text:
Ignoring the problem of our age
By Emily Millane
Photo: We will have 1.8 million people aged over 85 in 2050. (Alex Proimos: Flickr)
Australia is in the midst of a massive demographic shift with dramatic repercussions for public policy, but the Coalition seems uninterested, writes Emily Millane.
There's a simple dichotomy in Australian politics. Progressives care about what's fair and just. Conservatives care about freedom and efficiency. Different yardsticks for different policy agendas.
In the area of ageing and longevity, the first eight weeks of the Abbott Government have demonstrated a shocking ineptitude in making decisions which stack up against the principles the Liberals went to the election with - efficiency, productivity, and sound economic management. The government is failing its own philosophical test.
Most recently, in a press release headed 'Boosting Productivity and Delivering Effective, Efficient Government', the Prime Minister announced the abolishment of the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing.
The reason, in the Government's own words, was "to streamline government and reduce duplication where activities are no longer needed or can be managed within existing departmental resources". Put another way, if it's not a cash spinner, it's not worth it.
The panel was six months away from releasing a landmark report on how to turn our ageing society into an asset. How to house a burgeoning older population. How to encourage older Australians to remain productive members of society. A government with a real efficiency agenda would have at least waited to receive the findings of the panel. A government with insight would have understood that the panel's findings would also have a bearing on economic growth and the fiscal position.
Secondly, Joe Hockey also announced this week that the Government would scrap a raft of announced but unlegislated taxes and superannuation measures - referred to as a 'backlog' in the efficiency vernacular. One of these measures was to reverse the Gillard government's proposed increase on taxation for those earning more than $100,000 of income from superannuation in the draw down phase.
Never mind that this change is regressive. That's up to people on low incomes or in casual work to figure out next time they see how little superannuation they have and therefore plan to draw an aged pension even sooner. The Government's reasoning behind this change was to create "operational certainty for businesses and consumers". However if the whole point of superannuation is greater self-reliance and to lift the burden on the state pension, where is the efficiency of penalising hard working Australians in their ageing years where they are even more dependent on welfare?
By removing the tax on high income retirees, the Government argued it was making an efficiency dividend. However, by removing the tax on high-income retirees, the government diddled itself of revenue at a time when public revenue is in decline. What happened to the budget emergency? As the press release itself acknowledged, not proceeding with this and other measures will negatively impact on the underlying cash balance by $2.4 billion over the current forward estimates period. And that's just by the government's own estimates.
Thirdly, in a bookend to this measure, the government is also scrapping the $500 superannuation payment for people on incomes of up to $37,000. People on low and middle incomes receive no concessions to save for their retirement. To return to the government's vernacular, these people are not 'incentivised' to save.
Again, it is stating the obvious that this measure is grossly unfair. It will affect the most vulnerable members of society. However it is those same people who will rely more heavily on the aged pension, public housing and other government benefits if they struggle to save for themselves.
As ABS statistics released this week told us, life expectancy in Australia is the longest it has ever been. Life expectancy has increased more than 25 years since the turn of the 20th century. We will have 1.8 million people aged over 85 in 2050, and one in four people aged over 65 by 2056. Running about scrapping public bodies and fiddling with taxation to serve a small-state agenda is not the way to respond to this inevitable demographic shift. The Government's inability to accept the gravity of longevity and ageing is of concern to us all, not just for older Australians.
Efficiency is not served by ignorance. Whether it is climate change or ageing policy, the fair and efficient solutions will not emerge by ideology alone. On its record thus far, the Government has failed the fairness test and its own efficiency test too.
Emily Millane is a Research Fellow at Per Capita. View her full profile here.
Comments for this story are closed.
Oaktree:
11 Nov 2013 11:14:08am
I am saddened but not surprised. The Abbott agenda does not recognise the electorate as anything more than a means to get elected. Promise everything, deliver nothing.
C Ash:
So Rudd did not do the same, no outlandish policies that any thinking person would see straight through?
Both sides do the same when running an election, the electors then have to decide who is telling the truth and not promising things that will never happen. The ALP had a strong agenda of lies which was so transparent that they got the one of the worst results ever.
11 Nov 2013 1:05:58pm
Yes, Rudd was the same, but a different master - his own ego.
notinventedhere:
I don't disagree re Rudd et al, but he is now gone - no worse than the other fools is hardly a relevant standard. Should we expect our politicians to join a race to the bottom?
The point is that Tony promised us sensible government and considered fiscal decisions. This one on super is objectively silly and expensive, and he says we have a budget emergency.
christophus:
And for Abbott's next trick, on his smaller govt is better agenda.
Scrapping his own taxpayer funded super of full pay when he is no longer a PM or MP, (and ironically travel perks) for life.
Cough...
And how much tax has he paid to earn it? Who says he is not a socialist?
rufus t firefly:
12 Nov 2013 7:50:09am
Don't forget 'Direct Action' - a socialist agenda if ever I saw one - an unaffordable tax on everyone in order to achieve - well, nothing really (Abbott's Greenshirts perhaps?). As opposed to a market based ETS from those evil lefties....
By contemporary Abbott/Tea party values, the Menzies govt, with its increase in the welfare state, massive public education and infrastructure spending, etc, was a socialist conspiracy!
These are surreal times. As the old song put it (literally), 'left is right, and right is wrong (if not barking mad)...'
lfb:
Most seem to forget that those who have large amounts in their superannuation have, in this country at least, paid tax on their contributions and perhaps should not be 'slugged' again. If these 'tall poppies' draw out their ill gotten gains as retirees, perhaps their critics could remember that much of it will be spent boosting the Australian economy. Most people, except perhaps some of us who had to pay it, have now completely forgotten that Super Surcharge imposed by a certain former Coalition treasurer.
And do the critics REALLY want every retired Australian to be dependant on the public purse? If they stopped to think about, probably not. Having a few 'super rich' folk around is possibly good for everyone.
mikemwa:
11 Nov 2013 12:26:54pm
The Liberals won the election by focussing on just a few issues and ensuring that they won the propaganda war on them. On everything else they were deliberately evasive and much of what they intended to do was only hinted at in the days before we voted. The Liberals got away with that campaign because most of our journalists failed to see through what was going on and failed to make a stand against the tactics being used by the Liberal Party. In short they were conned. Even now most are meekly accepting the crap treatment they are getting from the Liberals because they fear being frozen out.
Its almost a certainty that the Commission of Audit will recommend changes to both the ABC and SBS with the intent being to blunt their ability to give us a balance of views. The Liberal Party knows well that you win propaganda wars by controlling the media and that is what they will try to do.
Icantbelieveitsnotbutter:
I think you'll find that the apathetic and ignorant electorate were the ones conned. The electorate finds voting a nuisance, as opposed to something that they have a responsibility to consider carefully.............................that is of course until people really start hurting. I'm guessing that's about to happen real soon
On what grounds do judge the electorate apathetic and ignorant, do you include yourself or are one of the elite?
On what grounds do think that people will start really hurting?
I believe that you have no idea of what you mean or what the electorate really think, however I am prepared to be proved wrong should you have some facts to back up your claims, please do so and I will admit to your superior intellect.
kremin:
C Ash "On what grounds do judge the electorate apathetic and ignorant" the evidence is before you they voted for Abbott.
C Ash It's pretty easy for Icant.... to know what the electorate believed, they believed that Abbott was telling the truth, so you have been proved wrong and so have the electorate.
marg1:
It wasn't hard to get away with their misinformation and propaganda thanks to Rupert's and the shock jocks' help.
Serendipitous:
"most of our journalists failed to see through what was going on and failed to make a stand against the tactics being used by the Liberal Party. In short they were conned."
You're being too kind Mike. I don't think the media were conned at all. In my view certain sections of the media were knowlingly complicit in the Liberals deceitful (three year long) campaign.
It's not simply a matter of biased journalism (and there's plenty of that), but also very little journalism of any kind. I work in the public sectorand recently attended a 'handling the media' workshop. This was once a 2 day course but is now 90 minutes. Why? Because we were told all we have to do now is issue press releases of what we want to say and the media, desperate for content and with no resources to investigate or question, will simply publish verbatim. Which is more or less, all we see on the news now (sitting at home we've probably all noticed that no media outlets appear to ask even the most obvious questions anymore).
Heretic:
That's why we don't need them any more.
Rusty:
Oaktree,
Like Rudd sought to reduce to $2,000, since overturned by Abbott, the self education deduction.
Rudd/Gillard/Rudd did not want a better educated society - otherwise they would lose votes.
Abbott does want a better educated society so that we can compete.
Stuffed Olive:
The self-education expenses were in the main a rort. Nothing to do with education in the real sense of the word. $2000 is sufficient for the genuine cases. I completely agreed with the proposed change. Abbott of the weddings, parties, anything, is more than happy to subsidise conferences in far away places - it paid for air fares and accommodation, not education.
"Abbott does want a better educated society so that we can compete."
sorry but I see a want for Charles Dickens era style management to cut costs.
Riven:
Of course he wants those in society educated. That's why he gives the super rich schools so much tax payers dollars. But for ordinary people like you and me he wants to keep us meek puppets who he can treat like idiots and who will believe what he tells us (when he chooses to tell us anything) and Rusty with you his plan has worked.
My Pet Dog:
I agree Oaktree, but what's the point? So Abbott and co can attend many more weddings?
Andrew Thomas:
"Promise everything, deliver nothing"
Hi Oaktree,
It might be more balance to have said "over-promise and not delivery everything exactly as they promised".
This makes them the same as the previous government with the exception that they have a better understanding of the modern electorate.
The modern electrote is short sighted, self interested and conceited. The LNP knew this and reality required that they had to appeal to this to get elected.
So I would argue that the Abbot agenda as you put it does recognise the electorate for what it is and will deliver accordingly.
Democracy does not give you the best possible government. But it does give you the one you deserve. And no country deserves the Abbot govenment more than us.
I'm a pretty well dyed in the wool Labor supporter and this is one of the most insightful and smart comments I've seen on the LNP, albeit a critical one, we all got the LNP gov't we deserve or in essence asked for.
Well said Mr Thomas.
din:
i agree. broken promises are the order of the day as people say 'what is in it for me' when its election time.
The Abbott government reached power thanks to its "Think Tank" which includes John Howard and a psychiatrist or psychologist as members of the HR Nicholls Society which is chartered to provide policy to the Liberal Party. Archbishop Pell is also a member, by the way. This was reported in the Sun Herald but removed pretty smartly after publication. The Society's website makes interesting, if hair-raising, reading.
I agree with your comments about the electorate, or should I say fewer than 50% of them who put the Libs into power.
Parliament should be interesting for quite a while.
I wasn't aware of the "Think Tank", but it doesn't surprise me. Politics is no longer a calling, but a profession, and the goal is to win. Period. (this goes for both major parties).
And yes, Parliament should be interesting for the foreseeable future. Perversely funny is what I am expecting.
My only concer is how long it will take the electorate to see that they are both the architect and the butt of the joke. Things do not bode well for early realisation.
Democracy can work but the concept entails a bit more than having a vote. In order to function properly the electorate also needs to be informed, educated, and interested. If that isn't built in (and compulsory voting was a very partial, but worthy, attempt to do so) it can't work and becomes mob rule. Plato made this point 2600 years ago. Nothings proved him wrong.
Dave:
I nearly spat chips when I read the opening paragraph! Conservatives do not believe in freedom and efficiency! Liberals - true Liberals do. We have a Liberal party managed by Conservatives because it's a way for them to attain power and push their regressive philosophies. If we had true Liberals then they would approach the aging problem and other problems besides in a different manner eg: free market reforms; removing tax on super for low income earners a good start - not simply cut, cut, cut, which is the Conservatives Management Mantra.
StephenS:
