2014/15 Budget - good for investors?

Coalition hypocrisy? Abbott and Hockey in their own words

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/30/coalition-hypocrisy-abbott-and-hockey-in-their-own-words/

10313544_714516495257232_2635670525966603823_n.png

source https://www.facebook.com/StopTryingToPullTheWoolOverEyesWeAintAllStupid/photos_stream

So person A loses some of his hard earned income, while persons B and C also lose some of person As hard earned income.
 
So person A loses some of his hard earned income, while persons B and C also lose some of person As hard earned income.

Person A's is temporary and can be easily avoided by by re-arranging their affairs if they so desire.
The changes to welfare are designed to be permanent.
People are saying why doesn't person A have a permanent impost?
Forgetting that there are some taxation measures being considered that the current Government have promised to take to an election before implementing.
 
Tony, what a Big Surprise!

Tony, what a big surprise!

Rocco Fazzari and Denis Carnahan present their musical analysis of the Budget. With apologies to Chicago.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbotts-name-is-mud-20140515-zrd9w.html#ixzz31x2a3ClH

Click on the above link,
There's a funny animation video of Joe Hockey and Tony Abbot dressed in doctor's garbs and doing stuff to elderly patients. Rocco Fazzari and Denis Caranhan sing and put new lyrics to Chicago's song, 'Baby, what a big surprise'. These guys even sing harmonies...quite creative...I thought it was Chicago singing...

 
Quote from the budget:
"Pension age increased to 70 by 1 July, 2035"

Does it mean that I cannot take out my super money until I'm 70 ?
If not, what does it really mean?

Thanks.
 
Quote from the budget:
"Pension age increased to 70 by 1 July, 2035"

Does it mean that I cannot take out my super money until I'm 70 ?
If not, what does it really mean?

Thanks.

The age that you will be able to access your super after the retirement age rises hasn't been decided yet. It's a debate that will be had at some stage.

THE federal government is facing a nasty dilemma over whether to lift the preservation age for superannuation in line with its planned move to lift the pension age to 70.

The preservation age is 60 for most people, so a move from 65 to 70 for retirees to access the age pension would leave a worrying 10-year gap between the two that could create a sharp rise in the number of people applying for a disability pension or a Newstart allowance.

On the other side of the dilemma, the government is running the risk of breaking a pre-election promise if it acts to raise the preservation age.

It is currently 55 for people born before July 1, 1950, rising on a sliding scale to 60 for people born after June 30, 1964.

Jordan George, senior policy manager at the Self-Managed Superannuation Professionals? Association of Australia, said it was important to have ?a careful and measured debate?? on the preservation age because workers in their 60s carrying injuries or unable to move to other jobs would ?almost certainly? apply for pension relief.

While in opposition, Tony Abbott and Matthias Cormann said there would be ?no detrimental change to superannuation over the first term of the new parliament? and a rise in the preservation age would certainly be considered as detrimental by anyone whose retirement plans are negatively affected.

The Financial Services Council says in a new submission to the Financial System Inquiry that the preservation age should rise as part of the measures to reduce the burden on the government as the population ages. It also suggests tightening the eligibility for the age pension, opening up the market for longevity insurance products by changing the tax law, and increasing the superannuation guarantee charge to 12 per cent. All three are either probable or already happening.

It is calculated that the retirement savings gap, which is the shortfall in retirement savings versus the national requirement, was $2.32 trillion in June 2011 if people retired at 60 and that would roughly halve to $1.067 trillion if workers of both genders worked another six years and retired at 66.

The Productivity Commission and the Grattan Institute are also in favour of raising the preservation age.
continues............
 
So person A loses some of his hard earned income, while persons B and C also lose some of person As hard earned income.

Haha...that's gold, got me curious how much person A will contribute in tax, so I entered it into a simple tax calculator.

$92,447 :eek:

Keep working person A! Thousands on welfare depend on you ;) (I can't claim that line, saw it as a bumper sticker once :))
 
It is currently 55 for people born before July 1, 1950, rising on a sliding scale to 60 for people born after June 30, 1964.

It's currently 55 for those born before July 1, 1960 ... not 1950 ... I don't know if the super age would rise as, by the time those the rise in retirement age hits those affected they would've been paying into super for significantly longer than the current lot.
 
Australians once again want to spend before they earn. Cmon, vote ALP back in and let's bankrupt the country. Lucky I still hold citizenship in a country with one of the largest surpluses on this planet.
 
A country that properly managed the resource boom rather than squandering the money.

Something which we can learn from.

Our outstanding economic and budget position got us through the GFC pretty well relative to the rest of the world. Something Labor didn't seem to learn from.
 
Haha...that's gold, got me curious how much person A will contribute in tax, so I entered it into a simple tax calculator.

$92,447 :eek:

Keep working person A! Thousands on welfare depend on you ;) (I can't claim that line, saw it as a bumper sticker once :))

+ add to that the fact that they recieve nil benefits from the government, no child care rebates, family tax benefits, there is a medicare levy surcharge if they don't have cover etc.

