Again, little balance in the media, this time regarding mooted changes to super, only hysteria and Abbott's line that we're all being gouged by big government to pay for excessive expenditure.

Costello announced that super after 60 would be tax free for all, a bit overgenerous really. This looks after the richer end of town that can spin more income into super than the poorer end, hence benefit more greatly. So, the Lord giveth and now the Lord, only partly, taketh away. The richer may simply restructure having enjoyed several years of using super as their preferred investment vehicle. (Oh, How didst they howl with rage when the Lord gaveth, and how doth they howl now?!), Present retirees who make up a part of the 16 thousand with super balances over 2 million can pull out of super funds to try to minimize tax to get them back to golden Costello days.

So what now with Abbott and his media pack, since the super industry seems to think this reform is actually OK? Oh yeah, it's the thin of the wedge, despite the indexing of the super earnings cut-off. Labor is coming after us all through bracket creep! What an absolutely ridiculous beat-up. And, oh, the uncertainty! A government of any persuasion can change things up, like Costello did, and change them down, like Swan. It's about equity and sustainability for all, including those nowhere near retirement. Many things affecting all Australians compete with overly subsidizing the wealthy.

Super, a bit complex for many, is a great vehicle for Abbott's pack to scare our pants off. True to form, without any acknowledgement of indexation or the equity issues involved, it's the greying vote he's after.

Finally, I'd just like to say I'm sick of folk who bitch about low interest rates of return and who never expect to dig into the capital they've accumulated for retirement. They expect to live only off its earnings and then, presumably, bequeath it upon death.

It's official, we're unhappier and bigger whingers than the Poms, led magnificently by Abbott.

A truth should not be avoided here.
Labor, as both sides do, floated its kite, the intention to change taxation on super.
Badly done, no doubt they intended much more, but the truth is it was a silly thought.
Some one, probably Shorten saved the day, by putting a far lesser plan out, and claiming it was always that way.
Truth? the changes raise very little as the super rich just invest in other than super, over and above the $100.000 tax free mark.
And too Liberals have no intention of taxing their base.

http://pbxmastragics.com/2013/04/04/superannuation-tax-breaks-for-the-fabulously-rich-under-threat-from-gillard-tax-breaks-for-the-lowest-30-under-threat-from-abbott/

Read all about it at the above link.

Belly, here again we Greens support Labor on this one, time for some social justice. Abbott and him misinformation to confuse the vast majority, so the 1% who he represents are not disadvantaged. It is amazing how a conservative shyster like Abbott is able to convince the gullible, and there are plenty of them on this forum, that he represents them. Unless they are part of the 1%, you see them attacking Labor from all angles. These want-to-be's are fooled by the likes of Abbott into believing they too can get their snouts into the trough, well one day that is, simply by voting for him and his political cronies, fat chance suckers!

it appears there is also some RICH who will escape this.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16592310/some-politicians-exempt-from-super-changes-lawyer/

"There are limits that the Constitution imposes that means that it's very difficult for the Commonwealth to apply its super changes to state judges and state politicians.

"It's also possible that it may be difficult to apply the super changes to sitting federal judges."

Do I see another MRT tax debacle.

Personally I support the tax BUT do it right.

Close the loop holes first, then you may retain a small degree of integrity Juliar.

Did you hear the one about the elected politician syphoning off the tax purse to fatten his superannuation package?

Did you hear the one about the two elected politicians syphoning off the tax purse to fatten their superannuation packages?

Did you hear the one about the three elected politicians syphoning off the tax purse to fatten their superannuation packages?

Etc., etc., etc. You get the picture...........suckers!

certainly nothing wrong with getting some tax out of the rich however everyone knows how incompetent and wasteful this Government along with the Greens are.

Well they won't get their hands on my super!...as part of my cunning plan to send them broke I don't have any.... Mwahahahahah!

Super is just the old age pension in a different form.

With the aging population the govt just doesn't want to have to give out money to non-tax paying residents (I never use the word citizen any more because it has no meaning today like it had in Australia before the introduction of multiculturalism.)

Twenty years ago someone told me that super was a joke and that I should put my money into a house instead. Smart advice. A married couple who own their own house can get by quite comfortably on the combined old age pension. It's the finance companies that keep urging people to put everything into super so that that can retire as millionaires! Who want's to be a millionaire? I would rather be the satisfactorily off something that I am than a wealthy nothing.