The current Liberal party in my view has too many far right extremists controlling it. Just look at the backgrounds of some of its leading lights and you will see why they have these influences on their views. Any real liberal thinkers in the party soon get silenced or are politically assassinated effectively and quietly unlike other parties.
I have been an ALP member in the past but lost faith with the policies of the extreme left wing of the party and I have at times voted ALP, Liberal,Democrats and Greens.
Because I do think about the future we face, the problems of our youth as well as the elderly. I have no children but I do have a niece, nephews and a great nephew and nieces. I also have a near 83 year old father in a low care aged facility.
MJLC:
Apart from some qualms I have about the health implications of eating chips this early in the day, I'm right behind your sentiments Dave.
Having been born in the late 50s, I grew up (in Victoria) under Liberal administrations at both state and federal level - they shaped my world, my father was an employee of one of these evil money-wasting public entities (the MMBW - Melbourne & Metropolitan Board of Works) which ran first-rate infrastructure with a strong forward program in suburbs then yet to exist. Liberals built things, Liberals cared (in their own way) about "society"; Liberals taxed and Liberals spent and Liberals regulated and Liberals had a plan for tomorrow which contained somewhat more detail than "the market". In their minds ideology was the sole preserve of red-commie-Trotskyite bludgers who had beards and needed a damned good haircut and some National Service, not something that sat front-and-centre in their own world. The Boltes and the Menzies' of that time are now long dead - it's probably just as well, as the mindless garbage that infests their party today would have had them wondering why they bothered in the first place.
If the best you've got is "we're not Labor", then you're definitely staring at problems down the track. Basing your existence around the existence of others tends to suggest you've finally run out of ideas and purpose. It's interesting that they have no trouble seeing the (quite real, quite sad) deterioration of the Labor Party, and yet are oblivious to the same advanced rotting of their own organisation. Specks and logs it would appear to me.
Idiocracy:
Bang on Dave.
Somewhere along the way, Australians seem to have forgotten what "Liberal" means.
Welcome to stupid. Welcome to the Australian Electorate.
Perhaps it's not stupid and apathetic. Perhaps it's just too much of heads down to pay off the McMansion?
clete:
Somebody's got to stem the bleeding, Dave. Otherwise, we max out the credit card and go the way of Greece. Something that Labor never worries about.
Dear Clete,
Your statement is far less insightful than Dave's.
Your assumption about the LNP is way off. Recognising that the ALP is just as guilty of this, it is incredibly niave (or perhaps outright hypocritical) to suggest thant the LNP is not as guilty of wastage.
The baby bonus is one clear example of unecessary middle class welfare and the parental leave scheme is another.
Raising the debt ceiling to HALF A BILLION (I so thoroughly enjoyed seeing conservatives putting debt figures in capitals during the past few years I thought I'd have a go myself) qualifies as 'stemming' does it? I suppose if these jokers were in actual medical practice rather than governance they'd stem real bleeding by letting it drip into a bigger bucket.
Years of talk and unceasing complaint, and the best the slimmed-down one can come up with is "Swannie dun it Miss". "Stemming" indeed - give it a rest mate.
I spent around ten years as a single parent and spent that time earning a degree and then a masters, then when the lad left school and entered the workforce I also got a fairly good job that kept me going till I retired last year.
Just about every enhancement to the welfare system that assisted me during those years was put in place by the Howard Government: Help/HECS, pensioner education supplement loan, the Medicare dental programme, etc.
In came Labor who threw single parents onto Newstart and cancelled the Dental programme as well as intituting Gestapo raids on carers' homes to check the knickers on the line etc (yes this happens, friend got raided about six months ago, don't see much press about this).
Makes the Coalition look like St Vincent de Paul compared to Labor.
Helvi:
Abbott abolished the Advisory Panel of Positive Ageing. I might as well ask: is there anything else left to be abolished.
It's amazing how much abolishing he has been able to achieve in such a short time.
James Jesse:
You can be assured that if there is anything left that's 'positive' for we mere voters, then Tony Abbott and his LNP Government will soon fix that for us (after all we need their expertise to fix up the mess that they continually say Australia is in)... by finding those positives and abolishing, abolishing and abolishing. "Oh look at that over there...is that something fair and reasonable for the battlers and workers of this country? Yes. Well we'd better abolish that quick smart... we wouldn't want them to achieve any level of personal or financial security."
There was no mention of whether there had been an evaluation of its role and worth before the decision to axe it was made. Nor on where they now intend to get their expert advice from on this increasingly important large part of the community.
Oi Mate:
Indeed, restructure if necessary. To simply abolish is very short sighted, when the facts of an aging population are so clear and is already on us. The first thing being done is the repeal of the Superannuation, giving the wealthy a leg up... higher. This will bite sooner or later.
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
Waterloo Sunset. 2014:
What did it do. And what use was it? Does anyone know.
I think that it was just another quango, like a retired lion tamer's glee club.
captain dreyfus:
Yes, I know what it did. It was an external source of expert advice for government. So it had to go. And it had two Labor people on the Panel, so it had to go.
sea mendez:
Was the advice worth the money?
Felix:
That's because there are well resourced government departments far better equipped to provide that same function/purpose.
Labor made duplication and waste an art-form.
blax5:
What? A well resourced government department? That needs to change!
Felix - the public sector grew under Howard (more than under any other govt) and shrunk under Rudd/Gillard.
But let's not let facts get in the way of your ideology eh Felix?!
I could also mention that on any independent and objective assessment ever taken Australia's worst performing Treasurer is repeatedly identified as John Howard (and considering Jim Cairns was once Treasurer that's pretty impressive), but you'd never believe me.
Please provide facts as to when this bloated advisory council provide advice which was acted upon on - and which could not be provided just as easily by a government department?
I could tell you it never happened - but you wouldn't believe me.
Don't let reality get in the way of your twisted view of Labor as economic managers.
Helvi,
Just did some research - this Panel seems to have done little of tangible worth.
If I am wrong please provide references etc.
Rusty dearest, not everything in this world has to make money to be worthwhile; some things are health and happiness inducing...no use lecturing Liberals about that.
You've done the "research" for us already Rusty.
Feel free to provide the links, so we all feel comfortable knowing the Panel "seems to have done little of tangible worth", and thereby confirming what at this moment is just your opinion.
I did some research too - it is in its early days and is working well. With four years to run it has just been cut off for no reason other than spite and to save $1 million in the year's coming budget. Apparently the Libs think their departments can do all the work of the now abolished committees and don't need expert advice. Pigs might fly.
Stuffed Olive - the Libs don't want independent or expert advice on anything. They are ideologically driven, evidence is not a factor. This is a faith based govt. Given that framework, they see no point in getting advice from anyone.
Yep, and if they do need some advice they can look it up in Wiki...
'Given that framework, they see no point in getting advice from anyone.'
rufus: The Coalition did not get 'advice' from anyone. What they did get was a 'direction' from the people to get on and govern the nation after 6 years of the ALP either chasing rainbows, chasing its own tail, chasing assasination plots from within or chasing the polls.
Stuffed Olive: You can do better than just hang around here for 3 years barracking for your team. Try harder. We are all in this together;
Here's something to abolish:
Costs of being one of the 5 eyes.
Team that negotiates the trade 'partnership'.
Miowarra:
Helvi, an interview I heard on Friday recorded that the panel was within three months or less of delivering its final report to government after years of research and evaluation. It was to contain options for policy directions and costings based on present-day prices.
The point was also made that axing the panel wasn't (and could not have been) a cost-saving measure because the members were unpaid volunteers with expertise in their fields who had donated their time from their other work. The money that was saved was for "tea and biscuits".
It wasn't explicitly stated, but I surmise that the reason for axing the panel and discarding those years of expert work was because it had been a Labor initiative.
To me, that just reinforces the inherent pettiness of the current Liberal Party under Mr Abbott's leadership (and all the puppeteers who have their hands up the back of his jacket.)
They really ARE out to smash anything that the ALP governments have done, good or bad.
Forrest Gardener:
Miow, just a point of clarification. You refer to things ALP governments have done "good or bad".
Can you identify one of these "good" things?
Sacked Rudd.
Sacked Gillard.
Then lost to an unelectable Opposition leader.
That goes way beyond 'good'. ;-)
Mycal:
I'd like to abolish the Liberal Party but I haven't figured out to do it and still maintain my core beliefs (liberalism - note the lack of capitals). With any luck after abolishing everything else they will do it to themselves.
ddande:
Helvi -and guess what - despite the fact that Abbott abolished this and that -the earth is still spinning - one has to ask if that - it hasn't stopped the world -did we really need it in the first place - or were they jobs for the union boys perhaps ??
graazt:
The pre-election policy around this challenge was to cut red-tape in Aged Services delivery. The panacea for all our woes.
Perhaps we could get people on 457 visas to deliver the care? Oh, and provide non means-tested rebates for clients?
Sure, there might some poor service delivery in certain sectors , but where you can afford good care, with some tax-payer assistance, it'll be peachy. And that's the important thing.
aussieinjapan:
The Abbot government is taking down a track very similar to that of Japan. It is failing to recognise that the most valuable resources are the people we have.
Japan is a country which has experienced dramatic aging and had time to do things about it but procrastinated and didn't. What is left is a country which is inward thinking and is at the whim of huge companies which have little interest in democracy, the buck being the underlying concern.
Abbot is showing his business prowess and his lack of social acrumen by canceling various taxes at the call of big business while destroying the futures of those who have most to loose, the lower income earners.
Most of the measures which have been carried out would also put the budget FURTHER into the red and according to forecasts this situation is likely to continue. A situation most Australians would consider to be ridiculous.
Increasing the consumption tax, which has been suggested in many circles, would also affect low income earners.
The carbon tax is one way we could be reducing our reliance on minerals, digging is for dogs, and also reduce pressure on the dollar so making it easier for manufacturers to employ more people.
Also if the carbon tax were enacted as it were in Norway we would have a future to look forward to. After all we don't want to be another Nauru in 100 years.
JohnM:
"Whether it is climate change or ageing policy, the fair and efficient solutions will not emerge by ideology alone" Oh dear! This looks like someone who thinks she's an expert on all matters.
Please explain why it is that people with a superannuation income of more than $100,000 should be taxed and, more importantly, what gives you they right to demand that they should. I can answer my own question - you have no right whatsoever!
Science-Lover:
So, JohnM
You are one of the conservatives who are complaining that your $100,000+ superannuation will be taxed?
Self-interest.
You didn't read the whole article about the cost of removing it. But your own interests are threatened.
Applaudanum:
Talk about the easy questions. People with 100,000 superannuation income should be taxed because they are the exact people who have gained the most from the government-sponsored civil society. Law and order, health, education and infrastructure, which are used by everybody, has been put to the service of profit-making by these same people. They have taken the most* so they should return the most.
*note: when I say 'taken the most', I do not mean that they have directly 'taken' the most funding from the government. Rather, I mean that they have received the most monetary rewards due to the government funding the rest of society. If they hadn't received such rewards, they shouldn't have to pay.
Andy:
all of that superannauation money has been taxed on the way in, it was taxed when it earned money, and now you want to tax further those who have been prudent in their money?
The problem, Andy, is that it is obvious that that superannuation money wasn't taxed enough the first time it went through the income wringer. As was revealed on here last week, 54% of income (which all goes toward the highest 10% of income earners) only attracts 46% of the income tax liability. Seeing as 100% of income should attract 100% of the income tax liability, it seems the other 90% of income earners are supporting the top 10%.
Perhaps if they were taxed sufficiently at the outset, they wouldn't be required to pay tax on their super because they may then fall short if the 100k figure. Furthermore, if they were taxed sufficiently at the outset, the government might not currently be in the position where it has to scratch around to meet their debt bill.
That's the Labor way - workers that have the skills, capacity and knowledge to generate a high income (and super contributions) should be punished.
Not 'punished', Felix. Instead, they should be made to make a fair contribution to the administration that oversees their own wealth generation.
