Keating on Abbott
March 16th, 2010 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Film, TV, Video etc, Politics | 53 Comments
March 16th, 2010 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Film, TV, Video etc, Politics | 53 Comments
This post was written by mark bahnisch, who has written 1595 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott–poor-mans-john-howard-keating-20100316-qb12.html
I can see Barnaby now in my minds eye, emulating Jo-Speak with the fractured syntax but clear on this point alone:
Thanks PJK for providing the Jo contextual meaning!
I’m so in love with PJK.
Barnaby on being asked about the national debt…
“Well, er, er, you tell me what you think it and, er, er, I’ll. I’ll tell you whether your right or wrong”
I agree with Keating on Abbott but not on taking the superannuation 9% to 12% unless it is going to be possible for young families to include those funds in their mortgage payments on top of their regular mortgage payments. Supporting this there should be mortgage deposit limitations for second and investment residential properties.
There is a massive problem with putting peoples retirement incomes totally in the hands of investment bodies. Bodies which have proven to be very hit and miss where competence is concerned. The global financial crisis has demonstrated the immense weaknesses in the “financial advisor” system. The safest and best initial investemnt that any family can make is in their own property. It is tangible, it is real, it is theirs. If the path to property independence can be accellerated with the use of that families retirement accruals, particularly through the tough early years of family building then this dramatically improves a mature families ability to fund tertiary education and with no or reduced mortgage payments then rapidly fill the income part of a retirement strategy in the 25 years before final retirement. And drive this part of a plan from a mature perspective.
The special nature of a property that carries the restrictions associated with superannuation funds only serve to provide stability for a families financial position as such properties cannot be “drawn down upon”. In my opinion.
Yes, and apart from being the Lovenator, I also think it’s true he is the sixth Beatle.
Unfortunately, You Tube only comes in 10 second bites about 1 minute apart on my computers, so I’ve got no idea what Keating actually said. I have no doubt it was incisive and the Lycra King was flayed.
You can download the audio MP3 file from:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/03/bst_20100316_0806.mp3
– you should be able to find a way to play it. :)
Yes, entertaining on Abbott but completely wrong on super, and it comes off as pretty bloody arrogant and ignorant when we’ve just seen a review highlighting the many flaws of our current super arrangements – and the huge profit we are paying companies for it, not to mention the Henry review’s findings that 9% is enough for most people.
@ 4 BilB: so assuming one owns their own home come retirement, how does one fund that retirement with real cash flow?
I note you say something about filling the income part of a retirement strategy during the 25 years up until formally retiring, but what does that mean? At some point one needs to put away real cash, no?
The other point to make is that property is but one asset class; there is no evidence to suggest that it is any safer an asset class than equities, bonds, or commodities: heck, property caused the so-called “incompetence” of the fund managers whose abilities you have called into question, didn’t it?
So, back on topic … Keating’s views about increasing the SGC to 12% are positive. Anything that increases the real cash flow saved for the future is a buttress to the foundations of any economy; particularly one like Australia’s with its ageing demographic.
So patrickg @ 8, you are against the concept of saving for the future? I do not disagree that the mechanisms currently available in order to facilitate this saving have many shortcomings, but the concept is sound: saving is future investment, whichever way you look at it.
Ignoring the merits of that policy argument, I was surprised the ABC online clip launched into that Keating diatribe about him pushing Treasury to go from 3%, to 6%, to 9%, without giving us any context as to what he talking about.
For a minute there I was genuinely confused, and thought he was talking about foreign trade or whatever.
I suppose that super is irrelevant to this report. The money shot is all about PK giving us his opinion on the sad ignorant Monk vis-à-vis that Great Australian Turnbull. And we wonder why people hold Aunty’s political journalism in contempt.
Thnks for the comments there, Rob. with 12% of a person’s wage added to mortgage repayments on top of the contracted repayments the mortgage term is dramatically reduced. This means that once th mortgage is discharged the 12% on top (optionally) the mortgage amount, or part thereof, bumps up the superannuation accrual rate equally dramatically. The saving to the family is the mortgage interest that is averted with the turbo charged repayment rate. This money is then available to be put in to retirement income accruals.
The “real cash” is the compulsory employer contribution which normally goes into some fund which then bleeds the funds for fees and, often unnecessary, life insurance premiums. Once the mortgage is discharged in perhaps 12 to 15 years the ammount that would be paid as mortgage is then available for reassignment within the family budget and the compulsory employer contribution is then directed to a superannuation fund in the normal way. A family at this stage may well be more investment savvy and be able to make that decision more effective. Also that same family has the option to use the reassigned funds to tertiary education for their now mature children of direct the funds into the superannuation fund. Or just go on a holiday.
