Here we go again, Bill Shorten (labor) is off an a tangent about the libs proposal to at best, delay the super increase, and at worst, cancel it.

Two points.
1. Labor is trying to have us believe it was THEY who are paying the increased Super, whereas it's actualy BUSINESS that is being expected to coaf up additional super, labor is simply trying to take medal for it.

Tony Abbott is well aware that many businesses are doing it VERY TOUGH and would rather try to save the businesses, than burden them with yet more expense.

2. At what point are WORKERS going to have to contribute to their own super, rather than just keep accepting what labor hands them.

It's yet another scare campaign from this crumbling government.

Anger? no in truth sympathy, that Rechtub is my true feelings toward you.
As is usual for you you have no idea of what you talk.
It is a fact, workers once gave up a 3 percent wage rise to see it go to super.
I personally have bargained away wage rises on behalf of workers for superannuation.
It was intended, SHORTEN said so, the increases in superannuation would be soaked up by lessor wage rises.
Superannuation adds to this country,s overall economy.
It not over seas loans, often bank roll state governments and federal.
Soon within no more than a decade, superannuation will be used instead of welfare pensions, to the countrys benefit.
Again you blast out with an indignant shout, without a gram of understanding.

Belly you know your history. Yes its years now since workers, many who were 'locked out' of Supa, first traded a wage rise of 3% to gain access.
Either our friend rehctub is truly ignorant of the facts, or with his usual bias is applying selective memory.
"many businesses are doing it VERY TOUGH" If you believe business they have been doing it "TOUGH" since the day Adam went into the business of picking apples.
Its a fact business gets a very fair go in Australia, successive governments have been "business friendly" since federation, turning a blind eye to their "thumb on the scales" when it comes to paying their fair share.

Nice diversion guys, so I say again, at what point do employees start to comtribute to THEIR OWN SUPER.

Now while I recognize the initial 3% in lie of that pay rise, what about the rises since, from 3 to 6%, then to 9%.

Surely you're not suggesting these rises have been instead of pay rises?

Another point you failed to address, was how this Shorten guy came up with his number.

I guess it's just another guess, like so many other guesses made by this mob.

Paul rechtub is in all probability a good bloke.
But in my view a bigot too.
Yes the first 3% came from giving up that amount in wages rises.
I was no mug union official.
And no radical idiot.
Even when rise in super came from government , firms traded off that am mount in wages rises, with folk like me in EBA negotiations.
Rechtub grasps no truths that impede his anti wages/worker/welfare / receiver back packer/ love to hate theory,s.
I NEVER ONCE doubted the truth about super, it is saving for what?
After work retirement!
Some self supporting retirees take, workers not salary, a million dollars with them.
It in my view was and remains the intention supper is the future pension!
I at 55 years of age took it as the law said I could, purchased for cash my home.
Supported myself for months.
Took another job, paid on top of my compulsory contributions $200 a week.
rechtub thinks middle class welfare is ok but in truth this country will lead the world when super becomes the pension.
A youth of 18 starting work today, putting super in to a low fees
PLEASE! POSTERS! MONITOR YOUR SUPER!,scheme, will be able to self support at the end of work, ACTU currently has a wish for 15% and if workers giveup half of one percent each year for 6 years?

Hi Belly, once upon a time back in the 1970's, Australians become very optimistic about their retirement. The days when a bloke could retire at 65 after doing his 40 odds years, into his comfortable little bungalow in suburbia or wherever, play with the grand kids, tend his garden and enjoy the family with mums Sunday roast. Gough had got us out of Vietnam, jobs were plentiful, housing was affordable, wages were good, all was roseie in the garden. It was a time of promise, a time when the worker could feel he was an equal with the boss and was going to enjoy the fruits of his labour, both during hid working life and later in retirement. At that time governments made bold promises, the old age pension would be raised to 25% of average earnings, all over the age of 70 would enjoy a pension with no means test what so ever. Those were the days my friend, but unfortunately the 25% was out of reach and after a short flirtation with the over 70 pension (I recall Pig Iron Bob Menzies go it and their was outrage considering the 25% was yet to be put in place) all the great expectation came to nothing.
Th their credit it was Hawke/Keating, I think more the Clock's idea than the Silver Bodgie's, Keating was a thinker, who envisaged a National Superannuation Scheme which workers could afford by trading wage rises along with productivity increase, over time this would see all Australians living with dignity and in no small comfort. I give the thumbs up to Labor and the Unions for still pushing the superannuation agenda, despite conservative opposition. Its been a long road but their is light at the end of the tunnel

It is big finance that is pushing for an increase in super contributions.The worker is getting gouged with fund fees.They need the money to prop up their derivative gambling scams.

