It’s time to rob the rich of generous super tax concessions: ISA

Super industry lobby slams gender gap and generous tax treatment of the wealthy.

Time to rob the ‘super’ rich

It’s time to rob the rich, says Industry Super Australia (ISA), which has called on the government to end super tax breaks that clearly favour the wealthy.

The powerful superannuation industry lobby’s submission to the retirement income review states that tax concessions for superannuation that favour the rich need to be overhauled and that because of this imbalance, men also get an outsized share of super tax breaks.

In a Guardian report, the ISA slammed the super gender gap and say the top 10 per cent of taxpayers, who earn more than $124,000 a year, get an annual average tax advantage on their super contributions of $3677, which is 75 times the $49 a year received by someone earning just $22,000.

“It is clear that the equity and efficiency of government supports, including tax concessions, need to be considered to ensure the supports are being appropriately targeted at those that need it the most – not the least,” said ISA chief Bernie Dean.

“Entrenched inequities must be examined as part of the retirement income review, otherwise we will continue to see women retire with about half the amount of super than men, and low-income earners retire with persistently low super balances.”

The ISA submission also knocks a Grattan report released last year, in which the institute called on the government to abandon its plan to increase compulsory contributions from nine per cent to 12 per cent in the next five years.

ISA research shows that men of retirement age on average have more than $188,000 in super against the $133,000 average balance held by women – a 30 per cent gap.

“Clearly, superannuation balances benefit from compound earnings over a full career and the gender super gap from career breaks can persist even if the pay gap is subsequently reduced,” stated ISA.

It also called on Treasury to abolish the minimum pay level of $450 a month required before super is paid, and to review super paid on parental leave as well as tax offsets for low-income earners.

Do you think the super concessions for the top 10 per cent of earners are fair?

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

RELATED ARTICLES





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Macheke
31st Jan 2020
10:17am
Whilst I agree that there needs to be superannuation reform as the rich have benefitted, I get turned off by articles that play the gender card (very fashionable) and quote statistics to make half true points.
The truth is that there are also many woman who have substantial superannuation and men who do not. Also for married couples superannuation is a family consideration.
Mootnell
31st Jan 2020
11:14am
you're talking about a minuscule group of women with good super in comparison to the majority. You seem quite happy to spruik a very fashionable half-truth (well its actually a complete miss truth)l. Show your proof, like the stats that are already widely available to show the majority of women have substantially less super.
Retiring Well
31st Jan 2020
12:15pm
I get turned off by the gender play card as well. Women have had equal wages now for over 50 years.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
12:17pm
Mootnell - it's all about how much you earn, earn meaning what you work for and get for work ..... remember the census (2013 from memory) in which it was clearly stated that women worked an average of 32 odd hours a week and men 42 or so? The difference calculated out to PRECISELY the 'gender wage gap' - meaning that 'gap' was nonsense - same applies to superannuation.

This nonsense goes round and round eternally - and still people will not accept the basic realities.

when I first began researching this stuff - I came across an article that stated clearly that "71% of men will retire with only the OAP, and 62% of women"... wait one??? Fewer women retire with only the OAP?
Oldchick
31st Jan 2020
1:49pm
VeryCaringBigBear - I can tell you unequivocally that if you think women have had wage equality with men for over 50 years ‘you’re dreamin’ as the saying goes. It was 48 years ago I started working, part-time initially whilst at school. When I started in full-time employment I wasn’t allowed to even join Super until I was 25 yet the men could. It was thought women would go off, marry, have babies and not return to the workforce. I didn’t but although I worked in a male domain, purchasing, supply and production scheduling of lubricants I never earned anywhere near what my male colleagues did. The same in other industries I worked and I know many women in the same position as me. Sure there are some these days earning big money but the figures still show big inequalities.
Retiring Well
31st Jan 2020
4:02pm
Women were automatically put into super and they cold opt out if they were married. We did so we could use the money to buy house instead. Best thing we ever did.
Misty
31st Jan 2020
4:30pm
All workers, regardless of gender and age, were automatically entered into super when it became compulsory in 1991.
Anonymous
1st Feb 2020
1:47pm
Spot on, Macheke, while the concept of reducing the tax concessions for the rich is sensible and badly overdue, the article turns one off immediately when it gets into gender warfare. There is NO gender wage gap in Australia, and as you have noted, it depends on the jobs held and choices people make.

