Vash the Stampede

BTW, good point about Australia's current account deficit. But hey, we're not ruined yet - and at least we don't have a massive federal government debt as well. In fact, we have no federal government debt at all.

So when I look at certain other countries...
...I realise just how lucky we are.

Wendy

I would too.

I will be very surprised to get ANY pension from the UK government in 10 years time, never mind in 25 when I'm due to retire, even if I stayed in the UK.

Australia_bound?

Sorry don't get your reply where exactly when did I have my rose tinted's on?
Please back up your ludicrous claim. Where did I state that anywhere is absolutely marvellous?

I simply asked why he appeared to dislike UK so much but still lives here! I pointed out that in Aus that type of attitude brings out the term Whinging Pom being hurled at Brits, as in back in UK this was much better......

So I'm not allowed to give my side of the argument as you only appear to allow one side! Smacks of hypocrisy to me, but each to their own.

Wol

Whoa!

As i said in another thread, I use the word "you" instead of "one" so as not to sound like Princess Anne! I don't mean *you* personally so don't get all tetchy, please <g>.

I don't believe I made any claim at all - let alone a ludicrous one: I merely inferred that if only a rose-tinted view, a one-sided view, is accepted here then the forum loses its energy.

and if you read my posts you will see that your last paragraph is just dead wrong - I disagree with Vash quite often but I was saying that we should welcome his views on things.

So there! <g>.

spalen

I had ABC radio on in the car today and they did Canberra live (!) exciting stuff it is too.

So peter costello introduced the tax bill to many cries of 'hear hear' etc. But he made an interesting statement that when his party came to power the top rate of tax came in at 50K$ (!) and if they had merely index linked that amount it would now kick in at 61K$ instead of 150K$ that it will be now.

He did make me laugh he said 'This reaffirms Australia's reputations as a low taxation economy' , er singapore maybe but Australia?.

After that his deputy treasurer started yakking on about some other crap and I turned it off - you can tell why Costello is top tier and this guy is second league his tone, presentation, etc were awful compared to costello.

Amazulu

I rate the guy. He is doing a great job & comes across well. He has that laidback Aussie demeanor that I like. I see 'economists' & business are laying into the budget today because it's inflationary & will cause interest rate hikes. WTF, business has been calling for tax cuts forever & we all know that taxation is too high here. So he cuts tax & gets lambasted for it. What is he supposed to do with all this money? I think a lot of economists are out of touch with reality & want an utopian economy that does not exist & talk a load of bollox.

spalen

i cant wait for beazleys reply tonight - he said -

' aussies dont sit around the table and think, how can I pay these bills this month , they think what about my kids education, what about roads, and the super'

Hes a fool : people do sit around and look at the bills - and now that they can afford to pay them - next time around they may well start to worry about education etc - but education seems ok reasonably funded etc ,roads are ok ,and plus - they put money into all these things (apart from education) in this budget. They even managed to get the IR reforms into the debate by saying that it was another hit on peoples pockets like the reduction of penalty rates - the penalty rate reductions(if there are any) are up to individual companies not the state.

Its maslow hierarchy stuff - money to pay bills being eased, means you worry about longer term things and niceties, like the education etc because the immediate worry is released.

steve99

Sorry, you missed my point, Im not saying you can choose not to pay the 9% into super, its compulsory.(and I think its a good thing)
Its just that many people that apply for jobs get told the salary is say $100K and have the expectation that because Super is compulsory and is to be paid by the employer then the employer will pay it and it wont effect their take home pay, whereas they only really get 91% of what they consider their salary as take home pay.
I guess the question is when the legislation came in in 92 were employers forced by government to raise everyone salary by 9%? if it did then the employer is paying it, if they didnt then the employee is paying it.
Steve

renth

Wouldn't it normally be sold as a $100k "package" ?

dracupg

Salaries usually quoted as “base” or “package”

Package can include a multitude of sins, including the 9% super, but may also include discretionary bonuses which may or may not be paid.

Vash the Stampede

When a salary is advertised, the figure given is usually the gross sum before benefits, bonuses or perks (unless otherwise stated.) Extras (such as superannuation) are listed separately. I have never seen a job which advertises a salary of (x) and then has "...9% of which is superannuation" in the small print. It is usually shown as a gross figure with extras on the side, or presented as a complete "package", as Renth has said.

When I went to work for Australia Post, I found that my salary was the exact sum which had been presented in the advertisement. Superannuation was alluded to, but an exact figure wasn't given. When I joined Post, I found that it added up to an extra 14.5% on top of my gross salary. Had it been considered as part of my salary, the advertised figure would have been much higher.

No, they didn't raise everyone's salary by 9% - nor did they drop it by 9%, which is what would have happened if your interpretation was correct, since the advertised salary does not normally include superannuation (unless otherwise stated.) Salaries remained the same, and peope were simply told that they'd be receiving a superannuation payment as well.

And it didn't actually start at 9%; it began at 6% in 1992 and rose through the next few years until peaking at 9% in the financial year 2002-2003.

Thus:
Source.

When this happened, people's gross salaries didn't go down; they remained the same, while the superannuation rate went up.

brisnick

To be fair, I've yet to see a job that ISN'T advertised as the package which includes Super. Just take a look at Seek, nearly every job says things like:

$55-60k p.a. inc. Super.
or
$75k p.a inc. Super.

Maybe things have changed in the time you've been over in the UK.

jad n rich

Ive got to watch it , buffoon beazley making a complete idiot of himself again. He has one tactic, whatever anyone else says better it, no matter if he doesnt have the numbers. Tactic number 2 appears to be if it doesnt move, eat it, the guy looks like a whale now, I just cannot get any part of this guys image connecting with leadership of a country.

Hes not the only pollie out of touch with reality tho, costello keeps saying have one kid for you, one for the old man and one for the country. Hes $5 a week large family payment, its now aimed at families with of 3 kids, he actually said that would encourage people to have a third child, right on mate, whats that buy now, 4 apples or half a kilo of bananas

Del Boy

Come on, you're talking about Australia. $5 buys a large pizza on Tuesdays.

steve99

Things must of changed or maybe its a industry sector or location thing, but of my experience in Perth the salary you see advertised or get told always includes super, so it is a package inc super, therefore your going to not get 9% of it.
Its never a case of advertised at $100K but you get an additional 9% paid into super.
So given employers didnt raise salaries by 9% it can only be the employee who is now paying the 9% super.