Labor are hypocrites, liars. The government discriminates against its own staff, including soldiers they require to lay their lives on the line for the country.

It is years now since a parliamentary committee identified the unfairness of the (discounted) CPI indexation of government employees' superannuation. It quickly erodes the value of the government employees superannuation, leaving them in a situation where the superannuation they paid for gives lesser benefits and lifestyle in overall terms than the age pension they are excluded from.

Yet the politicians themselves have the recommended indexation against wverage male weekly earnings which reduces the impact of inflation. As well, the politicians have voted themselves large salaries and other benefits.

Forget all of the rhetoric from self-serving politicians like Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard. It is their behaviour that unveils their lies. None of them give a fig about the government's own employees so why should anyone believe their concerns about other workers. Politicians are in the highest group of earners and strangely enough while Labor PMs always start off with very average means, most are millionaires in retirement, as well as being guaranteed that golden handshake from taxpayers.

Anyone noticed how Labor politicians are getting in for overseas travel at present? Just greed to soak up whatever benefits they can get before the election.

Again, these Labor politicians who claim to be concerned about workers' superannuation are the same politicians who will not even talk about the unfair CPI indexation applied to their own employees. That is despite a parliamentary committee's strong recommendation. Hell would freeze over before these Labor politicians would have the same unfair CPI indexation applied to their own superanuation.

Arjay too true!
A blinding lazy attitude covers the eyes and ears of some in relation to super.
I must first warn every one to get help.
But offer this.
1 some bosses few but some, pick your fund, you have the right to pick your own, the you at works end will curse you if you do not look in to it.
Low cost ones exist, look at who is constantly in the top ten of funds based on earnings.
Check your money is safely invested not shonky or dangerous high earning but likely to go broke.
Watch for traps, some few but some take all your funds if you with draw early.
DO NOT keep multiple funds, one fund one fee,Use tax office web page to see how many funds you have,BE AWARE ONE is best for you.
Workers industry funds charge far less,are not profit making and not union run.
I have never doubted reform of welfare is a must, more likely to come from Liberals but will not be changed by Labor, common good stewardship of your supper can see your older self happy, if not very sad,act now.
After all that? I can tell you this, some will read it and say yes! been meaning to do that! get it done first thing!
And take no action at all.
Such was my life trying to help sometimes after a work place death,sort out a simple thing that could have bought thousands in insurance to the wife and kids left behind.
It after all is real money! look after your self never meant so much.

So Paul, what happened to productivity driven increases and trade offs, because labor want to increase super, yet productivity under their watch has taken a dive.

So i say again, at what point are people going to take responsibility for their own futures?

As; for choosing funds, this should be outlawed for all contributions other than those made by themselves, because after all, the super is there as a replacement for the pension, not a gambling fund.

BTW, I am not a bad person at all. I would gladly share a beer while watching a game of footy with anyone.

rehctub you asked "what happened to productivity driven increases and trade offs, because labor want to increase super, yet productivity under their watch has taken a dive."
The government could counter your assertion by producing figures from the Productivity Commission which would debunk your claim that productivity has taken a dive, in fact they would argue it has risen under their watch.
"So i (rehctub) say again, at what point are people going to take responsibility for their own futures?
People would say they are doing that what you ask, by giving up pay rises, coupled with productivity increases the trade off is an lift in the rate of superannuation.
Rehctub I am not a supporter of Labor, but I do agree with this, and can clearly see the benefit, not only to the individual, but to the nation as a whole

onthebeach are you related to Rechtub?
Thanks and good by as far as this thread is concerned.
Rechtub in presenting this awful proof he understands nothing of it, gave onthebeach a chance to rant.
It gave Paul the chance to prove he can,if he wishes talk sense.
But it too gave me a platform to *BEG* a few? a tenth of all who have super funds! to treat them as vital for their future.
I never walked in to a construction site lunch shed without finding at the very least, that percentage who needed help.
In such work, and our country in general, about one in six can not read or write.
ONE PHONE CALL!
Nothing hard, ask the scheme of your choice if you need to, to get ALL YOUR ACTIVE SCHEMES PUT IN TO ONE!
You can pay, in the wrong scheme up to 700 dollars a year! in fees, nothing going in to a 5.000 scheme 700 coming out?

Paul surely your not suggesting productivitynhas risen under labor's watch.

Furthermore, if it has, why hold an equiry into the decline in productivity.

