Tax on retirees likely to repay coronavirus debt, say analysts

Super taxes, rather than a rise in GST, touted as the way forward post COVID-19.

retiree tax

A tax on retirees is being touted as the most likely way to pay back stimulus package debt in a post-COVID-19 environment.

The federal government has ruled out increasing the GST, and Mercer’s David Knox is one who says that higher taxes, including on Australians’ superannuation balances, is the most likely way forward.

Investment Magazine reports that three top superannuation specialists have warned that the federal government will dip into Australia’s $3 trillion retirement savings pool to help pay for the $130 billion stimulus packages set up to assist the economy weather the pandemic.

Mr Knox said retirement benefits that are not currently taxed would be under review.

“One of the advantages of taxing pensioners is that the government gets revenue from the demographic that has generated the most wealth but which doesn’t contribute to the income tax base,” he said.

“Taxing benefits would give government greater flexibility since both income tax and tax rates on benefits can be politically adjusted up and down when the need arises as we saw [with] flood tax, or a budget repair tax.”

Rice Warner executive director Michael Rice is another who is convinced the federal government will tax retirees “when the dust has settled”.

“The need to raise taxes over the next 10 years to pay for all the new debt will point Canberra towards the areas of super that are still heavily benevolently taxed,” he said.

Grattan Institute chief executive John Daley also said that higher taxes were a certainty.

“It might not be the very first thing Canberra does once the country comes out of COVID-19, but the debt repayment will be enormous,” he said.

Mr Daley told Investment Magazine that Canberra would look at super because the overall sector was taxed very lightly and about half of the tax concessions flowed to the wealthiest 20 per cent income earners.

Senior economist with The Australia Institute, Matt Grudnoff, has long argued that our retirement income system is failing, proven, he says, by our high rates of poverty in retirement.

He told YourLifeChoices: “Of the 36 OECD (developed) countries, Australia has the sixth highest rate of poverty in retirement. At the same time, the government pours substantial sums of money into increasing retirement incomes.”

When it comes to super tax concessions and excess franking credits, he said, we are handing out the most to those who already have the most.

“Super tax concessions are worth $41 billion per year. The richest 20 per cent of retirees, who are not on an Age Pension or part pension, get 60 per cent of super tax concessions. The bottom half, those most likely to need help in retirement, get just 11 per cent of super tax concessions.”

Money Magazine says that should Canberra move to tax retirement benefits, it would be a partial return to its original tax system.

“Like many other major markets, Australia had long upheld the general principle of exempting contribution from tax entirely (and the earnings they generate) but to tax in full the retirement benefits as they are paid out.

“This was overturned by the Bob Hawke government in 1988, which brought tax collection forward to the contribution stage. Then, in 2006, John Howard’s government scrapped the tax on benefits.”

Mr Knox said that if the government had adhered to the original system, the younger demographic would build more compound interest and retirees would be funding economic shocks. It increased the compounding, he said, leading to bigger balances and economically,  made for a more equitable system.

The government’s Retirement Income Review, which is due to report in June, allows Canberra to improve the system by taxing those with the capacity to contribute, Mr Knox said.

Both Messrs Knox and Rice pinpointed self-managed super funds (SMSF) as an area for reappraisal. Mr Knox said the key was a super system that was consistent and fair. “When the top 100 SMSFs have $80 billion between them, you have to think seriously about taxing such big benefits,” Mr Rice said.

He also questioned the suitability of the $1.6 million transfer balance cap on tax-free pension accounts, advocating the introduction of a $5 million threshold above which people would be taxed at the top personal rate at 47 per cent.

Read the full Investment Magazine report here.

Does the government’s strategy to repay the COVID debt leave you fearful?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Placido1
    1st May 2020
    10:14am
    put a digital services tax on google, microsoft, facebook etc instead, I paid a lot of tax in my working years. I guess if they do this I should offload some super and buy a better house and get a part pension. Net tax gain for the government would be minus!
    Mariner
    1st May 2020
    11:11am
    That will probably no longer be allowed in future - downgrading yes, upgrading no. At any rate the inclusion of your home in an asset test is on the horizon. Maybe they will bring it in together with the talked-about superannuation tax.
    Another move could be considered as well: no withdrawal from super apart from a monthly payment after 67 years of age thereby stopping people from qualifying for age pension.
    Nomad1946
    1st May 2020
    1:21pm
    Maybe a better idea would be to tax these multi-nationals based on incoming monies seeing the pricks send profits offshore and pay next to zero in tax.
    Gett'n Older
    1st May 2020
    5:58pm
    Mariner I think your second point is close to it. Super was intended to great an income rather than a lump sum for that caravan prior to getting age pension. Its easy to reverse the tax concessions given on the way in and tax people that amount for a withdrawal.
    Rae
    3rd May 2020
    8:17am
    So savers get to fund themselves and spenders get free money. I can see where that heads. Who'd be bothered saving if there is no reward involved?
    Lescol
    1st May 2020
    10:18am
    no as all monies paid by the state will be viewed ass a loan and reclaimed at a later time. As a self funded retiree who received nix $s how could I fear?
    Mariner
    1st May 2020
    11:13am
    I'd fear the loss of franking credit as a SFR for a start.
    Rae
    3rd May 2020
    8:19am
    Take the credits and I'd fear a cut in the aged pension as a million self funded rock into Centrelink with their hand out.

    1st May 2020
    10:25am
    All super balances above $1.6 million should be taxed at that person's marginal rate or withdrawn from super. It is ridiculous that people have 10s of millions in super only taxed at 15%.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    11:46am
    Yes I agree. Get rid of Franking credits too. Yes and make the multinationals and mega rich such as Gina and Rupert pay their fair share and not get away with paying nothing.
    Jim
    1st May 2020
    12:08pm
    Again with the envy, get rid of franking credits, this idea is still coming from people that have no understanding of franking credits, no matter how often it’s explained some people will never understand how the franking credits work, but to put it once again into perspective, when you get franking credits that money has never been paid to the shareholder it is money that is withheld and paid to the tax office, if your income is above the tax free threshold then you do not get that money back, if your income is below the tax free threshold you are entitled to receive that money back, this is the same for every income earning tax payer through either PAYE or dividend income, so why does envy come into it when a pensioner is the target, I think many people get confused between franking credits within superannuation and franking credits outside of superannuation which are treated differently, I pay the full 30% tax on my dividend income and can only claim any of that back when my income falls below the tax free threshold.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    12:18pm
    Look at it like this. If I earn $100,000 in dividends I pay no tax as my franking credits pay it for me. That is I pay 30% in the dollar tax. If I only earn $20,000 I pay no tax so I get my franking credits refunded. If I don't get my franking credits refunded I pay 30% tax on $20,000 which if I earned it elsewhere I would pay no tax. To pay 30% tax on $20,000 is simply ridiculous.

    There are only about $6 billion in franking credits refunded but over $40 billion in franking credits used to pay the tax of higher income earning taxpayers. Whether it is refunded or used to pay tax makes no difference as they are both withholding tax the same as an employee pays on their wages. If an employee doesn't get his overpaid tax refunded there would be an out cry. No wonder those risking having their excess franking credits are not happy.
    Senior without family
    1st May 2020
    12:55pm
    Absolutely about gina and robert.
    hyperbole
    1st May 2020
    1:02pm
    Just to put the record straight this is how much Gina Rhinehart paid last year. She did not pay nothing as some have said.



    Mrs Rinehart's business paid a huge $1.1bn in tax, up from $600m last year. Revenue, most of which is from iron ore sales, surged to $8.4bn from $5.8bn in 2018.Oct 31, 2019
    Nomad1946
    1st May 2020
    1:29pm
    To those who have hopped onto the “remove franking credits” bandwagon .... your comments show your ignorance.
    What are Franking Credits?? They are income taxes deducted from the dividends before payment (just like income tax on your wages/salaries). Upon lodging one’s income tax return the GROSS (including the credits) dividend is taxed at your prime rate ... then that assessed tax is reduced by the tax ALREADY PAID on the dividends!!
    Eddy
    1st May 2020
    2:23pm
    Maybe a solution to this franking credit fiasco would be for all income, including retirement income from super and other investments, over the tax threshold be taxed as normal then receivers of franked dividends could claim their franking credits as a valid and normal deduction. However I have a few caveats to this proposal:
    1. the15% tax on super funds be removed,
    2. a deduction from income (say 15%) be allowed to compensate for the 15% tax already collected from the super fund.
    3. superannuant couples be allowed to split their income/s to align them with pensioner couple who individually receive a pension (for instance where one member of a couple receive superannuation on behalf of them both the income to be split between them, if both members of a couple receive a superannuation income then their combined incomes to be split).
    4. all superannuation be paid out as a periodic payment (ie a pension) however payout of outstanding debts, such as mortgage, be allowable on retirement.
    Remember this is only a suggestion, anyone who has an alternative solution to ensure retirees pay a fair share of tax to facilitate the running of our country please contribute it now.
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:28pm
    Nomad, you are right. The bottom line is that tax has been paid on the income earned by the shareholder.
    So, what happens if franking credits are no longer available? I honestly don't know, but am prepared to make a guess:
    In future the benefits paid to the shareholders would be increased by the amount of tax which had been paid directly to the ATO. The extra income would then be declared on the taxpayer's return, so that the only change would be that the tax payable on shares income would go to the ATO visa the taxpayer instead of via the business.
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:28pm
    Nomad, you are right. The bottom line is that tax has been paid on the income earned by the shareholder.
    So, what happens if franking credits are no longer available? I honestly don't know, but am prepared to make a guess:
    In future the benefits paid to the shareholders would be increased by the amount of tax which had been paid directly to the ATO. The extra income would then be declared on the taxpayer's return, so that the only change would be that the tax payable on shares income would go to the ATO visa the taxpayer instead of via the business.
    Sundays
    1st May 2020
    2:28pm
    Given that many companies have either reduced their next Dividend payment, or cut it completely, there will be a loss of Franking Credits this year anyway.
    Eddy
    1st May 2020
    5:18pm
    Some people do not seem to understand exactly what dividend imputation actually means. Prior to 1987 there was no franking of dividends, a company paid tax on their profit before paying a dividend to their shareholders. The shareholders declared the dividend as income on their tax return and paid more tax, effectively double taxation. In 1987 the government introduced franking where the value of the tax paid by the company was imputed to the shareholders as a credit on their dividend income for tax, therefore eliminating the double taxation aspect of company tax. There were various tweaking of this for small investors until in 2000 the government decided that imputed tax was to be fully refunded, ie the amount of money recouped from company tax by the government was reduced. The effect of this was that non-taxpayers were able to get a refund of their share of the company tax.
    Before any shout at me that shareholders are owners of a company, and therefore 'entitled to their tax back, let me make a couple of points. As many small businesspersons have found out to their displeasure, the 'owner' of a company is personally responsible for the debts of that company. If the company goes broke they may lose all their assets to pay the debts, even if they only hold a small portion of the ownership they may be liable for the full amount of the debt. Not so for a shareholder, if a company goes broke they may lose their investment but they are not responsible for the debts. Consider the shareholders of Mr Bonds companies, when it went broke owing hundreds of millions they did not have to put their hands in their pockets to pay the debts. Shareholders can sue a company if they think the value of their investment has been diminished by negligence or criminality. For instance the current action by AMP shareholders against AMP. If these shareholders were 'owners' of AMP why would they sue themselves?
    Gett'n Older
    1st May 2020
    6:04pm
    Franking credits are a fine concept if the person claiming them has tax to be offset. The issue is giving the money back to people who have paid not tax means the exact thing being claimed for Gina and the mutli nationals. The company pays tax and that tax is given back to someone who paid none …. i.e. there is no tax paid on that bit of income.
    Rae
    3rd May 2020
    8:41am
    Gett'n Older there is no tax paid on the aged pension either or are those retirees very special but other retirees who bought shares somehow criminals to be punished?