Dear Luciferase,

Well I won't have to worry.
My salary is not in the six figure bracket.

The following website may just set the record straight:

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/labor-reveals-superannuation-changes-20130405-2hafy.html

"We want to take superannuation above politics," Mr Shorten said.

LOL, that IS rich.

Shorten,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFELLK8htKM

Abbott's comments that superannuation changes were a "raid on people's funds" and there are "shades of Cyprus about it" (i.e we are a desperate basket-case like Cyprus where government is raiding capital, not earnings) show he is either a complete economic nincompoop, or, callously calculating to strike fear into us all. Take your pick.

But it's OK as he's not the Shadow-Treasurer, that's Joe Hockey, who says " Labor is trying to plug its Budget black hole with yet more taxes. Labor in its panic is once again raiding Australians’ superannuation – and it won’t be the last time."

These fear-mongers should understand the difference between capital and earnings and also consider making a cogent public case for re-extending the tax-free status to fund earnings above 100K p.a.

Dear Luciferase,

Of course Mr Abbott and his frontbench are going to
scream about the very mild reforms to Superannuation.
Afterall the reforms will get rid of the rorting
of the system by the rich. (those earning over six figure
salaries). So of course they will exaggerate and tell
falsehoods. Theirs is the politics of money and power.
It's the ideology of greed, filled by an unbridled
commitment to individualism. It leaves no room for
social equity, compassion or the idea of an
egalitarian society. They believe that there should
not be a restriction on the proper application of
capital (money) in the economy. People in their view
either sink or swim. And if they sink, well that's
too bad. Because according to them welfare is not good
for business. Tax loops for 16,000, to heck with the
rest earning under six figure salaries.

Does anyone really believe that Labor did not have a much more far-reaching plan for changing Superannuation arrangements and provisions - that is, Before the Lib/Nats and a wide segment of the Aus population started kicking up a ruckus about the non-disclosure of what they had in mind?
If so, they are either a blind follower of Labor or a too-trusting, disinterested, or apathetic fool.
And we have only been given a glimpse, as yet. (They have merely 'tested the waters'.)
(And, even so, the 'Greens' are bitterly disappointed - so we know what to expect from that quarter.)

OK, no problem taxing super 'earnings' (ie. Net Interest/Profit) exceeding $100,000, even though a significant portion of the overall 'gains' may in fact represent the equivalent of a 'capital gain', such as where the super account is invested primarily in equities or property - since capital gains tax is usually 15% anyway.
But, Super in such accounts does Not Always go Up! Is there facility (as there is with Capital Gains Tax) for a refund/deduction if a subsequent year registers a Loss in the Super account? I'll bet NOT!
But, so what? $2 Million in any super account is a lot of loot - so they must be a parasite anyway, right? And, deserve no 'fair' consideration whatsoever, right? (Not even if they're 65 and have worked damned hard for 50 years, right?)

Do people realise there are Limits to how much anyone can put into super each year? (And that all contributions to super are taxed at 15% immediately on investment - that is, for all beyond the exempt 30% or so of lower income earners.)
So, the filthy rich can't go making too much of a meal of it anyway, can they? And anyone selling a major asset can't just dump it all into super to evade Capital Gains tax - and that includes those who've worked hard and bought an investment property as a 'nest egg' along the way. TBC>

Cont'd>
Super is complex. There are provisions to tax drawings from super (as pension or as a lump sum), at the prevailing annual income-tax rate, beyond a certain drawing limit each year - so, once it's locked-in, there's a penalty for dipping-in to invest in alternatives, like property or equities, or even for that longed-for overseas trip or a home deposit for the kids. Not 'free' money after all; and the Super Funds need not worry about a 'run'.

Labor got a much-needed 'check' at the starting gate, but they're not finished yet, far from it, and the proposed new Superannuation 'Oversight Body' is designed to prevent the 'Coalition' (or anyone else) from 'tinkering' with Labor's 'Legacy'.
So, beware what you wish for.

