-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGaf |Early 2016 Election| - the government's term has been... Shortened
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Elaugaufein
Member
He's doing the usual trick of redefining the pension as a thing you should be ashamed of getting because it means you didn't bootstrap hard enough.
Leyjonhelm never ceases to be an idiot, but (and I hate using that word when he's involved) the pension needed to be looked at and the changes they've made were good.
The whole point of investments should be to use during retirement, not to pass it along to children and create generational wealth. There will be enough of that with property prices. Like, to me if you've got $500k in investments in addition to the family home, I have no idea why the government should be giving you a full pension.
The Superannuation industry doesn't want people to use their super because the more money in super, the more money they can collect in fees.
D.Lo
Member
Superannuation has been massively mishandled (mostly by Howard) and is a massive failure as a policy.
A guy I know's parents did massive salary sacrifice into super for their last decade+ of work, including getting voluntary contributions matched by the Howard government of $5000(or maybe 3000?) each a year. Had a huge chunk of cash saved there that was taxed at an insanely concessional rate for his income. Also bought and negative geared a bunch of properties and got his taxable income down to nothing, so contributed virtually nothing to the country over the period.
Then when the dad finally retired, they took it out as cash, spent it (plus selling their house) all on a huge coastal house, massively renovated it and bought an RV. By the end of it they had little cash left, so both got the pension while living in a palace! And what burns the most is that the mother was originally from Britain and worked there for 10 years, and gets a British pension as well somehow! She leaves it in an account in England only to be spent on holidays there, which evidently makes it not declarable or something.
Pension asset test should be $500k INCLUDING any property. Grannies in 2-5 million dollar 4 bedroom Annandale/Glebe houses ect on full pensions (way higher than the dole with no requirements)? We're literally just paying for their kids to get more inheritance.
Elaugaufein
Member
No one wants to deal with the news stories you'd get out of adding primary residence to pension tests. Property is often non-liquid which would mean news stories about how Granny is being denied her permission because she worked hard and bought a house. You'd need some kind of complex program where the government paid an appropriate payment while the inner city Sydney property now worth $error actually went to market and to find appropriate places to buy and you'd still get news stories about forcing granny to sell the family home of N-generations and all the memories attached and where grandad's ashes were sprinkled in the backyard etc. No one is touching that with a 50 foot stick.
D.Lo
Member
Understand it's not going to happen, but it's still fucked up. It's so unfair to people whose assets are in cash/other investments.
Welfare payments should always only be to those who need it. It's complete and utter nonsense that we pay for people to keep assets.
Well we could have inheritance taxes.
Or stories about old people forced to move out of their life long home just to free up some cash because they cannot get a pension as all they have is their now really valuable property.
D.Lo
Member
An absolute no brainer.
But welfare should only be for the poor. Or for everyone equally then you have have whatever you want (basic income).
Yeah look, I actually don't think it's that fair to include the family home. If you did that you'd absolutely have to tie it to regional property prices rather than a national average. Then it just gets messy. Considering you buy and sell in the same market, you're making people move far away from their families and support structures. The better way to deal with it is through inheritance tax.
D.Lo, you said a $500k test including all property. I don't even think it's possible to own a property for that price in Sydney (remember you can't stick the elderly in apartment towers). In that situation, you'd have to sell your house and move cities entirely in order to get a pension.
Much like the myth of the person choosing to live on the dole rather than get a job, I doubt there's that many people out there deliberately choosing to spend all their cash on a expensive family home just to live on the pension.
My problem is with the people with significant outside investments and large superannuation portfolios.
D.Lo, you said a $500k test including all property. I don't even think it's possible to own a property for that price in Sydney (remember you can't stick the elderly in apartment towers). In that situation, you'd have to sell your house and move cities entirely in order to get a pension.
Much like the myth of the person choosing to live on the dole rather than get a job, I doubt there's that many people out there deliberately choosing to spend all their cash on a expensive family home just to live on the pension.
My problem is with the people with significant outside investments and large superannuation portfolios.
D.Lo
Member
Not at all, there are financial vehicles that allow you to stay in the property while living off its value. As prices go up these vehicles give the occupant more potential liquidity as well (essentially it's a loan of say 200k with the house as eventual collateral), it's not like selling and renting.
And you can get property for well under $500k in Sydney anyway. Large detached houses within 20km from the CBD obviously no, but townhouses etc no problem.
It's not just federal policies that are the issue though, some people are stuck in too large houses because the stamp duty and other transaction costs will be so high a downsize leaves them (and their kids inheritance) in a much worse situation.
