Gonna vent at the boomers

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Just read this and am very angry:

http://www.theage.com.au/money/ask-an-expert/will-we-lose-our-health-care-card-20170219-guge31.html

 

A reader is asking about losing their entitlement to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card. This person (or couple as the question indicates) has a minimum of $3.2 million in super.

They are worried about losing the CSHCC.

Diddums.

I've been told all my life that my generation is entitled. We expect to be given everything because we were told we were special little snowflakes.

But you know what we aren't? We're not worth $3.2 mill (excluding the family home or any other assets this couple has) and ASKING FOR GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

Government benefits are a social safety net, not some sort of cost of living reduction tool to enable rich retirees to retain their wealth. Spend your damn money, pay some GST.

Then of course the argument comes back "I paid taxes all my life, I deserve these benefits". You know what? No. You paid taxes AND enjoyed the benefits of those taxes through your life. You drove on roads, used hospitals, government services, watched the ABC, benefited from the criminal justice system, benefited from industry oversight bodies, purchased subsidised medicines and a myriad of other things provided over your life that your taxes funded. You also got free tertiary education. Mine cost me about $32,000 - and I paid mine as I went with a part time job and got a 25% discount.

And you got to take advantage of the best and most generous superannuation/pension system in the world, where you could use a TTR/Salary sacrifice strategy to significantly reduce your tax burden and build wealth. There's no way I'll be able to do this when I'm old enough. My preservation age will be 60! - MINIMUM. Age Pension? 67 if it stays as it is now. If I want to retire early, I have to build wealth outside super to do it - which means tax. My parents could freely stick wads of cash into super, roll to pension, pay no tax, and happily access it. 

One thing this government has done right is trying to correct the massive inequalities in our super system - I can't wait for 1 July. I hope they take the axe to government concessions for the rich as well.

So, someone with $3.2 mill (minimum) in assets - ok to get government concession cards? Spare me.

And I'm in the entitled generation.

 

 

PS - Sorry, I could have worded that better.

This stuff just makes me really angry, and I somehow managed to meander into speaking in the second person, directed at some imaginary amalgamation of every negative thing a boomer has ever said to me. I work in the super industry and this entitlement attitude is widespread amongst the 55+ demographic - although fortunately not shared by all of them (thank goodness). Some are even happy about the super changes as it means they will pay a little tax where they paid none before.

 

That really ended up being much more of a rant than I intended.

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 hour ago, Choke said:

Just read this and am very angry:

http://www.theage.com.au/money/ask-an-expert/will-we-lose-our-health-care-card-20170219-guge31.html

 

A reader is asking about losing their entitlement to the Commonwealth Seniors Health Care Card. This person (or couple as the question indicates) has a minimum of $3.2 million in super.

They are worried about losing the CSHCC.

Diddums.

I've been told all my life that my generation is entitled. We expect to be given everything because we were told we were special little snowflakes.

But you know what we aren't? We're not worth $3.2 mill (excluding the family home or any other assets this couple has) and ASKING FOR GOVERNMENT BENEFITS.

Government benefits are a social safety net, not some sort of cost of living reduction tool to enable rich retirees to retain their wealth. Spend your damn money, pay some GST.

Then of course the argument comes back "I paid taxes all my life, I deserve these benefits". You know what? No. You paid taxes AND enjoyed the benefits of those taxes through your life. You drove on roads, used hospitals, government services, watched the ABC, benefited from the criminal justice system, benefited from industry oversight bodies, purchased subsidised medicines and a myriad of other things provided over your life that your taxes funded. You also got free tertiary education. Mine cost me about $32,000 - and I paid mine as I went with a part time job and got a 25% discount.

And you got to take advantage of the best and most generous superannuation/pension system in the world, where you could use a TTR/Salary sacrifice strategy to significantly reduce your tax burden and build wealth. There's no way I'll be able to do this when I'm old enough. My preservation age will be 60! - MINIMUM. Age Pension? 67 if it stays as it is now. If I want to retire early, I have to build wealth outside super to do it - which means tax. My parents could freely stick wads of cash into super, roll to pension, pay no tax, and happily access it. 

One thing this government has done right is trying to correct the massive inequalities in our super system - I can't wait for 1 July. I hope they take the axe to government concessions for the rich as well.

So, someone with $3.2 mill (minimum) in assets - ok to get government concession cards? Spare me.

And I'm in the entitled generation.

 

 

PS - Sorry, I could have worded that better.

This stuff just makes me really angry, and I somehow managed to meander into speaking in the second person, directed at some imaginary amalgamation of every negative thing a boomer has ever said to me. I work in the super industry and this entitlement attitude is widespread amongst the 55+ demographic - although fortunately not shared by all of them (thank goodness). Some are even happy about the super changes as it means they will pay a little tax where they paid none before.