Tony Abbott is wrong to propose tinkering with the tax exemption for lower income earners, but Labor has already pulled-back the dollar-for-dollar previous arrangements, so it's not all black and white in this, or in any other area of our fuddling political arena.
Tony may be far from perfect, but he's worth giving a reasonable chance.
The 'proof' of the pudding will be tested as 'E' day draws near.

Want to point the finger? The Howard government wanted to pull back pension arrangements and other 'perks' (such as travel and staffing) for ex-politicians (of all persuasions), but was blocked by the (then) opposition.
Who would mind getting a pension of 70-80% of final year earnings (indexed) immediately on retirement (or non re-election) after a mere 3 or 4 year term in political office - irrespective of your age, and despite you immediately taking up a lucrative overseas ambassadorial posting or private sector job, or already with assets totaling millions from inheritance or whatever? Who needs to worry about Super under those conditions? (It's all from the public purse!)
So, Labor truly has 'real' care for the 'battlers'? In my boot! Mind you I haven't heard of any such further commitment from the Libs, but let's wait and see.

Politics is a dirty business, and they all look after No.1, make no mistake in that, but at least the Libs could see the contradiction in parliamentary pension provisions. Not a peep in this regard from Labor.

Each to his own, but I think our overall political system stinks, and I would much rather we were governed by an elected Board of Governors with an established track-record in leadership, stewardship and business acumen.
Our current system offers us only the blind leading the blind at best, and a rabble of rogues at worst.
Ideology with only the merest skerrick of common sense is no recipe for long term success.
Out damned Spot!

The government constantly needs more taxes and this is a tax based on class hatred that can be broadened at will.

Regardless of the spin it is stealing from people's savings for their personally funded old age, which is what the government has been demanding.

The Gillard government's lack of principle on superannuation is well demonstrated by its own shabby treatment of its own employees, ex-military and public servants.

Here, regarding the military,

<Senate condemns Gillard Labor Government over military superannuation failures

28/02/13

The Coalition has today successfully moved a motion in the Senate condemning the Gillard Labor Government for failing to provide fair indexation for Australia’s 57,000 military superannuants.

Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, said the motion’s passage through the Senate must now be followed by real action on Fair Indexation.

“Today the Senate has said enough is enough”, Senator Ronaldson said. “The Gillard Labor Government has been rightly condemned for its misrepresentation of the annual average DFRDB military pension and its ongoing and stubborn refusal to give our veterans a fair go.”

The motion which today passed the Senate said:

That the Senate:

a) notes that the average annual DFRDB military superannuation pension in 2011-12 was $24,603;

b) condemns the Gillard Labor Government for Its ongoing and stubborn refusal to grant 57,000 Australian military superannuants and their families a fair go;

c) denounces the Labor Party for misleading veterans before the 2007 election into believing that Labor would actually deliver fair indexation, a point highlighted by Senator Lundy and Minister Kelly in their letter to former finance minister Tanner of 14 September 2009; and

d) criticises the Government for its ongoing failure to schedule a time for the Senate to consider the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and thus denying the Senate the opportunity to debate and vote on the Coalition’s amendments to provide fair indexation for these men and women who have served their nation.
..
“Labor must ...finally live up to its 2007 pre-election position of supporting Fair Indexation.”
...>
http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/02/28/senate-condemns-gillard-labor-government-over-military-superannuation

OTB, you wrote, "Does anyone really believe that Labor did not have a much more far-reaching plan for changing Superannuation arrangements and provisions"

Manufactured conjecture. You should be a Murdoch journalist. Also, perhaps you should form a new thread to discuss political and military superannuants?

You also wrote "Regardless of the spin it is stealing from people's savings for their personally funded old age, which is what the government has been demanding."

So, the earnings on the capital you put aside should be untaxed, right? Meanwhile income taxes and/or GST should rise to meet the shortfall in government revenue needed to run the country? Pity those on low incomes with little or no capital to invest to take advantage of this idea, while the wealthier bury income into it to avoid tax. How equitable!

As for the government "demanding", I'd say it's more of a warning that the current pension level is unsustainable given future demographics. The government simply demands that employees should receive 9% super rising to 12% over coming years, if elected and this will probably apply whoever wins the election.

