15th Jul 2016
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz lashes out at the Coalition’s super policies
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz lashes out at the Coalition’s super policies

Conservative Liberal Party Senator Eric Abetz has lashed out at his party for its handling of superannuation in the lead up to Election 2016, saying the Coalition got a “kick up the pants” for not heeding public opinion about super.

Mr Abetz believes the Liberal Party ‘just fell over the line’ in the election, and feels his party’s election win was the “barest of victories”.

"When you have had such a big kick up the pants, as we have had as the Coalition, and especially the Liberal Party element of the Coalition, then I think it is worthwhile to ask the question; 'why did we haemorrhage so many seats? Why did we haemorrhage so many votes?'," Senator Abetz told Radio National yesterday.

The outspoken conservative said the Coalition’s proposal for a $500,000 lifetime cap on after-tax super concessions was a sore point for older voters.

"The superannuation measures were presented to the party room at the budget and then the budget was immediately announced to the people and we went off to an election, so this matter has not been properly ventilated through the party room," said Mr Abetz. "It's quite clear now from leaks from within Cabinet that there were misgivings within the Cabinet and backbenchers right around the country have indicated their misgivings."

Senator Abetz says his party now needs to respond to the way Australians voted, with recalibrated super policies being a top priority.

Western Australian Liberal Senator Chris Back agrees with Mr Abetz, saying that voters told him personally that they were happy to back the Liberals in the Lower House, but were hoping to keep them out of the Senate so its super changes would be dropped.

"There were certainly people who said to me we will vote Liberal in the House of Representatives but we won't support you in the Senate," said Senator Back.

Monday marks the Liberal Party’s first post-election party room meeting, and Senator Back is hopeful that, as a result of the meeting, disaffected retirees will feel some sense of relief.

"Dyed-in-the-wool Liberal voters said to me they were very, very upset by the suggestion that something backdated to 2007 was not retrospective, they felt insulted by that comment," said Mr Back. "I look forward to a debate on Monday and indeed I can understand the position of the leadership team, saying we have got to make these savings, and they do."

However, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has promised that his Government will deliver on its election promises over its forthcoming term and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann stated that the Government will implement the proposed changes to super tax concessions.

"We took an agenda to the election, the Australian people voted in this election about their preferred team, their preferred plan and we now have a responsibility to get on with the job of implementing the plan that we took to the election," said Mr Cormann.

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce also told ABC radio yesterday that because the Coalition campaigned with its super policy in the lead up to the election its super policy should remain the same.

Read more at www.abc.net.au
Read more at The Guardian

Did the Liberal Party’s planned super changes influence your vote? Which aspects of the Government’s super policies would you like to see scrapped? With which policies do you agree?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    TREBOR
    15th Jul 2016
    10:47am
    First comment - well - I haven't considered the ramifications of a $500k cap - but I do know off the top of my head that 3% return on that will only give you $15k a year - nowhere near enough. I just pulled my super and the final readout said it accrued around a 3% 'profit', and that was before final fees and tax came out.

    I was of the understanding that the $500k was the limit with tax concession, and not an absolute limit. In that case, perhaps there could be consideration of a level that will provide the equivalent of the Pension as the top limit... which $500k today will not, and the figure is closer to $850k to recoup around pension now.

    Mind you, $500k over a fifty year working life is $10k a year - and if you look at that in the context of a 9% input, you would need to be earning $110k or so annually to get to that figure... which shows the dire poverty of the current super system, and nowhere more so than in consideration that this is a 'gross' figure' before annual fees and costs etc.

    The more I look at it the more I feel super is a fool's game.
    TREBOR
    15th Jul 2016
    10:49am
    Stipulates:- Unless you are copping one of the Royalty schemes like the polies one or the very rich with their own company's in-house scheme.

    One rule for the peasants - another rule for the lairds.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    11:07am
    Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it you can have up to $1.6 million in super . It is only the Non Concessional amount that cannot be over $500k.
    Meaning I can stash say $1m into my super over my working life (company contributions and salary sacrifice) but If I sell investment properties I can only stash $500k of that into super. That way only the investment return of that $500 non concessional that is held in the pension account along with my super balance is tax free and any other amount that is invested has to be held outside of the superannuation pension account and will be taxed at what ever rate depending on what the marginal rate will be.
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    2:22pm
    We are retired and we get part super and part age pension TREBOR. We are required to take at least 5% of the balance of our super each year and, so far, we have been able to offset that 5% with an increase of >5% on the funds invested. Our case is not the norm but there will be a number of retirees with the same story. I suppose it's easy to promote doom and gloom but, in my mind, that only unsettles others with wildly exaggerated stories. I cringe when the so-called experts assure us that unless you have at least $1M in super, don't even think of retiring when nothing could be further from the truth. My advice is to find a good financial adviser, lay out all your cards on the table and see what can be achieved.
    Fliss
    15th Jul 2016
    2:29pm
    mangomick, you are correct.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    4:25pm
    Thanks Fliss. I think the LNP (Turnbull and Morrison) are failing to communicate this clearly and I wonder if Abetz is just causing mischief.
    Retired Knowall
    15th Jul 2016
    5:46pm
    It seems a very poorly thought out plan.
    Much better to tax the earnings in the account.
    1 - Define the amount of earnings that would be tax free. (say $80K)
    2 - Tax the earning over this amount on a suitable scale. (15% on the first $30K, 30% on the remainder.
    This way it wouldn't matter how much was in the account and tax would track the performance of the account.
    Limiting the amount one can put into super is DUMB.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    7:20pm
    That really just benefits the very wealthy.
    If I can have the full $1.6m in my super pension account and if investment returns are 2.5% my return is $40000 and no tax is payable.
    Under your idea If I have $3m in my super and investment returns are 2.5% my return is $75k and still no tax.
    But if I had $3m with Turnbulls scheme investment earnings on $1.6 would be tax free and I would have to pay tax on the investment earnings of the remaining $1.4m. So at 2.5% return you pay tax on $350k .
    To be in favour of you idea you would haveto be with the hard right of the LNP.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    9:12pm
    There is also a problem where SMSFs account for income differently than other funds. That's why the Coalition scrapped the $100,000 tax free limit brought in by Labor. Another way around it is to have multiple funds. If a super fund makes a loss do you carry it forward like other taxpayers?
    Retired Knowall
    16th Jul 2016
    8:29am
    mangomick, your favoured policy tax's account balances, not earnings which is at odds with all other tax structures. If had your money in any other structure (Bank, etc) you would only pay tax on the earnings not the capital. Your example is poorly structured as most Super Accounts over the last 10 years averaged over 5%. Also raising tax on the balance of a Super account will not work as people will withdraw their money and put it into a more tax effective structure. Your policy tax's the account regardless of the performance of the account. As I said before....DUMB.
    mangomick
    16th Jul 2016
    8:45am
    I don't see any problems with what Turnbull was proposing. I feel the $1.6m cap is fair and anything over that should be taxed at marginal rates. While I preferenced Labor over the LNP, I think the LNP super proposal is probably a fairer system than what Labor was proposing.
    As for your question,"If a super fund makes a loss do you carry it forward like other taxpayers? " You don't pay CGT on your super when it makes a profit .
    mangomick
    16th Jul 2016
    9:17am
    Sorry but you misunderstand. I am not saying they should tax account balances . i.e the $40k is the investment earnings on $1.6m at 2.5% investment earnings. And as it's in a super pesion phase and you are under $1.6m you pay no tax. The 2.5% was used as an illustration only . But that is about all you will get today if your money is sitting in a conservative option.The last 10 years are certainly not an indication of investment returns for the next 10 years.
    I did make a typo . The last figure should read that under Turnbulls scheme ,if you have $3m in super you would have to pay tax on $35k not $350k. The $350k was a typo. The $35k is the amount that tax should be payable on that is outside their upper limit of $1.6 m. i.e tax on the investment earnings on the $1.4 m that is above the $1.6m cap.And that would be probably 15% of $35k less the $18k tax free threshold. So a 15% tax on $17k. A piddling amount really.
    Rae
    18th Jul 2016
    8:04am
    Earnings at 2.5% on 1.6 mill are less than the amount of earnings you have to pay tax on outside super using the aged offset.

    If you are only using fixed deposits it is cheaper to not use a super account at all.

    Holding savings in super after retirement to save tax only works if you can earn over $58 000 a year. If you can't earn that then paying excessive fees etc doesn't make any sense.

    Most ordinary funds generate less than that in retirement don't they so people wouldn't be paying any tax anyway regardless.

    Those senior financial employees of financial institutions making lots of your money need to start doing something to earn it.