Now, on the other point, are you also suggesting the 200% increase in employer funded contributions are in lue of pay increases?

rehctub, Do you have evidence that productivity has dropped under Labor?
"200% increase in employer funded contributions" how do you come up with the figure of 200%?
Labors super deal where by employer contributions increases by a very modest 0.25% from 9 to 9.25% come 1st July 2013 then a slow progression to 12% by the year 2019, seems very fair on employers,as well as responsible and affordable.
Even the Coalition have a similar plan in mind, which later could cost employers more than Labor's deal. See the SMH this morning, that is their opinion not mine.

Paul, open your eyes and ears, as it is common knowledge productivity has taken a dive.

As for the 200% increase, I was referring to the increase from the initial 3 to the current 9% as that's a 200% increase, and just another cost that business has had to bare.

As for the proposed increase, to you, it's just a small amount, but to business, it's another increase, on top of the increases have had to deal with due to the likes of energy costs.

But hey, by all means, go right ahead, as the result will mean ome of two things.

1. More under employment.

2. Fewer jobs and more casualization.

It's not rocket science, justbtake a good hard look at where employment has gone from since labor first played with IR in the 90's.

So many now on casual, and the work underemployment hadn't been invested back then.

Just remember, and you can take this as a warning, or you can laugh it off, but at the end of the day, for every action, there is a reaction.

BTW, labor simply wants to pass the law, and take credit for something that business has to fund.

Rehctub, The perceived notion of "common knowledge" is not evidence. The Labor Party, can produce figures to counter your argument, figures showing jobs growth, export growth etc. Like you, I am not a Labor supporter, but unlike you, at times I find them a little more palatable than the alternative.
"but to business, it's another increase, on top of the increases have had to deal with due to the likes of energy costs." True, however business in general does very well in Australia, profitability is good compared to other OECD countries. There is nothing new when it comes to business decrying any advancement in worker benefits.
I am a firm believer in collective social responsibility. If we are going to live in the society that we do presently exist in, a balanced capitalistic one, then all sections, business, workers, government, judiciary, etc have to play their part in supporting that society, for the benefit of all. If we remove the notion of collective responsibility and replace it totally with individual responsibility then the powerful will advance at the expense of the weak, and history is littered with the consequences of that system.
I agree, we all have individual responsibility to ourselves, but we also have responsibility to the collective. This broad superannuation benefit is an example of one group, employers, passing a benefit to another group, workers, through the intervention of government for the collective good.

Paul! if you know any thing, at all, about politics know Rechtub is producing Terminological inexactitudes from his own head, and seems unaware of it!

Dear Paul,

You may find the following two links of some
interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/editorial/abbott-focuses-on-profit-not-people-20130517-2js2r.html

And:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbotts-budget-reply-porkie-pies/

So Paul, the unions are off again seeking a $30 per week pay rise for low income earners.

So in your way of looking at things, I guess it would have been higher, but some of the increase was given up in lue of the super increase.

Yer right!

It may well have started off as a trade off, but not any longer.

It is simply labor's way of shifting welfare from governments responsibility, to business.

Thanks Lexi a couple of good links, The Age one in particular.

Rehctub, following on from your notion of "common knowledge" about the economic performance of Labor. In case you have not read the 2nd link Lexi posted, here is an extract which I have no reason not to believe is factual:

"Average annual increase in Australia’s gross domestic product was 3.65% during the 11 Howard years. Then down to 2.44% under Labor.
Australia’s average through the Howard years was about the same as equivalent countries. The USA averaged 3.04%. Canada 3.3%. Some European countries were higher. Luxembourg averaged 4.78%.
Then the GFC knocked the stuffing out of every economy — except one.
In the five years under Labor in Australia, growth has been 2.44%. But in the USA: 0.54%; in Canada: 0.94%; and in Luxembourg: 0.52%. And the Euro Zone: negative 2.3%!
Economists around the world regard this as a major pointer to the Australian Government being the world’s best economic manager."

This not to say the Coalition would have performed worse, or better than Labor, had they been in office this past 5 years, any conclusions would be pure conjecture on our part. What we can conclude is the economy has done well under Labors watch. Whether this "done well" is entirely, partly, or not at all, due to Labors economic management, we do not know. Like all politicians Labor, in the light of the fact we the voters throw brick-bats when thing go wrong, are entitled to claim credit, when things go right.