Also, the article comments border on communist thinking to suggest people on less income should get more Super and vice versa. That's NOT the Govt's problem, rules must be fair and if you work more and earn more of course you should get more, not less, Super benefits - with strong Caps of course for tax benefits.
Hoohoo
4th Feb 2020
2:26pm
The problem is that Super is only collected for paid work, not work per se. So to say someone has worked more because they've been paid more, is a misnomer.

The only women I know who have retired rich (enough to holiday overseas every year), are women who made the hard decision not to have any children, so their careers (and pay and Super) were never interrupted. In the past, men were never confronted by having to make such a choice.

And it's all well and good (for men) to say they made a "family" decision, so their wives stopped receiving pay and Super income, even when that decision was a sensible one for the family as a whole. But it's only fair and sensible if the parents stay together through to the end of their lives. These days, it's rarely the expectation. It explains why so many dumped women older than 50 are homeless and living in their cars, even very intelligent women with amazing work credentials. No-one wants them now, either as partners or as employees. They were all "used up" when they were young.
Hoohoo
5th Feb 2020
1:00pm
Verycaringbigbear, if only we COULD turn you off!
Rae
31st Jan 2020
11:14am
This is crazy communist thinking. Of course someone on $124 000 will get more tax deduction that someone on $22 000 as they pay far more tax.

How about fixing the HR and income inequalities in stead of robbing savers to pay those unable to earn. a job guarantee at minimum wage and stopping rampant immigration and visa workforce would soon sort wages out.

And the person on that $124 000 possibly works a hell of a lot harder with much more stress and sacrifice of lifestyle anyway. Why punish them?

The whole idea of privatising retirement incomes is turning into yet another feeding frenzy for bankers and financial industry anyway. Privatisation is a recipe to let the privateers loose thieving profits in my opinion.
Mootnell
31st Jan 2020
11:25am
oh! for goodness sake. every job has a stress of some degree or level.

"And the person on that $124 000 possibly works a hell of a lot harder with much more stress and sacrifice of lifestyle anyway. Why punish them?'"

What's with the elitist thinking sheesh! you don't work bloody hard at a low paying job to make that sort of remark.
older&wiser
31st Jan 2020
1:34pm
Gee, from my extensive HR & payroll experience, higher paid people do not necessarily work harder. Many cases, the complete opposite, particularly in many govt departments.
Rae
31st Jan 2020
1:41pm
Let'g get businesses and the multinationals actually paying taxes and cut their subsidies and increase the family tax benefits or welfare top ups that the low paying earner gets. I just don't believe it's the individuals job to pay for business incompetence and low wages policy.

I was a low income earning widow with three kids so I did work bloody hard for around 45 years and lived within my means with not even childcare rebates because they didn't exist back then.
Oldchick
31st Jan 2020
1:55pm
older&wiser, I totally agree with what you’re saying. I’ve worked with quite a few on big bucks which they can usually command because they have a few fancy letters after their name, marketing degree was all the rage a few years back. It didn’t mean they were any better at their job or worked harder.
Misty
31st Jan 2020
4:32pm
Not in my experience Rae, some people work harder in low paying jobs too,
Circum
31st Jan 2020
5:02pm
Agree with you Rae.The argument is based on communist mentality.If there is an issue with some people working/stressing out more than others ,then that is an issue for the employer to address and nothing to do with perceived superannuation discrepancies.
Circum
31st Jan 2020
5:02pm
Agree with you Rae.The argument is based on communist mentality.If there is an issue with some people working/stressing out more than others ,then that is an issue for the employer to address and nothing to do with perceived superannuation discrepancies.
Hoohoo
5th Feb 2020
12:41pm
I agree with most of what has been said here, but it is elitist thinking that presumes they are entitled to more just because they are paid more. Especially when it's a hand up (tax break) from Government coffers (we are all paying for it, at least, those of us who work for money and pay tax).

Olderandwiser is right when saying some people who are paid more (promoted) actually do less than their underlings. Someone I know, with extensive knowledge of the Public Service, told me "you are promoted to your level of incompetence" (because those above you retire or move on, so you're required to step up to the next rung, regardless of your skill. You will get that promotion over someone from outside the PS, no matter how much more suitable and competent that outsider is).

But in the private sector, I know of young people forced into "promotion" but all it means is more responsibility with the same pay but worse conditions. These are the crap jobs young people have to contend with. As you say, Rae, immigrant visas (over 1 million per year!) are undercutting our low wage earners and contributing to this poor work situation for young people and older Australians. Even people with Degrees are subjected to competing with short-term overseas workers who are prepared to work under the minimum wage.