    What does happen a lot these days is the use of crazy made up amounts to justify all sorts of crazy decisions while the cowboys make off with your hard earned.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    10:54am
    No the Liberal Party's planned changes didn't affect how I voted neither did all the hoo ha about Medicare. Governments need to realise that they need to make fair decisions for the greater good of all and not make or make decisions based on Public Pressure. Seems to me that the wealthy can always assert more public pressure on Politicians than the less well off.
    particolor
    15th Jul 2016
    11:20am
    O Dear !! That's it then ! :-( :-(
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:43am
    Agree Mango. And let's remember that the rich OWN THE MEDIA. That is the real corruption in all of this and it is always an almost impossible battle for Labor to win because it is fighting propaganda campaigns where Labor is made a target and the coalition is being groomed. So it played out again.
    I swear the media could get Australians to elect Hannibal Lecter if it wanted to. Says a lot about the average IQ of our citizens.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    1:06pm
    Only if they are handing out bottles of Chianti......
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:21pm
    Laced with arsenic.
    Happy cyclist
    15th Jul 2016
    1:54pm
    Mick, they don't own ALL the media. I have subscribed to the New Internationalist for 20 years to get a monthly balanced view of life outside our small island. For life inside, you can't beat The Saturday Paper for serious, full-length analysis of the topics of the day, and there are still some good, independent magazines. You just have to look a bit further than the stacks of newspapers at the front of the newsagency.
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    2:11pm
    Duh MICK, of course rich people own the media, who else but the rich can afford to buy a business worth billions. There is another media in Australia that rich people don't own, our ABC, and it is filled with left wing Greenie supporting interviewers. I often wonder who owns YourLifeChoices as it is certainly leaning far to the left with Labor supporting comments by the authors.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:43pm
    Fair comment Happy cyclist. I should have said 'most' of it.
    The ABC is still officially a public broadcaster but since the new ex Murdoch/google CEO has taken over I have noticed the background colour scheme change to Liberal Party blue and the interviews from Leigh Sales turn very anti Labor.....but perhaps the jury is still out on the ABC. I am calling it a takeover though so let's wait and see how it pans out.
    Old Man: you a such a coalition troll. Jacqui Lambie put your side of politics into perspective on election night when she gave Julie Bishop a real serve telling her that her side of politics is always crying 'victim'....and here you are at it. Clearly anybody who does not run hateful anti Labor spew is biased. Even when they give both sides a fair go. Now you are doing the same thing with Yourlifechoices because it does not do as Malcolm says either. You and your side of politics make me sick Old Man. What a festering sore you are on the nation, free speech and an Aussie fair go.
    Paddles
    16th Jul 2016
    12:30pm
    Mick

    "Clearly anybody who does not run hateful anti Labor spew is biased. "

    Aside from the fact that you are clearly unhinged, you present as at least a thoughtful man.
    Can you not see the supreme irony in your quotation above???
    Not Senile Yet!
    15th Jul 2016
    10:54am
    They are in Trouble.....They did not deserve to win!
    Backdating any Legislation to 2007 is Insane....everyone disagrees with that aspect!
    But they have to change it so it serves everyone....not just the Top 10% that can take advantage of it!
    They could save even more by applying any New Super Legislation to Themselves!!!
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:40am
    Not everyone. Many think the 'concession', for want of a better word, was grossly unfair in the first place.
    Kaz
    15th Jul 2016
    11:13am
    It wasn't because of that anyway
    Soon retired
    15th Jul 2016
    11:16am
    In my view changes retrospectively to people super is insane and yes I voted conservative for the lower house but not for the Senate. I have tried on several occasions to email and write to my MP over these issues and he does not have the guts to get back to me.. Turnbull has made this mess and now people may struggle to be self funding, but don't worry the politicians are OK with their super payouts!!!!! I have advised my kids that super is a fools game just let the state look after you when you hit retirement.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    11:33am
    Super will always be fooled around with by Governments ,but i tell you what Soon retired I reckon your kids may have to live on food stamps or worse hand outs as the Welfare bill for pensioners is way to high
    already and cannot be sustained.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:39am
    Retrospective changes are nearly always unfair to somebody but when a bad system set up for the rich has been let run for so long then it needs to end and I cannot think that those who chose to join in the feeding frenzy on the public purse should be too unhappy about the curtain coming down. That is what normally happens when a rort is ended.
    wally
    15th Jul 2016
    11:58am
    For once I'll agree with Mick in that somebody's " ox always gets gored" in matters where governments fiddle with monetary policy. I think the good Senator has it right about how the voters gave the Liberals a good swift kick. For Turnbull to crow about a great election victory and a mandate and all the rest of it shows how far he has his head wedged up his .....

    On election night he showed a greater appreciation of the voters' opinion of his policies than he has shown since then. To crow about being a winner after the Libs lost almost 20 seats on July 2 just shows how far out of touch he is. To surround himself with sycophantic hangers on is never a good thing for a politician to do when he should be listening and taking on board the things other Liberals have been telling him.

    With the composition of the Senate yet to be decided, he needs to be willing to realize that politics is the art of achieving the possible. Instead he talks about his policy wish list as if is was a done deal and has already been agreed to by the senate. Maybe he can get things through a joint sitting of Parliament, and maybe he wont. I think he has a lot to learn and that he will be faced with a steep learning curve until the next election.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    1:06pm
    Thank goodness for rich pollies and an obliging senate to hep them make these changes more palatable for everyone.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:23pm
    wally: during the last 4 weeks Turnbull contributed $1 million of his own money (tax deductible) to the Liberal Party fighting fund. I can now see why he attacked voters on election night as he had realised that he had blow his dough.
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    2:29pm
    Oh MICK, yes a newspaper reported that Turnbull donated to the Liberals (not tax deductible) but Turnbull denies the report. So at this stage you are just promoting a scurrilous rumour. Par for the course for you MICK.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    3:27pm
    Hey Mick don"t forget Shorten had to take $140000.00 out of the union coffers to dressup his Mrs I am sure the workers who contribute to that union fund would be pleased to see the good use of there hard earned money.