Now matter how many skills, capacity and knowledge one has, one can't earn much income without the good health, education, and infrastructure that supports and maintains the whole community. It is the community that works for the money makers in a reliable, regulated, fashion whilst largely free from the impositions of crime and unlawful behaviour that would create a more uncertain economic environment in which the business operates. It is also the community that is well-off to the degree that they can buy the money maker's products and/or those of the money maker's clients at the prices offered, thus contributing directly to the wealth of the money makers.
GJA:
The earnings are taxed, not the principal. And not all the earnings, just the earnings on the principal above $100,000. It's not that hard and no so terribly unfair.
The laws applying to super and tax have changed a lot over the years. It was always fully taxed before it went it, got taxed a bit while in and a bit when it came out.
reaver:
Applaudanum, given that half of all households in Australia pay no net tax (in that they receive more in payments than they pay in tax) those under discussion are also the ones who actually pay for the law and order, the healthcare, the education and the infrastructure, which are used by all (or at least available to all), but are paid for by only some. You're demanding that they pay more for what they've already paid for in full.
Your 'no net tax' line is a diversion. Receiving payments, such as welfare and handouts, are only part of the government spending picture, and a small part at that. You have refused to acknowledge the 'proceeds' earned from doing business in a country like Australia. The people who are in a position to attain a 100k superannuation income have benefitted financially from the 'not-quite-paid-for' (we're in debt aren't we?) infrastructure. They should be making a fair contribution to the administration that oversees the conditions that allow them to earn such amounts in the first place. The 'proceeds' gleaned from citizens who are cashed up, healthy, educated, unhindered by crime (mostly), mobile and free wouldn't exist in any form if these conditions of the community weren't met.
It's not the infrastructure that hasn't been paid for, Applaudanum. The government could pay for the running of government, all of the infrastructure and all of its non-welfare spending with the current tax revenue and have money left over. Australia borrows money in order to pay for welfare which makes up 22% of all federal government spending and almost none of which goes to the people with hundred thousand dollar superannuation incomes. What you're demanding is that they not only pay their share for the running of government and for the infrastructure, but to also be used as ATMs to pay the shares of people who don't want to pay for themselves.
Federal funds, reaver, all come from one big pot of revenue. To say that this bit comes from what we have and that bit comes from money we have to borrow is misleading and betrays a personal feeling about where the government should be spending its funds, borrowed or not.
I assume you are talking about higher income earners when you mention those who pay their share. These would be the people who earn 54% of the personal income yet only pay 46% of the personal income tax. It is these troughers who are forcing the other 46% of personal income to attract 54% of the personal income tax. Hardly fair, reaver. Once you can square up that ledger, we can go on to tackle other discrepancies.
I do like your comment about being ATMs though. I mean, what is the public but a giant ATM to private business interests? Nice observation, I'll be sure to remember it.
You claim, Applaudanum, that it's misleading and betrays a personal feeling about where the government should be spending its funds to say that money spent on one thing comes from taxation and other money spent on another thing comes from borrowing, yet this is exactly what you did when you stated, to use your exact words "The people who are in a position to attain a 100k superannuation income have benefitted financially from the 'not-quite-paid-for' (we're in debt aren't we?) infrastructure." You've clearly decided that the fact that the former Labor government racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of debt means that the wealthy haven't paid for the infrastructure which accounts for a miniscule 7% of federal government spending rather than the welfare that accounts for 22%. Of course, you can't demand that the wealthy pay their "fair share" of that 22% given that they get almost none of it.
Once again you're ignoring the inconvenient (to you) fact that although the top 10% of earners earn 54% of all personal income and yet pay 46% of gross income tax most of the people in the bottom 90% of earners get more money back from the government every year than they paid to the government in tax. It's not the bottom 90% who pay the Lion's share of the net personal tax, but the top 50% who pay all of it, paying the "fair shares" of the bottom 50%.
I think you are muddling your numbers a bit, reaver. Bottom 90% and top 50%? One number refers to a % of people, the other refers to % of money. At the end of the day, I believe that 100% of income should attract 100% of the income tax. Despite our progressive tax system, those at the top end of the income spectrum are still paying less income tax per dollar than everyone else. To look at income tax per person, as you do, is to distort how income tax per dollar is collected.
Let me restate, even though I think I have been most clear thus far, that welfare money which you appear so disdainful of eventually finds its way into the pockets of business owners in the form of sales. If those welfare recipients did not have that money, business owners would do less business. Furthermore, the escalation in crime, reduced education and health benifits to across the community mean that business would operate in a more unpredictable environment. An unpredictable working environment means less stable production, orders can't be delivered, service goes down, income to the business falls. Try to think beyond the welfare payments and see where those payments get spent in the community. You're hung up on this idea that individuals 'earn' their income. Yet let's see thine same individuals earn that same income in a desert wasteland. If you think you or any high-flyer business type can do it, you're living in a fantasy world designed to gratify one's own ego.
It is a given that the community environment has an effect on one's capacity to earn a high income. That community environment needs to be paid for. All I am suggesting is that those who earn the most out of that environment, should pay the most. At the moment, high income earners aren't even meeting the income tax per dollar of lower income earners, and yet you claim that high income earners are hard done by.
i cant tell if you are being sarcastic, or being serious. Lets assume you are being serious ..
first of all, people with a superannuation income of more than $100,000 are already taxed- possibly at the highest tax rate. Plus their super income is also taxed - but only at a low rate.
Labor's issue was to increase the taxation on the super income when its goes over 100,000 in a year. So super will now pay taxes at two rates.
The government is saying that this wasnt as easy to set up as it sounds, and they ditched it as the expenses to set it up were greater then then the expected income it would generate. I cant say if they were correct or not (maybe we can ask if the previous government actually made it happen, or was it just a slogan to win votes). But I would prefer governments look at the company taxes, and go after companies which are generating billions of profit. I'm thinking of the banks btw.
Ditching the 500 for low income earners was a stupid idea, and I wish they didnt do it.. Sure it wont stop the person getting the pension when they retire, but when you earning that little, even a little makes a difference. They should have kept it in, and let labor whine about something else.
Jimmy Necktie:
I agree. Removing the low income concession will accomplish little economically and just looks mean.
Mt_Syd:
"first of all, people with a superannuation income of more than $100,000 are already taxed- possibly at the highest tax rate. Plus their super income is also taxed - but only at a low rate."
There seems to be some confusion about tax on super.
When you put income into super it is taxed at 15%. So if you are a high income earner you can put a big chunk of income that would otherwise be taxed at 46% into super and pay much less tax.
People on very high incomes can afford to put a greater portion of their money into super compared to low income earners. This is why the current super arrangements are regressive in tax terms.
The rationale for taxing income earned from super is to help the government get back some of revenue (tax) that would have been lost because the high income earners paid 15% instead of 46%. This loss in revenue greatly reduces the reason for having compulsory super which is to reduce government expenditure on pensions - because what they gain not paying pensions they are losing by not collecting tax.
Now that the Abbott government has scrapped these measures the system will be unfair for low income earners, and will not save the government much money (if anything) on the pension scheme.
except that there is a limit on how much can go in and get taxed at 15% (which includes the employee and employer income). If you were on a good salary, it doesnt take much of your own money to go over this limit, and thus get the full 45%.
Rodd:
You can't put a big chunk of money in to super regardless of your income at the concessional tax rate of 15%. Concessional contributions have a limit of $25,000 per year unless you are over 60 and then it is $35,000. For non-concessional contributions you can put in $150,000 a year but that comes from your after tax income which for high income earners would be at the top rate.
And of course, low income pensioners spend every cent they have, just like now. This extra bit of cash goes straight back into the real economy, increasing the wealth of the wealthy and giving everyone a reasonable living standard in their twilight years, just reward for a life hardworked.
Its a team game.
OUB :
I didn't have a violent disagreement with taxing income over $100k at a higher rate in a super fund but there is unfairness in changing the tax regime when the funds can't be withdrawn, potentially for decades. Swan's constant fiddling and light fingers made planning difficult. He didn't bother to take the changes to an election. If such changes are to be brought in they should be phased in or made to apply only to fresh amounts IMO.
I don't see much value in the contributions for those on low incomes. We have a safety net in the form of the pension system. What sense does a second safety net make, particularly when the marginal rates don't differ much? A small super fund balance more often gets paid out rather than being left invested, so that the pension system can be accessed sooner. So what sense does it make? It wouldn't provide an incentive to put more into super so far as I can see. Just porkbarrelling isn't it?
Steven:
JohnM wants to know "why it is that people with a superannuation income of more than $100,000 should be taxed and, more importantly, what gives you they right to demand that they should." Here's a few reasons:
1) In a nation that shares the common wealth everybody who earns an income should contribute to the cost of running the country. We have a tax three theshold and progressive rates to assist low income earners, but if you earn $100,000 per annum then pretty much regardless of its source you should pay some tax.
2) In building up a super fund that pays $100,000 annually you undoubtedly had the benefit of taxpayer funded concessions such as deductions, concessional treatment of after tax contributions, pre-tax contributions through salary sacrificing and the concessional tax rate applied to super fund income.
3) In respect of what gives anybody the right to demand you pay tax - this is a democracy in which free speech is largely the norm even if it isn't legislatively protected. As long as the speaker isn't harming somebody then they have a right to demand whatever they want. Parliament decides whether it become law.
"benefit of taxpayer funded concessions "
Most tax concessions were created because the government which implemented them felt it would be cost effective in the long run. That the behaviour the concessions encourage is desirable. If that is the case here then the taxpayer should be better off with concessions.
So the question isn't "should there be concessions?" it is "do the concessions accomplish their purpose?"
Taras:
Yes Stephen, "...In a nation that shares the common wealth..."
I work two jobs and regularly 12 Hrs per day and my neighbour who has never worked in his life, insists in sharing in the common national wealth. Bl..dy communists!!!
It has more to do with removing unnecessary incentives which are only available to the wealthy.
So that should be inceintive enough for the welfare funded to drag themselves up and contribute to society.
In turn they will generate an income and have more opportunity to gain wealth, thus removing the culture of envy.
Too hard?
"Progressives care about what's fair and just."
Correction: progressives pretend to care about what they themselves deem to be "fair and just" but which all too often merely reflects various resentments, especially against those who are successful in life.
"Correction: progressives pretend to care about what they themselves deem to be "fair and just" but which all too often merely reflects various resentments, especially against those who are successful in life."
Nope, that is merely what you tell yourself so that you can look yourself in the mirror each morning. It is also a reflection on your own personality.
I consider myself and many progressives I know to be both successful (financially self-sufficient or heading that way, middle to high income earning, well educated, good quality of life etc) and care about something other than themselves or their narrow self interests.
It is not just what I tell myself, it is what I have all too often observed among self-styled "progressives." Bertrand Russell hit the nail on the head when he said that much of what passes as idealism is just poorly disguised hatred.
selectively quoting a guy who would not agree with you on just about anything else doesnt really do you credit.
hence if you have worked hard, put away money in super, and done without other things, you don't deserve to keep all your money. you should be penalised more to subsidise others.
(and no, i'm not likely to ever get a super income stream anywhere near $100k/year - it is the principle that we are punishing people for being frugal)
