An end of tax breaks for the rich?

The super rich could soon see an end to tax concessions on their superannuation incomes.

An end of tax breaks for the rich?

In a rare show of bipartisan support, Labor has offered to support the cash-strapped Liberals on a crackdown of the superannuation incomes of the super rich.

“The Labor Party believes the taxation treatment of superannuation is unfair and needs to be fixed,” said Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen. “I pointed out that this could be a matter of some bipartisanship if the government chose to agree as part of this so-called national conversation.”

The changes will affect those who derive tax-free six-figure annual incomes from millions of dollars in superannuation accounts. Labor may support these new arrangements, as a compromise for the government to reconsider a compulsory 12 per cent employer-funded superannuation contribution scheme.

The Association of Superannuation Funds (ASFA) figures show that there are 475 people in Australia with more than $10 million in superannuation accounts, who earn $1.5 million in tax-free annual income. There are 10,000 more Australians with superannuation ledgers of $2 million or more, who also benefit from generous tax rulings on super. These current arrangements may mean that the government is foregoing around $35 billion in potential revenue each year.

However, the government is weary of making any changes to the superannuation rules, because of a pre-election promise that there would be no amendments to superannuation in its first term.

What do you think? Would you be affected by any changes the government makes to superannuation rules for the super rich? Do you feel that the super rich should be taxed at a higher rate?


    To make a comment, please register or login
    3rd Apr 2015
    Note that 26% of tax raised is from only 2% of the population. Looks like the rich are doing their bit already?
    3rd Apr 2015
    Lise, damned lies.....and statistics.

    This is the type of misinformation the wealthy use to mislead the public about the real facts. Of course the rich pay a bit into the taxation system but their tax on gross income is an absolute pittance. This is because many Australians earn humungous amounts of money. Warren Buffett derided the same game in the US where he stated that his secretary paid more tax as a percentage if her income than he did.....his REAL income, not his taxable income.

    If you think that this government is going to go after the superannuation tax shelter of its rich supporters then consider Joe Hockey's sabre rattling about multinationals who shift their profits to low tax regimes like Ireland: the latest is that nothing can be done to stop this fraud. So whose interests does this government support?

    The nation needs ACTION, but this government is just full of lies and deceit. I await action but it ain't coming true believers!
    4th Apr 2015
    Well said Mick.....sick of the lies and pollies looking after themselves and their "big end of town" buddies.

    Time for some action! Low to middle income earners have taken the brunt of this bs for too long.
    Les In Kangaroo Valley
    3rd Apr 2015
    I fully support taxing the earnings of personal super funds, just as bank interest is deemed as taxable income. I derive my living expenses from a pension fund and would readily accept combined earnings of interest from bank deposits and earnings on my pension fund being taxed once those earnings exceed $18,000 which is the current tax free threshold. Much rather this revenue source for the Government than penalising low income earners and welfare recipients.
    3rd Apr 2015
    The fairest proposals so far.

    Not sure why tax payers have a duty to ensure wealthy people continue to live in the comfort to which they have become accustomed.

    The idea that paying tax is a crime against the person is an American attitude that is reflected in the dismal conditions in a dysfunctional country, that most Americans live under - either very low paid jobs or carrying guns because they fear for their lives. Only the extremely wealthy do OK.

    Paying tax is a grown up person's contribution to living in a civilised society. Sort of like the one we had before Keating and Howard messed around with the finances and politicised tax.