ALL wealth is equal as far as I'm concerned when applying for welfare. Maybe 500k is too low, but every investment should be roughly equal. Liquidity can be taken into account of course, policies need to deal with that. Maybe the pension can be an indexed loan to be paid back from the property or other investment's value (essentially a government version of the reverse mortgage).
Of course as a commie I'd much rather an even universal basic income with no other main forms of welfare even existing (supplements for disability etc excluded). Yes I am a complete idealist who will never see any of this done. I'm in an idealistic mood. Any the #1 thing that makes me angry is rich people (of any sort) getting welfare paid for by less rich people.
Policy should not be decided based on potential Daily Telegraph hit pieces.
Candescence
Member
A notable point has been brought up about the whole Centerlink fiasco: this is hitting people who aren't typically seen as "dole bludgers" or generally marginalized people who the government can ignore, middle-class people are being hit. As pointed out in The New Daily, just wait till the debt collectors really come out in force. This could easily drag on for a long time if the government doesn't shut down the program, and could really grind into the government's popularity like the 2014 budget did.
Reverse mortgages are risky and if we're forcing a generation of elderly to use them to survive we're setting ourselves up for failure. What happens if someone uses up 200k of their equity, and are then forced to move into an assisted living or nursing home, and property prices stay flat? Suddenly an 85 year old is in significant debt to a bank. Not only that, in an economy that already provides too much of a leg up to the financial services industry, forcing a generation to go back to them to get a loan to live after they just spent their lives paying it off is just crazy. Just keep giving the pension and implement an inheritance tax.
I mean, I definitely wouldn't say 'well under'. We're at the point now where a townhouse in Mount Druitt costs $430k. And I think there'd have to be something in the UN Human Rights Convention about forcing people to live in Mount Druitt
Seriously though, a policy which forces the elderly (and if we're talking an asset limit of $500k, we're not making any distinction about wealth in any meaningful way) to move to high crime areas just to survive seems like bad social policy.Agreed, there should be some way to offset the stamp duty if you're downsizing.
I disagree that all wealth is equal. Because here's the thing about the primary family home - it's not first and foremost an investment. It's shelter. It's a place to raise a family in stability. It doesn't work as an investment unless you move into a different market after you sell. If I buy a family home, live in it for 20 years, and then sell it and get a 200% return, it doesn't matter because I'm going to have to turn around and buy another property that's just undergone the same increase (or pay the increased rent that follows). It's vastly different to any other 'investment'.
Again, I think this image of an old woman living in a $5 million property in Vaucluse and living off the pension isn't realistic. That person isn't going to be happy with $400 a week.
I've yet to have anyone explain how to even come close to funding a UBI or how to combat the inflation & wage stagnation that would inevitably follow. That is if you mean an actual universal income and not just combining all welfare into one but still restricting who receives it (I've seen people on GAF use it in both ways). If we peg the adult population of Australia at approx 18 million (let's just ignore the fact that for the moment you'd have to pay parents extra). Let's also put the payment rate at $528 a fortnight (which is the current Newstart allowance) Let's ignore the fact that $528 a fortnight would actually be a significant cut for pensioners, and as you said, you'd need significant additions for people with disabilities.
We're now at $247,104,000,000, which if I can count my numbers right, is $247 billion dollars, which is a 56% increase on our current welfare spending. And remember, that's on the absolutely low end of things. If you made a UBI the equivalent of the minimum wage, we're talking $629 billion dollars.
And I'm no big city economist, but I would have thought if you suddenly gave every worker in the country an extra $13k on top of their salaries, it doesn't give much incentive for employers to give any wage increases for awhile, right?
Elaugaufein
Member
Reverse mortgages are risky and if we're forcing a generation of elderly to use them to survive we're setting ourselves up for failure. What happens if someone uses up 200k of their equity, and are then forced to move into an assisted living or nursing home, and property prices stay flat? Suddenly an 85 year old is in significant debt to a bank. Not only that, in an economy that already provides too much of a leg up to the financial services industry, forcing a generation to go back to them to get a loan to live after they just spent their lives paying it off is just crazy. Just keep giving the pension and implement an inheritance tax.
I mean, I definitely wouldn't say 'well under'. We're at the point now where a townhouse in Mount Druitt costs $430k. And I think there'd have to be something in the UN Human Rights Convention about forcing people to live in Mount Druitt
Agreed, there should be some way to offset the stamp duty if you're downsizing.
