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

diver dan, I to have long held the belief that one's pension should be calculated by the amount one has contributed to the public purse.

Trouble is, thanks to our 'tall poppy' attitudes, our system is the exact opposite.

It is little wonder there is so much resentment by self funded retirees, who, after spilling their guts for years get left on the scrap heap while the assistance goes to those regarded as 'the needy', even if they have pissed their life and savings away.

Why else do you think the wealthy find ways to minimise or avoid taxes, given the treatment that their predecessors (today's SF retirees) were given. It's not as if you get rewarded for your efforts, is it!

This is why so many today enjoy the spoils of their efforts 'here and now' with flash cars, boats, apartments, holidays etc, because they know there is little point in paying the extra taxes, so why not enjoy the here and now.

ok so howard gets the credit
it was still an indexed wage increase we didnt get

its still artificially inflating the value of the stockmarket price[too much money to those who only shuffle money around]

im a self funded retiree
i diversified mt super..invested in paintings and valuble metals antiques and pottery..old watches and stamps and coins

the problem being super all just goes into the stock market
it dosnt actually own real things..[only shares]

and as we know dividend in shares is allways well below par
[to keep the value adding going]..

thus increased values and bonus to managment..
but in the end not even close to the value [devalu.. of inflation

thats where im bering shafted..in self funding
butchers may keep increasing the prices of their meat
electicity can double..tobacco can punitivly go through the roof

and those getting a nice grab at supper keep eating 5 star
by the time it comes to collect the stockmarket will have tanked
the 'securities will all be found to be worthless paper
and the bonds found to be halved

look ...it was our wage increases
you would have *had to pay TO us

instead you pay them
even chose who them is

poor blooming you
without your workers what would you do

its the workers who got shafted in the end
they lost their dollar in the time a dollar could buy a dollar's worth

by the time they get their 'dollar' back
it will only buy cents on the dollar
[and that is a fact]

I only started Super when it was introduced in Qld by the Goss Labor Government. That was a very good move by them. It was, sadly, their only good move also.
Pension should be for everyone on a wage. Public servants should have to contribute far more to their Super & it should be more affordable in general to contribute to super.
Our politicians most certainly do not qualify for more benefits & pay. There is enough out there for everyone but the public servants & other non-contributors drain off most of the funds.

rehctub:>> 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.<<

Rehctub, this is not a comment on the super contribution, but housing prices have risen by 1000% in 20 years and the flow on costs in rents have risen accordingly.

OUG; There is no point saying that super goes into the stock exchange.
When you join a fund, or even during your membership of a fund you can
stipulate what sort of investment you want for your funds.
The whole range is available from cash interest bearing to the riskiest.

"It is little wonder there is so much resentment by self funded retirees, who, after spilling their guts for years get left on the scrap heap while the assistance goes to those regarded as 'the needy', even if they have pissed their life and savings away."

Let me get this right rehctub. First you argue vehemently for a reduction in the minimum wage so all the small business owners can make more money, then with the same mentality begrudge those lower income earners assistance when they retire.

You really take the cake sometimes. Most low income earners do not have vast savings to p*ss away and your assumption that low income earners are all vagabonds and layabouts is not only grossly wrong but an unfair assumption. Imagine what all the business owners would do if everybody decided they were not going to undertake low pay jobs - who would do them? Many low income earners are also ethnic and do not have fluent English which makes work outside those low paid jobs impossible. But why let facts get in the way of a good story.

There would be more sympathy for some of your views if your anger was not directed to the poor but at governments for poor policy.

In fact I agree with your post as regards superannuation. Adding another impost to small business is bad policy. The fact is costs will go up anyway and further impost low income earners.

Cont/...

However, the ageing community is being asked to become more self reliant to offset growthist policy. Yet both sides of government are determined to exacerbate the problem of an ageing population by ensuring the problem grows with each successive generation.

Our retirement system is beginning to stink. What possessed Labor and Liberal governments to entrust the private sector with retirement income. Instead of talking about tax levies for maternity leave and the like what about a tax levy for pensions and like diver dan suggested a pension account that follows you rather than the dog's dinner of superannuation.