    Sapper's percentage is too simplistic to be meaningful.
    3rd Apr 2015
    Such a civilised response. FYI - the minimum wage in the US is currently $8 an hour. Employers were asked to increase this tp provide a wage people can actually live on but employers responded the same way they alwys do in Australia: "we'll be ruined". This from a country with possibly the lowest taxes in the developed world.
    3rd Apr 2015
    It does make sense. Of course, nobody like any "cuts" of any kind -however, Oz needs a re-structarization in many sectors as we all well know and, the present Goverment is tyring to do the job. Same applies to new Centrelink measures that will affect many who are allergic to work, un-employable and with the "gimmie-gimmie" mentality. All can be explained in a simple and graphic manner - of course- to those who wish and have to face facts. Those affected in this particular case do not think will actually need to "tighten their belts"
    3rd Apr 2015
    Most people would agree with all of the above, but this government has been gunning for average citizens since day 1 whilst ignoring the blatant rorts of their wealthy backers and even giving them another 1.5% company tax cut.
    So lets put this into perspective Mila.
    3rd Apr 2015
    3rd Apr 2015
    I wouldn't hold my breath Leny. For the same reason this bunch of elected misfits reneged on txing Multinationals so I am sure will they renege on ending the rorts of the rich.....unless they have another rort which can be started up.
    4th Apr 2015
    3rd Apr 2015
    What I would give to have a large superannuation benefit - alas that is not the case, although I have worked out that I currently live under the single pension rate after my mortgage is taken out of my wage. However, I have worked out that I can draw an allocated pension from age 60, paying myself fortnightly the current pension rate until I am eligible for the aged pension at 66½. If there are changes to taxation of over 60's this will affect my calculations in a decidedly negative manner. I agree that those drawing huge amounts should be taxed more.
    3rd Apr 2015
    The large superannuation benefits you talk about is a rort which the rich utilise. It does not work for average Australians who simply do not have millions to squirrel way into supernnuation.
    in a nushell the scam works like this. high income earners have a choice whether or not to pay tax (at around 49 cents in the dollar) on their income. If they putnit into their superannuation accounts instead they only have to pay 15 cents in the dollar and the get it TAX FREE when they retire. So who engineered this scm do you think????

    3rd Apr 2015
    Funny, the Government wasn't worried about breaking promises on health care, education, or pensions. Only worried about breaking promises to their rich buddies?

    Superannuation concessions are inherently unfair and counter-productive to the objectives of the system. The Greens have put forward a proposal that impacts minimally on the rich and delivers excellent budget savings plus good benefits for lower-paid workers. These reforms should be supported.

    Conversely, ACOSS is suggesting measures that attack the lower-middle income group only and will render many self-funded retirees worse off than pensioners after, often, a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice to lift themselves to a slightly higher level of comfort. (Conversely, a great many full pensioners structured their affairs or spent freely to qualify for pensions that they shouldn't have a need for if they had managed responsibly.)

    I strongly support reform that makes decent pensions affordable, but let's do it in a fair and equitable manner - by ending the huge and grossly unfair concessions on superannuation and merging income and assets tests for the pension, incorporating a sensible deeming rate on assets to guarantee fairness. But recognize that in a low interest/investment return environment, and struggling to plan for possibly decades of cost of living increases during their retirement years, people DO need to be allowed to preserve a reasonable amount of assets for future years. Lowering asset threshholds will only provide incentives to reduce savings quickly to qualify for benefits and will deny people the ability to plan and save for the future, so that those the ACOSS proposal would exclude will see their savings rapidly deplete until they again do qualify for pension benefits.
    3rd Apr 2015
    I totally agree.
    If this government gets in again expect a full on attack on average and poor Australians. So why woukd voters not vote for good Independents? I guess only the poisoning of our minds by both sides can derail common sense. We always get the government we truly deserve.
    4th Apr 2015
    Right on Mick! Aussies need to "wake up" and vote independents in, so we can get rid of the rot that has set into Canberra.

    THEN we can start to make things right for the majority of us, instead of looking after the filthy rich.
    4th Apr 2015
    Too bad the government had to say that it could not fund the wild promises to throw money at health care, education and pensioners that were made in the dying days of the Labor government in 2013.

    But by then the Labor had gotten used to going to their Chinese ATM to saddle the Aussie taxpayer with even more debt if these promises were ever going to be made good. So what do you want, Rainey and mick? Do you think Australia should sink even further into debt and force our children and grandchildren to pay for the hare brained schemes Labor devised to catch more votes in their desperate (and failed) attempt to retain power?

    WAKE UP.