Once the LNP puts out its policies rather than fear-mongering, you'll have something to compare on super and other matters before deciding whether "Tony may be far from perfect, but he's worth giving a reasonable chance." as Saltpetre thinks. (Perhaps the same thinking should be applied to that witch Gillard but you guys prefer to burn her at the stake whatever policy she may espouse)

Saltpetre's point about CGT and loss years is a good one and will need to be handled, but the basic principle that there should be a limit to the super return that is untaxed, remains a sound one. It is reasonable, perhaps, to apply the limit only to dividend or interest earnings, and tax positive annual capital gain only after adjustment for accumulated losses. This would change how capital gain is handled inside and outside super. Many property trusts are traded as market-based shares whose price may or may not reflect current rents and valuations, a punt one takes with this vehicle.

Sorry, the first quote in my post should have been attributed to Saltpetre and the second to OTB. Apologies.

Luciferase,

Just how many times do you want to tax superannuation? It is already taxed up-front when the deposit is made to the fund.

There is no practical reason apart from expenditure elsewhere why government shouldn't give the age pension to all past the required age. Review where the money is going first and then look again at the priorities for the wastage, whoops expenditure, of those taxpayers' $$.

You know as well as anyone else that this is just another tax because the federal government cannot stop spending.

I notice you steered clear of the hypocrisy of Gillard's and Swann's outrageously boosted superannuation, that unlike their 'servants', the military and government employees, is fully indexed. Also, unlike their public servants, Gillard and Swann are not obliged to fund in advance what they might receive in superannuation benefits.

So much for the hollow spin of equity or fairness in this government's approach to superannuation.

From their own retirement benefits, Gillard, Swann and other government Ministers vie withe wealthy people they say they despise. Just work out how much has to be invested to safely deliver what they receive when they retire.

It's all about me-me-me, Luciferase. How could it be any other way.

If you are going to lose out over the new regulations, you will bitch and moan, then get your accountant or financial advisor to work out a new scheme for yourself. If you believe that you will be a net beneficiary of the changes (even if you are unable to work out exactly how or why this might occur), you wave your arms in the air and say "hee hee hee, soak-the-rich, soak-the-rich".

For instance:

>>...the super industry seems to think this reform is actually OK<<

And what exactly is their stake in the game? Why, it is going to make superannuation planning just a little bit more complicated, so that their particular investment vehicles will attract more of Joe Public's funds, and away from the rapidly-growing SMSF segment, innit?

It's all just noise.

Sound and fury - on all sides of the political and financial spectrum - signifying nothing.

OTB: "There is no practical reason apart from expenditure elsewhere why government shouldn't give the age pension to all past the required age. Review where the money is going first and then look again at the priorities...."

Many europeans have been there done that under the cloud of black economies rife with tax avoidance. They, their children and grand-children will be paying for it for a long time to come.

Regarding the Canberra gang on all sides, heck, I'm jealous too. Enter politics if you want to join them, but I don't see how adding fuel to OLO's burning witch (JG) applies to sustainable superannuation policy. Happy to join a discussion on this in another thread

Pericles, noise? It's about applying public resources in an equitable manner, a significant and complex issue. Sorry if you're tired old dear/chap.

....Costello announced that super after 60 would be tax free for all, a bit overgenerous really

Yes L, but you must remember, this was pre labor, when we had money in the bank and a future.

Then along came labor.

Need I say more!

The odd bit of infrastructure for the future would have been a better spend, butch, but we used the money to pay ourselves bonuses instead.

Paul,

While I think with all the leaks from the ex cabinet, and the articles about funding the NDIS and Gonski, that it was patently obvious that Labor intended to bring in a big new tax on super, but chickened out.

What everyone forgets is that while this tax is small, it is yet another level of red tape and reporting that labor has introduced that pensioners will pay for. For example, I have my super with 3 different agencies. If each of them made $50k in earnings a year, how would the others know? Who would pay the tax etc.

It is yet another example of Labor's economic incompetence.

Luciferase, our super should have been channelled into publicly owned assetts, rather than left to greedy fund managers to take their share of the pie, while at the same time, play Rusian Roulette with people futures, like the Storm Finacial disaster.

I hate to think just how stable our futures would be now, if in excess of a trillion dollars had been pumped into inf, as all contributors would be enjoying their forthcoming retirement, rather than fearing it.

Heaven knows we would still own the likes of Testra.

