing enough yourself to claim that you are giving sufficient consideration to your old age while still young. Please everyone, I am not attacking Col Rouge here as I in fact have employer contribution too that is higher than my sacrifice. None of us can claim we're more responsible because, we're still reliant on taxpayer funding to top up our super.
My argument is that for every dollar we earn, we should contribute a set %age for our future needs. We must consider that some people get ill & require treatment etc. Those who are fortunate enough to earn good money & are free of illness should not quarrel about "not using" their contribution. Unless we can fully fund our own future we should refrain from blaming those less fortunate for not contributing. There are too many who make no effort at all despite being able to work & they must be made to pay. If Government expects people to be less of a burden when they get old then it must provide people with the opportunity & responsibility in their younger days. I believe that the present minimum wage of $13.80 hr is simply not enough. How much of each Dollar we earn actually goes into the pension fund. Would be interesting to know & compare it with how much goes into frivolous funding. The Qld Govt funded $115,000 to some artist about two years ago for his art of regurgitating food onto a concrete slab. That's 479 weekly pensions.

Col

It is always possible to cite examples of how people might have made things better for themselves. Personally, I equate the ability of a society to look after its citizens as a measure of its humanity. But what happens when you dont have the resources? Are Indians morally degraded because they allow widows to die in conditions that we would not allow our pets to die in?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5263462.stm

I'm sure that if Australia followed the Indian overpopulation example we could be discussing whether or not some poor bugger rotting in a cardboard box was deserving of his lot.

Yes indeed Col, he should have put a bit more thought into how he might like to be living when he was younger. At least it is good that some of us know how to plan for everything.

Individual “The government contributions are normally more than the personal contribution”

As a “self-employed” person and not a civil servant, I appreciate the government co-payment contributions to my superfund but they are a small fraction of my own contributions. Likewise, I own 100% of the company which make the company contributions too, how the mix is made up, I leave to my tax accountant.

As for “So, you are in actual fact still not contributing enough yourself to claim that you are giving sufficient consideration to your old age while still young”

I have not yet stopped contributing. Your statement might be appropriate if I had retired but, I am still running in the race toward that destination.

“The Qld Govt funded $115,000 to some artist”

Read some of my other posts. I recently debated against government involvement with the “Arts” and suggested such subjective and discretionary pursuits be left to those disposed to private philanthropy, rather than being made a drain on tax payers funds.

Fester “It is always possible to cite examples of how people might have made things better for themselves.”

Yes and I do not expect to be penalized for taking the risks required to make things better for myself.

As for Australia versus India, I decided to migrate to Australia. I discounted India for the reasons you use in illustration. Likewise, I knocked back job offers in some African countries.

Maybe we should re-colonise India and force them to comply with your standards of humane treatment for widows.

“Yes indeed Col, he should have put a bit more thought into how he might like to be living when he was younger.”

Like I said in my original post

“I am only prepared to apply the same constraints to everyone else.”

We all have the same opportunity to make the best of our opportunities.

I spent my early years studying

I forewent the opportunity to go out, get drunk and get the first woman I met stuck up the duff then spending the next 50 years getting drunk, trying to escape my miserable existence..

Fester “Personally, I equate the ability of a society to look after its citizens as a measure of its humanity.”

I believe a society is only as strong and able as the individuals who comprise it.

The expression of “humanity” is an individual one.

Governments cannot prescribe legislation to enforce “humanity”.

Governments cannot be humane or compassionate.

What you seek is only ever expressed and thus is only ever measurable in the attitude and actions of one individual to an other.

One of the great lies of socialism is that it is the humane philosophy, compared to private enterprise and the self-sufficiency which attends capitalism.

No political philosophy can pretend to reflect the compassion or humanity which individuals can express.

No political philosophy can treat people as the individuals they are and give to everyone that which they need,

The best any regulated political system can do is

dispense to all, equally, regardless of merit or effort

but the better alternative is

To foster the political environment where everyone understands they can aspire to be what they want and are free to achieve the best they can for themselves by their own effort.

As Margaret Thatcher said “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

she also said "Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul. "

substitute "attitude" for "soul" and it is more understandable.

That is what she was after, a change in individual "attitudes" from dependence on government to self-reliance.