    Costello left $Billions in Australia's Treasury when Labor came into power in 2007. When Labor left in 2013, all Swan left was a pile of IOU debts payable to China. Guess what, Kiddos, there ain't no Magic Pudding or Money Tree, just mug punter taxpayers.
    Chris B T
    3rd Apr 2015
    The government & opposition always talk about fairness in Taxing and Superannuation.
    Why isn't there a limit set to how much you can have in this superannuation enviourment.
    The squirrelling away money to avoid tax should be capped as well, to the superanuation fund.
    The other changes that are being put "On The Table" will not affect those in the decision
    of making of these changes (All Happy).
    Removal of supplementry payment, reduction of assetts allowed and indexing/cpi.
    These changes will only distress and marginalize the one's effected, for little gain as
    the lead story of this column states $35billion raised in 1year as apposed to $35 billion
    over 10 year period, as stated by Morrison. With the people who can at least afford it.
    ACCOS and others representing the pension groups will not be affectted by these changes
    as their entilements will be above the level they are recondmending.(All Happy).
    Put on "The Table" real reforms and fairness, without excluding the one's who can afford
    to be Taxed at reasonable rate and the changes being presented won't affect them anyway.
    3rd Apr 2015
    The GAME is what it is. You assume equity and fairness Chris rather than bastardry and betrayal. If you want these things then vote for Independents and cgange the game. If you are unable to do this then enjoy being done over.
    Chris B T
    3rd Apr 2015
    The collective "At The Table" are our represenitives,both sides of politics,ACCOS and Super Funds maybe some other groups. Doubt you will find any "Independents".
    The changes they are trying to implement won't have any affect on their entilements.
    The math's side has left out, How much higher than $10 mill and how many between $10 and $2mill. To come up with $35bill, a lot, until you have their figures we are left in the naughty corner or "Under The Table".
    Chris B T
    3rd Apr 2015
    You don't need offshore TAX HAVEN's with our tax system that benefits the rich.
    Who would say I put a little away to avoid paying tax, for my tax free retirement.
    3rd Apr 2015
    Anyone done the math? 475 people with $10 million each plus 10000 others with $2 million each adds up to around $25 billion in superannuation. How is the government going to potentially save $35 billion of tax cuts every year from that? No wonder the government lost its way, they follow unsubstantiated popularist thought bubbles. Unless there is a lot more going on in proposed superannuation tax cuts that will affect everyone and they are not telling us.
    3rd Apr 2015
    And quite a few just below that figure. So you propose that the rorts and tax shelters are not ended? If so then where do you fit in?
    4th Apr 2015
    According to something I read recently, the average Australian has only $150,000 in the Super accounts. This is because they had to start late, or in other instances where they have had their own small business and simply not had the funds to contribute to it.

    I think this proposition from Chris Bowen is heading in the right direction, but then I am an optimist and idealist!
    3rd Apr 2015
    I spent my working lifetime saving so that I would not be a burden on the state and would be able to live comfortably when I retired, which I now have. Naturally, I chose the best vehicle available for saving, superannuation, where I now have an above average balance. I think it would be terribly unfair if retrospective legislation were enacted that effectively punished me for being economically prudent for so many years.

    Yes, let’s change the rules for future contributions, but grandfather the funds already legitimately in place.
    3rd Apr 2015
    The question is did you rort the system by using superannuation largely to avoid paying a fair amount of tax?
    Given that you have your funds at retirement it is totally unreasonable that you expect taxpayers to continue the handouts forever. This is precisely why there are so many problems in our system of government. As one poster said many Australians have a 'gimme gime, gime' attitude and entrenched belief. That is thw problem!
    4th Apr 2015
    Mick rorting is not the correct term. A person only plays by the rules and if the rules allow certain things that is how it is. If you pay in one cent more than you are entitled to the superannuation board comes down on you and you are taxed very heavily for doing so.
    3rd Apr 2015
    No: I'm one of the 20% of retirees who do not look to the government for a 'give me, give me'. I missed out on spending because I was saving to avoid having to ask for assistance.
    3rd Apr 2015
    Well said Giles. I'm with you as I hope to be one of the self funded retirees. I had to sacrifice to put money into my super fund whilst raising two children by myself. But I did and won't be asking for a hand out from anyone.
    3rd Apr 2015
    I am a self funded retiree. My wife and I did without many of the things other people take for granted. We will not get one cent in a pension from the government.
    Whilst we can survive ok on our own the point I continue to make is that the system is HEAVILY RIGGED in favour of the well off.
    3rd Apr 2015
    They've got too much weight on the Poor Persons Crane I think ? :-(
    3rd Apr 2015
    Agreed Giles, I am one of those 20% as well, as I too put money aside from my normal pay and did without many things so that I could afford to live comfortably in retirement. I do not appreciate the attitude of so many that I deserve to be taxed more because I was prudent enough to save.
    4th Apr 2015
    I worked in the secretarial field all my life but I am not reliant on government either and I did not come from a wealthy family...far from it.
    Prudent saving and investing and going without was the way I achieved my financial security.
    The super rich are the ones the government needs to crack down on...those who have the ability to put in large lump sums every year. However, that said, it was not illegal for them to do so but future contributions of such magnitude should not be allowed and I hope this investigation into superannuation will bring changes.