The key point to realie is that any mechanism that can shorten a mortgage term dramatically reduces the amount of family money that is bled away into interst for the mrtgage funding instituiton. Time is money money is time.
There’s a wonderful You Tube clip under the title “Paul Keating v Peter Costello” from Parliament (around ’95-ish) where Keating says Costello, for all his mucho bluster, didn’t have the guts to actually take the leadership – calls him a “low altitude flyer” in a wonderfully apt turn of phrase. Keating could see right through Costello even back then.
Dessicated Coconut for Howard was a pretty good description, too.
Tories will always hate Keating – his barbs struck a little to close to the bone.
Keating can’t be trusted on the superannuation subject. His association with Lazard gives him a personal financial interest in pushing it.
Rob, lol, of course I’m not against something as nebulous as “saving for the future”. I mean, goodness. But I’m actually talking about the current policy and regulatory architecture, which – as I pointed out – is appalling.
Furthermore, the Henry review has already flagged that 9% is enough, from a public good perspective. If people want to contribute 12%, there’s nothing stopping them right now. You can’t talk about the concept of higher contributions whilst ignoring the reality of an uncompetitive, inefficient and poorly performing industry.
Yeah SJ, it’s not like he has a long record of advocating for higher super is it?
Patrickg @15: “You can’t talk about the concept of higher contributions whilst ignoring the reality of an uncompetitive, inefficient and poorly performing industry.”
Of course we should increase the gravy train. Remember, the finance sector is not like your tax accountant. Super managers want a percentage of funds under management. More funds, more gravy…
Yeah, yeah, and Keating privatised the Commonwealth Bank, so when he rubbishes the unions in NSW for opposing electricity privatisation, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that he gets paid to advise the NSW govt on those very same electricity privatisations, and stands to gain a substantial success fee from them?
Keating – a neo-liberal, egomaniacal prat who, when in govt., paved the way for Howard and co. to do their darndest.
Privatisation and financial deregulation began with K, coming into its own with H. K & H – just two sides of the same coin.
K’s compulsory super scheme – a boon for private funds. Shoulda been a state scheme.
K – just another Labor rat, but these days the rats don’t get expelled.
Oh patrickg @ 15, if the SGC was 0% there’s nothing stopping people contributing 12% then if they wanted but the sun would rise in the West before that would ever happen!
You’ve obviously seen the Henry Report before everyone else, so sweep the nebulosity aside and let’s hear about some of the aspects of the “current policy” that are “appalling”?
Rob did you read the link in my post? That’s about the problems with the industry as it stands (which, really, should be obvious to anyone who’s tried transferring super, checked their balance in the last 18 months, or actually looked at their fee structures. Here’s a link about the henry review: “The committee has found against lifting compulsory super contributions above 9 per cent believing that a higher rate would harm the working incomes of low-wage Australians.”
@ 20, of course take-home pay will be less in the short-term for these low income earners with a higher SGC. But yet again we’re taking a short-termist perspective.
Whose wages are less likely to increase commensurate with any increase in the cost of living? Low income earners.
So in the long-term, they are doubly worse off because their retirement income will be grossly insufficient for them to maintain a decent standard of living.
That is unless you expect the cost of living to remain the same in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time.
The inefficiencies and imperfections you cite are related to the mechanisms we have for accumulating future savings – which, as I said @ 10, certainly need redress. But these issues would exist irrespective of the SGC rate: they have nothing to do with the amount we are required to save. We should be encouraging more, not less … for the long-term.
I’d like a party that doesn’t waste billions on everything – especially Defence – and will fix the environment. Guess I’m sh*t outta luck.
I can hear the cheering down at Coalition HQ from here….. Keating doesn’t like Abbott…… that’s got to be worth at least an extra 2% in the polls for Abbott!!
I thought Keating was wonderful this morning.
He said
1. 9% contribution is not enough
2. reducing the extra contribution to $25000 is dopey
3. changing super every year
all combines to make people rely on the old age pension
We need 70% of our working income in retirement to live comfortably
Its just as wrong to concentrate on developing a super system for those earning half the average income, $30,000 as it is to concentrate on those earning over $90,000. If you concentrate on developing a system that covers those earning $45,000 – $60,000 then it will cover most workers
PJK’s views on Australian super are sound and workable
PJK’s colourful hatred of Abbott was a joy to listen to – and I would love to hear his uncensored thoughts on Rudd.