A woman who retires today only earned a third of what a man earned until they gained parity with a family wage. Women expected to retire at the age of sixty and the male was going to follow suit. But then the establishment changed the goalpost and on a gradual basis a woman now has to wait until 65. She never had a chance to take out Superannuation today there is no privision for those women that were victims of circumstances.

Col Rouge,
I don't disagree with any of your statements here. Unfortunately, many people do net get the opportunity in the first place to get a good start to life. Give one minute to think of those who due to Whitlam & Keatinge's Labor lost their jobs & subsequently became unable to continue with mortgage payments & lost homes & had to rent again. We can send the Navy (under Howard) to rescue a Millionaire sailor at millions of $ but anyone not in the Ambulance fund due to lack of affordability has to pay $800 for a 7km trip. Thrill seekers get expensive rescues for nothing & the genuine invalid is lucky if the Authorities pick up the phone. You should see the homes being built for people who hardly ever worked & the low income worker gets evicted from caravan parks. Col Rouge, I know Public Servants who had to be promoted to get them out of communities because of their uselessness. They still get ½ Million $ super pay-outs for which they contributed $200 a week. Let's see 200 in 500,000 is 2500 weeks which is let's see 48 years. some contribution indeed considering most of them only worked till 55 0r 60.. Top that with free travel & free accommodation & you have your standard Public service conditions in remote areas. For many years I could not manage to put anything aside let alone even consider a super fund. Does that mean I failed in my earlier days to plan for my future ? The reason why we have poor in this country is because those in Authority & it's highly paid consulting expert policy makers are incapable of seeing reality.

What a coincidence that someone who can afford to put away $1,000 per month (with 'sacrifices' of course) pronounces that everyone should be responsible for planning for their retirement and bully for them if they haven't put away sufficient money.

I'm guessing someone in a job that doesn't pay super and spends all their meagre salary on necessities would probably have a different view on the issue. Will the proposed 1% really add up sufficiently to sustain them in later life?

I recall talking to a fidgetting taxi driver about a year after GST came in who hadn't paid any GST because he simply couldn't afford to save the GST from his meagre earnings. I didn't get around to discussing his retirement budgetting with him but his lack of retirement savings would be a safe bet. Years later when he is elderly after occasionally losing his job for accumulating too many demerit points, paying tax fines for overdue BASs and being on unemployment benefits while out of work some wealthy adviser will scold him for poor budgetting.

In the current system it is scandalous how deprived elderly pensioners are from meagre government assistance. They deserve an apology and a larger slice of the pie. However I note that the current system itself is flawed as traditionally the extended family would have ensured they didn't go without and there was no need for elderly to deal with meagre pensions or blame. There has been a weakening of families over the years that is part of the problem.

What a pile of twaddle.

I came back to Oz in 1976, with about $3000 to my name, aged 36.

A few years later I met, & married a somewhat younger lady.

With a bit of a struggle we bought a house, & with no struggle we had 3 kids.

I was still putting them through Uni, & school when I reached retirement age. A very expensive time, so not much savings.

I am now retired, on the pension, with very little other income, or reserve cash, [I got $8,000 super], living in my now $800,000 acreage property.

I think the Australian tax payer is extremely generous to pay me the pension, which I live on reasonably comfortably.

It will not buy me a replacement car, but it might stretch to a cheep TV. If I want any more, why should I not have to sell my valuable home, & buy a cheeper one?

Get real.

As for forcing young people to pay more into super, also get real.

The need their income, in their early years to pay for their family. The worthwhile ones have houses to pay for, & for the others, I don't give a damn about them. If they chose to spend their money on having fun, as I did for many years, why should the taxpayer now pick up the tab, for their lack of forethought?

I would like to add another aside to this debate.

From research published in the press it appears that about 80% or so (I know it was an
extremely high number) of retired people do voluntary work. This must, of itself, save the
government a great deal of money in providing services to those people the government, otherwise, would have to support and assist.

I recall an otherwise extremely generous person, with both money and time, refusing to
donate to the blind society as she maintained very strongly that the government should
be supporting such groups.