My father is self-funded and receives a small pension as well. He often laments the system that sees his private pension increase but only to the detriment of others who see high interest rates imposing further burdens on the mortgage belt. Housing unaffordability (rents and ownership) is very much tied in with these retirement, investment and superannuation policies.

There has to be a better way but is a whole-system problem and it is not only one sector that needs an overhaul.

sonofgloin>>Rehctub, this is not a comment on the super contribution, but housing prices have risen by 1000% in 20 years and the flow on costs in rents have risen accordingly.

Sorry to correct you, but this is not true with regards to the 'flow on' effects you have mentioned.

I bought my first house 20 years ago, it was worth $38K and rented for $80 per week. 11% return on investment.

Today that same house, still standing rents for $320 per week, yet is worth $350K. Less than 5% return.

Which ever way you look at it, rents are cheaper today than they were 20 years ago, relatively speaking.

pelican, read my post. I am not suggesting that wages be cut, rather, I am suggesting that the burdon should nbot be again forced on business owners.

>>You really take the cake sometimes. Most low income earners do not have vast savings to p*ss away and your assumption that low income earners are all is not only grossly wrong but an unfair assumption

Once again, you have miss the point of my post. I do not regard all low income earners as 'wastefull vagabonds and layabouts , however, I challenge you to go to the local pub, any afternoon and count the 'well to do' people there drinking, smoking and gabling. Sorry, they are either at work, or attending to more important issues, like family.

>>There would be more sympathy for some of your views if your anger was not directed to the poor but at governments for poor policy.

Read my lips. I have said many times that governments should assist the low income earners, not the employers through unjustified wage increases.

>>diver dan, I to have long held the belief that one's pension should be calculated by the amount one has contributed to the public purse.

Trouble is, thanks to our 'tall poppy' attitudes, our system is the exact opposite.

This was my reply to diver dan. Did you miss that!

The tall poppy syndrome in Australia is the stuff of urban myth. There is more cutting down of the lower poppies if OLO is indicative of wider opinion.

We have created a system where service and quality are things of the past. One day we might wake up and smell the roses (speaking of flowers).

You continue to ignore the impact of greed at the big end of town and how this has a snowball effect on the quality of life for everyone.

You want to talk about handouts by government look no further than corporate Australia. Individual wealth should not come at a cost to other community values. The system that allows it is no longer one that supports workers.

I think you need a dose of John Lennon's Working Class Hero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU

Part of the lyrics:

"...When they've tortured and scared you for twenty odd years,
Then they expect you to pick a career,
When you can't really function you're so full of fear,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fu*ing peasents as far as I can see,
A working class hero is something to be,
A working class hero is something to be.
There's room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill,
A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me."

Pelican, people themselves are the reason (in most cases) why they are doing it tough.

Firstly, they wish to be able to earn a decent income, without decent skills and only by working a 9 to 5 job.

This didn't happen 30 years ago.

Go back thirty years and a council job was one that you took, but only if you had no other choice.

The pay was low.

There were no 'bob cats', no 'escavators', in fact, most then worked very hard for very little.

Nowadays, these jobs are seen as 'set for life'. They receive a decent wage for very little effort (in most cases) and, most importantly, they know THEY CAN'T BE SACKED! Thanks to UFD laws.

As I often say, you can have whatever you want, you just have to work for it.

Trouble is, many people today want what others have, but want someone else to pay for it.

Now, to your tall poppy synd.

Now firstly, high income earners that you appear to dispise, not only have their own families to raise, but they also provide assistance for low income earners families.

Now many have no problem with this, other than the fact that thay are left out to dry after they have completed their working lives.

Do you honestly think that a system is fair when one works hard all their life, pays huge amounts in taxes and then gets zero support for their efforts, while, at the same time, one who chooses to either not work hard, or, blow their money so they end up with very little get a full pension?

Now if you honestly believe this is a fair system, then may I suggest you are a 'tall poppy'.