Again, the argument has been pitted so that people think if they're losing something, it's because someone else is getting something. Well that's a joke with this government - they just give tax breaks (increasingly to the well off) and cut or reduce services for the common folk. How else can they achieve a Surplus? But now that climate change has bitten our economy on the bum bigtime (not to mention people from the regions, animals and the environment), they will have to forego that Surplus. Either that or we'll have a Recession.
Tanker
31st Jan 2020
11:14am
I agree that tax concessions, of all kinds actually, favour the rich. The rich will deny that and fight it tooth and nail throwing in statements like it is "class warfare" etc.
Blinky
31st Jan 2020
5:49pm
What do you call "rich" Tanker?
And when is one "Poor?"

Marx's idea of 'equality" is only Utopia, and has never existed, not even in Communist countries, where everyone is supposed to be "equal."
Or are you telling me that a surgeon, a lawyer, an engineer and a cleaner should get "equal" pay and also a Centrelink pension when they retire? Yeah, right!
Hoohoo
5th Feb 2020
12:57pm
If only people were satisfied when they have everything they need, and a plan to provide for their retirement. But for some people, there is no limit and so they're never satisfied, constantly scrounging for perks, handouts and concessions, even though it makes absolutely no difference to the quality of their daily lives. They are just greedy - there's no other word for it. They think because it's legal for them to claim something, they are automatically entitled to it.

Handouts and concessions should be for those who are struggling to meet their needs, not rich people.
Tanker
31st Jan 2020
11:14am
I agree that tax concessions, of all kinds actually, favour the rich. The rich will deny that and fight it tooth and nail throwing in statements like it is "class warfare" etc.
KSS
31st Jan 2020
12:35pm
If it is not class warfare, why use vocabulary like 'rich'? Implying of course that only those of so called higher classes are rich. Lower classes by default are therefore not rich!

I call BS on that.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
2:25pm
Well - the lower the Class, often the higher the money....
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
3:32pm
Good one, TREBOR.

So let's just pretend we have a classless society. And we'll call those who have more than they need as "advantaged" and those who don't have enough to meet their basic needs as "disadvantaged". Will this prevent us from having class warfare, KSS? Now that's BS!

It is SO obvious that the advantaged hold all the trump cards and the unscrupulous amongst them proceed to stack the pack to feather their own nests even further. Like the LNP extending tax cuts to high-earners and large corporations. That's stacking the pack. Some, those with a strong sense of fairness, may even call it cheating.
Macheke
31st Jan 2020
11:19am
Mootnell. My point is that if you make sure that those without means are looked after and it happens the majority are women then what’s the problem?
KSS
31st Jan 2020
12:36pm
Where is the incentive to look after yourself if you can rely on someone else to pay your bills?
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
3:37pm
KSS, where is the incentive to have babies to the detriment of your career and socioeconomic position in retirement? The economy needs babies.
Gaz
31st Jan 2020
11:29am
The whole tax and pension system favours those who do not contribute to the nation's wealth and do not provide for themselves. I vote for a poll tax - equal taxation for all - not equal percentage, but equal dollars per year - if you cannot afford to live in Australia, then leave.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
12:20pm
Ah - yes the old Thatcher 'tax each individual - ergo - a family of twelve will pay twelve times the tax of a single living in a mansion..

