Printable View
No they aren't a part of their "pension" per se, however it is discretionary spending and equivalent of an income, something that most of society doesn't benefit from.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
So if you want to be fair when you compare the income of a superannuant or pensioner to that of a former PM you should include the PMs extra entitlements in the total even if you ignore other income from the lecture circuit or sitting on boards.
Yes I agree but JohnF said John Howard was on a pension of $2m a year which is not correct. He wasn't talking about the extra bits which could be removed at the whim of a future Government as has happened in NSW where old Premiers entitlements were recently severely reduced. The same should happen at the Federal level.
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
But we are also seeing attempts to take away benefits of regular pensioners, and make the asset rich cash poor even poorer.
The solution ----- Child labour and get them paying taxes at a earlier age like forteen.
Then sit back at the age of 65 to watch the country go ahead with the yougsters having a purpose in life.
.
The whole dea that Australia has an excessive welfare system and an 'age of entitlement' is just bollocks and does not stand up to analysis, as this column points out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-1...s-riot/5391558
The problem isn't excessive welfare, because we don't have that. The probem is too many concessions to special interest groups cutting government revenue.
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
I would be happy with the base parlimentarian's pension sure beats my $34581.56 a year :(
And I pay the same price for food and petrol as they do.
This brings some much needed reality to the question of pensions:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-0...s-riot/5391558
HE could be set to make his generation work until they’re 70, but when Treasurer Joe Hockey leaves federal Parliament he will be in line for a pension of at least $270,000 a year. Yes, that’s right, $270,000 a year.
That’s about 10 times what an average male his age could pocket in retirement on current trends.
Assuming Tony Abbott remains Prime Minister for the next four years he could walk away with an annual pension of more than $380,500 and his deputy Warren Truss just over $300,000 a year, according to News Corp analysis, and that’s not including travel perks.
If Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was to remain in his job for the same amount of time, he is on track to take away at least $164,000 each year.
The calculations take into account their time in Parliament and the salary of the highest office they’ve held.
You may have to work until 70 – but here’s what the politicians could pocket | News.com.au
And they still think it's OK to claim expenses for a weekend bike ride, or cop a free bottle of plonk. Weird huh?
I guess the concept of paying big money to attract "the right people" is not working out so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akelly
And dont forget that they will never tell the truth if they can get away with a lie.
It's not in their best interest to tell the truth, it's likely to catch up with them.