    The tax rules are what they are and a saver can earn around $34 000 or so tax free and a couple around $58 000. After that they do pay tax on income so the franking would be off setting tax the same as it does for any income earning taxpayer who receives fully franked dividends.

    If tax is an issue, which it isn't so I don't think the authors understand economics, especially Grattan where someone obviously hates retirees and sees them as useless feeders to be milked to the max, then a transaction tax would fix everything .

    Grattan don't talk about that though because it might cost them and their sponsors money.

    And if the aged pension is a real problem then removing franking credits will make it far worse over time as nobody bothers saving when not saving is so very well rewarded.
    Oldchick
    1st May 2020
    10:25am
    What a foolish comment from Mr. Knox - “the government gets revenue from the demographic that has generated the most wealth but which doesn’t contribute to the income tax base,” What does this guy think we did for the rest of our lives before retirement. We worked and PAID TAXES. How about having a look at their good mates Gina, Rupert, the Chinese puppet, .... all those big corporations paying zilch. Why, because the Government allows them to do it. Also why pay a JobSeeker payment to someone who’s partner is still earning up to $76k a year, but they are. Cut pollies perks and their double dipping too.
    Billv
    1st May 2020
    2:15pm
    It's just another go at pensioners. Raise the stress levels enough and some will die.
    You know that old saying living the golden years in stress free comfort, It's a pipe dream they are just killing us off one by one. Try to enjoy what life you have left, trust me, at this rate it won't be long
    Another dumb retiree
    1st May 2020
    10:32am
    As a recent self funded retiree (having worked hard and saved toward my own retirement for over 40 years as requested by the governments of the times). If this government wants to tax my super MORE , I will be progressively withdrawing (at least cost and tax), spending and when eligible living off the pension . Incurring a further burdon on the government.
    I have received nothing in payments from the government during this pandemic and as such should NOT be punished to fix their problems
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    10:45am
    If self funded retirees were employees they would get Jobseeker payment for six months with no asset test. What is the difference between making a living yourself and working for someone else? If your income has decreased significantly you too should get jobseeker for six months.
    On the Ball
    1st May 2020
    11:24am
    Spot on.
    I worked, paid taxes, and built a super account for 50+ years, all through all the changes various Governments have made.
    All through I WENT WITHOUT. Didn't spend all my pay. Saved it for my (and my wife's) retirement. I could have spent it all and ended up with no super and relied on the pension, but no. I went without and now dont get a cent from the Government.
    Now they want to change it again. I see in the article mention of franking dividends? Short memories guys!
    Gra
    1st May 2020
    3:04pm
    Exactly. Just like On the Ball, I too paid taxes and built up my super fund over 50 years, the last 20 salary sacrificing to build a decent nest egg. Along the way I also picked up some shares in a couple of companies. We were helped by not seeing our money go up in smoke nor seeing it go down the drain courtesy of excessive drinking. Why should we now be punished just to cover the butt of those who didn't bother to save? Those who did enjoy their money during their working life are now the ones screaming for the thrifty ones to be punished. Sour grapes in huge doses.
    Brissiegirl
    1st May 2020
    4:19pm
    Dear dumb retiree, our self-funded friends received the one-off payment of $750 each. Perhaps you should get it too.
    Rae
    1st May 2020
    5:34pm
    You only get the $750 if you receive a part pension or hold an eligible card. Those fully self funded through savings get nothing. Many also contributed to superannuation after paying full taxation without any super concessions so it would be double taxation yet again.
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:10am
    Rae - there are some who lost their pensions in 2017 thru re-jigging the tests and those people are self-funded but they were allowed to keep the cards as a once off. Those folk have received the $750.
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    11:49am
    My husband and I are both self-funded retirees, and have qualified for the government's Seniors Health Care Card, and I receive the Carers Supplement also. We have both received the $750 stimulus grant, although I don't know what we will spend it on yet. My feeling is that if you don't qualify for the CSHC card then you probably don't need any topping up with handouts. You may think that to be rather harsh, but in my mind we didn't need it either, and wouldn't have asked for it.
    Not all age pensioners have been layabout spendthrift. Many have been in lowpaid jobs all their lives, some have had larger families to raise, and some have had their fair share of bad luck. Don't make them out to be the villains of the story.
    goddessofstrife
    1st May 2020
    10:38am
    Where will Freedom Boy Tim Wilson stand when his own government wants to disadvantage us? Will be fascinating to watch!
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    11:49am
    Tim will be there telling you it's only bad when Labor wants to bring it in and fine when the Liberals want to do it goddessofstrife. It's the Liberal way.
    Youngagain
    7th May 2020
    7:30pm
    Rubbish. Tim will stand up for fair treatment for self-funded retirees no matter which party is attacking them. Labor supporters just can't get their heads around the fact that Labor got it wrong with their franking credits policy. They weren't attacked for no reason. Their policy was cruel, unfair and detrimental to the nation and they deserved to lose the election because they refused to modify it even when the massive flaws were pointed out.

    I have no time for either Libs or Labor, but we should all deal in fact and not make judgments based solely on political preferences.
    StorminNormin
    1st May 2020
    10:41am
    According to the last census, 6% of the population who receive tax payer funded part / aged pension, live in homes valued at $1 million or more. Include those homes in the assets test and let them spend down on their own money before they supplement their life style courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
    Mariner
    1st May 2020
    11:21am
    $1 mio does not give you much of a home anymore in places like Sydney. Where I live even apartments can cost more than a million. As I mentioned before, the place we bought in 1978 for $42'500 was recently sold for $1.160 million. Had we stayed there StorminNormin would force us to sell it. There are a few people in that situation. Leave them be and introduce an inheritance tax if that is necessary to get money - let the younger generation inherit less!
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    11:58am
    Mariner, why is it the younger ones always have to pay. They have to pay for their Uni degrees, TAFE courses and can't get a leg in the housing market because everything's to dear and they can't get permanent full-time work. They'll also have to pay for what we are doing to the environment. How is that fair? I don't agree with a death tax or including your own home in the assets test though. Us Boomers have had it pretty good over the years, it's time to stop being being so selfish and greedy.
    Mariner
    1st May 2020
    12:07pm
    libsareliars - you do want young people have more opportunities, but then you are against the inclusion of homes in the asset test and you do not want a death duty. How would you get money out of the Boomers other than giving them less or paying some money after death? The young of rich people will be well off and all the battlers' offspring are in the poor house. Make up your mind, does not apply to me as I have no kids.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:23pm
    Mariner, i probably didn't explain myself very well - people with property over a certain amount and super over a certain amount could afford to pay a more in taxes but not the poorer or battling pensioners. I just don't think it's fair on the younger people to always blithely say - let them pay for everything. Regards.
    Rae
    1st May 2020
    5:49pm
    The whole argument is silly because taxes don't fund the aged pension and they won't fund the cover payments either. Tax simply prevents inflation. A big tax on buying houses might have stopped the crazy price rises in the first place.

    We do not have to borrow foreign funds to pay Australians in Aussie dollars.

    Now if all this causes inflation we may need to raise the GST to slow spending down but right now inflation is the least of worries.
    Youngagain
    12th May 2020
    4:38pm
    These continual attacks on savers baffle me. It seems some people think we should steal the houses and savings of anyone who has worked hard and lived responsibly, but if you haven't saved and bought a home the taxpayer should hand you $1 million + to fund your retirement (over the course of an average retirement) PLUS give you money to pay your rent. Why the hell would anyone want to bother to save if they are going to be attacked and robbed at every turn?

    Already, advisers are telling people NOT to save so much for retirement as the assets test is way too harsh and a couple is better off retiring with $500K unless they can have over $1.5K in assets (plus their home). Keep bashing savers and you won't have any to tax. That will solve the problem quick smart! Then you can impose whatever taxes you like because there will be no retirees left to pay them. They will all be standing in Centrelink queues.