I disagree that all wealth is equal. Because here's the thing about the primary family home - it's not first and foremost an investment. It's shelter. It's a place to raise a family in stability. It doesn't work as an investment unless you move into a different market after you sell. If I buy a family home, live in it for 20 years, and then sell it and get a 200% return, it doesn't matter because I'm going to have to turn around and buy another property that's just undergone the same increase (or pay the increased rent that follows). It's vastly different to any other 'investment'.
Again, I think this image of an old woman living in a $5 million property in Vaucluse and living off the pension isn't realistic. That person isn't going to be happy with $400 a week.
I've yet to have anyone explain how to even come close to funding a UBI or how to combat the inflation & wage stagnation that would inevitably follow. That is if you mean an actual universal income and not just combining all welfare into one but still restricting who receives it (I've seen people on GAF use it in both ways). If we peg the adult population of Australia at approx 18 million (let's just ignore the fact that for the moment you'd have to pay parents extra). Let's also put the payment rate at $528 a fortnight (which is the current Newstart allowance) Let's ignore the fact that $528 a fortnight would actually be a significant cut for pensioners, and as you said, you'd need significant additions for people with disabilities.
We're now at $247,104,000,000, which if I can count my numbers right, is $247 billion dollars, which is a 56% increase on our current welfare spending. And remember, that's on the absolutely low end of things. If you made a UBI the equivalent of the minimum wage, we're talking $629 billion dollars.
And I'm no big city economist, but I would have thought if you suddenly gave every worker in the country an extra $13k on top of their salaries, it doesn't give much incentive for employers to give any wage increases for awhile, right?
The ubi does not exist in the current economic format. Whether it would work is unknown but the idea is you always get income of at least X. If you work you get paid more but that additional number is taxed at some high rate. Its also likely that the direct employmer part of wages would fall since basic living requirements are already met. So it's roughly equivalent to fiddling with the tax system such that if you're below threshold you get negative tax to meet it and of course increasing other brackets appropriately, with a sufficiently high threshold you can actually theoretically flat tax (though the numbers would of course be higher than your average flat tax proponent dreams of in their libertarian paradise). It should replace pretty much all welfare except for special costs like modifications for the disabled and ongoing care for those who require it but day to day it's supposed to cover cost of living.
Yeah, I get that, but where does the money come from? To actually make it a cost of living payment it needs to be closer to the minimum wage rate that I mentioned. At that point we're going to have to quadruple our tax base to pay for it.
Usually the whole 'wealth flight' scare tactic about tax increases is nonsense, but if we're talking about increasing taxes to 80%, there's just no way wealthy people stay in the country.
Elaugaufein
Member
Money comes from where it always comes from in our modern world. The government backed by the productive ability of the citizens. Fiat currency has no inherent value. Which does mean it could fall flat , hence the bit about if it would work being unknown.
I was going to put in a line about the parasite but I was too lazy. Pretty much all our welfare to people with jobs is nothing but this already so I took it as a given.
It turns out that I misread. It seems to come in waves. 50s advertising was very segregated, 70s advertising was very desegregated, 90s advertising was very segregated again.
Elaugaufein
Member
That kinda suggests ads become segregated when the economy is bad. Better to have a small base of dedicated sales at those times maybe ?
Though frankly I think its a terrible thing to do. I'd rather see inheritance taxes than basically forcing people to move in their final years.
Of course I've always thought the lack of longterm planning by governments for pensions has been irresponsible. Should have always had some pension fund built up over time from taxes.
D.Lo
Member
It all evens out. Most people pay 15k+ in tax already, and get a bunch back as welfare (family tax benefit etc). This just distributes it more evenly. Example: If you're on 100k, instead of paying 30k tax, you instead get 15k UBI and pay 45k tax. The vast simplification of the tax and welfare systems also brings massive savings.
And to me, the best part is it completely de-stigmatises 'welfare' and unlike the dole always incentivises work, since you don't have your payments reduced by getting a job.
Higher taxes clearly, like a higher GST I imagine. I am pretty interested in all the basic income trials have have and are taking place.
As for the whole replacing everything thing I wonder what that actually means...including various tax breaks/cuts? the PBS scheme discounts on medication? Or just direct social security payments? I guess that might mean eliminating the tax free threshold too. So much devil in the details.
D.Lo
Member
Yes it would most likely eliminate the tax free threashold. You can do the entire thing with just tax rate adjustments. You can do it so everyone has basically the same entitlements and tax rate as now, except that it vastly simplifies the welfare system. Citizen over 18? $500 a week payment. No forms and payment types. The entire of centrelink would only need to deal with an extra $100 a week per child or an extra $200 a week for the disabled, the latter most likely to be handled by NDIS.
