Huzzah, today the reptiles turned to a new twist on a venerable, ancient jihad ... super ... with a super time for all guaranteed...and at least for a moment it was top of the digital news "ma"...
The pond was deeply moved, especially by the golden broken egg in the accompanying artwork, though no reptile stepped forward to claim a credit for the artwork ...
It felt cruel to consign the canny Cranston to the intermittent archive, but whatever ...
Revealed: Labor’s stealth ‘super tax’ to cost retirees
Labor’s hidden super tax to hit $372bn worth of assets despite promises to carve out retirees
A hidden tax buried in Labor’s capital gains rules has exposed $372bn in superannuation assets to higher levies, with one of Australia’s biggest funds demanding an urgent rethink.
By Matthew Cranston
The crapulent Cranston has been in top form of late, but an excess of his reptilian contributions left the pond feeling overwhelmed, especially with the superabundance of reptiles that turned up this day.
Just for starters, there was the bromancer, Lord Downer and Dame Groan doing the rounds, and that's to exclude the war on Victoria, the war on the ABC, and the latest doings of the Australian Daily Zionist News.
So many jihads, so little time, and yet the pond had no choice - when it comes to the crunch, the bromancer is the pond's favourite.
The header: Donald Trump turns Rocket Man Kim Jong-un into wars’ big winner; The President’s latest crazy move empowers North Korea and damages the US alliance system in Asia.
The caption for the splendid artwork, resembling a Rorschach inkblot test, credited to Debbie: Kim Jong-un has leveraged North Korea’s military assistance to Russia to gain high-tech defence technology and diplomatic backing. Pictures: AFP. Artwork: Debbie Schipp
Is it wrong for the pond to enjoy the bromancer's recent howls of pain?
This can be the only result of Trump’s grotesque decision to curry favour with the Pyongyang dictator by curtailing US-South Korean military exercises, then publicly begging for a summit with Kim later this year.
This is very bad for Australia.
No country has advanced its strategic interests through the Ukraine war more than North Korea. The hermit kingdom of 27 million people remains an impoverished place. But as Trump said, it possesses nuclear weapons. Trump specified 57 nuclear weapons. Either that’s a random Trump remark or he pointlessly released highly classified information.
Trump observed you’ve got to take Pyongyang seriously because of its nukes. As analysts point out, this is a compelling argument for Iran, and every nation worried about security, to get nuclear weapons.
Kim is easily underestimated because he looks so clownish. But while North Korean dynastic politics is distinctively Game of Thrones in style – Kim killed his uncle and half-brother because they constituted possible dynastic rivals – Kim is in his way quite shrewd.
North Korea has been dependent on China. When international sanctions were at their strongest, only Beijing’s willingness to flout the sanctions kept Pyongyang going.
The reptiles interrupted with a snap, Kim Jong Un farewelling Xi Jinping during the Chinese president’s departure from Pyongyang International Airport. Picture: AFP
The bromancer carried on with his Ginsbergian howl of despair ...
Kim shrewdly used the Ukraine war to secure a new relationship with Moscow. He took big risks. He sold Russia huge quantities of artillery shells and rockets (and made a lot of money). More radically, he sent thousands of North Korean soldiers to fight for Russia against Ukraine.
Western intelligence doesn’t know exactly how many North Koreans this involves. Some estimates say more than 18,000. Huge numbers of North Koreans were killed or wounded but Kim got everything he wanted. He had reciprocal visits with Vladimir Putin and in 2024 concluded a new defence alliance with Russia.
Russia is now giving North Korea very hi-tech military assistance. Pyongyang’s missiles are now far more accurate than before. It has greater capacity to attack assets in space. Pyongyang has had intercontinental ballistic missiles for some time but has had trouble making them fully effective nuclear delivery vehicles. Moscow is suspected of helping with that and with nuclear submarine technology. Ukraine is the world leader in drone warfare, but Russia is not far behind. North Korean troops are learning all those skills and acquiring that technology. All this significantly erodes the qualitative edge South Korea’s conventional military has traditionally enjoyed over the north.
Just in case the hive mind couldn't pick it, Vlad the sociopathic invader was (R) ...Vladimir Putin (R) and Xi Jinping review a military honour guard during an official welcoming ceremony in Beijing. Picture: AFP
The besieged bromancer found no relief from Faux Noise's favourite mad king ...
Beijing and Moscow now always support Pyongyang at the UN.
In 2018 Trump tried to woo Kim into a historic deal to give up nuclear weapons. In one of his many frankly ridiculous statements, Trump announced at a joint summit with Kim in Singapore that the nuclear threat from North Korea was now finished and Pyongyang would denuclearise. This was always preposterous rubbish. There has never been any chance Pyongyang would denuclearise. The last chance the West had was in 1994 when Bill Clinton was on the brink of taking military action to destroy Pyongyang’s nuclear program. That’s not possible now.
