Once again, some of the blokes at our barbeque got onto the state of the world, but this time, the whole lot, ladies as well as the blokes, are PI55ED off with Swanny, & Julia. This is for their attempt to have the states give a new subsidy to those lucky pensioners, who have scored public housing. The general opinion was an annoyance that labor always seem to want to do most for those who take least responsibility for themselves.

The three single pensioners in private rental housing, are paying almost double the rent that the public housing pensioners pay, & find themselves paying ever increasing state government charges to subsidise these lucky folk. They strongly resent any action likely to disadvantage them even further.

Then the home owners started doing a bit of math. It was a bit of a shock. After the huge increases in rates, insurance, & other charges we have had recently, we are paying almost pensioner public housing rental, before we even start to cover general maintenance.

As a matter of fact, we single pensioner home owners found we all have homes falling into disrepair, as we can no longer do some of the work ourselves, & do not have the money to pay for these things to be done. This is not so bad for couples it appears, but one recently widowed lady is quite worried, trying to make ends meet, now she is on the single pension. She is blaming no one but herself, but now preaches, "insure your partner before it's too late" to anyone who will listen.

Don't get me wrong. We are all very pleased with our pension system, & think the increase has been most gererous. We just don't see that we, or anyone else, for that matter, should have to pay more in government charges, so public housing tenants can be much better off than the rest of us.

The general opinion was an annoyance that labor always seem to want to do most for those who take least responsibility for themselves.

Unfortunately hasbeen that is life. Work hard, make sacrifices due to education expenses and what not, then get left on the scrap heap.

As I have often said, one is better off pissing all their money against the wall because at least then you will be looked after and that seems to apply no matter what government we have in power.

Evidence of this is in the fact that a former criminal is being provided with free public housing. Sometimes at as much as $4,000 per week.

We were once 'the lucky country', but now we are on an ever increasing 'down hill spiral'.

Our health system is getting ever closer to third world standards, many of our teachers are foriengers who themselves speak 'broken english' and we have a rappidly increasing population (mainly imigrants) and declining workforce to pay taxes.

Our new government is introducing new awards which will effect many workers overtime, which in turn will mean less people will pay possitive taxes, which means less income for the system, while more will be drawing from the system.

I guess the only comfort we can draw is that we were not born two or three generations from now as I hold grave fears for my kid's kids.

Hasbeen it is the way that both parties have operated for decades.They will punish the hard working majority in order to secure votes from minority groups.

We need and new political force in this country,since both the major parties occupy the same whore house.

I think you are all missing the point. What is happening is that some states are not increasing the rents on public housing after the $30 increase in pensions to ensure that the quality of life for pensioners is not reduced. For couples most of their measly rise would be absorbed by rental increases.

There has been much campaigning from pensioners over the last decade about how difficult it is to pay for basic food and bills -we've all seen the stories. I have dealth with many of these pensioner through work.

In the past rents went up with pension rises as a matter of course because the rents are calculated as a percentage of income. In the latest rounds given the poor state of pensioner living and lack of redress over many years the states are being encouraged not to increase the rents for at least one year or more.

Pensioners who rent private housing also receive rental assistance. Personally I think all pensioners should get a better deal whether in private or public housing, particularly with regard to fairer indexation of Super pensions.

If you are worried about wasting taxpayers money don't pick on the most vulnerable there are many better causes you could choose to spend your time in terms of government waste.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2698813.htm

http://www.finance.gov.au/superannuation/pension-indexation-review.html

And before the usual accusations fly: No we are not pensioners, we earn a comfortable living, we have no debts, we receive no money from governments and we rarely qualify for government handouts.

"The general opinion was an annoyance that labor always seem to want to do most for those who take least responsibility for themselves."

What else should we expect,

it is just the socialist swill paying off their voter base and expressing their contempt and loathing of anyone who had the foresight, character and ability to fund at least part of their own future.

Funny, then, that the general opinion isn't represented in the general voting pattern.

It's almost like Australian conservatives are so unable to see beyond their ideology that they'll go with any desperate excuse rather than acknowledge the faults in their reasoning. Sounds silly, I know.

Pelican, I see you rush to trot out that emotive word, vulnerable, to cover these pensioner public housing tenants. There could be no more incorrect use of the word. These are the most privileged pensioners in the country. No other pensioners have such secure, or such low cost housing, so quit the emotive stuff, please.

If you want a label to apply to them, try lucky. If you want to be less kind, think imprudent, or irresponsible, of those who have not provided their own accommodation.

None of those I know, providing for themselves, could even dream of having $200 a week left after paying for their accomodation. In the words of the song, "wouldn't it be lovely".

