Super tax breaks back on agenda

Financial Services Inquiry head, David Murray, has called for the new PM to rethink super.

Super tax breaks back on agenda

Superannuation tax breaks for the rich are back on the agenda after the head of the Government’s Financial Services Inquiry (FSI), David Murray, urged the new Prime Minister to rethink his predecessor’s stance. The current framework for super tax concessions favours the rich, with Mr Murray labelling the existing scheme “particularly harmful” to low income earners. Superannuation tax concessions cost the Government close to $35 billion a year, and this amount is expected to continue increasing.

The Financial Services Inquiry has called for a full review of retirement income policy, including Age Pension, tax, superannuation and other welfare policies. The change in federal leadership has delayed a cabinet meeting that would have approved the government’s response to the inquiry. Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey both publically promised "no adverse or unexpected changes to superannuation" even before receiving the findings of the inquiry.

"In order to deliver value to the Australians in the superannuation system, policymakers will have to come to grips with the fact it doesn't deliver the value it should, given the vast amount of money people are putting into it via contributions and as taxpayers," said Mr Murray.

"By reforming superannuation tax concessions for the wealthy, the Turnbull Government could deliver a fairer system and save billions of dollars," said Australian Council of Trade Unions president Ged Kearney.

Read more from The Age.

Opinion: Time for real leadership

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australians were left to wonder why money was being spent on Financial Services Inquiry when the Prime Minister and Treasurer were steadfastly stating that any recommendations from the inquiry would have no bearing on their superannuation system stance.

The FSI white paper was created to provide the Government with a list of recommendations that aim to improve Australia’s financial system. More importantly for the Turnbull Government, it provides a framework for change to take to the next election. The timing of the leadership change couldn’t have been any better for lower income earners, as the cabinet was expected to meet last week to sign off on the Abbott Government’s response, which has now been delayed.

Prime Minister Turnbull comes across as an extremely smart and financially savvy man, so let’s hope he heeds the call of the Financial Services Inquiry head David Murray before releasing the new government’s official response.

What do you think? Should the Government consider significant changes to the current retirement income policy? Specifically, should the generous tax concessions on the superannuation of wealthy Australians be wound back? Is Prime Minister Turnbull the man to make this happen? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    JJ
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:04am
    Yes I believe PM MT can make an informed decision on how to moderate Super to help the 'battler'. It is currently tilted towards the rich. The Super is a saving (enforced) for retirement but myst be able to help in funding Health Insurance which is becoming exhorbitant to the retiree.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:43am
    Seeing is believing. The rich have fought long and hard to keep their Tax Shelter and it will be interesting to see if Turnbull can fix this with the pressure which will be on him.
    Whatever way things turn out you can bank on the fact that the rich are getting tax cuts. My bet is that their company tax rate is dropped by at least 5% whilst wage and salary earners get a very small sweetener so that they do not look too closely at what has happened. Never changes.
    Star Trekker
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:05am
    I'll be voting for a Govt. that does clean up this mess.
    Pass the Ductape
    23rd Sep 2015
    5:19am
    I'll vote for any government that promises to get on with the job of governing, instead of condemning everything that's placed on the table or creating stalling tactics simply because it's an idea dreamed up by the other side. I'm thoroughly sick and tired of the in-fighting. Just someone get on govern the damn place!
    marls
    23rd Sep 2015
    12:49pm
    Australian liberty alliance will be on board soon as a party
    particolor
    23rd Sep 2015
    2:15pm
    Nothing will Change ..It will be the same Unruly Squabble as usual in Parliament ! :-)
    Happy Jack
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:54am
    What a joke with pensioners and less well off self funded retirees, who are fortunate enough to have a few bucks in a bank paying tax on the interest and after allowing for inflation having their capital erode. Let it not be the be all and end all of financial reform- negative gearing, trusts, fringe benefit tax, diesel tax rebate and tax compliance by multi nationals should all get a good going over. If MT could pull this off he'd get my vote, the first time liberal in nearly 75 years.
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2015
    11:05am
    Saving for old age in super should not be taxed ...we should look to maximise super savings so saving the taxpayer paying state pensions .
    In the meantime we should raise the pension . And cut family benefits and free doctor visits for those not on health card ..
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2015
    11:08am
    Come on Drew your better than this ...
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:07pm
    You missed the superannuation tax shelter the rich have been milking for decades to avoid the tax system.
    I think that many Australians understand that the system favours people with big incomes. That's how it was set up Jack.
    Your account of what retirees are being hit with is bigger than even your list. Whilst trying to avoid drawing a pension retirees not only pay tax with many making a negative return once inflation is factored in but then the real sting in the tail comes with Capital Gains Tax if you sell any assets which you want to recycle into better performing assets. And then there are costs like stamp duty as well. Its a minefield and I have to wonder why people who have prepared for their retirement bother. Easier to land on the social security system and hold the hand out. We lve in a strange world!
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2015
    5:59pm
    Spot on, Jack. The current pension system is a recipe for economic disaster and brutally unfair. It richly rewards the irresponsible big spender and harshly punishes anyone who battles to achieve near-self-sufficiency in old age. It purposely grinds the lower middle-class or upper working-class battler into hardship while super concessions deliver obscenely generous benefits to the rich and privileged at taxpayer expense. It is exceedingly generous to immigrants who draw pensions from their own country and from ours as well; to former government employees who had generous superannuation schemes; and to those who maintain their health and continue to be able to supplement their pension with earnings - but it crucifies anyone who is now unable to earn but struggled to save a nest egg for old age, and the incapacitated who were awarded compensation payments that SHOULD give them access to better health services and care, but instead must be spend on daily living costs to compensate for pension loss.