Mike Green of the US Studies Centre dealt with North Korea a lot when he was Asia director at the National Security Council under George W. Bush. He was called in by Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, to give advice to the Trump administration after the 2018 Trump-Kim summit.
He concluded Trump himself never thought he could get Kim to give up nukes but was motivated when he discovered that North and South Korea didn’t have a peace treaty but only an armistice, so they were still technically at war.
If Trump could convert armistice to treaty he might get the Nobel Peace Prize. “This is all really driven by a vanity project by Trump,” Green tells me.
Then came a snap of the man who helped trigger the bro, US Studies Centre chief executive Mike Green. Picture: Jane Dempster / The Australian
And so to the moment astute correspondents have been waiting for ... the billy goat butt moment ...
But the good news is: it’s just Trump. The tilt towards Pyongyang and away from Seoul has no support in the US congress or anywhere in the US system. Trump’s bizarre view of the world sees alliances as liabilities, democratic allies as low-rate gardeners or maintenance men to screw everything out of financially. Whereas dictators of nuclear-armed nations are Las Vegas casino owners he can do real business with.
And here it came ...
That’s not to say Trump hasn’t done some good things.
What they were, what they are, is left unnoted by the bromancer.
Perhaps it's the splendid restoration job on Washington, still ongoing, perhaps it's unleashing tariff wars around the globe in a bid to replicate the days of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and generate the next world depression, perhaps it's his assembling of a pack of clown minions unrivalled by any previous US government, or perhaps it's his desire to become best friends with authoritarians and dictators around the world. Perhaps it was sending Sean Duffy on a road trip.
Then came a classic bro clunker:
But the North Koreans, and everyone else, knows that Trump will be gone in five minutes and can’t deliver much. US alliances will likely endure. Polls show South Koreans don’t trust Trump but greatly value the US alliance. Australians share this view and, in this respect, are authentic Asians.
We're authentic Asians now?
We're all Spartacus?
Talk about tone deaf stupidity, but once again the bromancer delivers ...
At this point the pond thought it might do a detour and help out the bromancer.
The WSJ's editorial board recently offered a summary of mad king Donald's most splendid war, even better than his Iranian adventure ...
Triump’s (sic) decision to escalate a tariff brawl with Canada makes no economic or political sense.
And so to an anguished Lord Downer:
The header: Why mounting public debt poses a greater threat than global war; My greatest worry is not war but the escalation of debt by governments around the world.
The caption for the snap of a man doing a raven impersonation: Treasurer Jim Chalmers addresses the media during a joint press conference in the Blue Room at Parliament House. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman.
Is it wrong for the pond to sup on Lord Downer's tears and fears?
In our case the federal government debt has passed the $1 trillion benchmark. If you had been part of the Howard government, as I was, it was agony to watch. After all, by the time we were evicted from office in late 2007, we had paid off all government debt.
By global standards, Australian debt isn’t alarming. Federal government debt is only 34 per cent of GDP. Mind you, if you add state government debt as well, which amounts to about $650bn, then total government debt in Australia is a more concerning 55 per cent of GDP.
In the US, debt is more than 124 per cent of GDP; in France, 121 per cent; in Britain, about 100 per cent. Even in more fiscally responsible Germany it has blown out to 65 per cent.
What is alarming is that in none of these countries, including our own, is there much concern about the explosion of public sector debt. Yet that debt has to be financed. Governments have to borrow by issuing bonds. Somebody has to buy those bonds. In Australia’s case, an estimated 52 per cent of Australian government bonds are held by foreign investors. The rest are held by Australian institutions, including the Reserve Bank.
His Lordship rather undercut the sense of fear he was trying to instil by slipping in that line early in the piece ...By global standards, Australian debt isn’t alarming.
Recognising the slip, he did his best to recover and crank up the fear, but then the reptiles slipped in a snap that generated real fear and horror in the pond, distant memories of politicians who had done much to increase the inequality divide ... John Howard and Peter Costello listen to Alexander Downer during Question Time inside Parliament House, August 2006. Picture: AAP Image
The pond was immediately triggered, and wandered down memory lane with Richard Denniss's Peter Costello's five most 'profligate' decisions as treasurer cost the budget $56bn a year ...
The pond would have liked to stick around for the other three, but time was pressing and they're at the link, as Lord Downer craved the pond's attention ...
The Australian government is highly unlikely to default on its borrowings. But investors will also take into account the size of government debt, which translates as the supply of bonds going on to the market, as well as Australia’s inflation rate, which is relatively high, and the exchange rate risk, which is also quite high. These and other factors determine the interest rate on the bonds. It’s the interest rate on those bonds that tells you something about what the markets think of the government to which they’re lending.