"So Paul, the unions are off again seeking a $30 per week pay rise for low income earners."
Unions are a pressure group, representing one section of society. It would be remiss of them if they did not put forth such argument as you outline. As it would be remiss of employer representatives if they did not counter that argument. With impartial judgment, let’s hope the outcome is acceptable to all.
I very much suspect the expectation from the unions is not $30, nor do I believe the employers expectation is zero dollars, the outcome will be somewhere in between, as determined by the independent umpire, who has no vested interest one way or another.
Work Choices from Howard failed the test of fairness.

Paul as you and I understand, the union funded ACTU National wage case is mostly on behalf of those who are not union members.
Sir Robert Menzies, yes but! bloke the man is one of us these days!
Said every worker had a right to be represented by a union.
And to have what we would call today, a living wage.
He knew wages are the oil that is spent by consumers and keeps the economy strong.
In another post today I spoke about a dreadful sight, two folk looking for food in a rubbish bin.
It hurt and reminded me how truly important true welfare reform is, to see only the right folk get it.
Rechtub no doubt would want to tax them on what they found.
Why Paul do you bother.

Belly, you make sense, but many don't/can't see it that way. A bit of a blast from the past; wages are what oils the economy, too true.
"two folk looking for food in a rubbish bin." my beat is the inner burbs of Sydney and I see that every day of the week. I met a girl the other day, about 25 looked 40, hanging out for a fix, called me sir, asked could I help her out with a feed, bought her a couple of sausage rolls and a can of coke, cost me $6.40, no big deal. Should I have said P off, you junkie B, christ, what would be the use of doing that? I can't judge people, I don't know her deal in life was and most likely will never know. Just as I don't know the story of the aboriginal bloke who the next night 'bit' me for change for "coffee", I knew where he was headed, the pub 50 yards down the road, incidentally where I had just seen him come out of, heading that way for another schooner. Getting 'bit' for a few bob is par for the course around that part of town, I just go with the flow.

Paul in my Sydney days I at first gave to every one of them.
Then found out beggars can be getting more than us.
I never expected to see this in that town.
It hurts.
The woman was clean and well dressed.
The bloke dirty and desperate.
Amongst my banking [ needed to build it up for a buy] was 30 dollars in silver.
Woman would not take it man took off as I got out of car.
Gave it to Salys round the corner after banking.
I think, no evidence, housing costs are part of the problem.
And am sure drugs and grog are not the problem for these two.
We must confront waste, cut it, and give alternatives to the true poor.

Hi Belly, In Australia there is truly, real grinding poverty in the mist of plenty. Housing affordability is a huge problem down my way. I "looked over" a joint a while back, where by my calculation there is 15 or 16 people living, including kids and a baby with her single mum. These people are living on the top and back of a shop, one bloke lives in the "garage" at the rear, at $250 a week, he has a job, works nights in a kitchen. Most of the adults are working. The place has been partitioned (illegally) into flats one kitchen, toilets up and down. I don't know what the landlord gets for the shop but he's pulling in about $2200 a week from the rest of the joint, and on top of that he "works out" how much they have to chip in for water and electricity per quarter. The place is a fire trap, but what can you do, close the joint down and a dozen people at least are on the streets. There is a pub that's closed down, but its full of people, they are going to have to get out soon, the pubs up for redevelopment.
As the "gentrification" takes place around us, through The Greens we really have a fight on our hands to get affordable housing included in new developments. With O'Farrell removing council powers, its an uphill battle fighting developers on that score alone.
I know you will laugh at this, but I am very much pro development, as are most of my Green friends, what we are is pro sustainable and people friendly developments. There are no more than us who want to see old run down factories, warehouses and slums replaced with new. but it can't be all about profit alone, at the expense of people.

....Work Choices from Howard failed the test of fairness

Yes Paul, for a VERY SMALL minority.

Now the problem was, that by installing labor, due largely to the anti WC campaign, we are now approaching $300 billion of debt and our borders, THAT WERE INTACT are now out of control.

Now I don't care about percentages, what I know is $300 billion, is $300 billion.

....Rechtub no doubt would want to tax them on what they found.

Utter crap Belly.

You speak of welfare reform, yet ignore the most important reform of all, that being, stopping the cash.

Stop the cash, you control the waste, control the waste, you redirect welfare to where it was intended.

So guys, if you want to 'oil the economy' as you say, bring in a transaction tax, that taxes every single financial transaction.

That would see hundreds of extra dollars, each and every week, returned to the tax payer. Now THAT would oil the economy.

Furthermore, it would remove much of the UNPAID WORK, performed by employers, as personal income tax and GST would no longer exist.

As for affordable housing, it's a major problem, however, one of the contributors has been the impost on land lords, whereby there are now strict laws in place which can lead to the LL being sued for silly thing, like a tear in the floor coverings.