If you have some sympathy to throw around, try someone like Mary, a pensioner near me.

She is paying off a $2200 loan, she had to take out, to pay for repairs, when her septic system died.

At 3Km from the corner shop, & 20km fron a supermarket, & no public transport, she needs a car.

Her 15 year old car's service is now 7000Km overdue, but she has no money, after paying her loan.

She is frightened the car will die, & leave her in a bigger mess.

Her old place would not buy her a place in town, & pay for a professional move, so she's stuck, as there is no way she could do it herself.

She'd happily give her place away, if she could get into public housing, in town, but has been told, she has no chance, unless she suffers a major injury, or a heart attack. What a prospect to be wishing for.

So Pelican, Swanny, & Julia, I think your sympathy may be misplaced.

Those Bar B q ,s of hasbeen seem to attract an unhappy mob.
Just like those who find reason to support his views in OLO.
Some learning difficulty's are in plain sight.
A refusal to see voters disagree, that not every pensioner is a bludgers, and that most conservatives would not agree with them.
Poor old Col, truly bloke you are an offensive beggar no other way to describe you.
But joy oh true joy, you will have to live under us ALP people for many years to come.
Tell me are soarer grapes on the menu?

Hasbeen
You obviously did not read my post in any detail jumping immediately into the defensive mode to protect your position that aged pensioners in public housing are the Lucky People. I am sorry but this is just not true.

Yes, they are luckier than pensioners (and others) who are on ridiculously long waiting lists or the homeless but they are not lucky.

Your friend Mary is one of the vulnerable people too - can you not see that from the meaning in my previous post. If you can't, then I am not sure how differently I can word it.

Vulnerable is an emotive word because it is valid. An aged pensioner is vulnerable purely on the basis that they have no opportunities or power at their age to change their circumstances. Especially as most of today's aged pensioners worked hard in the knowledge their governments would look after them - there was no Superannuation. In fact they paid extra tax during their working life to ensure that security.

Yes I will stick by my world vulnerable without apology.

Yes Pelican, I read your post, but it is meaningless to say, all pensioners should get a better deal, if you don't say what should be cut to give it to them.

If you want to get rid of half the public servants, I'll go with you, as that is the biggest area of waste, today, but there are many other areas of need to use any savings.

As a single pensioner, myself, I don't think we are too badly done by. Nothing like the ridiculously high super, paid to ex public servants, but better than at any time in the past.

For those of us who can still potter around, & do many of our own repairs, we are OK, & now we know of Mary's problems, she'll be OK too.

If some of our social workers got into it, they could have self help groups going every where. There are 1200 people in my area, many younger ones, working their guts out, just to survive. However, there must be 10% pensioners, many who would not push into others lives, unless invited. Those I have got to know, since I retired, are hapy to help out. Organising programs to facilitate this would be really worth while, & cost stuff all.

I don't like going onto my roof, to clean out the gutters alone, I'm not that athletic these days. I feel much happier when a neighbour dropes in, & chats to me, from the ground. That's where the barbeque group comes in. We can watch some old fool up a ladder, or on a roof, & solve the problems of the world, at the same time.

However, we will never approve of extra welfare for one lot, at the cost of the others, & that's what Swanny, & Julia are pushing for.

Oops I posted this response on the Julia Gillard thread in error so have pasted it here if Graham allows.

Hasbeen you don't seem to be following your own rules - I am just following your lead. You are complaining about government housing pensioners versus the plight of other pensioners but what are you offering in the way of meaningful suggestions.

We are in agreeance that both groups need help but don't take the decisions of politicians out on other pensioners.

It is a bit like comparing poverty in one nation with poverty in another country. They are both poverty even if one of them does not suffer in quite the same way as the other.

I am not sure why you started this topic just to have a go at one lot of pensioners over another lot of pensioners.

In terms of government waste I agree and have always been in favour of curbing waste just not in the essential services area or in staff who actually do serve the public.

Belly
Given the country party flavour to his horribly twitter and bistered comment. One is inclined to predict the main course ..... Green eyed, Raw Prawns.
He He He :-)

Hasbeen and All
I haven't seen such a load of stereotyping rubbish since I tried typing on two typewriters at the same time at the age of 3.

Sure They're lucky compared to some but this monocular, myopic misanthropic collection of generalisations, half truths in their spray is offensive as it is inaccurate.

Pity they don't read something other than the daily Murdock and Fairfax drivel and actually have real facts .

In any group there are good and bad.
This 'baby and bath water' attitude does none of the people any credit, if reported correctly.
I'm almost willing to bet that if some of these private renters could get a public property they would .
- change their minds
- continue to bitch that the property wasn't good enough (up to their standards) given they had blah blah all their lives.

