Gov could overcome all the hassles by just removing the assets and income tests on the aged pension:
"You are an inherently valued elder member of our society; Thank you ... Here's your pittance. Enjoy!" LOL
Just a bit more seriously, doing so could actually even remove a lot of the pressure on people to accumulate wealth for their dotage. Which just might actually help to take some of the pressure off house prices - But then I forgot; We don't actually want to reduce house prices pretty obviously.
LOL - house prices are high because the government has so many high input taxes that drive up the cost of land and building houses.
Government is not the solution, it is the problem. I have no idea why people don't get that.
Pauls solution is an increase in the GST of 5% which would drive up the cost of every house by 5% and even more taxes, which would drive the prices up even more.
Just crazy stuff.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
I doubt that many have an issue with tightening rules so that less people game the system and the benefits are more targeted to those who really need them, but this represents a wholesale change from your "bash a boomer who owns a house" attitude that you displayed before.
Well done for understanding your past mistakes.
Unlike your understanding that boomers are not yet majority retired and that your study relates to the Lucky generation.
peter fraser
22 Sep 2014, 11:45 AM
LOL - house prices are high because the government has so many high input taxes that drive up the cost of land and building houses.
Government is not the solution, it is the problem. I have no idea why people don't get that.
Pauls solution is an increase in the GST of 5% which would drive up the cost of every house by 5% and even more taxes, which would drive the prices up even more.
Just crazy stuff.
Peter The increase in the GST is not 'my' idea. This is a tactic of the trolls to attribute new public policy to an individual.
The increase in GST would also go with the removal of stamps and a land tax on all property, inc the PPOR. CGT would also apply to the PPOR if sold under ten years at the full rates. (exemption for health, work or baby reasons)
So once again, you fail Peter by saying that 'I' want GST to rise in isolation to over anti-speculation changes surrounding residential property.Zaph "How big is this 'problem'?" $8billion big to pensioners who should not get welfare.
"72% of Australians aged over 50 say they would rather spend their money in order to enjoy their retirement than leave it for their kids, according to new research commissioned by Apia, the leading Australian insurer for over 50s." http://m.apia.com.au/aussie-baby-boomers-kill-inheritance
From the article:
"Eric Moses, Executive Manager of Advice at Apia added, “From a financial management perspective, it is likely not a case of not wanting to leave a large inheritance, but not being able to.""
And as a Socialist Paul, you want to further decrease that ability.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Unlike your understanding that boomers are not yet majority retired and that your study relates to the Lucky generation. Peter The increase in the GST is not 'my' idea. This is a tactic of the trolls to attribute new public policy to an individual.
The increase in GST would also go with the removal of stamps and a land tax on all property, inc the PPOR. CGT would also apply to the PPOR if sold under ten years at the full rates. (exemption for health, work or baby reasons)
So once again, you fail Peter by saying that 'I' want GST to rise in isolation to over anti-speculation changes surrounding residential property.Zaph "How big is this 'problem'?" $8billion big to pensioners who should not get welfare.
Paul you have posted may times that you want a 5% increase in the GST - I can find them if you want.
Your article said that the issue costs the government $3B and now you have inflated that to $8B. Don't you ever get tired of your BS?
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Millionaires on aged pension, charity calls for asset changes
One of Australia's leading welfare groups says at least 400,000 millionaires are receiving the aged pension.
The Brotherhood of St Laurence is using economic research it commissioned to push for changes to the pension's eligibility criteria.
Spokeswoman Nicola Ballenden says the single biggest asset, the family home, should no longer be exempt from asset tests.
"Fourteen per cent of people who are receiving the aged pension are living in the wealthiest 25 per cent of households, where their net worth is around $1.6 million," she said.
"We think it is time to start discussing including the family home as an assessable asset for the pension."
peter fraser
22 Sep 2014, 11:55 AM
Paul you have posted may times that you want a 5% increase in the GST - I can find them if you want.
Your article said that the issue costs the government $3B and now you have inflated that to $8B. Don't you ever get tired of your BS?
Peter... ""The Grattan Institute estimates that $3bn in pensions goes to people with assets, including their home, of more than $1m, while another $5bn in pension payments goes to people with assets between $750,000 and $1m. As a result, one dollar in every five paid to pensioners goes to those with assets worth more than $750,000."
5 and 3 is 8.
"14 per cent are paid the benefit despite their assets being worth $1.6 million." 280,000 pensioners worth more than $1.6 million getting a full or part pension. Fark me!
Not as tied as your mistakes calling the current retirees, the Lucky generation, the boomers...what a massive fail on your part.
I actually want the GST higer than 15% to capture tax from the retired more and no put such a burden onto taxpayers. The tax free threshold for workers could rise to approx $50k, if GST was raised to approx 17.5%. True welfare would also rise to compensate for any regressive nature of the tax increase.
$8billion big to pensioners who should not get welfare.
The only two forms of welfare in our society (I can think of right now anyway) that I'd not be inclined to scrutinise too closely, are those to the genuinely disabled AND the elderly.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
This is not shocking Paul. It is good. It means that there is at least some chance of some accumulated wealth being passed on to heirs through strong multi-generational families - Even those families that are 'only' middle class!
Although as I have opined before, it seems to me that Socialists want to destroy both the middle class and strong multi-generational families. Which makes perfect sense as Socialists can only ever really hope to wield real power in broken and dysfunctional societies; Societies where the hopes and aspirations and strengths of the middle class have been destroyed. So I understand why Socialists see it as shocking.
Herbs Socialists want to destroy the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Welfare should be just that, not an entitlement to "14 per cent are paid the benefit despite their assets being worth $1.6 million." 280,000 pensioners worth more than $1.6 million getting a full or part pension. Fark me!
Herbs Socialists want to destroy the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Welfare should be just that, not an entitlement to "14 per cent are paid the benefit despite their assets being worth $1.6 million." 280,000 pensioners worth more than $1.6 million getting a full or part pension. Fark me!
The annual aged pension cost is $40B so this cost of $3B is 7.5% of the budget.
That means that 92.5% of the payments are well targeted.
By all means tweak the system if it needs it, but you have failed miserably to show that the system is so broken that the PPOR needs to be taxed.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Socialists want to destroy the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Your proposals do nothing to genuinely affect the rich.
They impact the middle class - negatively of course.
So all they would achieve is to make the middle class poor as well.
Then you'll have a society in which there is no middle class - Only rich and poor. (Until such time there's a Socialist revolution - Then everyone can be poor.)
But in the interim, I'm going to bark about your plans to destroy the middle class.
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer:"negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy