Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
The Ageing Public Servants
Topic Started: 19 Sep 2015, 11:43 AM (4,413 Views)
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
stubby
21 Sep 2015, 01:51 PM





So Pauk's pseudo-quote is what passes for "paraphrasing" now, is it? :lol :lol :lol

The "never" in Peter's *actual* quote is OTT in this context, but "usually" is quite correct, for OECD (and Australian) governments in the postwar era. So one can take the overall sentence either way, and I do think that Peter was guilty of being imprecise, as the sentence is contradictory in its two parts.

But I rather doubt Peter was actually unaware/mistaken about the nature of the Future Fund mandate. And Pauk has failed to come up with an actual statement of Peter's that demonstrates that he was.
I am happy to be proven wrong as usual, so we just wait for Peter to clarify his position.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
stubby
Default APF Avatar


ThePauk
21 Sep 2015, 01:54 PM
I am happy to be proven wrong as usual, so we just wait for Peter to clarify his position.
Just as well, for you, whatever the outcome of this particular brouhaha.

You've been making a habit of it.

:lol :lol :lol
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
stubby
21 Sep 2015, 01:57 PM
Just as well, for you, whatever the outcome of this particular brouhaha.

You've been making a habit of it.

:lol :lol :lol
Sure, while I might get data issues wrong at time, I am certainly happy I did not get my decision to buy PUTS on CBA and SGP in June. :-)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


stubby
21 Sep 2015, 01:51 PM





So Pauk's pseudo-quote is what passes for "paraphrasing" now, is it? :lol :lol :lol

The "never" in Peter's *actual* quote is OTT in this context, but "usually" is quite correct, for OECD (and Australian) governments in the postwar era. So one can take the overall sentence either way, and I do think that Peter was guilty of being imprecise, as the sentence is contradictory in its two parts.

But I rather doubt Peter was actually unaware/mistaken about the nature of the Future Fund mandate. And Pauk has failed to come up with an actual statement of Peter's that demonstrates that he was.
Pseudo quotes 'n paraphrasing?

No need. Here's a direct 'n indisputable quote from 'The Master' Himself: "And yet they will all retire soon" (talking about those who are 55+; taken from this thread; to you even I suspect? but can't be bothered checking)

ALL??? and SOON??? - LOL!
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Loki
20 Sep 2015, 09:04 PM
No, that's false. Superannuation funds are defined contribution funds not defined benefit funds. AUM always equals AV. If it doesn't then the trustee is stealing or defrauding the fund.

Point taken but we are talking about government contributions to a super fund, which in most countries they don't fund until required.

Quote:
 
Complete tosh, at least as far as private superannuation funds are concerned. The government run a defined contribution fund as a defined benefit fund because they have the power of taxation, so they can always pay out future liabilities by raising taxes. A private fund cannot do this.

Actuaries are employed to calculate the liabilities of defined benefit products, not defined contribution funds.

The thread is about government superannuation future liabilities. As you say "they can always pay out future liabilities by raising taxes"


ThePauk
21 Sep 2015, 10:45 AM
Ok, so you disagree with Peter as his view is the FF has noting to do with the PS Supers. Got it.
The FF is to be used to fund future PS super liabilities, but my view is that it need not be used for that.
It could be better used for other purposes including stimulating the economy.
Edited by peter fraser, 21 Sep 2015, 08:32 PM.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
herbie
Member Avatar


peter fraser
21 Sep 2015, 08:25 PM
Point taken but we are talking about government contributions to a super fund, which in most countries they don't fund until required.



The thread is about government superannuation future liabilities. As you say "they can always pay out future liabilities by raising taxes"
Or just opt to not pay them - As in Tough shite sucker - Your guv lied to you - So you miss out.

Nothing especially unusual in that expectation these days given the way our various guvs over time have so thoroughly conditioned us to accepting that they do tell lies these days hey?
A Professional Demographer to an amateur demographer: "negative natural increase will never outweigh the positive net migration"
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
ThePauk
Member Avatar
Diamond Member
peter fraser
21 Sep 2015, 08:25 PM
Point taken but we are talking about government contributions to a super fund, which in most countries they don't fund until required.



The thread is about government superannuation future liabilities. As you say "they can always pay out future liabilities by raising taxes"



The FF is to be used to fund future PS super liabilities, but my view is that it need not be used for that.
It could be better used for other purposes including stimulating the economy.
Ok, so we confirm the FF is for future PS Supers.
It is worth noting that it can be used for other purposes if it exceeds if target amount on or before 2020. The way it has been growing, it most likely will.

Why would you use the FF, when you can borrow at such low rates?
IMO, I would borrow $500 billion and give it to the FF to manage, since they are getting 15% returns at the moment I think.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


ThePauk
21 Sep 2015, 09:12 PM
Ok, so we confirm the FF is for future PS Supers.
It is worth noting that it can be used for other purposes if it exceeds if target amount on or before 2020. The way it has been growing, it most likely will.

Why would you use the FF, when you can borrow at such low rates?
IMO, I would borrow $500 billion and give it to the FF to manage, since they are getting 15% returns at the moment I think.
I'm not disagreeing in principle, but $500B is a lot of money. What would you invest it in?
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Loki
Member Avatar


peter fraser
21 Sep 2015, 08:25 PM
Point taken but we are talking about government contributions to a super fund, which in most countries they don't fund until required.
I don't know any other country with a defined contribution provident fund that also has a preservation age. In the US there are defined benefit funds at the state level (which are currently sending states like Illinois and Michigan bankrupt). There are state pensions, which are entirely different again. Given that the Australian Superannuation system is defined contribution, not defined benefit, underfunding the PS fund is really a type of fraud, but because it is the government they can do whatever they want.
Quote:
 
The thread is about government superannuation future liabilities. As you say "they can always pay out future liabilities by raising taxes"
Sure, but as I will be the one paying those taxes, I think that is rather fucked, considering I was not a beneficiary of this fraud.
peter fraser
21 Sep 2015, 09:44 PM
I'm not disagreeing in principle, but $500B is a lot of money. What would you invest it in?
Sydney real estate, then change the tax laws to make property investment even more attractive. Oh oh ... and holes in the ground, they seem to have a good return also.

Anything else is just too much hard work.
Edited by Loki, 21 Sep 2015, 09:53 PM.


“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.” - Euripides
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Loki
21 Sep 2015, 09:49 PM
Sydney real estate, then change the tax laws to make property investment even more attractive. Oh oh ... and holes in the ground, they seem to have a good return also.

Anything else is just too much hard work.
I don't know what benefit a tax break would be for a government investment arm, but I can see that your tongue in cheek on that point.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8



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.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

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