PS Has any of this lot heard of Home Assist, Service clubs, VIP, council assistance groups?
All these help seniors with maintenance. (all available to seniors in Qld SE). Then again there are butchers in The gold coast that sell direct from farm meat, eggs, milk cheap AND they offer Cheap Tuesdays pensioner savings. Well at least they did 3 weeks ago (last time I was in Qld). Mum (85yo) told me they were on the TV again last week.

I also beg to differ Hasbeen.
The poorest, most needy people I go to in the community, except for the homeless, are the single pensioners who don't own their own home.

Obviously they are in public housing because they could never afford the usual rent.The government is not known for their charitable works as far as giving money away!

The pensioners who own their own homes (but no other assets) don't need to pay any rent at all, and most seemed able to do more financially with their time than the others (like both my parents and their friends).

Sounds like sour grapes to me Hasbeen? Walk a mile in most of the state-housing pensioners shoes before you comment next time.

Pelican; You are complaining about government housing pensioners versus the plight of other pensioners but what are you offering in the way of meaningful suggestions.

I will give you a meaningful suggestion. Give tax payers assurity that a portion of the taxes they pay, throughout there working life, will be returned to them in the form of a pension no matter how much or how little money they amass throughout their working life and I think you will see a different story.

Where else in life do you contribute lots, yet receive little, or zero.

It's a bit like buying a pizza, only you get the box while someone else gets the pizza.

Until something is done , we will continue to see the 'doers' crusified while the 'non-doers' get rewarded.

Keeping ones money under ones pillow sounds good hey! Why pay the taxes, you won't benefit in the long run unless some serious changes are forth comming.

I think we need a lot less Govt and more individual repsonsibility.Once you take from individuals reponsibility,they don't try as hard to secure their own futures,thus we have whole generations of dysfunctional people who are a burden to themselves and the tax payer.

The other side to big Govt is that 50% of taxes collected are wasted in the bureaucracy.We have tax churning whereby 60% are being taxed and the money handed back in the form of social security.It is insane.Just get Govt out of our lives and 95% will be far better off.

Dr Ron Paul the member for Texas USA beleives in eliminating whole Govt Depts.No dept of Education for example.Perhaps he is right.

Tax payers, well maybe not the rich, pay for pensioners in advance, via tax.
If red necks think about it pensioners are not the problem.
If our well of wealthy say paid tax's we could get a living pension.
Now rechtub are you aware ,or hasbeen for that matter, how much workers contribute via superannuation?
Do you understand ow much was lost by Joe and jean average in the GFC?
Lost because of non tax paying rich adventuring with money they did not own.
I see that BBQ crowd in My mind rechtub brings the snags Wilson Tucky the cook.
Bronwyn Bishop sings, Abbot standing in front of the mirror.
And out the back Malcolm Turnbull desperately trying to show them this mornings polling.
By the way I contribute 20% of my wages to try to live without a pension superannuation if used well is the best hope for a future for pensioners.

Belly; >>Now rechtub are you aware ,or hasbeen for that matter, how much workers contribute via superannuation?

Well, in fact, I would suggest very little on a grand scale. Most super is from employer contributions and we all know that a mere 9% saved each year, assumming they remain employed, will not cut the mustard.

>>Do you understand ow much was lost by Joe and jean average in the GFC?

Yes, but are you aware that in many cases the very reason they contributed to super in the first place was to offset their income taxes.

Now if you take the gamble, you must also accept the risk.

The fact remains that the system is wrong.

I am approaching 50. Now if I were to retire at 55, cash in my super, sell all my assetts and go on a 'spending spree', holiday here and there, become a ;grey nomad' and swap my house for a traveling rig and unlimately spend every cent before I turn (67 now), I would be eligible for the full pension.

Yet, if I was wise and retain my assett base to become 'self suficient' then I would receive very little assistance what so ever and, I would spend countless hours trying to prove my financial position, esspecially if I was on the 'edge'.

Most self funder retirees will tell you that they don't care about the pension, they simply want the perks of retirement, health care card, discounted scipts, discounted rates etc. Now what is so wrong about that?

I say again, they must stop rewarding the 'under achievers' at the expense of the 'achievers'.

rehctub
It is nice to be able to agree with you for a change :).

We made a big mistake, IMO, when we handed over the security of our retirement so completely to the private sector.

Perhaps a medicare type levy for a guaranteed secure pension on retirement and private super companies providing second optional extras should people wish to top up the pot.

There is an unbelievable amount of waste in government that could also be directed to pensioners now. Over the years the APS has become so top heavy with budget cuts affecting mainly those in the lower ranks who provide real services to people in the community.

