Joe Hockey, asset or liability?

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Maybe you are connecting things together which aren't there?

I think the reason Floor Pie finds arguing with you so pointless is because you fail to connect things.

And yes there is evidence that inflation will be less than indexing based on average wage. I would link to it, but in the Asylum Seeker thread you boast of getting your info from the government, so you can do this again. Indexing the pension based on inflation is one of the key ways they plan to get the budget back in surplus. i.e. It will save them a lot of money. Get it?

 

[mottrain]

I think the reason Floor Pie finds arguing with you so pointless is because you fail to connect things.

And yes there is evidence that inflation will be less than indexing based on average wage. I would link to it, but in the Asylum Seeker thread you boast of getting your info from the government, so you can do this again. Indexing the pension based on inflation is one of the key ways they plan to get the budget back in surplus. i.e. It will save them a lot of money. Get it?

I don't fail to connect things. It is hard to connect things the way Floor pie wants when someone wants to take it away from the original comment and then expect to keep that discussion going even when they have ended it through their own decisions.

Good so there is supposedly some evidence but basically you fail firstly to provide it so shall deem it inexistent.

 

[Elroo]

I don't fail to connect things. It is hard to connect things the way Floor pie wants when someone wants to take it away from the original comment and then expect to keep that discussion going even when they have ended it through their own decisions.

Good so there is supposedly some evidence but basically you fail firstly to provide it so shall deem it inexistent.

You do. You were specifically arguing about changes to pensions and then when it was pointed out to you that the Abbott government was changing the indexation of pensions from %MTAWE to the CPI, you tried to deflect this change.

 

[mottrain]

You do. You were specifically arguing about changes to pensions and then when it was pointed out to you that the Abbott government was changing the indexation of pensions from %MTAWE to the CPI, you tried to deflect this change.

No I didn't. If you go back and read the post where I asked if there was definitive proof of this it was in relation to the assertion he made that there would be big changes to the lifestyle. This was then clarified further down the page for him and then he still tried to say somehow that I was disconnecting things even after I clarified it for him. He then got upset when I had to clarify again for him that a lot of people have had wage adjustments altered on the basis of inflation for yonks and so what decisive difference does this make to the lifestyle pensioners have under the changed system. How is that not relevant to the original comment I made? Explain how that is me failing to connect things?

 

[Elroo]

No I didn't. If you go back and read the post where I asked if there was definitive proof of this it was in relation to the assertion he made that there would be big changes to the lifestyle. This was then clarified further down the page for him and then he still tried to say somehow that I was disconnecting things even after I clarified it for him. He then got upset when I had to clarify again for him that a lot of people have had wage adjustments altered on the basis of inflation for yonks and so what decisive difference does this make to the lifestyle pensioners have under the changed system. How is that not relevant to the original comment I made? Explain how that is me failing to connect things?

Yes you did.

The government is changing the way they index old age pensions are indexed from the superior % of AWTE to the CPI.

http://www.cota.org.au/australia/news/newslist/2014/budget-2014-pensioners-in-firing-line.aspx

Single pensioners will be $80 a week worse off in ten years under the Federal Government's proposed changes to the indexing of the aged pension in the 2014 Budget.


Ian Yates, CE of leading seniors advocate COTA Australia said the changes to indexing, flagged to begin in three years time, would have a huge and damaging impact on the lives of over 1.5 million pensioners.


"This is an unprecedented attack on the quality of life of Australia's pensioners," Mr Yates said.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...exation-hit-women-hardest-20140419-36xoq.html

If the government makes the change in the May 13 federal budget, it will disadvantage all age pensioners as male earnings outpace inflation by about 1.5 percentage points a year, says Michael Rice, an actuary and chief executive of Rice Warner.

"If the age pension had been indexed to changes in the CPI [inflation] from 2000 to now, the age pension for a single person would be about $7000 a year less," said Pauline Vamos, the chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.

"Over the past four years, CPI indexation alone would have resulted in the annual single age pension being around $2000 less," she said.


The government is also considering lifting the access age for the age pension to 70.


The pension age is already scheduled to increase. It is 65 for most people now and will start increasing in 2017 to reach 67 for everyone by July 1, 2023.

 

[mottrain]

Yes you did.

The government is changing the way they index old age pensions are indexed from the superior % of AWTE to the CPI.

http://www.cota.org.au/australia/news/newslist/2014/budget-2014-pensioners-in-firing-line.aspx

Single pensioners will be $80 a week worse off in ten years under the Federal Government's proposed changes to the indexing of the aged pension in the 2014 Budget.


