Federal Budget: Mr Morrison confirms super tax concessions will end

Superannuation tax concessions will be wound back in the May 2016 budget.

Speaking at The Australian Financial Review Business Summit yesterday, Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison confirmed that superannuation tax concessions will be reined in in the May budget.

The changes to super concessions will align with changes to asset thresholds to the part-pension that the Government announced in 2015.

“Last year we successfully legislated the first phase of our reforms to retirement incomes with our changes to the pension assets test, reversing the taper rate changes of the Howard–Costello Government that had extended access to a part pension to those with assets in addition to the family home of more than $1 million,” said Mr Morrison. “These changes were based on the simple principle that the pension is a welfare payment for those who are not in a position to support themselves independently in retirement.”

In what is being termed “the second phase of reform to retirement incomes”, winding back super tax concessions is one of the few viable options for effective tax reform left on the table. After recommendations from the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) led by David Murray, the Government is taking steps to ensure a fair and sustainable retirement income system.

Whilst superannuation remains an area of interest for tax reform, other oft-speculated options such as cuts to personal and company income tax rates, have been all but ruled out, with Mr Morrison claiming that other measures are a priority.

He also stuck to his mantra that the most pressing concern of this year’s budget is to control expenditure, saying that further tax cuts would only come about through the creation of jobs and economic growth.

Although there has been speculation that the budget could be expedited to 3 May to make way for a possible early election, Mr Morrison said it will still go ahead on 10 May as planned.

What do you think of the Government’s announcement that it will wind back super tax concessions? Is this good news for you? Or do you feel tax reform could come through other avenues? What do you suggest?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Blinky Bill
    16th Mar 2016
    11:45am
    I shall like most others wait to read about these proposed changes termed "the second phase of the reform to retirement income" once enacted. However, I do consider the raining in of superannuation tax concessions to be one of the budget options that will be preferred by most of the electorate. This alone may make the difference needed to bump the Liberal party over the line in the next election.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    12:54pm
    I agree that ending the rorts for the those who are well off need to happen...immediately.
    I have a complete distrust in anything this government says and will believe it when legislation is through BEFORE the next election.
    Morrison's Stage 1 (for average Australians) was brutal and clearly enacted to rout the poor. Stage 2 is yet to come but I am willing to bet it will be gentle because it affects the rich. We'll see.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    12:56pm
    I have no doubt the Liberals will win the next election.

    I have already told my kids not to put any extra money into as I see it being nationalised before they get to retirement age. If there is anything left in your super after you die then it goes to the government not your estate.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:10pm
    All the Party faithful feel the same way bonny.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:25pm
    Do they Mick? I guess you know more about the Liberal party then I do.
    Rae
    16th Mar 2016
    2:35pm
    I agree Bonny and have told my kids exactly the same thing.

    I also hold most of my income producing assets outside the super system for safety sake.

    I believe salary sacrifice is a tax minimisation that could be stopped.

    Returns above a certain level should generate some taxes.

    Some 2000 super funds have over $10 million in them all making tax free income which is unfair to ordinary workers paying tax on earnings.
    ex PS
    16th Mar 2016
    2:37pm
    Morrison will not bite the hands that feed the party machine, watch it will be like chasing multinationals to pay their fair share of tax, too complicated, too hard and too much chance of upsetting their financial backers.
    Multinational Companies and wealthy citezens to the LNP are the same as Unions to the ALP, basically untouchable
    HarrysOpinion
    16th Mar 2016
    2:47pm
    Forget what politicians say.
    What truly matters is what they do. And what they do is vote, to write our laws which affect us all.
    There is web site: theyvoteforyou.org.au
    A good starting point that identifies the MPs, Policies, Divisions and more.
    Educate yourselves who you should vote for.
    Patriot
    16th Mar 2016
    2:51pm
    Did Morrison's "Lips Move" when he conveyed his messages???
    Adrianus
    16th Mar 2016
    6:08pm
    Be careful what you say to your kids. They are depending on you for guidance.
    If a young person saves a small amount regularly until retirement, whenever that may be, then what can be a problem with that?
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    6:16pm
    Agree a young person should save but not in the super system.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    7:40pm
    The problem with that, Frank, is that if they happen to save more than some random changeable-without-notice figure, they will be punished with a loss of income of $78 for every $1000 saved. Now, if they can only get 3% interest, that means they will be forced to donate $48 to the taxpayer every year for every $1000 they saved.

    Put another way, if as a homeowner couple, they save $823,000 (on the figures to apply from Jan 17) they will likely earn about $22,500 per year (allowing for non-returning assets of car, furniture, etc.) and forfeit some $33,000 plus several thousand in benefits, thus being deprived of well in excess of $10,500 a year income every year until their assets fall low enough to get a full pension.

    And now it appears Morrison proposes to ALSO tax them on their assets, so they will be compelled to spend all their savings to live while those who didn't save live off the taxpayer. In other words, they will be forced to donate all their savings to other taxpayers who lived more extravagantly than they did and enjoyed all the lifestyle benefits they went without to save.

    Why would any idiot save under these conditions?
    Rae
    17th Mar 2016
    8:21am
    You explained the problem very well Rainey. It makes sense of the crowds seen every Sunday morning at Brunch in the local restaurants and the increased levels of consumption and tourism. People obviously are spending rather than saving extra.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    9:48am
    I would rather have $823,000 going into retirement than be destitute.
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2016
    11:02am
    Bonny, if this grab for Super works, what stops them from going after other forms of retirement investment? Politicians have an insatiable appetite for other peoples money they will not be able to stop themselves.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    11:31am
    What a typical LNP response, Frank. How stupid is that comment? Of course anyone would rather have $823,000 than be destitute. That's not the point. The point is, does a sensible government that wants to encourage saving and self-sufficiency in old age deprive people who save and plan responsibly of the rewards for doing that and make them sacrifice everything they worked for, while those who didn't sacrifice are better off?

    If you are going to make someone worse off for having gone without those luxury holidays and restaurant dinners and avoided the poker machines, then people are going to throw up their hands and say ''why go without to save''. It's STUPID. Reward the savers and you have more saving, less people on pensions, less drain on taxpayers, more money to give to the really needy, healthier economy, healthier society.

    And if you are going to take people's savings, at least have the decency to consider their income relative to the $70,000 a year retiree couple who are still getting a part pension while the $22,500 a year retiree couple is getting none!

    People will ALWAYS find a way to serve their own interests. If the government rewards them for being selfish and dishonest and punishes those who are unselfish and honest, it's not hard to guess what the result will be. My full pensioner neighbours sank $1.5 million into a house and gave $1.5 million to their kids before turning 60 so they wouldn't lose pension benefits. That's exactly what I'll advise my friends and children to do, because they are laughing at me now, worrying about how fast my hard-won saving are going to disappear while people who lived the high life on salaries three times what I earned are partying on taxpayer handouts, getting hundreds knocked off their rates bills, free licenses and registration, discounts at shops and hairdressers, and getting medical specialist treatment that I have to pay hundreds for totally free of charge.

    I'm thinking the sooner I can spend half my savings, the better, because it's making me poorer than if I only had half as much. The sole benefit for 50+ years of going without and working overtime is accruing to the government, while people with $400,000 are getting more than twice my income, huge additonal benefits, have financial security, and don't have to touch their savings. The ONLY way for me to benefit from my savings is to take a world cruise and blow half of it.

    For a moron treasurer to create that situation is positively insane, and only an idiot would endorse the policy. Sadly, we have must have a majority of idiots in both houses, and a lot of idiot voters supporting them.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    3:01pm
    I think I understand what your perfect world is like Rainey. You don't want those who are worse off than you to be better off than you, because you feel as though your effort has been greater? Who are you to judge?
    You are chasing economic egalitarianism? Good luck with that.
    If any young people are reading this thread, please take no notice of those who would use you, for their own political agenda, as they would sacrifice pawns in a game of chess.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    5:31pm
    Once again, you make stupid remarks Frank. My ''perfect'' world is one in which those who work and save are rewarded fairly. I don't give a hoot who is better off than me, as long as the rewards of my work and saving are not STOLEN from me by a dishonest government that gives nice handouts to people who didn't save.

    I'm NOT chasing economic egalitarianism. I'm chasing COMMON SENSE FAIRNESS AND INCENTIVES. You want people to work and save, you let them enjoy the reward. Structure the pensions means test so that it is income-based and DOES NOT strip people of their hard-won savings.

    Every country needs a strong welfare safety net to protect the disabled, sick, aged, and disadvantaged. That's common sense. And nobody should object to paying a fair contribution to ensuring that is provided. Similarly, we should all be prepared to kick in to fund a decent public health and education system, roads, communication network, national security, police and emergency services, etc. No issue with that. A fair, progressive tax system that delivers that if you avoid pandying to the greed of the privileged with special concessions for this, that and the other.

    But when it comes to retirement, it is NOT fair, sensible, or economically or socially productive to take back all the proceeds of someone's hard work and sacrifice.

    It's not difficult. The return rate averages 3%. Assume a notional income of 3% on assets excluding a fair allowance for non-returning personal and household items and apply an income test that measures the HIGHEST of actual income or notional income. Nobody is punished for saving, and those who worked their guts out in younger years and went without so they could have income from investments later are not disadvantaged compared to those fortunate enough to be able to live it up in younger years and work longer and earn a healthy income in later life.

