Can the Abbott government survive?

Today. Hockey has released an order all workers quit at age 65, despite the LNP shifting the retirement age to 70.

Hockey is using his deceit to back his demand for greater taxes, come in Joe your time is up!

 

LNP success, after three months of pleading to able to kill Muslims in a foreign land, Abbotts wish to be our saviour hero has come true.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott (today) says the terrorism threat to Australia is 'real and serious',

 

Now let me guess which one, thinks there's been a hint.

The Australian Submarine Corporation can take part in the tender process to build Australia's new submarines, provided they work with an international partner. Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said the ASC can submit a tender provided they work with companies in either France, Germany or Japan. -

 

German made sub verses a Japanese made sub. I would definitely choose the German sub any day, because the Australians are only going to get to choose the colour of the seat fabric.

Australians are really such dumbarses!! They have the opportunity to build their own subs, and create manufacturing and skills in Australia, but they want to buy them from another country.

 

Correction LNPers are really such dumbarses!! They know their leader is illegible to lead yet keep him till a punter takes their decision to the high court.
The psychotic leader they crowd behind has brought terror to our land to satisfy his look at me at all times ego, he is a noted liar, and suffers a brain disorder.

The dumarses as you describe are flat out getting the lying British turd and you have the disrespect to call us dumbarses!

 

Tony Abbott tells The Australian Newspaper its a bloody liar!

"Mr Abbott says a report in The Australian newspaper claiming he proposed sending more than three thousand Aussie soldiers to Iraq is false"

To pick the liar one only has to go to the first line of Abbotts denial, where he changes the statement made about him and goes on to defend that.

Why the LNP persist in retaining a British liar who wont even make Australia his only citizenship is beyond me!

 

A secret plan to kick millionaires off the age pension was shelved in favour of targeting all pensioners.

The change was announced in the May budget, with welfare groups and Labor arguing it will cut pensions by 80 dollars a week within 10 years.

 

Social Services Minister Scott Morrison says a report that the Abbott government considered kicking millionaires off the aged pension is a 'beat-up'. Mr Morrison was not on the ERC at the time and relies upon his skills as a clairvoiant to know what went on!

 

Upfront honesty is not a thing with the LNP!

TONY Abbott has refused to answer questions about whether he informally proposed Australia invade Iraq.

 

He has already denied what your alluding to, several times, and so have several other sources.

 

Senior ministers confirmed that kicking seniors off the pension would be breaking a clear election promise not to cut pensions. Instead they changed the indexation arrangements for all pensioners _ meaning the rate of increase would effectively be slowed _ from 2017.

 

Tell the media, its a today story!

 

Pension has been on the way out for quite awhile now. It's been increasingly unaffordable for nations to offer them. It's not a new thing and was inevitable with population increases. It's why we are being pushed into developing our own super to replace the old paradigm of living off government pensions in old age. Both parties will be required to screw this down slowly over time, and future generations will probably see the pension disappear completely.

 

Your ignorance on a given topic is lacking again. Blindly defending your beloved party....lol!

 

How so, or is that the depth of you?

 

Really, not in Australia it has not!

 

To qualify women have to be born before 1949 and men somewhere in the early 1950's. Anyone born after this time is reliant on super. There is no gradual screwing down, there is just screwing up!

 

To qualify for what? You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

 

Your eligibility for Age Pension depends on when you were born.

Women born before 1 January 1949 reach qualifying age at 64 and a half, and women born between 1 January 1949 and 30 June 1952 at age 65.

Qualifying age for men born before 1 July 1952 is age 65.

From 1 July 2017, the qualifying age for Age Pension will increase from 65 years to 65 and a half years. The qualifying age will then rise by six months every two years, reaching 67 by 1 July 2023.

 

Here is the truth about pensions and super.
Pensions: We are rewarded for what we contribute to the country minus what we could sell what we contribute to the country for.

Super: We are not rewarded for what we contribute to the country, we are rewarded only for what we can sell what we do for the country.for.

How do I figure this, well I am looking historically.