    The recent changes to the means test are a classic example of stupid economics. They position moderately affluent retirees such that they will gain approx $178000 over a 10 year period by quickly spending $100,000 on a world cruise. Given that nobody in the current climate could reasonably expect to convert $100,000 of investment into $178,000 in a 10 year period, and that qualifying for a pension gives access to substantial other benefits, many with moderate savings will be sorely tempted to splurge on luxury travel and then come home and put their hands out. Meanwhile those who maintain the responsible stance will see their savings dwindle steadily until they are lowered to the status of average aged pensioners and forced to impose on the State for care in old age. And at the same time aged care homes are allowed to raise their accommodation charges so that residents have to pay more than the cost of an average family home to secure a 3m x 3m room with attached toilet, shower and basin - in addition to paying 85%+ of the aged pension every fortnight in care fees. Which of those who saved for old age will still have enough to meet accommodation costs after 30 years of inflation?

    I would have thought it blindingly obvious that you can't expect to increase government revenue by allowing the privileged to evade tax and expecting to draw needed funds by taxing the poor and reducing the spending that is desperately needed to stimulate employment growth.
    The sarge
    22nd Sep 2015
    11:28am
    Whats rich???? we all seem to have different views on this I would suggest that rich is a lot more than 1 million given todays financial climate particularly given current stock market and dollar values. I expect that some will say $500,000 is rich. The notion of the word rich is what the perception of the person making the judgments financial position is at a particular time. Just saying rich in any context is non specific and open to interpretation by vested interests
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:10pm
    Superannuation is to provide an income in old age . The rich are not interested in super ...
    The problem with super as it stands is it does not achieve its purpose . We should be designing a system to increase the pot not taxing it more ...
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:24pm
    You are right. What has happened is that workers have been forced to save so that they achieve a similar or marginally better pension than the aged pension but without the added benefits of cheaper medical,perscriptions, rates, regos etc.

    It doesn't make much sense for the individual who could have used the money to pay off a mortgage faster or to have bought an extra property to collect the rents.

    Wealthy people don't save into superannuation as the risk of government changes is higher than market risk.