We have so many managers managing at every tier or oversighting that the real work and services are not being done properly through lack of resources - we have more people managing than doing. This is not to minimise the importance of effective management, merely lamenting the growth in overmanagement and creation of jobs to create the image of doing something than really doing something.

Belly “Poor old Col, truly bloke you are an offensive beggar no other way to describe you.”

As Belly, from the left of the pendulum proving what I said

“…….expressing their contempt and loathing of anyone who had the foresight, character and ability to fund at least part of their own future.”

As well as trying (feebly) to castigate anyone dare cast a spotlight on the manipulative nature of socialism.

No sour grapes… I make my own way.. and these days, offshore environs are looking good… then I can just pop back to partake of the “socialist freebies”.

As to soarer grapes… mmmm…. I have heard of diamonds which ring and pigs which fly … but never a soaring grape…

maybe they have been developed by some entrepreneurial horticulturalist/vintner to put more of a “lift” into champagne.

“I think we need a lot less Govt and more individual repsonsibility.Once you take from individuals reponsibility,they don't try as hard to secure their own futures,thus we have whole generations of dysfunctional people who are a burden to themselves and the tax payer.”

Exactly

As dearest Margaret said….

“I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

Instead, those who have avoided the reasonable expectations of “self-care” are set up by the socialists as a tax burden on those who were wise, prudent, self-responsible and industrious.

As rehctub said “I say again, they must stop rewarding the 'under achievers' at the expense of the 'achievers'.”

But that is the first rule of socialism, rehctub, -

level the just returns due to the wise and prudent and force them to subsidise their incompetent socialist brethren

The problem with rash generalisations is one size fits no one in particular.

My point earlier was that there are many and varied valid reasons why :-
a. People are the way they are;
b. Therefore in the circumstances they are in, many are reasonably beyond their control.
c. Public housing is difficult to get. Long delays (years in some cases). Hardly something to bank on.

Returning(?) grey nomads tend to live in Caravan parks until they go into old aged homes... or die. Where's the public housing there? Show me the statistics in stead of green eyed drivel.

I also suggest some look up the superannuation rules about early retirement withdrawals.

True getting a place in an awful block in an unsafe area is quicker but....

Then there's the disabled, those unable to work, those who can't get jobs and those that had to spend their immature super on surviving. etc. Let's not forget those that haven't got the skills to get permanent jobs and therefore haven't been able to save. Oh yes there are single mums but not all of them are dead beats.

Fact...The elderly use the greatest part of the social security budget.
Next. Super is a relatively new concept especially for casuals.
Some casuals have long forced breaks between jobs. So their super is simply inadequate.
A case study...
Take my sister in law (please?) worked from 18-49 as a nun in a church run old folks home then had to leave. No super, no payout nothing just her dowry ($4000) back.
Who was going to hire her no real qualification skills etc...
finally another 10 years as a lackey in a privately own Old folks home (her super $28000) but she can't get it until she's sixty five.
She now has many physical (job) related issues.
While she is but one case there are other reasonable tales.
So I say look beyond your bias, green eyed nonsense and re think. The reasonableness of this horrible stance. News paper and political parties feed on this type of sensationalised tripe. Think don't just follow.

Examinator,
You referred to 'butchers that sell direct from farm, meat' and implied it was cheap.

Last I heard, all meat sold HAS to be from animals killed in a licenced abitoirs, so it cannot come direct from farm. After slaughter the carcase has to go to another facility for breaking down.
That facility would most likely have to be licenced as well. It is a marketing ploy and simply implies that it is cheaper, or better, than a shop. Very few farms could supply the range of meat cuts consumers demand. I do not know of any.

I also have a feeling that the sale of milk is also regulated. Eggs used to be regulated as well but not any more. How 'free reange' is free range. My guess is very little and a marketing ploy as well.

I am sure rehctub would know the exact laws here.

Banjo,
They bill themselves that way and claim that they avoid wholesalers.
According to mum and eAnt they interviewed on TV the grazier who's property they come from. eAnt says it was on Ch 7 or 9.

My experience with a/the shop in question at the GC is that the meat and bread are cheaper than the super markets by a fair way.
However the point made Hasbeen was that there are ways in Qld Gold coast to counter his BBQ guests claim they were so poor and disadvantaged that they were justified (sic) in their spray.

NB I didn't point to mum who owns her own home and is doing nicely enough not to need help from me, although offered. I don't know the details of the BBQ guests other than they were spraying public housing tenents unjustly.

Ebenezer Scrooge (aka Col)
As I have said before, you, clearly value/judge people by their wealth, value and proximity to you.