@Andy - If you hold to that principle, you'd presumably resile against any form of progressive taxation. And any form of needs-based welfare (you have to specify it's needs-based with all the middle-class stuff floating about).
Needs-based welafre is one thing - choosing it as a lifestyle option is another.
Sadly, we have far too many lazy, able bodied people in this country.
Felix - most of the data available suggests a majority of people entitled to welfare assistance of various kinds are not receiving all they are entitled to (under both sides of govt). This would suggest that the old 'all those lazy bludgers spongy on society' meme is largely a myth. Very few people choose poverty as a 'lifestyle option'. Given the choice, would you? You've been spoonfed propaganda (blaming and vilifying victims) and its clearly working.
Actually, where I work and live - welfare as a lifestyle choice is quite obvious for many.
Not a myth at all.
Unfortunately, you have been handfed (of course) a lifetime diet of poor bugger me.
Try living in the real world for a while.
Felix - I was a cop for years - saw multi-generational welfare and things you couldn't (or wouldn't) comprehend. But I didn't see much freedom of choice.
Take the blinkers off next time you go outside.
The money that is sitting in your super fund is money you have saved. money you could have spent on things other than putting it away for your future needs.
How many times should you be taxed for the same piece of money?
You get taxed once, super contributions (up to the concessional limit) are taxed at 15% and it's a before income tax contribution.
Mr Q:
People with 100K/year of superannuation don't "do without".
To get a super balance capable of paying out at that level, it is likely that they saved and were frugal in choosing which things they would do or wouldn't do when they were younger.
ephemeral:
No Andy, What it is, is that if you earn enough to dump 100k in your super as a means of missing the 46% income tax and taking the 15% super tax then you are not contributing as much as you should, because you are avoiding the tiered tax system we have. It is a bit like companies that use off shore profit sharing to dodge tax. It is not punishing for frugality, it is punishing for trying to hide earnings.
actually, I think either ephemeral or I have misunderstood what is being discussed.
last time i looked it was 15% on the first 25k you put into super as a before-tax contribution, then 46.5% on the rest
thats still the rule.
the labor change was to appy a higher tax rate if the income being generated IN the super was over 100K - which is currently tax at a flat 15%
so if someone dumped 100K in their super, which is ephemeral exampe, then the first 25k gets taxed at 15%, then the remaining 75K gets taxed at 46.5%
Successive governments from both sides of the fence have seen virtue in encouraging people to save over and above 9%. They allowed for a reduced tax take in their calculations. Once the money is in there it is exctremely difficult to access until people turn at least 55 (Hardship? Tough luck). So to change the rules after the cash has been captured comes over as unconscionable to me. There would be no hiding of cash in super, accounts are prepared and auditted every year.
Companies' offshore earnings are taxable here. If you want to evade paying tax you could be in for a nasty surprise.
Demack:
Not everyone is trying to avoid tax. My husband received a large redundancy payment after over 25 years with the one company. We chose to roll ALL of that money into Super now so that we could enjoy a reasonable retirement later. It is not fair that financial decisions we make about our future today can be changed on the whim of the (Labor) government to raise more revenue. It was very tempting to go out & buy new cars, have a holiday, buy a boat or whatever else. We were being frugal now so that we could avoid relying on a government handout later, a trend that most people these days are unfamiliar with.
Two Science Degrees:
Actually I'm starting to think envy is why conservatives seem to hate the idea of a university education so much.
I have more degrees in science than you do, and I support university education. But then again I am not a conservative, just not a "progressive" either.
I had never heard conservatives (or anyone else) were against university education. For what possible reason?
Privilege doesnt mean that much when everyone can get access to the same... sorry, that should be our one human right, equality. I think that a closer analysis will show that the lower income sector is always subsidising the better off on a relative basis... someone has to clean the toilets.
BJT:
Just to be clear, it is possible to care about others AND be successful in life, despite your assertion.
Progressives do care about what's "fair and just", Mike. What's "fair and just" is a matter of perspective. The problem with "progressives" is that they reserve the right to decide what "fair and just" is defined as and to impose their own definition onto the rest of us whether the majority agrees with them or not.
Aria:
This quality is not limited to this frightening category of monsters that have been dubbed "progressives".
Most people generally have ideas about what is "fair and just", and most people will seek to impose on others their own idea of what "fair and just" is. As time passes, you'll find many people develp similar concepts of what is "fair and just". That becomes codified into cultural norms and laws by way of consensus. That's called a SOCIETY, a concept with which you may be familiar.
Now, back to your ridiculous little rant lumping "progressives" into some sort of social outgroup, combined with a smattering of "us versus them" mentality and healthy doses of biased assertions.
We as a society have already defined what is "fair and just" and have already codified that definition into cultural norms and laws, Aria. That definition differs from the one held by the "progressives" and so they try to impose their definition onto the rest of society. Read back over the posts here on The Drum over the last few years and you'll find that the "progressives" demanding a change to society's laws and cultural norms based on their own definitions of "fair and just" far outnumber the conservatives, right wingers and centrists doing the same.
reaver you can do better than that, I could just as easily use the exact same argument to advance the idea that conservatives are imposing their view of what is "fair and just" on the rest of us. Actually it sort of feels like they are!
You're right, Mycal, in that my point could equally apply to those from any area on the political spectrum. Unfortunately for your argument that conservatives are imposing their view of what's "fair and just" on the rest of the population those who self identify as "conservative" have always outnumbered those who self identify as "progressive" and over 50% of Australian voters in the recent election allocated their primary vote in both the House and the Senate to a conservative or right wing political party or candidate. As the majority we can define "fair and just" as we choose. Whether you like it or not that's how democracy works. You progressives, on the other hand, are attempting to impose your definition against the majority and then throw tantrums when you don't get your way.
It is clear that all developed nations is about to face serious aging problems in a few years.
Actually, here japan is also in the aged society. But japanese government provides the elderly jobs and social benefits.
So. Here seems like aging society is not a ploblem anymore.
So let me get this straight- "the government is failing its own philosophical test" because it's not going to implement the taxation and social policies of the Labor government that it defeated two months ago at an election? This is the kind of so-called "analysis" that you get from an organisation (Per Capita) that was specifically set up to advance "progressive" ideology and to oppose the arguments made by conservative governments and think-tanks. Per Capita was set up, to use the exact words of Per Capita's own website, "to seriously contest these conservative positions." Per Capita is not an unbiased party interested only in the analysis and evaluation of the actions and policies of Liberal governments. It's an organisation that was set up in the dying days of the Howard government in order to oppose them.
Millane's "analysis" suffers from ideological blindness. Take her argument that the cutting of the $500 superannuation payment for people on incomes of up to $37,000 means that those people now receiving the $500 will rely more heavily on the aged pension, public housing and other government benefits when they reach retirement age. Millane either ignored or simply didn't bother to find out who those people are. Workers earning under $37,000 are disproportionately the young, those who are still decades away from the retirement age. By the time most of these young people hit retirement age the $500 per year that they received while earning under $37,000 per annum will be equal to about 1 week's pension payment. That aforementioned "while earning under $37,000 per annum" is also a critical element of the issue. A vast many of the young people currently earning under $37,000 pa will soon be earning over $37,000 and will no longer be eligible for the $500 payment. The future earning potential of a plumbing apprentice or a law student delivering pizzas while at uni so far outstrips the few $500 payments that they'd receive that the handful of $500 payments would make no difference whatsoever to their standard of living in 50 years time. I find the pretzel like ideology of "progressives" such as Emily Millane interesting in that they'll happily decry the government not implementing new taxes on the wealthy while in the very next breath or paragraph decry not throwing handfuls of money at many of those who will in the future be the wealthy.
Oldie Goldie:
The author is biased, but so are you. It's not only the young who earn under $37000 pa, but quite a lot of elderly: the ones who have been retrenched early, and the parent who looked after the kids during their childhood and is seen as too old, from 40 years onwards, to be employed or to be given a chance to get back in the career abandoned for family's sake.
If you'd like to re-read my post, Oldie, you'll discover that I never once claimed that those earning under $37,000 were only the young. Whether you like it or not they are disproportionately the young. Why would or should the Australian government put $500 a year into the super accounts of people who won't use it for decades and many of whom won't ever actually need (not want or can use- need) those $500 payments?
Noely:
As I understand it, nearly a third of Australian workers are part-time. I would be very surprised if these were only young people.
I never claimed that they're all young people, Noely. They are, as I stated, disproportionately the young, many of whom won't actually need the $500 payments. A vast number of these $500 payments are middleclass welfare for the future middle class.
Marko:
Many part-time and casuals workers choose these employment options for a wide range of reasons. Lifestyle, family & health to name a few.
Not all employees work part-time or casual because they can't find fulltime work.
As I understand it, a large proportion of that third CHOOSE to work part time.
Rollie:
I chose to be a full-time mother, not re-entering the workforce until the youngest was in high school. My superannuation, sadly depleted by the GFC, is laughingly referred to as my Funeral Fund. Not that just on $4,000 will pay for much at a funeral. BTW, that's what's in my super fund, not income from it.
I'm on the downhill side of 65 and in receipt of the Old Age Pension.
I work 6 hours per week at the minimum wage which brings me in under the $250 per fortnight that I can earn before it affects my pension. The money goes to rates & maintenance of my little (downsized) house.
But now I am worried that the government will take away this incentive as well. After all, it is god who helps those who help themselves, not the Liberal Party.
and of those who are working part time, I expect a large chunk (but not 100%) would like to do more hours (and thus earn more money)
If the author cared about serious engagement with the issue of an aging population, she'd be looking at issues like encouraging people to have kids so we aren't in the position japan is in with no young people to care for the elderly.
she'd be examining the impact of housing costs that make it hard to have large families that could provide support for their elderly family members without needing to be a burden on the wider society, or perhaps even about age discrimination and the difficulty in getting workplaces to have flexibility for older workers.
No - far easier to just criticise policies that will affect next to nothing on the super balances of 99% of citizens, and provide no suggestions as to how things could be done better.
whogoesthere:
so we have more kids to look after the old people. Then when those 'more kids' get old we have even more more kids to look after the 'more kids', and so on, and so on, for how long ?.
Endless growth is a completely riduclous concept. We need to figure out a way to prosper without it.
The malthusian problem has been shown to be false as we can create enough food and energy for a larger population.
do tell how we can prosper while breeding ourselves into oblivion, because you can be sure that none of our neighbouring coutries are so foolish and will gladly take over our lands when we are too feeble to resist.
If the japanese with all their ingenuity have problems arising from failing to breed at even the replacement rate, you can be sure these problems would come our way if we don't at least reach replacement.
Andy the "Malthusian hypothesis" has been shown to be wrong, along with the predictions of they "club of Rome" but only so far and only because of "human ingenuity" but there has to be a limit. I don't know if it is the 9 billion population we are projected to achieve in the comming decades or 100 billion but the earth does have a limit to its carrying capacity. I hope I am not around to see it.
Ann:
This isn't about endless growth but sustained growth. If we have more old people than young people we will have a population decline - may be a good thing for many countries but Australia is very sparsely populated for its size, and you can believe without a doubt that the numbers will be made up by immigration. I don't think that's a bad thing - let's take in all the people from overpopulated countries. But strangely it seems many people get upset when we bring over foreigners to make up for our lack of breeding...
Peak child is coming and it is a good thing. Reducing populations are a good thing. We just need to weather the storm. Oh an if it only effects 1% of people to the benefit of all why get rid of it?