I know a woman, who raised her children on a widow's pension. Without much in the way of childcare in her day, she was unable to work - and doubtless would have been denied it. She couldn't afford to have her children's shoes repaired, so lined them with plastic.

When I was younger, employers did not like to employ married women, especially those with children. I recall travelling a long distance to a job interview just to be severely lectured by an employer about women taking a job, whose responsibility was their children. At this time, my husband had been unemployed for a considerable time. At this period unemployment benefits were so low - as one departmental officer admitted - it was just enough to support a smoking habit. Going without a meal to ensure that the children had enough, was so frequent, as to be the norm and not even worthy of discussion. We didn't think twice about it; nor did we consider that the unemployment benefit should be higher. Often to meet a utilities bill, we sold a possession/s. Things, fortunately, changed for the better due to the feminist movement.

cont ...

Whilst, we became better placed financially later when we both worked, this early period was a salutory lesson - and I have the utmost compassion for those undergoing financial hardship.

As for massive salaries and golden handshakes, I have changed banks because of this; when I became aware that such obscenities were the result of increasing profits for the bank TYPICALLY through the cutting back of staff, who relied on their jobs. I would rather have less interest on finances, than more, knowing the latter was at the cost of others losing their incomes.

I watched the segment on television relating to the pensioner lady who was in financial penury. My first reaction was of sympathy, In fact I even remarked to my companion at the time that if I lived nearer I would give her a helping hand. However it then occurred to me that just perhaps the TV channel put a bias on the programme, as they often do, to appeal to an emotional side of their audience. It is for this reason I feel there could be other areas of the equation in addition to those already mentioned in the posts here. I could be entirely wrong for instance in questioning the expensive alternative medicines that she said that she had to buy. Some of these potions do not have the effect claimed by the purveyors of such things and perhaps this is something that could be examined. This is apart from the lack of provision she may not have made in her previous years.

Mjpb what a small minded post you made.

“should be responsible for planning for their retirement”

Yes we are.

Societies which expect government to do all the planning for them and cater to everyone’s needs have been proven to fail miserably, not only in developing the aspirations and potential of their populations but also in delivering basic subsistence pensions on which anyone can survive.

“I'm guessing someone in a job that doesn't pay super”

someone self employed, like me, you mean?

“who hadn't paid any GST”

that reminds me, December payment is due within the next 3 days. That means my bank account will be lightened. I pay my taxes first.

To your taxi driver, he was either

cheating on his responsibilities or

if he was grossing less than $50k, has been badly advised to his responsibilities.

The picture you paint of his performance in later life is not the sort of story which many would seek, he should have thought more about the consequences of his actions.

“There has been a weakening of families over the years that is part of the problem.”

That only has relevance if one views ones children as some form of “pension plan”.

For myself, I have 2 daughters. They love me very much but I never fathered them to support me in my old age.

Again “attitude”, those who are relying on their children and extended family to support them are inherently selfish in their attitude and values.

It is not what I can get from them, it is what can I do for them, which matters.

For my daughters, they have both chosen to adopt my values, which is ensuring they think before they act and are working on their own life plans.

I have no doubt they will remain valued and contributing individuals, complete with the self-reliance to prevail over any difficulties which they might face.

The best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray.

It is vary easy to judge from a position of financial security the real or imagined failings of others.

The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities. Perhaps if a CEO tried to live for 6 months on the income of their lowliest employee, they would understand a little more what life on the edge is really like.

There are as many reasons as there are people why, at retirement age they should find themselves in poor circumstances; illness, mental illness and other catastrophes can beset the most rigid of plans.

In particular we need a safety net for those people who stay at home to care for others: children, the elderly, disabled or people otherwise dependent on others. These volunteers save the government many dollars and certainly contribute more to our community than do many of our so called ‘captains of industry’.

For these and many others we will still need to provide a safety net and Australia is a wealthy nation in a position to care for all its citizens, rather than just a select few who consider themselves better than others.

“These volunteers save the government many dollars and certainly contribute more to our community than do many of our so called ‘captains of industry’.”

Maybe you can provide some research to justify that statement.

I do not doubt volunteering is a significant contributor to the greater community, as I have said often “philanthropy” is a uniquely individual thing, volunteering is a classic example of the spirit of philanthropy.

