ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

December 2016



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)

I am not surprised
I think we are being unfair to this Abbott ‘no surprises’ Government. I am not surprised. (0)

Send Barnaby to Indonesia
It is a pity that Barnaby Joyce, a man of tact, diplomacy, nuance and subtlety, isn’t going to Indonesia to fix things up. I know I am disappointed that Barnaby is missing out on this great opportunity, and I am sure the Indonesians feel the same way. [Sarcasm alert.] (0)



Raise the pension by $200 a week; make it universal

Where Is Pensioner Poverty Most Prevalent?


I am for a universal pension. This would be a pension for everyone over the age of 65. It would be a pension that is well above the poverty line.

It could eventually be the equivalent of the minimum wage, or just under $35,000 a year. How to pay for it? Tax the rich more during their working lives. Impose a pension levy on their income and their wealth for example.

Abolish the superannuation tax grants worth $30 billion of which $17 bn goes to the top ten percent of income earners. Add in abolishing the capital gains tax concession and rental negative gearing, ($10 bn in toto), both of which favour the top ten percent of income earners, and you’d have more than enough to start doing it.

These tax savings alone could fund a pension increase of $200 a week to the current 2.4 million recipients – pensioners and part pensioners.

There are about 3.5 million people in Australia over the age of 65. So we could start bringing the 1.1 million who receive no aged pension but are over 65 into the pension system by paying them $200 a week, based on receiving enough tax from a pension income and wealth levy on the top ten percent of income earners and wealth holders.

The cost would be roughly in the order of $10 billion, which such a levy could easily recoup. A wealth tax of 1% for example on the top ten percent would yield about $45 billion a year, more than enough to begin the transition to a universal age pension of $30,000 and taxing the rich till their pips squeak. There would be enough left over to consider a universal basic income, (or at least increase Newstart, Youth Allowance and similar payments by $140 a week to the poverty level), to move the 2.9 million in poverty out of it, and put Australia on track to be a totally renewable energy society by 2026.

Tax the rich till their pips squeak.



Comment from Fred
Time December 21, 2016 at 6:04 am

I do financial accounts and tax returns for SMSFs every day. I’ve never heard of a ‘tax grant’.

Comment from John
Time December 21, 2016 at 6:29 am

We innovators do wish people like you would keep up. Here is the Australian Treasury Report on tax expenditures for the 2015 year. Do try to keep up.

Comment from Fred
Time December 21, 2016 at 7:21 am

Funny thing – when i did a search of “tax grant” in that document, it found nothing.

Comment from Urban Wronski
Time December 21, 2016 at 7:36 am

Brilliant proposal, John. Typically well-informed and timely. Could be boosted by ensuring those in the oil and gas industry such as SANTOS pay their due share of resource tax instead of the current 5% compliance.

Comment from John
Time December 21, 2016 at 8:28 am

I dumbed it down for you Fred. Unfortunately you are beyond reasoning. Tax expenditure equals tax grant. Then again I guess as one of the agents for superannuation funds supping on the public teat you would deny the point of our assistance to this essentially government propped up industry. It could not survive without the government mandated superannuation guarantee and the tax grants through the massive tax expenditures it receives.

Comment from Fred
Time December 21, 2016 at 9:15 am

Tax expenditure and tax grants are nonsense terms.
Superannuation funds pay tax. 15%.
I would love to see the balance of your defined benefit scheme. Now there is someone supping on the public teat.

Comment from John
Time December 21, 2016 at 9:15 am

Very true. Plus all the other resource companies that pay little or no PRRT.

Comment from John
Time December 21, 2016 at 10:03 am

I want all workers on Defined Benefits Schemes so the boss bears the risk, not workers.

You dismiss Treasury and other much respected tax thinking in one sentence? You really are an ignoramus. Ignorant. Bigoted. Glad I do not have to suffer your incompetence in practice.

Yes, super funds pay 15% tax, while other businesses pay a headline rate of 30%. This is a taxpayer grant to super funds. Not to mention the undeserved imputation benefits.

As to me supping on the public teat, I forewent higher wages and super benefits in private enterprise to work in the public service and work for the public benefit as defined by government. You on the other hand are a third rater working on SMSFs. Wow, such a high pedestal of achievement. And no doubt some of the international tax reforms I helped happen are things you mechanically factor into your unthinking work.

I am tired of your trolling shit. Find somewhere else to masturbate in public.

Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 21, 2016 at 10:29 am

Yes, this idea sounds good, but it would also need to come with increased full-time employment opportunities for all Australians of working age, or some people will see it as an opportunity to slouch around while others work.

I also believe too many jobs have become voluntary instead of paid work. A lot of this work is done by retired people, the unemployed and those with disabilities. This reduces the true value of social security pensions and benefits, while the government continues to lambast decent Australians via the media.

Comment from Lorikeet
Time December 21, 2016 at 10:34 am

Never mind, John. Fred only understands the terminology used by his money hungry overlords. They don’t employ lateral thinkers.

Comment from Lycaon
Time December 24, 2016 at 12:36 am

Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real, and I can’t vent any anger against them. I only feel this appalling sadness. Somewhere, in their upbringing, they were shielded against the total facts of our existence. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist.
― Charles Bukowski

Comment from Chris Warren
Time December 24, 2016 at 8:57 am

Under socialism workers savings would certainly be able to provide a minimum wage to those over 65 provided everyone worked from 25, or accumulated 40 years of service. It maybe that anyone with less service would receive less pension unless they were able to buy-in to make up any difference.

It is not possible for capitalism to do this because some of workers income is expropriated to fund capitalist accumulation and any earnings on savings are also split from accumulation in the fund itself and feeding capitalist “fees”.

Comment from Kay
Time December 26, 2016 at 8:10 am

Good comment, Lycaon! You are in real danger of being censored too! Fred and others always get insulted then censored when they challenge John’s ideas in any way.

Comment from John
Time December 26, 2016 at 7:25 pm

What censorship?

Comment from John
Time December 26, 2016 at 7:25 pm

What censorship? Fred did not challenge my ideas. He posted his usual shitty ad hominem attacks.

Write a comment