    I have no issue at all with fair taxes and means tests. Denying someone a part pension because they went without to save when their income has been slashed - through no fault of theirs - to half the pension is NOT FAIR. Nothing LNP-supporters can say can make it fair. It isn't. You know it isn't. They know it isn't. It's supported purely out of greed and laziness. The LNP doesn't want to tax it's rich buddies and funders. It can't take much from the have-nothings, because you can't get blood out of a stone. So their solution is to say ''Oh look. Those guys there have worked and saved for their retirement. We'll just take all their money. They aren't rich enough to fight back or to be our funders. We don't need their votes. So we'll just steal what they have and then tell big fat lies about it being ''unfair to pay pensions to millionaires'' (never mind that they aren't! Never let truth get in the way of a convenient political lie!)

    At present, we have a STUPID AND DESTRUCTIVE system that says if you're lucky enough to earn $60,000 a year you can have a part pension. If you are lucky enough (or dishonest enough) to have put millions into a home or given your wealth to your kids before you turned 60 you can have a full pension. If you put it all thru the pokies or spent it on world cruises, you can have a full pension. If you are willing to break your marriage and split your income and one partner buy themselves a house, you can get a full pension. If you worked and saved and were honest and complied with the law, go to hell! You get NOTHING for your efforts.

    Yeah, good one, Frank. You support the morons who support that crap system, and then wonder why the next generation is likely to say ''Up yours. Ain't saving. Blow the lot so the stinking greedy government can't shaft me like it did my poor parents.'' I'm hearing it every day now. And no wonder. The message is very clear. Get rich or stay poor. DO NOT work your guts out to climb from poverty to what OUGHT to be modest comfort, because you'll be stamped on and ground right back down again.
    ex PS
    21st Mar 2016
    9:55pm
    Frank, I neither care nor want to know what the person living next door is getting in the way of government aide. What I care about is a government that rewards effort by thieving off the people who put in the work.
    This government seems to be intent on destroying the Super System for some sort of political gain, maybe they are trying to create a cheap future labour force for their backers in big business by taking all independance away from future retirees?
    Makes sense destroy Super and then pull pensions, instant work force who will be forced into working for slave wages in slave conditions.
    The government needs to realise, it doesn't matter how much money their backroom supporters have, they still only get one vote.
    Star Trekker
    16th Mar 2016
    12:02pm
    I wonder if they would include their own super scheme.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    12:32pm
    Pig's bum!
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    12:58pm
    And pigs will fly. What do you think?
    HarrysOpinion
    16th Mar 2016
    2:33pm
    Many 'Pigs' actually do fly at our expense.
    Patriot
    16th Mar 2016
    2:52pm
    HS,

    Love the "sense of Humuor - So true!
    Adrianus
    16th Mar 2016
    6:09pm
    Beam me up Scotty.
    Shep
    16th Mar 2016
    12:12pm
    Ask any baby boomer if its fair to wind back super tax concessions? better still so called political parties that run this country by lies, smoke and mirrors and greed and have no idea what the real world is like, just turn me up side down and shake me until I have nothing left then throw me in a hole because you JUST DONT CARE!!!. No political party in Australia at the moment has any vision or commitment for Australia's future due to their own interests and party lines and don't forget about their retirement benefits they get into politics do nothing but follow party lines like Lemmings and we the Tax payer give them a retirement lifestyle that smacks of upper class snobbery, THEY JUST DONT CARE!!!!
    Lescol
    16th Mar 2016
    12:31pm
    Shep and others. Nothing will be achieved by us Seniors until we agree upon our strengths. Vote to change the current government else there will be change. Simple.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    1:02pm
    United we win. Divided we are conquered. Morrison and the front bench have already decided that he/they can roll pensioners.
    If we all voted against the major parties and for Independents who are not owned by the big end of town then politics in our country would change overnight. Sadly I suspect that older people generally are set in their ways and only a few have enough grey matter left as well as a lifetime of memories about politics to do what is necessary: vote the bastards out!
    Ahjay
    16th Mar 2016
    1:48pm
    The main problem appears to be the old divide and rule system. The two major parties spend 90% of their energy trying to destroy each other whilst big business runs the country.
    I agree with Mick, vote independent.'
    Donations to Political Parties should be a criminal offence. Nobody gives to them without expecting favors in return. They are nothing but bribes and should be treated as such.
    All campaign funding could come from the public purse.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:12pm
    Manna from heaven. Thanks Ahjay.
    ex PS
    16th Mar 2016
    2:33pm
    I agree with Mick, we need to put aside our traditional ideas about voting either Labor or LNP and let governments and prospective governments know that they have got to take into account senior backlash against the biased action against us.
    They have demonstrated their lack of respect to seniors time and time again by ignoring multinational companies that avoid paying their fair share of tax and choosing to go after what they see as a soft target, namely seniors.
    Time to consider not who to vote in but who best to vote out in order to make a point, lets' face it traditional voters who support one party or another do not choose or influence governments, it is the swinging voter that decides who rules.
    Going on the history of this government, if they win the next election they will act on most of the issues that have been brought up over the last 12 months and claim that because they have been discussed publicly the government has a Mandate to implement them.
    Hawkeye
    16th Mar 2016
    4:12pm
    ex PS (so am I by the way) I agree totally when you say "time to consider not who to vote in but who best to vote out" and I have a simple way to do this.
    On voting day I accept the how-to-vote cards from the party I least wish to govern (love seeing the smug looks on their faces when they think I've been persuaded to vote their way).
    Then I walk inside and proceed to follow their how-to-vote card exactly, BUT IN THE REVERSE ORDER.
    This method puts their man last, with all the independents ahead of them, and ensures all their cosy little preference deals work against them.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    6:02pm
    I don't much like Labor, but vote ANYTHING else this time and you are putting the LNP back in power. Wake up for goodness sake. We MUST get rid of the LNP. ONLY voting Labor will achieve that. Split the vote among independents and minors and the LNP get the majority.
    ex PS
    16th Mar 2016
    9:24pm
    Rainey, yes it would seem that Labor is the lesser of two weavels, but there is not enough difference between them an the LNP to satisfy me that we won't have the same problems with them as with this hopeless mob.
    It goes against decades of personal voting history and it may cause temporary pain, but we must send a message to both of the so called major partys, that if they continue to treat the voters with contempt neither of them will run the country.
    Maybe Hawkeye has the solution?
    Brue
    17th Mar 2016
    2:12pm
    I agree people who go into poltics are not there for the people. They go into poltics to start their position in the trough and FU#% everybody else.

    16th Mar 2016
    12:33pm
    No one is Scott free.
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2016
    10:51am
    We could be if everyone who could targeted his seat in the next election, it would be the strongest message possible that we are not the soft target that the polies think mwe are.
    Bane
    16th Mar 2016
    12:41pm
    There is still no mention of how the government is going to tackle the tax-rort perpetrated on this country by foreign companies such as Apple etc. Surely the ATO's so called limited resources would be best spent investigating these with a much greater return rather than prying pennies out of the little guys. I understand that we and only we can pay down the deficit but lets be fair and have everyone including these billion dollar profit companies do their share. Removing the loop-holes would be a start to tax reform and perhaps make a base rate that everyone pays - perhaps that is too simplistic for our politicians.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    1:05pm
    Ignore it. That must be pretty darn clear. So the question which needs to be asked is HOW MUCH ELECTION FUNDING DONATIONS are multinationals making through whatever body like to call themselves. This is, I suggest, where the ultimate corruption will be uncovered in the future. The well hidden fraudulent deals done in secret and hidden from the public gaze by legislation and clever manipulation will be exposed and the crooks posing as MPs will fall.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    1:06pm
    People power just don't buy their goods.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:12pm
    ???????? zzzzzzz.......
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2016
    11:06am
    Bonny good plan, unfortunatley Australia doesn't make anything any more and even if they did I would be willing to bet they would have an offshore account.
    Even if we could identify the companies that played fair, would there be enough of them to provide the majority of what we need?
    Goldleaf
    16th Mar 2016
    12:41pm
    If the Coalition implemented a plan similar to Labor's, I would support it but as they have shown that they are primarily concerned with wealthier members of our society, I doubt that any proposal will benefit the majority of us who earn less than $80k per year from their super. Would they also restore the dependent spouse rebate? Many superannuants in the baby boomer generation are also supporting wives who have less super. We also have to deal with low interest rates and minimal chances for 'pay increases' to cope with increased bills and costs of living. Morrison needs to tread very carefully with this one.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    1:09pm
    The reality is the whole system needs to be exposed and rebuilt from the ground up.
    The best this government can come up with is to tax the poor and repeatedly cry out for corporate tax cuts for their rich backers. Obscene if it were not factual!
    Rae
    16th Mar 2016
    2:42pm
    Yes unsurprisingly the only self funded retirees to have the pension changes grandfathered were the really wealthy. Ordinary earners lost money and the changes were retrospect for them.

    It won't surprise me if any future changes affect ordinary superannuation but leave the really wealthy untouched or grandfathered. Cynic that I've become.
    Paulodapotter
    16th Mar 2016
    3:27pm
    The Buffet Rule must eventually be applied to multinational corporations before anything else is considered in tax reform.
    Not Senile Yet!
    16th Mar 2016
    12:51pm
    The 1st phase was unfairly aimed at the Bottom Half and left out the Top Half.....if they think they can get away with it...expect more of the same!
    What the people want is All Super to be tax free....no tax concessions whatsoever....and the Mp,'s included in that!
    Pipe dreams are free.....but this mob won'the do that....will they?
    Neither will the other mob....just are just Clubs not Parties....Vote all the Party Puppets Out!!
    ###@###@@##@bludgeso the lot of them!
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    1:10pm
    Yes! And as I said above I doubt that this government will go after the top end. All talk. The best you are likely to see is a slap on the wrist policy. ALL TALK I IMAGINE.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    1:39pm
    Actually, all super tax free will benefit the top end even more.

