Federal Election date

[Neferti]

Is Jules trying to copy Olive from On The Buses?

[Rorschach]

This from a Labor lackey.

So, while Abbott has a serious image problem, it is not a cause for significant angst among Coalition MPs. ''Everyone is pretty calm,'' is how one expressed it. Former Howard chief of staff and now Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos sums it up this way: ''We wouldn't be the chance we are today without Tony Abbott and that's why he deserves a shot at the next election.''

Moreover, in the absence of the policies that will be released in the coming months, a just completed survey of almost 1000 voters by Ipsos has shown that the Coalition is seen as more capable of managing all the issues that voters regard as important. The online survey was conducted between January 25 and 31 and saw health and hospitals nominated as the most important issue, ahead of law and order, the cost of living and immigration.

On health and hospitals, 30 per cent preferred the Coalition to Labor's 23 per cent; on cost of living pressures, the Coalition led 34 to 20; on the economy, 39 to 22; on education, 33 to 25; on immigration, 37 to 16. Even on the environment, the Coalition was preferred by 24 per cent to Labor's 15.

But there was one important qualification: an average of 25 per cent of those sampled replied ''don't know'' when asked which party was better equipped to manage the many issues. This reflects the antipathy towards all sides of politics. As Huntley puts it: ''People don't believe Labor deserves a third term, they don't like Tony Abbott, they don't want minority government - and the Green vote is going to decline.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2JhqR48ed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

[Rorschach]

[JizzKnuckles]

Is Jules trying to copy Olive from On The Buses?

That's a man, baby!

[Rorschach]

MP wakes filled with a sense of foreboding
* by: SIMON BENSON
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* February 03, 2013 10:42PM

THE private confession of one Labor MP over the weekend could sum up the mood of the caucus as it meets today.

"I am now to be known as the man who is afraid to wake up," the MP said. "I live in constant fear of what new disaster tomorrow will bring."

He will not be alone in waking up this morning to another sobering piece of news that Labor's primary vote is stuck in a bog and aims to stay there despite the PM's best efforts.

While it could have been worse, considering the calamities of the past week, 35 per cent it is still a crisis number for the ALP.

Three weeks ago another poll had Labor back up to 38 per cent to where it was at the last election. There was a sense of hope among true believers. That hope will be today replaced with resignation that little Julia Gillard seems to do translates into increased support.

The last three Galaxy polls going back to the start of November show a primary vote that refuses to lift for Labor.

Now the poll date has been set, anxieties will only grow within the Labor ranks. It is reminiscent of the last days of the Howard government. No matter what he threw at Rudd, Howard could not change people's minds when it came to him.

The Galaxy poll revealed that while 55 per cent of people are content to wait until September 14, the majority don't believe the explanation as to why she did it.

There is so much lead in the saddlebags that no matter what the PM does, how good an announcement might be, no one seems to be listening.

Face it the campaign never ended after the last election and people are just waiting with bats at the ready... she won't be forgiven for her lie and her other lies just keep reminding people...

[Neferti]

This makes it a little clearer!

[Rorschach]

Super stoush: Leave the system be - for now
* by: Jessica Irvine, National Economics Editor
* From: News Limited Network
* February 10, 2013 12:00AM

SUPER nest eggs have emerged as the first major policy battle ground of the election and neither side of politics is covering itself in glory.

The Opposition, while promising no "unexpected and detrimental" changes to super, has confirmed plans to axe a tax concession on the super balances of 3.6 million low income earners. Honestly now that is dumb policy. If they want people to finance themselves in retirement they should be leaving Super alone.

Meanwhile, in its search for budget savings, Labor is running the ruler over the super balances of high income earners.

After hinting it may tax withdrawals from million dollar super accounts, the government last week backed down and guaranteed the tax free status of all super withdrawals after age 60.

That's only fair. It's one thing to tax new contributions to super at a higher level, but quite another to retrospectively tax someone who has been saving for years.

The Government has earned the ire of the super industry which earns a crust managing the nation's $1.5 trillion in retirement savings. It's trial by media as the government floats and then rules out potential changes.

To get a handle on the super stoush, it helps to know a little of the history of super and how it is taxed.

Australia's superannuation system turns 21 this year.

In 1992, the Keating government decided to force workers to put aside 9 per cent of their income into savings for retirement to head off a blow out in the cost of the aged pension as the population ages.

By forcing people to save for their own retirement, fewer would need to claim the aged pension.

So out of every pay packet you earn, your employer is forced by law to put aside 9 per cent into a super account on your behalf.

Without compulsory super, that money would instead come to you as income and you would pay tax on it at your marginal rate.

Instead, the portion of your salary paid into your super account is taxed at a flat rate for everyone of 15 per cent.