Ian Yates, CE of leading seniors advocate COTA Australia said the changes to indexing, flagged to begin in three years time, would have a huge and damaging impact on the lives of over 1.5 million pensioners.


"This is an unprecedented attack on the quality of life of Australia's pensioners," Mr Yates said.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...exation-hit-women-hardest-20140419-36xoq.html

If the government makes the change in the May 13 federal budget, it will disadvantage all age pensioners as male earnings outpace inflation by about 1.5 percentage points a year, says Michael Rice, an actuary and chief executive of Rice Warner.

"If the age pension had been indexed to changes in the CPI [inflation] from 2000 to now, the age pension for a single person would be about $7000 a year less," said Pauline Vamos, the chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia.

"Over the past four years, CPI indexation alone would have resulted in the annual single age pension being around $2000 less," she said.


The government is also considering lifting the access age for the age pension to 70.


The pension age is already scheduled to increase. It is 65 for most people now and will start increasing in 2017 to reach 67 for everyone by July 1, 2023.

And what relevance does this diatribe have to do with anything about what I said or have posted? You complain about failing to connect things yet you have clearly done this here by not referring to anything I have posted.

 

[mottrain]

In your previous post, you literally admitted that you were talking about the change in pensions...
Elroo has provided you verifiable evidence to how pensions will change...

And your response was to ask how it is relevant?

I am trying so hard to be polite to you...

No need to lie about trying to be nice.

Also in my previous post where did I talk about the pension? Or if the one before is the one you are referring to then where did I deflect the issue that Abbott was changing calculation of the pensions? I think you need to go back and read the post where there are two issues bought out in the one you are saying I failed to connect things on. One issue is the indexing change and also there is the second one which was the kick to pensioners lifestyles which was what I was wanting definitive proof on which was raised in that same post which was quoted by me and where I asked for definitive proof. You have chosen to connect my comment incorrectly to the change in indexing.

So this then again actually says you fail to connect the issues properly.

 

[mottrain]

******* hell.
Let me break it down for you.

Are you talking about pensions; yes or no?

I am and that still doesn't then show/prove that I denied the indexing was changing does it genius!

 

[mottrain]

Good work, you failed by scrawling across the paper, but you marked the yes. So whatever we will give you a pass!

OK, so you are talking about pensions!
Now, are pensions changing, yes or no?

At this stage there are proposed changes unless they have since passed parliament between now and the time I went oseas.

 

[mottrain]

Defensive, meow!
OK, so you are admitting that the plan so far, is to change aspects of the pension.
Are the proposed changes good or bad for pensioners, yes or no?

Is there definitive proof that the change in indexing will worsen the outcome for pensioners which is what I asked earlier also? No one has shown me this thusfar despite me requesting it nor is there much substantial evidence to support this considering using inflation to index wages was and will continue to be how most people's wages will be indexed for times to come.

 

[Gough]

Are you saying, that until changes are passed, and implemented, that they don't actually mean anything?

You missed the interesting part of that post. mottrain where are you o/s? I'm intrigued by the dymott abroad.

 

[mottrain]

So, you can't answer yes or no?

Also, please see post #486 by Elroo to help you have your question answered again.


OK. New question, going back to my previous post in reply to this;

Are you saying, that until changes are passed, and implemented, that they don't actually mean anything?

It is the same question I asked some 2 or so pages ago so looks like we've gone round in circles.

They do as it is implementing debate on this issue. It does not mean that pensioner have been proven to be better or worse off.

 

[Elroo]

Is there definitive proof that the change in indexing will worsen the outcome for pensioners which is what I asked earlier also? No one has shown me this thusfar despite me requesting it nor is there much substantial evidence to support this considering using inflation to index wages was and will continue to be how most people's wages will be indexed for times to come.

You've had this shown to you at post #486;

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/joe-hockey-asset-or-liability.1007573/page-20#post-33946135

And more;

http://www.afr.com/p/national/budget/link_to_cpi_will_erode_age_pension_7WM2yldSMKpTESw6eeHAHP

Link to CPI will erode age pension over time
PUBLISHED: 14 May 2014 04:52:52 | UPDATED: 14 May 2014 04:52:52

print -font +font
Reprints & permissions
Pensioners

Sally Patten and John Wasiliev

Indexing the age pension to the consumer price index rather than average male weekly earnings will erode the value of the benefit by thousands of dollars over the next couple of decades.