    If Labor had got their franking credits policy over the line, dozens of my SFR friends had plans to shed their assets quickly and go on the pension. Accuse them of 'double-dipping' (which they were NOT, because they were saving the government tens of thousands annually) and they'll just go and TRIPLE DIP (pension + concessions + franking credits) instead.
    StorminNormin
    1st May 2020
    10:41am
    According to the last census, 6% of the population who receive tax payer funded part / aged pension, live in homes valued at $1 million or more. Include those homes in the assets test and let them spend down on their own money before they supplement their life style courtesy of the Australian taxpayer.
    Triss
    1st May 2020
    1:22pm
    I would agree with you, StorminNormin, if the same applied to ex pollies, many of them own muliple housing. Turnbull's house, for instance, is said to be worth over $50 milion. Australia is supposed to be a democracy but not if the government lives in the lap of luxury and everyone else is on their uppers.
    Farside
    2nd May 2020
    9:51am
    relax Triss, I don't think Turnbull will be putting his hand out for an aged pension any time soon. I reckon you can safely assume he will be squarely in the self-funded camp.
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:13am
    He will still get his parliamentary pension. He can always refuse to take it like Trump does not take his salary.
    bartpcb
    1st May 2020
    10:41am
    There are no surprises there. Whatever a Right wing government gives (even though it's our money) with one hand, they will take +1 with the other. They will rip off anyone with money, friend or foe, they have no loyalties other than to themselves.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    11:58am
    Agreed bartpcb
    Farside
    2nd May 2020
    9:53am
    and the rusted on oldies will continue to vote for the Libs and Nats irrespective of their actions
    Youngagain
    12th May 2020
    4:42pm
    No Farside. The oldies will vote intelligently, which is why Labor isn't in power now. The oldies are too smart to vote for a party that wants to make us all equally poor by destroying the value of personal endeavour. Sadly, the Libs and Nats have strayed a little too far to the left lately, but we certainly don't need a government with strong left leanings.
    Youngagain
    12th May 2020
    4:42pm
    No Farside. The oldies will vote intelligently, which is why Labor isn't in power now. The oldies are too smart to vote for a party that wants to make us all equally poor by destroying the value of personal endeavour. Sadly, the Libs and Nats have strayed a little too far to the left lately, but we certainly don't need a government with strong left leanings.
    me
    1st May 2020
    10:44am
    Take more money from older australians same old gratton solution to every thing.
    Rob the older generation again on top of deeming at two and a half percent.
    Dont expect them not to fight back.
    Farside
    2nd May 2020
    9:55am
    if history is a guide, the rusted on oldies will take it on the chin and not change their votes.
    Ok
    1st May 2020
    10:49am
    Something has to happen. We cannot have a system where billionaires hide their money tax-free in SMSF and pass it on to their children tax-free. We still have a lot of young people struggling with high housing costs and taxes and I believe it is unfair to have a taxfree system for the very rich. In Switzerland, everyone gets an aged pension and everyone pays taxes on income AND assets. People also have to pay an inheritance tax.
    Mariner
    1st May 2020
    11:30am
    OK - but also mention that in Switzerland the purchase of a home is totally tax deductible, all costs involved from establishment fees and mortgage interest and insurances come off your income taxes, the reason a death duty is justified. Purchased our house here in Oz all with after-tax money so it should belong to us without extra duties. The age pension in Switzerland is paid for by the worker and the employer throughout working life. It is only accessed when age 65 for males and 64 for females. It is included in your income tax return as well. Rich people pay in a lot of money every year but only get back what ordinary workers receive.
    I am still a Swiss citizen and I am getting a small Swiss part pension.
    Curious
    1st May 2020
    10:53am
    My disappointment with this article is that it based on a tax on the existing tax system with the same tax base. So the repayment of the $130 billion is targeting one single industry or one demographic retiree-sector, notwithstanding the number of struggling retirees. This is a deja-Vous or a revisit of the pick on negative-gearing and/or franking-credit.

    I think it will be more proactive to propose overall tax reform and changes in economic structure and developing other economic pillars to stimulate the economy to repay the debt. The old system is wearing out and tired.
    Buggsie
    1st May 2020
    10:56am
    Go for it, Morrison! Doing this, taxing retirees, will bring about the much needed change in government at the next election. I can see the Labor advertising already - self funded retirees taxed from retirement to death. Sounds a great idea - if you want to lose government.
    Farside
    1st May 2020
    12:43pm
    This in itself would not cost Morrison government. Most of the old dears are so rusted on they will still vote blue in the electorates that count. Why do you think Morrison is going out of his way to stop them being knocked off by covid? Win-win.
    older&wiser
    1st May 2020
    1:55pm
    Farside - have to agree with you. Having worked for an MP, I saw this time and time again with seniors. They had no idea who their local member was - they would just vote for their favoured party. Ask them - 'which party will you vote for?' - they would say 'Liberal'. Then ask them to name the local member (even if it was a Liberal member) - and they wouldn't have a clue. Could be the worst person in the world - wouldn't matter.
    Travellersjoy
    1st May 2020
    10:58am
    Perfectly fair so long as they don't come down on the pensioner brigade of poorer retired people, especially women with minimal super savings.

    It is also time the profiteers like Amazon, Google, Facebook etc who rip out billions and give back nothing, contributed a share of their profits to tax and support the nation that has taken such good care of them. Parasites all.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:02pm
    Totally agree Travellersjoy.
    SuziJ
    1st May 2020
    11:04am
    Won't affect me - I have no super.
    curaeus
    1st May 2020
    11:15am
    Won't happen. Firstly it's a patently stupid suggestion and totally ignores the substantial financial contribution retirees have already made over their working lives and secondly because to do this would be political suicide for the party/parties promulgating such electorally odious rubbish
    Brian@Brompton
    1st May 2020
    11:19am
    We need, first, to discuss reviving an inheritance tax, common in many societies. Most will agree that to leave a modest legacy to family members or a charity is a reasonable human ambition. Above a limit [set after wide discussion but no surrendering of principle] passing on big sums merely furthers the creation of one of our major social illnesses: wealthy & powerful dynasties that become political power weilders. Second, fix the franking credits scandal. It stinks. Third, stop the proven-nonsense of hoping for growth by giving big tax cuts to the wealthy and powerful with freedom to do with the $$ what they wish.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    11:21am
    So it's OK if I earn $100,000 in dividends and pay no tax.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:04pm
    I agree with most of what you say Brian.
    Triss
    1st May 2020
    2:48pm
    I think you might run up against all the multimillionaires in government, Brian. They might be enthusiastic about taxing the little people but will think differently when it comes to their own multi millions.
    Lookfar
    3rd May 2020
    9:57am
    I totally agree with you Brian, the whole range of avarice open to the super rich is creating an aristocracy in our own country, not something we would agree to.
    Our ancestors fought and died to become free of Kings and barrons etc. owning everything, simply because they inherited it, now why would we want to go back to those dark ages?

    The thing is that most rich people always want more and more, it is as addictive as alcohol, but much more damaging to society, because greed usurps morality.
    wogaroo
    1st May 2020
    11:28am
    you have heard the Sheriff of Nottingham is a calling..take from the serfs and give to the rich!
    600 plus LARGE COMPANIES NO TAX AT ALL, QANTAS TOP OF THE LIST!!!!
    Yes! the Sheriff is coming for us!
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:05pm
    It makes you sick doesn't it when these corporations pay no tax, what a disgrace. Just think what we could have done with the money that they owe Australia.
    BigAl
    1st May 2020
    11:39am
    Taxing self funded retirees is just stupid. All you are going to do is force more people onto the pension and reduce the size of the middle class. I actually would be better off on the pension if I invested the max allowable under the asset test. If you shrink the middle class too much you will reduce social stability. Trying to make a living in investing on the share market is fraught with so much risk. Term deposits earn next to nothing. The stupidity of the system in reducing interest rates to zero has only increased asset prices. We need some tough love from the pollies. Normalise the interest rates and teach the younger generation how to save and budget for a rainy day.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:09pm
    The younger generation can't afford to save BigAl, they're too busy paying off their education fees, their high rents, their high electricity and living bills as well as mostly being underemployed and underpaid. Let alone being able to afford to buy a home.
    BigAl
    1st May 2020
    1:30pm
    What a load of rubbish. This is why we have a problem in the first place. Our generation were pushed out home by the time you were 18. You started on a very low income for many years. I lived in a derelict house with two others and saved enough money to buy my first house. Interest rates were as high as 14%. Today young people live with their parents till they are 30, start on incomes of $80000 plus, and when they get married both partners work. They still can’t save so the pollies lower the interest rates which only pushes up asset prices- house prices, stocks and bonds. Now we have reached the end point where you can’t lower the interest rates anymore. We need to teach budgeting, investing in schools.
    Priscilla
    1st May 2020
    11:40am
    Once again retirees to be ripped off by the government! Banks make billions a quarter. Huge corporations pay practically no tax - what a fiasco. Won't get my vote again!!!!
    4b2
    1st May 2020
    11:52am
    When PK set up the super scheme there was a limit on how much a person could have in super. It was Howard and the Bridesmaid who altered the limits and allowed their wealthy mates to avoid tax. So go for it SLOW MO rake it all back from your wealthy mates.
    Keep on bagging the Mining magnate and Malcolm, but I guess you will accept their donations/ (Fat chance). Get rid of welfare for the wealthy and franking credits. AS you already tax he super funds how will you justify a second tax on super?
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:10pm
    Spot on 4b2
    LENYJAC
    1st May 2020
    11:53am
    SEND THE BILL TO CHINA,,,IDIOTS,...
    Grey
    2nd May 2020
    3:59pm
    They wont pay.
    1. Countries cannot be sued.
    2. There is no proof they covered Covid19 up. Like everyone else even today as we speak non one knows how the virus works. Hindsight is great.
    3. There is a tiff between ScoMo, Dutton, Marisa Payne and China on the other. The politicians are riding on a anti China wave. Labor and normally liberal Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop are on the anti China wave. Since students from China are temporarily stopped from coming in, they figure there is no loss. Students account for more agricultural exports. They also figured iron and coal is still needed by China because the US and Brazil costs higher freight. Culturally and linguistically the west thinks in short term (marriages etc), western languages have a large lexicon of adjectives, Asian languages do not.
    They lose face and bear grudges for a long time.
    ScoMo, Dutton, Marisa Payne called for a "full investigation into China and WHO.
    Even if they really believed that they could have raised them up with the EU quietly. Latest news they cannot get EU and Britain into it. Trump may be bought off by China's tempting to buy agricultural products other than China still has a trillion in the US reserves.
    China has threatened to cut off Australia. Ironically only our richest men the ones who prop up the Liberal party like Twiggy Forest and another I cannot recall said to DELIBERATELY make an enemy of China for political purposes is a big mistake.
    We shall see how this plays out for the economy. Otherwise dream on.
    80 plus
    1st May 2020
    11:57am
    Why not tax wealthy companies, The ATO list over 133 companies that paid no tax on profits, These include Shell Energy ($200.5 million profit), Bluescope Steel ($60.6 million profit), Murdoch's News Australia ($58.5 million), Food Investments Pty Ltd ($65.2 million profit), Lendlease Corp ($69.2 million), Pratt Holdings ($59.2 million) and Woodside Petroleum ($1.3 billion).Dec 17, 2019
    Another dumb retiree
    1st May 2020
    12:05pm
    Excellent knowledge and comment