    The current system taxes at 15%, then at full rate once someone contributes more than allowed for their age. Making it tax free will mean top end will simply pour more money into super, building a huge tax free nest egg for their use at retirement (or to pass to their kids as inheritance).
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:15pm
    Methinks you are very naive Richied. So you really think governments are not coming after superannuation savings. National emergency? Restore the budget? Save the nation? I can hear the slogans already. And then they'll plunder YOUR money.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    2:40pm
    Wow, Mick - I didn't expect an attack.

    I was simply commenting on the statement in the first post that 'all Super to be tax free''.

    Currently, all pre-tax contributions are taxed at 15% (which is generally concessional), and then at the full tax rate once a person contributes more than the limit set for their age. Then, when a person retires, they may pay tax on some of their super, and then at their marginal tax rate less amount paid on the way in (eg. 15%).

    A person on higher income would benefit more from removal of super taxes.

    I made no mention of superannuation savings. But I'm happy to have a full discussion on that, as long as there aren't more (perhaps unwarranted) attacks.
    PJ
    16th Mar 2016
    1:14pm
    Er.... What happened to the pre-election promise of no changes to Pensions / Superannuation in this term of parliament??

    Also the statement "pension is a welfare payment for those who are not in a position to support themselves independently in retirement" is incorrect - it is a reward for service (see when it was enacted in 1908).
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    1:40pm
    Just about every pre-election promise, on any policy, has been broken.
    KSS
    16th Mar 2016
    1:49pm
    Do keep up PJ. The laws surrounding the pension have changed several times since its inception. Harking back to 1908 is pointless. Also back in 1908 few MEN (and it was men) ever lived long enough to draw a pension and those that did died soon after. Today most people reach pensionable age and live up to 20 or more years on it.

    Things change over time.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:17pm
    You forget PJ all promises were off when the last election was over. The campaign promises were actually INTENTIONAL LIES and Abbott wasted no time in setting about doing what he had been instructed to do by the big end of town.
    PJ
    16th Mar 2016
    2:30pm
    Election promises certainly change over time KSS!

    There is enough money in the system if we can increase the revenue from the tax-avoiding corporates firstly, don't start by hitting the vulnerable and those who are least able to afford it.
    HarrysOpinion
    16th Mar 2016
    3:26pm
    Cutting welfare purely for ideological reasons about leaners and lifters, or because you need to find cuts to meet some bogus timeframe for returning the budget to surplus is not something to applaud.
    TREBOR
    19th Mar 2016
    3:16pm
    So, KSS - we make the law that it is a right for anyone to access the reward for their work and tax money - then we arbitrarily change that at whim - and that is now somehow the New Law?

    I believe that very principle to be the basis of the current coming revolution here... and fits in perfectly with the idea that elected representative assume unto themselves some form of
    Divine Right... when they have no such thing.

    The money paid via taxes for pensions has never altered - only its naming - so there is no argument to support your contention.
    Circum
    16th Mar 2016
    1:26pm
    Not enough information to give an opinion.And which concessions are we talking about.Concessions during accumulation or during retirement?
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:03pm
    Agree it's all speculation.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    1:34pm
    Let's do some simple arithmetic. If you started paying super in 1992 (when it became compulsory), and you earned an average wage every year since then, and earned an average of 4% per annum on your super savings, you'd have around $220-250k in super now (Happy to share the calculations with anyone). If you continue working for another 10 years, you'll have a super nest egg of just under $500k (about $380k in today's money, assuming 3% inflation). That's not an awful lot of super to live on, and if that is you're only asset apart from your home, you'll be relying on a part pension.

    Between 2003 and 2013 there was no increase in the super rate, meaning the only way people have been able to ' keep up' with savings is to put more pre-tax funds into super.
    The current system encourages those with the capacity to pay more to save more through pre-tax contributions, at the expense of society as a whole (who pays for those tax concessions). Those who are unable to increase their pre-tax contributions will continue to fall behind on their savings, and become even more dependent on a pension.

    Yes, reducing the tax concession on additional payments into super is just one avenue, but it won't hurt too much the top end too much, won't do anything to increase the savings of those at or below average income (so won't reduce dependence on pensions in future), nor will it address other rorts in the system.

    It would be useful to have a package of changes to super, to bring back the balance and remove the inequities.

    1. Increase the speed of increases to compulsory super. The current plan is to have no increases till 2021 - an increase of 0.25% per annum will have a very solid increase to people's super funds, with little or no impact to business costs.

    2. Remove the capability of inputting additional funds to super once someone starts transition to retirement.

    3. Increase the tax on additional super contributions from 15% to 20%.
    Star Trekker
    16th Mar 2016
    1:50pm
    If Super income (while being accumulated)including SGC by employers and salary sacrifice was taxed at the person's normal tax rate, a lot of low income workers would pay no tax on their super. This would hit those earning $$$ in their super. All withdrawals would need to be tax free as the tax has already been paid.

    I pay tax on the interest that I earn (a measly $13 per year) and the Govt. take 15%. I do not pay tax on my income as I am below the threshold.
    Why should I pay tax on this pitiful amount?

    The wealthy can get away with paying little or no tax with the help of their accountants, so why do I have to pay for the concession they get for their super.
    Diamond Jim
    16th Mar 2016
    2:06pm
    Hit the 500 companies that pay ZERO tax, NOT retirees!
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:30pm
    The top 500 companies do pay tax just not all in Australia.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    3:06pm
    Star Trekker: I don't know a way that a person can pay little or no tax on pre-tax super contributions. High income earners can minimise their income tax (which is tax on income after their pre-tax super contributions).

    There are a number of ways a high income earner can use super to reduce their income tax - eg. they can contribute more pre-tax to super (up to the limits set by their age. But all pre-tax contributions is still taxed at 15% going in.

    Don't forget also that lower income earners are entitled to super co-contributions - that'means the government will pay up to $500 if you pay that much into super. After tax, your $500 can become 750 (I haven't checked but I think the 15% is charged on the government contribution too). So in your case, putting additional $500 ($10 a week) in to super will not only offset what you are taxed on super, but the government will give you an extra $230+ a year. Removing taxes would also mean removing the co-contribution.

    I think the co-contribution should remain (I don't think it should have been reduced from the previous $1000).
    Star Trekker
    16th Mar 2016
    3:18pm
    I do not get anything as I no longer work. I cope with a couple's Carer pension (hubby on DSP). I can no longer afford to put money into super.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    3:28pm
    Ah sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were getting an income below the threshold and still paying into super.
    gillham
    16th Mar 2016
    1:40pm
    It is very hard to comment when the extent of the plan is not published.

    I'm a totally self funded retiree. My super puts me above the income threshold (just).

    The initial reader comment is the most apt. Are we talking of pre retirement or post

    retirement concessions.

    The greatest rort is double dipping maternity leave gratuity accumulators. We pay more to keep women in the workforce than their productivity outcomes amount to in total. But who would be game to confront the female juggernaut. Not these spineless creatures running the show.

    Went to a Specialist the other day. I had to pay as $70 surcharge as a retiree. If a pensioner the visit would have been free.

    Please give us some certainty without picking on the vulnerable. I worked in the mineral exploration industry in the 70s. Mining ventures then had to be a minimum 51% Australian owned.
    Rae
    16th Mar 2016
    3:00pm
    Yes a knowledge of just where the next lot of changes to superannuation will occur would be helpful in planning decisions.

    I can't recall any budget recently that has not had changes to superannuation as a major part. The government are totally fixated on those trillions.

    The surcharges to retirees need dealing with as it isn't fair. Government pensioners on the same income as self funded retirees get close to $4000 odd discounts.
    I priced a trip on the Indian Pacific today and it would cost me over $600 less if I received the aged pension and had a health card.

    Perhaps asking about surcharges and shopping around will be the answer as time goes on. Some Specialists will eventually offer incentives to the self funded as the numbers of those increase.
    retroy
    16th Mar 2016
    1:41pm
    This is a sop for lefties because as I read it the proposal is that there are no 15% concessions for people putting money into super if they earn more than $180K PA.
    This will produce a pittance in additional tax, but many will be happy because they have ripped some tax off richer people. Not withstanding the fact that people earning over $180K are then on the highest marginal rate of income tax.
    Agree with Bane that get the multinationals paying their fair share and we could all get a pension, not just those who did not have the opportunity/desire to provide for a rainy day.
    Goldleaf
    16th Mar 2016
    10:34pm
    When over 600 companies in Australia paid NO tax in 2014-2015, how can anyone even consider the Liberal party implementing a tax which affects people earning a lot less than $180k? You may think this is because of some strange jealousy, but you are wrong, people get upset with unfairness. The other misconception is with the tax system itself. It is a progressive tax system which means everyone pays the same tax up to certain levels. The 49% tax rate is only leveled on the money earnt over $180k, under that it is the same level structure as everyone else. That means the rich are not paying more taxes than anyone else, because it is proportionate, no wonder they love gst taxes, it means they pay a lot less proportionate tax. The whole approach should be on getting ALL corporations to pay their fair share and at the moment they are not.
    KSS
    16th Mar 2016
    1:43pm
    "The changes to super concessions will align with changes to asset thresholds to the part-pension that the Government announced in 2015."

