Daniel Andrews resigns

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Resigned just days after qualifying for political pension, on $300,000 per year for life. 

He'd be a mug not to. I did it myself - waited until there was a payrise that gave me a higher pension. Not that I got $300K annually.

[octave]

It might be useful at this point in the discussion to "define" what  'Defined benefit is"

 

Defined benefit funds

In a defined benefit fund, your retirement benefit is determined by a formula instead of being based on investment return.

Most defined benefit funds are corporate or public sector funds. Many are now closed to new members.

Typically, your benefit is calculated using:

• the money put in by you and your employer
• your average salary over the last few years before you retire
• the number of years you worked for your employer

 

My father-in-law and my brother-in-law both retired with a defined benefit pension. My brother-in-law retired just before defined benefits became unavailable in his job.    If you have a defined benefit and you are on a high income and put a lot in, you will get a lot back.   If I could have been in a defined benefit scheme I certainly would have taken full advantage of it.

 

When I was in the RAAF (80s) the super scheme was pretty bad unless you stayed in for 20 years.  This scheme was the equivalent of a defined benefit.   This is no longer the case because they found that many people who had built up skills over many years would get to the 20-year mark and leave.

 

In most jobs there is usually an optimum time to call it a day with respect to superannuation.   It would take quite a special person to throw money away.

 

Defined benefits are no longer a thing however those who joined schemes when they were a thing still get them.  They are phasing out.

 

In terms of Andrews, I find it a little bemusing that there are fanboys for whom he was perfect and bashers for who did nothing right.  Common sense would suggest that most politicians are a mixed bag, all deserve praise for the good things and fair criticism for mistakes or bad decisions.  

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

3 hours ago, red750 said:

Resigned just days after qualifying for political pension, on $300,000 per year for life. 

That’s the sort of money paid to lots of middle managers with far less responsibility. A pittance compared to the millions raked in by some captains of industry. The bloke led a state of 6 million people through some of our most challenging times.

 

If we pay peanuts, we get monkeys.

[red750]

I'm sure every man and his dog will jump in and correct me if I'm wrong. However, I worked in superannnuation for 8 years, and my son is currently a customer service officer for a finance and superannuation company. Doing if for about 15 years.

 

Daniel Andews is 51 (born in 1972). The average person has to wait till they are 67 before they can apply for a pension. Even if the most lowly could get $300,000 per year ( no chance), that means that poor Dan will receive $4,800,000 before he would otherwise otherwise be eligible for a pension. Don't tell me politicians pensions are not a joke.

[octave]

Just now, red750 said:

Daniel Andews is 51 (born in 1972). The average person has to wait till they are 67 before they can apply for a pension.

 

I started taking my superannuation pension at 57 which was my preservation age.

[Old Koreelah]

13 minutes ago, red750 said:

…Daniel Andews is 51 (born in 1972). The average person has to wait till they are 67 before they can apply for a pension. Even if the most lowly could get $300,000 per year ( no chance), that means that poor Dan will receive $4,800,000 before he would otherwise otherwise be eligible for a pension. Don't tell me politicians pensions are not a joke.

Red that’s a valid point and I agree plenty of politicians are paid more than they’re worth.

Given the constant ridicule and abuse many of our leaders endure, maybe a more useful comparison is with high-risk occupations like water bombers and deep sea divers.

[red750]

From the ATO website.

 

[octave]

1 hour ago, red750 said:

Daniel Andews is 51 (born in 1972). The average person has to wait till they are 67 before they can apply for a pension.

 

I agree that it seems inequitable. In a different job Dan would have to wait until 60 I think.  I guess Andrews is not the only politician to take their super early.  Certainly, most CEOs leave their companies much younger and with bigger payouts.  

[Jerry_Atrick]

I gues they start drawing their pensions as soon as they can, or at least use iut in a tax/fiscally beneficial way. It does not stop them doing other work.

 

My guess is the idea is that they have considerablke influence even out of office and it tries to ameliorate the incentive to weild that influence negatively to benefit finanically. Whether or not it works, is a totally different thing.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

This sums up the DA discussion nicely:

 

[facthunter]

Yeah, the beat Up never let up. Forget he was voted in quite convincingly. or doesn't that matter.?  How many leaders has the other side had during his reign?  3. The current new one is well loathed internally..  Nev

Edited September 28, 2023 by facthunter

[spenaroo]

which is what I said before....
don't like the guy, think he is an self serving snake and would not surprise me if a future corruption enquiry finds he was up to his neck in it.


but even with all that. I agree he was still the best option by far.
couldn't bring myself to vote for him though - always went independent.

[facthunter]

There are Libel and slander laws you know..  AND Merde-ock has  gone flat out on him at all times.. including the present.   Nev Nev

[old man emu]

I bet he's pissed at missing out on his VIP ticket to the Grand Final!

[facthunter]

Who Knows?  I don't follow any teams here either. You might feel obligated to go IF you're a public figure. Nev

[spacesailor]

Not NSW Premier. 

He recon's the otherside will win .

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 27/09/2023 at 6:20 AM, spenaroo said:

also from Wikipedia his comments from September 2014:
Andrews said Labor had gained legal advice that if the court declared invalid the Planning Minister's decision to approve the project, "any contracts entered into will be beyond power and unenforceable" His basis for this is that the councils had an dispute going through the courts over the planning approval.

But it was all done above board - which is why it cost them $339 million to cancel.

I forgot to come back on this one...

 

Yes, there is nothing to say the contracts weren't enforceable just because they are signed in the caretaker period. However, the Libs breached the constitutional convention (which is not enforceable, but shows where they were and appear still to be as a party) which is not to undertake any new obligations during that period. This was an issue that Labor made clear they were unlikely to continue with, despite saying it coiuld still go ahead (likely based on how far the consortium were prepared to alter the terms of the deal).

 

As such, despite the amount of groundwork put in before signing of the contract, the government should hold off awarding the contract if it is not signed by the time the caretaker period comes along until after the election; especially if it is a contentious decision and election issue. That way, the people get their say, and if the Libs had of won, they could have signed it after the election , which would not have resulted in a material delay.

 

They knew they were likely to lose and I would argue gifted the consortium as a reult.. Even if Labor had come to power and canned it before the contracts were signed, it would have cost as it is common (and often there are collateral contracts that require) payment for reasonable expenses in an abandoned project like that - it costs a lot of money for suppliers just to get to that stage.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Will Victorian property prices start reducing as land investors quit Victoria... or will rents simply increase to cover the cost?

 

One prominent investor in Vic on The Block (have never seen it) is quitting Vic: https://www.realestate.com.au/news/the-block-serial-buyer-danny-wallis-outlines-plan-to-sell-all-his-victorian-investment-homes/

 

Fir warning, realestate.com.au is a Murdoch owned entity.