    Thanks for your comment
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    12:08pm
    Some of them must paid tax and they pay fully franked dividends to their shareholders. That list is obviously not from the ATO.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:12pm
    "Why not tax wealthy companies"
    Why not indeed 80 plus - would be the most logical wouldn't it.
    80 plus
    1st May 2020
    12:21pm
    retiring well,INFO on numerous web sites, just search Australian companies tax avoidance.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    12:24pm
    The reason that that a company does not pay any tax is because they don't earn any income. So they are taxed correctly.
    Senior without family
    1st May 2020
    1:00pm
    Absolutely wonderful comment. Those with high incomes do not need bailing out at all. They need to be dipping into their bank accounts and learning to see what is normal with many people. If they haven't saved for a rainy day they need to,learn better budget practices.
    80 plus
    1st May 2020
    3:10pm
    RETIRING WELL , did you go on line to search, ? G M HOLDEN FIGURES ARE INCOME $4,661,580,614,00 TAXABLE INCOME ZERO, TAX PAID ZERO. IBM INCOME $ 3308,833,672, TAXABLE INCOME $17,671,522, TAX PAID $ ZERO, The information is on line for all to see.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    3:45pm
    Gross income and taxable income are not the same. My gross income could be $100,000 but my taxable income could be zero.
    Golden Oldie
    1st May 2020
    3:58pm
    Franking credits represent the income tax paid by the company on their profits. Dividends are paid from after tax profits, has nothing to do with income earned by shareholders. Shareholders do not pay income tax on company profits as the company is an seperate entity from its owners.
    If the company has not paid any income tax, it will not be able to pass on franking credits.
    Dividends are taxable income. Franking credits are to offset the income tax already incurred in the company tax liability, sto if you are in the income bracket where you pay income tax, the franking credits will reduce the income paid. The whole problem was created when the government started to allow excess franking credits to be payable as a cash refund.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    4:20pm
    It is only fair that excess franking credits should be paid back as cash refund. Not to do so is over taxing a person's income.

    Franking credits are not the problem. No tax on super after 60 is the problem which only benefits the wealthy. I know a couple who actually paid more tax after 60 on their income than they did before 60 with the same amount of pension from their super fund. So that no tax on super after 60 is very misleading and is only good for wealthy people.
    Youngagain
    5th May 2020
    12:50pm
    Golden Oldie, if a couple has saved $900,000 and therefore gets no pension or benefits, but collects 5% in dividends (including franking credits), their gross income is $45,000 pa. If they pay a financial adviser, it's likely they end up with about the same income as a full pensioner who has zero other income. Take away their franking credits and they are likely to have $30,000 or less - well below the OAP in income. So what will they do? Obviously, they have to top up their income by drawing down on super and it would be very silly of them not to draw enough that they qualify for a part pension. So the government saves NOTHING, but yet another couple ceases to be independent.

    Labor's policy made no sense at all and those who support it are speaking out of ignorance or envy. Someone who is saving the nation tens of thousands every year by not collecting a pension has every right to expect to collect franking credits to assist them to remain independent. Their contribution to the treasury is worth far more than the pittance many working shareholders pay in tax.

    I don't understand this envy mentality that wants to condemn people who saved to be worse off than people who didn't. Surely savers are entitled to a higher standard of living for having sacrificed to built a nest egg, and for not imposing on the public purse?
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    12:20pm
    The Commomweath bank used to be Australia's Reserve bank, so we could print our own money like most other nations do, but Menzies sold off the Reserve bank to the Rothschilds, - good high pressure salesmen they employed, happened to a few other countries also..
    How do we get rid of these stupid shackles, foreign corporations owning so many of our national institutions because of the greed of our past politicians, - well it can be done as the original legal Australian Constitution has good safeguards against exactly that sort of thing happening.
    We need to go back to our roots and enforce the illegality of things that our past pollies did which were not permitted without a referendum, the decision to sell our reserve bank was a decision to sell our nation partway into slavery, it was not endorsed by a referendum, - who would vote for such a thing except those on the take?
    Time to talk about the Constitution, time to vote for a party that will enforce those elements of the Constitution that have been bypassed by the Corrupt greedy mob, we have much more to gain than to lose, - all of us need to understand that, - of course no such party exists yet but we can make it happen.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    12:25pm
    Great post Lookfar, agree entirely.
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:20am
    That was old Hitler's line about the Jews (Rothschilds) owning everything and controlling the world. Old hat - should really start to forget it.
    Fliss
    1st May 2020
    12:32pm
    Well that idea totally sucks!
    So you work to build up your super for your retirement, working under certain rules & then just as you get there they change the goal posts - not on!
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    1:36pm
    Fliss, - how does your comment relate to mine? can't you put the name of the person at the beginning of your message so we can all understand what you are talking About, - ta Fliss.
    Rae
    3rd May 2020
    9:13am
    That is exactly what the LNP and Greens did in the 2015 budget. Changed the rules after the game had finished.
    Wake Up
    1st May 2020
    12:37pm
    Get rid of Councils, State Governments & make the Federal Government more accountable. After all we are only a population of 25 million & there is far too much duplication & councils especially have no accountability.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    1:42pm
    Great idea Wake-up, and it seems most of those are actually foreign corporation owned, - I felt sick when told that the Police are owned by a corporation in America, if true, How could our pollies have been so corrupt to do such a thing? - well maybe they just wanted more more more, time to set all that to rights, imho.
    Gra
    1st May 2020
    4:12pm
    Lookfar just where did you hear this absolute garbage? From another cronie wearing a tinfoil hat?
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    10:44am
    Agreed. I used to be a bureaucrat.
    Suze
    4th May 2020
    4:35pm
    Yes Wake up
    We are overgoverned.
    BillW41
    1st May 2020
    12:55pm
    Scary! Especially if residents of every State and Territory are taxed on the same basis.
    patti
    1st May 2020
    1:00pm
    At 76, my only income is the Age Pension. I have no other retirement income. I own my home, and manage my budget carefully. I hope nobody is planning to put a retirement tax on people like me. We have had no increase to our income during this Covid19 crisis (unlike other benefit recipients who have had their income doubled in some cases) and the stimulus package does not make up for this. Why is it always those who are the most vulnerable who seem to be hit?
    Chris B T
    1st May 2020
    1:12pm
    Would that include EX Politicians, Governors and Governor Generals.(This group have Multiple Benefits for Life)
    The Non Means Tested Lot to be Included if you go with Taxing Super as Suggested.
    Nomad1946
    1st May 2020
    1:20pm
    Suggestion to all Australian governments .... State, Local, and Federal ...... bloody well leave Superannuation ALONE!!!! You’ve taxed it on the way in .... leave it alone!!!
    To consider increasing taxes of any type is an outright abuse of your constituents and will affect our votes ......
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    10:39am
    Agree. Except government bureaucrats salaries are tied to positive inflation not to deflation.
    Also once a level of expenditure is set in a budget they never decrease. Remember the GST?
    IMHO, careful spending would not need GST.
    I used to be a bureaucrat and I know how devious tricks are used to increase the budget
    Rusty
    1st May 2020
    1:22pm
    Another half cooked idea from someone who spends his life getting out of paying any tax. Pensioners still vote ..
    Tanker
    1st May 2020
    1:28pm
    This has cert6ainly raised the hackles of those retirees who are well of despite their own assessment of their situation. The fact is that Howard and Costello wasted the proceeds of the mining boom by putting into place tax benefits for their constituency - the wealthy and well off middle class.
    Nearly everyone in Australia has worked hard over the years but not everyone was in a position to salt away significant funds into their super. Many worked in government positions with very nice pensions on retirement. A significant number received large legacies from parents etc. So it goes on.
    The benefits enjoyed by the wealthy, and well off middle class, in retirement is unsustainable and particularly because of the pandemic. Tax cuts to the wealthy are a joke as it has been proven time and again that "trickle down economics" only benefits those who actually get the tax cuts.
    If, and that is a BIG IF, fair and equitable actions are taken to recover from the pandemic then the tax system has to change. A lot of our system has to change along with that. Businesses must be forced to accept that their have a responsibility to the community as a whole and not just their shareholders. Businesses must also accept that their employees are a major part of the business and not just a number on the payroll along with a return to full time workers and not part time casuals.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    2:41pm
    Well said Tanker
    Tanker
    1st May 2020
    1:28pm
    This has cert6ainly raised the hackles of those retirees who are well of despite their own assessment of their situation. The fact is that Howard and Costello wasted the proceeds of the mining boom by putting into place tax benefits for their constituency - the wealthy and well off middle class.
    Nearly everyone in Australia has worked hard over the years but not everyone was in a position to salt away significant funds into their super. Many worked in government positions with very nice pensions on retirement. A significant number received large legacies from parents etc. So it goes on.
    The benefits enjoyed by the wealthy, and well off middle class, in retirement is unsustainable and particularly because of the pandemic. Tax cuts to the wealthy are a joke as it has been proven time and again that "trickle down economics" only benefits those who actually get the tax cuts.
    If, and that is a BIG IF, fair and equitable actions are taken to recover from the pandemic then the tax system has to change. A lot of our system has to change along with that. Businesses must be forced to accept that their have a responsibility to the community as a whole and not just their shareholders. Businesses must also accept that their employees are a major part of the business and not just a number on the payroll along with a return to full time workers and not part time casuals.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    1:48pm
    Right on Tanker, 'every body getting a fair go' is totally destroyed by the current stinking corruption.
    It needs to be systematically cut out, from the top down, and new impulses gradually worked on, - from the bottom up.
    Triss
    1st May 2020
    1:35pm
    Insist the government use the Future Fund's billions. It was started and added to using Australia's surplus which should have belonged to Australians. Cut politicians salaries by 30% frozen for ten years...after all, we're all in this together. Politicians not to be allowed a pension at 55 but must wait until 67. Cut all the corrupt perks ex pollies gave themselves like Gold Passes, business class airfares for holidays for themselves and family, car costs and office entitlements, office establishment and lease costs, smartphones, stationery, newspapers and magazines.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    2:42pm
    Hear hear Triss - the pollies should have to do their fair share of the lifting too.
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    10:54am
    Can I say agreed a thousand times?
    Suze
    4th May 2020
    4:39pm
    My thoughts exactly Triss
    WhyMe
    1st May 2020
    1:37pm
    As usual, bash the old folk, let all the rich b*stards who pay no/little tax get away with it,let the rich corporations who pay so little tax get away with it, why dont you people at least get somethings right
    Daveh
    1st May 2020
    1:43pm
    typical tax the people probably least able to afford it. The article talks about the wealthiest people rather than the average person. Self funded retirees paid tax all their lives and paid tax when money went into super. Isn't it fair that they can get the money back tax free? I think increasing GST to 15% or maybe a 2% Corona virus levy on income tax would be better
    Daveh
    1st May 2020
    1:43pm
    typical tax the people probably least able to afford it. The article talks about the wealthiest people rather than the average person. Self funded retirees paid tax all their lives and paid tax when money went into super. Isn't it fair that they can get the money back tax free? I think increasing GST to 15% or maybe a 2% Corona virus levy on income tax would be better
    Mum
    1st May 2020
    1:57pm
    Is this scaremongering?
    Lookfar
    2nd May 2020
    7:16pm
    No Mum, it is a tentative talk about how things could be, to leave all that **** behind, so it is the opposite to Scaremongering, - the which is the current state of play.

