 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
Domesticated
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
|
|
|
Dec-02-2007 03:36
|
|
|
 |
 |
Domesticated
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by narcism
you have a valid point on some of the issues, but i believe the age of retirement in australia is being increased to 60 something and there is talk of cutting a pension all together so people are now working to save enough money to live off for retirement |
The pension IS being cut in Australia.
Not sure of the exact date, but super is being phased in while pension is going out.
Still, the government has to protect people from themselves, because when people receive $200,000 in super they go "great!" and buy a new car/boat/whatever.
Apparently super payouts will now be drip fed week by week like a pension is now, only you actually earn it yourself.
___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide
|
|
Dec-02-2007 03:46
|
|
|
 |
 |
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
first off, the more you work the less you get. |
That's kind of inevitable, isn't it? Think about if it were otherwise:
Say welfare is set up so that you get $10,000 year if you have either no job or any job that makes less than $10,000 a year. You start at a wage that will get you $5,000 a year and work your way up. As you hit $9,999, you are still getting the additional $10,000 from welfare, so you're receiving $19,999. Then say you get a raise, which bumps up your job from $9,999 to $12,000 a year. But then you lose your welfare benefits, so your annual income drops from $19,999 to $12,000.
So I think there has to be some system of diminishing benefits, not just a straight drop-off, otherwise there would be little incentive for people to make more than the "cutoff point" income. Maybe I'm missing something, though.
|
|
Dec-03-2007 01:50
|
|
|
 |
 |
gehzumteufel
In your ass

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: so cal
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
That's kind of inevitable, isn't it? Think about if it were otherwise:
Say welfare is set up so that you get $10,000 year if you have either no job or any job that makes less than $10,000 a year. You start at a wage that will get you $5,000 a year and work your way up. As you hit $9,999, you are still getting the additional $10,000 from welfare, so you're receiving $19,999. Then say you get a raise, which bumps up your job from $9,999 to $12,000 a year. But then you lose your welfare benefits, so your annual income drops from $19,999 to $12,000.
So I think there has to be some system of diminishing benefits, not just a straight drop-off, otherwise there would be little incentive for people to make more than the "cutoff point" income. Maybe I'm missing something, though. |
well i dont disagree that there needs to be a sliding scale for diminishing benefits. it is necessary but the income limits are set in shitty places. as a former welfare kid i can attest to it.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
Dual exhaust tips on dual exhaust = QUAD EXHAUST = 300 gain in horsepower. Duh |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
Undies with a dickhole aren't good for guys. Your balls can get caught in them. That's why I prefer to go over the gate instead of through the fence. |
|
|
Dec-03-2007 06:58
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|