The bit which needs research is the comparison to “captains of industry”. Now if you are game to produce the research which justifies your statement to the lack of worth of a captain of industry, I will be happy to destroy it before your eyes.

“The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities.”

Oh very true.

I wonder where all the burly piss-pots were when I was studying?

Probably getting their girlfriends banged up and now I am expected to subsidise their old age because they frittered away the opportunities of their youth?

Another mans shoes works both ways.

Let us consider how disastrous it would be if the low paid unskilled worker had to deal with the complexities and decisions which a CEO makes on behalf of a company which employs thousands of people and is responsible for the prudent stewardship of millions of dollars of superannuation invested funds.

“to care for all its citizens, rather than just a select few who consider themselves better than others.”

The situation where the state is a universal care provider sounds wonderful, except to provide that care requires separating the individual from self-responsibility and choice.

When that happens, the state becomes a paternalistic charicature (or worse) and the elector is disqualified from making his own decisions.

We only grow to our full potential and experience the best quality of life by exercising choice and being responsible for the consequences of our actions. A government which takes away those decisions and choices opportunities, negates that.

JR there is a lot of “emotionalism” in your post. Not the stuff which objective government is equipped to deal with.

...and then there are those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing...

Col

"Governments cannot be humane or compassionate."

Many would disagree with you Col. Governments are run by humans and I dont think it unreasonable that they should be measurable by human qualities. Thus I dont think it unreasonable to describe the Khmer Rouge or Nazi Party as being inhumane. But, of course, humanity is a subjective measure, so I am sure that many in these regimes would have thought themselves very humane and compassionate.

Now Col, what about someone born severely retarded, without the concept of a life, let alone an understanding of the need to plan for one? How could such an individual be held accountable for anything? How should they be treated, and how might the wealth of society affect the lot of such a person?

It might also interest you to know that most people underestimate the value of an education. As educated societies are wealthier societies, it makes economic sense to subsidise education. Isn't nice to know that at least one of the Whitlam's Government's decisions was economically sound?

Col Rouge,

There are many, many people who have gained university degrees and indeed further qualifications, who regard the amassing of money very low down on their list of priorities ... some contribution to society, as a whole, being at the top of their list. Many post-grads spend their lives in research for very little reward - for some, not greatly more than unemployent benefits. Ironically, the benefits they produce, create millions for businesses who adopt these.

I have no respect for CEO's who rationalise "retrenchments" for the $ profit. Indeed, some share-holders may be comfortable by this, but I for one am not. Ironically, the
"retrenchments" leads to the government having to pay unemployment benefits. The rationale that people should make provision for themselves fails horribly here - when those being retrenched have families to support, and the government has to pick up the tab. You must admit that some CEO's are most incompetent. You, obviously have heard the expression of a person "being promoted to their level of incompetence" - a frequent expression heard at the top end of business.

Some CEO's are worthy of respect - those who are intelligent and competent enough to create businesses, expand them, and provide jobs. They are to be applauded and a worth every million they have. Indeed these people are those most likely to be philanthropists. If one looks at the list of philanthropic bodies, these people are most often amongst them - not the former who bend the knee to $ signs; and who strangely enough end up with fortunes themselves, whilst those depending upon their expertise "hit the wall".

Regarding retirees, mostly pensioners, who volunteer their services: if the hours spent
in donating time and other skills in helping the less fortunate were awarded $ value, I would guarantee they save the government millions. I would state that they contribute more in monetary worth than the pension they receive.

cont ...

Col: " ... consider how disastrous it would be if the low paid unskilled worker had to deal with the complexities and decisions which a CEO makes on behalf of a company “

Has occurred - workers, with both shares and involvement in every aspect of company operation - and very successfully. An American mining company operated this way (I can't recall the name, but no doubt someone here will provide it); also such operations have occurred in Australia.

I was a Liaison executive ... (which meant resolving issues between clients and management, who had made monumental cock-ups) ... with a well-known, $ multi-billion company. Board meetings would often occur in the presence of cleaners. Apparently, cleaners either had "no" ears, or couldn't understand. Indeed, they did - and they were intelligent enough to predict something that would occur. In fact, board meetings were more about cover-ups of incompetence than sound business practices ... Cleaners being present at the "coal face" of "stuffups", so to speak ... generally knew more about the goings on than the director.