    Only you can read carefully each opinion, see where they are coming from, and decide the best way you can think things should go, and hopefully some examples.
    Wake Up
    1st May 2020
    2:07pm
    So its ok to tax those who have a modest house worth $400 k & $900K in super & be self funded but Not ok to take the pension away from those who live in a $900 k house $400 k in super??????
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:24am
    Envy knows no bounds. SFRs are not respected in a country constantly praising the
    Aussie Battlers.
    Joyful56
    1st May 2020
    2:09pm
    Oh yes, I didn't get a stimulus but now I have to pay tax on my meagre pension rate income? Sounds so fair. All they need to do is tax the corporates who pay no tax and close the never ending benefits for ex polliles while they're at it. If they do do this then surely, finally, retirees and pensioners will rise up and be loud AT LAST.
    Joyful56
    1st May 2020
    2:09pm
    Oh yes, I didn't get a stimulus but now I have to pay tax on my meagre pension rate income? Sounds so fair. All they need to do is tax the corporates who pay no tax and close the never ending benefits for ex polliles while they're at it. If they do do this then surely, finally, retirees and pensioners will rise up and be loud AT LAST.
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:15pm
    What a stupid, but unsurprising idea.
    Pensioners are a varied group, some have paid taxes for part of their lives, some have paid nothing, for various reasons. These people will continue to receive a tax free income.

    Self funded retirees have, with few, if any exceptions, paid tax all of their working lives, most have also funded their own health care and saved massive amounts of treasury funds.

    If this stupid proposal goes ahead, everyone with a superannuation account should, while it is possible to do so,reduce their taxable retirement income by withdrawing as much as possible from their superannuation funds and pay off their mortgages or property upgrades. The matter of health insurance will sort itself out, insurance will finally become unaffordable so all but the extremely wealthy will have to look to the taxpayer to fund
    their future healthcare needs.
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:31am
    Yes, correct. But you should have started doing that about 15 years ago. Started taking money from super when I could. Had to sign a declaration that I did not intend to work again. Lived on the money for 7 years and now after 65 getting a part pension. The future of super was in plain view for me then. However I still pay my health insurance premium, had a bad health experience 19 years ago and was grateful I had insurance then.
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    12:12pm
    The mortgage should be paid off before retirement anyway. So do it!
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:15pm
    What a stupid, but unsurprising idea.
    Pensioners are a varied group, some have paid taxes for part of their lives, some have paid nothing, for various reasons. These people will continue to receive a tax free income.

    Self funded retirees have, with few, if any exceptions, paid tax all of their working lives, most have also funded their own health care and saved massive amounts of treasury funds.

    If this stupid proposal goes ahead, everyone with a superannuation account should, while it is possible to do so,reduce their taxable retirement income by withdrawing as much as possible from their superannuation funds and pay off their mortgages or property upgrades. The matter of health insurance will sort itself out, insurance will finally become unaffordable so all but the extremely wealthy will have to look to the taxpayer to fund
    their future healthcare needs.
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:32pm
    Can anyone tell me how to prevent every comment I make from appearing twice.
    Having types this I will hit "Post Reply" and my comment will appear twice.
    maxchugg
    1st May 2020
    2:32pm
    Can anyone tell me how to prevent every comment I make from appearing twice.
    Having types this I will hit "Post Reply" and my comment will appear twice.
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    2:45pm
    Can't help you with that one max sorry, but it seems to be happening to a few people.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    2:49pm
    max, they are appearing thrice, not twice, but when you have finished, scroll down below your article to the post button, = hit it once, definitely, and it will say wait, - wait, then when it clears. move on.
    Patience, - and understanding that there is a human being on the other end, or if not, a mlndless robot, should guide your actions.
    Pushing the send button twice will get you two entries, pushing it three times, - virtually no-one will read your article as they think any one so stupid as to post 3 times may have little to say.

    Cheers,
    Lookfar.
    Triss
    1st May 2020
    2:52pm
    Check your post after you've posted and you'll see 'remove' under your name, just remove the extras. I don't know why it happens in the first place though.
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:34am
    Happens when more than one post comes in at the same time, so as Lookfar suggests just wait. Or if you pressed twice, use Triss's method.
    neil
    1st May 2020
    2:22pm
    Yes, well it would be yes if I really knew what this governments strategy was. There does seem to be a great deal of confusion emanating from our political masters and paying for this virus does appear to be beyond the understanding of our prime minister and his grubby cohort.
    As to super, it was a great idea but has become a huge tax rort and now a means to pass on wealth.

    Neil.
    neil
    1st May 2020
    2:22pm
    Yes, well it would be yes if I really knew what this governments strategy was. There does seem to be a great deal of confusion emanating from our political masters and paying for this virus does appear to be beyond the understanding of our prime minister and his grubby cohort.
    As to super, it was a great idea but has become a huge tax rort and now a means to pass on wealth.

    Neil.
    Cool Nanna
    1st May 2020
    2:23pm
    Oh! My goodness, you HAVE to be joking!! The same as many others we paid taxes all our working life and went without holidays and other luxuries to save for our retirement. You changed the assets test which in turn removed our part pension, you want to remove franking credits and now you want to tax us to pay for the debts created by Covid19. Sorry Prime Minister, even though you have handled the current situation well overall, don’t penalise us AGAIN!! It will be interestIng at election time, there are a huge number of us oldies you know!!!
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    4:06pm
    Unfortunately, Cool Nana, the govt banks on all the fearful oldies voting for them, because they are frightened of change, - this is not lost on the younger segment of our population , so conflict results.
    Look after each other, and each other looks after you, try it the other way and see what you get.

    1st May 2020
    2:40pm
    the Australian institute spews forth nonsense
    libsareliars
    1st May 2020
    2:55pm
    So does the IPA
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:36am
    Ditto the Grattan Institute.
    Gra
    1st May 2020
    2:54pm
    Is this the governments strategy or simply what is in the minds of these so-called experts? Do you really think the government would dump this on one of the largest voting blocks? I doubt it when there are plenty of other chickens out there to be plucked.
    Designated Driver
    1st May 2020
    2:54pm
    We shouldn't forget to factor in compensation from China.
    It's extraordinary how passive the reaction has been, to how badly this crisis was handled by Chinese leadership.
    Political failure on an epic scale.
    This will really test just how capable "Communism" is, at making those involved accountable for their arrogant disregard for the welfare of the rest of the planet.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    4:40pm
    DD, and how careful were we with the Calicivirus? not tested, but suddenly fully out there, only that one CSIRO lab in Victoria could have let it go so we can't claim any moral high ground.
    Besides, other rumours have the covid-19 developed in the USA, - don't let hate campaigns blind your sanity, what do Blame games ever produce?
    older&wiser
    1st May 2020
    6:34pm
    DD - I have to do a trump and ask - is that sarcasm - 'compensation from China'? That will be the day!!
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    12:16pm
    Compensation from China? Tou must be dreaming haha!
    Horace Cope
    1st May 2020
    3:35pm
    Nice theory from an academic but until it becomes a talking point with politicians I can't see the need to comment further.
    Horace Cope
    1st May 2020
    3:55pm
    "Does the government’s strategy to repay the COVID debt leave you fearful?"

