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".