At the end of the day I am simply trying to warn that a pay rise now is not a good idea, esspecially when the majority of jobs created today are by default, not sound economic management as our madam PM would like us to think.

Imagine how bad our our building industry would be if not for the natural disasters.

rehctub
Where have I said I despise high income earners? Twisting my words does not make your general argument any more sound.

What I dislike is the constant negative symbolism about people on low incomes - at the pub drinking or gambling. We all know there are people in the world that are bums, but you are making generalised comments about low income workers as though this was the norm and the implication that any disadvantage is all "their" fault.

What I also dislike is the emphasis you give to the "greed" of lower income earners while failing to address the existence of greed and corruption at the other end. That does not imply all those at the big end of town are corrupt, only that much of the pressures in the economy are not due to working class wage rises. Are you arguing that low income earners not be able to keep up with the costs of living.

We are not living in the Third World and it is inherent to good democracy that low income workers earn a living wage. I would hate to see Australia follow in America's footsteps - retail and other low earners barely subsist in a culture that pushes money making at the expense of fair treatment of workers and exploitation of people.

The very people they despise as being "their" fault for not aspiring to greater things are the very people these businesses rely. Why do you think Australia has difficulty in recruiting lower paid positions? The lack of respect you hold for low wage earners is what I continue to rally against.

Business are formed to make profits and those profits can only be made with a good labour force. Why should not labour share in the spoils of that profit they helped earn by a fair and honest wage? For my two cents worth the best managers are those who recognise the efforts of their staff and are not governed by the them 'n us mentality.

Pelican, the cold hard facts are that minimum wages are simply to high. If they want a 'decent wage' as you suggest, that's fine. Either obtain the skills or work longer hours, you can't have low skills and a decent income, it just doesn't work.

And remember, many low income earners get 'welfare' that high income earners don't. Do you think that's fair? Essecially when the high income earners are the ones who have paid the high taxes, yet get nothing back.

In any case the proof is there as the jobs are still being created, only, they are being created 'off shore' and that's simply because we have out priced ourselves.

Plus, unfair dismisal laws (protection of the lazy worker in many cases) have had a huge bearing on these changes.

In fact, the majority of low paid jobs are now mostly in industries that can't be outsources, dosn't this tell you something.

We need a system like America. Wait staff there either become very good at their jobs and get well rewarded with tips, or they fail.

The alternative is to become well skilled. Many do, many don't.

As I have said before, we are all entitled to fail. It's up to the individual.

I struggled through school but simply did not want to be poor.

Unfortunately, todays less than bright kids don't have the options I had in the 70's as our manufacturing jobs have gone.

rechtub,

"We need a system like America. Wait staff there either become very good at their jobs and get well rewarded with tips or they fail."

Oh, yes, let's do it American style (I'm getting all warm and fuzzy just thinking about it). Let's have a strata of working poor - and then underneath them, let's have a strata of poverty stricken working poor (they deserve it, you know).

And why stop there? Let's have a whole tier of people who can't afford medical care (In the most technologically advance society on earth there are people who can't afford to see a doctor and who are bankrupted after a minor hospital stay - and whose "citizens" undertake massive protests when the government tries to redress the balance) - Yep! - sounds like a great system. Oh, before I finish - let's see is we can muster up more homeless people than you can poke a stick at (and I bet you're the type that would poke a stick at them too).

America has been going down your - pay the peasants peanuts - paradigm for years and has still managed to lose its manufacturing base to China.

Don't hold the U.S. system up as some brilliant model of how a society should be. At this stage of the game, it is entering a serious decline.
Your recipe is not one that promotes a healthy and harmonious dynamic in society - it's one that encourages a fractured society where the chasm of inequality breeds contempt between the classes.

(I'm eternally grateful that I never encountered an employer with an attitude like yours).

Well put Poirot.

There should be no type of work that means being poor ie. not able to sustain a normal life and pay basic bills. A large working poor is not good economically by any standard. How poor is poor? That depends on the cost of living.