Thatcher.. Gillard? Both failed Librans... I generally like Librans... but there has to be a limit somewhere.
Flippit
31st Jan 2020
1:18pm
In reply to the comment made by Gaz, you are talking a load of codswallop.
There are plenty of us who still work way beyond pension age but we are penalised after a very short time and a very low earning by having the pension stopped.
Maybe there is a small percentage of people who lives off the state’ but how about considering other cases such as.
Retirees who get an overseas pension THAT THEY HAVE PAID INTO but receive a non CPI pension because they live abroad and therefore rely on a government top up to be able to survive.
Retired women who either never worked or started work once their children were school aged.
They clearly have fewer assets to live on.
It’s easy to make sweeping judgmental statements such as yours and others on this forum but what do you know about how people live?
Gaz
31st Jan 2020
1:50pm
Unless you are handicapped or injured, your outcome in life is in your own hands - 12 kids - how did that happen - personal choice, poor school results - did you study hard enough? No superannuation - did you sacrifice while you were working to have savings? Several of Australia's billionaires came here without anything - they sacrificed and made decisions in their benefit. Many Australians want it all - right now - and so rather than having savings and low spending, they have high spending and debt.
Around half of Australians at present are negative net contributors - their tax is lower than their benefits - and they are paid for by the top 10%, who were not put there by an act of fate -- they worked to be high income earners and are having the benefits of their efforts and life decisions taken off them to give to those who have not bothered to make the effort and have made lousy life decisions.
If women have not worked, or have not had a career, or have worked part time, this was their choice - they chose to have kids, they chose to stay home
Lookfar
2nd Feb 2020
5:24pm
Gaz, you are promulgating old right wing, - now Neo Liberal, Propaganda, - the rich are clever because they are rich BS. - it is important to understand that we survive or not because of the contributions of ALL the members of our society. -
Here I re-send an answer to Horace in another string where he is bagging supermarket job loses as "Trivial.
Horace, people losing their jobs through automation is not just some random thing happening, it is rich people finding ways to be richer, and suddenly-poor people being without the money to survive.
Our basic legal system is the Law of Torts, - "A has an obligation to B, - to take care.".
We all acknowledge that murdering, thieving, raping, swindling, etc. are not taking care, and like those, 'many not taking care' activities have parliamentary made laws to ascribe punishments and smooth the way for the legal system to expedite whatever people feel ought to be done to the 'not taking care.' people when they don't take care.
Corruption can occur, for instance when very rich people influence politicians to inordinately punish people for 'property' crimes, not taking care crimes (eg sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread). but generally the system works OK as a basis for democracy, and the very rich people, who don't want to take any care except for their own wealth and power, are still sometimes restrained in their greed by our wise laws.
So the Government, which allows a company etc to not take care, must, by our basic law, take responsibility for allowing one group in society to in effect steal from another.
Judging that the basic law of our democracy is trite, opens a pandora's box of evil, Multinationals destroying our society, the rich taking from the poor at every opportunity, eg tax cuts, which never help jobs, and any such that takes away the duty of the Govt to do something by allowing A to not take care of B.
That the Govt has time and time got away with it does not make it right, - there are serial killers and rapists that have never been brought to trial, but no normal person thinks that that is good.

So, when a large number of people lose their jobs, whether it is by the supermarkets depriving customers of personal sales contact to save a few dollars but making those people lose their livelihoods, and becoming unable to give their children the support for education that they need, the Govt is breaking the law.
By calling that trite, you are making yourself an accomplice to that law breaking, and from other things you have said I don't believe you are that sort of selfish stupid person, but just haven't thought things through.
Well, it is now the time that everybody will have to think things through, - if we don't look after our environment and stop heating up the planet our environment will gradually but inexorably disappear, - and us with it!
If the Govt does not plan for loss of jobs because checkout chicks and coal miners are too expensive we will have increasing social inequality, not enough money to go around to keep the economy alive so economic stagnation, a downward spiral that will hurt even the rich.
History is to learn from, the Romans did it, = taxed the marginal land so no farmer could pay their tax, so all the marginal land was abandoned, decided they needed money for partying so not pay the Army and the Jutes or Vandals or whatever just walked into Rome, up to the corrupt senate, pissed on them and cut their throats, - the which they thoroughly deserved, but those invaders then raped, pillaged and killed the ordinary population, who did not so deserve.
We are now in a dreadful situation where our leaders do not obey the basic law and care nothing, do nothing, take no responsibility, have no b''''ody idea, so they are failing to do their job, probably are incapable of doing their job even if they understood what it is, so have broken the contract with us who elected them to be our representatives and take the care we trusted them to do on our behalf.
Obviously they have to go, - preferably yesterday, but also we have to take responsibility to really take care who we vote to replace them, - we can't afford any more to vote for politicians that will not take care of us, our economy, our education system, roads, water, power supply, etc. on our behalf, - by voting for such ravening beasts, we will ourselves be ravened.
Hoohoo
7th Feb 2020
11:46am
So Gaz, how can our economy or society even exist if no women choose to have babies? It's bad enough that you don't count it as hard work that deserves some compensation.

You totally dismiss the disadvantage for life of someone born into poverty? Criminal parents? Chronically ill or drug addicted family members? Mental health issues?

How do you define "handicapped or injured"? Handicapped in a wheelchair? Injured so you can't work? I know plenty of people who can't work because of injuries yet they are forced on to Newstart, not a disability pension.
Horace Cope
31st Jan 2020
11:36am
So, we now have a definition of the "rich", it's those who earn more than $124,000pa. It's also time to give a balanced view and point out that the top 10% of income earners in Australia pay 70% of the tax income. If there is a fairer way to give a tax concession to everyone by using the percentage of income received then please speak up now.