    Just realised that this is the question asked but we are not told what the government strategy is to repay the COVID-19 debt. Nor, I might add, are we told what the opposition's strategy is as they are sure to be the government at some stage in the next 25 years.
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    4:29pm
    Just get everyone back to work ASAP as Covid-19 is a mild cold at best for most people. It was such a stupid move to shut down the economy especially in areas where there was no Covid_19. There is none in my area so I have done nothing different to what I normally do but it's fun watching people who are so fearful of what is actually nothing at all.
    Horace Cope
    1st May 2020
    5:05pm
    Not sure the relatives of the residents of Newmarch House Nursing Home would agree with you, Retiring Well, that it "is actually nothing at all."
    Anonymous
    3rd May 2020
    10:38am
    Those in Newmarch house are just waiting to die anyway so it is a blessing for them.
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    12:20pm
    Hmm, don't know how that last comment from Retiring Well got through the censors, It seems pretty harsh - but maybe you were joking?? Do you have any near-and-dear ones in a nursing home? Go wash your mouth out!
    Anonymous
    5th May 2020
    4:34pm
    Yes Jenny and they keep telling me that they just wish to die.
    Ted Wards
    1st May 2020
    3:44pm
    Sco Mo actually said that taxing was not a way to pay it back, but bringing jobs back to Australia was the way forward and that we can assist by only purchasing Australian food and products. Increase demand for local and we will need more industries back in Australia and thus create more jobs. Stop buying products from overseas!
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:42am
    We used to make cars, Television sets and AWA radio sets etc. How would you restart those businesses again? Food is relatively easy but we would have to withdraw from all these trade agreements. Dare I say it - we would have to drink our own wine. So much of that is sold overseas we would be swimming in it, keeping it here.
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    10:53am
    Don't be conned by the politicians. No one in the world can stop buying things from abroad if they are as good in quality and cheaper. This is simple economics theory . Dick Smith first said that and tried to set up companies. I may be wrong but many of our brands are now owned by the US.
    alpal
    1st May 2020
    4:03pm
    Would not put it past them, the bludgers.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    6:51pm
    Alpal, WHO?
    Nonconformist
    1st May 2020
    4:19pm
    Simpler tax is the way to go. What about getting rid of income tax etc and introducing a transaction tax on bank accounts? Big business does thousands of transactions, while a simple pensioner on a benefit probably takes their whole pension out in one transaction. Big business moving money o/s has to pay, and the bankjs can set it up so its automatic. Probably won't need a tax department then. Just an idea, but maybe it could work
    Anonymous
    1st May 2020
    4:26pm
    Pensioners would be very badly hurt by such a tax. It would also stipple the economy is that it would restrict the movement of money and lead to a lot more bartering and more cash transactions where no tax at all would be paid,
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    5:09pm
    Good concept Nonconformist, it would stop all those buy and sell supercomputers making money out of nothing, but which in the long term we all have to pay for, and it would stimulate the economy as it would remove the leaches.
    Retiring Well, it would not hurt the small players except in a trivial amount, but would tax the multi's lots, please don't stick up for those monsters destroying our culture, the animals and plants and the Earth itself.
    701 total psychopathic greedy monsters with no feelings, regarding us openly as sheep they are entitled to harvest, - why? because they are super rich.
    They may be paying you to comment, - just say no.
    Rae
    3rd May 2020
    9:28am
    Yes pensioners would benefit by only paying 0.5% transaction tax as the GST could be ended. All those corporations would finally pay something and it would end the mindless speculation in markets.

    Failing that returning Capital Gain to it's full payment with depreciation rather than the Howard nonsense would help the young afford housing again.

    The really wealthy pay little tax because they don't earn income but live on cashflow and capital gain which Howard ensured was minimally taxed.

    You can look at the UN research on this type of taxation by googling UN transaction tax reports.
    Jim
    1st May 2020
    5:04pm
    Abridged version of my baby boomer diary, left school at 15 to help contribute towards the family expenses, wife left just shy of 15 same reason, married at 19 and 22, bought our first home, 2 bedroom, lounge, kitchen, dining room all one room, outside dunny small bathroom, paid $8000 for it, our joint wage was about $3000 per year with both of us working overtime, most furniture second hand, bought our 2nd home a few years later, 3 bedroom brick 1 bathroom, inside toilet, $12,800, interest rate 7% grew to 12% before I managed to pay it off, wife stopped work when first child came along, my hours changed to between 60 to 80 hours a week, with much of that taxed at 60%, I worked in heavy industry and casual in pubs and clubs, no overseas holidays until the house was fully paid for. Finally bought my first new car when I was in my 50s, I didn’t know anyone that went to university, that was one of the best things from Bob Hawke when he said every child should have the right to go to University, I sometimes question if many should have gone, some I believe would have been better sticking to TAFE, so I am really sorry to all those people that think I have let them down because they can’t buy a new house or the many things that they think they are entitled to, I am not sure what more I could have done, such is life!
    Wake Up
    1st May 2020
    5:45pm
    Hey Jim mirror mirror on the wall know exactly where your coming from.
    Getting sick & tired of the WAM's of this country. WAM,s = WHAT ABOUT ME.
    If you want it earn it.
    This world owes you FA.
    Jim
    1st May 2020
    6:09pm
    I am just a little sick of being told that our generation spoilt it for the later generations, not all of the current generation believe this, I have two grandchildren that have both had casual jobs since they were 14 and 15 ,both are going to university, both are paying their fees as they go, both have their own cars, both are in their 20s now. When I was 19 the government asked me if I wanted to go on an overseas holiday, my birthday wasn’t pulled out so I was one of the fortunate ones, many others were not so lucky!
    Mary
    2nd May 2020
    9:00am
    Wow, Jim. You and your wife have worked very hard. What an inspiring story.
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    12:32pm
    Our history is very similar to yours Jim. Both worked in jobs which paid an average salary. The only thing we didn't buy for cash was our first house, but paid the mortgage as quickly as possible. If we didn't have the money upfront for something we wanted, we didn't have it until the money for it was saved up. Never been overseas, any holidays we had were interstate or at the family shack. Never tried to get out of paying our fair share of all government taxes or services. And I have never felt in the least deprived.
    auzie3136
    1st May 2020
    5:09pm
    Great idea Nomad1946
    sellulu
    1st May 2020
    5:25pm
    My statement won't help much now but I feel this should be done for the future.Time to make everybody equal. No more politicians retire except with their own superannuation, no more travel, no more staff, no more I can take my pension early. The number of pollies that go on to high paying speaking positions or overseas positions after retiring is ridiculous. One rule for all, you made enough money retire on your own. It has been shown that in this time they don't have to fly overseas for summits etc., it's called video conferencing, start saving government costs, cut your own budget before you look to the people paying you, for more. Time to start changing voting forms. We DO NOT want to vote for a particular person or party we want to vote for particular policies. Make the forms so that politicians HAVE to display their major policies (obviously there are too many for all) and they must implement (because if you say you can do it then you must be able!!) or like any good company you're fired. I would be interested to know how many politicians are qualified for their jobs? Have our treasurers had an accountancy or business degree, has our Education Minister a Teaching degree etc etc. If you have never been in these positions how the hell do you know what those sections and this country needs????? It's pretty simple to balance a budget you don't spend more than you make, and you can't take from other people to pay for your mistakes and you don't sell the bloody farm!!!!!!
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    7:26pm
    sellulu, it has been discussed that poiticians should not be paid more than cost and basic living, - basically we need politicians who don't want the job, but do it for the community.
    And retired thoughtful people who were top of their profession should be first choice.

    What we don't want is politicians who are on the make, - interested in every perk and favour they can organise for the future when they are quit of parliament, the which is the current situation, - and they will tell you they are working hard, organising the highest price for their soul, - not that they would put it that way..

    We don't need that mob.
    auzie3136
    1st May 2020
    5:28pm
    Your right Billv The government would just like us all to disappear and how better to do it than make our stress levels so high we die off. We are in their way so involuntary euthanasaia by this method would suit them.
    Willfish
    1st May 2020
    5:51pm
    If the government had the guts (and I have no doubt they do not), they would seriously start taxing the multi-national tax dodgers, the 40 percent of large Aussie companies that pay no tax, and the seriously rich who have a million methods for dodging tax. No, much easier to not upset their mates, and instead to tax the ordinary wage earners and little Australian's who don't have an army of lawyers, accountants and advertising connections to put up a PR exercise to defend their patch. Usual story, nothing to see here.
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    5:36pm
    They won't. They join the board of Directors. Just research this truth.
    Gett'n Older
    1st May 2020
    5:55pm
    Government will be better placed to look more at incentives to get people to not take out a lump sum and spend it when they near Age Pension age. There is better saving to be made there due to the way the means test works. So my thought is that lump sums have the tax concessions applied when the money went in reversed if you take out a lump sum rather than using it as an income stream.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    7:11pm
    gett'n Older, that policy you are resisting is the Covod-19 get the money moving policy, that is what we need, - all of us, including you, - if our economy collapses, the few bucks you may save will be worth nothing. - please watch the ABC, or talk to sensible friends, Australia is looking at a bumper harvest agriculturally, more food than all of us can eat, - we have to keep the economy moving so that that wealth comes in and we all survive.
    Those farmers need petrol/diesel, supplies, etc. to move that produce to the cities and the ports, so the rest of us can at least EAT, the govt is trying to keep the economy alive, - sure they could do more, but with attitudes like yours, the economy may fail, - the Govt can only supply the stimulus, it is up to each citizen to spend buy trade sell etc to keep the whole thing moving, - so think, keep the momey moving, not me me me, or they will be welding the doors of your house closed, and no doubt you will be howling "what did I do wrong." - well now you know.
    Paddo
    1st May 2020
    6:14pm
    After working hard and not Pis****ing it up a wall so that we dont have to rely on a pension we again are the fall guys. There is not benefit to be a SFR, may as well tell our kids to party and spend it, no benefit to saving.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    7:33pm
    At the moment Paddo, - good idea, but spend on valuable stuff like tools, land, etc. that can be useful when things calm down, and remember, Buy Australian. and you can't go wrong.
    Jenny
    3rd May 2020
    2:15pm
    On the other hand, if you p..sed it all against the said wall, you would end up scraping along on the age pension like so many age pensioners, hand to mouth. Is that what you would truly prefer? It confounds me how so many self-funded retirees feel that they are so badly done by, rather than congratulating themselves for managing to be self-caring and independent. Don't overlook the fact that you were not the only ones contributing to the position you are in - your employers put in dollar for dollar as well. My husband and I are SFRs, and I for one am satisfied with my lot financially, and have satisfaction in knowing I am able to be responsible for myself, and willing to put in for the general welfare.
    Youngagain
    3rd May 2020
    6:07pm
    P.... most of it up the wall but keep a few hundred thousand and collect a nice fat part pension, and you will be way, way better off than vast numbers of SFRs who - buy the way, Jenny - might not have benefited from employer contributions but might well have contributed 100% of their savings themselves. Some didn't even have super at all or had very minimal super, but accrued personal savings. Lots of my generation got nothing at all from employers. In fact, I can point to many whose personal contributions to super were stolen by unethical superannuation fund managers before the current tighter laws were implemented.