The trouble with your dog eat dog philosophy is that you simply leave cleaning up, (victims, vulnerable) to others. They're still there regardless perhaps more of them because of those of your mind set. The outcome of your philosophy can be seen in the back streets of most Philippine cities....slums. Personally I prefer our way.

Life is made up by various shades of grey not Black or White and a philosophy to be relevant contextually valid.(Maggie' extreme perspective were political and less that perfect/humane. But definitely out of context and relevancy today. You would have been at home with Joh and his antediluvian views )

BTW. There IS a difference between Socialism and socialised welfare.
Never let facts get in the way of a self serving myopic rant

Examinator, for one who is so proud of their literary ability, you show little comprehension of simple english.

If you had understood, you would have seen the "spray" was for Swanny, & Julia, trying to get greenie points, pushing for a state paid for, advantage to pensioners in public housing.

Now I know math is not a speciality of our lefty, bleeding hearts, but I would have thought anyone, with just simple arithmetic, would be able to see, that these folk are the best off of all who are totally dependant on the age pension. This is a fact, not a bitch.

The only possible reason to be unable to see this would be a case of ideology getting in the way.

However, at no time did I mention any complaint of this, although, some others perhaps did.

What I did complain of, was that our two sharpies wanted to give them a special advantage, available to no others. This appears to be for the political advantage only, & of no other use. Reading your last post, it worked very well, with it's target audience.

Don't you feel even just a little manipulated by this type of smartarse politicking?

Banjo - free range eggs... I have it on good authority that given the choice between sitting in a cage, next to the food supply and being allowed to run "free" but distant form a food supply... chickens would sit in the cage.

So, even when given a "free choice"..... chickens have abandoned "free-range".

It is just a load of sentimental cods-wallop invented to feed the guilt of all the "chooks", of another species -

just like AGW

the notion that you make the poor richer by making the rich poorer

or

that "government" can produce and contribute more than it can tax.




Now to his serene majesty, the Grandiose Examinator “As I have said before, you, clearly value/judge people by their wealth, value and proximity to you.”


And you are free to make your silly, brown-cardigan psycho-analytical judgments and to be wrong.

If your opinion mattered I might even be offended….

As it is….

I am not offended, for the simple reason

You really are just expressing your small minded, judgmental drivel, which is completely free of any relevance.

Have a nice life… and don’t hold your breath I will be recalling you in my memoirs.


People do not “develop” or “Grow” as individuals, without motivation or reward or goals and the socialist safety net (accompanied by excessive socialist taxation), is the biggest de-motivator and destroyer of personal reward and goals to have ever been conceived.


But we know, from the socialist utopias of the past, dissent is not allowed, freedom of expression and freedom of movement are denied the individual.

The state owns everything, is everything and personal development is outlawed…..

Such a regulated existence lacks the essential elements which many equate with even a simple “life”.

So “As I have said before, you, clearly value/judge people by their wealth, value and proximity to you.”

Apart from being wrong, you are misguided and pointless…

I really wonder why an irrelevant, non-contributory tic, like you, even bothers to post… unless you view self-aggrandizement and pomposity as there own reward.

Examinator,
I think you are reading far too much into Hasbeen's first post.

I can understand pensioner home owners feeling a bit agreived as, generally speaking, they saved up a home deposit then paid off the home over many years and now they are penalised because they did not spend all their income on other items. Certainly some public housing renters, through no fault of their own, have had extenuating circumstances that stopped them buying a home, but many have simply spent their available income on their own entertainment.

This matter has arrisen because of severe local rate rises this year and they may also be faced with home maintenance issues, such as guttering replacement or other larger items.

It seems that the non-home owner is also allowed about $120,000 more in assetts value than a home owner, before full pension is affected.

While there is a couple it is manageable but when one is widowed the income is halved. That makes it difficult but in the same situation, the public housing pensioner receives a rental cut because the rent paid is based in income.

So I can understand the homeowner pensioner feeling discriminated against when compared to his workmate, who got public housing.

I can see him saying:- "Joe and I worked together for 40 years, got the same pay and had the same number of kids. He played the pokies and did all his pay, while I bought my house. Nearly every week, the day before payday, I had to lend him a quid. Now he is far better off than me, who's the mug."

The entire system (taxation) needs a long overdue overhaul.

Many people in ‘small business’ now trade as companies. This is often due to distancing themselves personally and, due to taxation laws, particularly ‘provisional tax’ that, apart from being very unfair, is often the nail in the coffin for many sole traders.

Now I have always stated that if one were to be assured of receiving a pension, based on their tax paid, it would encourage people to become ‘less dishonest’ when it comes to paying taxes, which, in the grand scale of things would be beneficial to the economy as more tax would be paid meaning less money would be borrowed by governments.