In Australia’s case, the benchmark 10-year government bond yield is about 5 per cent. That is the interest rate the Australian government has to pay on its borrowings. The US rate is lower at 4.4 per cent, the British 4.6 per cent and Germany a mere 3.3 per cent. So there is a problem. Australia needs to set the interest rate at a higher rate than comparable countries.
Indeed, what is noteworthy is that during the past four years, the interest rate on Australian government bonds has risen from 3.5 per cent in August 2022 to 5 per cent today. In other words, lenders want a higher return now because of concerns about growing government debt, the weakness of the Australian dollar and persistent inflation in Australia.
The Australian government is spending more than $40bn a year just on servicing its debt. Add to that about $25bn a year being paid by the state and territory governments, and in total Australian governments are spending $68bn a year just financing their debt.
That is more than the federal government spends on defence, more than it spends on education, and is about 64 per cent of federal spending on health.
In the case of Britain, its government spends almost twice as much on servicing debt as it spends on defence.
And so to the real dogs in this catfight ... Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and President Donald Trump listen during a cabinet meeting at the White House, July 2018. Picture Leah Millis / Reuters
Lord Downer was full of bitter personal memories and bereft of solutions:
That’s perfectly true in the short term, but if debt continues to grow then the crisis can be catastrophic for ordinary people. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
Back in 2010, I was working in southeastern Europe, and I saw the impact of the Greek financial crisis that year. So huge were the Greek government’s debts that the markets wouldn’t lend them money to finance those debts any longer. As a result, the Greek government had to go begging to the EU and the International Monetary Fund for a bailout.
They provided the bailout but on strict conditions. Not surprisingly, they demanded massive cuts to government expenditure as well as increases in taxation. Greece’s GDP fell by 25 per cent between 2008 and 2016. Public sector employees had their remuneration cut by about 30 per cent and pensions were reduced by about the same amount. Private sector wages declined by 20 per cent. That was the price Greece paid for overspending over many years.
Governments do have an alternative to borrowing on international and domestic markets. They can print money. The trouble with that is they increase the amount of money chasing the same number of goods and services available in the economy. That is inflationary.
There’s no easy solution. The higher the level of government debt, the higher the interest rates needed to persuade investors to lend. The higher the interest rate, the higher the percentage of government expenditure has to be devoted to servicing that debt. High interest rates slow economic growth. The alternative is to print money and weather the storm of inflation, which also reduces living standards.
There came a reminder of the treatment the Germans had dished out to the Greeks, Former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou looks on at the Greek parliament during a vote on austerity measures, June 2011. Picture: Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP Photo
Lord Downer put on his most solemn face ...
The moral of this story is that all governments, including our own, need to stop spending more than they earn. The populist passion for expanding welfare entitlements and diverting resources into building windmills is slowly strangling our economies. And if debt continues to grow, we could confront a global financial crisis.
As Ernest Hemingway famously said when asked how he went bankrupt: “Two ways: gradually, then suddenly.”
Talk to the hand, or perhaps talk to mad King Donald, Faux Noise's favourite economist ...
It being Tuesday, the pond simply had to make room for Dame Groan, favourite cult for herpetology cultists ...
The header: Why it’s your money vs the nation in the fight over super; Despite criticism of its weak policy credentials, One Nation is leading key areas of the country’s policy debate.
The caption for the incredible artwork, featuring playing cards and a grim looking beast, all thanks to the astonishing Debbie: ‘Treasurer Jim Chalmers is using superannuation to attack One Nation politically by incorrectly asserting that Pauline Hanson wants to scrap it,’ writes Judith Sloan. Artwork: Debbie Schipp
The pond is pleased to report that Dame Groan has gone One Nation ...
There is a certain irony to the fact One Nation is leading the policy debate on several topics given the widespread criticism of the party for its weak policy credentials. Think here of immigration, tobacco excise and now superannuation. While the details may be missing, there is no doubt Pauline Hanson is contributing to the discussion on these three topics.
Think?
The pond had some difficulty associating that word with Gina's pet ...
... but please, hear Dame Groan out as she joined the lizard Oz war on the super front ...
It’s a feature of the system the Labor Party doesn’t always fully embrace. For example, Anthony Albanese recently remarked: “There is a real potential to see these funds as a national asset that can be used more appropriately and get better returns as well, not just for individuals and for retirees but for the nation.” The clear implication is super accounts don’t belong only to policyholders.
Jim Chalmers also has talked about directing superannuation investments to national priority areas, including affordable housing and the energy transition. Former Victorian premier Jacinta Allan even urged the superannuation funds to invest in “funding hospitals, schools and other critical infrastructure”.