    Or you could do what someone I know has done - built a lavish waterfront mansion, faked a mental disability (easy to do), claimed NDIS benefits and a disability pension and moved her lover in as her 'carer' (on a carer's pension) paying her rent and collecting rent assistance. Living it up on the taxpayer!

    If you saved a little over the current assets threshold, you are likely to either have to live on way less than the OAP, or draw heavily on savings, which amounts to gifting your savings to the taxpayer.

    I agree with Paddo. And so do many financial advisers, who are actually telling people who can't accrue millions in assets to spend up big and make sure they qualify for a part pension.
    Grey
    1st May 2020
    6:38pm
    How about exchange of income and assets of permanent residents with other countries. There are many people who refused to be citizens as they enjoy all benefits except voting. There are people from Asian countries eg Malaysia who returned bringing all assets back, then returned to claim full pension. They also regularly go on cruises so their bank accounts are empty. Centrelink needs a court order to check their foreign passports.When Taxation asks where were their assets they said they spent it all. Secondly all migrants hundreds of thousands from India and China should not receive pensions if they never worked or pay tax.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    8:07pm
    Grey.
    No pensions for 15, or is it 20,? years, that part is already done, - the exchange? sounds interesting, could you give more ideas/thoughts on that one please?
    Mariner
    2nd May 2020
    11:49am
    The Greeks etc used that trick 50 years ago when I lived in Melbourne. Housing commission flat, never any money in the bank but a beautiful house being built amid the olive groves in the homeland. Then in old age going back and getting a full Aussie pension. Since Greece has joined the Euro that is no longer a possibility.
    Grey
    2nd May 2020
    4:52pm
    It is for 15 years starting from 2018. People I know came in before that. They get housing as well.
    On a plane I sat far from China people for fear of Covid not racist, Anyway most were Indians with Australian passports. One of them told me he holds both Indian and Australia passports not illegal in India. He flew to Malaysia with a Indian passport and from Malaysia to Australia with an Australian passport.
    In my time I held a British passport and had to surrender that when I became a Australian citizen.
    Lookfar
    3rd May 2020
    3:34pm
    Grey, retrospective legislation is always problematical, for starters, no one wants to have legislation that will take away their house and money and leave them destitute for something that was not illegal in the past, and secondly it is a hard legal task to defend if a govt decides to do it, - there is no legal right in our constitution for the govt to so do, that I have seen.
    The multibillionaires would fight the concept to the death if we tried to retrospectively tax them for all their bludging years, that is why our politicians are so scared to even enforce the current laws, - let alone to change them to make everything more fair.
    The only way I can see a change is if we make our money time dated, - as it is based on our Gross National Product, the money should reduce in value as we eat/consume the element of our GNP that no longer exists, - commonsense you would think, but no, a loaf of bread that was baked and eaten 5 years ago is part of our national wealth to this day.
    Making money time dated would mean no point in hoarding money, - money that is not used would be worth less next month, and bye bye currency traders, the Australian dollar would not be something you could gamble with.
    All in all our money would be something we could all have an interest in.

    And yes I agree that if you want to live in Australia, - with all our quirks, you must make a commitment to stay here, so no other country Passports, - within some reasonable time limit, Commit or Go.
    skinner
    1st May 2020
    6:39pm
    If they're considering this nonsense,. why not start on the stated top 20% who get the most concessions, as a first priority, & leave the rest of the pensioners unchanged?
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    7:15pm
    Only because the top 20%, (more like only .01%) are paying our politicians to leave them alone, but your argument is solid.
    Grey
    3rd May 2020
    11:01am
    Agreed with Lookfar.
    If you are a politician especially Liberal who can you push around most without blow back .
    One idea is vote but make the majority of votes invalid. What do you think?
    skinner
    1st May 2020
    6:39pm
    If they're considering this nonsense,. why not start on the stated top 20% who get the most concessions, as a first priority, & leave the rest of the pensioners unchanged?
    Viking
    1st May 2020
    7:59pm
    We know that superannuation will be targeted because Scummo said it wouldn't be. We know too that people who have financial indepedence also have political independence so they can't be bribed with their handouts which is why SFRs always miss out on on the concessions they've paid for. We know that we won't have growth in manufacturing not only because Scummo said we would but it has been the LNP and particularly the NP which has been against any protective measures on anything other than primary produce and mining for the past fifty years. Not only does protection on manufactures islightly ncrease primary production costs but badly managed industry can lead to assertive unions. If the government was serious about manufacturing we would have an Industry minister who was able to at least organise making masks locally instead of the need to bring in a high level CEO panel to show her how to do it. Our politicians are more interested in restarting footy than restarting local manufacturing.
    Lookfar
    1st May 2020
    8:10pm
    Right on, - absolutely, Viking
    Mondo
    2nd May 2020
    2:07pm
    Spot on Viking, you have summed up our political and future economic, industrial and employment dilemma in one! Non-productive sport has a higher priority than the country's future, jobs or economy.
    Lookfar
    3rd May 2020
    11:11am
    in other words, Bread and circuses.
    Grey
    2nd May 2020
    3:22pm
    Scomo would not lose elections for some time. He is riding on a right wing wave. Recent elections Labor lost because the Greens stupidly started a convoy to Queensland anti coal. The Indian company Adani like previous 2 other Indian companies one in Perth with uncompleted supermansion could not get financial support from the banks. The conservative north Queensland could not understand this.
    john
    2nd May 2020
    8:35pm
    What a load. Giving people the chance to ruin their future by drawing on super then taxing older people to pay back a debt that is our money anyway.

    WHY?

    Well simple international banks use other peoples money to get rich, the people who supply the banks with money are investors , business s', savers super annuation,plain money savers , average people who work and earn and save and buy homes at massive interest rates, these are the people...yes ... YOU AND I !
    Who have given the money changers the trillions they have to lend to nations, even though nations tax those same savers investors business' everybody, so everyone gives and the international bankers who set the interest rates at will, they make the trillions because they understand and manipulate the economies of every nation in the world,

    The coronaviruas safety net for every human involved in this pandemic , and that is 7 to 8 billion of us!!! WE OWN THAT MONEY , the international money lenders have since the days the Rothchild's loaned Britain millions to fight Napolean , those and their like, they have controlled the world of finance and all it's massive complications and fake rules and laws and greed by human mind disease, and smart wittedness and education and upper classes, is where it originated in past history, to hoodwink everyone.
    Its how finance works, it's why some only some are extraordinarily wealthy, and most are just in the middle and just make it, the rest are poor.
    That is the system of this planet, and yes its that simple, so what is needed to be paid back is only what we've already given. In all different sorts of ways!

    It is actually exactly that simple, it is corrupt ? It is absolutely!
    But it is a corruption that most humans don't see, and don't really care, because it works to some degree pretty well for most plebians. They think?

    UNTIL A PANDEMIC TURNS UP, then the ones in the finacial manipulation operations old and established, they owe all people the safety net!!! Of money, we owe no one a cent, but we'll have to pay and as usual some swine will make a killing, probably a lot of them. It is a crooked world . Where else does the average working man or woman think that these international pariahs , get the money to begin the manipulation in the first place?

    From we, the populations of the world!
    john
    2nd May 2020
    8:42pm
    I'll add a PS, who do we actually owe the money to, I would like a list , someone??????????

    Anyone?????????
    Youngagain
    6th May 2020
    9:40am
    John, if we owe money to younger Aussies, then I guess our parents and grandparents must have owed us when they were enjoying record high interest on their savings and we were crippled with 17%+ rates on our mortgages. Did we ask them to pay up? Never even hinted at taking from them as far as I can recall.
    Youngagain
    3rd May 2020
    10:49am
    Why target retirees? What about the high income earners who are enjoying ridiculous tax concessions to pump millions into superannuation, while low income workers get virtually no concessions on their super contributions or earnings?

    Oh, but a fair tax on super for those still 'working' would hit overpaid pollies, bureaucrats, and 'think tank' non-thinkers, and we can't have that, can we? Just slug the oldies. They are such an easy target.
    Youngagain
    3rd May 2020
    10:49am
    Why target retirees? What about the high income earners who are enjoying ridiculous tax concessions to pump millions into superannuation, while low income workers get virtually no concessions on their super contributions or earnings?

    Oh, but a fair tax on super for those still 'working' would hit overpaid pollies, bureaucrats, and 'think tank' non-thinkers, and we can't have that, can we? Just slug the oldies. They are such an easy target.
    Priscilla
    3rd May 2020
    12:10pm
    Why not just line us all up against a wall and shoot us! As it is our super has been decimated and we have NO WAY of contributing further. Retirees of tired of being by the government with excessive deeming rates etc. We pay tax on super as it is. Banks make billions a quarter and huge corporations like Twiggy Forrester. Sorry, he is just interested in the Chinese so he doesn't lose his money.
    Lookfar
    3rd May 2020
    3:48pm
    Priscilla, best to avoid "one size fits All solutions", none of us are the same, and I am sure none of us would agree on which wall.