    Given that the asset thresholds were set far too low resulting, in the current financial climate, people being unable to generate even the same amount as the age pension resulting in some being unable to claim even a part pension yet having less than the pension as income, don't hold your breath that this will only affect 'the rich'.

    Please define 'rich'.

    Tinkering with superannuation is all very well but they need to be mindful that getting it wrong will result in fewer people actually saving for their retirement. There must be a balance between incentives to save and disincentives to so called 'rorting'.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    7:47pm
    KSS, anyone saving for retirement under the stupid new rules from Jan 2017 would have to be able to accumulate the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1.5 million or keep savings under about $500,000, otherwise they will simply be donating all their hard-earned savings to the taxpayer. There is no incentive to save. There is a huge incentive for those who did to blow the lot on a few world cruises.
    Only an idiot would support those changes. Obviously there are lots of idiots in our parliament.
    Wolfman
    16th Mar 2016
    1:52pm
    That is totally correct PJ. The Aged Pension has always been for everyone. Those who worked hard all their life and contributed to the Tax system were rewarded. Since when, has it changed to being a Welfare Hand out?
    My wife and I have sacrificed a lot over 40 years to build up a little nest egg for our retirement. Should the tax free income from Super be removed, then we will NOT be able to SELF FUND our retirement and the tax will feed those so called "Welfare" recipients.
    Not sure of their logic, as we will then have to claim the part pension!!!!!
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:00pm
    If the tax free income from super is removed then I see no advantage in having a super fund.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:18pm
    There is Bonny! Super fund earnings are only taxed at 15%. That is a part of the attraction! Bit you would know that.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:24pm
    But Mick my super fund's earnings are not taxed and neither is the pension I get from it. That is the only bit I like about super.
    Retired Knowall
    16th Mar 2016
    5:09pm
    Bonny is correct. You shouldn't be worried about how much you tax money going into Super, all that needs to be done is tax the earnings in the account at a pre determined rate and perhaps at a pre determined level. e.g. if your Super account earned more than $85000, (enough to comfortably live on) the amount above $85000 could be taxed at lets say 30%.
    I can't why earnings within super are not taxed the same way as any other investment. The only problem that I see is that there will be a movement of capital out of Super unless lump sum withdrawals are also taxed.
    CindyLou
    16th Mar 2016
    5:49pm
    Have to comment re Wolfmans comment 'the aged pension has always been for everyone'. That's not true, for example Self funded retirees (SMSF) work and pay taxes prior to their ceasing work, however, if the individuals' assets or incomes are over certain amounts the individuals NEVER receive any government funded aged pension.

    So I see the aged pension as a safety net/welfare for people who have not been able to accumulate enough money to be independent - absolutely no harsh judgement of such folk.

    In regard to tax on super SMSFs my understanding is that in accumulation phase the funds attract tax at 15% and when it moves to pension phase the earnings are tax free.

    SMSFs cost money to administer but they are a financial mechanism available to all.
    Nard
    16th Mar 2016
    10:43pm
    Social Security has always been a Welfare Handout

    A little history lesson on Social Security will show that there was never an automatic entitlement to age pension as there has always been some form of means testing.

    Do not get me started on the evolution of Superannuation and requirements to self-fund retirement rather than rely on the public purse.

    The Governments primary form of income is Tax receipts which is needed to fund all public expenditure or as you may wish to call it The Budget. The biggest slice of the Budget Pie is social security requiring almost 40% of Government Income or $154 Billion for 2015/16.

    At the turn of the century there was no social security system in Australia. Charitable relief was provided to needy persons by voluntary organisations, in some cases with the assistance of government grants.

    The main areas of need which attracted charitable assistance were the 'sick poor', neglected children, old people who were destitute and women who had been deserted or who had 'fallen' pregnant. The unemployed were assisted by grants of wages, or rations, in return for relief work provided by the government.

    The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested 'flat-rate' age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908).Check your memory and history. Age Pension has always been “means tested”

    Means tests - Check your memory and history. Age Pension has always been “means tested” in some manner and has not ever been available on the basis that you worked and paid tax and had an automatic entitlement. That thinking and view of entitlement is a sad sad indictment of the give me attitude of Australians.

    Social security has had property and income tests, 'tapered means test' over its history.

    The pension means test has undergone several significant changes since 1970. It was abolished for pensioners aged 75 and over in 1973 and for pensioners aged 70 and over in 1975. The means test was replaced by an income test in 1976. In 1978 the rate of the free- of-income-test age pension for those aged 70 years and over was frozen. In 1983 this frozen rate became subject to a special income test which will eventually be overtaken by the normal income test.

    An assets test on pensions was introduced in 1985. It operates alongside the income test. Assets test limits are increased in line with price movements. The biggest change was the coupling of assets test with deeming that placed an income level on investment assets and cash that stopped very wealthy people from retaining very large balances in non-interest bearing accounts and claiming age pension. Wealthy people that could very easily fund their own retirement lifestyle without taxing the public purse.

    Social Security law has evolved as has Australia. With increased individual wealth and future Employer and personal funded retirements the burden on the public purse will continue to reduce.

    Interesting that the fact that the taxes you pay are there to support all government spending that provides Education, Health, Security, Public Service, Infrastructure, etc etc but we still want to take a pension. Why, beacause i am ENTITLED
    Anonymous
    20th Mar 2016
    10:01am
    Nard, 'Wealthy people that could very easily fund their own retirement lifestyle without taxing the public purse.'' True, but define ''wealthy''.

    A 65-yr-old couple with a modest home and $825,000 apparently should be ''wealthy'', not withstanding that even if they didn't draw on capital (and they will have to!), they will be worth maybe $80,000 by age 95 and have a run-down old home that is worth very little.

    On the other hand, a couple aged 90 with $300,000 in the bank and a $2 million home ISN'T wealthy (according to the stupid means test).

    Then there is the couple who bought an expensive block of land and the council stuffed up the zoning and made it worthless (yes, it happens. It happened to me. Luckily I had a friend with the legal knowledge to fight for me, but it still cost $180,000 to get the problem remedied) or the couple who bought a commercial property that was trashed by tenants and they can't now either sell or find a decent tenant for. They lose the pension but have nothing to live on, and when they do sell their capital has evaporated. They lose every direction, unless they sell immediately for whatever they can get - maybe suffering a massive loss - just to qualify for the pension.

    There must be thousands of cases where people are assessed as having over the threshold, but they really have very little. There are certainly tens of thousands who have over the threshold but earn very little. Many of them were heavily disadvantaged in earlier life and are therefore risk averse and not educated about maximizing returns.

    I have no issue with policies that focus on ensuring the neediest are looked after first and best, but I have a major issue with the gross unfairness of the assets test, the constant changes without grandfathering (so nobody can plan) and the mean-spirited, nasty attitude that accompanies, and endeavour to excuse, the changes.
    Ronin
    16th Mar 2016
    1:57pm
    I am hoping they will not reduce the $35,000 per annum payable to Super concession for older workers?
    I was unable, for various reasons, to contribute much to Super in earlier years so have a low balance. Finally my family costs are behind me and I have been salary sacrificing to the maximum in order to build that balance up to a reasonable amount. If that is reduced I will need to take a govt. pension rather than hopefully be self-funded.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:19pm
    The system needs to stop asking taxpayers to subsidise super. People will save if compulsory and if they want a better retirement.
    Nard
    16th Mar 2016
    10:45pm
    so if you cannot salary sacrifice, you would not have the potential to save money? contribute as a non concessional. What the ????
    Rae
    17th Mar 2016
    8:40am
    All my savings including super were with after tax dollars Ronin.

    You don't need a tax break to save, in fact in many cases it is far better to save without owing the government any consideration because they charged you less.

    Saving is as simple as paying yourself 10% first and living on the 90%.
    Diamond Jim
    16th Mar 2016
    1:59pm
    I can't believe the comments below. People agreeing with the LNP that we need to hit Superannuation as a means to funding this 'lame duck' of a government's shocking attempt at a budget. Have you forgotten about the fact that a third of the top Australian companies pay ZERO tax? Give me a break??? I know where this idiotic government should be looking and it is not at retirement savings!!!
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:01pm
    Just ask yourself which is the easiest target.
    MICK
    16th Mar 2016
    2:21pm
    Missing the point Jim. The rorts of the rich are being targeted. That has needed to happen for a long long time. It was always a rort but governments on both sides refused to stop the hemorrhage.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    2:34pm
    It may be more of an illusion than you think Mick. The rich do things a lot differently than the ordinary person. Most rich people I know only have a small proportion of their wealth in super for no other reason than they just don't like the restrictions and ever changing rules of super. That's why I only have a small portion of my wealth in super.
    ex PS
    16th Mar 2016
    2:48pm
    mick, you don't have to be rich to have over one million dollars in Assets if the home is taken into consideration. This will hurt more average retirees than wealthy parasites.
    The average home is now worth about $500,000.00, that means if you have over $500,000.00 in a Super Pension Fund you are considered wealthy and will be penalised.
    Do you know where you can invest $500,000.00 these days and get enough to live a comfortable life?
    What is going to happen is average workers will not put any extra into super and will not have enough to retire with, this will mean the government will have to fork even more out on pensions.
    I don't think the Independant Government should be forced into debt to pay for the LNP mismanagement.
    ex PS
    16th Mar 2016
    2:51pm
    Bonny, is it time we stopped being a target and became dangerous opponants or at least ferrel pests?
    Patriot
    16th Mar 2016
    2:55pm
    Dangerous opponents sounds excellent!
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    3:02pm
    ex Ps most of the people on this blog are ferrel pests so you may join up as well.
    Diamond Jim
    16th Mar 2016
    3:10pm
    So, Mick, I take it you couldn't care less about the 500 Australian companies that pay zero tax?
    Rae
    16th Mar 2016
    3:16pm
    The minute governments get involved they just stuff everything up as far as I can see.