Again we see the ridiculous release of figures showing that women have less super than men. Won't be long before the sisterhood starts screaming about the "pay gap" which is not there. All industrial awards in Australia only describe "employees", not "male" or "female" so those working under awards receive equal pay. The reason women get paid less than men and subsequently receive less super than men is because women don't work as many hours than men overall and a lot of women leave the workforce from time to time to raise a family an d choose to rejoin the workforce in a part-time capacity. It's simply a case of getting paid for the work performed.

There is a group of women in society who do not work under an award system, mainly professional women, and this group negotiates their salary package. I have a friend who was upset that her salary package was $20,000pa less than the man who reported to her. This is not a case of gender pay gap, it's a case of one person having better negotiation skills than another.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
12:21pm
The rich only pay on their calculated income - not a set wage etc... so they could easily, without the lurks, pay more, and still have a heap to throw around.
Horace Cope
31st Jan 2020
12:39pm
So, TREBOR, are you saying that the "rich" should not be allowed to deduct the cost of items used to earn their income? Is that fair? How is it different from low wage earners who are also allowed to claim a deduction if the expenditure is related to their employment?
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
2:26pm
Does Jo Toiler get the same deductions......
Horace Cope
31st Jan 2020
2:33pm
Gee TREBOR, I'm not familiar with the ATO rules on allowable deductions but I'm willing to bet parts of my anatomy that the rules cover all taxpayers without exception. It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that those on lower incomes have less to spend therefore the deductions may be lower but the principle is the same.
Hoohoo
10th Feb 2020
5:53pm
Well Horace, hold onto your vitals because the ATO rules people very differently, depending on if you submit your own tax return or you have a tax accountant do it for you. And it depends on how prestigious is that tax accountancy firm.

And as for business deductions, the large corporations send their own tax lawyers into the ATO to basically strike a bargain about how much they're prepared to pay. Who knows what goes down at such meetings? I know this goes on because I know someone who worked at the ATO.

Like most people, you believe that our government institutions uphold the law to the letter of the law, but when you have very highly paid lawyers arguing the case for this rule or that rule, it's unlikely there is consistency across the board. In fact, it makes a joke of the whole process, especially when you consider those expensive lawyers are a legitimate tax deduction.

I'm certain the more money you have, the more deductions per income dollar you will receive. Our egalitarian society is a misnomer. "Yes, I took my client out on the yacht to seal an important deal and oh, look how much the lobsters and French wine cost! The caterers and crew weren't cheap, either! Luckily, it's all tax deductible, including my own share of the spoils."

Meanwhile, people on pensions and Newstart are scratching about trying to keep their head above the water or else they'll be homeless. Worse, our government is bending over backwards to give big corporations more tax cuts. And bugger services for poor people - they're so expensive and unproductive! Those poor people just take and take and take!
pedro the swift
31st Jan 2020
11:41am
Th whole issue is nothing to do with equality, gender or any such, its to do with the gov. wanting to get more money into its coffers. But they always go after the easiest target. They totally ignore the companies that rip off the country by paying effectively no tax on income in OZ. "But its legal" they cry, yeah it sure is cos its set up that way to benefit a few. Time ALL companies were made to pay tax on earnings with NO deductions for anything.
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
3:53pm
Fair dinkum deductions are fair enough, but I think they should be derived from Australian-supplied sources, not from overseas.
This would prevent the ridiculous system in place now, where multinationals set up non-productive and phantom international branches and franchises to divert tax being paid to the country from which the profit is derived.
I think it was Apple who set up an offshore company in a tax haven. The only business it did was to purchase a $1 million pen. Yes, one pen. This "investment" was then used to offset the bottom line of Apple Australia, so they paid no tax to Australia. It's an ugly joke.

Something needs to be done here. Australia is at the mercy of the larger economies, from Fascist to Communist and everything between!
DaveL
31st Jan 2020
11:51am
Would be interested if the calculations were shown.
Paul
31st Jan 2020
11:56am
A couple of points.

The headline is about taxing the "rich", and then they talk about the top 10% of income earners, staring at $124k. That's rubbish, someone on $124k is doing alright, but they are not rich, particularly if they have a mortgage and a couple of kids.

Then then they talk about the inequity betwen men versus women, but taxing higher income won't fix that, and there is nothing else in the article which explains how it will be fixed.
Sundays
31st Jan 2020
1:15pm
I agree! If this is the calibre of the submissions then meaningful change will be slow
Lookfar
2nd Feb 2020
5:56pm
Paul, I agree the headline is provocative, but it is for us oldies, - many of whom are just waiting to die as they have nothing else to do.
YLC is doing it's job to get sleepy minds to wake up a bit, - and given the recent Bushfire carnage, it is high time for the sleepy minds to wake up, - challenge their inner assumptions, and see if they can help.
Paul
31st Jan 2020
11:56am
A couple of points.