    I suspect you are correct though in blaming the Banks, - they are the ones committed to paying back -
    Us paying them back for the money they loaned you that they created with the twitch of a pen, - or in these days the press of a keyboard button, - such blatant hypocrisy, - it disgusts me.

    So, now that all of us have worked, for our working life, and paid 7% of our wages to the Pensioner Retirement Fund established in 1915 ? - Somewhere back then, and we are all still paying it, they ignore all that money and try to take more from us.

    Greed has no conscience, never vote for greed.
    P$cript
    3rd May 2020
    8:37pm
    Isn't it wonderful that the Liberals called the Labor's election policy as a retiree tax, which it wasn't and the idiots voted for the LNP and now we could all be hit by an actual retiree tax.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2020
    10:35am
    Rubbish the LNP won't touch the non refund of franking credits.

    Anyone with over $1.6 million in super should be taxed at their marginal rate. The likes of Dick Smith are laughing at present and thinking that the loss of a few franking credits is nothing compared to what they would lose if they were taxed on their excess super at their marginal rate.
    Anonymous
    4th May 2020
    10:35am
    Rubbish the LNP won't touch the non refund of franking credits.

    Anyone with over $1.6 million in super should be taxed at their marginal rate. The likes of Dick Smith are laughing at present and thinking that the loss of a few franking credits is nothing compared to what they would lose if they were taxed on their excess super at their marginal rate.
    Youngagain
    4th May 2020
    11:15am
    A proper 'retiree tax' - designed to tax wealthy retirees - would be good for the nation and more than fair. Labor's version of a 'retiree tax' was grossly unfair, cruel and detrimental. It would have resulted in tens - if not hundreds - of thousands paying a grossly unfair tax on incomes less than or barely equal to the OAP, despite saving the nation tens of thousands every year by self-funding. Meanwhile, it allowed quite wealthy part pensioners to retain their franking credits, merely because they manipulated more cunningly to reduce their assessable assets.
    Blossom
    5th May 2020
    8:45am
    We have already paid tax when Super is taken out of our gross .........and they want to tax again. We are being discouraged from putting more into our Super. I have heard and read a lot of comments about it
    Grey
    5th May 2020
    10:16am
    Just a general comment. I am on many social comments site. This is the most reasoned and thoughtful with few vitriol comments. Is it because we are old, no axes to grind, non political and have more experience with life than our stupid politicians
    Youngagain
    5th May 2020
    2:01pm
    Um... back in the day, I seem to recall our parents and grandparents were partying on very high interest receipts while we struggled through the 'recession we had to have' paying 17% interest on home loans. I don't recall anyone suggesting our oldies should be forced to sacrifice more to make our lives easier. But I guess back then there was a lot more respect for senior Australians and more recognition of their contribution to the nation.
    Youngagain
    5th May 2020
    2:01pm
    Um... back in the day, I seem to recall our parents and grandparents were partying on very high interest receipts while we struggled through the 'recession we had to have' paying 17% interest on home loans. I don't recall anyone suggesting our oldies should be forced to sacrifice more to make our lives easier. But I guess back then there was a lot more respect for senior Australians and more recognition of their contribution to the nation.
    Lookfar
    5th May 2020
    2:56pm
    True Youngagain, but you can't expect any government to respect the old folk who just vote for them, = year after year whether the govt is destroying them or their country or not, the Govt only woos Swinging voters, not the rusted on Liberal sleepers.

    Regarding the original proposal that the Govt will need to tax the whoever vulnerable group, - all that stimulus money will come back to them two fold, because it Stimulates the economy.

    The only problem is the multinationals that don't pay tax, they just keep the stimulus money so may leave the Govt short.

    As they were always the problem, the govt needs to make them behave, - perhaps deregister them, confiscate their assets, - whatever works to make them behave.
    Youngagain
    6th May 2020
    9:27am
    Sadly, Lookfar, we don't have a lot of choice when it comes to voting. Our two-party system denies us the rights democracy purports to deliver. You vote for an independent or minor party and the vote most likely goes to a major party you may or may not have wanted to support. Otherwise you vote for the lesser of two evils - and it's damned hard to determine which that is. I despise the LNP, but no way could I ever vote for a party that destroys to value of personal endeavour and seeks to plunge us all into equal hardship. I supported the Greens for a time, until I saw how much harm they were causing with their socialist agenda. I am in favour of their environmental protection measures, but their extremist nonsense when it comes to morality and income redistribution makes it impossible for me to support them. Plus, they proved themselves shallow, careless and unthinking - pushing and supporting policies that were harmful based solely on nice-sounding platitudes like 'millionaires shouldn't get pensions'. (Of course they shouldn't, but how do you assess whether someone is a millionaire? By some measures, every age pensioner is a 'millionaire', whereas a couple who appear have $1 mil between them may not be particularly wealthy at all, depending on their circumstances. Currently, we are subsidising some very rich 'pensioners' while depriving battlers and plunging them into hardship for no better reason than that they tried to be self-supporting.)

    What we need in Australia is UNSELFISH THINKERS. Sadly, self-interest dominates in every area of politics. And the way we reward our politicians is the first obstacle to attracting the right people... but even if we fixed that, we are still faced with the problem that being on the 'inside' of policy making extends huge opportunities for unfair material gain, and people will continue to put the seeking of that gain above what is good for nation and its people. It's human nature to be selfish. And for politicians, supporting multinationals is profitable. They will continue to make a case for letting them misbehave while it appears to be to the personal benefit of those making decisions.
    Youngagain
    6th May 2020
    9:37am
    BTW. Lookfar. When it comes to respecting the aged, the LNP has by far the superior record. Not good, and deteriorating rapidly, but definitely superior to Labor and the Greens' continual attack on anyone who accepts personal responsibility. Aggressive means testing (introduced by Labor) is rewarding manipulation and irresponsible lifestyles, while forcing all but the very rich into hardship. Ultimately, it is harmful to the nation because we need more people to save and be responsible, but the punishment is too harsh. Where the LNP falls down is in failing the genuinely needy, but it's hard to determine whether that failure is worse than creating more needy with policies that harshly punish people for striving. Ultimately, creating more needy means we won't have the capacity to support the needy as well.
    Grey
    8th May 2020
    1:19pm
    To retiring well,
    "The reason that that a company does not pay any tax is because they don't earn any income. So they are taxed correctly."
    That is incorrect , I was a cost accountant with one of the largest US companies in Australia 40 years ago. There was a tax scheme which allowed allocation of international costs to countries with the lowest costs which meant they were not taxed at all.
    Lookfar
    8th May 2020
    2:25pm
    Youngagain, in your last comment, 6th May, you seem to be supporting that erroneous theory of leaners and lifters, made particularly pathetic by Joe Hockey, those who lean forward in order to put their back into getting the car out of the bog and those who pick up anything not tied down.
    The theory has a quasi religious fervour to it and is held by the very rich, as it justifies all the naughty things they did to get so rich.
    It has no religious justification however as it says in the bible that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man get to heaven, yet you have done all sorts of judgement based on some concept of responsibility, - the rich, particularly the Super rich, are in the main responsible for climate change/global warming, - this sort of responsibility we can well do without
    Big Kev
    11th May 2020
    1:40pm
    If we apply Modern Monetary Theory to this expenditure, it is not something we have to pay back but rather an investment for the future. In fact the Government should maintain this expenditure and use it for training purposes for post-covid employment.
    Lookfar
    11th May 2020
    3:17pm
    Yes, Big Kev, so true, - funny, some of us old dogs can learn new tricks, but the puffed up pollies are finding it a lot harder.
    All good clean fun..
    Cool Nanna
    13th May 2020
    2:50pm
    These proposals regarding taxing super and super pension phase don’t make me fearful, they make me angry!!! We have worked our guts out and gone without luxuries for most of our life - firstly to pay off our home, and for much of that time @ 17% interest, when our children left the nest we salary sacrificed and put extra into super so that we wouldn’t have to struggle on the pension as our parents had done in retirement. I could go on all day about the reasons all this makes me angry but I won’t. Simply raise the GST and then we will all pay. This government needs to be reminded that many of their voters are age 65 and over and still vote!!!!
    Grey
    13th May 2020
    5:27pm
    Hear! Hear! No need to raise GST, there savings everywhere, just nobody looks into it. There was no need. I was a civil servant. While people lose their jobs or get pay cuts, we get pay increases with publicised cuts in electricity lights out etc. They add on the magic figure of 10% or 15% in the budget.
    Lookfar
    13th May 2020
    5:27pm
    Cool Nanna, my understanding is that the big corporations, - ie the Super rich, do not pay GST.

    It was not supposed to be like that according to Howard, but the Tax situation in Australia says that a business must pay Tax on it's Profits less it's expenses, - the which on the face of it is only fair, - you set up a road style stall, selling your /? watermelons, - $1/-/kilo, you sell, if you are lucky, 1,000. kilo, (not that lucky, - watermelons are heavy) so if you are putting in your BSB, you earn $1000. "Aha," screams the tax department (30%, or something similiar) belongs to us, and it comes off your pension also, plus GST to us as well.
    Fairs fair, you have to pay for the expenses of growing your watermelons, - fertiliser for your garden, seeds, extra electricity and water, fencing, contribution to running your truck to get your produce to the market, insurance fees , market fees, etc etc, GST, so you can claim for all those expenses, - which reduces your income by that amount, so you are taxed on that expenses minus amount.
    GST is a cost of running a business, so is a tax deduction, all big businesses have legal Experts making sure that they can label absolutely every thing as a tax deduction, even if it is in another country or just extreme CEO wages, rightly or wrongly - that is why they pay no tax.
    It was the intention of Howard that they would pay the GST, but like most pollies, need a sniffer dog to find their own arsehole, could not understand the whole picture, so the super rich ended up not paying the GST, 'legally', it is just we Lookfars, and Cool Nanna's that pay GST.

    Who, Cool Nanna will pay more GST, - just you and me, Cool Nanna.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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