What the laws have done is forced many land lords to spend thousands of dollars, bringing cheaper homes up to standard, and of cause, this has effected rents.

Now while I understand the purpose of these laws, some of which are over the top, it has seen many cheap houses in the rental market either renovated, or replaced, a move that sees rents increase.

It's a catch 22

Paul while the debate you and I are having is worth while I am more than reluctant to feed Rechtubs disjointed rants.
In his most recent post he does a valiant job af avoiding truth and side stepping the fact, he is trying to avoid his own threads path, have once more been proved quite wrong.
I will however tell of my concerns re housing.
An American state has a form of commune for street people, it is above slum dwelling and they worK together quite well.
If Labor or any center left side is ever to govern again they must confront public housing.
The general public have every right to be concened about the sub culture in many current such housing areas.
My work for wages thought may be the answer rather than sponsoring current failed plans.
RIP HAZEL.

rehctub, on this thread you started, the commonality is about one group in society supporting another, and what mechanisms we are to accept to deliver that support. It is a philosophical stance we take as to whether we support and to what degree we support, for a better word, "socialism" in society. From your posts I believe you trust in a form of conservative liberalism, whereby the onus is placed more on the individual to take responsibility for their well being. I too, as I'm sure Belly does, support the notion of individual responsibility. However where you and I differ is I believe through intervention by the state at an early stage, and in a broader capacity, society can deliver collective support to those perceived as truly in need.
I am not a supporter of 'middle class welfare' which is seen by conservatives as justifiable, that being a reward for past diligence by the recipient, example a baby bonus for all. Although I dismiss that conservative argument and tend to see it for what it really is, no more that a cynical vote buying exercise.
It is a belief on mine that the "system" we have developed in Australia over time is a good one. It delivers both stability and a degree of certainty for all. The system is not perfect by any stretch, but it is workable, and it does by and large meet our expectations. We will argue long and hard about what the ideal should be, but I for one do not wish to embrace the extremes of the far right or the far left.

Paul while we are debating a subject dear to my heart we too, are highlighting Rechtubs failure to defend his imposable thoughts.
But while you may disagree welfare ,if it is to be of use will be reformed.
And it needs to be.
Unlikely you will agree, but *achievable change* that is change that most on all sides will agree with must come.
IF Labor fails after defeat, to confront its reform, we will get reform, a one sided but unchangeable one.
You would be surprised that some, not all, not most, of my reform would be the above mentioned community living.
Your $250 for a room, is true but increasingly it puts folk sleeping on the street, we can do better.

Belly; "Unlikely you (Paul) will agree, but *achievable change* that is change that most on all sides will agree with must come."
In fact, I do tend to agree with your statement, social justice is not static but dynamic. What we must be careful of, and I do charge some section of the labour movement with this, that they negate principles in the quest for power, merely for powers sake. I have never been a great advocate for consensus politics, but that is not to say there is no room for agreement with compromise. So often we are diametrically opposed to some, that common ground is unachievable, that is the time we must stand and fight for what we believe in. Principles are important.

I am very pleased with every word in that post Paul.
As both of us are about to enter the mine field of opposition, it will be planks such as those we speak of that one day returns Labor to power.
From inside the Union movement your, and mine view achievable change has been working for at least my union and my time there as employee not member.
Nothing like it once was, and seeing the mugs throwing chairs around and that type of stupidity is weird and gains nothing bar lost respect.
Needed forms of Socialism must be progressed by implementing accountability.

Belly, it's Rectub, the IL INFORMED ONE, you constantly refer to me as.

So I ask again, which part of what I have said in that post is wrong.

The looming $300 billion debt, the STOP the cash hand outs or my take on housing?

One of the major problems with public housing (not labor's fault) is under utilization of a valuable resourse.

When a single mum can obtain a three bed room house, with just one child, you have a problem with the system, as these houses should be provided for families with multiple kids, and prior to teenage years,at the very least, they should have at least two per room. Excluding mum and Dad, or partner.

What needs to happen is governmentS need to grow some balls, the trouble is though, if they do, and make the tough choices, they get voted out.

Unfortunately, we have made this nest for ourselves, or at least the do-gooders have, but then again, had we had some balls in the first place, the do-gooders would not be the force they are today.

Welfare, all welfare, with the exception of WORKING PEOPLES retirement pensions, should be administered as a hand up, not a hand out, and cash simply should not be paid

What is it about you Belly. Why won't you respond when someone challenges you to defend your dig a them.

There is nothing insulting in what I have asked you, so what's the problem, or more so, are you just turning into a grumpy old troll.