gerard oosterman:
Positive ageing is out and negative ageing becoming in. Ha,ha. Good one. ;) It seems a bit mean. Grim lipped pensioners queuing up for soft soup. Elderly couples eating tough mutton again, sharing their cracked dentures. Newspapers between sugar bag blankets. Worn out slippers.
Stop the boats
Stop the carbon tax
Stop mining tax Stop
Stop pensioners positiveness
Stop optimism.
Stop. stop. stop.
remember to include
stop the waste
stop the spin
stop changing your policy settings every two weeks
Andy, stop the stopping, I'm sobbing already, and so are many others...
It is refreshing to have no spin and simply plain speaking from ministers. we can only hope it carries on and isn't lost when parliaments sits.
don't worry helvi, you'll find happy comforts back at Bob Ellis' blog where you can cry about the illegal election and the injustice of all the polling warping people's views.
Ataraxia:
And Abbott is insisting on going to an oppressive Sri Lanka where he can learn more on how to STOP those who disagree with a repressive government.
Gerard I like my worn out slippers, even after the dog chewed them and, while I hadn't thought of it myself, recycling sugar bags as blankets would be a good thing wouldn't it?
Huonian:
They've abolished the advisory panel, that's all. They aren't trying to abolish old people !
We have government departments to advise Ministers. Why do we need all these "advisory panels" to do what the departments are paid to do, have the expertise to do and they actually did that in the past.
Here's an idea - spend more on people who are actually old and less on political advisers at think tanks, many of whom are, of course, conveniently available to take up paid positions of advisory boards!
You are right, they are not trying to abolish old people - only the poor old people. Starve 'em and freeze 'em. Perhaps they could set up a productivity advisory committee (the ageing John Howard as chairman) to suggest an economically efficient way to use their corpses.
did you miss this part "spend more on people who are actually old and less on political advisers "?
But WHICH old people, Jimmy. I suggest it would be the old and the rich. Howard as chairman would certainly ensure that. Unless, of course Howard is considered a "political advisor". Are the two categories "old and "political advisor" mutually exclusive?
I would have thought the carbon tax would have been more deadly to pensioners in colder climes. Did you ever question that Ataraxia?
jennbrad:
By definition, government employees are not "old" - they are still in the workforce. My understanding of this panel is that they were in the older category and representative of older Australians groups. They were working on a comprehensive report which, inter alia, assessed the varying ways the states and Commonwealth met the needs of older Ozzies, including (in particular) through housing.
It's often the case that department have neither the resources nor the in-house expertise - yes, they know their subject matter but where policies/issues affect particular groups of Australians, then assessing that group's experiences and views usually leads to more effective and yes, efficient policies and programs. Enables governments to design programs that will work, often in conjunction with the states.
storyboy:
This problem, like most will be solved at fixed at 5 minutes to midnight in a simplistic, haphazard and costly manner when it dawns on whomever is in government that all of these increasingly disgruntled people vote. Tee author has also neglected to mention that the aged pension is currently tied not to the rate of inflation but AWE (Average Weekly Earnings) and so has been growing in real terms since the Howard years and it is unlikely that this method of calculation will change.
lawrie Shaw:
It is worthwhile remembering that the "progressive" is s self claimed tag , largely because its opposition is regressive. Conservative was claimed to indicate a belief in established values. Neither have any real implication today.
Next in the Hawke Keating and Rudd Gillard governments we have had a surfeit of panels reporting on all kinds of wondrous panaceas for all kinds of ills.
Perhaps if we were to scrap all of these learned panels we might get a set of actions that move toward a solution.
Successive governments failed to adequately budget for future pensions. The convenient way out was to make people save again to replace the investment that should have been made by government. Superannuation, that idea created a pool of wealth that insulated savings for ageing from taxation. So we started to tax it. So aged care is a risk because the State spent the funds it raised by tax but did not invest, then the State taxed superannuation so that it did not fully offset the cost of aged care.
Another panel will not resolve this. Just as it will not resolve the case of the 30 year old employer who does not employ the 50 year old , the company that runs a Gen Y culture , the JSA that seeks to get every job seeker over 55 into volunteering to ease the compliance burden, neither will teh panels ever resolve the issue of youth always knowing better that older people and hating any suggestion otherwise.
Those are things that will bring the ageing population in as an asset.
Another panel of experts and report would highlight good will and do nothing. Every company on the ASX has diversity policies oozing progressive attitudes to race , age and sex equality, we have a phalanx of overseeing and eruditely reporting bureaucrats and academics checking on this and yet reality does not change.
If not listening to these wise panels has the opposite effect to listening then maybe Abbott for all his evil and amoral intent and plans will get results instead of reference points.
Just for the record every Coalition government I ever worked for had a plethora of advisory bodies of various kinds. Forget about it being a weird ALP thing - governments do it to ensure knowledge beyond statistics and money to design programs which have the best chance of achieving what they set out to do.
Ponsie Scheme:
The solution to an aging population has already been announced by both sides of politics and the greens.
To support our 5 million aging people we need to import 20 million people to support them.
And in 40 years time we import 80 million to support the 20 million we previously imported to support our 5 million aging people.
And in another 40 years we import 320 million people to support the aging 80 million we had previously imported to solve our aging problems.
Its good to know our politicians have thoroughly thought this out. isn't it.
It is a good thing then that China and India have more than enough people to support such a scheme!
Alpo:
PS, no need to do all that. You only need to have a competitive and productive economy (which will require better minds, not more hands and feet) that also contributes a fair degree of taxes to the common good.... This was already announced by Labor, in case you were asleep. In turn, Tony Crackpott is going to get rid of 1400 jobs at CSIRO!
Another Aussie:
Emily, as a member of Labor's fan club and a spin doctor for the one-eyed ruston-on Labor luvvies you claim "Progressives care about what's fair and just."
Too right, I say! The dumping of Julia Gillard by your friends was overdue .... but certainly fair and just. Up until now I haven't acknowledge the Labor caucus (with an emphasis on the cussing) did the nation a favour when they dumped the former Prime Minister's predecessor. So let me thank the Labor causus of the former parliament. They got one thing right!
Scotty A:
They were just 6 months away ... from releasing a report. Wow. Amazing. Canberrra in action!
damonm:
Giving lower paid workers an annual subsidy of $500 towards their superannuation is simply welfare by another name., and of course, the government is paying interest on the borrowed money.
What's worse, at the end of their working lives, these people could simply withdraw the money, have a holiday on the taxpayer, and go on the pension, which is what they would have done anyway.
The scheme was a typically inane Labor money churn, achieving nothing.
now I'm confused. Is it a subsidy or a concession?
Me to Jimmy, I thought it was removing a concession for the rich and a subsidy for the poor, now it's a concession for the rich and removing a subsidy for the poor. There is symmetry here that should appeal to Liberal party supporters.
davidlb:
But at least there are no old boat people in Australia.
We can always house our aging population in the facilities built to process immigrants.
Being rich is conducive to being well looked after; alternately being poor means you want to help the rich, or rather, being born to low status means you want to help those born to wealth only those who understand good breeding can manage wealth; as being well born or of liberal disposition (pre-20th century definition) means you have inherited the abilities and skills necessary to govern all others.
The more we look after those of liberal stock - the greater Australia will become.
Emily, you have given more than enough reasons for the 60+ year olds to vote as a block for Labor at the next Federal election (probably called pretty soon after a DD next year). I mean, these clowns are alienating just about everyone on the land. If they go on like this they will get just 1 vote: that of Rupert Murdoch, a future retiree who doesn't like to be taxed.
You miss the fact, Alpo, that older Australians are far more likely than young ones to vote based on their values rather than on their own self interests. As such they're far less likely to vote for a party that has "Whatever it takes" as its unofficial, though well known, motto.
"to vote based on their values rather than on their own self interests"... Hi reaver, you do realise that many of the oldies now are the generation known as the "baby boomers". How many "baby boomers" do you think "vote based on their values rather than on their self interest"?
Quite a few I would imagine, Alpo, given that their wealth as a group would give them the freedom to do so.
Tell me, Alpo.
What exactly did Labor achieve for the aged sector during the last 6 years?
If you think that setting up the APPA was one of them, you're kidding yourself. It's taken four long years to come up with a supposed list of recommendations (still 6 months off). It was just another Labor sponsored talk fest, funded by the tax payer and designed to make it look like Labor was doing something.
Big increase in pensions comes to mind?
Let's see what happens over the next three years and then we can rush to judgement.
Luckily for the Liberals, Alpo, the older cohort naturally gravitate to conservative politics and perhaps may be somewhat out of touch with current events in any case. Not that it's any crime - I'm sure I will be the same when I'm old as politics is too dull for any but the young and self-interested to care about.
And Ann - a problem for the older demographic with its inherent drift to the conservative side of politics is that from the govts point of view this means their votes can be taken for granted and their interests ignored. All rusted on vote bases cash out into interests ignored. There's no political reward for vote loyalty. Such people disenfranchise themselves.
Aged care is in crisis due to under funding. In the facility where my father lives there are not enough registered nurses and other ancillary staff employed. It is not a for profit business but is run by a retirement trust. What they do is very good and they try hard but with many high care residents they are swamped with care demands. One carer for 30 residents at night and on weekends is not enough. Even 8am to 4pm Monday to Friday staff levels work hard to cope with demands.
The problem is the budget pie is only so big and the demands are so high. We all want to pay less tax but we want more and more hand outs!
Maynard:
It is so old school to describe the differences between labor & liberal as you do.
Fairness and justice are nothing without freedom and efficiency, my ALP used to have this in spades before it went on its wasteful deficits & debt binge & wedgedied itself fatally.
I doubt that even the baby boomers on dope would agree with this dichotomy.
I wonder what we get for the education dollar, it is obviously not fairness & justice nor freedom & efficiency.
The obvious conclusion is that if we spent less on the former we would get more of the latter.
Ross V:
Once upon a time, economics would have seen throwing a generation on the scrapheap before it came of age as folly. The same for destroying a nation's industrial capability. Now short-term free markets rule, and a conservative government seeks to destroy our nation?s future, human and capital.
In reality free markets benefit the weakest with the lowest wages and the strongest - read the USA. We lose, "the Aussie Dollar is too high - send the work overseas" - surprize, surprize - "The Aussie dollar has fallen, but the infrastructure there has been closed down, keep the work overseas."
A Tory is the beneficiary of education and privilege ? I?m guilty of both of these ? but one who recognises the obligation imposed by those facts. The new regime is not Tory, it will do anything to cling onto power to impose its blind implementation of an economic model created to enrich the USA and a narrow coterie of rent seekers and opportunists in Australia.
Destroy the motor industry ? Well the motor industry grew out of the WW 2 aircraft industry, remember, when were were almost cut-off from the USA and UK? Well Yankland will be a footnote to history in twenty years and where will we be.
I've recently transferred job in a community service organisation and for the first time in my life am frequently speaking with elderly people (usually aged 75+). These folks are generally very resiliant to the best of their abilities, having been raised during harder times than the generations which came later. But they usually need a hand and it's not always available.
If things are bad now, they're going to be disastrous within 15 years as baby boomers clog up systems which can't currently manage too well.
I'm enjoying not living the healthiest life and never intend to retire - hopefully I'll drop off my perch well before I've got unmet needs. I pity those with healthier genetics than my own.
It all comes down to quality of life. Age and health are only loosely linked I think. Can't say I want to outwear my welcome just the same.
Jungle Boy:
"the coalition seems uninterested"
If this is such an important topic (and it is), why drag it into partisan politics right at the start of your article?
The ALP and most other parties are complicit with the Government in showing little action in this matter. What are the policies of the ALP (or for that matter the Clive Palmer Party)? They are not evident from today's article.
Steve Mount:
What else is there to say?