    Childcare is one example. It now costs a fortune and is very child unfriendly and rigid as far as times etc go including not being available at all on Weekends.

    The old fashioned pay off the home and then buy a holiday house for retirement worked very well. Imagine how well off most would be if all they had to do was that. No fees or charges to the financial industry and hardly a worry.
    My own parents did just that and it worked well. No money worries at all.

    Superannuation was supposed to provide a stable financial retirement but has failed to achieve the stated aims as far as I can see. Self funded retirees are now often much worst off than those who saved nothing and get a full pension and all the concessions that come with it.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    3:18pm
    I prefer being the target to the other alternatives.
    Frustrated
    16th Mar 2016
    3:07pm
    Reducing superannuation tax concessions is a start but WHY don't they try to stop tax avoidance by multinationals through shifting head offices overseas etc, if they are making money from Australians in Australia then they should pay tax in Australia
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    3:10pm
    We now live in a world economy so they have a choice where they pay tax. Australia should become a 10% tax country too.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    3:23pm
    Bonny: I fear that would be a race to the bottom (countries are already fighting over themselves to lower their company tax rates to 'encourage' multinationals).

    Here are some of very large loopholes in our tax system:
    1. license fees from local entities to 'head office' (eg. research and investment, marketing)
    2. applying set exchange rates rather than actual exchange rates (and other money market manipulation)
    3. local entities buying product at inflated prices from 'head office'
    4. inflated employment fees paid by local entities to overseas offices to source 457 candidates

    Just these four could triple the tax revenue from multi-nationals.
    Paulodapotter
    16th Mar 2016
    3:29pm
    The Buffet Rule must be applied to multinational corporations before any other tax reform measures are taken.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    3:33pm
    This from the Australian Financial Review:

    The Australian Financial Review (AFR) believes that the government will target the accumulation phase of super – while Labor has targeted the tax-free status of retirement earnings at the high end.

    The AFR says the government is looking at reducing the annual contributions cap from the current $30,000 a year to $20,000. Labor wants to tax all super income over $75,000 at 15%, with under $75,000 tax-free.

    Transition-to-retirement pensions which allow people to access a tax-free income stream from their super once they reach their preservation age, and while they are still working, are also likely to be abolished or limited.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    3:49pm
    Lets face it Richied everyone is just having a guess at what is going to happen nobody really knows including probably the Government you don"t think that Morrison might be just sounding out people to see what they think, like he did with the GST which is know gone, negative gearing which is now gone, income tax rates reduction now gone and then maybe incorporate what is more popular within reason.
    If this is the case every post of what is going to happen here could be wrong.
    I Prefer to wait and see what happens.
    Richied
    16th Mar 2016
    4:19pm
    Yep robbo. Agree. Every March/April the speculation about what's in the budget takes off.

    It's fun to speculate though, and also to put up suggestions so they can be argued in the public forum (who knows who is reading this stuff :-)
    kev888
    16th Mar 2016
    3:41pm
    Does anyone know were I can buy a money tree? Canberra has the fertilizer
    Big Kev
    16th Mar 2016
    4:06pm
    Knowing this government, all of us living on Super will have our 10% tax changed to 34%. Meanwhile those on million dollar incomes who use the tax system to avoid tax by paying it into Super will still get a free ride. This Govts motto is tax the poor to fund the rich!
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    4:16pm
    10% changed to 34%?

    I don't pay any tax on my super.
    Hawkeye
    16th Mar 2016
    4:18pm
    Correct Kev,
    they are just a bunch of ROBBING HOODS
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    4:20pm
    Tell someone who cares.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    4:27pm
    Not sure where you got those figures from Big Kev but I can tell you anyone over 60 years of age who pays tax needs a new accountant
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    4:55pm
    I guess I need a new accountant then as I pay tax.

    No tax on super though.
    Circum
    16th Mar 2016
    5:12pm
    Robbo.Are you suggesting that all workers over 60 shouldnt be paying any tax?
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    6:07pm
    They shouldn't be paying it on ASSETS. On income, yes, if it's high enough, but Morrison is talking about aligning to the new asset thresholds, which suggests you lose $78 a year in income for every $1000 you saved, PLUS you get slugged with tax for saving, so you end up having the government basically steal on your savings and leave you with $0 benefit for a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice, while those who didn't save get fat handouts.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    6:21pm
    You don't get taxed on assets until you sell them.
    particolor
    16th Mar 2016
    6:31pm
    I think Hawkeye meant they are a Bunch of Sherriff"s of Nottingham's ? :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    7:53pm
    Read the article Bonny. It specifically refers to the tax ''aligning with the new assets threshold''. Doesn't say anything about having to sell the assets before the tax applies.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    7:54am
    No retired people only Circum
    Tinker
    16th Mar 2016
    4:41pm
    We all should be more concerned about Morrison's language where he consistently refers to the aged pension as welfare. The superannuation system consists of 3 parts, superannuation, private savings and the aged pension. Superannuation is intended to improve a persons income through retirement,sensible limits should apply to both a means test and concessions for contribution to Superannuation. There are some who abuse tax concessions to build wealth far beyond what is needed for retirement. The average person needs both a part pension and superannuation. Morrison needs to watch his language.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    5:01pm
    I think Morrison is right.

    Remember that some people need lots of money in retirement whilst others get by on very little.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    5:55pm
    I shall remember that - always. (yawn)
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    7:51pm
    Morrison is a prize IDIOT. According to him, a homeowner couple with $825,000 should DONATE $33,000 a year to the taxpayer while living on an income of maybe $22,000 a year with ZERO benefits, and that's what he calls ''fair'''. They will be up to $12,000 a year WORSE OFF than a full pensioner. That's the reward for saving. And Morrison SAYS he wants people to save!

    Of course the answer is for NOBODY TO SAVE and EVERYBODY to accumulate no more than the threshold for a full pension and sit back and enjoy the rewards of a lifetime of work. Only fools will save more, because they will be worse off and gifting the benefit of their work and sacrifice to taxpayers and to those who lived the high life and didn't bother to save.
    Old Fella
    16th Mar 2016
    5:23pm
    I wonder how many super recipients currently receiving income just over par to the aged pension by way of monetary value, will necessarily now, consider dipping further and more quickly into their superannuation, arriving sooner at a point of being eligible for a full Government retirement pension. I suspect the current Government is merely hastening a situation where 99% of retirees will ultimately be full Government Pensioners sooner than current ratios in place. I consider the proposed tax reforms as being negative for the Government of the future financially , as more people will opt to utilize their super savings sooner and fully rather than contribute to greater Government taxation with less Social benefit for the masses. I also acknowledge the exception will always be Politicians who always manage to ensure the Gov't feeding trough for them remains full and has supplementary Gravy feeding troughs besides. Final question, if 2050 is suggested Crunch time for welfare payments , the
    n assumption is everyone will be at least 70 or older and therefor imply the whole remaining population was born in 1980; obviously patently impossible and untrue. Australia's population growth has never stalled and despite current immigration policy, population growth statistics are projected to rise not stall. Who is the beneficiaries of such growth , certainly not those hoping to retire after a long life of hardwork and taxes?
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    6:09pm
    Old Fella, you are absolutely right. The government is punishing savers and making it impossible for anyone who can't save more than about $1.5 million to benefit from saving at all. Many super recipients will soon have incomes of HALF the aged pension and not be eligible for benefits, and now it appears they'll be taxed as well. Why keep it? This will force hundreds of thousands onto the full pension.
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2016
    11:49am
    As a self funded retiree I was quite content to live off my super and not worry about government funding. Given the attitude of the government to self funded retirees I will now be looking at screwing the government for every cent I can get evidently it is not hard if you put a little time and effort into it.
    For a start since we will probably not be allowed to leave any super money to my son I will be working to make sure that I will run out of money before I go so that I will be on a pension long before I die. My house will be transfered to my sons name long before I go onto a pension and I make sure that there are no assets in my name that the government vultures can get their claws into.
    I have every intention of taking all my cash out of Super while I can still get it out in a lump sum interest free.
    Congratulations LNP another brilliant exercise in stuffing things up.
    disillusioned
    16th Mar 2016
    5:26pm
    These guys are screwing the s**t out of us oldies, while retiring themselves on cushy pensions and benefits. I will NEVER vote LNP again!!
    particolor
    16th Mar 2016
    6:34pm
    PROMICE !! :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    16th Mar 2016
    7:25pm
    That's the same answer surveyors got when they asked thousands of women across 27 states in the USA. To the question, would you sleep with President Clinton? The vast majority said , "never again!"

