That great sector of the Australian community, retirees, is being set upon again by government. The issue has passed barely noticed in the media but the political consequences for the Turnbull Government are sure to be profound.
On January 1, 2017, changes to the aged care assets test will see more than 100,000 Australians lose their part pension payments in entirety. More than 300,000 will have their pension payments cut.
There is a perception many retirees are rolling in money. They have assets many could only dream of. Perhaps that’s why the media has shunned the issue.
Let me ask the question, who among us could lose 20 per cent of our household incomes and come away unscathed?
It gets worse. With the loss of the pension, the government will also cancel retirees’ pensioner concession cards which allow them to enjoy discounts on council rates, car rego, energy bills and public transport tickets. Back of the envelope, that’s three grand per annum retirees will have to find.
Full column here.
JB: Definitely treating myself to the new Al Gore!
The last one was proven to have so many holes in it that it should have been listed under science fiction Yvonne. Not a single one of his predictions came true.
Anyone had a read of this site? Quite interesting. http://WWW.monbiot.com
Yeah, George Monbiot had a very interesting and amusing online debate with Ian Plimer, the noted global warming skeptic. Monbiot absolutely tore Plimer to shreds.
Worth reading the exchange.
Also utube debate with Bellamy – same outcome!
Good one, Yvonne – the debate is priceless!!
I understand that David Bellamy has steered clear of the topic since then.
Thanks for that! More a walkover than a debate, and so typical of the whole phoney controversy. You can almost spot the moment poor Bellamy realises he’d been used as a sock puppet by the denier industry. I think it was when Monbiot pointed out that Bellamy’s main source of information was a website published by someone doing 15 years for fraud, quoting a non-existent article from the journal Science.
Monbiot beautifully summarised the behaviour of deniers in general, who “ignore a mountain-range of evidence, and pick up instead a tiny crumb of data, which then disintegrates in your hand because it turns out to be false”. No wonder Bellamy subsequently withdrew from participation in the issue.
A clinical takedown by Monbiot. Plimer characteristically maintains his arrogance in the face of blatant defeat. A true denier to the end.
While googling for it I came across Quadrant’s take on exactly the same encounter: an article by a John Izzard claiming that Monbiot “ran” from a debate with Plimer, including as evidence a link to “emails” — carefully not expressed as “the emails” — between Monbiot and Plimer. This consisted of only the last two of the 22 emails that were exchanged. Even read in isolation, they don’t really support Izzard’s headline. The complete exchange, which is published on Monbiot’s site, makes it blindingly clear that Plimer was the dodger. Again, the denier mindset in action: ignore the mountain and focus on the crumb.
He’s very good on neoliberalism too.
FOUND THIS….supports what I said above exactly….Some 40 per cent of the largest companies operating in Australia, 60 per cent of mining companies and 30 per cent of privately owned companies earning more than $200 million paid no tax last year. These Tax Office figures can be found in a quick search on the internet. Meanwhile, a friend is to be slugged $100 off his weekly pension. Next time the government bemoans the deficit, or tells people to stop with the sob stories, can somebody bring up this tax information?
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/370613-revealed-putin-personally-hacked-dnc/
I wonder if many retirees’ assets are more in physical objects that can’t really generate much of a financial return, rather than, say, stocks and the like?
I suspect quite a few might have been living in the same spot for decades and only in the last couple of decades the value of that house has soared through the roof – and with it the cost of rates, etc. – but still essentially on a fixed income like a pension, too. Not to mention the cost of the rest of the utilities. Particularly if they’re within about 10-15 miles of Sydney’s CBD, or those of any of the other capitals to a lesser extent.
I suspect a lot of retirees would’ve voted for the Coalition in big numbers as well, only to see the Abbott-Turnbull Gubbermint to screw them over to put a modest dent in the budget they don’t seem to be able to control otherwise.
I reckon that sums it up beautifully Rhys.
Carl on the Coast 12:10 PM
Here is an interesting essay for you Carl. The author proposes that you (and others here) are incapable of confronting your own fears, driven by them , unconsciously, to reject the information clearly indicating the peril facing humanity. That is why humanity faces extinction. Many simply cannot confront their fears, to acknowledge the danger is simply too much for them so they actively resist those who are prepared to try raise awareness. Interesting that you mention termites in your attempt to distract attention, a good example of “white-anting” those who try to rouse the public to action.
Your hypotheses has merit after all, it is the white ants who are the greatest danger to human survival.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40499.htm
It is a very good essay and I would be very pleased to heat your response to it.
Rodent
Apropos to the above it would seem you are the classic example. Thee protesteth too much, monotonously repeating long discredited nonsense manufactured by vested interests dispensed by their paid handmaidens.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
S’okay scaredy cat, you don’t have to take it on board, the link is for the brave.
Jean Baptiste and Carl On the Coast need to get a room they must be in love. Both clueless as to climate change they keep us all entertained year in year out with the same drivel. Give it up lovers.
Did Vlad help Donald win as Hilary claims Mr Insider? The BIG question it seems on many lips today.