    He would have been better to just have pinched it (like most of his Labor mates have) and no one would have known the difference for a while anyway.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:46pm
    I won't give the above 2 troll comments the time of day. Normal low life comments which seek to deny the facts with vile spew.
    Tony Nutt refused to answer the question about Turnbull's $1 million donation. That pretty well gives it the thumbs up. Trolls can deny but let then put both Turnbull and Nutt in front of the right wing cameras (not going to happen) and deny it.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    4:14pm
    THe way I see it if Turnbull did pay his own way what does it matter, at least he didn"t rob the unions as Shorten did paying for his wifes clothes and I ask why should unions pay for her, she did nothing ( but look like the bimbo she is) and this is typical of the low lifes that run unions.
    KSS
    15th Jul 2016
    7:25pm
    robbo, don't forget the babysitting fees the union also coughed up for Mr Shorten. Mr Shorten's $300000 salary apparently did not run to paying his own children's babysitter.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:28pm
    Nobody listening trolls. Pink batts anyone? What about %50 billion for the rich?
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:28pm
    Nobody listening trolls. Pink batts anyone? What about %50 billion for the rich?
    particolor
    15th Jul 2016
    11:16am
    I would go near it ! :-( It always gets "Knocked Off " :-( :-(
    Cruiser
    15th Jul 2016
    11:28am
    The people have spoken, party room politics should not be allowed to derail election promises, back in your box Eric...
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:36am
    The "people"? More like the media saturated propaganda campaign. Tell it like it is.
    Gra
    15th Jul 2016
    2:21pm
    Well Cruiser the majority of people sure didn't support the Libs policies - it was only through behind the scenes deals with independents they got over the line. They might have the majority of seats but they don't have the majority of the votes. Turnbull would be wise to listen to Eric Abetz. Trouble is Turnbulls head is so far up his nether regions his ears are full of **** and he can't hear.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:48pm
    Yes Gra. You keep seeing the right wing trolls claiming that voters abandoned Labor when in effect Labor got the most votes at last count.
    The Libs are as toxic as the Greens now and when Turnbull fails to get his dirty budget through he will spit his rich man's dummy and be thrown out.
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    11:31am
    Why on earth did people vote for the NLP? Are they masochists, lovers of misery or what?
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:36am
    Just plain stupid. What more can I say.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    12:37pm
    There was no decent alternative to voting for the LNP. It was as simple as that.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:32pm
    Ha, ha, ha.
    With lying Abbott and Turnbull governments and $100 billion NEW debt as well as triple the deficit you claim "no decent alternative" Geezer?
    "Decent"? The coalition stands alone as the biggest low life ever seen in the political arena here: liars, cheats and deceivers of th electorate. This crew would do well in a third world dictatorship!
    "Competence"? Giving $50 billion to multinationals and the rich on the (next) lie of trickle down economics (which has been shown to be a scam run by the rich) is simply criminal negligence. WE HAVE DEBT. Anybody remember?
    Your comment is the normal rusted on Liberal comment run by Frank. Not sure why I bother responding to your nonsense.
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    1:33pm
    LNP is not decent!
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    4:31pm
    winners are grinners, labor stooge and union member micky, it is hard to be beaten by the common voters, especial when poor old micky tried so hard, you must cry yourself to sleep every night
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:30pm
    And how's it going kneesjerk? Right wing stooge and Liberal Party troll. Ha, ha ,ha.....your boss falls over the line and you claim a mandate. So who's listening to you Frank?
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    11:35am
    I find it incredulous that Abetz does not understand his party's poor showing despite the media propaganda campaign which routinely gets coalition governments elected.
    First there is the lying Abbott memories followed by the lying Turnbull crew. Same crew, same ship, different captain but just as dishonest. Only better spoken.
    Second are the policies. $50 billion for the rich and new taxes for everyone else to pay for this rort? The destruction of Medicare by forcing Australians to pay higher fees? The debt which has has another $100 billion added to it under the Abbott/Turnbull regimes?
    Now we see the greedy MPs on the coalition side who are 'missing out', either directly or via their partners. So the changes are "unfair"? Sure they will impact many people but the point is that the tax deductibility has a limit as it should be. After that Australians need to seek other non superannuation investments which are not taxpayer funded. I fail to see what is wrong about that.
    So the coalition is already showing cracks. Let the games begin.
    OlderandWiser
    15th Jul 2016
    1:48pm
    Didn't they promise us ''stability'', Mick?
    TREBOR
    15th Jul 2016
    1:52pm
    Well - a ship of state resting on the bottom is generally more stable than one riding the storms out on the surface....
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:49pm
    I seem to recall that Rainey. Have not heard that parrot's clacker from them recently though.
    Grateful
    15th Jul 2016
    11:56am
    This is just the start!!!! Malcom's "united party" is in a mess.
    But, surely the most pressing issue that has to be addressed is negative gearing!!
    We now have nearly just 1 in 10 housing loans (remember when we called them HOME loans?) going to first home buyers.
    Housing is by far the number one "commodity" attracting investors which is taking first home ownership even further out of the reach of young families.
    The blatantly obvious question that should be addressed, urgently, is why such a scarce commodity as established houses need a government stimulus??? Why????
    And, no surprise, much of that stimulus is going to property investors through their super funds!! A DOUBLE DIP WHAMMY!!!! House prices DOUBLING in 8 years!! Why?? Blatantly obvious!!!
    So, why can't, or won't, the so called financial experts expose surely one of the greatest economic rorts, devastating our economy and our society?
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    12:59pm
    Seems to me the only people whinging about negative gearing are those who live in the major Cities and only see houses being auctioned. The average first home buyer couldn't afford these homes in most cases. In most regional towns, houses are just placed on the market for anyone to put an offer in. The first home buyer doesn't seem to be in any hurry to buy these and yet the playing field is even. If investors didn't buy these houses then teachers, bank johnnies, police etc who are posted from town to town and young families on low wages would have massive rents to pay due to a housing rental shortage.
    Negative gearing doesn't last forever and then they become positively geared and there's also capital gains tax when the property is sold. A recent study into the average negative geared property showed that the savings gained through negative gearing is more than returned back to Government through the higher tax rate, capital gains and rates etc paid to Councils. In all likelihood if it wasn't for rental property owners Governments would have to tax the average taxpayer higher so as to fund low cost housing for the less fortunate.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:37pm
    Governments would get the windfall profits on sale anyway wally. If investors want to invest in residential property then Labor has it right in suggesting that this should only be allowed on new homes as this would increase the supply and keep existing house prices from going through the roof.
    Teachers, nurses, police, etc. have been priced out of homes in places like Sydney and even in the western suburbs they are locked out. This is wrong given that workers are needed in cities.
    I think that Labor has got this one right wally. Existing arrangements are grandfathered but new money needs to not be taxpayer subsidised. That would release a lot of money into the economy.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    1:43pm
    Would you as an investor buy a new home knowing that you may not be ale to sell it later for a decent profit? I certainly would not.

    It is a good thing we didn't get a Labor government as we would have seen investors not entering the market and the building industry on it's knees and rents skyrocketing.

    After all who want to take a risk to earn money with the government getting the lions share of the gains?
    TREBOR
    15th Jul 2016
    1:56pm
    After all who want to take a risk to earn money with the government getting the lions share of the gains?

    That's what most of us do every day, OG - you just missed it. Government gets the lion's share no matter which way you cook it, unless you can offshore your money and profits as some can. The only real question about government is how the cash they get in from us all is re-distributed.

    Red the circle of taxation - the Guv giveth and the Guv taketh with its policies, but every movement of the average person's dollar incurs a tax burden in one way or another, thus eventually reducing that dollar to zero (actually approaching zero but we won't go into that)...
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:52pm
    I see Geezer....you want taxpayers to subsidise your Ponzi scheme? Maybe emigrate. Real Australians are not that greedy and most consider the national interest first.
    If you are not happy with slower increases then invest in shares. We are all in the same boat but younger Australians need a home. Sorry.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    3:56pm
    Mick I'm already out property not enough money in it for me and the hassles of dealing with ungrateful tenants make it even worse. However I feel for those who rent as it isn't going to get any better for them any time soon.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    4:35pm
    Mick Investors aren't going to invest in new homes as only the developer benefits on that sale. Any investor will invest elsewhere and that will create a housing shortfall and rents and house prices will rise substantially. Just look back at history when they tried it last time. Why invest in new houses when the money could go into a commercial property investment fund and offer greater returns.
    Rae
    15th Jul 2016
    5:16pm
    That is a shame Old Geezer.

    I believe in the Universe and my low income rental units across from a major teaching hospital has kept me out of financial trouble. Always rented and returning about 5% after costs which is terrific.

    Apart from the odd repair usually covered by the bond I have had no trouble with tenants. It helps that they are hospital workers with long hours I suppose. Usually poorly paid ones.

    Of course a good property manager and the right insurance helps.

    Never used negative gearing as your best bet is positive gearing.

    I also have no problem with tax. I like it. It means I'm making money.

    It is okay for the people I rent to as I fix things promptly, relet after a paint and carpet replace and provide affordable accommodation in the heart of the city.

    I'd never buy new homes but might do new apartments but only if the rental yield justified borrowings. Right now it doesn't as property is over valued. Probably due a correction as the credit cycle moves along.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:22pm
    Mangomick I agree with you. I had a house become vacant last time they tried it and people were offering me way above my asking rent just to get the property.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:27pm
    I still have some commercial rentals that pay about twice the residential ones did and the tenants pay all outgoings. Biggest problem with them is that the lag time between tenants but they hardy become vacant so it's not a big concern.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:31pm
    Please spare us all Geezer.
    mIKER
    15th Jul 2016
    11:59am
    Right wing colleagues who condemn Malcolm Turnbull, for proposals to reduce the amazingly generous concessions for the wealthy to minimise their tax payments via superannuation, have misinterpreted the rationale for the Party’s poor performance at the election.
    Voters had long ago decided that the Coalition wasn’t interested in the average person. Treasurer Hockey made it clear that the age of entitlement did not include the top end of town. Abbott’s first budget rewarded the affluent at the expense of the needy. His second budget did nothing to reverse that opinion. Turnbull, heavily dependent on his right wing to take the PM’s mantle continued with the Abbott policies; his Treasurer Morrison told us on countless occasions that Government spending was the problem, not the very generous tax concessions to the wealthy.
    Superannuation changes that impact on around four percent of the population, with several million in super, would have little impact on most voters; it certainly wouldn’t have deterred them from voting for the Coalition, if they had been convinced that their policies were fair and equitable.
    Ambit claims by Abetz and Co that Turnbull caused the rout because of superannuation changes is only a stalking horse to bring down what they perceive is a centrist Government and replace it with the hard right; however, the majority of the electorate are more than capable of making judgements on this Coalition based on actions that favoured the big end of town.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    12:54pm
    These super changes have an effect on many more than 4% of the population.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:38pm
    Good post mIKER. Agree with much of this.
    Rae
    15th Jul 2016
    2:01pm
    Yes very few workers will be able to accumulate $1.6 million or even save $500 000 after tax.

    Considering the generous tax free limit for retirees, outside of super, I think the legislation is just fine and affects less people than the changes to Centrelink already passed.

    It is quite surprising the extent normally sensible people will go to to avoid tax. I really don't get it unless the sheer thought of sharing with others is doing their heads in.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:54pm
    I have no issues with how much the rich accumulate Rae. I do have an issue is taxpayers are stumping up more than a small amount of the loot though. The rich do not need taxpayers as they do well in their own rights. So it should always be.
    Rae
    15th Jul 2016
    5:27pm
    I AGREE mick it is vital we have a decent tax base. I never objected to tax and still don't.

    My lovely accountant reckons "If we are paying tax we are making money." and I agree.

    I actually know people who deny themselves income to avoid tax and that doesn't make any sense.

    I strongly object to business people who manipulate and use taxpayer funds to purchase all manner of unnecessary lifestyle items.

    Having had a few businesses I know how it can be done but I wouldn't do it.

    Karma would catch me out. It always does.