The headline is about taxing the "rich", and then they talk about the top 10% of income earners, staring at $124k. That's rubbish, someone on $124k is doing alright, but they are not rich, particularly if they have a mortgage and a couple of kids.

Then then they talk about the inequity betwen men versus women, but taxing higher income won't fix that, and there is nothing else in the article which explains how it will be fixed.
floss
31st Jan 2020
11:57am
Will never happen under Scotty.
inextratime
31st Jan 2020
3:51pm
Agree, but nor would happen under the other mob so lets not get too precious. A non article designed to stir the braying masses.
Mark
31st Jan 2020
12:01pm
It’s not a gender gap it’s a work skills and experience gap. I actually think that people who spend time and energy to acquire skills deserve some reward. There is equal opportunity in Australia for women to undertake education to improve their job prospects and thus raise their level of income and superannuation. Rather than bringing people down how about we encourage people to improve their own circumstances.
Rae
31st Jan 2020
2:16pm
Entirely so Mark and a woman who has worked a full career time of 45 years or so is equally as well off as a man in a similar income bracket. Staying home as a dependent is expensive and has always resulted in less income for the family making that choice. And it is a personal choice because kids do just as well with both parents working as with a stay at home parent.
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
4:13pm
Girls do better than boys at school and more females than males go to University. Does this mean girls work harder? Or are they just naturally smarter?

For some reason these statistics aren't reflected as pay or promotion in the workforce. As soon as it's not a sheet of paper clearly showing marks and who has achieved more, and you have a panel (dominated by men?) who decide they prefer a job applicant who looks like them, not a female, and we find males dominating and taking a lion's share. Meanwhile, the lionesses are exhausted, time-poor and end up hungry in retirement, because they've done so much unacknowledged work managing homelife as well as paid work. Who has worked harder? Who "deserves" to be rewarded more? It was the lionesses that pulled down the carcass.
Lorrainehk
31st Jan 2020
12:07pm
The statistics show that there is a gender superannuation gap. Of course, the more that you earn the more super that is contributed on your behalf. More women are in lower paid “caring” jobs and many have worked part-time but of course this goes for men or women in the same situation. If you have always been single this determines how much you retire with. If you are living in a partnership of any kind you are entitled to half your partner’s super. This should not be a problem if you are together or not when you retire. On separation, you are foolish if you do not get your entitlements from your partner on settlement- male or female.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
12:22pm
**tick**
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
4:35pm
If the husband divorces the breeding, stay at home wife, then he marries a new wife, then the "old" wife can only get a quarter of his Super. Once the youngest child is 8, she stops getting parental payments.
You can see the ugly bind the old wife is in - should she try to keep this (unfaithful, usually) husband, for the sake of her children and to protect her income in retirement? How far should she bend over backwards for him and his old children? In most cases I've observed, that choice is taken away from her anyway 'cos he's out of there, getting on with his exciting new life.

Yes, TREBOR, I admit it doesn't ALWAYS go like that.
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
4:36pm
Lorrainehk, you say (and I agree in principle) "This should not be a problem if you are together or not when you retire. On separation, you are foolish if you do not get your entitlements from your partner on settlement - male or female."
But don't you need money to take that aberrant partner to court? Maybe you're not foolish at all, just too poor to pursue your entitlement?

And we all know the story about vulture-like lawyers ending up with most of all the money you both have to lose.
geordie
31st Jan 2020
12:11pm
Just tax everyone at 30% of earnings and no deductions and loopholes etc. (It will, of course include the value of any shares given in lieu of wages etc.)
Rae
31st Jan 2020
2:18pm
If you did that it wouldn't take 30% probably more like 15% if companies were included.

It's like a transaction tax of as low as 0.05% could probably replace all income and company taxes as well. No deductions or subsidies would be needed.
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
4:42pm
While it has merit, Rae, I don't think it can ever happen. A transaction tax will hit low income earners and pensioners, (like upping the GST%) who are already squeezed to the limit and beyond.

I think it would lead to many companies moving their business activity on to the black market. They are not used to paying ANY tax, so it would really shake things up.
Retiring Well
31st Jan 2020
12:12pm
The rich have already been limited to what they can put into super to $25,000 so it's already been fixed.
KSS
31st Jan 2020
12:41pm
Yep! For concessional contributions and that includes the amount poo aid by the employer.
Sundays
31st Jan 2020
1:24pm
Exactly, and if they can afford to put in non concessional contributions in order to fund their own retirement I don’t see the problem. There has to be some incentive to save for the future

31st Jan 2020
12:13pm
'gender super gap' - hmmm.. you get what you work for.... and what you declare as income from work...