In another spectacular display of how little they understand china and the CCP the libnats are apparently proposing to put an extradition law with China into place. Meaning that my perfectly law abiding missus would now be able to be harassed by the CCP in Australia if they should ever want to do that – and it would all be perfectly legal ( and for those wondering what I mean by that just consider all the hoo ha some of you guys have raised about how the QUT students have been harassed by silly claims). The result of such a law is that our entire chinese expat community suddenly becomes legally vulnerable to game played by Beijing – as if that wasn’t already a problem. These libnats are like babies – totally no comprehension of the real world.
If that is a reliable source dazza that is a very bad thing. There are many wallopers who wouldn’t be happy ‘exporting’ somebody to China. Further it woukd allow Chinese intelligence to get there claws into many more people under threat of extradition. Bad stuff all around in my book.
darren, for once i agree entirely.
even more, the supposed crack down on corruption is more likely a political purge, as China lurches back in to the Bad Emperor stage, and the west should do nothing to encourage it.
Well, the Shanghai faction is now almost completely gone and Jiang Zemin is almost invisible. It was always a political purge. And now Xi will cement his acolytes and hope the circle doesnt turn before he is gone. Same old same old in China. And how many of the bet and brightest will emigrate here knowing they are vulnerable to Beijing? Especially when the embassy here shows its power in various ways.
It stuns me the way Australians do business and deal with China (although the same goes for North Asia generally). They seem not to understand that the cultural understandings that underpin how our system work dont exist in the Chinese mindset and so they dont understand that its not possible to expect the Chinese to adhere to the behaviours we adhere to. The Chinese, on the other hand, know that we will adhere to whatever we agree to, as much as possible. It is the old joke about taking a knife to a gunfight. The idea of a free trade agreement, or any other “set and forget” agreement with these guys is lunacy. It allows them to come here and play in our house while they screw us in theirs. The only way to deal with these people is a special deal for a special deal. Right now the only bargaining positions we have are mutually assured economic destruction – and nothing. Yet the Australian government soldiers on with as if its dealing with a western culture, apparently oblivious to the dangers.
Interesting point of view Darren. I must admit I do not know enough about China but I do know enough to know they are trying to wield significant influence in PNG and similar areas.
The important thing to know about China, Razor – and, in my experience, this goes for South Koreans as well – is that contractual law does not exist as a concept. Historically, China was ruled by provincial and national mandarins who ruled from courts (Yamen) that had both administrative and legal powers. And the “mandarin” examinations – provincial level and national level – were more about educating the official in the culture than about educating them in administrative procedures (the mandarin “examinations” typically meant about 4 years of, basically, hanging around with offiicials and impressing them with your cultural knowledge).
What that means in practical terms is that there is no culture of looking to the state to settle disputes or enforce obligations. Instead, a wise chinese person would build a network of relationships which, when needed, could be activated to lobby the relevant mandarin. So in a criminal or commercial case the decision would not be based on the “evidence” and the law as a westerner would understand it. Instead the decision would be based on who had the most sway on the official. Westerners would regard that as corrupt but to the Chinese thats just how things get done. A person’s level of “guanxi” is what determines how well they can do business. The more guanxi – which means contacts and relationships, and the strength o fthose – the more protection you will have from a government official when you need it.
So when you enter into a contract with a chinese in china your contract means pretty much diddly squat. The only reason why a chinese person in china will adhere to a contractual agreement is because (a) they like you or (b) its in their interests to do so to keep the relationship going. But note they are not doing that because of the contract – they are doing it because of the ongoing relationship. So if you dont keep that relationship in good standing you will have problems.
The result is that if a westerner just enters into a contract with a chinese in china and just expects the contract to be performed they will be disappointed. To get proper performance they will need to be in constant contact. The chinese guy will likely ignore most of whats been written, unless its in his interest not to. The westerner will need to be in constant contact to make sure things get done (although its unlikely they will get done as agreed).
In contrast a chinese can expect a westerner to adhere strictly to any contract.
That is the peril of any “set and forget” type of agreement with chinese in china. Its also why a “set and forget” free trade agreement with china will only ever advantage china. I have seen some bizarre situations come from contracts with Chinese and South Koreans in their countries.
How many dissidents, etc., might be up Shit Creek if the courts aren’t vigilant with something like this?
The problem is of course Rhys is that if the agreement is signed and all the boxes are ticked, in so far as the extradition process is concerned, then off to China the alleged offender goes. Once they have left our shores our courts have no power over what happens to them in China. Extra charges can be laid including those of a political nature and / or those punishable by death.
An uncomfortable truth:
http://morningmail.org/brexit-trump-organic-food/#more-53688
And i’m pretty sure it’s not the poor or struggling who can afford to buy organic. That stuff is exxy!
John O’Hagan – re your port to Bowie, I’m guessing those (it may just be the one) who shelled out $5000 to Prior did so to make the matter go away so they could move on with their studies. They may have even believed that the 5 grand would be cheaper than the usurious legal bills. And it is possible that the payment came with a note stating that the payment is NOT an admission of guilt. Correct me if I am wrong on the latter point.
Butler meanwhile, shelled out and her apology more or less acknowledged her guilt of defaming the young man.
BANG!
What the hell was Warner doing?? That is one of the worst efforts seen in a long time.
2nd test Hobart