    I do not believe in retrospectivity at all and any changes will take years to implement (I believe) and I do not think it will affect those who are currently retired; or it should not.
    3rd Apr 2015
    I thought the whole reason for superannuation was to encouraged you to save for your retirement so that you were not a burden on the rest of the australian tax payers?
    If you start taxing this system at normal rates were is the insentive to save? I'm beginning to think that most of the whingers here are people who did not think ahead and just spent what they had and hoped to be able to survive on an aged or invalid pension.
    I would prefer a small increase in the GST ( I read that we have one of the lowest in the world at %10 ) to pay off the debt we are now in as a country. We all have to eat and buy things. It would be much fairer that we all bear the burden And stop blaming the "Rich".
    3rd Apr 2015
    The superannuation system in this country overwhelmingly benefits the rich. Average Australians may well have been sold the dream but its a farce because most are totally unable to utilise this tax shelter because they simpky do not earn enough.
    Nothing to do with blaming the rich. The reality is that the system was set up FOR THE RICH.
    As far as us "all" bearing the burden you need to look at the end result: the rich end up with huge superannuation accounts as well as other income producing assets whilst the restnof the nation ends up with a pitiful superannuation which has been witted away by inflation. The playing field is anything but fair.
    3rd Apr 2015
    Its somewhat wanting You think Mick !! :-( Needs a bit of salt and 5 Spice Powder I think ? :-)
    7th Apr 2015
    I think you miss the point about this recessive tax. If a family is paying most of their wages on buying food, houses and basic living and the GST is raised this would force them to have less money for food, kids would go hungry and so forth. GST on the more well off would not have this affect as the basics of living constitute a much lower portion of there expenses. This is why they call it a recessive tax.

    Heavens their is even talk on applying it to the unfortunates who are sick. This is sick in itself.
    8th Apr 2015
    Wstaton: I think you will find the tax is called a "regressive tax" not recessive.
    A "regressive tax is where the tax hurts the people who earn less as a percentage and therefore pay more as a percentage than the people who earn high salaries.
    If you are rich 10% GST on whatever you purchase is a "pimple" on a pumpkin.
    If you are in the lower bracket wage earner, 10% GST on what you purchase is a "boil" or "carbuncle" on that pumpkin.
    3rd Apr 2015
    Why is it that the people who work hard and put money aside for their retirement are always the ones that are expected to pay even more. They are already saving the government having to pay them a pension, and for that they have to be taxed more????? I am so sick and tired of the Robin Hood attitude of people in this country, is it any wonder that so many people try so hard to avoid paying tax legally?
    4th Apr 2015
    Ask mick.
    3rd Apr 2015
    It sounds great to tax the rich.
    However, I do hope this is not going to be retrospective legislation.
    We make sacrifices and prudent plans for our futures, and
    the next thing you know, the government has shifted the goal posts once more
    It happens over and over again.
    4th Apr 2015
    I can see both sides of this whole Superannuation debate, but the point is that it was NEVER set up to be fair.

    If the majority of Australians only have $150,000 in their accounts, how is that that the rich can have $millions and yet we are treated in the same manner?

    That's not fair.

    OK so some of you have had huge salaries and have taken advantage of the tax breaks given to you! Good on you!