Treat older folk as non-important electors, or as workers who are 'past it', and they will suck your Newstart until a certain age, after which they will suck your pension.
And don't anyone bother to speak of 'mentoring' or 'volunteering', au Howards days. These change the financial equation nil.
If my knowledge and experience is not good enough for paid work, then it has no value, in the broad financial sense.
If it's good enough for mentoring, or volunteering, then it must have some recompense for me, financially.
If not, then I'll suck on your pension, and my accumulated skills and knowledge will stay with me.
meredith:
This was the laughable thing about the last three years. Australians who were better served by the ALP left them in droves and probably voted for the Coalition or PUP. They believed the propaganda doled out to them by the Murdoch press and Tony Abbott and Co. Also there are dyed in the wool Coalition voters who would have been better served by an ALP Government. I recall my father who worked for the State Treasury under a Liberal Premier saying that the Coalition worked actively for the big end of town. That still holds true today. More fool the ordinary worker.
I'm sure there are a few public servants that vote conservative Meredith. But your father would have been amongst the majority. Be aware of the biases.
The writer is so blindly biased in her political leanings ("Progressives care about what's fair and just. Conservatives care about freedom and efficiency".) that no amount of reasoned assessment has taken place before her fingers have hit the keyboard.
There is a message to be sensibly aired on this subject of future Aged Care funding. It is an issue that is coming at us at a million miles an hour and needs addressing by governments of BOTH political persuasions. This is not something that has only occurred in the first 70 days of this government.
Poorly thought out articles, like this, that are so idealogically driven, do nothing to help the cause. It only serves to alienate one half of the target market.
dman:
"Conservatives care about freedom and efficiency"
ummm....not sure how someone comes to that conclusion. I think conservatives care more about changes, even slight little ones, effecting them in any way, positive or negative...
but the author is right on one thing...the current LNP govts at state and federal levels think ideology is the answer to everything....little do they know (pardon the punn).
DENIS:
Some people just do not get it. Australia, the land of milk and honey, is a place where the population does not grow to old age, so why the fuss needing to have some idea of how to face a 'greying future' (as someone called Peter Costello once saw as the biggest economic crisis facing Australia)? It is also a country that does not require scientists to invent things to manufacture, but thankfully, it is a country 'George W.' Abbott envisions as having a wonderful future in manufacturing things. The Queen has acknowledge the climate change crisis to the world from the UN (2010), and 'George W.' worships the very ground Her Majesty walks upon, so he is doing his darndest to confront the problem by making
every Australian pay out of their taxes to clean up the atmosphere. This is how an Adult Government is run. We are truly blessed.
PT K:
Emily, it is so obvious that you understand so very little of what you want to write about. Unless the article is planned as a pure propaganda.
Actually it is the coalition governments who with much greater success plan for the forthcoming democratic changes. Various coalition governments passed many legislations which encourage people to save for their retirement, rather than rely on the government's handouts.
I retired just about 6 years ago. It was Howard's tax encouragements that made my wife and I salary sacrifice almost half of our income. No we enjoy proceeds from our investments, currently taking less than 10% of the maximum age pension. Yes, we have received some 'middle class welfare payments and benefits', as some socialists would want to call it, however, look how much we are going to save the taxpayers for the years to come. Many times over.
That is something Labor and socialist journalists will never understand. Their policies are aimed to punish people who want to take care of themselves and reward people who insist in being reliant on the taxpayers.
Thomas T:
Actually 'PT' you are very right.
When Labor got into government, first budget they increased pension to all those who never bothered to take care of themselves.
However they at the same time Labor reduced pensions for all pensioners who bothered to save for their retirement by reducing pension by 50c per dollar of income, rather that 40c under the previous Howard Government.
How can people still talk that Labor takes care for the aged population is beyond any logic. What Labor does is to encourage envy against anyone who tries hard to save for their retirement, but rather encourage everyone to be welfare dependent which will create enormous burden on our future tax revenue.
DWM:
rubbish. Paul Keating was the architect of the compulsory superannuation system in Australia today. Howard did very little except give concessions to the higher income earners.
P T K appears to be describing the Keating changes to super and pensions. I wonder why he doesn't know that?
ru4real:
This government lacks conscience and compassion.
Tony Abbott has done and said anything to became the PM.
The LNP is proving to be a complete dud, in areas which matter to most Australians.
If it's big business, the LNP will be there, but not for the millions of aging Australians, or teriary students, or unemployed people, or those on lower incomes.
Tony Abbott's new slogan seems to be, if something's likely to cause problems, don't talk about it.
Or worse, hide behind someone else, preferable in uniform!
Tax the churches:
Sadly, the Abbott government is engaged in a class-warfare without admitting it openly. Our egalitarian society - that many of us are so proud of - remains a thorn in the backside of a greedy minority.
And under-educated people who voted this mob in are the losers, but probably keep voting the same way because they lack the means in perpetuity to broaden their horizons.
Sir Humphrey Appleby must be grinning in his grave....
R. Ambrose Raven:
Demographic changes do not deserve the cost-of-ageing hysteria that they've received. Ageing does not pose any particularly severe costs. After all, the oldest people tend to be the richest, tend to use fewer resources, generally live and die at home, and often support younger family members.
But the point is that they deserve support of the sort that requires a large number of specialized bodies all working together.
Unlike AGW denialists, age denialists don't seek to claim that the problem doesn't exist. Not at all; they take the opposite approach of arguing that the problem is so big that ?we? simply can't provide, so work the lazy swine till they die.
Shifting towards 'user pays' health care and pensions (a shift that has already begun via private health insurance and superannuation), will cost more and provide less than government doing so directly. Flogging-out has the vast graft of the profit-seekers to feed.
Hockey made the real agenda clear in saying ?But [vicious attacks on the marginalised] works and it is financially sustainable.? Classic exploitation/privatisation of the labour of working people, and abandonment/socialisation of their costs when too young, too old, too unfit, or too unwanted. He merely restated the ruling class principle that the wealth of society is not for those in it but for the rich that control it. Those who don't work (and are poor) don't deserve to eat.
Maybe this 'Positive Aging' Department was completely unecessary and not achieving anything of worth? I would bet good money that was exactly the case. The Lefties love throwing money at things, which overtime is counterproductive...look at Greece, they had 'Departments' for everything.
Betcha the IPA has a "paper" somewhere dealing with the problem of "ageing" but then the IPA is a completely unbiased private think tank so we don't need "objective" policy proposals from government anyway.
These are just appalling decisions from an appalling government and I hope they come back to bight them hard. This group of Murdoch's yes men care nothing for the people of Australia and only for big business and money - they are a disgrace.
Jerry:
Bring me your aged, your sick, your lame and I will ignore them while encouraging the rich to provide morsels from their tables. This is not the Australian way but it appears to be the way of the current government.
Gratuitous Adviser:
I do not know if it?s all that bad that its gone. The Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing seemed to be a bit of a $4.7M quango to me.
Looking at the committee's published scope of work and their home page they only met every 2 months, Howe gave a couple of speeches and they had a roundtable last December with no reported outcome.
I see Ms Susan Ryan got a guernsey to be on the committee but I would be surprised if her advocacy as being Discrimination Commissioner or a member of this committee got anyone a job other than her.
Val Doxan:
Having elected an ultra-conservative anti-intellectual government, why are we surprised that they behave as an ultra-conservative anti-intellectual government?
Australia has got the government it elected.
"A government with insight would have understood..." An exquisite indictment of the current government Emily, and an overall thought provoking article
kay peterson :
The Coalition government is correct in getting rid of the expensive pontification bodies. Such bodies can come up with pie in the sky lovely ideas and ideals, but the fact their ideas aren't currently reflected in our society means they aren't likely to be. The only waseteful beneficieries are those highly overpaid persons employed to pontificate and write the useless junk. Keeping superannuation rules for all more similar is fairenough.There are already an excess of taxes and taxing extra on those who manage to make moreand it is not a fair solution. The solution is more tied in with developing a vibrant confident economy when eventually more persons will be employed and make better incomes and hence better futures. The projections of aged persons longevity based on current aged persons is a fallacy when looking to 2050.That is truly overstating in probability where following generations may very well not have the longevity the current aged have displayed.The worst peak to be endured will only be the baby boomer generation, but as doubtfully lasting as long as the current 70 year olds and above with medical intervention.From a large sector of the baby boomers and more severly as one goes below that group, the physical issues arising from a far more sedentery life from early years ongoingly, drug use, processed foods, pollutants of the environment, devolution by procreating mechanisms and furthering survival of the unfitest will not lend to longevity, despite medical advances. Furthermore, society may well have shifted from recognising that some forms of extending life medically are not beneficial if all thats echieved is is a hell of suffering from untreatable conditions, including dementia allowing a bit of realistic end to occur more naturaly. One doesn't hear that the coalition is against supporting the aged where concretly needed and proven where it's most effective. At present effective aged support needs further evidence based clarification. One current thrust of ideals by asking the wrong questions the wrong way is likely to have a detrimental impact on services. Since most elderly persons answered the queastion in regard to support that they wanted was to remain in their own home for as long as possible. This has been conveniently interpreted to reducing more residential care options, but not at the level of equalling residential care hours in their own homes. This answer arieses from one lotof elderly who unrealistically never want to move out of their home plus the other lot who meant their wish was for remaining as long as possible, but acessing residential care when needed.The latter point not recognised. The current baby boomers will be a serious proiblem as many lack rescources for their frail aged states plus via divorce will end up alone without the a partner to add support, nor kids alienated from one parent to bother with that one at all.Those two losses used to delay public service needs a great deal and won't now aside, th
It's not that difficult Abbott lied to get elected anybody who voted for him not realizing this deserves all the grief they will get.
NotMyName:
When I retired two years ago, I decided to take up casual work in retail, I can only admire those who work full time in retail, and probably will for the rest of their working life, I would never of endured a work environment where weekends are considered no different to any other day of the week, and the working day can be any eight hour slot from six a.m. to nine p.m. To my point, I have to report to Centerlink each fortnight stating my hours and my gross pay, I've no problems with Centerlink and find those that work for Centerlink to be friendly and helpful, but they have to follow the rules, and I find I am denied most of my Old Aged Pension due to my earnings, as well as paying income tax; this resulted in my informing my employer that I could not work the amount of hours my employer would like me to. Luckily I realised when in my twenties that I could not rely on the politicians to look after me in my old age, because they certainly didn't look after previous generations who fought two world wars. Is extreme poverty of the pensioners' to be the incentive to force them to continue working just to get by, or are they going to follow the UK example of not tampering with the pension of working pensioners'.
NWM:
Not sure I agree with the broad comment that the Libs believe in "freedom and efficiency". They believe in freedom for the markets to what they like without restraint or concern for the environment or people they exploit. Efficiency is great, as long as it doesn't lead to people unnecessarily losing their jobs in the public service in the name of "efficiency". I think in this day and age "freedom and efficiency" need to be carried out within firm boundaries to limit the game play to limit the environmental and human impacts. Too often the mantra of freedom and efficiency is not used for the benefit of all, and is ironically a mantra for conservative tunnel vision. And so rich people are now being assisted over others in our society, and the rigid thinking that justifies this kind of outrage is not going to help older, poorer people get the care and services they need. Interesting that the majority of poor people in our society are women, and that women live on average longer than men, and so they are again vulnerable to the unfair value system that the Libs are currently demonstrating.