Work more hours or get a higher paid job. Thre is no 'gender super gap' while ever all are treated under the same rules... but let's be honest - 70% teachers? 70% public servants? 90%+ nurses? Artificial advancement in all the professions?

Get real for a moment..
Hoohoo
9th Feb 2020
4:55pm
You are ignoring unpaid work TREBOR, which is hard work with extremely long hours and no holiday time, let alone pay. And Super? You must extract it from your partner - there's none given to your own account, nor to be matched by a government contribution. THIS IS THE GENDER SUPER GAP.

And all those female-dominated professions you mention are dominated by males disproportionally when it comes to promotion and higher paid positions. Women dominate the low paid positions, the ones that actually require you to work harder physically.

TREBOR, you need to get real - you sound like Joe Hockey with your just "...get a higher paid job". Yeah right, break the glass ceiling while you're at it.
Paul
31st Jan 2020
12:16pm
So, Geordie, someone on $22k should pay $6.6 in tax should they, leaving them $15.4k to take home? They'd be better off on the dole, which would cost the govt a lot more.
Paul
31st Jan 2020
12:16pm
So, Geordie, someone on $22k should pay $6.6 in tax should they, leaving them $15.4k to take home? They'd be better off on the dole, which would cost the govt a lot more.
Chris B T
31st Jan 2020
12:16pm
When "Quoting" Gender inequality please make Reference to like Jobs, single and married.
Married, in particular a Portion is shared with the other. Not a singular Amount but a shared Amount. Divorced couples have a Split amount how ever they are divided amongst other assets.
ie. One in a relationship may have a larger Amount than the other, grouped together is the actual amount. Nothing new here, but just making a outcome to favour a "story line" of Fantasy Land.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
12:24pm
Still able to count the old ladies in the clubs on their $5 a shot pokie fund... I tremble at a 50c bet.....
KSS
31st Jan 2020
12:30pm
I am sick and tired of these repetitive reports bemoaning the fact that life isn't fair and someone else should pay for it! Guess what, life isn't fair, never was never will be.
There will always be those who work hard, those who don't, those who budget and save, those who don't. Some people will get high paying jobs (with or without an education), some won't. Some people will marry, others won't. Some will have kids, some won't. Some will buy homes, some won't. Some will buy the latest everything, some won't. Some will earn a little, some will earn a lot. Some will save, some won't. Some people are women some are not.

GET OVER IT

We have a welfare system that provides a safety net for those whocabt(and sometimes won't) look after themselves. Stop trying to punish those who made choices leading to the lifestyle they worked for. People who earn $120.000+ a year already pay more tax and get less back in welfare and other handouts than someone earni g $25000. Clearly these 'experts' will not be happy until everyone is reduced to the lowest common denomitor and men are expunged from society altogether.
Florgan
31st Jan 2020
1:00pm
When the wife ( or husband ) Take maternity leave, the spouse that is working , their super should be divided in 1/2 . 1/2 to each of them.
Problem solved.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
2:30pm
Well - who pays the bills while one is off work? That's right - the family unit does - same as when both are working.... it's not 'one loses' - both are in the same boat...
Mad as Hell
31st Jan 2020
1:33pm
Super concessions for the top 10 per cent of earners are not fair.
Rae
31st Jan 2020
2:23pm
Nothing is fair. Life isn't fair. Suck it up.

Sometimes it's destiny and sometimes it's choice but it's never ever been fair and it never will be.
Anonymous
31st Jan 2020
4:28pm
Hmm - yes - but there's fair and then there are stacked decks.... subtle difference...
old frt
31st Jan 2020
2:40pm
What a load of crap. The person on $122000 gets $3677 of tax benefits -wooppee. The low income person gets only $49 in tax benefits .Lets look at the return on investment the low income worker gets , a minimum pension of $24500 per year indexed for life ,30 years maybe ,plus concessions (I had the privilege of paying $106 for my scripts this week ,full price no discounts) , the poor sap on $122000 per year gets naught when retired, no pension no concessions just the honour of being self sufficient and no welfare . Don't get to carried away Leon with some of your views as I would imagine you are in the higher income pension free salary bracket so start saving mate you are going to need it.
GrayComputing
31st Jan 2020
2:46pm
Oh the ever so predictable screams and protest of those super rich, the Packers and Murdochs and their many thousands employed and or politically bribed by super rich to maintain the status quo.
When 95% of the worlds wealth and 99% of power is held by under a 100 people we are so screwed. So well and truly screwed.
old frt
31st Jan 2020
4:13pm
The jolly green ( GrayC )giant comes to the surface again. Never earnt $120000 P/Annum in my whole working life ,but we did live a comfortable life and managed to save for our own retirement . So get off your high horse and do something for yourself ,and put that cigarette out and stop feeding that poker machine and don't expect everyone else to support you .The pension is there for the truly needy
Elizzy
1st Feb 2020
6:23pm
Grey computing, I agree. And if only we could put a stop to that greed, all people on earth could eat, have shelter, education and medical care.