At the moment, people in business, or even every day workers who accumulate assets over and above their principle home, know full well they will not receive any, or very little assistance once they retire, therefore they are less likely to pay their full taxes and continually search for ways to minimise their taxes, even if it sometimes involves risky investments and why can you blame them.

With taxes being the primary source of revenue for governments, surely it would be better to reward high taxpayers by offering a comfortable retirement rather than punish them, as is the case now.

At the very least it would be good to see a ‘case study’ into a system like this.

Col sorry but my view of you is unlikely to change get your kicks out of my education and spelling but I refrain from reminding you what I think of you.
Pay as you go pensions?
Can it be some do not understand we have been there?
6 Penny's a week was said to be for pensions a great time ago ,it did not work, and was socialism.
Of interest America collects such but has spent it, not on pensions but paying of debt.
rechtub, know bloke I truly do not dislike you.
You have made it in your shops good luck to you.
But you do talk rubbish mate.
People of my age worked hard for our money, very hard long hours.
I always put every cent I could into super.
On finding out I could no longer stay silent about true crime and neglect in a government department I took a redundancy.
Paid cash for my home put most in another super fund and started work again.
My 20% is on top of the 9% a payment all workers took instead of wage rises.
Do you understand that?
instead of wage rises, this country will be better for it.
Superannuation is paying your own pension, as it should be, will be in another 50 years once tax laws are changed and wasteful spend ups out lawed.
and bloke you to can add cattle not killed in the right place to your inventory it is done often.
And know I am working till I can no longer do my job right not holidaying on the coast my WASP dad died working I may too.

Pelican;Perhaps a medicare type levy for a guaranteed secure pension on retirement and private super companies providing second optional extras should people wish to top up the pot.

Sound good to me, it worked for the 'gun buy back' so why not for your retirement.

My fear though is that our future goverments will simply waste it of take it from us to assist those who chose not to contribute. A bit like what is already happening.

The idea would be worth consideration though. Cheers

Belly;
My 20% is on top of the 9% a payment all workers took instead of wage rises.
Do you understand that?

What I do understand is that 20% of ones wage is not the norm.

Most people struggle to put a meal on the table, let alone save 20% of their income each and every week.

You are in 'fairy land' if you think that's the norm!

It would also suggest that your members are not getting value for money, considering your wage, along with your union mates are paid for by your members and, if one can save 20% of that wage, then I smell a rat!

Now as for 9% instead of a pay rise.

So how come we had the introduction of paid super and the increasing of same from 3% to 9% mostly during a time of recession, record unemployment and record high interest rates?

Why would any responsible government grant 9% pay rises 'accross the board' during such 'tough times'?

My theory is Two words - Labor Goverment.

The fact of the matter remains, we 'boom' when we don't have a labor government and we 'crash' when we do. Modern history proves this and you can't deny it.

p.s. I hope not to many of your 'slush fund contributers' are on this site as they may well be questioning their reasons for being a member of such an organisation, esspecially considering their leaders are able to put away 20% of their pay while they struggle to feed, house and cloth themselves.

Belly “Col sorry but my view of you is unlikely to change get your kicks out of my education and spelling but I refrain from reminding you what I think of you.”

As in you were “refrained” with your unsolicited description of me as

“an offensive beggar“

Stop raising the banner of self pity and self righteousness, Belly.

All you are doing is enhancing the depth of your patent hypocrisy.

The point is: you wrote something completely different to what you intended.
You did not make a spelling error.
I did not question your education standards.

I simply made a subtle (intellectual even) point in responding to your personal and unwarranted ad hominine re-“an offensive beggar“, on me, which pointed out your own stupidity.

So Belly, some words of advise
If you cannot take it – do not bother to hand it out.

For all the socialists out there remember this
when all is said and done, governments do nothing, people do.

None of the rules, regulation and leveling will make the poor less ineffectual.

A self-made man will overcome the indignity of being disposed by the state and rise again (that is why Lenin and Stalin would have them executed) but the poor man will, regardless of all the “socialist effort”, remain in the gutter, because that is often where he chooses to be.

Keep your socialism, it leads no where and leave libertarians, like me, to cut our own way through life.

If you only had the courage to try for yourself, you would find it is a more rewarding life path than just sitting in the middle of your imaginary "safety net".

Banjo,
Thank you for that explanation. I did understand the perspective expressed but my point was to point out that:
- This spray didn't differentiate or even show any apparent consideration there of. It is this short myopic focus that help propagate unjustified prejudice against others. Sadly many tend to shoot off at the computer without due care/thought for those who may also get sprayed unjustly.

- I reject the notion that everyone should get the same in everything is (that is communistic in notion).