    But for those of us who started Super once it became compulsory, were on average wages or self employed, its a totally different story.

    We put our money into paying off our mortgages and saving where we could and trying to pay bills and live. Holidays a rarity!

    Paid our taxes, GST, PAYG and anything else the Govt could get it's hands on.

    If the government have got themselves into a huge and unmanageable debt, then they need a way to bail themselves out of it.

    I still don't understand how we can have more people living here and yet the country has so much debt and can't afford to put in the infrastructure we need. Yet back in the 60s and 70s and even the 80s, we were doing OK with less people!

    Sorry, I digressed! My bad :/
    Chris B T
    4th Apr 2015
    When I started working, superannuation was for white collar government workers,
    salaried and other privileged in the work place.
    Some 20+ years later Employer Groups came kicking and screaming when complusory superannuation, was introduced for all @ 3% of base income. Provided it was included in costings of minimum wage rises.
    Intially the newly introduced to this super arrangement, were excluded from additional payments and later capped to a % of income or amount set.
    While the other group had it all the time of employment. (even small amounts
    grow quickly over longer term)
    The introduction of salary sacrifice meant if you put this income in super you
    won't be taxed at the normal rate. Instead of being taxed at higher rate you
    would be tax at a much lower rate.
    A lot of us didn't have superannuation all our working life or the income to push
    us up to the higher tax bracket. This advantage was limited to as was stated 20%
    of the population.
    It would have been nice to have a working life contributing superannuation, let
    alone some privileged options available to higher income earners.
    So the changing of tax arrangements will affect those who had years of their
    tax advantage over most. The compounding interest over this period would be
    mind blowing, without including the additional funds placed in super.
    I agree with you.
    4th Apr 2015
    How would those of you who want the big savers to pay more tax feel about this proposal as an alternative to additional tax? Everybody with more than, say, $500,000 saved in super would have to invest, again say, 5% into infrastructure bonds? With ever-increasing total sums of money in super, the government would never have to repay the bods because there would always be more new superannuants coming in to buy them than those cashing out.
    7th Apr 2015
    Might work but it probably go the same way as the raised tax when pensions were first started. Rolled into general revenue and disappear. Then the Government would say we can't afford this anymore.
    4th Apr 2015
    In short reply the rich should pay their full share of tax
    4th Apr 2015
    And so should the workers. Especially the ones that thrive in the "cash" economy that slip under the "tax radar".
    4th Apr 2015
    But I DO pay my full share of tax! You just want me to pay more. It's the government, of course, who defines what 'full share' is and both political parties have given tax incentives to encourage saving for old age. I'm sure the rules, the definition of 'full share' will change, but doing it retrospectively isn't the way to go.
    4th Apr 2015
    Getting our bunch of pollies to agree to compromise and debate what a fair rate of taxation should be (and then enact it) would be like tipping out a sack full of fleas and then expect to herd them down the road.
    4th Apr 2015
    We need to be careful that all the protesting about the "rich" without defining what rich is will cause people to cease to make the effort to get ahead during their working life. What would be the point of being self-funded in retirement if others looked on in envy and demanded higher tax, fewer concessions and the cost of services based on your "ability to pay". Self funded retirees will pay about $50,000 more than a pensioner for instance for aged health care.
    People like Mick are full of conspiracy theories. The initial comment from Sapper is correct and from the ATO. Mick wants to kill the Goose that pays his pension. He could help the discussion with some constructive suggestions. He doesn't seem to realise that a couple who never saved a dollar and are now on the full pension receive a greater income (and more concessions) than a couple who went without and saved $20,000 a year for 50 years and now have a million dollars in a term deposit. He wants to tax them more.
    Half the population (including me) took more out of the system than they put in, but still say "I paid my taxes so I am entitled to a pension". Well I also paid my taxes, started super in 1958, built my own home, left family support to move to where the jobs were and now I am not entitled and ACOSS and others want to tax me more. They (ACOSS) seem to think the a person with $100,000 to last them perhaps 30 years is wealthy. A single person needs at least $500,000 to have a comfortable lifestyle at today's interest rates. Instead of higher taxes for those making the effort all we need is a cap on the amount that can be held in super (like the old Reasonable Benefit Limit) and to include the value of the family home above $400,000 in the assets test. Today there are "leaners" with homes worth over $2 million getting a full pension. Legal but immoral.
    5th Apr 2015
    I agree with all your comments Fready...well said and factual.
    4th Apr 2015
    As this could effect my super stream income I think it is totally a Labor suggestion so they can clearly state "Look the liberals broke their election promises" cause they are always looking for dirt. We who are in this category have saved our own money knowing we are NOT going to ever qualify for any government old age benefits so leave us alone to use our own money to fund our retirement. I retired self funded at 48 and have funded myself till I turned 55 when I could start drawing down on my super IF I needed to and can draw the first portion tax free which is enough to top me up till I turn 65 then live totally on my super. If they are going to change the rules this totally changes my budget plan and I would have to go back to work a few more years JUST to cover the NEW TAX on MY money that I have saved to support my lifestyle.
    Old Silver Fox
    6th Apr 2015
    The main problems facing us self funded retirees:
    a. The government will build fences around us managing our own money forcing us into a fund managed by some greedy b....who is only there for the fees they can get.
    b. Stop us taking any lump sum. The fund managers want as much as they can get under their control so their fees are greater.
    c. NEVER agree to an increase in taxes. I don't control the dills that make spending decisions with my money. Tell the govt to spend LESS.
    d. When our super is nationalised any portion not handed out to the individual contributor before his death will be grabbed by Canberra and put into the common pool for others. It WONT be left to the kids, grandkids etc.
    e. When Swann was treasurer he cut voluntary contributions from $50k p.a. to $25k for ALL. However he exempted....wait for it....POLITICIANS, senior heads of departments and the judiciary.
    f. Unless we fight, and fight hard, the touchy feely looney left will have all the say and the govt will think that is what EVERYONE wants and proceed on that basis.
    g. If you think taxing the rich is the answer, think again, they are punching above their weight already, as statistics show. The RICH will be classified as ANYONE who is self funded.
    6th Apr 2015
    Just a quick thought. In 2010-11 the government passed on $13.2 billion due to the negative gearing scam. It would be much greater loss nowadays.