From September 1, 2017, the age pension will be linked to CPI alongside other welfare benefits such as the Disability Support Pension, the carer payment and veterans’ affairs pensions.


The CPI is typically lower than the average male weekly earnings, which means that over time the value of the age pension will fall.


Treasury expects to save $449 million over five years by indexing the pension and equivalent payments, and the parenting payment single, to CPI.


The National Commission of Audit, which published a report earlier this month, recommended a similar solution to reducing the size of the pension bill. The commission calculated that the real value of the pension was about one third higher than it was in the early 2000s, at $827 a fortnight, and concluded that average weekly earnings was a more appropriate benchmark for the rate of the pension.

The commission suggested that the government pension be set at 28 per cent of average weekly earnings. Realignment over time could be achieved by indexing the current base to the higher of CPI or another similar index.

A change to the deeming rules, which encourage age pension retirees to seek better returns from their investments, will be introduced in September 2017. The change will sharply reduce the threshold for deeming from the current $46,600 for singles to $30,000, and for couples from $77,400 to $50,000.

Under the deeming rules amounts below the threshold are assessed at a lower rate – 2 per cent at present – while amounts above the threshold are assessed at a higher rate: now at 3.5 per cent.

According to the government, resetting the deeming thresholds will ensure that the lower rate is more likely to apply to cash investments a retiree may have while the higher rate will apply to other higher yielding investments.

 

[Jab]

This thread is for discussing Joe Hockey, not individual posters on BigFooty.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

This thread is for discussing Joe Hockey, not individual posters on BigFooty.

Have you just started modding here, Jab? This sort of diversion is pretty common on Aus Politics as people like to distract the thread from criticism of their preferred party. Or mottrain genuinely believes what he's saying. Either way, it's good to keep things on topic if they go on repetitively like this.

More importantly, do you know anything about this?

 

[Pie eyed]

Joe Hockey...LOL
His own party are going to disown him if he doesn't stick something edible in his gob and stop inventing policy on the run....

 

[noddy]

About the only thing going for him at present is that he seems a rather jovial type of person.

 

[Slax]

Hockey is on a road to self destruction, so of reminds me of someone else

 

[Gough]

Here's an extract from Hockey's book describing the circumstances behind hi decision to go into politics.

And the fat bastard has the gall to lecture us on the age of entitlement being over.

 

[Maggie5]

Here's an extract from Hockey's book describing the circumstances behind hi decision to go into politics.

And the fat bastard has the gall to lecture us on the age of entitlement being over.

So he was a leaner, right?

 

[Maggie5]

https://newmatilda.com/2014/07/22/lifters-and-leaners-real-welfare-bludgers

Very good explanation as to who the real leaners are.
Especially like the following paragraph.
"In 2010 in a report from the Australian Tax Office, 2,600 individuals identified as high wealth individuals contributed just 1.2% of the tax paid by individuals and 5% paid no tax at all".
Imagine the number would be higher now.

 

[madmug]

https://newmatilda.com/2014/07/22/lifters-and-leaners-real-welfare-bludgers

Very good explanation as to who the real leaners are.
Especially like the following paragraph.
"In 2010 in a report from the Australian Tax Office, 2,600 individuals identified as high wealth individuals contributed just 1.2% of the tax paid by individuals and 5% paid no tax at all".
Imagine the number would be higher now.

Hopefully the voters will see through the divisive smokescreen pumped out by this Government. I think many are doing this right now.
Sure we need to address the economics of an aging population, but this T party Government are trying to turn us into a junior USA.
The more I see of Hockey the more I see a him as a deluded pig. An arrogant one at that!
Still its up to the average Australian to decide what sort of country we want. A reinvented 1980's 'Greed is good' society, or one which more properly values people & community.

 

[Docker Clint]

At least he's had time to get a biography out there.

 

[poller]

Hockey admits the coalition lied about the budget emergency

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...ey-tells-nz-20140726-zx6ie.html#ixzz38Y42oJDP

Joe Hockey has told New Zealand that there is no crisis in the Australian economy, nor is it in trouble.

The treasurer also made no mention of the "budget emergency" he and his government referred to when justifying their unpopular budget to Australians.

 

[Docker Clint]

And people swallowed it. "Labor rooned us!"