Many details to go through, the only half decent argument against it is that a certain percentage would just sit on the basic income and take drugs. This may be true, but it's far better than how those who want to work are screwed by the system now. Basically the way the dole cuts out as you get some money from work completely dis-incentivises work. You cannot technically get less money, but it essentially imposes a huge marginal tax rate at the bottom. Eg Dole is $500 a fortnight for no work. If you work eight days for four hours each (32 hours total) and earn $600, your dole drops to $100, and you now have gotten $700 total instead of $500. But it cost you $100 in transport, meals while at work and other marginal costs. This means you got an extra $6 an hour ($3 an hour with your extra costs to work taken out) for every hour of work you did for the fortnight. And you were out almost every weekday, for $12 a day.
Of course we could also adjust the way the dole cuts out, say you need to earn $700 a fortnight before it gets reduced at all (essentially dole would 'top you up' until you reach the first taxable rung at 18k), which would actually mean a whole bunch more people qualify for it and is really stepping into a UBI model anyway.
The story of Susan Ley unexpectedly buying an apartment for over 3/4 of a mill from a Liberal party donor while on a tax payer funded trip is pretty great.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-on-taxpayer-funded-trip-20170106-gtmypa.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-on-taxpayer-funded-trip-20170106-gtmypa.html
D.Lo
Member
Yeah I just read that. The excuse almost sounds worse in terms of optics, these people as so rich they can spend almost a million bucks on a whim lol.
When they are out there sending debt letters to centrelink payment recipients. Not the best timing. No.
bobnowhere
Member
It's just so dumb. The first response of the Abbott/Turnbull/Christensen government has always been to deny first and then eventually admit fault and every single time it has made it worse. Every time.
Ley is probably one of the better and more liked people in government so a very easy response to make it all go away would have been to say something like :
"While the purchase was on a whim, using taxpayer resources even incidentally should not be done so this morning I have reimbursed the full amount to the parliamentary office."
But no, dig in and come up with a ridiculous excuse that you bought a 3/4 million apartment on a whim. I don't know of a single person that wouldn't do due diligence on any real estate purchase. Now the story will run and run and dominate the headlines until she finally does the right thing and pays the money back and permanently tarnishes her record as a result.
Maybe she's been instructed to take one for the team to stop the government hemorrhaging over the Centerlink affair, Climate Change, 18c, the fact that the backbench all hate Turnbull, Censusfail, the still living 2014 budget, a potenial recession, spending more than 1 billion on a coal mine that no one wants to buy the coal from, the NBN, killing the reef, whether Dutton is a potato/human hybrid, a break away conservative party...
Ley is probably one of the better and more liked people in government so a very easy response to make it all go away would have been to say something like :
"While the purchase was on a whim, using taxpayer resources even incidentally should not be done so this morning I have reimbursed the full amount to the parliamentary office."
But no, dig in and come up with a ridiculous excuse that you bought a 3/4 million apartment on a whim. I don't know of a single person that wouldn't do due diligence on any real estate purchase. Now the story will run and run and dominate the headlines until she finally does the right thing and pays the money back and permanently tarnishes her record as a result.
Maybe she's been instructed to take one for the team to stop the government hemorrhaging over the Centerlink affair, Climate Change, 18c, the fact that the backbench all hate Turnbull, Censusfail, the still living 2014 budget, a potenial recession, spending more than 1 billion on a coal mine that no one wants to buy the coal from, the NBN, killing the reef, whether Dutton is a potato/human hybrid, a break away conservative party...
Whaa? I feel like I'm missing something here. How could a UBI possibly be revenue neutral as you present it? Like, you've said a $500 a week payment for all adults. That's $468 billion. That's more than the entire Federal Budget.
Am I being dumb?
Are your assumptions wrong? 500/pw equating to $468bn implies 18 million adults. Is that the case?
Aarglefarg
Member
Wolfram Alpha gives 15.47 million adults as the estimate in 2013.
D.Lo
Member
Tax increases pay for it. Look at my example, a 100k PA person's tax increases from 30k to 45k per year, but they get 15k as UBI, so end up the same anyway, and the government ends up with the same net income, but with a vastly simplified welfare department (more transactions, but far less bureaucracy). Yes there's some double handling (you're paying into and getting back from the government at the same time) but no more than there is already with all the middle class welfare partially handled through DHS and partially handled through the ATO via tax benefits.
There are so many productivity pluses to it. If you lose your job, you don't have to waste time jumping though hoops applying for newstart, you already have the UBI. People can take more risks changing job or starting a business (there's a program called NEIS that handles the latter right now where you get the dole for 6 months without having to go to JSA when starting a business), increasing productivity and getting people into the right job, not just the first one that pops up.