Of cause, the whole problem with this is that grubby politicians (FROM BOTH SIDES) would not be able to resist the temptation of spending/wasting it.

SM,
The superannuation changes from Labor are a winner for them, fairly taxing 16,000 mega rich superannuates, people with millions in the kitty. On the other hand your man Abbott wants to disadvantage 3,600,000 of the lowest paid workers by taxing them more. Abbott confirmed on Sunday that the Coalition would abolish Labor's low-income super contribution, Is this the sort of policy you support? I don't, and i'm not saying that from a point of self interest as I do not qualify for the benefit.
It is of great concern to me that Abbott and his front bench are economic light weights. It seems to please the Mad Monk no end, to go around 'trash talking' the Australian economy, he has been guilty of this on several occasions. Politics are politics, but Abbott seems to be hell bent on undermining the Australian economy in the eyes of the world. How Un-Australian is a man who would harm ordinary people for his own political gain

Be careful what you wish for, rehctub.

>>Luciferase, our super should have been channelled into publicly owned assetts<<

Let's put that into perspective for a moment.

"The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) Annual Superannuation Bulletin said the value of total superannuation assets jumped by $49 .6 billion, or 3.7 per cent, to $1.4 trillion in the 12 months to June 30 2102."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/apra-says-total-superannuation-pool-worth-14-trillion-at-june-3/story-e6frgac6-1226550483075

Which "public assets" did you have in mind for this level of investment?

How would the money involved be made available to the superannuants when they need it (e.g. to live on), if it is tied up in - say - the NBN?

Then there's this, from the same article.

"They are likely to have climbed by as much as 9 per cent since then, after a 15 per cent rise in equity markets."

Which "publicly owned asset" could have matched this increase in value, over the same time period? Or ever, come to that.

I don't know about you, but the idea of handing over my savings to the government to "invest" in projects of their choice fills me with dread. They already see the pot as a tempting target for further taxation, don't let them get their hands on the rest of it.

The problem is, they have completely forgotten whose money it is. It is ours, not theirs. Because they dance to a different drum...

"...the regulator did point out how much better those public sector defined benefit funds did in the financial year than any other major superannuation category."

Why would they give a flying fig for the rest of us, when they themselves are on such a cushy number?

Pericles, you say how would assets fund retirements, it's called profits.

First, we could have fixed the unemployment problem, unless you're one who believes the numbers, as simply by have enough assets, means NO ONE need be without a job, as 100% of the profits would have stayed here.

Paul, where do you think those millions in savings came from, and just how much tax do you think those with the savings have paid along the way.

Battlers should be grateful that the wealthy go off to work and pay so much in tax, much of which provides the battlers with a lifestyle they could only ever dream of otherwise.

In fact, you don't have to be wealthy to miss out on the free lunch.

At least the receivers of the free lunch could show a little gratitude, don't you think!

Paul,

If Labor is onto a winner, why are they as popular as dog poo?

As far as economic lightweights are concerned, Labor has yet meet it's budget plan, or cost correctly a single policy. Labor aspires to be economic lightweights.

That's exactly what I was getting at, rehctub.

>>Pericles, you say how would assets fund retirements, it's called profits.<<

True. But where, in your scenario, would these profits come from?

Think about it for a moment as you look again at what you wrote...

>>First, we could have fixed the unemployment problem, unless you're one who believes the numbers, as simply by have enough assets, means NO ONE need be without a job, as 100% of the profits would have stayed here.<<

Profits are achieved after paying the wages (sorry, am I going too fast?), so will be far more difficult to achieve if you a) allow businesses to be run by public servants and b) employ everyone who is presently unemployed.

The reality of your scenario is that these businesses would be slowly run into the ground due to egregious mismanagement, and our superannuation savings would go through the floor with them.

If you disagree, give me a quick example of how your programme of investing my superannuation in publicly owned assets would actually work in practice. What would change, and how would that change affect my savings?

Just one illustration will do.

Dear Pericles,

Why the NBN of course, and tramways, high-speed rail, expressways (joint venture tollways, of course), a second Sydney airport, Holden and Toyota, and Super-trawlers, plus Gonski and higher education (for overseas students) and face-to-face trade negotiations as well as tours to talk up Australian Tourism - and all the consultants along the way - and joy of joys a competitor to Telstra, a Pubic Bank, and joint mining ventures all over the shop.
A dead-set winner all the way - as long as no-one wants to retire or draw an old age pension until the profits (read return on investment) start rolling in around 2030-2200.

