Cynical?

By: AlanK (Registered ) on 10-11-2007 00:57

I always thought that the AWE was the total amount of salary, or wages, paid Australia wide, divided by the number of persons earning that money, and that figure then became the AWE. Some may get $300,000 pw, some may get $100 pw, and the AWE could be $1,000 pw, hypothetically!  
I stated that to the best of my recollection the wage in 1990 was in the order of $30,000 pa, maybe a little more. My tax return in 1996 showed me earning just under $50,000 with overtime, and I was above the AWE to start with. Now, the person who fills the same position as I retired from has a base salary of $85,000, still well above the AWE of $50,000 nominated by Mr Howard. Where does he get his information from? 
I am indeed cognisant of the fact that the employer, not the employee, contributes the 9% super paid into the super fund. What about the employees’ contribution? That is what I was alluding to.  
When I started work in 1948, on 62 cents a week, I contributed 1 cent a fortnight, [the minimum], into the CSS to obtain super of 75% of my final salary at age 60. In the early 70’s this scheme was changed to return super of 50% of my final salary at age 60. At this stage, I was contributing 13% of my earnings as my contribution to my super. The 13% related to the salary I received, plus the number of reserve units I was contributing for, and I always made sure I was paying for the maximum number allowed. There were 100’s of 1,000’s of Commonwealth and State government employees in this scheme, or, similar.  
There WAS NO EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AT THIS TIME, only mine. 
In the 90’s I was given a choice of remaining in this scheme, or going to a new one which would give me a lump sum upon retirement, and it was up to me to look after myself and family thereafter.  
I will not bore with the details of quotes for annuities from different insurances, nor the management fees, but suffice to say I soon found I was far better off to NOT join up for a lump sum. The return from remaining was almost double. Market forces at work? 
As you can see, employer contributions are fairly new to me, but, I can understand why there is a whole new generation with no concept of providing for yourself and family as we ‘oldies’ were forced to do at the commencement of our working careers. 
At well over 70 and having observed governments of various persuasions in power, I tend to be VERY cynical.

» Report this comment to administrator

Frustrated

By: Joseph27 (Registered ) on 11-11-2007 00:16

I am getting overly frustrated at this campaign. Both parties are promising everything but realistic steps to make this country better. Tens of billions of dollars are floated and all that will happen is that the cost of living will increase. I can't understand why we can't actually address issues such as education, infrusture, water management - unfortunately both sides are caught in this spiral.  
 
2 weeks and its all over... I continue to hope that Rudd wins and that his campaign promises are negotiable

» Report this comment to administrator