    16th Mar 2016
    6:00pm
    ''The changes to super concessions will align with changes to asset thresholds to the part-pension that the Government announced in 2015.''
    That says to me that again they will unfairly disadvantage battlers who struggled to save a little for their own retirement and will be worse on in income terms than pensioners, but will not substantially hurt the very well off or the irresponsible spendthrifts or manipulators who have a few hundred grand in savings and claim a full pension. This persecuted group has already lost half their income thru falling returns, up to $12000 a year + various benefits in pension cuts, and now looks set to be slugged with tax based on assets, not income. How much more can they take before they either revolt or blow it all on world cruises?
    Adrianus
    16th Mar 2016
    6:12pm
    The only time battlers were disadvantaged by a change to super was when the Hawke government introduced the contributions tax and the income tax.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    8:01pm
    B.S FRANK! Battlers were DISADVANTAGED very unfairly and cruelly by changes to the assets test that leave them effectively paying a fine of $48 for every $1000 they saved. You are a fool if you can't see that a 65-year-old who might live to 95 is NOT wealthy having $825,000 in the bank. By age 95, that will probably be the equivalent of $80,000 IF they don't have to draw on it (which they will under these cruel new asset test rules), and given that aged care bonds are $500,000 today, and by then might be $5 million, and the house will be at least 30 years old and probably in need of extensive renovation, and worth very little, where does that leave them?

    The idiots approving Morrison's policies can't do math, obviously.

    Morrison told me to go to a financial planner. I did. Here's the options, according to him:

    1. Spend $300,000 quickly on cruising etc. and get a full pension
    2. Divorce and give my partner the house and buy another
    3. Give my house to my kids and rent it back (lose pension for 5 years but then be way better off)
    4. Gift $12,000 a year to the government as punishment for saving and live on about half the old age pension.
    5. Gift $12000 a year to the government for several years but draw on savings to make up the lost income and eventually dwindle the savings away enough to get a pension.

    All options except (4) impose a higher cost on the taxpayer, and (4) isn't feasible because a couple can't exist on half the aged pension.

    Now tell me ''battlers'' weren't hurt by Morrisons cruel and STUPID ''reform''. Only an illiterate idiot would fail to see that it hurt battlers (didn't hurt the rich at all!) badly AND it was economically damaging and will drive pension costs thru the roof over time.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    8:10pm
    If you have more than $825,000 them you simply don't need the pension as you can live on your capital as well as the earnings on that capital.

    All that has happened is that the government has moved the asset test line back to where it was before it became way too generous.

    Including the house in the assets test would help a lot of people get a much fairer pension. It is just plain stupidity that people can upgrade their house for no other reason than to get the pension. Lots of others would like to downgrade but if they do so under the present rules they are likely to lose more than they gain. This inequity needs to be fixed now.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    9:41am
    Bonny, your comment is as stupid as Morrison's policy. Read what I said earlier. IF you DON'T draw capital, $825,000 in the hands of a 65-yr-old today will be probably worth $80,000 in the hands of a 95-year-old in 30 years. With their house now well over 30 years old and in disrepair (if they didn't draw capital they couldn't afford to keep in in repair- they might even have HAD to sell it to live!), they have no money to pay for the aged care they then need. And they have effectively lived a life of sacrifice to save so that everything can be given to the greedy extravagant government to benefit STRANGERS, and the saver and his family GET NOTHING.
    Hence, saving for retirement is a bad thing to do so it reduces and pension costs go UP UP UP UP UP. Are you not intelligent enough to undertstand that? You seem to claim to be smart!

    Only a PRIZE IDIOT would suggest that it benefits the nation to force retirees who saved to blow their savings and be plunged into poverty over time. The assets test was NOT too generous. It wasn't generous enough. It should aligned to returns and the deeming rate, or abolished in favour of an income only test with deeming build it. Taking $78 from someone for every $1000 they saved, when they might only earn $30 or less on that $10000, is BRUTALLY CRUEL, BRUTALLY UNFAIR, ECONOMICALLY DESTRUCTIVE, SOCIALLY DESTRUCTIVE, AND JUST PLAIN STUPID.

    And meanwhile the self-serving arseholes who are supporting stealing the hard-won savings of battlers with incomes of less than $25,000 a year (for a couple), are quite okay with people who earn $70,000 a year still getting a part pension.
    particolor
    16th Mar 2016
    6:06pm
    Id like to All Of Rule Him Out ! :-) :-)
    Adrianus
    16th Mar 2016
    6:21pm
    I think there will be quite a few surprised people when the May Budget is announced. The losers will be Labor's mates, the big end of town. In fact the only winners will probably be small business, the real backbone of Australia's economy.
    Anonymous
    16th Mar 2016
    8:03pm
    The losers will be - again - those who worked, saved, and planned responsibly and anticipated a comfortable retirement, and have been totally SCREWED by a stinking vile dishonest government that won't touch the rich, but will persecute anyone who dares to work, save and invest and try to get ahead. In other words - the real backbone of the economy will be TOTALLY SCREWED OVER, because that's the LNP's policy.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    9:29am
    Rainey, are you sure you're not making up a story to suit your love of Labor and the Unions?
    This government has not been as kind to big business as was the previous Labor government.
    We are all getting screwed Rainey. This is a time when we need to take one for the team. It's time to stop reminiscing about the good old Howard years.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    9:51am
    No Frank. I'm stating the true facts that you selfish LNP-supporting fools want to deny in order to support ripping off the battlers, workers, and savers to feed the rich.

    We are NOT all getting screwed. And the Howard years weren't good for those who are getting screwed now. They were only good for those who are still laughing all the way to the bank and watching the real lifters of this nation robbed of everything they worked and saved for.

    No group has been persecuted more than those who will lose the part pension in 2017. They have had their income halved by falling returns, been stripped of up to 12,000pa in pension, been stripped of thousands in pensions and discounts offered to pensioners, and now are being bullied with threats of being taxed. They have no choice but to erode their hard-won savings year after year to live, for the benefit of greedy, self-serving people who lived the high life and now get a full pension, and far greedier and more self-serving rich who won't pay their fair share.

    I've saved. I NEVER GOT A CENT OF TAX CONCESSION - EVER. Every penny was AFTER TAX SAVINGS - accumulated by going without holidays, restaurant meals, nice clothes, nice cars, and good stuff for my kids. I got slugged with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills because of bureaucrat errors and CRIMES. I was cheated out of hundreds of thousands by a corrupt bureaucrat who sent a good business down the tubes with lies. I was denied an education and my health destroyed as a result of my father sacrificing himself in war. And now my hard-won savings are going to cost me $78 per year per $1000 until they run out. And some arseholes suggest that's ''fair''. No, we should NOT all ''take one for the team'''. The team has been taking from me for 60 years. It's high time it took from some of those who've been doing the taking up until now.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    9:54am
    And for the record, Frank - though I suspect will ignore it yet again - I HATE Labor and particularly the Unions (I was also screwed over by union corruption). But we HAVE to get rid of the LNP before they ruin this nation. Destroying our public health system, public education, and pension system won't solve problems.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    6:01pm
    HATE is a very strong word Rainey. Particularly when used to describe a party you will vote for.
    particolor
    16th Mar 2016
    6:25pm
    From what I gather they don't pay any Tax on their Generous Pension and Perks now ! :-)
    So they are Exempt already ! :-)
    So don't worry about it Treckker !
    They will Not Suffer :-)
    FM
    16th Mar 2016
    9:30pm
    Yes Mick we need some credible alternative candidates in most electorates who relate to people for in this election. Unfortunately not many are coming forward. Countries that have had a very serious Financial Crisis are not questioning the provision of the aged pension or asking people to sell their homes before they get one. Yet Australia is doing that as you may have seen on a Current Affair tonight. Australia has had an aged pension since Federation and provided it in the worst depressions. Mr Morrison is a throwback to the l800s. He does not belong in a modern day Government. He will expect to get a pension and will take it without any qualms but queries other people’s right to one. He won't have to sell his home to pay for his retirement.
    We should continue to email Mr Morrison with our disapproval of his comments and really complain to Mr Turnbull that robbing older people is not acceptable. They are meant to serve the public not implement policies to suit a few.
    Having said that, it is reasonable to restore limits on the amount of money classed as superannuation. There have always been limits to amounts in defined benefit and other funds. Around 2007 the limit was about $1,000,000 . There are there still limits on yearly contributions but the upper limit has been abolished. The limits need to be adequate to cover people with a reasonable lifetime income where possible and adjusted appropriately. Pensions and part pensions need to remain and be an uncontested right and source of income for seniors who do not have adequate savings.
    Scrivener
    12th Apr 2016
    3:25pm
    Pity the idiot is in a 'safe' Liberal seat.
    LiveItUp
    16th Mar 2016
    9:51pm
    A Current Affair had a good segment on the Aged Pension tonight.

    http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9097574

    I agree with with they had to say.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    8:00am
    Yep got that right Bonny but there were a couple of bludgers there that did not work much and hoped to get a free pension to get the good life as they have had in the past , one Greek bloke in particular.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    12:07pm
    Yes retire early spend your money and then collect age pension. Know quite a few people doing this to tick off their bucket list before reaching age pension age.

    That's how stupid our current age pension system is.
    Rodent
    17th Mar 2016
    4:00pm
    Bonny

    I don"t agree that it was a good segment at all, not at all balanced, quite typical of ACA, as for Simon Cowan you need to read the full report that he and Matthew Taylor came up with titled - The Age old Problem of Old Age fixing the Pension. I have read all of it, have you? I am sure you would agree with some of its thrust - especially about including the Home in the Assets Test. Its 73 pages long.
    Although the Graphs and tables are useful some of their conclusions are unfortunately based on very old data.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    7:52pm
    Those who have listened will have known that this was all going to happen more than 40 years ago. Simple statistics would have given such a picture as the welfare burden fell upon less and less taxpayers per welfare recipient. Old statistics or not they are relevant today as it's just not going to get any better going forward.
    Nard
    16th Mar 2016
    10:04pm
    so Rainey, let us stay poor so we can get some Age Pension. Tell your kids to stay poor and remain on minimum income through their retirement. I find it quite easy through proper advice and structuring to receive an average income spread over shares, income funds, term deposits of 4.8% plus some refunded franking credits. Someone who has saved substantially over their lifetime will not be settling for 2.7% from bank deposits

    A couple has the ability to maximise pension under income testing to a financial assets total of $267,600 when the pension then reduces 50 cents for every additional deemed $1 earned. From 1/1/2017 they will lose $3 pf or $76 pa for every $1,000 over the threshold of $375,000.