    Why save hundreds of thousands of dollars to achieve an income that you could have had simply by not saving at all?
    Batara
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:27pm
    Pete, what you say is true, but I see no virtue in robbing the common taxpayers to benefit those who already have wealth beyond their life needs. Meaning what they need to live on - food, shelter and access to medical and dental treatment. Cruises and luxury spending need not be subsidized by the tax payer.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:09pm
    Sarge: rich might be better defined as the income one can derive from assets (deeming?). People who are earning over $150 000 pa are certainly 'rich'. Those earning $50 000 are clearly not.
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2015
    6:02pm
    Correct, Mick. Which is why asset-testing pensions is counter-productive and unfair. The Labor proposal to adjust the means test to focus on income, and to, at the same time, address tax concessions on superannuation to ensure the concessions benefit low to middle income earners and NOT the wealthy, was sound policy and should be implemented.
    Adrianus
    25th Sep 2015
    4:02pm
    The average wage is around $76k. People earning over $100k are getting welfare. Sarge given that there are only 2 ways to make money, in my mind a rich person has enough money invested, which returns income equivalent to what he would earn from personal exertion plus a growth of capital equal to inflation. So let's say this rich person earns $76k pa.
    His investments would therefor provide a dividend yield of say 4% plus growth. That extrapolates to a lump sum of $1.9m. Of course he would have a home, car, boat and golf buggy. When 60% of people don't like their job, a rich person is one who works because he wants to, not because he must.
    Tom Tank
    22nd Sep 2015
    11:35am
    This could well be the measure by which Malcolm Turnbull will be judged.
    Some comments posted either do not understand just how skewed the system is at the moment or are beneficiaries and are protecting their own territory.
    Idontforget
    22nd Sep 2015
    11:48am
    Be careful about cutting the diesel tax rebate right across the board. Doing that for all industries would push up the price of food, transport and many other daily essentials.
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:12pm
    And make small mining companies not on the grid not viable...
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:12pm
    I cannot understand why there needs to be a diesel tax rebate. When you look at some of the players who suck on this one you have to wonder why it is not canned. It needs to be.
    Hairy
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:00pm
    Pension raise is a joke can't even get a cup of coffee a week.shamefull.got me a part time job but with fuel,licences first aid cert uniform upkeep shoes wear and tear on car.loss of tax threshhold 800 extra Medicare.begining to wonder if it's worth the effort.
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:14pm
    The taxpayers funded pension rises twice a year in line with CPI or male earnings whichever is the highest . If you are capable of working why aren't you ...?
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:28pm
    Yes but it is a pity CPI isn't an accurate measure of inflation. Even pork spare ribs are $25.99 a kilo and mostly bone. No I didn't buy them. Does anyone know why meat is so expensive now?
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:13pm
    Do not know what you expect from the pension system Hairy. Sounds pretty good to me.
    Pass the Ductape
    23rd Sep 2015
    5:27am
    Rae... Look no fur4ther than Halal certification!
    marls
    23rd Sep 2015
    12:54pm
    pete I am quite capable of working that's not the issue for some like me I left work in may living of my super. I just could no longer cope with 4hrs travelling each day and then having to buy a new car every 5yrs. after 18yrs of the travel decided either I am better of dead or leaving
    eli
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:03pm
    If the government brings on in 2017 the changes proposed to the assets and incomes tests, considering the very low interest received from term deposits,many part pensioners will be forced to draw down from their capital in order to live . This will have the effect of reducing their assets which in turn will mean that the government will end up paying more age pension which is completely opposite to what the government hoped would happen.
    I hope the new PM will realise the adverse effects of the new laws and make provisions to reverse them. eli
    Sceptic
    22nd Sep 2015
    1:37pm
    The whole idea of accumulating assets during working life, be it Super, or savings in cash, or investment in equities, or properties, is to provide for your retirement living. Not to live off the pension so that you can leave the accumulated funds to the kids.
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:35pm
    A lot of people will simply spend the extra money if they have it. The added advantage of the pension is worth about $3500 in lower rates, regos etc which means those just above the cut off will be thousands of dollars out of pocket.

    As Sceptic says the whole idea is to provide for your own retirement but why would you when the aged pension and extra benefits pays more than the accumulated hundreds of thousands of savings. It doesn't make financial sense.

    If they made aged pensioners pay back funds from an estate that might make sense but would be very mean indeed.

    The fact is returns are dismal and the promise of a better pension from superannuation has not happened. Many savers will be worse off than if they had never saved. The Superannuation system is broken I suspect.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:16pm
    eli: what do you think this government want to happen? Joe Hockey made it clear that people should sell their assets and live off the proceeds. Funny but Costello told Australians to "buy a house or two", presumably to live off the rent. Conflicting messages and shows that governments are NO to be trusted. None of them.
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2015
    6:12pm
    Eli and Rae are right, Sceptic. The government is rewarding people for living it up and harshly punishing those who save for old age. Many who lose their pensions under the changed means test provisions will be far worse off than pensioners until they have eroded their savings and are reduced to the status of the average pensioner. In fact, they have a strong incentive to splurge on world travel and come back and claim a pension that will enable a far better lifestyle than they can achieve from returns on investments.