    Superannuation falls into the Adam Smith warning about people playing with other people's money as far as I can see unless you self manage and even then government interference and fees and charges far outway a little tax.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:32pm
    Agree Rae. The trouble is that the LNP government believes that only average AUstralians should be paying tax whilst the top end is doing us all a favour And should be exempt.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    9:17pm
    Mick if only the average Australian did pay as much tax as the rich you would have a point. It simply does not happen. A family on $60,000 a year pays no tax net of the family benefits etc it gets back from the government. So your average Australians must be earning quite a decent income Mick.
    Ronin
    15th Jul 2016
    12:03pm
    I didn't vote for my local LNP member because he's a bastard, and I will never vote for that individual.

    I agree with some of the Coalition's super policies but some of the figures are too low. An average low risk investment portfolio (which is what it should be as you approach retirement) will currently generate 3% per annum at best. So $1million will generate $30,000 of income per year. So maybe the non-taxable amount needs to be $2 million (far more than most will have). The 'transition to retirement' issue also needs to be addressed as it impacts those close to retirement of modest means.

    The main issue I had with the Coalition's policies was the tax cut for big business. 'Trickle down' is a fairy story that has no substance in fact. Corporates should be paying higher taxes in my view. They seek to externalise costs onto society and make ever increasing profits, well enough is enough.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:45pm
    You have it down to a nutshell with the last paragraph Ronin.
    I fail to understand that average Australians are too dumb to understand this, but as always when costs increase and there are new taxes that's when the average Joe starts to grumble and complain. Please somebody explain why average citizens cannot get it in their brains that class warfare means taking from the vast majority and giving to a very small group, the rich, who already have more than they know what to do with??? Welcome to the sheep!
    Paddles
    16th Jul 2016
    4:57pm
    Mick

    Is it not also "class warfare" when some scummy unionist sabotages equipment or processes on the job in the specious belief, no doubt encouraged by your like thinkers, that the "boss" is paid from a completely different account to the worker?
    Happily, that cloth cap type of thinking appears to be on the wane somewhat as more and more workers have come to realise that without the investment structure, there would not be any earnings to put food on the table.
    Swinging voter
    15th Jul 2016
    12:04pm
    The two major parties no longer reflect the expectations of our society. IMO superannuation, the bright thought bubble of Labor's Nick Sherry, was always a massive rip-off of Australian people. It has morphed into a financial monster of nightmare proportions. We should all just pay into a pension fund, the rules being the same for everyone. Many people take a lump sum, holiday overseas, then return and claim a taxpayer funded pension anyway. The two major parties will have to lift their game. We live in a very different world from the days when people just voted Labor or Liberal. Look at France. Despite all the public feedback over decades regarding incompatible immigration, the country is "controlled" by discontented immigrants. Of course self-aggrandising morally vain politicians will wail, "diversity, we need diversity." "Tolerance, you must tolerate". That bulldust won't work much longer because Donald Trump is what happens when they don't LISTEN.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    1:09pm
    Surely you mean Pauline happens.............
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:50pm
    You miss the point swinger. In the past Australians paid into a (government) pension fund but that was then rolled into consolidated revenue. Now gone.
    Your account is of the brain dead masses who are routinely led by a highly controlled media farming the electorate. It surprises me that people do not turn off the 'News' and tune into unbiased media outlets like SBS and internet broadcasters who are not right wing owned.
    Trump is not going to win the election unless they shoot Hillary first and Pauline is going to be crucified by the media. Business as usual methinks.
    Gra
    15th Jul 2016
    12:07pm
    Just further proof of how ignorant Malcolm Turnbull is. He comes within a whisker of being ousted and still won't listen to the people he is supposed to serve.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    1:12pm
    He is living in a delusionary world and wouldn't have a clue how those on an ordinary income live, or how they will try to survive under a government headed by this blind megalomaniac.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:51pm
    No Eddie. He is a con man and used to telling people what to do and getting compliance. Note what happened on election night!
    Happy Jack
    15th Jul 2016
    12:15pm
    CONSIDER THIS:
    the LIEberal party was elected to govern following the presentation of their polices to the populace.
    Well may we say- we lost votes because of the policy on super, but than again those voters who did vote LIEberal did so in support of the policies presented.
    To backtrack after the votes have been cast would be a betrayal that will come back to haunt a party which after all is viewed by many to look after the interest of the better off and expect those that can least afford it to bear the brunt of fiscal responsibility, in effect- balancing the budget.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:52pm
    Policies? Tell that to the rusted on liberals who would vote for a dog wearing a blue collar.
    Were it not for the media grooming its man for 2 months Turnbull would have been resoundingly defeated.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    4:44pm
    better a blue cravat than carrying a red flag with a hammer and sickle on it like labor mick
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:34pm
    Yeah kneesjerk. And let the citizens all eat cake.
    Paddles
    16th Jul 2016
    5:00pm
    Do any of you think that Bill Shorten virtually promising that the ACTU would be the de facto Government had anything to do with election result?
    teuchter
    15th Jul 2016
    12:31pm
    Malcolm Turnbul net worth A $186 million to date,why does he need to be a poli
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    12:40pm
    Prestige and to boost his ego.
    Swinging voter
    15th Jul 2016
    12:43pm
    I think Labor's Rudd is worth more than Turnbull. They both egotistical posers. They are not in politics for the money, as are most polliticians. They don't need it. Just in for the attention and a stage to strut that money wouldn't buy.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    12:48pm
    Rudd was far worse than Turnbull.
    Anonymous
    15th Jul 2016
    1:13pm
    KRudd was MUCH worse!
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:54pm
    But Turnbull gets first prize for lying like a bodybuilder on steroids....second only to one T. Abbott who holds the record.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    12:52pm
    I agree with the $1.6 million cap on tax free super. However to be fair if you can have $1.6 million in a super pension then you should be ale to put $1.6 million into it. The $500,000 limit effects those who have not been able to put money into super over there working life.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    1:25pm
    It also stops people like me with a decent superannuation nest egg and a few rental properties from throwing heaps into the super pension system and getting all the investment earnings totally tax free. What it means is ,If I sell the investment properties I cant roll over more than $500k total ,into my super or I can't roll over anymore than will bring my total to over $1.6 m.. That's a pretty decent amount to have in a pension account where the investment return is tax free. Any thing above $1.6m I have to pay a certain amount of tax on.The $500k max allowed to be paid into Non concessional super accounts seems fair to me and unless I have the bull by the horns and I misunderstand what is proposed ,I don't know what all the whinging is about.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    1:36pm
    People who sell properties worth more than $500,000 who want to put into $1.6 million should be able to.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:57pm
    Mango: I fully understand but think of the country. The changes I have batted for with super have also affected my interests but I did it because I do believe in the future of the country.
    Instead of asking taxpayers to stump up money you might want to make investments as they arise from your own money. That is the right way forward.
    Fliss
    15th Jul 2016
    2:36pm
    Old Geezer, Re "I agree with the $1.6 million cap on tax free super. However to be fair if you can have $1.6 million in a super pension then you should be ale to put $1.6 million into it. The $500,000 limit effects those who have not been able to put money into super over there working life." I agree with what you are saying here entirely. Someone may have spent most of their working life investing rather than working as a wage earner. They should be able to put more than $500K in non-concessional contributions into their super - especially since their concessional contributions will be low.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    3:18pm
    My guess is that they will keep the $1.6 million cap on tax free super but scrap the $500,000 lifetime non-concessional limit and revert back to the old $180,000 and bring forward rule of $540,000. Then you can put in $1.6 million in 7 years. That's seem fair to me especially if you can put it in until age 75.

    I do like the idea of putting concessional money in until 75 too.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    4:20pm
    Old Geezer the $180k is still there I believe. But the $180k is for no more than $180k per year for over 65s and under 75s. There is a provision where you can put in $540 over 3 years for under 65s but that has to be averaged over 3 years. I imagine that $540k will now change. The $500k figure from my understanding is the total non concessional amount you can hold in super.

    Mick I'm not complaining. I believe the changes they propose are not only fair but pretty generous for people like myself. I was only pointing out that people like myself who have been fortunate enough to accumulate a fair amount in super are treated pretty generously by being able to also put in up to $500k to boost their super and get the investment return on their super pension account tax free.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:32pm
    I can't see the $500,000 lifetime cap getting through myself. Yes the $180K is still there.

