If you love democracy so much why don't you go and ask The People what they think of your plan.
Take some protection.
Gittins.
I quit!RBLs were abolished in 2007. This was when taxpayers were offered the one off chance to put $1m into super (as a non-concessional contribution).
Under RBLs you were allowed to put larger concessional (deductible) contributions into your super each year and claim a deduction for the first $5,000 and then 75% of the remainder. This is for substantially self-employed people. Wage earners need to salary sacrifice and get their employers to make deductible contributions on their behalf.
The greatest concession available in superannuation is that once you are on a pension, income in your super fund is tax free. For wealthy people who manage to put a lot of money into their fund (you can put $150k non-concessional per year) it is a lot of money they are no longer paying tax on. A couple could put $3m into their SMSF over a period of 10 years and then once they are on a pension the income from those funds would be tax free. Prior to being on a pension these funds are only taxed at 15%.
Obviously it is a good thing for as much of the population to be self-funded in retirement as possible however the tax concessions which are effectively paid for by the rest of the tax base are massive.
This will definitely be the area of taxation targetted to improve government revenue in the next few years.
overthehill, you don't make sense, man
Anyway, it's all good.
I like this site, for what it's worth, overthehill. Not a rational way to spend your day, but I appreciate his slavery to the task, nonetheless.
http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/
Well again there's really no need to be unpleasant.
All I'm doing is describing the system that we have, but is misunderstood.
We have a sovereign fiat nonconvertible currency.
All the scare stories about inflation and debts inflicted on our grandchildren and "the national credit" and uncontrolled public spending are, in the light of the above fact, just stories.
I'm sorry you find that offensive.
It's beer o'clock where I am. Good day to you.
Even Inside Shoulder likes it, I see!
OTH - had a quick look: is Randy Wray someone's real name?You might find this blog interesting. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/
ECONOMONITOR PROFILEOTH - had a quick look: is Randy Wray someone's real name?
Is he wrong?Are you suggesting that I'm being unpleasant by referring you to loonpond? If so, then you are mistaken. I genuinely love that site. You strike me as a loon, but I was hoping in the best sense. Even Inside Shoulder likes it, I see!
Whilst not intending to be unpleasant to you, I admit that I find your methods of argumentation slightly odd. You are describing the economy in quite radical terms, but expect me to accept what you say as just the reality of the situation.
Ah well.
P.S. I glanced at that blog. It's a corker: "Australia is being governed by a party that is intent on deliberately creating unemployment and pushing more Australians into hardship and despair at a time when we should all be prospering." If I actually tried to take this seriously, I would ask: How can we return to full employment in a period of rapidly transforming markets? Quite frankly, given the conditions, it's amazing that unemployment is as low as it is.
Randy Wray was taught by a bloke named Hyman? no wonder Scarfman doubts this stuff.ECONOMONITOR PROFILE
L. Randall Wray
L. Randall Wray is a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, NY. A student of Hyman P. Minsky, Wray has focused on monetary theory and policy, macroeconomics, financial instability, and employment policy. He has published widely in journals and is the author of Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability (Elgar, 1998) and Money and Credit in Capitalist Economies (Elgar 1990). Wray received a B.A. from the University of the Pacific and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis. He has served as a visiting professor at the Universities of Rome and Bologna in Italy, the University of Paris, and UAM and UNAM in Mexico City.
Yes, he is.
The Australian government now runs fiscal policy as a political tool to garner short-run popularity in the lead-up to next year’s federal election rather than tailoring it to the economic needs of the nation.
The only issue I raise is with the use of the word "now": my impression is that this has been the case for 20 years.I glanced over the blog post referred to and couldn't see anything really objectionable. Seems to be stating the obvious really.
A fair summary of the budget surplus obsession.
Yes, he is.
But OTH, you seem to have no room for subtlety nor a sense of humour. I'm still interested in this thread, but won't engage you any more in debate on this point. OK?