    You cannot increase national wealth by destroying incentive and reward and impoverishing people who worked hard to be nearly self-sufficient in old age.

    As for leaving accumulated funds to the kids - well, it depends how those funds were accumulated I think. If X spends $500,000 on world travel and Y goes without luxuries to make future generations better off, why should X get a pension and not Y? And under the current system, you can GIVE the money to your kids before turning 60 and claim a full pension, so why should you be denied the right to a similar pension just because you might leave an inheritance to your kids?
    After all, if our kids inherit a little, THEY will be less dependant on the taxpayer, won't they?
    adbob
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:08pm
    No great fan of his but at least MT may have the intelligence to do the numbers.

    The present set-up is bad enough (ie re the assets test).

    Hockey's proposed one means that (for a single person) there is no point in putting aside any more super once you get to around $250,000 - not unless you can be certain of getting into the million plus zone where the tax breaks start to compensate for the loss of age pension.

    In the normal $250,000 - $1,000,000 range - (which is where most people with super are - most in the lower part of that range) all you do is live on your own savings while others live on your taxes (past and present). When you savings above $250,000 are exhausted you're in the same boat as those who never saved.

    Once people wake up to that simple fact the bleatings from the super industry - that we should all be saving more to ensure a comfortable retirement - will be realised for what they are - a bare-faced lie.

    MT needs those twisters on side (he's close to them - remember he was once a partner in Goldman Sachs) and he might even win some floating voters over if he took the initiative to give ordinary hard-working people the chance to get some value from their savings in old age.

    Once dubbed a working man's paradise, this nation's idea of social security is the most backward in the developed world - although we're pretty good at lining the pockets of unproductive spongers and scroungers (and I don't just mean our politicians).

    It's a sad fact ordinary hard-working people are the only ones who don't have a pressure group batting for them.
    Paulodapotter
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:45pm
    They do adbob - themselves. They, like you, fail to recognise that fact. You're batting for yourself right now.
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:40pm
    Many other Nations less rich than ours manage to pay an aged pension entitlement to every one who worked and paid tax. This encourages saving unlike our system where savers are punished.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:19pm
    I agree adbob....but I do seem to recall that you were a Turnbull hater not so long ago. Correct?
    Mike
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:19pm
    At a recent seniors meeting, it was proposed that up to 560000 retirees and soon to be retired middle class who worked and saved hard for their retirement would have their retirement plans smashed by Hockeys changes to part pension plans. He called them the wealthy home owners. NO. They are the hard working middle class. The real wealthy havnt been touched. It is estimated that 560000 will NEVER vote Liberal again. Someone had to pay for B Bishops and Hockeys personal excesses somehow.
    Paulodapotter
    22nd Sep 2015
    12:41pm
    You're assuming that those 560,000 retirees all realise what is happening. We're all on the curve. The idiots, the selfish, the informed and the decent are spread pretty widely, Mike.
    Anonymous
    24th Sep 2015
    6:16pm
    Right on, Paulodapotter. Sadly, most of those 560,000 haven't yet figured it out. But watch out when they do. The claimed savings will evaporate as people hasten to adjust their affairs. I know many who are already booking world cruises or making large gifts to their children so that they restore their entitlement to benefits.