 

That really ended up being much more of a rant than I intended.

all you needed to say was "diddums"

would need a massive ego to embarrass yourself with that claim

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

35 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

all you needed to say was "diddums"

would need a massive ego to embarrass yourself with that claim

Lol, yeah I went way overboard.

 

Sorry all.

[daisycutter 29,613]

35 minutes ago, Choke said:

Lol, yeah I went way overboard.

 

Sorry all.

in case it wasn't clear, the comment about massive ego was referring to the $3.2M couple (not choke - lol)

[nutbean 8,838]

Ahhh ...the old " I have paid taxes all my life " argument.

Having reached 58 I get that a lot in my circles and have to remind that taxation is a "public good" mechanism **

Taxation should be used to help those who need help not those who feel entitled to get something in return for having paid taxes in the first place.

I would like a tax funded certificate that says "you've done pretty well nutbean, count your blessings that you don't have to rely on anyone else for your wellbeing".

 

**I do acknowledge there is some disconnect between the theory behind how tax dollars should be used and the reality 

[Earl Hood 6,086]

What's the old financial advisor's saying "if you have a tax problem you haven't really got a problem". If you have a big tax problem you definitely don't have a problem. 

Quote

 

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

30 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

What's the old financial advisor's saying "if you have a tax problem you haven't really got a problem". If you have a big tax problem you definitely don't have a problem. 

 

if you have a financial advisor you don't really have a real problem 

[Earl Hood 6,086]

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

if you have a financial advisor you don't really have a real problem 

Well actually DC you are usually on the money but in this case if you had been a client of Storm Finance or certain rogue advisors working for AMP or the CBA and I think you can add in the ANZ and NBA you would have a very different view of the world of financial advice. Thousands of people have been taken to the cleaners   And had their retirement aspirations destroyed by the financial advice sector. We saw the push for legislative reform and the subsequent push back for the usual self regulation, accompanied with thousands of dollars of donations to the LNP.

BAU Australia, I call it, where the old boys club of CEO' s in charge of large companies working in oligopolistic markets in Australia work very hard to maintain the status quo, to reduce taxes and contain any regulations that may increase competition and impact on profit margins. 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Choke - what if your taxes, you work all your life for, go to the ABC who have an obvious bias against your political opinion?

[daisycutter 29,613]

2 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Well actually DC you are usually on the money but in this case if you had been a client of Storm Finance or certain rogue advisors working for AMP or the CBA and I think you can add in the ANZ and NBA you would have a very different view of the world of financial advice. Thousands of people have been taken to the cleaners   And had their retirement aspirations destroyed by the financial advice sector. We saw the push for legislative reform and the subsequent push back for the usual self regulation, accompanied with thousands of dollars of donations to the LNP.

BAU Australia, I call it, where the old boys club of CEO' s in charge of large companies working in oligopolistic markets in Australia work very hard to maintain the status quo, to reduce taxes and contain any regulations that may increase competition and impact on profit margins. 

i never said you wouldn't have a problem after you went to them

[nutbean 8,838]

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Choke - what if your taxes, you work all your life for, go to the ABC who have an obvious bias against your political opinion?

Then change your political opinion....job done.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

12 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Choke - what if your taxes, you work all your life for, go to the ABC who have an obvious bias against your political opinion?

I see it as no different to my taxes currently going towards detaining people on Manus Island. No one will every agree on every dollar of expenditure. It doesn't give me the right to chuck a hissy fit when I'm 65 and demand government funded benefits.

Just because I don't directly benefit from 100% of every single tax dollar the government takes from me doesn't mean I shouldn't be giving it. And it doesn't entitle me to demand something from the government when I retire.

If I am unable to generate sufficient assets/income through my working life to meet a minimum acceptable cost of living in retirement, then I should be able to ask for the age pension for help. If I can provide that level of comfort, then I have no right to ask the government for anything.

To do so would be at the expense of my children and grandchildren.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

13 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Well actually DC you are usually on the money but in this case if you had been a client of Storm Finance or certain rogue advisors working for AMP or the CBA and I think you can add in the ANZ and NBA you would have a very different view of the world of financial advice. Thousands of people have been taken to the cleaners   And had their retirement aspirations destroyed by the financial advice sector. We saw the push for legislative reform and the subsequent push back for the usual self regulation, accompanied with thousands of dollars of donations to the LNP.

BAU Australia, I call it, where the old boys club of CEO' s in charge of large companies working in oligopolistic markets in Australia work very hard to maintain the status quo, to reduce taxes and contain any regulations that may increase competition and impact on profit margins. 

I work in a related industry and can personally attest that rogue advisers are declining. I have seen some horrifically contrived and conflicted plans in my day. I have also seen some extra-ordinarily good ones (one in particular comes to mind regarding a person with MS who was unable to manage even their own Centrelink benefits - the advisor set everything up so they never have to worry).

