Super reform to target the wealthy

The Government could save almost $7 billion per year by better targeting super tax.

Super reform to target the wealthy

According to the Super Tax Targeting report released yesterday by the Grattan Institute, improved targeting of superannuation contribution tax breaks and the introduction of a 15 per cent tax on super earnings could save the Government almost $7 billion per year.

The think tank has proposed three reforms that could see the $2 trillion superannuation system come more into line with its original purpose – to assist retirees in saving to supplement or replace the Age Pension.

The report states that better targeting of super tax breaks could save the budget $3.9 billion each year and, by introducing a 15 per cent tax on super earnings, the Government could raise a further $2.7 billion a year.

The Grattan Institute feels that the current superannuation system is “expensive and unfair”, as super tax concessions cost the Government $25 billion each year in lost revenue – with most of these tax breaks going to the wealthiest 20 per cent of households who, in theory, already have enough money to fund their own retirement.

The institute has proposed three reforms which it believes will assist the budget and result in a fairer superannuation system for all Australians. They are:

  • ‘concessional contributions’ made from pre-tax income should be limited to $11,000 per year, rather than $30,000
  • lifetime contributions from post-tax income should be limited to $250,000
  • retirement income, which is currently untaxed, should be taxed at 15 per cent, the same as superannuation earnings before retirement.

The proposed reforms, by winding back tax breaks for the wealthy, would see low-income earners pay less tax, with retirees paying some tax on their super savings, but still less than wage earners on similar incomes.

According to the report, “The proposed reforms are fair. Younger and low-income people would not have to pay so much in other taxes if super tax breaks for rich old men were wound back.”

The changes would not be retrospective and will only apply to future earnings on existing assets.

“Previous repeated changes to superannuation have been too timid. A wide gap remains between the purpose of the system and what it actually delivers. Decisive reform must target superannuation tax breaks at those who need them most,” the report says.

The Grattan Institute believes these reforms will go a long way to bridging the gap between the current superannuation system and its original policy purpose.

“The problem is because we only tinker with the system and we never fix the underlying problem,” said Grattan Institute CEO John Daley. “Until we do something fairly substantial ... we are going to keep tinkering with it.”

Read the Grattan Institute media release
Read the Super Tax Targeting report

What do you think of these three proposed reforms? Do they go far enough to make our superannuation system sustainable? Do you think the current superannuation system is unfair? What suggestions do you have to make it fairer and more sustainable?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    26th Nov 2015
    10:40am
    Certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Show us your money, then hand it over. We need it to pay for the "tax breaks" we're getting.
    Rae
    26th Nov 2015
    2:44pm
    It is a rubbish idea.

    How many rich old men are there anyway. Very few I suspect and they certainly don't have the funds in super anyway.
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    3:03pm
    Most rich people don't have a lot of their money in super. Reason is that it may have some tax breaks but most wealthy people just don't trust super or like the restrictions of super. Personally I have less than 10% of my money in super for those very reasons.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    4:48pm
    Most wealthy people have a range of investments and milk every one for what it is worth. Super is wonderful though as they can get a 15% tax rate and then pay 15% on fund earnings. Won't get that anywhere else. And after using up that lurk the rest goes into other less well paying investments.
    I take your point about not trusting governments with laws surrounding superannuation Bonny. Both sides want to get their greedy, sticky little fingers on some of the loot as they believe it is their 'right' to spend our money. Sooner or later superannuation will be nationalised. Coming. That'll be the end of tax free lump sum withdrawals for the wealthy and the start of annuities for all.
    Rae
    26th Nov 2015
    5:26pm
    The tax rate means absolutely nothing mick if the return on capital isn't up to scratch and unfortunately most superannuation funds do not return anywhere near the money you can make outside that system after fees and charges.