    I can't see myself putting in $500,000 more so it really doesn't effect me. However I can see that someone that has not contributed to super may like to do so if they have the funds. After all it's a great tax minimisation strategy.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    6:13pm
    They probably could modify their plan slightly so that people like me who have had company contributions and have salary sacrificed into super can have up to the $1.6m in total with the non concessional $500k included but people who haven't had any company contributions paid into super should be able to put into a super, pension phase fund a max of $1.6m.
    Then any investment earnings that they make either through rents collected,amounts above the $1.6m or shares etc are taxed at the marginal rate.
    In reality the tax minimisation advantage that is gained by plonking money in super is balanced out by the fact that most superannuates with $1.6m in their super will probably never receive a pension so what the Government miss out on collecting the Government saves on not having to pay out in welfare.That's if the market doesn't crash.
    The changes might get through. They just need to explain it very,very slowly to Pauline and Jaquie. But it's the hard Right of the LNP that are the true hurdle.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:35pm
    Yeah Geezer....let taxpayers keep picking up the tab for the rich leeches sucking off the nation.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    1:02pm
    An interesting letter sent to the PM.

    https://www.fiftyupclub.com/news/2016/07/14/a-letter-to-the-prime-minister?token=5936971820&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpNMU1XVXdNRFZtTVdGaCIsInQiOiJEdkVnRzNlOUpOUU05NHh2M0U1NzdtUGZBSWdtRm5EblRwWURKL2t3dk16ZVhraGswcDJSYTNhRGt1L3ZUK0tQSTRBalNhdlhWNjgxMmpDSkpoUEtySTJ0d3pzZ3JpUnR0QjVFV0hLVlB0ND0ifQ%3D%3D#Blog_Tile_NewsletterText
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    2:47pm
    Do you honestly or foolishly believe he reads this sort of stuff?
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    3:12pm
    No but it was interesting that it was similar to what is being discussed here.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    6:19pm
    The LNP just hemorrhaged 1 million primary votes and the ALP 500,000 primary votes. I would imagine they would be reading and replying to every letter of concern. Not necessarily acting on anything but never the less showing real feigned concern.
    OlderandWiser
    15th Jul 2016
    1:45pm
    Infighting already! Welcome to ''stability'' folks.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    1:58pm
    "Stability" is just like "economic management" and "jobs and growth", etc. All lies to con the intellectually challenged into voting for them. Seems to have worked somewhat though.
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    2:50pm
    Oh, what a surprise. Really? As we didn't see it coming, ey?
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    2:14pm
    Now let me get this straight, we are supposed to be agreeing that when the Coalition drops anchor on the rich and famous and wants to tax them for having too much superannuation that they are wrong? When Labor wants to tax the "rich" there is cheering from the rooftops. What a funny world we live in.
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    2:53pm
    It ain't funny world Old Man when we read about the Islamist terrorist dog excrements doing their evil deeds.
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    3:19pm
    WTF? How in Heaven's name did you come up with that HS? What relevance does it have to either the topic or comments posted?
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    3:57pm
    Who do you think are complaining when the coalition wants to tax the rich Old Man? Of course.....liberal party rusted ons and supporters. These groups expect tax cuts NOT REDUCTION IN BENEFITS.
    HarrysOpinion
    15th Jul 2016
    6:06pm
    "What a funny world we live in."- that's what you stated and that's what I referred to Old Man.
    Rosret
    15th Jul 2016
    8:53pm
    Old man, the sums they are referring to are not the rich and famous. Multiply the couples pension by 30 years and factor in inflation and add all the concessions received and you will see that anyone on a self funded retirement plan needs to have a large amount in super to live off that horrible level of poverty. I was told 10 years ago that a single person needs to retire on $800K. Now they want to tax that money on the poultry interest its getting at the moment.
    Rae
    16th Jul 2016
    11:36am
    The rich do not have their money in superannuation. it is in commercial property and SIVs in the Cayman Islands. That way you can pull out a lazy million or so to play with whenever you like and still pay less tax than you do within superannuation.
    Rae
    15th Jul 2016
    2:19pm
    The proposed changes didn't influence my voting at all. I do think the 1.6 million limit should be able to be reached using a windfall over $500 000 non concessional as tax has to be paid anyway before the money goes into super.

    I don't believe in transition to retirement as I see it as just a tax minimisation scheme and agree that it should cease.

    If a very small transaction tax were introduced we could end all other taxation and save a lot of angst. Then again everyone would have to pay it, there could be no minimisations and avoidance and the rich business people would have to pay too.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    3:38pm
    You have to remember that these people with super balances over the million dollar mark are not getting the old age pension so to make it fair then they should be given incentives. After all as it has been said many times they too paid their taxes and worked hard too so they deserve to be looked after too in their old age.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    4:00pm
    I voted against Turnbull and his bad eggs because of their lies, disreputable behaviour and unfunded $50 billion tax cuts for the mates at the big end of town. Whilst there were many other issue these stood out for me. But of course I did not vote Labor in the House of Reps either.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:33pm
    That's why Turnbull got back in Mick.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:37pm
    Actually Turnbull fell over the line because the big business owned media ran its propaganda campaign and groomed Turnbull for months. And then there was the $1 million Turnbull is reputed to have put in.....
    Old Geezer
    17th Jul 2016
    2:05pm
    Looks like the million made the difference.
    Ayin
    15th Jul 2016
    2:27pm
    Firstly one must ask if the "Cobble" agreement has been ratified yet? if not then how can the Liberals with 45 seats dare to claim any mandate when Labor 68 seats really shows how the electorate voted and although we will have a "Cobblement" they all need to take note that the voters are NOT impressed. No the election "Bore-pain" did not influence how I voted.
    Old Man
    15th Jul 2016
    2:43pm
    Nice try Ayin. All voters know that the Liberals are in a coalition with the Nationals LNP and Country Liberals and have been for nearly 70 years. What you failed to mention was the primary vote before the Greens gave their preferences to Labor. The Coalition had 42.1% followed by Labor on 34.9%
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    4:01pm
    That is it in a nutshell Ayin. The Liberal Party only made the numbers due to their partners. Otherwise they would have crashed and burned worse than they did.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    7:48pm
    The Greens didn't give their preferences to the ALP. Only the person voting gives preferences to anyone. The how to vote card may try to influence how you vote by suggesting how a party would like you to vote but it's only the voter with the pencil in his hand that decides what his or her preferences will be. Yes the Greens and ALP have similar social values in some areas more so than the Greens and LNP. It's interesting to note that the Greens Nationally receive something like 10.07% of the National primary vote and the National Party something like 4.68% of the National primary vote. The Nationals only have 4.68% of the national first preference and yet one of their members holds the second highest position in Government. How is that classed as a fair voting outcome.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:39pm
    The problem with the House of Reps mango is that the party can give its preferences to whom it likes, unlike the senate where voters now have control. This needs to change but doubt the current batch will do that as they are too scared of being abandoned.
    mangomick
    16th Jul 2016
    8:13am
    You will have to explain what you mean Mick. As far as I know when voting for the Lower house (House of Reps)on my ticket there was 6 candidates and I had to number 1 to 6 in the preference that I wanted. Regardless of what anyone else would have preferred for me to vote it was me the guy with the pencil that marked the paper and chose the preferences.Same with the upper house.
    Just because I voted Green as my first preference doesn't mean I voted ALP or LNP second.
    Some people mistakenly thought if they just put a 1 for their preferred party then they would decide where to put their preferences if their first choice didn't get up but that would have been an informal vote.
    http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/practice/practice-house-of-reps.htm
    Oldman Roo
    15th Jul 2016
    3:41pm
    Does it not prove a point , the rich squealing like piglets because they also have to contribute a very small share of their fortune to the Canberra deficits . I will never forget how they scoffed at the part Pensioners when they were gutted due to some savings , made to live free of welfare and were derailed by a mismanaged economy , resulting in a cash rate that will only get closer to zero by the time we hit January 2017 .
    Claiming the superannuation change as reason for the poor showing at the election is also telling a tale , when it was in fact the 80 000 Pensioners who are losing part of their Pension and their families who did not vote LNP . Not to forget sympathisers who are also worried about some savings when they need to apply for a Pension .
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    4:03pm
    The rich squeal all the time: "bias" when one of the many outlets does not run the same propaganda campaign the rest do, "unfair" when the rich are asked to pay a fair amount of tax (never on the agenda!) and "do not take our handouts away" when the deals they have set up for themselves face closure.
    Piglets is on the money Oldman Roo.
    Rosret
    15th Jul 2016
    8:47pm
    Oldman Roo, the 80000 people affected by this change are self funded retirees who I would imagine have voted in portion to results shown on election day. They are ordinary people who have realised that to manage in retirement their money had to be invested in super rather than spending it and living on a pension.
    Mick, the money invested in super has been taxed already. Its earned money and to tax it again is actually a double whammy. Most people rely on interest gained from the super fund to be their income in retirement. At 5% interest its only 2% over the inflation rate. You need an enormous cache to live comfortably over the next 30 years if the retirees are taxed on the super fund interest earned. The fees are quite excessive and they are charged on both good and bad return years.
    Pensioners are given money and concessions. Self funded retirees are given nothing. Let me know where the "fair" or "bias" comes into this deal.
    OlderandWiser
    15th Jul 2016
    9:55pm
    But isn't it interesting to note that the same people who are complaining about retrospective and allegedly ''unfair'' changes to super approved heartily of ripping off the battlers who sacrificed lifestyle to save but couldn't make it to complete self-sufficiency. No gripes from the rich and privileged about slashing the incomes of part-pensioners who didn't have super and tax concessions, and are now forced to hand over their savings to people who saved less but now have much higher incomes (not, note well, to the needy - who got NOTHING from the assets test change).