Could it be a One Nation piece without a snap of the bottle-died ranga? Pauline Hanson speaks to the media at Parliament House. Picture: Getty Images
Contrary to the party’s mythology, Labor did not invent superannuation. It existed well before the decision to make it compulsory for all employees from 1992. This followed a high-level deal between the federal government and the ACTU to reduce the unions’ current pay claim. Before that superannuation had been largely confined to executives, public servants and academics. It’s estimated that about 30 per cent of the workforce was covered by super before the introduction of compulsory universal superannuation.
The rules and taxation applying to superannuation have been adjusted several times. The stipulated rate of contribution has increased from 3 per cent to 12 per cent. While Labor has always favoured the union-controlled industry super funds, the management of the current $4.5 trillion pool of funds is divided between these funds, retail funds and self-management arrangements.
While self-interested players describe Australia’s system of compulsory superannuation as the envy of the world, there are some fundamental weaknesses that have never been addressed.
Most particularly, the proportion of older people claiming the Age Pension remains high, albeit with proportionately more claiming only a part pension. Adding in the tax concessions that apply to superannuation contributions and earnings, the net savings associated with the superannuation system are not as high as many would assume.
And for those on low incomes, compulsory superannuation is just a form of taxation because their entitlement to the full Age Pension is knocked off, at least for a while, because of means-testing.
At this moment, the reptiles stepped in, determined to help, albeit at a PREMIUM ...
How much super do I need to retire?
Become a member to access our premium video content
Sorry, reptiles, the pond must watch its pennies, and even it's ha'pennies...as Dame Groan got gloomier and gloomier:
The case for the figure of 12 per cent was never justified based on providing adequate retirement incomes. This was made clear in the 2010 Henry tax review. A maximum rate of 9 per cent was recommended in that report.
The higher figure of 12 per cent – indeed 15 per cent was even mooted – suited the industry super funds, which are always intent on maximising the inward flow of funds. Recent changes, such as same payday super and compulsory super for juniors, are in the same category.
This is where the debate comes in: should policyholders be able to withdraw money from their own accounts to pay for important expenses such as buying a home or avoiding mortgage default?
There are some provisions for early withdrawals, but there are tight restrictions associated with any requests. The Australian Taxation Office handles some requests, but these are limited to serious illness and covering the cost of vital treatment. Requests based on financial hardship can be made to the super funds, but the sums are limited and proof of continuous receipt of government benefits is required. These withdrawals are subject to tax.
There is also a specific scheme that allows people to use superannuation as a vehicle to save for a home deposit. But the government’s 5 per cent deposit scheme has become the dominant policy intervention used by first-home buyers, eclipsing any potential popularity of using super.
In most instances, the funds held in super accounts are tied up until policyholders reach preservation age, which is currently 60 for those born after July 1, 1964. This suits the funds and the various firms that make a living from the system, but whether it really is in the best interests of every policyholder is debatable.
Where is all this heading? An opportunity to brag? Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg speaks to the media at Parliament House. Picture: Getty Images
And that was a bridge too far ...
But for the past five years real wages have been going backwards, and this warm inner glow has faded for many hard-pressed workers and their families. The implicit social compact, in which compulsory superannuation is an ingredient, has started to fray. One policy option is to consider freeing up the use of three percentage points of the superannuation contribution based on the proposition that 9 per cent can’t be touched but there should be some flexibility on the use by policyholders of the contribution above that figure. There is no doubt that this would play well with many voters.
What a canny move, what a cunning way to degut the purpose of having super on which to retire, with Dame Groan not able to make the final leap ...
Liberal senator Andrew Bragg has amped up the debate, declaring the system of compulsory super is “one of the biggest policy failures since Federation”. According to him, “the whole system is broken”.
Talk about going too far and producing a billy goat butt from the groaner:
This is a big call and flies in the face of survey data that shows reasonably strong support for superannuation, along with a high degree of ignorance of its working.
So dumb punters are happy to support their misery, and only Dame Groan truly understands how it works, which is why she values Gina's pet, because she's a tremendous discussion starter ...
In the meantime, the federal Treasurer is using superannuation to attack One Nation politically by incorrectly asserting that Hanson wants to scrap it. The reality is that it’s timely to discuss the real purpose of super and its key weaknesses, including the danger of governments directing the investment of people’s super accounts.
For some reason, the notion that Hanson was an excellent debate starter reminded the pond of Dana Frank in the Graudian dissing the both siderist NY Times, Why does the New York Times keep calling the left 'divisive'?
The real purpose of this debate starter?
Blow the whole thing up without the tedium and pain of devising a substitute.
Early and easy access can lead to all sorts of grifts, and entirely destroy the point of the super system ... cf the Graudian ...
And instead of the usual immortal Rowe, when the pond visited X (the only time it ever goes to that cesspit), this turned up ...
Over at the Nine rags there was still a sign of life, though it made the pond feel a tad sick ...
Elbows up Canada ...