My father worked the land, not thousands of acres, not even hundreds, about 50 actually. From when he left school at 15 until he retired at 75 he worked the land. He never made a great deal of money, what he could earn was never the question, he did it because he loved it, it was all he knew. Over those 60 years he produced 100's of thousands of tons of produce and millions of litres of milk. He had no control over the prices he got, except to produce the highest quality which made his produce slightly more salable. If he could have contributed to super he most probably wouldn't have been able to afford it. When he retired he sold the property, although he couldn't afford to invest money or pay super, he paid taxes, he really didn't mind because he knew the country would take care of him.

One of his good friends was the family doctor, relatively speaking he earned a lot more, he invested money in houses, land and shares. Both are retired, the doctor a self funded retiree, dad a pensioner.

Both are eligible to get the pension by age, and both are means tested. Dad falls below the cut off and is rewarded for his contribution.
The doctor does not qualify because he could sell his contribution at a higher rate, dad does get the pension because he couldn't.

If the situation was the same today, dad would have less of his earnings to live on as he would have to put some into super. The doctor would be no different.
Dad would be collecting less super, the doctor more, that part is the same. The difference is dad was never rewarded for his contribution except that which he managed to pay into super. It is the country saying thanks for the taxes mate, but stick any desire to be rewarded for your contribution where it fits we do not care.

This is but an example, it does show however how our great system capitalism works. How much money would the doctor of earned, if he had to grow his own food as well? The doctor holds nothing against dad for living off their taxes, he is grateful for what dad has done. Dad bares no malice to the doctor, he is grateful to have had one around.

If it had been the second scenario, The doctor would still feel the same, but dad would begrudge he was getting less super, because he had to earn less all his life to pay for it.

Notice that this favours the rich in both scenarios, but dad is only compensated by a pension.

Ah remember the days when people worked to contribute to the country, today we work to contribute to ourselves. The end result of the change is hepatitis A from a bag of fruit.

 

What a load of rubbish. Your hatred of anyone you consider to be 'rich' is showing again.

 

There is a genuine symbiotic relationship between every worker, but you wouldn't think there is by looking at the massive difference in wages. I just wonder how much money a doctor would really make per week if they had to grow and cultivate their own fruit and vegetables; and had to raise and slaughter their own livestock to survive? It seems to me that without workers in the fields picking vegetables and fruit, so the doctor can buy these items at the supermarket, then the doctor would have no vegetables or fruit to eat. It seems to me that without workers in the meat processing plants, so the doctor can buy meat at the supermarket or butcher, then the doctor would have no meat to eat. In other words, without field workers & and meat processing operators, doctors would starve to death. But its been proven throughout history, that the majority of people have & can survive without doctors. I think this would indicate that doctors and our community in general need and require field workers and meat plant operators MORE than we need doctors.

Doesn't it therefore beg the question: why are doctors being paid more, and have a more privileged reputation within our society, than the people we rely on to provide us with food for our survival?

I don't get sick every day, every week or every month, so a doctor is a "sometimes" requirement, but I would need food every day, and every week and every month, so field workers and meat plant operators are everyday requirements.

 

So it's a load of rubbish why, because you the almighty purveyor of truth says it is, is that how you debate? :LMAO And where did I say I hated the rich, actually I said the opposite. You have done this time and time again, you read into something what you want to read into it, then misquote them and say they said something they never said. A bit like when AT accused DE of calling Abbott's mother a whore, NO ONE has yet shown me where that happened, DE actually called Abbott a whore, no mention of his mother anywhere. Like your God Abbott you assume you are correct, assume you know everything and shoot your mouth off. So I will treat your whole reply as a compliment, because if you agreed with me I would be concerned that I got it wrong.

 

TONY Abbott’s staff and bureaucrats were aware of his decision to knight Prince Philip in November last year.

 

You need to put a bit more thought into that CD old mate. I'll give you a hand, say it was a hot day and you walked into a shop, got a can of Coke out of the drink cooler, walked up to the counter and the shop keeper said, "that'll be $15 thankyou". What would you do? You wouldn't pay it would you, why not? Say it was a special occasion, your 25th wedding anniversary, you go into a bottle store and pick up a bottle of french champagne and at the counter store owner says, "that'll be $60 thankyou". You would pay it wouldn't you, why?