    The hypocrisy and lack of respect is mind boggling. But it goes hand in hand with greed and selfishness, and the world is heavily infected with the greed disease at present.
    Oldman Roo
    15th Jul 2016
    10:05pm
    Rosret , I could not disagree with you more on your Statement that the 80 000 people were self funded retirees . They were well and truly part Pensioners and you should know the difference between a part Pensioner and a self funded retiree .To be very frank with you , I would trade with the income I have as part pensioner any day to the income a self funded retiree has ,
    The real problem is our fortunate wealthy retirees seem to think it is never enough and would like the same benefits a person has who is on a much lower income scale . Exactly what my whole comment is all about .
    downunder
    15th Jul 2016
    3:48pm
    Abetz, La Erika, is an ultra right wing dinosaur. Who cares what he thinks or says.
    He is one of the reasons why the Libs did not get a foot into the sand in Tasmania
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    4:05pm
    I think that the fact that Barnaby Joyce had not gone to see farmers in Tasmania in the past 5 years had something to do with it as did other government ministers ignoring the electorate as well.

    15th Jul 2016
    4:20pm
    Until there are some uncastrated male politicians nothing will change in this government.
    mangomick
    15th Jul 2016
    7:51pm
    Do we really want any intact male Politicians. The buggers might end up breeding more of the same.
    Rodent
    15th Jul 2016
    4:32pm
    Dear Old Geezer- are you actually being serious with these comments.

    You have to remember that these people with super balances over the million dollar mark are not getting the old age pension so to make it fair then they should be given incentives. After all as it has been said many times they too paid their taxes and worked hard too so they deserve to be looked after too in their old age.

    I certainly hope not. Any body who has a Super Balance like that ,(no matter how they got there) does not need any EXTRA help from Govt. They certainty dont need incentives. I note you were not a contributor in past months, you seem to have only started your comments recently. May I remind you that a Single Home Owning Age Pensioner with ONLY $500k in assets after Jan 2017 will LOSE 71.33% of their current Pension, leaving only $3221pa in Pension, compared to a Single Non Home Owner at the same $500k Asset Figure GAINS 10.41% in Pension , being paid $18,821pa in Pension. A Couple Home Owner at the same $500k Asset figure Loses 6.2% of their pension being paid $24,502pa in Pension and the Couple Non Home Owner at the same $500k in assets figure does not lose or gain but is still paid $30,468pa in Pension
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:39pm
    Yes I am serious. Why shouldn't they get incentives as after all they are not costing the government any welfare payments like the age pensioners? They should be able to get their super tax free.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    5:41pm
    I agree with the changes to the pension asset test in 2017 as it was way too generous.
    Rosret
    15th Jul 2016
    8:33pm
    "They" wanted us to put all our money into the super funds before we reached retirement age to fund those already retired. Now the baby boomers have done that and are retiring they don't want to give it back. It doesn't matter which political party they are talking about. Super relies on a pyramid of population growth and that didn't happen.
    I just wish I had been more astute 30 years ago and my savings would have gone into real estate and not a super fund.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:43pm
    Geezer is typical of the rich who expect taxpayers to give them money whilst taking it from the other end. Nothing new there. Been going on forever and they just don't get it!
    You are right about the government having a bet each way Rosret and Rodent. It is tough when people do the right thing to avoid the pension system and are then betrayed by an incumbent LIBERAL government. I wish people had better memories rather than succumbing to lies on the TV.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    9:08pm
    I don't free betrayed by the government and I did what needed to be done to avoid the pension system. Provided for my own old age. If yo had done the same Mick I have no idea why you are whinging so much. Yes I agree the super system was too generous but one must remember we are saving the government a lot of money by not paying us pensions plus all the perks that go with this welfare.

    Yes I happy the Coalition got re-elected because the alternative would have ruined our great country completely. You can't take away people's incentives and expect them to continue on regardless. Most people are not that insane.

    I only have a small proportion of my wealth in super because quite simply the little bit of tax saved doesn't over come the restrictive nature of super. I want to invest my money on my terms into what ever I wish. Too many rules and regulations in super for me. If you think the rich put everything they can into super think again.

    I estimate I have made many times more out of the stockmarket then I have out of real estate. That said I have done very well out of real estate. Today I'm more conservative as I like to do others things rather than make money. Problem with real estate is that you can not turn it over quick enough for decent gains.
    OlderandWiser
    15th Jul 2016
    10:00pm
    ''You can't take away people's incentives and expect them to continue on regardless. Most people are not that insane.''

    Mindboggling, Old Geezer. YOU supported doing precisely that when it hurt battlers rather than rich fat cats. You supported the ridiculous assets test change that pays people 7.8%+++ rising six-monthly to DISPOSE of savings that, in many cases, are yielding less than half that return. You endorsed a policy that screams 'DO NOT SAVE' to anyone who can't achieve multi-millionaire status.

    But that's typical of the selfish. They have no integrity. They support what benefits THEM and oppose what hurts THEM. They don't give a damn for the majority, the nation, or the future.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    11:11pm
    I really can't see what welfare has to do with investing money to make a decent gain Rainey. You are right the ridcuous asset test was way too generous and needed scaling back. If by your reasoning you save by spending money then simpy spend it. I'd say save harder and forget about the pension.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Jul 2016
    11:01pm
    You demonstrate how arrogant and out of touch your are, Old Geezer. Many folk save to the greatest extent possible, only to have their dreams crushed when the economy is sunk by greed and selfishness and corrupt politicians, and then to be told because they couldn't save quite enough, they must be stripped of all they have to give to people who saved less, while those who saved more should continue to be obscenely indulged with unfair tax concessions that cost way more than the pension.

    Your warped notion of a fair society matches that of the arrogant and out of touch prime minister. It's sick!
    Aussie
    15th Jul 2016
    4:38pm
    Well this is what happens because we have 2 strong parties and one of them is made up of another 4 parties (Called the Coalition).

    So for instance say that you vote for the Nationals because we like their policies and you totally disagree and reject the Liberal policies.... so you vote for the Nationals but really you get lumped with all other policies that you do not accept or reject because the Nationals are part of the Coalition and in a lot of cases the National policies have a hard time to be implemented so no matter who you vote within the coalition you are always at the mercy of the Liberal party policies even if you do not vote for them.

    This is why the Coalition’s super policies are imposed to you and the only way is to vote for another party that is not part of the Coalition but this way you will be against your rights and wishes and only because you are forced to accept in this election the Coalition’s super policies

    So it is imperative to introduce a BILL OF RIGHTS to avoid this kind of problems and be able to vote for whoever you want and support their policies on their own right.

    What I am simply saying is the Coalition should be eliminated and let the Australian citizen vote within their rights for whoever they wish without any impositions.
    KSS
    15th Jul 2016
    7:49pm
    So you didn't get what you want, now you want to change the 'rules'.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:47pm
    Actually the LNP want to change the rules. Easier to demonise retirees who do the right thing when you want to deflect attention from your inability to manage debt and the budget. And of course they desperately want people to stop looking at the $50 billion give away to their mates and funding contributors as well as multinationals who still do not have to pay their taxes.
    Pretty clear really and nothing to do with not getting your way.
    Aussie
    15th Jul 2016
    8:55pm
    Good now we have the 4 ignorant amigos on the go kicking with their ignorance ...
    Welcome 4 amigos you 4 are way below my foot so forget ..... I will ignore your comments I will not get to your lower level

    Bye Bye
    KSS
    15th Jul 2016
    7:48pm
    So much whining that he didn't get his way from Mick as usual. Get over it Mick, the country voted and we now know the result. Leading up to this election writers on this forum whinged and whined that governments (of both sides) make promises during campaigns and break them once they are in power. Yet here we go again, writers not accepting the result and wanting a change of policy from the 'victor'. Should Mr Turnbull do just that, wait for all the vitriol spewing that will ensue about his lying. Should he 'listen' and make changes wait for the vitriol spewing that will ensue about his lying! Talk about a rock and a hard place.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:50pm
    Come on Franky boy. The election was a drubbing for your employer. Not a victory of any sort so waste your spurious spiel on somebody who is incapable of understanding what a massacre looks like.
    This government is now terminal and talking about pushing through its dirty pre election budget. Pigs will fly. No chance of this happening and we'll be at another election soon. Watch this space.
    Old Geezer
    15th Jul 2016
    8:54pm
    Sounds like sour grapes to me.
    Rae
    16th Jul 2016
    11:49am
    This government has one term to convince the Country they can do the job.

    They will need to be very careful and very fair.

    If they continue to attack workers then the LNP will spend a very long time out of power and the business community will have no one to blame but themselves for acting greedily rather than fairly.