We introduce nonparametric regularization of the eigenvalues of a sample covariance matrix through splitting of the data (NERCOME), and prove that NERCOME enjoys asymptotic optimal nonlinear shrinkage of eigenvalues with respect to the Frobenius norm. One advantage of NERCOME is its computational speed when the dimension is not too large. We prove that NERCOME is positive definite almost surely, as long as the true covariance matrix is so, even when the dimension is larger than the sample size. With respect to the Stein's loss function, the inverse of our estimator is asymptotically the optimal precision matrix estimator. Asymptotic efficiency loss is defined through comparison with an ideal estimator, which assumed the knowledge of the true covariance matrix. We show that the asymptotic efficiency loss of NERCOME is almost surely 0 with a suitable split location of the data. We also show that all the aforementioned optimality holds for data with a factor structure. Our method avoids the need to first estimate any unknowns from a factor model, and directly gives the covariance or precision matrix estimator, which can be useful when factor analysis is not the ultimate goal. We compare the performance of our estimators with other methods through extensive simulations and real data analysis.


I have written a java program to execute SQL statements on hive using Cloudera hive JDBC driver. When I try to execute multiple SQL statements separated by a semicolon, driver throwing an error - Error while compiling statement: FAILED: ParseException line 1:36 cannot recognize input near ';' '<EOF>' '<EOF>' in table source. Is it possible to execute multiple SQL statements using Hive JDBC driver.
This is not supported, you just need to call execute() for each query.
Is there any plan in feature to support this feature?
Sorry, I am not aware of this.
Is there any particular use case that you need to rely on this feature?
We have a client interface to interact with hadoop hive through hive jdbc drivers. Through client interface, it is possible to connect to dirrerent databases like db2, teradata, hadoop and aster. In interface, customer can run multiple queries seperated by "," when it is connected to db2 or teradata but unable to run multiple queries when it is connected to hadoop hive. The customer wants this feature in our client interface.
Let me check this internally for you. Will get back to you later on this.