I work hard for what I have arguable harder than some with more. By those standards I am disadvantaged in some way.
By any reasoned standard that attitude is green eyed, to bitch about declaring that I'm hardly done by it is raw prawning.

To me if the govt deems to spend more on the less well off ....each to their NEEDS NOT WANTS. Provided I have enough to eat etc. a little for discretionary spending I see no need to covert what others have...but that's me. Of course I want more but by my own efforts and choice not because someone else has/gets more than me.

The post been could have said that some public housing renters appear to get unjustified benefits in which case. With qualifications I probably would have agreed. The question THEN begs what to reasonably do about it? Both by encouraging others to try harder and bureaucratically reduce the level of abuse.

I can only respond to the words and apparent meanings and their logical consequences.
People go me when I'm ambiguous or get it wrong (as it should be).

NB I am contemptuous of the attitude in the post not the individuals involved, how can I be I don't know them.

rechtub how did you get the idea I think 20% is the norm?
I never claimed to think that.
In fact this very much ALP voter thinks every pay rise should be halved, so half goes into superannuation, half in the pay packet.
Remember super is not government cash, it is ours.
The world will always have poor and needy, I have no problems with paying for them.
Extra tax's no worries.
I have been single for many years, the cash I once used to bring up kids is mine.
I want no hand outs am trying to pay for my own retirement, if I live to stop work.
20% is not easy but Worth while.
Again do you get any exercise other than jumping to conclusions?
Bet my views on pensions are not much different than yours.
We all [those who work and earn] pay our own via super, tax breaks for super should increase but it must be used to live not wasted then pensions for all.
However rechtub try living on a pension aged 20 with an acquired disability, you could end up IN an old mens home, for life.
Those from my side of the fence who refuse to See the value in paying our pensions in advance our selves so we can help such as those live in fantasy land.
Hope the wedding went or gos well for our English gentle man.
May the loverly lady be strong enough to live with your liver ailment.

Can we get the bar b q mob together this morning?
Tell you what rechtub I will throw 60 bucks in for the meat, if I can watch.
Love a laugh.
Bronwyn can sing while Julie dances on the grave of real party talent rejected in QLD.
Ten maybe 15 will be mumbling under paper bags they have over their heads to me media and themselves.
National party members will be crashing in snatching sangs from Liberals and calling it victory.
But when we get down to the lettuce sandwich's in the conservatives rooms in a few weeks?
Unity, well sort of.
The needless in fighting the dance with the death adder of both house elections.
Who would lead if not Turnbull
Hang on Bronny is singing Hockey is our jockey.
As a punter I an unimpressed his horse has only got one leg.

Belly, you turn every thread into a labor celebration and while you may see our political situation 'as a bit of a laugh', believe me, it is actually no laughing matter.

Here we have a situation whereby the libs gained power back in the mid 90's, with record debt, record unemployment and high interest rates.

Notwithstanding the fact that they inherited some of the most damaging IR laws, which they battled with for several years, It took some of the toughest decisions ever before made in Australia's political history, by the howard government and almost 12 years to right the wrongs, even to a point whereby they had 'money in the bank', albeit, at the peril of telstra.

To now have a government, that in less than two years has plunged us into a state of financial dismay is one thing, but to have someone like you 'crow about them' in the knowledge that your kids kids and their kids will pay for this for the rest of their lives is truly amazing to say the least.

Just remember your actions when your extended family grow up to find that, they can’t see a doctor, (that's assuming they don't die in an ambulance waiting) can’t afford an education and try living day to day, in a ‘dog eat dog’ work environment all because your beloved labor government had another ‘brainstorming attempt’ at running the country we once referred to as ‘the lucky country’ because all of these were what was considered by many as 'a way of life' until now.

Almost the makings of a good novel hey!. It's a pity it's 'not fictional'!

Enjoy your laugh mate!

No intent to hurt you but you do right some rubbish rechtub.
In fact time and again here in print you win my argument for me.
Inherited what IR system?
Are you aware, do you know labor first took to the IR laws bringing in big changes under hawk and Keiting?
Or that the GFC has taken place? this time the classic conservative blindness, can not go unchallenged.
That elephant in the room is a heard of them trumpeting and urinating on the rug but you fail to even see it.
Rudd coped it for high interest rates then low interest rates, now for being a success.
For being the worlds first economy to Begin the climb back.
The IR system your bloke put in place took away holidays overtime fair wages , and rechtub it swept away your party.
For a generation, facts butch the best help Rudd has ,the worst enemy conservatives have, is conservatives who think like you.
You must give events time to unfold, let me assure you your mob will cave in, not much after or before the Melbourne cup this lost man will get his way, it will look like it at least.
He will never win an election, always be a victim of some in his party.
Will be replaced one day, but it is 20 members of his party that should go let talent enter the house, have to be very safe seats how ever, see rechtub fewer each day share your views.