    My suggestion is to stop betraying workers and savers by labelling the betrayal Fair and Sustainable. We are not that stupid.

    Personally I'm glad they have another go. They will either get it right or kill off neoliberal ideology for a jolly long time indeed.
    Rosret
    15th Jul 2016
    8:23pm
    I wonder if retrospective taxation is even constitutionally correct. A couple can have two superannuation policies totaling $3.2m yet a single single person is limited to $1.6m. I don't understand how anybody can see this as excessive when a home in Sydney in 2016 is not much less than that. Yet at the same time if you own a house of any value that is not in the total - and it shouldn't be either. This isn't the government's handout. This is our money taxed and saved over the duration of our working life. The government encouraged us to be self sufficient and now it is crucifying us for doing the right thing. Back off government - we have to manage our funds for 30 years with this new system and I am trying to do that without being a burden on my family or the welfare system. It feels as though there is an expectation that the elderly should live in poverty.
    MICK
    15th Jul 2016
    8:52pm
    It will set some dangerous precedents Rosret. Next they'll be deciding to backdate the family home for the assets test and demanding back payments..... Who knows where this sort of thing may lead. However, superannuation does need cleaning up as the rich have raped it for years and the rest of the country have subsidised this. That is wrong too.
    China
    15th Jul 2016
    10:13pm
    I did not vote Mr Turnbull as per voting cards. I did it the long way. My objection to this and other Liberal so called took to the people. Will Mr Turnball and other pollies also be required or is this for the we took it to the people not to Politicians superannuation tax. Come on Senate we voted you lot in to look at all proposals by the house of reps in your position as reviewers for your respective states. Now lets see you do your reviews on behalf of your state and knock it back.
    Aussie
    16th Jul 2016
    2:02am
    China, I did not vote for them I vote Labour but all this is wrong I got a hard time to decide who to vote for finally I decide that Labour will look after the people so I vote for them.

    The 2 parties preferred voting in Australia is totally an abortion because is not one on one party the Liberals on their own will never be in power.

    Australia is a Labour country no matter what the Lib's say Liberals without the other parties will never get the required seat.

    The coalition should be eliminated and each party should be on their own rights .... But I am sure that will never happen in Australia and we will continue spending millions on manual paper votes ...how ridiculous in 2016
    Gee Whiz
    16th Jul 2016
    12:05pm
    Todays paper highlighted the over generous payment to politicians who lost their seats at the election or who resigned before voting day.

    They get something called "resettlement allowances". By the look of the payments they must be resettling to the Rivera.

    Glen Lazarus after one term gets $50000. Twenty six year old Wyatt Roy picks up $100,000, and Mal Brough collects $117,0000.

    On top of that, most of the politicians who retired at this election will also collect a taxpayer pension of upwards of $117000 per year fully indexed.

    And guess who was the only person to speak out against this outrageous theft of taxpayers and said the country can't afford this type of legalized theft; Pauline Hanson.

    Not one LNP or ALP pollie spoke out against this rorting scandal.

    Good on you Pauline. Take no notice of the dickheads who are always rubbishing you. At least you have strength of character, moral values, and a sense of right and wrong.

    These are all the traits missing from the ALP and the LNP leaches who have been sucking the life blood out of this country for too many years.

    But the writing is on the wall for theses grubs.

    This election proved that the party is over for these two corrupt Mafia style organizations.
    QuickeyeQld
    16th Jul 2016
    12:28pm
    Comments above are a little over the top but agree that we can't afford to continue with the retired politician's handouts as they are. Of course, like anyone else politicians are entitled to super but it does have to be looked at and should be more "proportionate" (a favourite government word) to what the rest of us receive. You need to appreciate the fact that it is not an easy job, you should try it!
    Good luck to Pauline Hanson who truely is prepared to stand up for her values, and everyone should be listening what she is saying. It would help also if the media would stop twisting what she is saying and taking her comments out of context. Her comments might actually make sense.
    QuickeyeQld
    16th Jul 2016
    12:06pm
    Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that the $500,000 cap is after tax contributions and you would therefore also have before tax contributions, which can be a total of $1.6m. It helps to get your facts straight first before entering a conversation so that it is all relevant. Otherwise we are all wasting our time here.
    mangomick
    16th Jul 2016
    8:04pm
    I think you will find the third comment that was put on here yesterday pointed out exactly the same thing.
    Rodent
    16th Jul 2016
    3:27pm
    Dear Old Geezer here is a bit more for you to digest please

    Currently a Non Home Owning Couple with $1,000,000 in assets -Read $1Mil is paid a $12,431 annual Pension, and after Jan 2017 that couple will STILL receive a $1102pa pension when at the SAME figure of $1M, as at Jan 2017 ALL other Pensioner categories receive NIL, ZERO annual Pension - Why is this fair. I realise that the Sydney and Melbourne rental market is expensive, but that's clearly unfair by anybody's standards, maybe even yours? You are right to say that there was a need to make changes to the Pension system, but what they have done is poorly thought through, and is unbalanced, and Grossly unfair to SOME pensioners.
    Having said all that watch for what happens next re the changes that will be proposed to manage the so called "Welfare bill" going forward.
    You might even like to read up on what actually constitutes Welfare by category, subcategory, and the definations that the Govt uses, its very enlightening!!!
    If the NDIS Rollout is to be fully funded, and it should, then something has to change. All those we elected should reconsider the commitments made to fund Submarines, and the useless JSF
    The Americans would have sold us their Virginia Class subs at a much lower cost
    Old Geezer
    17th Jul 2016
    2:22pm
    The simple answer to this is add the house into the assets test. Why should a couple with a $2 million house get the full pension but a couple with a $500,000 house plus $1.5 million in other assets get nothing. That is where the pension system is grossly unfair. I know of old people using multi-million dollar houses as a store of tax free wealth for their family who get the full pension,. the family pays all expenses.

    With people getting packages of over $120,000 per year under the NDIS I very much doubt it is fully funded. People are making a lot of money out of this. You can buy a wheelchair from the US for $500US. The same wheelchair here costs $8000 under the NDIS. Same thing is happening here as with age care packages. The money is not going to those who need it but the those who administrate it.

    16th Jul 2016
    6:42pm
    the big confession, saussy voted labor, who would have thought and as for union organiser and labor member micky boy, what a whinger, still maintaining billy the knive won the election, that mouse billy, did not even have the guts to front the Country Fire Authority volunteers in Victoria while his labor stooge danny the ha ha premier of Victoria was busy selling the C.F.A. to the united fire union, this was the agenda Victorians voted on, the only state who saw through labor's lying campaign. e.a medicare being sold off, who will buy a business who loses more than 6 billion dollars a year, and as usual VICTORIA had the brains to see through the lies of labor, the brains so sadly missing in n.s.w and tasmania,
    Aussie
    16th Jul 2016
    9:07pm
    Was waiting for you dear heemskerK99 YES YES I vote labour surprise ?????

    I am only looking for the people's rights the rest is not important including all you are saying in your last comment here.

    Rights and Duties of people are paramount on a Democratic country then all this issues will have a proper place to be deal with.
    Australia has to make drastic changes to be able to call the country a Democratic country We are a Constitutional Monarchy and we only follow the democratic principles but we do not have anything to protect our rights and Duties we are at the mercy of the authorities to de what they want for example a retrospective laws ??? Our Rights and Duties they are inbuilt in our constitution that is a lift up from the USA and British constitutions with minor adjustments maybe this clarify my point because you KSS Bonny And of course OG constantly misunderstand what most of us are talking about Pensions/Welfare/500K Super limit and many more issues commented in this forum that affect all of us no matter if you are in Australia or Overseas with Full or part Pension/Welfare.

    All these mean nothing unless are supported by a Bill of Rights for all citizens so we can fight back and ensure our rights are respected

    Read this please if you want ... you do not have to ... is just general info to illustrate my point ...

