So here we go again, not only does she want to increase the super by 25%, but madam PM says that workers should share in the spoils of this great economy that we (labor) have created through our sheer brilliance.

Sure, our mining sector and banking sector is very strong, and to some extent our building industry, courtesy of natural disasters, but that's about it.

Retail, one of the largest employers of low paid workers is almost on it's knees, and I'm not talking about Coles and Wollies.

Tourism is worse, in fact, it's almost gone, along with manufacturing.

Agriculture is fast becoming a non-viable industry, and that's even if the farmers crops don't ripen on a Sunday.

By all means madam PM, look after the low paid, but not at the risk of killing off small employers.

Take from the rich and give to the poor if you have to, but I urge the government to think this trough very carefully, as this may well be the pay rise to end all pay rises.

great to be on the same page
but for different reasons

''not only does she want to increase the super by 25%""

are you talking about increasing super CONTIBUTions
or super payouts?

i can presume its increasing the inputs
niot the outputs

se how she is serving the money masters?
AGAIN

globally the opension scemes are busted [bankrupted]
..via the money market bailouts
securities fraud],

thus the need to cash them up by stealing ever more increases
these fools owned the world...but lost it in the banker bailouts
thus need the new cash top ups to meet default..

i could never get how govt could say
we need supper...will even top-up super *today
because we cant pay super/pensions ...tomorrow*

yet today..we can pay both
but tomorrow none?

HUH?

""madam PM says""
says egsactly what the faceless men[running the two party scam tell her to say...[does EGSACTLY what they tell her to do]

why?
she dont work for the workers
she works for the master's
faceless thieves

we say platitudes
"" that workers should share in the spoils""

while they continue to despoil
[our super is lESS than our contributions
if we had sinmply BANKED it we would have intrest

""this great economy that we(labor)have created""
it was howards scam to begin
just like the big new tax was his sceme as well
both partioes are run
by the same faceless men

""through their sheer brilliance"".

watch
'cassino jack and the united states of money]
last nights sbs ..cutting edge special

thats the scam*

its more than just natzie cowboys and gulible/indians
realise the money market largess..is run their scam..the same way

GLOBALLY*

...Why not pensions pegged to employment history, as in Chile? Workers carry an employment record book through their working life, and on retirement age, the pension is paid in pro rata to length of employment service...

...Another sure way to avoid the necessity of ever increasing pensions would be to fix the mess that “Market forces” has made of housing affordability for its citizens...

One Under God you I think are a battler, so I will appeal to you.
Increasing super payments, that is bosses paying more, is ALP policy.
My old mate rechtub is more than very well off, he has told us of his butcher shops and wealth.
Are we aware, any of us, that past super contributions have at times been paid by giving up wage increases?
I put [after taking a VR at age 55, 20% in to super, my contributions and theirs, in my new Job.
Two years before pulling the pin went to 28%.
Not rich, not even well of, but I can live without welfare for ten years, and intend to.
In time some party will, surely, bring in laws that say WE MUST NOT SQUANDER SUPERANNUATION .
But live ON it, in doing so, taking the load off working tax payers we can afford true living pensions/welfare for those who need it.
Nothing is wrong with this ALP policy.
Workers wages are the oil that small business runs on.
Attempts to lower living standards also lowers growth and profits.

super may be alp/policy
but john howard brought it in
and i remember how..he brought it in
by low-wages..*not getting their payrise

i also recall his excuse was future govts
couldnt afford pensions

well look at how it is today

govt is paying pensions
and paying future*pensions as well..
[via the govt top-up contribution's]

in other words it cant afford..*just one tomorrow
but can afford..*BOTH* today lol

look at the results of that..*COMPULSORY SUPER
many have actually got a balance..below what they put in

[be it rediculous fees and charges
or the huge losses from two years ago]..

thing is govts have raided pension-scemes overseas..
and no reason it wont do so again

recall one of the big reasons for howards slushfund[where a lot of telstra shares went into..was to cover super for po-lies and public servants...[ie their own sceme..]

so no matter what..*they get their pensions]..
even though the rest of us dont[so we been told]

meanwhile we are pumping
ever more money into the share-markets...

big-funds holders are taking over other business
in short getting nice board positions
with our compulsory funds
they gamble with

we may well hold a share..of many shares
but get none of the NORMAL advantages..[discounts] etc
holding shares USUALLY holds..

we are simply overinflating the market prices..
[just wait and see how much your kids collect

its like a pyramid sceme
you first-in..got a return
the last-out get nothing..[its all built on a lie]

it is absurd that BOTH parties
are following the gulible spin

dont you recall just two years ago..
super..went down bigtime

the next bubble is about to bust..soon
this time
they really going to loose..all ya kids super

[all that wasted govt/money
propping up the money-markets...
based on a lie..sold us by two-party sellouts..
and faceless money/men

you put in..28 percent
that bought you ten years
soon your going to be..on a pension
[if you live longer than 10 years]..

but what of your kids..when they
got no pension

you will be of the generation
that was lucky enough..to get anything at all

OUG says >>super may be alp/policy
but john howard brought it in
and i remember how..he brought it in
by low-wages..*not getting their payrise

No he did not.

Keating brought it in in the early 90's and the rate was 3%. I know as I was in business.

It's funny how this same argument about a 'trade off' for a wage increase keeps popping up.

In fact, this supposed 'in Lu of a wage increase' has in its self increased by some 300% in less than 20 years. Not a bad increase hey! And of cause, we still have a 'zero' mandatory input by employees in most industries.

Now let me think of something else that has had a 300% increase in 20 years. No, sorry, can't think of one at this point.

Now she wants this to increase by yet another 25%.

My bet is this pay rise will be to soften the blow as I recon there is an agenda somewhere to make employees at least contribute some of the next increase. Let's see if i'am wrong.

Coming from the angle of a 'small employer' in one of the 'worst sectors', retail, let me tell you this will have dire consequences if implemented, and you can quote me on that one.

Continued