Regulation and education requirements for advisers are climbing (and rightly so).

FOFA and the new super changes are a massive step in the right direction.

Personally I think the industry super fund sector needs to be looked at next. The amount of useless default insurance policies and lack of transparency is disturbing. Also their fee comparison ads are based on extremely misleading assumptions.

Just while we're on the media, there's a lot of misinformation around. There was a story last year on A Current Affair (I think) about a cop who couldn't get their insurance payout. It was infuriating the way the insurance company was portrayed. The cop had a mental health issue and was attempting to claim on her TPD (total and perminant disability) insurance cover. You know what? TPD isn't for that type of issue. Total and Perminant Disability applies to conditions that you cannot recover from. The cop should have had an Income Protection policy, which would pay her 75% of her wage per annum.

So she had the wrong kind of cover and tried to claim on it. The insurance company rightly denied her claim, and they're the bad guy?

That's why you see an advisor - a gap like that in coverage would be been easily identified and filled. Find one that charges fee for service (ie not % based or commissions/trails), they are much more common than they used to be.

[Biffen 12,943]

Baby boomers are heading off into the sunset.

They did have it pretty good with full employment,high wages relative to land,real estate etc.

All they had to do was dodge the draft for Vietnam and but a house or twenty.

The best way to get back at them is by using elder abuse and making them sign over their assets.

Huge transfers of wealth coming up in the next decade when most of them,er  ,,,,,,kick the you know what.

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

55 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Baby boomers are heading off into the sunset.

They did have it pretty good with full employment,high wages relative to land,real estate etc.

All they had to do was dodge the draft for Vietnam and but a house or twenty.

The best way to get back at them is by using elder abuse and making them sign over their assets.

Huge transfers of wealth coming up in the next decade when most of them,er  ,,,,,,kick the you know what.

 

They have significantly increased lifespans Biff.

Traditionally inheritance has been the one the major wealth transfer mechanism over the last, what, few thousand years? When one generation get a significant increase in life expectancy in addition to all the other benefits you've outlined above, it makes for a nasty combination of wealth disparity.

My boomer parents are in their 60's. I am 30. I can reasonably expect one of them to last close to 100.

I'll inherit when hit 70 or so.

I'm not bitter about my particular situation, I am confident I can provide for myself and family, but if you generalise the above scenario throughout the populace you end up with some massive issues in the retention on wealth within one generation. The boomers will be wealthier and more powerful than any generation before them, and they will retain that power for much longer than any other.

[daisycutter 29,613]

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

 

I'll inherit when hit 70 or so.

 

sounds like perfect timing, choke. 70 will be the retirement age by then. you won't need any super or centrelink and you can go see the world

if they kicked it younger you'd probably just go and p155 up against the wall anyway

[Biffen 12,943]

7 minutes ago, Choke said:

They have significantly increased lifespans Biff.

Traditionally inheritance has been the one the major wealth transfer mechanism over the last, what, few thousand years? When one generation get a significant increase in life expectancy in addition to all the other benefits you've outlined above, it makes for a nasty combination of wealth disparity.

My boomer parents are in their 60's. I am 30. I can reasonably expect one of them to last close to 100.

I'll inherit when hit 70 or so.

I'm not bitter about my particular situation, I am confident I can provide for myself and family, but if you generalise the above scenario throughout the populace you end up with some massive issues in the retention on wealth within one generation. The boomers will be wealthier and more powerful than any generation before them, and they will retain that power for much longer than any other.

What do you suggest we do Choke, besides a slow poisoning?

I prefer to malign the younger generation-the Y lot ,or the  the tattooed layabouts from the 90's.

I'm a gen X er- the highest taxed,hardest working group in  history.

I've never had to fight a war and never known a depression or hunger.

All I've known is huge industrial upheaval and uncertainty but I'm in a fairly bullet proof industry.

Doesn't the term Boomers refer to those born from the post war period ?

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

What do you suggest we do Choke, besides a slow poisoning?

I prefer to malign the younger generation-the Y lot ,or the  the tattooed layabouts from the 90's.

I'm a gen X er- the highest taxed,hardest working group in  history.

I've never had to fight a war and never known a depression or hunger.

All I've known is huge industrial upheaval and uncertainty but I'm in a fairly bullet proof industry.

Doesn't the term Boomers refer to those born from the post war period ?

lol of course not - just the removal or reduction in certain government funded benefits. Force the wealthier boomers to keep their massive wads of cash outside super where it can taxed to the benefit of all (in theory anyway right?).

Generally the label Baby Boomer is allocated to those born between 1946 and 1964.