I am waiting for the Rudd governmnet to fulfill its 2007 election promise to use the PAYG tax system as a central clearing house for super contributions.
While Australia continues to have employer based or nominated super schemes there will be discrimination against older workers who are going to be drawing a pension without working for 25 years.
My concern in this is for:
Mature persons who comes to super late in life – eg divorced women and formerly part time workers,
Increasingly casualised workers where super deductions are ‘variable’ o r blatently unreliable
Low paid workers
Young families, singles or anyone really, wanting to acqire a home (in an increasingly exclusive market)
Just what is the desirable level of income needed for retirement (if one doesnt have the happy felicity of a corporate pay outa? 50% of whos earnings? 50% of average weekly earnigs is say 25+K – will that pay off a home and put food on the table? Because thats where things wseem to be headed.
Someone needs to whiteboard this on the 7.30 report – what is a fair insome reu
Thanks, PeterS, I’ll give it a go.
Don’t hold your breath, billie @24. The Liberals are bound to obstruct it with their stooges Xenophon, Fielding and the Greens.
Sorry – to finish #26: what is a realitic income to sustain and provide a roof over our citizens heads? – certainly not the current level of pensions, allowances etc (arguably a quarter /third of what is required). An open question for discussion if moderation permits.
Oops – please delete repeat at #26 if possible – sorry. Also at #28 – realistic.
Fascinated @25 – Keating said that you need to retire on 70% of your previous income, at the moment the current system provides 40% of existing income.
If we all our super contributions from age 15 until age 67 were consolidated into the one account and women only left their job for 7 years and we contributed 12% of our earnings, and we were able to make additional contributions then its possible to retire on 70% of working income. Australia has the 4th largest amount of super funds in the world.
Of course the organisations that control the super funds like insurance comapies and banks do not want to change the current system.
Roll on Kanga Supa
Once you’ve seen Red Symon’s take on the desiccated coconut, you can never go back!
Abbott is lucky, I had the impression Keating hadn’t really prepared a full barrage, and has probably always been that dismissive of him.
Keating worked out his super scheme for workers on average wages and 75% average wage. Average wage is $60,000 thus Keating concentrated on workers earning between $45,000 and $60,000.
Keating said that workers earning 50% more than the average wage were able to look after themselves.
His scheme wasn’t designed for workers on half average wage – I didn’t hear the reason.
Keating had a lovely time at the town planners convention in Sydney last week stating that we needed more higher density housing, but it would have to be better quality than the poorly designed and constructed rubbish offered to Australian apartment dwellers currently
As Bernard Salt KPMG demographer said “There is no housing shortage, there is a shortage of affordable housing in desirable location like near Chapel St Melbourne but you can still buy a house and land package in Werribbee for $290,000″
Fascinated @28 – Realistic minimum retirement income [according to Keating]
70% of $45,000 is $30,000 per annum
70% of $60,000 is $40,000
Current aged pension
single is $672 per fortnight ie $17,000 – too low if in private rental market
couple is $506 each per fortnight ie $25,000 pa
see http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/age_rates.htm
And now we have Costello on Abbott ;-)
As a news topic
http://www.smh.com.au/national/costello-slams-abbott-parent-tax-20100316-qclw.html
And in his own words (some doubling up on info and he lays into Rudd as well)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/leaders-jostle-in-the-race-to-rock-bottom-20100316-qcni.html
Andrew, Costello doesn’t like Abbott.
Are they still cheering at Coalition Headquarters?
Does that increase the Lib vote an extra 2% as well?
Who are they going to get to replace Abbott? That surely is coming up…before too long. I was half expecting something on Monday, the Ides of March already, after Abbotts wild decision making on baby leave without caucus consent, something they backstabbed Turnbull for doing, but maybe they are saving it for the Ides of May. Just to shake things up a little. Frankly I can’t think of anyone. That is the trouble when people spend most of their time slinking around in the shadows, it is hard to become known for anything other than ones knife skills.
Oh, I know, what about Julie Bishop. There is a stand out performer!
Paulie would lerv this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsfhMFhi2s&NR=1&feature=fvwp
I think it is more important to remove commissions and trailing fees on superannuation contributions than it is to increase the contribution. First fix the problems we have, then increase it. Otherwise money is just going to banks and sheisters directly from the savings of Australians.
Given that Keating was responsible for training Indonesian troops during the occupation of East Timor despite appalling human rights abuses and given that his government appeased the Suharto regime and continued to recognise the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, I really don’t think Keating should be taken seriously on much. The appeasment of Indonesia whilst Timorese were torture made the Keating government an illegitimate government with blood on its hands. Don’t quote Keating to me!