If you have extra money to save, you can also make voluntary contributions up to $25,000 a year and get this concessional rate of taxation.

As that money grows and is invested for you by your super fund, those earnings are also taxed at 15 per cent.

What is immediately clear about the way we tax super today is that it is regressive – providing the biggest benefit to people on high incomes.

If you'd ordinarily pay 37 per cent tax on your earnings, but you pay only 15 per cent when it goes into super, that's a pretty sweet deal.

Conversely, if you are below the tax free threshold or only pay 15 per cent tax anyway, there's not much of an incentive. Indeed, for people below the tax threshold who would pay no tax ordinarily, there is a penalty. Obviously there is room for improvement.

To fix this, the Gillard government introduced, as part of mining tax package, a low income superannuation contribution whereby the government effectively rebates the tax paid by low income earners on their super contributions. Good idea, poor implementation. How typical. It should not be tied to the MRRT.

The Opposition proposes to scrap this rebate if elected because the mining tax is not raising enough revenue to cover the cost. But the Opposition's policy would make an already regressive system even more so.

Indeed, most people agree that the super system is too favourable to high income earners.

The Ken Henry tax review concluded as much, recommending that super contributions be taxed at a person's marginal rate. Except Ken where is the real incentive to save?

Ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that high income people should receive a disproportionate tax break on each dollar of savings? For me, no it is not.

Some sort of tax concession for everyone on compulsory super seems only fair, given that you don't have any say in whether to contribute.

And super tax breaks also encourage people to save more for retirement than they would otherwise.

But arguably, high income savers are not the sort of people who would end up being a drain on the public purse through the aged pension anyway.

Treasury estimates the value of all super tax concessions is now worth $30 billion a year to taxpayers. And this is predicted to rise to $45 billion by 2015-16 as the money in our national super kitty grows.

Tightening tax concessions on higher income earners would help restore the budget to surplus.

But most people also agree there has already been too much tinkering with super in recent years.

Super has become a political play thing - undesirable for a financial product with such a long time horizon.

Both sides of politics should commit to leave super alone and, if elected, conduct a comprehensive review of the system to address concerns that it is inequitable and unsustainable. My idea....

The eve of elections is not the time to be redesigning such an important pillar of Australia's retirement system.

Super by the numbers

$1.5 trillion
Value of Australians' savings in superannuation.

10 million
Number of Australians with superannuation accounts.

$150,000
Average superannuation balance.

$45 billion
Forecast annual value of super tax concessions in 2015-16.

500
Number of super funds in Australia

478,579
Number of self managed super funds.

40,000
Number of Australians who set up their own self managed super fund last year.

55%
Percent of super money invested in shares, Australian and international.

10%
Percent of super money invested in cash.

[mellie]

Yom Kippur / יום כפור

Yom Kippur (Hebrew: יוֹם כִּפּוּר or יום הכיפורים), Also known as Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year for the Jews. Its central themes are atonement and repentance. Jews traditionally observe this holy day with a 25-hour period of fasting and intensive prayer, often spending most of the day in synagogue services. Yom Kippur completes the annual period known in Judaism as the High Holy Days (or sometimes "the Days of Awe").

So I guess for an aspiring jewish $uck-hole, (Jewliar Gillad) September 14 2013 is rather significant afterall.

[Rorschach]

Build our nation, dam the protests
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* February 14, 2013 12:00AM

ONLY a few years ago, climate experts warned that Sydney and other Australian capitals were in serious danger of running out of water. Then the nation's extended drought finally ended and most dams were restored to peak (and sometimes overflowing) levels. But the fact remains that drought is an Australian constant, and is bound to once again have an impact on our towns and cities.

The Coalition's draft policy on dams, which investigates the possibility of constructing up to 100 new dams across Australia and expanding existing dams, is a sensible and long-overdue measure to address Australia's climate issues. Dams also provide clean energy, flood protection and irrigation, yet have fallen out of favour due to opposition from militant environmentalists.

Predictably, militants will again ramp their anti-dam hysteria following revelations of the Coalition's policy. The time has come to cease indulging those who at every step seek to impede Australian progress. Anything Hansen-Young calls mental must be a good idea...

Besides, dams tick practically every box on a sensible environmentalist's wish list: they use natural resources, they don't pollute and they don't contribute to Australia's greenhouse emissions.

They also generate many jobs, especially in construction. Regional areas could be revitalised by dam building, and our agricultural sector be boosted by the security of additional water sources.

There is yet another reason to support renewed dam construction, and it goes far beyond narrow local concerns.

Millions around the world suffer chronic food shortages. A dam-fuelled Australia could help meet ever-increasing world food needs. If you don't care about the global population, you truly don't give a dam.