I have great sympathy for the Xers. I doubt your generation will ever had significant political power like your boomer parents. The boomers will hold onto power for as long as they can, and by that time Y will likely be old enough to take the reins, skipping you guys entirely. Massive generalisation but I reckon that's what'll happen.

My generation (Y) at least have had the benefit of advanced knowledge of reductions in retirement social security benefits. It'll be decades before I retire and I can see what's coming and plan accordingly. The capacity for X to the same is limited, as they have fewer years to adjust their plans.

[Biffen 12,943]

3 minutes ago, Choke said:

lol of course not - just the removal or reduction in certain government funded benefits. Force the wealthier boomers to keep their massive wads of cash outside super where it can taxed to the benefit of all (in theory anyway right?).

Generally the label Baby Boomer is allocated to those born between 1946 and 1964.

I have great sympathy for the Xers. I doubt your generation will ever had significant political power like your boomer parents. The boomers will hold onto power for as long as they can, and by that time Y will likely be old enough to take the reins, skipping you guys entirely. Massive generalisation but I reckon that's what'll happen.

My generation (Y) at least have had the benefit of advanced knowledge of reductions in retirement social security benefits. It'll be decades before I retire and I can see what's coming and plan accordingly. The capacity for X to the same is limited, as they have fewer years to adjust their plans.

My retirement plan is to [censored] the Gen  Y and Millennials to exhaustion daily until they make me so rich I won't need super.

Either that or start a laser tattoo removal chain/monopoly and charge excessive fees to remove the tough stickers everyone under 40 seems to have these days.

[Biffen 12,943]

19 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Choke - what if your taxes, you work all your life for, go to the ABC who have an obvious bias against your political opinion?

Don't pay any tax and give your money to a  sensible and honest news outlet like Breitbart,Takimag,or The Spectator.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Biffen

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

15 hours ago, Biffen said:

Don't pay any tax and give your money to a  sensible and honest news outlet like Breitbart,Takimag,or The Spectator.

Register them as charities first, that way I can donate as much as I want and make the donations deductible? Might even get money BACK from the government, more to plough into those outlets!

Also listing them as charities means we can get them tax exempt status. Gives them more money to be 'sensible and honest' as you say.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 27/02/2017 at 10:51 AM, Choke said:

I see it as no different to my taxes currently going towards detaining people on Manus Island. No one will every agree on every dollar of expenditure. It doesn't give me the right to chuck a hissy fit when I'm 65 and demand government funded benefits.

Just because I don't directly benefit from 100% of every single tax dollar the government takes from me doesn't mean I shouldn't be giving it. And it doesn't entitle me to demand something from the government when I retire.

If I am unable to generate sufficient assets/income through my working life to meet a minimum acceptable cost of living in retirement, then I should be able to ask for the age pension for help. If I can provide that level of comfort, then I have no right to ask the government for anything.

To do so would be at the expense of my children and grandchildren.

The ABC charter legislates that it needs to be politically impartial.

i don't agree with Manus Island and find immigration to be both a complex and confronting issue. We need border security but I am a humanitarian and have deep sympathy for anyone suffering as a result of our border control. Yet Governments can change this difficult situation. If there is a Government decision I disagree with so be it. The elected Government have the right to do what they were elected for.

The difference is there can be no platform for political persuasion on the ABC. Yet is is so far left it stinks.

I don't agree with a majority of Government spending but the ABC needs an overhaul.

 

[Biffen 12,943]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

Register them as charities first, that way I can donate as much as I want and make the donations deductible? Might even get money BACK from the government, more to plough into those outlets!

Also listing them as charities means we can get them tax exempt status. Gives them more money to be 'sensible and honest' as you say.

These Magazines wouldn't take government money if it was offered, unlike media produced by AF and the friendly folk at the ABC.

But most charities ARE parasitic rorts.Set up by layabouts, for layabouts and spent in layabout countries.

Beats ploughing it into government housing , transfer payments, immigration programs for taxi drivers, basket weaving for bhurkas and the other brilliant schemes the left adore.

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

Register them as charities first, that way I can donate as much as I want and make the donations deductible? Might even get money BACK from the government, more to plough into those outlets!

Also listing them as charities means we can get them tax exempt status. Gives them more money to be 'sensible and honest' as you say.

Do my donations betting on Melbourne give me a tax excemp status? We've pretty much sucked since I have been of a legal gambling age (I wasn't born in 65)

[Wrecker45 3,378]

19 hours ago, Biffen said:

My retirement plan is to [censored] the Gen  Y and Millennials to exhaustion daily until they make me so rich I won't need super.

Either that or start a laser tattoo removal chain/monopoly and charge excessive fees to remove the tough stickers everyone under 40 seems to have these days.

I'll bet tattoo removal technology improves more rapidly than solar power over the next decade.