    The change to the assets test was a detrimental move that will result in dramatically INCREASED costs to taxpayers over the medium to long term by destroying incentive and reducing saving. It's not just grossly unfair. It's actually thoroughly STUPID.
    Snowwhite
    22nd Sep 2015
    1:12pm
    I very much believe PM Turnbull will be swayed by the Party's far right agenda and that they are only governing for the top end of town.
    melbgirl
    22nd Sep 2015
    2:29pm
    I am afraid you are correct; whilst MT might try to tackle some of the issues, getting it past the rest of the party will be near impossible. He is still surrounded by those same people in the party, with their own beliefs and interests.
    Paulodapotter
    22nd Sep 2015
    6:16pm
    Hopefully he has selected his cabinet well enough to dilute the IPA's agenda for the LNP.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:25pm
    Turnbull's stripes are yet to be seen.
    I sent Malcolm an email a few days ago covering your issue above Snowwhite and, just like Wayne Swan before him, warned Turnbull that if his government intended to carry on with the same policies of stripping average Australians of money in their bank accounts to pass onto the rich end of our society then he would face the same end as Gillard and Rudd did.
    particolor
    22nd Sep 2015
    9:03pm
    OH No ! Not the Ruddy Gillardotine ! :-(
    Adrianus
    24th Sep 2015
    4:07pm
    I've seen Turnbull's management style before. His short term focus is to jolly everyone along and get them on side with promises of a brighter future. My guess is ministers forgot how to laugh under Abbott because he was too stressed fighting for his own survival.
    Turnbull may be saying "business as usual" now but he WILL have changes. You can take that to the bank!
    robmur
    22nd Sep 2015
    2:56pm
    I would suggest the new PM reverse the decision on cutting the part pension for self funded retirees to be enacted on 1/1/2017. My wife and I might be asset rich (I doubt it) but certainly income poor. I know that raising the $1.50 to $3 with a cut off point being $823,000 (currently $1.3 million?) is going to make life much more difficult. Our current assets are about $720,00. Sounds a lot and some would say that is plenty to live off. But is it? I've been retired for 18 years and have a moderate superannuation. With the part pension as it is now, life is OK without being extravagant. But come 1/1/2017, it is going to be much harder to exist as the essentials in life are continually rising - private health, gas, water, electricity, council rates, and even the cost of basic food items. Because costs of essentials are continually rising, we are going to eat into our moderate capital very quickly, and therefore, if we live long enough, will be asking the government for more aged pension per fortnight. Is this what the government really wants? After working and saving all our married lives, why should we be punished by a former PM and Treasurer in their endeavour to "balance the books"? As part pensioners, we along with other part pensioners certainly haven't spent very much of the government's financial resources. I hope the new PM has a much more sympathetic view of the very hard working past "lifters".
    *Imagine*
    22nd Sep 2015
    3:40pm
    Do you remember Joe H telling us that interest rates are low and it is easy to borrow - we want you to spend! spend! spend!?
    He wanted to kick start the economy. Well imagine how it looks to those in treasury when they see all ‘the oldies’ sitting on billions of super. How can we get them to spend it? How about changing asset limits and increasing the taper rate by 100%? That will get them drawing out their money and buying new cars, carpets and pub meals. Job done. Economy boosted. Short term gain only though, nobody in power now, cares about the extra pensions required tomorrow as a result of hard won nest eggs squandered.
    Is this imagination? Well I was told by a Politician “We didn’t ‘Grandfather’ these changes, we have given you nearly two years to adjust your asset balance” In other words SPEND UP NOW. In Britain the suggestion is to charge negative interest on savings to bring about the same end. It is a strange world we live in.
    Paulodapotter
    22nd Sep 2015
    6:23pm
    I have friends who lost out big when the share market collapsed followed by the lowering of interest rates. They've been on a program of downsizing ever since and it won't be long before they are destitute. Oh, how the mighty have fallen under this government. Yet they are still staunch supporters of the LNP. It's all because of the Labor mob, you see. Poor fools, I watched my father lose everything as the NP sucked everything out of the small landholders to give to big graziers the helping hand they never needed. He ended up on the pension, which saved his bacon. I don't think any government is going to fool with the pension without serious repercussions. MT is too aware of that.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:31pm
    Great posts guys. I can relate to all of that.
    The low interest environment is targeted specifically at savers (retirees!). Governments worldwide want people to spend, not save. What they do not tell you is that there is around of $200 trillion in debt around the planet with no hope of being repaid. That's where the fun begins and the Ponzi system we are living in collapses.
    We live in interesting times.
    particolor
    22nd Sep 2015
    7:28pm
    I haven't seen a 100 Dollar note for 2 Years now ! Thank You for showing Me one !! :-) :-)
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:19pm
    If everyone were paid the pension earned via income tax throughout a lifetime, and then were treated the same as everyone else for income derived above that level - the budget crisis would be a thing of yesterday.