Col,

'
Apart from being wrong, you are misguided and pointless…

I really wonder why an irrelevant, non-contributory tic, like you, even bothers to post… unless you view self-aggrandizement and pomposity as there own reward.'

Col, I have a rotten hangover, and you have made my day! Just when I had become bored with pointing out the self-aggrandisement of pontificator (aka the worlds most altruistic counsellor), you have expressed my opinions so eloquently. You are a true treasure of OLO.

In fact things are so quiet around OLO, with no 'gender war' storms for me to chase, and no Piper, that I fear you are carrying the whole site on your broad shoulders. Bravo!

Belly “However rechtub try living on a pension aged 20 with an acquired disability, you could end up IN an old mens home, for life.”

That is a fraudulent suggestion in the context, rehctub was referring to the much larger number of “age” pensioners, suffering no defect except those commonly experienced with advancing years versus those few folk with any acquired and significant physical disability (who, depending upon how they acquired such injury, might well be worthy of particular compassion).

Ultimately no one should see an age pension as their first option for retirement when we all know such a public burden does not represent an “equitable” share in the resources of the Common-wealth (tax levied funds)

“Hope the wedding went or gos well for our English gentle man.
May the loverly lady be strong enough to live with your liver ailment.”

The wedding will be a memorable event, recorded for posterity in photos and video.

The “lovely lady”, whilst weighing in at a mere 43kg is of a strong physical disposition and mind and since I have never had any “liver ailment”, I am sure we will both “cope” with the responsibilities we take on in the spirit of love, union and mutual enrichment.

Houellebecq you return and have been much missed… I delight at your levity and elevation of the debate.

My shoulders are broad... and hips narrow... that is one of the side benefits with marrying a health fanatic. Plus we dance Tango which produces a sensual vista....

You did request photos some time ago and assume you got them….

Oh Col, my day is just getting better and better. I don't normally look at that email account as it serves as a diversion for all the junk mail you get when you sign up for sites. (Privacy Policies are about as useful and effective and believable as the do not call register).

But wow, I can see that rather than embellishing the descriptions of your good self and your lovely lady (which I'm sure many of your detractors on OLO would assume), you are actually being too modest. Such a finely tailored suit, and I'm sure of the highest quality fabric, worn by someone who has obvious and effortless poise and class.

Also, I can see why you are so smitten with your future missus. She looks like a lovely spirited lady Col. A natural beauty too. It's only fitting that you should be accompanied by such a lady, and I'm sure she is a worthy partner for you in the 'spirit of love, union and mutual enrichment' (C.Rouge) you describe.

'Plus we dance Tango which produces a sensual vista.... '
And a more sensual vista than that I cannot imagine, after seeing you too dressed up to the nines like that!

Houellebecq so you got the image .. that is good LOL

I think you are too kind in your lavish description of me but to the future Mrs CR – “beautiful” is an understatement..

Re “Also, I can see why you are so smitten with your future missus.”

Oh too right.. absolutely, smitten to bits

Anyway .. it pleases me that you enjoy HA HA..

your posts always lighten my spirits.

Are you aware, do you know labor first took to the IR laws bringing in big changes under hawk and Keiting?
Or that the GFC has taken place? this time the classic conservative blindness, can not go unchallenged.

Yes, belly, I am aware that labor made huge changes to IR laws and believe me, there has been none in my lifetime so damaging as those.

Now I am aware of the GFC, which is why I am amazed at how the now labor government is once again building walls between employers and employees.

In my industry, overtime is essential to most as the basic wage is quite low.

So, in all their wisdom the new IR laws now require ‘tea money’ to be paid on any day that one works more than 1.5 hours over their normal rostered ‘ordinary hours’.

Well you can kiss overtime good by cause our industry simply can’t afford that.

So what are our people going to rely on now to feed their families?

Another is Sunday work.

If an employee works every Sunday, as part of their roster, they must be given a three day weekend, including sat & sun per month. WITHOUT PAY! How can they afford this I ask?

Now the other problem this causes is that they can not work their full 38hr one week due to having the days off, unless of cause there is a roster change made every fourth week. More paper work!

Also, who is going to cover for them on their long weekends?

Then there is the classic case of ‘flexible work hours for carers’. Another mess!

And you recon we are better off. Remember, I never supported workchoices, nor did I use it to my advantage. So why am I, along with my staff being screwed around?

All this during a time when most employees are worried about their jobs, their homes and their families.

And you think it's all for the better!