    For some years Murdoch inc has paid around 5% on operating profits. How can we take either government serious & I fear for the future of Australia.

    $13.2 billion in 2010-11 Negative Gearing
    7th Apr 2015
    $13.2 billion would have built over 26,000 homes at a cost of $500K each and that's only for one year. The government also would have been receiving rents from these homes as well.
    7th Apr 2015
    The ripoffs by these multinationals just goes on and on as more and more rorts are found out.

    Now Abbotts mate has been found out.
    Old Silver Fox
    7th Apr 2015
    Hawke got rid of negative gearing in his first term in office and guess what.....the housing rental market was hit to the extent that the govt. started buying houses from the private sector to try and fill the gap....that proved too expensive and so negative gearing was reintroduced as a cost effective way of supplying affordable housing. Negative gearing is only a short term (2-3 years) answer for most investors however it does give the 'have nots' or the 'I'm too scared to have a go' brigade a chance to whinge about people they perceive as successful.
    Not Senile Yet!
    8th Apr 2015
    Stop slipping the micky to the Rich on the basis that they can pay!!!
    The question put forward is that the Government has been too generous with the Taxpayer's money in subsidising the wealthy TOO MUCH!!!! By too much they are talking about % allowed against the average worker......not the size of their accounts!
    If the % was the same with the SAME LIMITS for all....their would not be this discrepancy!!!!
    When Super Rules are changed the New Rules should apply TO ALL Super ...Private, Industry, SMF as well ALL Government Employees without EXCEPTION!!!
    That is what the real complaint is! It is the INEQUITY created by allowing exceptions, by not setting Limits.....and most of all applying the rules TO ALL SUPER!!!
    As to limiting access with regard to Lump Sums.....that is an absurdity!!! People who retire have a limited window to realise their it travel or otherwise!!!
    Lump Sums allow this for those who have worked hard and complied with the Law!
    Restricting access to a reasonable limit might be valid....but to remove it completely....would be far too harsh!!!
    As for those attacking the rich and SMF's......they rarely collect a Government Pension!!! It is the Upper Middle Class who benefit far too much by being exempt from the Super Laws that restricts others.....most notable amongst them the MP's themselves!!!!
    All Super Laws should apply to ALL Super that any Government contributes to...regardless!
    As for the funds increases in fees should be allowed to exceed the CPI regardless!!!
    As for the Government taxation on should be removed completely.....especially if they wish to minimise their payment of Pensions. The more people accrue the less likely the need for a full Pension. The Super Schemes were never designed to allow for a government to raid them thru taxation and thus erode their future value!
    With regard to taxing them if accessed early than retirement age....there needs to be an exemption put in place for those forced to retire because of ill-health....they should not be penalised thru tax over something that might be beyond their control....and every cent will be needed if they are ill!
    The rich should not be attacked because of Government Stupidity in allowing over generous tax is the Government that deserves to be attacked for NOT Setting reasonable LIMITS for Everyone!!!!
    It is the Government that needs to be attacked for ALLOWING EXEMPTIONS to anyone....including their own MP's!!!
    8th Apr 2015
    I somewhat agree NSY - to generate the annual income of a politician takes between $5m and $12m effectively (depending on who they are) in their Super accounts - and it is getting higher as interest and other rates drop. Same goes for tens of thousands of public servants that dream up rules for everyone else.