I am not a socialist, but I believe that the government is there to care for those who by some misfortune, are unable to care adequately for themselves.

Is the government only there to prop up business disasters resulting from bad business practices and incompetent CEOs?

Snake, I believe the age pension in "most" cases is "adequate" - pharmacists always ask whether a card-holder is prepared to take the same medication, but a cheaper product.

mjpb, I believe was referring to previous households, long gone, when grandmother, maiden-aunt Lil and other family members lived together, and supported each other, either by time, effort, or perhaps, financially.

Col Rouge, I would never let my children know if I were in any financial difficulty. I certainly would never accept financial help from them.

However, as my children are university educated and financially well off; I do expect them to be aware of others less fortunate, be compassionate, and to contribute, well, to those who need it.

Fester “Governments are run by humans and I dont think it unreasonable that they should be measurable by human qualities”

Governments are run by bureaucrats. “Policy” might be dreamed up by politicians but the business of running the machine is a civil servants role.

You show amazing faith if you think “Sir Humphrey” was merely a parody.

Bureaucrats, blindly directing resources, balancing public perceptions with political objectives and located remote from “the coal face” do not get to consider the human impact of the services they administer.

They are obliged by law, to treat people based on scales of legally interpreted objectivity. They are not allowed to engage in treating individuals as individuals, else they will be accused of favouring one worthy applicant over another, irrespective to the individual human needs of differing people.

That process is neither humane and certainly not a reflection of anything remotely akin to “compassion”.

“without the concept of a life, let alone an understanding of the need to plan for one? How could such an individual be held accountable for anything?”

That is the usual extreme case which is another loaded comment

However, why I referred to the compassion and philanthropy of individuals is because that is what, has always happened, to some degree with or without government involvement.

The early school systems were set up by the clergy, not by government.

I would agree, education is a worthwhile investment.

That might explain why many people choose to purchase private education for their children, if they can afford it.

Individuals freely exercising a capitalist choice.

JR “price of everything and the value of nothing...”

Are you describing yourself or just showing your lack of originality by using cliches?

Danielle “workers, with both shares and involvement in every aspect of company operation”

CEOs and Finance directors are employees too.

ownership of the entity, through say employee shares or more commonly superannuation investment, has nothing to do with technical/operational direction of the entity. “

The ashes of companies who ran with inexperienced or unqualified CEOs abound. You will always find historic examples, many of which have expired.

ENRON comes to mind. “The smartest men in the room”, building an empire on a fraud. The only reason they got away with it was because they had their auditors in their pocket.

“the government is there to care for those who by some misfortune, are unable to care adequately for themselves.”

I thought we were talking about a far broader group than those slighted by some temporary set backs or rare chronic afflictions.

There is a world of difference between government supplying temporary support and taking on everyone as a life long commitment from cradle to the grave.

“Is the government only there to prop up business disasters”

I would rather government got out of the business of propping up any business. Governments have an uncanny knack of backing the wrong horses and there is no accountability for their errors.

Better the commercial risk takers with more disposable income (from lower taxes), assess businesses ventures, rather than the government raise taxes for blind speculation.

“amassing of money “

I have never suggested “amassing money”, for its own sake, is a virtue.

Values of that sort are dependent on how far up Maslows pyramid one has evolved.

However, such wealth comes only as a by-product of what we provide to those who value and pay for our services.

Criticize CEO’s as individuals, please do not make generalization to a particular job role the worth of which is negotiated with the business owners.

“aware of others less fortunate, be compassionate, and to contribute, well, to those who need it.”

No argument here, see my Margaret Thatcher quote of Sunday, 24 February 2008 11:17:00 PM

“Compassion” is not possible through government (my previous post)

Col Rouge

I have been following this thread and am dismayed by the lack of understanding you have for people in general.

I agree with all the points that Danielle has made.

Also as you seem to have difficulty in comprehending Johnny Rotten's succinct posts I will state that you, Col Rouge, have amply demonstrated that you are concerned only with money and know the value of nothing.

I know you will take this as an attack, it is not, it is an observation and analysis of all your posts to this thread.