It would overall most likely lead to higher net tax take on those over 100k, which is something I am all for anyway, when the median weekly income for a full time worker is like $45k.
I think I was including anyone 16+ because that's how the ABS seem to separate their population stats.
But it's not just 'tax increases'. It's 'tax increases the likes of which have never been in the history of the country'. You have to triple tax revenues. You're massively underselling what a significant change that would be. The efficiency costs you're proposing pale in comparison to the actual money that's given out. It's a drop in the bucket. Heck, a drop in the Pacific Ocean.
I wonder at what point along the increasing inequality trajectory this kind of tax scheme would become appealing. We have single income parents being hit with $24000 centrelink bills whilst tax cuts are offered to multinationals and LNP MPs get free helicopter rides on the taxpayer.
Surely there's a line somewhere.
D.Lo
Member
Or $4000 trips to inspect 3/4 million dollar investment properties.
bobnowhere
Member
And $11k to go watch the cricket and $12k to take a charter flight that would have cost $500 via a standard airline because she's busy.
bobnowhere
Member
Oh look, Ley has apologised and is paying the money back. Oddly she is "voluntarily" paying back the cash from two other trips to the Gold Coast which also happens to be where her husband's business is.
Not sure if this will save her, the press is out for a scalp. Though the fact that the ALP seems to have taken January off will help.
Not sure if this will save her, the press is out for a scalp. Though the fact that the ALP seems to have taken January off will help.
Elaugaufein
Member
Also a one nation candidate has been disendorsed for homophobic remarks leaving me deeply confused given that as far as I can tell that was One Nations official position.
bobnowhere
Member
I think James Ashby is pretty much the "brains" of the operation now and he has his eye on the probably soon to be vacant WA senate seat. Though I think there are some issues as Hanson doesn't own the brand in WA, someone else owns ONP hence PHON.
I suspect it comes down to the same reason behind the previous Asian hate and now Muslim. It's ok if your Asian/Muslim but if you act too Asiany/Muslismy and get too far away from ONP's mythical ideal of Australian values you're out. If you act all Australiany you can even run for the party.
I imagine LGBTQI people are fine in Hanson land as long as they don't act too "gay" etc...
bobnowhere
Member
Arthur "I know nothing" Sinodinas, I think we are officially post-satire.
Apparently the number is as high as 27 now, the number of times she's been to The Gold Coast and billed, at least partially, the taxpayer. Good scam, she has something to announce and heads there to make an announcement that could be made in Canberra or the hospital closest to her electorate office and brings her husband so they can conduct private business.
There is about a 99% chance of an up coming reshuffle and at that point she will be quietly reshuffled out. Now we wait for the inevitable revenge from the LNP/Murdoch, you know there is room somewhere where staffers are going through every Labor members expenses looking for something to take the pressure off themselves.
Elaugaufein
Member
I dunno if there is. News Corp seens to be embroiled in an internal battle over whether they should be assisting the Abbotista's to regain power or be supporting Turnbull. They've been pretty half-heartred in their defense of Turnbull the last few months.
D.Lo
Member
You nailed the response pattern from the top. But this one appears to be actual corruption or at least severe systematic abuse of the system, literally using entitlements only for personal gain. Technically even worse than choppergate, which was dodge (liberal fundraiser) but big largely because of the scale of waste and how funny it was.
Of course they resign from the ministry, not from parliament. And they'll roll back into cabinet in 0.5-2 years anyway.
We should demand resign=resign from parliment, not mean 'temporarily demoted to make this go away'.
Elaugaufein
Member
That ain't going to happen. Governments with small majorities are going to demand personal resignations** unless the seat is blue ribbon or Senate. Turnbull can't even do that most of the time because on one hand he can't afford to lose allies and on the other he can't risk angering potential enemies.
**Honestly at all. Precedent says such a person could just resign from the party and either change political allegiance or sit as an independent. Federal Houses don't have the ability to expel members.
Elaugaufein
Member
We can already do that by not electing them at the next election. That was the entire rational for the removal of the Federal expulsion power in 87.
D.Lo
Member
I guess my point is that the press/opposition (including the Greens)/community etc just accept 'resigned from ministry' as the end of it. When we all know it's just a slap on the wrist.
Of course Canberra is just a gravy train for all involved so they don't want to rock the boat that much.
Of course Canberra is just a gravy train for all involved so they don't want to rock the boat that much.
- Status