    These are the same people who say that $1m or $2m is too much in Super when $1m in interest generates less than the pension.

    The government elite know the majority of the population don't get the numbers and they can keep a low profile while attacking everyone else.
    8th Apr 2015
    What debt crisis ? In a publication said to be only for overseas consumption entitled 'Why Australia":Benchmark Report 2015 prepared by the Australian Trade Commission, Australia's net debt is shown to be 16.6 per cent of GDP in 2015, compared to the advanced economies average of 74.1 per cent. Only Denmark and Peru of 23 countries listed have lower public sector debt. This report notes that this low public sector debt "reinforces Australia's healthy financial position and sound economic credentials, and underpins its strong ratings" (Section 1, Growth, p:11).

    This scaremongering of debt and deficits provided the cover for the federal government's attempt to introduce savage spending cuts on income support payments and public services for those in need. Austerity for the poor and more wealth and income for the wealthy.

    This report puts the formal lie to what this government peddled from September 2013. Fortunately the Australian public would not accept this level of appalling unfairness nor the lies underpinning the proposed changes. As Wheeler said at FGFP May 2014 rally it was declaring war on low-income groups and the poor...toxic policy changes that must be reversed.…/b6beff_89199f0398164155bc37501e19b37…

    8th Apr 2015
    Why are the rich going to the doctor for free ? There should be a charge and bulk billing only for those on pension or health card...
    8th Apr 2015
    Absolutely!! and that includes all the wealthy migrants coming here to scam whatever they can for free......infrastructure such as hospitals, which WE have all paid for, with our taxes!!
    8th Apr 2015
    Sapper, we are not all saps!

    The following information comes from Wikipedia:

    Kerry Packer appeared before the Australian Parliament's Print Media Enquiry (1991) and stated that "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read:" and
    "I have told you that I pay whatever tax I am required to pay under the law, not a penny more, not a penny less."
    "Seven years later he won a court battle with the Australian Tax Office to cut his three year income tax bill from $40 million to nil."
    Surely this says it all. Paying tax by the wealthy is optional, the poor have no options, and Dick Smith wants his head read because he has stated that he does not minimize his tax bill.
    9th Apr 2015
    Taxing super pensions is double taxation, and wrong wrong.
    When people put money into the fund they had to pay the prescribed tax so that is the rationale for not taxing it when it is paid out.
    The amount you can put in with 15% tax has been restricted and if you exceeded that level you had to put it in from tax paid money so some of you need to get off Robin Hood's soap box and stop the jealous rants.
    Envy is one of the deadly sins and obviously motivates too many bitter people who just want to pull down richer folk who may have worked extremely hard to be successful and now want to enjoy the twilight of their life without the government asking them to do even more heavy lifting to support the spongers who can rort the system.

    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles

    You May Like