    So let us feel entitled and minimise over lifetimes the amount i will save and have available for my enjoyment in retirement. Keep my savings/super at $276,000 and get the full age pension. Great financial planning advice. Personally i would save as much as i could and hopefully have well in excess of $823,000 so i can do whatever i want.

    I am quite happy to spend my capital in retirement knowing that i will still have a house to leave my kids and most likely some investment. So rather than limit my cash flow to $33000 pension and $6,000 interest on my money I can spend $75, $80, $90 thousand in retirement.

    Thanks but i do not wish to have the name of your advisor
    Retired Knowall
    17th Mar 2016
    7:55am
    If you read all of the dribble posted by Rainey you can only come to the conclusion that he is a financially illiterate, jealous hypocrite.
    MD
    17th Mar 2016
    9:02am
    Nard, sincere thanks for the earlier insightful and factual post. Both that and your most recent brings some small degree of balance to the predominately vituperative input, personalities aside.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    9:41am
    Absolutely Nard. It's hard to believe that an ex CEO of a public company is suggesting "dumb obedience" on such a scale and over a lifetime.
    My guess is that she had planned an asset reduction based on the existing rules. This has now presented her with a dilemma.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    5:44pm
    It's obvious you folk can't do simple math. $823,000 will go nowhere over 30 years of inflation. You start drawing on it to get a decent income, and it will evaporate VERY fast indeed. And in no time at all, those being shafted today will be on full pensions with bugger all left of their capital.

    Nard is confirming my point precisely. Keep savings at $276,000 and get a full pension. You might get $10,000 a year on top in investment returns and a heap of pensioner benefits. Living well. Save $823,000 and get NOTHING from the government, and your cost of living goes up $5000 a year because of loss of benefits - more if you need a lot of health specialist care.

    No Frank, I did NOT plan an asset reduction. I saved as much as I was able. But changing the rules IS unfair. People are entitled to know where they stand. I certainly WOULD have planned a substantial asset reduction if I'd known how badly I'd be shafted for doing what the government said we SHOULD do to sure up our retirement. And I WILL now plan a rapid asset reduction, because I'll be damned if I'll give the benefit of my sacrifice of lifestyle to the government to squander while those who lived better enjoy a better quality of life courtesy of the taxpayer.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    6:12pm
    Again Rainey, you refuse to acknowledge that savers spend more than those who don't save. So how have they lived the good life at your expense? As a saver you have more money to spend. Stop worrying about the lack of global growth, it will return sooner or later.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2016
    12:09pm
    What is this stupid waffle, Frank? Savers spend more than those who don't save. No! Absolutely the reverse is true. You save by SPENDING LESS than those who don't save. So they have lived the good life while I went without to save, and now they live the good life on the pension while I have to eat up my hard-won savings. You must be rather lacking in comprehension ability if you don't get that. No wonder you vote LNP. You are totally mixed up!

    Who said global growth will return sooner or later? It might not. And I might be dead before it does - or too old to care. Again, your argument is illogical in the extreme and thus totally irrelevant.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2016
    12:20pm
    Nard, your comment actually supports my argument that the assets test is cruel and unfair. You say it's possible to get 4.8% return on investments. It probably is, for those who are educated, not too risk averse, have good financial advisers, etc. So what the assets test does is discriminate unfairly against those who are uneducated, suffered crisis or hardship in earlier life that made them very risk averse or distrusting, have received bad financial advice, or have been the victim of some economic change that rendered a once valuable asset now non-returning or poorly returning and unsalable.

    It also discriminates against those who have limited cash reserves and liquid assets by forcing them to sell less liquid assets in hard times, when the yield is likely to be lower.

    I am not arguing that there shouldn't be a means test. But it is patently unfair that someone can earn $70,000 a year and still get a part pension, and someone earning $22,500, with well under $1 million in assets, can't get anything. And the existing system discriminates most heavily against those who suffered under-privilege in earlier life.
    clackers
    16th Mar 2016
    10:22pm
    Hey Ex PS 'The lesser of two weavils!" Are you serious???
    ex PS
    17th Mar 2016
    10:58am
    My apoligies to anyone who is fond of weavils or any other disgusting insects, to compare them to politicians is unfair.
    It was tongue in cheek and is a quotation borrowed from one of my favourite authors who was punning the old naval saying, "A naval officer should always choose the lesser of two evils" when making a tough decision.
    I actually meant to write the lesser of two weasles.
    FM
    16th Mar 2016
    11:29pm
    Tonight Channel 9, A Current Affair ran a segment promoting the right wing views of Simon Cowan - The Centre for Independent Studies. He is representing a group that wants to cap Government spending at 30% and reduce tax for high income earners by cutting spending on aged pensions. He advocated doing this by raising the pension age to 70, making people who have homes sell them to support themselves and generally cutting pension payments. He no doubt will not have to worry as he will make enough money peddling his Fascist views for this Government to keep him in comfort. He should not be allowed to peddle his ideas without a challenge, Rainey, Mick and everyone else who challenged his article. You can reread what he has written at Simon Cowan - The Centre for Independent Studies and email your comments to him directly at scowan@cis.org.au. He should be in no doubt as to what people think of him.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    1:07pm
    http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=9097574
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    1:09pm
    I agreed with what Simon Cowan had to say he made a lot of sense to me.

    I'll send him an email.
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    5:46pm
    That makes you a facist, Bonny.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    6:16pm
    Bonny, are you worried that you've been called an ...ist name? Little wonder Trump is headed for the Whitehouse.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    7:49pm
    Just a realist that knows that the present age pension welfare system is not sustainable and unaffordable to our taxpayers now and going forward.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    8:42pm
    I'm also a realist. What political party hits its voter base with a tax as soon as it is elected. That is a sign of the urgency of the situation. We should never have got rid of Howard right when we needed him and his team the most.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2016
    12:13pm
    Bonny, you got your facts wrong. The Age Pension in Australia is a very low cost relative to GDP and is totally sustainable, and not likely to increase substantially over the next 25 years. However, Morrison is likely to drive it thru the roof if he keeps on with his stupid destructive policies that remove incentives for saving.

    Frank, the Howard government squandered the profits of the boom years by giving absurdly over-generous concessions to the richest 20%. That's why we are where we are today. And the LNP continues to want to give to the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. And thus, we will continue to wallow in growing debt.
    Adrianus
    10th Apr 2016
    9:21am
    Wow Rainey, you are dead wrong in your pathetic attempt to foster some sort of class warfare. Everyone got a tax reduction! There are a few gullible people who may believe your BS.
    FM
    16th Mar 2016
    11:31pm
    It seems Bonny would like other people's estates to go to the Government not her own
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    12:02pm
    That's why I don't like super. If it is nationalised it will go to the government no matter how rich or poor you are.

    If I don't have a debt to the government (that is collect welfare in the form of the age pension) then I can do whatever I like with my assets.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    12:09pm
    I'm hoping to spend it all before I die so there are no fights over it.
    Anonymous
    18th Mar 2016
    12:24pm
    And when it's all gone and you live 10 years longer than you expected, what then Bonny? That's the problem with living on your capital. You don't know how long it has to last or what your needs will be in later years.
    LiveItUp
    18th Mar 2016
    1:48pm
    It is not hard to work out how long you need your capital to last. It's called statistics and there are lots of calculators that will give you a good estimate. There are calculators that tell you how long your money will last too.
    Anonymous
    19th Mar 2016
    9:57am
    What BS, Bonny. No calculator can tell you how long you are going to live. There are thousands of old people out there who have way outlived the expert predictions. But if we are talking calculators, they tell me that $825,000 is NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH for my partner and I to survive retirement. On the other hand, they told my mother her $100,000 was way more than she needed. So how does Morrison justify his STUPID assets test that declares me wealthy and my mother entitled to a full pension?
    Anonymous
    19th Mar 2016
    9:59am
    BTW Bonny. I didn't see any question in the calculator about health or special needs due to health problems. Nor did I see any questions about family circumstances that might impose additional living costs. The calculators are designed by the same idiots who make dumb government policy - people who based everything on assumptions and averages, neither of which have any validity in the real world.
    Nette
    17th Mar 2016
    12:29am
    Why not stop the tax free cash people and we all know there are millions of them and drop income tax all together. We will only pay tax on GST that means that no matter you buy, you will pay a % of the total as tax that way if we don't want to pay as much tax then we simply stop spending as much. It would give initiative for people to save more than spend AND it would force the tax free cash earners into paying tax. It would actually benefit the economy as people would want to work more as they get every dollar they earned.
    LiveItUp
    17th Mar 2016
    12:04pm
    Welcome to the enhanced black market where everyone uses alternative forms of exchange other than money.
    Adrianus
    17th Mar 2016
    6:24pm
    Nette, we will stop it when we move to cashless. When all transactions are done by EFT and the government learns from the likes of PayPal.
    Mez
    17th Mar 2016
    9:20am
    The changes have all been fair in my opinion and headlines regarding this are very negative and misleading!
    Anonymous
    17th Mar 2016
    5:53pm
    Mez, can you tell me what's ''fair'' about this:

    Couple X is getting a full pension after enjoying a Rolls-Royce education and earning $180,000 a year, retiring with a $1.5 million house and their kids paying all their bills out of the $1.5 million they gave them before turning 60

    Couple Y earned $160,000 a year in an easy office job and semi-retired doing casual work for $60,000 a year, with a very expensive house and $275,000 in the bank, and gets a part pension.