Pi the superannuation system needs a complete overhaul.
Currently it is managed by insurance companies and banks who pay ‘financial advisors’ commissions. Financial advisors are salesmen.
Alan Kohler proposed Kanga Supa a default superannuation fund that saved your contributions for you. Does the 15 year old working at McDonalds on the weekend care about super? No. I would love to be 50+ in the McDonalds super – all of those contributions paying my pension. If you felt keenly about investing your super then you could use a financial advisor.
Kanga Supa would put the financial planners and the products they sell out of business so there is a lot of resistance to this idea.
I had the impression Keating hadn’t really prepared a full barrage, and has probably always been that dismissive of him.
.
He was dismissive of John Howard too. Look how that turned out.
.
The Liberals are bound to obstruct it with their stooges Xenophon, Fielding and the Greens.
.
I love the ALP mindset that hold that all people somehow have an obligation to be loyal to them. Fielding is there because the ALP put him there to keep the Greens out!
.
So don’t whinge about Fielding. And that the ALP would put Fielding there is yet another example of why the ALP should not expect anything of anyone except disdain. They are a bucket of morally hollow guts in the rancid afternoon Simpson Desert sun.
More accurately, it the Victorian Branch of the ALP, Adrien. (Not that that’s an excuse.)
And the Qld branch too from memory.
.
The ALP, and many of its supporters seem to take for granted the right to betray whatever principle supposedly espoused and then to cry traitor to anyone who break with ‘em because they betray such principles because said traitors are, um, betraying those same principles.
.
I think the initiation ritual for the ALP requires you to bring your best friend/mother/newborn baby to a branch meeting and stick seven kinds of knives in ‘em.
Spana re:
Try this Spana which by comparison to your hyperbolic crap puts the Howard government to the right of Kim Il Sung:
http://members.tip.net.au/~wildwood/01julselective.htm
Yes, ‘Fine’ @ 2,
Count me in too.
I’m so Okay
With PJK
I’d talk all day
Simply to say
That ’96
Just made me sick.
We had a chance
Of real advance
And chose instead
The living dead,
Those criminals,
The Liberals.
Coward Howard
Over powered
Democracy.
Hypocrisy
Ruled ten long years,
Played on our fears.
So here we are,
And its bizarre
That Kev and Wayne
Are yet again
The media’s prey,
The same old way
That PJK
Was done for
By a media war.
This time let’s win
And get Rudd in.
Leave News Limited
Unread.
hear hear
I miss Paul. He told it as it was, regardless of whether people wanted to hear it. He was a man way ahead of his time and Australia lost out greatly with his defeat. I find it hard to believe that I was a Liberal Party supporter during most of his time in power, considering I agreed with almost everything he did even then, but am glad I came over to the Labor fold before he left office
Peter Kemp. And your point? Mate, I was in East Timor when the referendum proposal was announced. I saw the militia and was yelled at by these gun totting thugs. I know what Howard and Downer did. I know what they covered up. The fact is that Keating and Howard were both great appeasers of dictatorship. They both supported training the Indonesian military whilst Timorese died. I met Australian trained troops in East Timor who boasted of their time in Australia. This was under the ALP. The ALP has a history of shame when it comes to East Timor as does the Liberal party. Sorry, both are appeasers and both turned a blind eye to attrocities. Both!
Big ups to Spana on this one. Australian governments of both stripes and five PMs from Whitlam to Howard were bathed in blood in East Timor right up until Howard finally sent in the troops.
Keating’s hugs and handshakes with ‘Bapak’ Suharto in the mid-90s made me physically ill.
I was in the street protests calling for the INTERFET force. The one time in my life that I felt protests actually made a bloody difference. Howard got a couple of things right in his term of office. One of them involved removing guns, the other involved using them.
I think that ole’ billy @19 puts it elegantly.
Yer it’s pretty good anthony@49. I must say his self interested spruiking of super is pretty repugnant. He seems to have no understanding of it’s failings.
I would like to see the present scheme cleaned up. It is an unfortunate imposition on much of casualised labour. Many need that money right now.
It is often eaten up in charges and tax if you need to pull it out because of dire straights and it is not designed for people holding down different jobs or moving from one job to another often.
Joe: I play super roulette when the time is available which means trying to roll all of my super, currently spattered around the countryside, into one account without coughing up admin fees. It is an amusing way to idle away about a day a month.
anthony, the trees that must be cut down, for letters sent to people with 5 dollars in an account and dwindling, would probably fill 50 acres a year.
That reminds me. I’ve got about 4 super accounts I need to consolidate into one!