text:
Q: IndyTCP delphi array of objects exchanging I'm sorry I know that I ask too many questions, but tomorrow (actually today cause in my coutry it's 2:00 am right now) I need to show to my teacher what I started to make e.t.c. So as I asked in previous questions I need to send from server to client some data.
But it nothing appers in server's memo field after thatt memo1.Lines.Add(IntToStr(arrOf[1]));
I was trying to send it like that on client
procedure TForm1.btnTestClick(Sender: TObject);
var
  msRecInfo: TMemoryStream;
  arrOf: array of integer; i:integer;
begin
  setLength(arrOf, 11);
  for i := 0 to 10 do
    arrOf[i]:=random(100);

  msRecInfo:= TMemoryStream.Create;

  try
    msRecInfo.Write(arrOf, SizeOf(arrOf));
    idTCPClient1.IOHandler.Write(msRecInfo);
  finally
     msRecInfo.Free;
  end;

end;

on server
procedure TForm1.IdTCPServer1Execute(AContext: TIdContext);
var
   msRecInfo: TMemoryStream;
  arrOf: array of Integer; i:integer;
begin
  msRecInfo:= TMemoryStream.Create;
  try
    AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadStream(msRecInfo, -1, False);
    SetLength(arrOf,11);
    msRecInfo.Position := 0;
    msRecInfo.Read(arrOf, SizeOf(arrof));
  finally
    memo1.Lines.Add(IntToStr(arrOf[1]));
    msRecInfo.Free;
  end;
end;

Please could you help me to solve this problem and to find some examples of how to send arrays of different types/classes?

A: This is your Main Problem here
msRecInfo.Write( arrOf, SizeOf( arrOf ) );

You write the pointer-address of the array into the stream ... i dont't think thats your goal.
If you want to put the content of the array into the stream you should use
msRecInfo.Write( arrOf[ Low( arrOf ) ], SizeOf( Integer ) * Length( arrOf ) );

Why? You have to point to the first position of the data (first element of the array), and you have to calculate the length of the data.
On the receiving part it is just the same
msRecInfo.Read( arrOf[ Low( arrOf ) ], SizeOf( Integer ) * Length( arrOf ) );

PS: This may work well in this special case, but to be safe, you should send at first, the length of all data, so the receiver knows, when message is complete

A: As Rufo already explained, you are not writing the array into, and reading the array out of, the TMemoryStream correctly.
Worse, you are not sending the TMemoryStream over the socket correctly, either.  The default parameters of TIdIOHandler.Write(TStream) and TIdIOHandler.ReadStream() are not compatible with each other.  By default, Write(TStream) does not send the TStream.Size value.  However, the default parameters of ReadStream() (which are the same values that you are passing in explicitally) tell it to read the first few bytes and interpret them as the Size, which would be very wrong in this example.
Try this instead:
procedure TForm1.btnTestClick(Sender: TObject);
var
  msRecInfo: TMemoryStream;
  arrOf: Array of Integer;
  i: Integer;
begin
  SetLength(arrOf, 11);
  for i := Low(arrOf) to High(arrOf) do
    arrOf[i] := random(100);

  msRecInfo := TMemoryStream.Create;
  try
    msRecInfo.WriteBuffer(arrOf[0], Length(arrOf) * SizeOf(Integer));
    IdTCPClient1.IOHandler.Write(msRecInfo, 0, True);
  finally
     msRecInfo.Free;
  end;
end;

procedure TForm1.IdTCPServer1Execute(AContext: TIdContext);
var
  msRecInfo: TMemoryStream;
  arrOf: Array of Integer;
  i: Integer;
begin
  msRecInfo := TMemoryStream.Create;
  try
    AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadStream(msRecInfo, -1, False);
    SetLength(arrOf, msRecInfo.Size div SizeOf(Integer));
    if Lenth(arrOf) > 0 then
    begin
      msRecInfo.Position := 0;
      msRecInfo.ReadBuffer(arrOf[0], Length(arrOf) * SizeOf(Integer));
    end;
  finally
    msRecInfo.Free;
  end;
  ...
end;

Alternatively, get rid of the TMemoryStream and send the individual Integer values by themselves:
procedure TForm1.btnTestClick(Sender: TObject);
var
  arrOf: Array of Integer;
  i: Integer;
begin
  SetLength(arrOf, 11);
  for i := Low(arrOf) to High(arrOf) do
    arrOf[i] := random(100);

  IdTCPClient1.IOHandler.Write(Length(arrOf));
  for I := Low(arrOf) to High(arrOf) do
    IdTCPClient1.IOHandler.Write(arrOf[i]);
end;

procedure TForm1.IdTCPServer1Execute(AContext: TIdContext);
var
  arrOf: Array of Integer;
  i: Integer;
begin
  i := AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadLongInt;
  SetLength(arrOf, i);
  for i := Low(arrOf) to High(arrOf) do
    arrOf[i] := AContext.Connection.IOHandler.ReadLongInt;
  ...
end;

Now, with that said, accessing the TMemo directly in the OnExecute event handler is not thread-safe.  TIdTCPServer is a multi-threaded component.  The OnExecute event is triggered in the context of a worker thread, not the main thread.  UI components, like TMemo, cannot be safely accessed from outside of the main thread.  You can use Indy's TIdNotify or TIdSync class to synchronize with the main thread, eg:
type
  TMemoSync = class(TIdSync)
  protected
    FLine: String;
    procedure DoSynchronize; override;
  end;

procedure TMemoSync.DoSynchronize;
begin
  Form1.Memo1.Lines.Add(FLine);
end;

procedure TForm1.IdTCPServer1Execute(AContext: TIdContext);
var
  ...
begin
  ...
  with TMemoSync.Create do try
    FLine := IntToStr(arrOf[1]);
    Synchronize;
  finally
    Free;
  end;
  ...
end;

If you do not synchronize with the main thread, bad things can happen.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Our PBX connected with CTI and CRM systems, can offer outbound calls to our existing customers base, or potential customers from our own huge customer data base.
Well trained and experienced teams visit the customers for presentation and sales purposes. The prospective clients are small and medium sized companies (SOHO – SME).
Full reporting (per sales person, per category of customer, per hour – day – month, etc.).
Updating customer's data base for further data exploitation.
Customer segmentation with any required criteria.


Am I the only one who thinks we need to hear more about the hot man??
That's my husband, he drove all the way to pick me up. That's hawt. And he didn't tease me at all for trying to offer strangers donut holes while sweaty or for locking my keys in the car.
I'm glad he didn't tease you. My husband can't resist a good teasing opportunity.