    Couple Z worked their guts out on low incomes after a very disadvantaged start, has health problems, has a $250,000 house, but went without a great deal to save $825,000 because they were afraid of poverty in old age, and now has an income of $22,500 a year and $0 pension benefits.

    And Couple A, in the same position as Couple Z, go around the world twice and blow $600,000 and come back and get a full pension for the rest of their life.

    That's fair? In a pig's eye it is!
    Mez
    17th Mar 2016
    9:27am
    Blinky Bill....I think you meant "reigning" not "raining."
    Gee Whiz
    19th Mar 2016
    12:46pm
    More changes to super! Since its introduction under the Hawk, Keating governments there has been 4400 changes to super.

    What does that that tell you about the Federal Government knowing what it is doing with super?

    What happens this time will just be another balls up like all the others changes.
    disillusioned
    20th Mar 2016
    1:00pm
    Why don't these pollies start cutting their OWN expenditure, instead of squandering our tax dollars on overseas junkets for themselves and their families, raising their own salaries and pension benefits, and unnecessary use of helicopters and RAAF jet planes when a car trip would suffice! Do these people think we are stupid? It was touted in Roman times, and not much has changed - one rule for the patricians, and another rule for us plebians!
    Nard
    20th Mar 2016
    2:09pm
    Rainey, “wealthy” is a relative term. For some wealthy may mean having $1,000,000 or more for others it may mean having $200,000 or $300,000. For others it might mean having an income from all sources in retirement of $50,000, $80,000 or more or maybe only $40,000. I can guarantee that the person who has $200,000 or $500,000 considers the person with $850,000 wealthy.

    Retaining capital for kid’s inheritance is also a choice but with people living longer most kids are nearing their own retirement when their parents are dying. Kids should be established in their own right and not rely on a few $ from parents. When I started work in the 70’s the guys retiring didn’t seem to live to far past their 70s and the kids were inheriting the cash younger.

    Firstly, a couple with $825,000 retaining this capital and investing in term deposits will still have $825,000 with a value in today’s dollars of around $330,000 if we assume a 3% CPI. They will very quickly be receiving Age Pension based on increases of Asset test thresholds and at some time would most likely receive full pension (under current rules). They will also have their home and even if older and run down would likely be worth a minimum of 5 or 6 times of today’s value even just the land content in 30 years time.

    The first retirement goal to decide on is how much you need to live on in retirement. This decision will dictate how much saving you need and what level of age pension you may be receiving. Look at the ASFA standards for comfortable retirement.

    http://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/retirement-standard

    ASIC has a general rule of thumb to estimate the amount of savings required to fund an income. Funding of 30 years multiply the income level by 19, 25 years 17 and 20 years 14. (assumes a 6% return on funds). For example an income of $52,000 =
    30 years X 19 = $988,000
    25 years x 17 = $884.000
    20 years x 14 = $728,000
    Now if I know the Pension Rules I can generate the same total income by having $570,000 in assets and receive $23,000 pension (couple). So who is wealthier? Considering both receive the same money and likely last the same. Both couples receive a health concession card for cheaper pharmaceuticals etc.

    Most people I come across have this $1,000 pw figure in mind when asked the question. Unfortunately planning for retirement does not start when you turn age pension age it starts when you commence earning an income. Sure everyone at some stage have a financial hiccup that can cost them dollars and I am sorry that these things happen.

    Unfortunately too when asked what they need as an income they cannot come up with a figure or budget that reflects what they wish because they do not plan. Some people’s expectations far exceed their abilities to accumulate a nest egg.

    To me the sole purpose of accumulating savings whether in super, cash, share or property is that it is there to support you in retirement and in most cases requires that capital is used along the way to meet your spending requirements.
    If you consider superannuation. When drawing your pension the whole structure of the pensions and the reason you receive the tax concessions is that you must drawdown your balance over your lifetime. The increasing minimums required are in place to ensure that capital is drawn. Minimums of 4 to 7% can be covered by investment returns in most cases but when you must draw 10,12 or 14% of your balance as a minimum this will be difficult to achieve and asset values will reduce. Pensions are based on life expectancies. AND YES of course if you reduce capital overtime you may be picking up some government support down the track.

    Persons, not wishing to draw on capital can make that choice if they wish and will have a reducing lifestyle year after year as the cost of living increases. If you require an income of 5% without touching capital then you also need to have growth of capital of 3% to cover CPI each year so you must invest in some growth assets.
    Understanding how the investments operate and pay income is an important aspect of retirement planning. Requiring an income of $X requires planning and maximising Centrelink requires planning.

    Tax effective income from franked dividends, Rental income from property or interest from term deposits all have different characteristics and different risk factors.

    Building a property portfolio may be an excellent way to build wealth but is not necessarily able to pay an adequate level of income for the capital held at risk. Income from residential property is low likely to give a net return of between 3 to 3.5%. Commercial property is different and I personally would not own a commercial property with a yield of under 8%. Property is illiquid & bulky and overtime will require capital expenditure to renovate kitchens, bathrooms etc.

    A recent report found that for the 10-year period:
    • Australian shares were still the best performing asset class, returning 9.2% p.a. on a before-tax and after-fees basis.
    • Hedged international shares were the next best performer at 8.2% p.a.; hedging added an additional 3.1% to international shares, which amounted to more than 30% of additional return.
    • Australian residential investment property came in at sixth place, with a return of 6.1% p.a.
    For a 20-year period:
    • Australian residential property led the gains, returning 9.9% p.a. on a before-tax and after-fees basis.
    • Australian shares followed closely behind, with a return of 8.7% p.a.
    • Hedged global shares returned 8.0% p.a.

    This report provides evidence of the benefits they can gain by diversifying across multiple assets.

    Rules change and planning when given the warning that there is an impending change may help. If you are close to thresholds you will soon come back under the threshold and regain an entitlement. But if wealthy by the definition that is placed by governments you will be looked at to provide support for yourself.

    Rainey, to answer your question. Wealthy to me is having the resources available to fund the lifestyle you desire.
    particolor
    20th Mar 2016
    9:35pm
    Oh ! Just Popped In to thank Mal for the $7.90 Pension Jack Up !! :-) :-) :-)
    See You in 6 Months ! When your in a Better Mood :-)
    Star Trekker
    20th Mar 2016
    9:40pm
    You can now have a cup of coffee when you are out spending the rest :)
    Gee Whiz
    22nd Mar 2016
    7:31am
    Thanks HS for the tip about "theyvoteforyou.org.au".

    After reading your post I logged onto this site and was astounded at the information available. It also gave me an insight into the "waffle" and time wasting crap our elected representatives carry on with.

    They really are a breed apart from the real world.
    FM
    10th Apr 2016
    6:48am
    Reversing taper rates to what they were almost ten years ago does not just halve their value it reduces it to a quarter because of inflation. We have a Government that has aimed its cuts exclusively at seniors and it seems will continue to do so in the next Budget. They have used wedge politics to divide seniors so that one group are happy to see another targeted as long as it does not affect themselves. We see this on this page. We have had two Treasurers who have have had no idea of how manage society and a Budget so everyone in the country is suddenly Treasurer many happy to savagely target someone else's income to protect their own. Most are happy to take society back a century or two in the process. Remember a century ago, when pensions were limited, politicians were also not paid a salary and this lot certainly do not deserve one for the appalling job they are doing. The opposition are not providing much criticism to what is happening. Would they be any bettter?
    Scrivener
    12th Apr 2016
    3:24pm
    It's not a 'super' tax concession, it's a superannuation tax concession. There is a difference.
    Adrianus
    12th Apr 2016
    3:59pm
    I don't know exactly what you are referring to, but I do know that Superannuation is the opposite to a bank loan.
    With a bank loan you get say $100,000 then you pay the cost of that over a few years by repaying say $180,000.
    Superannuation works the same but in reverse and costs less. You make the repayments first, which may total say $100,000 and at a future date you get a lump sum of say $180,000.
    worker
    16th Apr 2016
    3:20pm
    tax changes to the Australian workers superannuation like pensions continue Becuse they appear to be easy target's.
    What should occur all MPs of parliaments that are employees of the Australian citizens have the life time forms of pensions and other perks stopped when they are no longer employees (MPs) and there superannuation change to be it in line with all other workers (employees) this would save some millions of per year
    professori_au
    19th Apr 2016
    4:55pm
    I read somewhat with dismay about why the rich should not be taxed and others denigrate those who have been unable to save due to reasons beyond their control. I find it scurrilous that e.g. Packer snr. boasted in his paper that he paid no personal tax. At that time he was considered the richest man in Australia, yet paid no personal tax. He claimed it was a duty to avoid paying taxes. Indeed! Who is to pay for roads, hospital/medical/schooling/defence/etc./etc. Someone has to pay a tax to have those benefits. It appears the most vulnerable have been selected to be the contributors. Companies that earn their money in Australia, from Australia's resources and labour, should pay taxes to the Australian people and not be able to use tax havens or claim their headquarters are not in Australia.
    professori_au
    19th Apr 2016
    4:56pm
    I might add it would be interesting to know just how many of the rich pay no personal tax