+ while we are at it if they spent the remainder and paid GST on that thats another $15.7K....

everyone always wants someone else to pay for services / welfare. When asked its always someone richer or some greedy corporation that has to foot the bill.

the loudest voices are always those who contribute the least to the system.
 
Our outstanding economic and budget position got us through the GFC pretty well relative to the rest of the world. Something Labor didn't seem to learn from.

So it's ok to compare ourselves to the rest of the world when it suits your argument?
 
I am a liberal voter and agree with most of the budget. we need to cut spending and they did so across the board.

One thing i'm not a fan of and strongly disagree with is the 6 month wait for newstart for those under 30. Newstart is a safety net for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed.

I acknowledge there are some who have decided to make it a lifestyle choice and they need to address that issue. But for the most part is a short term solution that can provide relief.

But I ask what are people going to do if they find themselves out of work for that first 6 months?

What if you have a mortgage, a family, pay rent, need to eat?

Who pays the bills? how many young people have 6 months of cash savings at hand?

If its a choice between feeding my family and paying my rent I'll choose feeding my family any day.

It will become harder and harder for you to kick someone out for not paying their rent....
 
If its a choice between feeding my family and paying my rent I'll choose feeding my family any day.

It's not just food.

Residential Tenants place many many things above rent.

The Residential Landlord is waaaaaay down the priority list.

Don't pay rent - nothing happens....for months.

The Laws dictating the consequences of not paying your rent (or lack thereof) suck....and have been getting suckier every year.
 
It's not just food.

Residential Tenants place many many things above rent.

The Residential Landlord is waaaaaay down the priority list.

Don't pay rent - nothing happens....for months.

The Laws dictating the consequences of not paying your rent (or lack thereof) suck....and have been getting suckier every year.

agreed no bleeding heart tribunal will allow you to kick out a family who has $0 of income.

you the landlord will have to supplement the unemployed renter.

either factor in a 6 month buffer of no rent or adopt a policy of not renting to those under 30.... the latter will become the obvious choice for most investors.
 
I am a liberal voter and agree with most of the budget. we need to cut spending and they did so across the board.

One thing i'm not a fan of and strongly disagree with is the 6 month wait for newstart for those under 30. Newstart is a safety net for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed.

I acknowledge there are some who have decided to make it a lifestyle choice and they need to address that issue. But for the most part is a short term solution that can provide relief.

But I ask what are people going to do if they find themselves out of work for that first 6 months?

What if you have a mortgage, a family, pay rent, need to eat?

Who pays the bills? how many young people have 6 months of cash savings at hand?

If its a choice between feeding my family and paying my rent I'll choose feeding my family any day.

It will become harder and harder for you to kick someone out for not paying their rent....

This is basically me too (not that you hadn't gathered). What astounds me is that Labor are reportably going to stamp this one. Are you kidding? You are opposing changes to Medicare and aged pension age and yet doing nothing about this one?
It was the one part of the budget I was hoping they would have to negotiate on.
 
This is basically me too (not that you hadn't gathered). What astounds me is that Labor are reportably going to stamp this one. Are you kidding? You are opposing changes to Medicare and aged pension age and yet doing nothing about this one?
It was the one part of the budget I was hoping they would have to negotiate on.

Friend, Labor is fighting furiously against restrictions on unemployment benefits. He also told Sarah Ferguson of the ABC last week that unlike Joe Hockey, he wouldn't have added to the budget deficit, by giving 22 billion dollar for the paid parental leave scheme and giving 9 billion to the Reserve Bank.

The Abbott government's budget has given Labor back its voice.


"This terrible budget of the Abbott government, it has defined the Labor Party," he told the Victorian ALP state conference in Melbourne on Sunday.

"Friends, the Labor party nationally has its voice back."

Mr Shorten used the speech to continue his attack on the coalition government's first budget, warning Labor will stand up for those losing out.

His fury is directed at doctor co-payments, a raised pension age, restrictions on unemployment benefits, cuts to state funding and the fuel excise.

Mr Abbott's "juvenile" paid parental scheme is also high on Mr Shorten's hit list, with the Labor leader claiming it will give millionaires $50,000 they don't need.

"See how that goes for pensioners trying to get an extra smear of Vegemite on their toast on day 13 of their budget," he said.

Mr Shorten reiterated Labor's fierce opposition to the $7 co-payment to visit a GP on Sunday and told the conference not even a cure for cancer would justify breaking Medicare.

Revenue raised from the co-payment will be fed into a medical research fund.

"But how dare you say that a cure to cancer is dependent upon wrecking Medicare," he said.

"You don't heal the sick by taxing them."


State and territory leaders held an emergency meeting in Sydney on Sunday to discuss an $80 billion hole in state budgets left by last week's budget.

Mr Shorten accused the government of using cuts to state funding for schools and hospitals to sneak in another tax.

"They are actually increasing taxes through the back door," he told party members.

The states will have no choice but to raise GST because they must continue to operate schools and hospitals, he said.

Labor call it blackmailing, a line reiterated by the Greens.

"Even a crocodile wouldn't swallow what Tony Abbott's dishing up at the moment," Mr Shorten said.

................................................

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/23621429/budget-gives-labor-its-voice-shorten/
 
Back
Top