Just because you don't want to be a cleaner or a retail assistant does not mean that those who perform those roles should be penalised. The minimum wage should be able to support a person with a basic standard of living without the need for charity IMO or it is not 'work'.

Our minimum wage is "too high" only in comparison to the developing world. The fault is with a system that competes at the lowest common denominator and competes on price over quality or service.

I agree with you that some of the imposts on small business are too demanding. Retirement policies, impost of GST administration, red tape are all bugbears but as far as fair pay goes we may have to disagree on what is a fair minimum wage.

Why not get rid of the minimum wage altogether and pay just what you think is fair. I am sure all those employers who can afford to pay more will jump at the chance for some goodwill. Hang on...WorkChoices proved that employers will always race to the bottom in respect of wages and conditions. Then when employers complain they cannot find enough workers who will work for peanuts or the odd tip we can import some cheap labour from overseas.

Your lack of respect for people doing jobs that many people refuse to do is insulting to them and diminishes the important work they peform.

Pelican>>The minimum wage should be able to support a person with a basic standard of living without the need for charity IMO or it is not 'work'.

Well, it used to. That was before we all had a plasma, a mobile or two, some furinture on interest free terms, the list goes on.

You see, what has happened is that our so called 'cost of living' has been increased by 'life style choices' and the easy answer is to increase wages.

Go back 30 years, if you didn't have the money, you either saved it, or, you went without.

The third alternative was to 'work long hours', just like I did, then you had the money. 60, 70, even 80 hours per week were normal in my job. Didn't hurt me, if anything it made me save as I was to tired to do anything or go anywhere.

Nowdays, many younger folk priotitise their social life and fit their working lives around their job.

A casual worker, sweeping floors, stacking chairs etc at the entertainment centre is on $20 per hour normal, $40 per hour on Sundays or after midnight. No skill required.

What is the pay rate for police on Sundays or after midnight I ask.

Not now days. Today, one can have their cake and one can eat it, it's just that one wants someone else to pay for it.

The price we have paid for these life style, often 'unaffordable' choices, is that many industries are now looking elsewhere for their workers.

How smart are we!

its sad your so upset about cleaners
do you run a clean house
do you 'clean it'

thing is cleaning is easy
but cleaning the whole factory in one hour
is impossable..[i am reminded thatr workers work better
[and get less sick..in a clean workplace]

leave the cleaners be..many are on fixed rates
need to travel at odd hours and dont get paid if the job isnt done properly[many are still on howards contracts].dont get holidays or any leave loading..etc

but lets look at the plasma electicity guzzling thing
and the mobile phiones [2] on different plans
these they had to buy..very likely on credit[because their wages wont pay for that 'luxury'..thus they need to pay off their other furniture

its sad one ..who has so much
should love to pick on ..those who have so little
i wouldnt get out of bed at midnight to clean a toilet for 20 bucks

[and dont say you would..
cause you would be only decieving yourself]

OUG>>i wouldn't get out of bed at midnight to clean a toilet for 20 bucks

And therein lies the problem.

Many immigrants would, and do, give their right arm to get paid 20 bucks to clean a toilet at midnight.

We Aussies, on the other hand, have this notion that we are to good for that so, rather than our leaders taking charge and saying, tough!, we have sat back and allowed our people to be supported by welfare while these from foreign nations think they have won the loto and think to them selves, how good is this.

Now before you all go off and remind me of the low unemployment we currently have, just remember to take out the jobs created out of default.

Furthermore, is it little wonder we have police officers crying foul, risking their lives to protect us while at times being paid little more than an after hour's toilet cleaner.

BTW, my staff love and respect me because when there is cleaning to be done I am often first cab off the rank.

You people have no idea what is involved in creating and maintaing jobs.

Simply increasing wages because 'times are tough' is not the answer.

By all means, go right ahead, but it may be the last pay rise for many, and you can quote me on that.

My point is simply this rehctub. It is not that the minimum wage is too high (in the big picture), but that other salaries are too high. You cannot push up the top end without pushing up the bottom end of the income scale.

The problems stem from top down not from bottom up.