Lucely keeps talking about super as though it's ripping food out of the mouths of babes, when the reality is that it's worker's investments, and, far from being money ripped from government coffers, it's a lifeblood of serious and profitable enterprise.
The changed arrangements (as thus far revealed) is a NEW Tax (as will be the rest of the tinkering Labor has in mind) designed to bolster government coffers - in order to fund some of Labor's 'wishlist' or failed promises, in order to regain part of their lost standing in the eyes of a disenchanted electorate before September (or whenever).

Superannuation 'justice' for all - yeah, yeah, but the real agenda is more wealth re-distribution, bridging a spiraling-out-of-control budget deficit, and some shiny new 'lollies' for the upcoming election campaign.

Even Thatcher would not be amused by the 'spin'.

Pericles, you must have miss understood my post, as the biggest problem with my suggestion is leaving it up to government, from either side.

So hypothetically speaking, profits would come from thelikes of Telstra, toll roads, factories ect, as many of our major companies are partially, if not all but totally forieng owned, so the profits leave our shores.

So in essense, my suggestion was merely a pipe dream I'm afraid.

Sorry if I miss led you.

I then read Saltpetre's post.

If only we could trust governments to get it right, what a great place this would be.

Earlier I wrote "The odd bit of infrastructure for the future would have been a better spend, butch, but we used the money to pay ourselves bonuses instead." This was a bit cryptic and was not meant to suggest super funds should be forced into infrastructure investment. No, funds should simply invest on the best risk/return basis,

I was simply referring to Costello's largess in removing the exit tax on super earnings for over 60's being extended too far, decreasing revenue that could have been spent on infrastructure. This will rightly to be pulled back if Labor can manage to stay in power.

Saltpetre, you earn money you pay tax, be it on wages/salary or super. Also, Investment earnings are taxed both within and outside super. Super tax arrangements are a concessional compared to income tax to entice investment to fund for retirement. The argument is about how concessional they should be.

To be consistent you must also find income tax to be offensive. Being arch-conservative, perhaps you do. You say "Lucely keeps talking about super as though it's ripping food out of the mouths of babes...". I'm sure there are many babes out there and others whose needs could put ahead of the wants of wealthy superannuants.

Grow up Luciferase, the whole idea of super is to put food in the mouths of babies, by reducing the requirement of government funded old age pensions.

For the average worker that is about all it does, it sure won't make their retirement a bed of wealthy roses.

To get the wage earner to accept loosing quite a bit if now income, to have it given back in many years time, some sweetener was required in the form of tax relief. If such a sweetener is not offered the resistance to the whole system will see it fail. Worker resistance would destroy it.

So if you want the money to put food into the mouths of the so called disadvantaged, you would be wise to fully support the current system, rather than rob those who have payed into it.

"For the average worker that is about all it does, it sure won't make their retirement a bed of wealthy roses."

Sharpen up, Hasbeen, clearly I'm not talking about reducing the concessions for average workers. Those with 2 million in super would never burden the taxpayer by qualifying for a pension even if taxed at a non-concessional rate on all their super earnings. Why then extend the concession beyond the first 100K p.a?

"...you would be wise to fully support the current system...". I do, Hasbeen, but it needs Costello's over-generosity wound back. What is the point of extending concessional tax rates beyond 100K p.a earnings (indexed) when the average worker will never reach that amount? Services like health, that also affect average workers'lives, can be better funded by limiting the concession and collecting more tax revenue.

If the Gov't wanted a guarantee it would not be re-elected it would have lowered the 100K p.a figure. It's about right where it is. Those opining that a lower figure was planned for the budget are like Murdoch journalists who enjoy the smell of their own manure.

The level of whining by average Joe's over this reform leaves me in awe at how much they'd rather burn the witch than see reason.

Luciferase, the only reason super is on the agenda, is due to the missmanagement from this incompitent mob, because put simply, they have wasted so much money, they are now out of options, esspecially given their greedy grab a the miners has failed.

As far as them getting another crack, keep dreaming, they are dead in the water.