31st Jan 2020
4:33pm
The gender gap is another misleading feminist trope. Of course women have less super by the time they retire: they take time off work to have and raise children.
Gaz
31st Jan 2020
5:34pm
And they didn't have to have children - they CHOSE to,
Hoohoo
8th Feb 2020
12:41pm
They don't take time off work at all - they take time out to perform unpaid work. And if they didn't, we'd have no economy and no future workers to pay tax and prop up your pensions and government perks.
Blinky
31st Jan 2020
5:34pm
This is pure Communism, pitching 'the rich" against the poor.

(by the way, what is the definition of "rich?")

The so-called "gender gap" is pure "political correctness" gone mad. Can ISA tell us how many females are and have traditionally worked in the resources, construction and engineering fields? Because that is where males work and earn more money than females who, traditionally have worked in more "office related work, or dont work because they have babies and cannot work for years.
The so-called "rich" do not depend on a government pension and are not A burden to the economy. Costello called them his "champions" because they look after themselves in their old age.
We need not be careful when we talk about "equity" because a life-long dole bludger will never be "equal" to a hard-working person who retires, owns his home and saved some super. The latter - obviously- will and should be better off in retirement.
EQUITY does not even exist in Communist regimes, where ALL are supposed to be "equal."
Gaz
31st Jan 2020
5:40pm
YES - so many people mix up equality - everyone getting the same outcome (regardless of what they put in) and equity - people getting what they deserve
skinner
31st Jan 2020
8:29pm
The current min super rate is 9% which means someone on 22000 should get a min of 1980 in super, while someone on 124000 would get a super contribution of 11160. This is 5.64 time more than the first! For 9.5% contributions, the respective figures are 2090 & 11780!
skinner
31st Jan 2020
8:29pm
The current min super rate is 9% which means someone on 22000 should get a min of 1980 in super, while someone on 124000 would get a super contribution of 11160. This is 5.64 time more than the first! For 9.5% contributions, the respective figures are 2090 & 11780!
Thomas
31st Jan 2020
10:01pm
How about taxing the super earners, ie those earning in the millions, more not the ordinary workers.
Lookfar
2nd Feb 2020
6:08pm
Thomas, I agree, there should possibly be a set maximum, beyond which there is no point going as no reasonable person, - unless they had very expensive illegal, eg . pedophile, tastes, should need to go. - but then we are starting to talk about a society where we all make decisions about where we should be going, - and award money to those that need it to take us there. - still maximum income, but allowing the new innovators to add their ideas.
Actually you will find that folk who have new ideas, engineering, electrical, computing, artistic ,etc. are usually not interested in money, but only in how they can give to the rest of us what they want to share. - but I guess we need to change society a lot before that can happen..
bobm
1st Feb 2020
7:53pm
The rich had their tax reduced. Great idea from Canberra, all of them are in the pockets of the rich or vice versa
Canberra had this great idea of reducing the business tax with this idea the business owners would buy more equipment, or have extra money to employ more people in their business. This would reduce the unemployment and have more money in the spending by the people. Good for business, good for the Country!!!!!.
Now look at the stats. The unemployment hasn't been reduced, many of the business have gone down the drain. The business owners of the survivors have more money in their pockets. Great move by Canberra. Watch will happen if the workers get a few dollars in the pocket. Everything will go up and they will not get any benefits from their change in the taxes.
Canberra makes all the good moves!!!!!!!. Comments of super as shown on other comments needs no more explanation
ex PS
2nd Feb 2020
11:08pm
Making people pay their fair share of tax is not robbery. Taking money from pensioners that don't actually owe it is.
annmiller
13th Feb 2020
9:56am
Interesting post. It was exciting to read it. I've got a lot of useful information.

https://www.masterpapers.com


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

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