    Of course, that would impact most on politicians past and fat cat mates and cronies, so is not going to be on the agenda.

    You would need an income of around $100k from super to lost anything at all..... and such a scheme would certainly rein in the fat cats......
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:24pm
    Also, when you save under that system, you get no tax breaks along the way, as I've outlined for you all before... what you save is the same as putting it into a bank, and it comes out of your post-tax income.

    Super currently enjoys a tax break on deposits (often eroded by fees anyway), then a tax break when the fund gets dividend imputation, the the recipient who draws a regular amount pays no tax.

    Everyone contributes via income tax to pension - therefore everyone is entitled to a pension - but also obligated to pay income tax fully along the way for savings, and then income tax in accordance with the rules for all income derived over and above pension.
    particolor
    22nd Sep 2015
    8:40pm
    We don't ask Politicians how much they have in the Bank ! Why Not ? to see if they are Eligible for that Sack full of Money they get ! :-)
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:38pm
    .. and the extra run at full found, all provided, and a nice little earner as well..... once they've failed us dismally...

    Nice little ambassadorship or similar... nobody else gets income for life for failing in a job. All the peasants get is the boot and nothing else.
    TREBOR
    22nd Sep 2015
    10:39pm
    Hence the plan - pay them the pension and tax them on all income above that.
    Circum
    23rd Sep 2015
    8:26pm
    TREBOR please stop talking sense.Of course all retirees should receive the full pension,as they do in many advanced countries.It would simplify administration processes and costs enormously.Simples as Olegs old man would say.Taxation would apply the same as it does now for pre retirees.Save mega millions in government costs.Sadly common sense is not very common.
    LiveItUp
    25th Sep 2015
    2:32pm
    If their is no tax benefit for saving money in super why would anyone do it? I certainly wouldn't be bothered.

    The pension should only be available for those who need it not to those who qualify for it.
    Adrianus
    24th Sep 2015
    10:01am
    What many fail to understand is that "fairness" doesn't necessarily mean equal distribution in flat dollar terms. I wonder in hindsight would Bob Hawke buckle to union pressure and introduce the "income tax and "contributions tax" today?
    particolor
    24th Sep 2015
    5:39pm
    A Young Lady from another Unit here just came and gave Me a Big Bunch of Bananas !
    And I thought of Keating Immediately ! His Forecast... "if You let them Mugs in over there, we will have a Banana Republic in no time !! " ITS FULL- FILLED !! :-) :-)
    I Meant :-( :-(
    Adrianus
    25th Sep 2015
    3:26pm
    That was very kind of her. I often agreed with Keating's thoughts. Anyone who can make a killing with a piggery in a country which has the world's biggest Muslim population has some know-how.
    I think if Turnbull can go to Her Majesty's funeral as Australia's PM then we may very well be on the road to becoming a republic. Hope our banana industry is strong. :)
    floss
    24th Sep 2015
    3:09pm
    We hope PM MT is made of better stuff then the last excuse for a Prime Minister..
    particolor
    24th Sep 2015
    5:45pm
    I wonder if someone can tell Me where we are going to stick 20,000 Immigrants ??
    I know stacks of Australians that Cant Find a Place to Rent anywhere that doesn't cost A Parliamentarian's Salary !!
    Adrianus
    24th Sep 2015
    6:52pm
    parti It doesn't really matter where we stick them, eventually they will find their way to West Sydney . I say move the 20,000 public servants out of the area, up to say FNQ to make way for them.
    Gigi
    22nd Oct 2015
    11:25am
    Tax reform is necessary whether Super or any other tax. This ISN'T about politics, politicians, political parties or point scoring, although one could be mistaken for thinking so! it is about making good decisions for Australia & Australians. We spending far to much time, belittling each other, attempting to cut down tall poppies & considerably insufficient time making good decisions for us all based on fairness & equity. We need to push our politicians to earn the money WE pay them & perform equitably not push their own individual or party agendas. Our political parties have cost Australia (politically, & financially) dearly in last 10 years, we need to get back to sensible government, irrespective of the political party. Tax REFORM YES but not just Super!
    FM
    18th Feb 2016
    3:19pm
    Mr Murray's take home pay is really harmful to low income earners let alone his other perks.
    We are all paying for it.