Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Bruce - No, the dole operates under a completely different structure to pensions, because people under retirement age with no proven disability/disabilities are regarded as being capable of finding a job - whereas people of retirement age are no longer deemed employable at a full time job.

However, as we all know, many older people are still quite capable of working, and holding down a job - but they're not as efficient, strong, or energetic as younger people, so they're more suited to part-time work, and less physically demanding work. 

 

The greatest overlooked part of retired people is their huge repository of knowledge and managing skills that many young people lack, and this needs to be recognised.

I noticed in a recent article that Toyota had offered company retirees positions in the company and in the factory, assisting in training and guidance of the younger Toyota employees, who had big knowledge gaps that were impacting on vehicle manufacturing and design and which was resulting in increased warranty claims.

Toyota management correctly recognised the inherent value of the long experience and knowledge levels of the retirees from hard-earnt lessons in manufacturing and design from 30, 40 and even 50 years ago.

  • Like 3
Posted
On 26/06/2022 at 8:20 PM, onetrack said:

The $112M will be the extra level of pension monies paid out

What extra level of pensions? These people are already receiving the pension. They are just discouraged from adding to their pension by working. Extra level of pensions will be caused by cost of living increases. And the puny crumbs handed ot to the poorest, when rich trough drainers are getting thousand dollar increases, will cost the budget far more.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Peter, you should already know that if you earn a bit extra (and the Govt gets a record of it), the pension reduces by 50c for each dollar earned over $320 per fortnight.

The simple thing to do, is what everyone else does, if you want a few extra dollars, you do some small cash jobs, where there's no record of the income.

The Govt and ATO is no doubt fully aware that a large number of people get a bit of "cash on the side", and they factor this into their calculations.

 

My Dad employed an accountant many years ago, who had previously been a Tax Dept inspector, and his job was trying to find people dodging tax.

He had some funny stories to tell about how he caught people out. But what he did say was, "the Tax Dept knows that everyone gets a bit of cash - they can't be bothered trying to catch every small level of tax-avoidance transactions. But if you make it obvious you're having a regular grand old tax rort, the Dept will pick it up, and come gunning for you". Computerisation today has made their job easier.

 

Edited by onetrack
Posted

I know it goes on. I could wash a few cars, or mow a few lawns and try and keep under the radar for a few sheckles, but why should I have to, when huge corporations earning millions, get away with paying nothing, or next to nothing. The cost of trying to catch the little guy is probably more than what they attempt to save. Would it not be better to let those who worked all their lives and paid their taxes earn a bit on the side to put cream on their cornflakes without hounding them to the grave? We ain't talking millions.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1
Posted

Unfortunately, that is what we have allowed to have happen under our watch, and our political representatives have plenty to answer for, over their poor performance as regards reining in tax rorts by large corporations and companies.

But when you're a politician, and a lobbyist tells you his company will move out of your region or country, and contribute to a large increase in unemployment, if he supports any legislation that adversely affects his company/client, then it does make it hard for the pollies to resist this kind of pressure.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

If we're going to fix social security, wouldn't we be better off increasing unemployment benefits which are way lower, income cuts in quicker, recipients are expected to spend time and money looking for work, and far fewer own their own home?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

wouldn't we be better off increasing unemployment benefits

Wouldn't we be better off to sack all the accountants with tunnel vision on the bottom line, and stop giving away employment overseas, then  we could grow our own manufacturing economy and wouldn't need to support so many people during their periods of unemployment. Unemployment benefits are a great social good, but accepting that people won't take a job is a bigger social evil. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

To be honest,  the only people I've ever met that really didn't want a job, are the exact people you wouldn't employ anyway.  And they're a tiny fraction. 

  • Like 2
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Macron would certainly agree with you, I don't think I've ever seen a foreign head of state call an Australian PM a "liar" before (even though many were).

I don't know though - remember Tony Abbot?  The relentless war against renewable energy and anything else that smelled even slightly progressive - the captain's picks, giving Prince Phillip a medal, media conferences with ever-multiplying flags behind him - he still takes my vote for worst in living memory.

  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Yenn said:

No doubt he is trying to put a shine on his reputation

Often referred to as trying to polish a turd. You can rub all you like and it's still a turd.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Giving PRINCE Philip a knighthood.??? Only a deadset Moron would do that

By the look on Phil's face when he was told, it was clear he though much the same thing... after saying, in a posh voice, something like, "Orrstayleeah... Have we granted them independence, already? What What?"

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

It is reported in both the Age and the ABC that a critical report on the dire state of the ecology was suppressed by the LNP environment minister at the time, whose name I can't even be bothered to remember. It is quite extraordinary that an oppositon spokesman defended it on the basis that she was not legally obliged to release it (before an election, I guess). How effin morally bankrupt are the LNP? There are many services the federal government is not obliged to provide, but failure to do so would be seen as criminal negligence. Yet, more people voted for them as their first choice.. how morally bankrupt are 38% of the population?

 

This election has in fact shone a light on the failure of the preferential voting system. I was hoping that the ALP would be forced to forge a coalition with the Greens or a subset of the Teals to push them more on the environment.. Sadly, the preferences handed them a slim but absolute majority.. They were dilly-dallying a bit, but at least ehe uncoveing of the report has galvanised them a bit.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Posted

Ever since the LNP government repealed SEPP 46, across NSW the bulldozers have been going gangbusters. Result: lots of soil erosion, wildlife declining… 
We hear lots about protecting our cuddly koalas, but clearing bushland for urban sprawl goes on.

 

Almost half a century ago I flew out of Sydney across this continent; for the first five minutes the land below was green and forested. Then it was brown and largely cleared for about an hour. After that, for six hours, our country was red.  Every decision-maker needs to see that. 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...