    Some background
    http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/9CB5AFA66DE49D82CA2571A9000C12FB.html

    Our Rights Question
    http://evatt.org.au/papers/should-australia-have-bill-rights.html

    I am sure that many of us will like to have our rights and Duties respected by everybody legally

    Thank you
    Happy Jack
    17th Jul 2016
    11:09am
    Hey, germsjerk69!
    The reason Labor didn't have the water shed of seats in Victoria, as in all the other states is because that state is already saturated with Labor seats.
    Quite clearly, the state of Victoria is the bastion of the Labor party.
    Now! turning to Tumbles Turnbull's winning margin- the LIEberal party, or to give it what should be it's correct title, the "LIEberal Consevative party" is already showing signs of the turmoil to come with the extreme right sniping at Tumbles and the policies he took to and won, in his words, a mandate for.
    You see, these extremists believe that in spite of the policies taken to the electorate by Tumbles being accepted by the voters, they have the right to override the wishes of the people not to mention that of their leader.
    You must remember, Germjerk69, Tumbles was never installed as leader of the party because of his ideological beliefs but simply because they betrayed Abbort and swapped him for Tumbles to save their own necks.
    Now the numbers are in, Germserk69, just watch the hounds go to work on Tumbles- already calls are being made for Abbort to be recalled to the cabinet and Abbort himself knocking back an invitation to tonight's dinner for Government members to be held at the lodge.
    Yes! Germsjerk69, Tumbles sure is in for a rough ride. Sit back with that VB, put the feet up and enjoy the show.
    Aussie
    17th Jul 2016
    2:36pm
    He he I am all tune in to watch the show is going to be fun.
    Unfortunately the losers are all of us Citizens of Australia

    Shame on them an insult to all of us but they get big big pensions oppppp welfare
    Scrivener
    18th Jul 2016
    1:43pm
    Labor's main problem is that its Primary vote is below 40%.
    Rodent
    17th Jul 2016
    3:23pm
    Dear Old Geezer

    I refer to your comments-
    The simple answer to this is add the house into the assets test. Why should a couple with a $2 million house get the full pension but a couple with a $500,000 house plus $1.5 million in other assets get nothing. That is where the pension system is grossly unfair. I know of old people using multi-million dollar houses as a store of tax free wealth for their family who get the full pension,. the family pays all expenses.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even if we ever got to a position, where EITHER a % of the house value was included in any so called assets test - it cannot be the existing arrangements it would not actually work. A completely new type of Test would have to be created, that had assets in the background, and the Prime determinate of whether a Pension is paid or not would be based in Actual or Deemed Income
    In the simple example I gave you the Non Home Owner Couple would still be very ADVANTAGED compared to any home owner, and if you just included a % of any Home owners assets in the Pension Determination, that Pensioner would get even LESS pension, making the Comparisons/Fairness between Home Owners and Non Home Owners even worse
    I guess that as a SFR, not a pensioner then these matters of fairness and equity may not be important .

    The Point you make about the $2mIl house couple getting a Full Pension has been made often by many others. Whilst valid, its just to simplistic and people need to better understand the overall Pre and Post Retirement stages that we all face.
    Some have even written that the answer lies in Pensioners utilizing the Home Value to provide additional , by using a reverse Mortgage type product. For some that may need replacement income, after Jan 2017 a better choice may be the Centrelink Pensioner Loans scheme, where the Interest rate is currently 5.25%pa (has not changed in 17 Years)
    Several in Parliament are of the view that this scheme could be Enhanced and made available to a wider group, not just Part Pensioners.
    From my perspective it will be interesting to see the "real reactions of Pensioners" who lose a significant % of there current Pension come Jan 2017. There will be SOME who MAY get an Increase, however the greatest % of pensioners affected will lose SOME or ALL of their Pension.
    Old Geezer
    17th Jul 2016
    9:13pm
    Why use the equity in your house when you have other assets to use? These people effected by the change in asset test in 2017 still have considerable assets besides their house. All they have to do is draw down their capital until they quaify for the pension.

    Personally I would like to see people given a choice of getting the pension or not. Then when they die the amount of pension they received is deducted from their estate. It is simply stipud that these people are a drain on the nations resources and then leave a lot of money to their heirs tax free. I agree the age of entitlement is well and truly over.
    OlderandWiser
    18th Jul 2016
    10:57pm
    But, Old Geezer, selfish hypocrite that you are, you insist that tax concessions for the rich and privileged - which cost the nation far more than pensions - must continue. We must indulge the greedy. Just stamp on battlers and the underprivileged and deny them any fair reward for decades of hard work, or the chance to give their offspring a better life than they had. Sick!
    Aussie
    20th Jul 2016
    3:39pm
    Old Geezer .... are you finally realize that the PENSION IS NOT A WELFARE ????? Or you just got confused again ????

    Quote from your statement on 17 of July @ 9:13 PM ...

    "All they have to do is draw down their capital until they quaify for the pension"
    and
    "I would like to see people given a choice of getting the pension or not. Then when they die the amount of pension they received is deducted from their estate."

    What a joke ...he he
    Aussie
    20th Jul 2016
    3:39pm
    Old Geezer .... are you finally realize that the PENSION IS NOT A WELFARE ????? Or you just got confused again ????

    Quote from your statement on 17 of July @ 9:13 PM ...

    "All they have to do is draw down their capital until they quaify for the pension"
    and
    "I would like to see people given a choice of getting the pension or not. Then when they die the amount of pension they received is deducted from their estate."

    What a joke ...he he
    Circum
    17th Jul 2016
    6:10pm
    My vote was influenced not by Malcolm Turnbull but by Tony Abbott.Specifically his kick in the guts approach to lowering the assets test in one foul swoop and denying many retirees,now and in future,all or part of a pension that they had planned for.In many ways this was a retrospective change in that my retirement planning at least,would have been different if I knew rules were going to change that brutally.
    The current proposed changes to super I support as it,at least partly,addresses the unfairness of the more well off using super as a tax minimization scheme.
    The introduction of a Health/Retirement card to ALL Retirees might sway me in how I vote in future.
    Aussie
    17th Jul 2016
    7:20pm
    Cicum...
    This is an infringement of our citizens rights and because we do not have a Bill Of Rights they can do anything they want like make a retrospective laws about super and other issues ..... this is incredible to me but they call Australia a Democratic country .....we are not a democratic country with this gov. infringement on our rights.

    Super and other rules allowed people to save for their self retirement in the past but now that super has all this money they want to tap on it ..... Clear and illegal infringement of our rights even with a retrospecting laws

    I am very concern with the country future not only for us but specially for our kids, my kids now have to wait until they are 70 to be able to retire and then who knows what will happen with their savings ????? What kind of planning can they do ??????

    Maybe start moving their money overseas before the gov. take all their money one way or another ....
    Scrivener
    18th Jul 2016
    1:39pm
    When are we going to see the back of Dad's Army?
    Aussie
    18th Jul 2016
    11:36pm
    Not matter about donations or report them or top limit on super etc etc ...... I believe we have a major problem at the moment and is growing rapidly and will damage the future of our kid in a big way.

    Have any of you hear about the "The Genesis 47 Plan" if you did not I strongly suggest you search and read about it because if any of the written notes in the Plan really occurs your current and future super is in serious danger of been nationalized and been under full government control then your super is gone

    ___________________________________________________________

    “Super SHOULD be sacrosanct…”

    Regardless of what government is in power, the retirement income savings system should be in a sense sacrosanct and once those [retirement] savings are made, governments of any flavour should not be able to get their hands on the money that people have saved for their retirement over so many years with great effort........ This will save our kids super but at the moment with all this Gov. super changes who knows

    The way the gov. is going at the moment I can say that The nationalization of Australia’s
    retirement funds has barely begun ..... more coming very soon I am sure because there is to much money saved in super funds.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Just something to remember ....................

    The way to ‘Banking Act-Proof’ your gold?

    Part IV of the Banking Act of 1959 lets the the Commonwealth government seize private citizens' gold when the Governor General ‘is satisfied’ that it’s for ‘protection of the currency or of the public credit of the Commonwealth.’

    On January 30, 1976, this part's operation was "suspended".

    Could it be re-enacted and modified to tackle your super ?????

    This could happened and we are totally defend less in any government infringement of our rights because there is nothing that can defend our rights as part of the constitution in this case

    Just think about this
    Aussie
    19th Jul 2016
    12:04am
    Any body knows or remember about this ???? below .....

    "Remember in 2011 when Minister for Financial Services Bill Shorten called your superannuation a “significant national asset”?
    He actually wasn’t kidding.

    In an editorial in The Australian he referenced Malcolm Turnbull’s argument that Australia should be setting aside the proceeds of the mining boom in a sovereign wealth fund.
    To that Shorten replied:
    “Australia already has a sovereign wealth fund; it's called superannuation.”

    From there, the government sharks started circling…

    Soon after, the disgraceful ‘lost super’ laws were introduced.
    Remember those?

    Few Australians even know they exist.
    But Lost super really exist look here ........

    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013C00087

    Who will benefit from all this money ????? Who knows ???
    Fready
    20th Jul 2016
    1:48pm
    The Coalition don't get it.!! They said on 12 occasions that there would be no adverse changes to super and then went ahead and made significant changes. These changes are what are destroying confidence in super.
    They treated their voter base with contempt and got the response they deserved.
    Super should be sufficiently attractive that people will save rather than rely on the pension.
    disillusioned
    20th Jul 2016
    2:54pm
    I am disgusted with the LNP under Abbott and Hockey, who, while they swan off to "jobs for the boys" and a comfortable pension fund, have shafted retirees by bringing in the change to the Age Pension asset thresholds and taper rate. I am currently just under the assets ceiling and will be just over when the changes come in in January 2017. I have worked hard and studied, paying my own way and my share of taxes, for much of my adult life, and now I am being rewarded by being screwed out of the part Aged Pension, THAT I AM ENTITLED TO, by the LNP. that's why I'll NEVER vote LNP again! They don't deserve my vote!


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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