I wonder if somehow your daughters should have such misfortune that they require help, beyond any you could provide, such as medical treatment beyond even your means, would you not seek government assistance?

I am sure that you have benefited from such government assistance in the form of negative gearing on investments - yet you would deny a safety net for others less fortunate than yourself.

All of us are only a disaster away from poverty - as Johnny said, the greatest plans can and do go astray.

And to coin another cliche (and they become such simpky because of their truth):

Pride goeth before a fall.

Good Luck Col, I think one day you will need it.

Fractelle “Col Rouge, have amply demonstrated that you are concerned only with money and know the value of nothing.”

Strange statement.

From it, I could presume you are only interested in judging others without bothering to get to know them properly.

“it is an observation and analysis of all your posts to this thread.”

So, based solely on those posts, you are prepared to declare that I am “concerned only with money”

I hope you are not a doctor or someone else who works in diagnostics.

The important function of diagnostics is to understand your subject and from all the information available, produce a correct diagnosis, relying on more than just a few words on a particular post.

As for “I know you will take this as an attack,”

Certainly not, there is a proverb

“Do not attribute any action to malice that can be explained by stupidity.”

As for

“government assistance in the form of negative gearing on investments”

All investments are subject to negative gearing. It is not a rule of tax which is particular to individuals but applies to corporate investments and comprises one of the basic assumptions of the professionally accepted view of accounting standards and tax law.

“That all costs attributable to a revenue generating activity are allowable offsets in determination of the measured net result of that activity.”

If you want to rewrite the rules of what you call “negative gearing” I suggest you write to the international accountting standards board.

My objection to removing what is called ‘negative gearing’ from say private investment housing is it would then apply a different standard of treatment to that versus all other forms of investment.

It is a fraud prevaricated by those who do not understand what they are talking about, the envious and those hypnotized by the gingoism which attracts the pig ignorant.

Happy to debate “negative gearing” anytime.

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

Do not presume that because I do not dwell upon or use as an excuse to ask for handouts, I have lived a life unaffected by setbacks, some pretty serious ones.

Fractelle, I have to tell you that having the temerity to criticise old king Col is like prodding a nest of vipers, and you managed a swipe at his fave form of welfare, negative gearing, to boot. Well done.

Again Col proves his complete vacuousness on value. He believes that the wealthy are more entitled to government handouts than low income people.

Just obscene.

Johnny rotten

“Again Col proves his complete vacuousness on value. “

I have been patient but it is you who is reducing the debate to name calling.

When you lift your game out from spouting the self-serving rhetoric of the terminal failure who now aspires to nothing better than finding “a free ride for JR at someone elses expense” and a justification for you to excuse your own indolence and missed opportunities through exacting what substitutes for revenge in your small (and getting smaller) sphere of influence; then please come and challenge some of the points of value which I have made.

However, remember, the weapon in debate is wits, before you come back make sure you do not arrive unarmed and show yourself up as a miserable pissant devoid of constructive thought.

It is gross hypocrisy for someone like you, as obviously vacant of reasoning, to suggest anyone else is “vacuous”

Col Rouge,

"Criticize CEO’s as individuals, please do not make generalization to a particular job role the worth of which is negotiated with the business owners."

You know that I am unable to criticise CEO's by name - undoubtedly my comments would be deleted.

However, I can draw upon my experience.

Not long after I joined this company, the director decided to employ "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" qualified departmental managers, who had never had experience on any shop-floor. Previously, management had come through the ranks and knew the workings of every aspect of the job. To assist this new breed of management, the company brought in time-and-motion experts, who provided "quotas" without consideration of machine malfunction, nor man-power loss due to illness, and other normal things which occur in industry. They even measured movements and time taken. To ensure budgets looked "healthy", a number of the "new breed" would not replace faulty equipment, but hoped that it would last beyond its "use-by" date. Morale plummetted.

The Liaison Office had an open-door policy for all. However, workers saw us as management, therefore, "them", and never came to discuss issues.

Middle management, identified us as "threatening". We compiled regular reports on their departments; we could also draw against their budgets (apart from having our own). Consequently, the reports we received from departmental heads, were only those they wanted us to see. It was generally acknowledged that there were "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" -(how often is this apparent in companies?) - and workers were disadvantaged, but they never complained openly - at least to us.

cont ...

Some managers, through inuendo and subtlies, even lies, were quite happy to step upon, or sacrifice another's career for their own. These particular individuals always came across as the most efficient and loyal to the company. I don't believe that this doesn't occur now.

Much of this information came from cleaners and painters (always ubiquitous), who would speak freely to me. They didn’t have university qualifications, but they certainly weren’t dim. Obviously, I ALWAYS verified what they told me before acting. Being before laws against sexual harrassment, women workers were particularly vulnerable.

Fortunately, having "an ear to the ground" (cleaners and painters), all such issues - whether unjust complaints against workers or colleagues, were addressed as fairly as possible. I resigned after seven years, taking a completely different direction in career. I didn't like "business culture".

I wonder how many major companies see their workers’ wellbeing as valuable as quotas and dollars. I am all for high profits, but I question whether workers get wages and bonuses, if any, relative to their contribution. I repeat, I am not a socialist.

Incidentally, a number of management decided to go it alone, starting up their own businesses. Most failed.

I still cannot see how the huge amounts many CEOs receive can be justified.

Indeed, I know of one such CEO - he achieved an Olympic gold medal in the 1950’s - his name, certainly not his intellect - "the wheel was turning, but the hamster was definitely dead" - saw him reach CEO status, with an obscene payout.

Bureaucrat, departmental official who follows orders without intelligent judgement at the expense of peoples' needs.
As much as I would like everyone to be able to plan their life ahead & into retirement, many are simply unable to do so for a variety of reasons. I suffered setbacks due to crime & again through so-called justice relating to that crime. I find it obscene when the Board earns millions & yet other people lose money because that Board's company failed to provide the promised service which many people relied upon when making fateful decisions. Worse still are those bureaucrats who gamble with public funding when they've arrived at a position they're totally inept in (i.e. the Peter Principle) & accountability is nowhere to be seen. I & many people I know have had to leave positions & start anew because of these integrity devoid creatures. They can continue to salary sacrifice towards their retirement whilst their victims have to struggle on & get condemned for not properly planning ahead. There couldn't be many bureaucrats out in retirement land & feel good about their circumstances if they had a conscience. Same goes for quite a number of CEO's.

Col Rouge

Danielle has presented the case regarding the inequities between workers and management so well, that you most certainly lose that debate.

Interesting that you are so excessively defensive to criticism. Johnny really touches a nerve with you doesn’t he? Doth protest too much methinks.

And doth too nasty for reasonable debate, but I’ll try.

You argue against welfare for disadvantaged people, but are clearly defensive for government aid for yourself, in the form of tax breaks and negative gearing.

Negative gearing is a rort – yes it is legal, but it is still a rort. That you are so defensive about it means that deep down you know it is simply legalised manipulation of the tax system. You claim to be some sort of accountant or financial advisor, so you know full well what a money scheme for the wealthy, negative gearing truly is.

Negative gearing provides a tax break to property investors, allowing those who own a second home to deduct the cost of interest payments and rental expenses from their tax. By allowing investors to claim a loss, negative gearing encourages speculation; if prices go up, you win; if prices go down, the government will cover part of your loss.

A win/win for the already wealthy. No wonder you defend it so savagely.

Col,

Danielle, Fractelle, and JR have said everything that presently needs to be said so I have nothing to add in response to your reply.

JR,

"The inability of some to walk in another’s shoes leads to some of the greatest inequities. Perhaps if a CEO tried to live for 6 months on the income of their lowliest employee, they would understand a little more what life on the edge is really like."

The CEO might discover that, in order to survive, the lowliest employee has already made the "sacrifices" they make to put away $1, 000 per month in Super.

Col

Bureaucrats are human, and I would guess that they could also be measured by human qualities.

I have trouble understanding what you are calling for. Perhaps you could look at English history before Margaret Thatcher. If you go back far enough you will find that free enterprise and philanthropy was all there was. Would that be better today? For me, government, courts, the private sector and the church are all part of the history and function of the civilisation we all enjoy today. I think that it is of far greater importance in improving the lot of human beings than careful planning. Cursing part of it seems silly.