    I'm with Bonny on this one. Believe the propaganda if you wish but my experience proves otherwise even paying the current taxes. PAYG may pay a lot of tax but investors don't.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    11:13am
    Who are we kidding Rae? Superannuation returns are around 7% at present. Tell me how you are going to beat that other than with ricky investments? Small cap bets. Gambling?
    If you are complaining about the 15% tax for money going into super then you are obviously on a low low income where you are not paying any tax. In that case super is not the way to go for you.
    Please explain your so called big calls!! I do not believe you have any. Sorry.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    3:00pm
    International Shares fund unhedged was a no brainer when the $au was at parity and $1.08. Returned 32% last year.

    That was timing but 7% is just dandy compounding mick especially with CPI at 2.2%.

    That 7% fully franked dividend isn't to be sneezed at either if you aren't paying super taxes and charges.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    3:09pm
    And a single senior can earn around $32000 without tax.

    I'm not a high income earner but I have always managed to pay super and then save 10% of the rest of my income. I pay that first, then the bills, then the rainy day/next car account and what is left is mine to live on.

    I have no particularly expensive hobbies or habits.

    My favourite relaxation after gardening is reading economic texts and investment texts.
    My strategy was taught by Ben Graham,Warren Buffett and James Bogle. All available from the local lending library.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    3:36pm
    You need to do some more reading Rae. International shares have done nicely the last couple of years but then the Dow is up around 50% in not too many years and the AUD is down 40%. So you get forex gains plus a bull market in the US. You may not be smiling when the US market correct and the AUD has a bit of a run in the opposite direction.
    To compare apples and apples we need to stay with the local bourse and that's what this website is doing. In that situation a 7% return in these lousy times is considered good no matter how crappy it is. Even money in the bank is fair when you look at what you'd get anywhere else in the world.
    But be prepared to come back to earth. Good luck and good management are often not related.....but you could do worse than listening to people like Buffet. He has a philosophy, not a share pick!
    Adrianus
    29th Nov 2015
    9:20am
    It's easy to give advice to those who are keen to listen and when one has accumulated some wealth, regardless of wether it came as a result of good fortune or good management. I had to listen to a work mate explain his unique mathematical method when he won a huge lotto prize. Ha ha ha. He was that excited he explained the concept to anyone who would listen. Myself I believe in economic cycles. The art of identifying the economic evidence and matching it to a position on the clock has provided many years of fun and enjoyment for the whole family over the years. It surpassed monopoly, scrabble and risk.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    10:41am
    On tne 23 Nov YLC was highly critical of Liberal claims that Super was to ease the burden on tne Social Scurity bill (what it asked problem?) and to replace the Aged Pension for some! They then quoted some meaningless comments and concluded, "Superannuation, as noted by the extensive investigation carried out by ABC Fact Check, was introduced as a third pillar of retirement – a supplement to the Age Pension (note, not a replacement) and private savings.". And the usual gang then made all too predictable comments condemning gone Liberal Govt.

    Well strike me down, look at today's YLC comments:
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    10:49am
    Con't: " ... the superannuation system ... is to assist retirees in savings to supplement OR REPLACE the Aged Pension.

    What, Superannuation is partly designed to replace the Aged Pension???

    Sorry Leon, looks like you have broken the corporate line!!!!!

    Can someone tell the ABC Fact Check that they had better check their facts, tell the whole story and not just their anti Liberal BS!
    maelcolium
    26th Nov 2015
    11:29am
    After reading your comments I reread the article(s) and then reread the ABC fact check, and to make sure I was on the right track I reread an identical fact check on the conversation blog.

    They all agree that superannuation was designed to supplement the age pension. This accords with my memory that it was Keating and Hawke who unequivocally stated that superannuation would not replace the aged pension, but supplement it. Keating confirmed this in an interview recently in response to the claim by Kelly O'Dwyer that superannuation was designed to replace the aged pension.

    I conclude you're having an ideological rant which is really quite stupid and in ignorance of the facts. YLC are quite correct - maybe you need to check the facts and give Leon a break.
    Batara
    26th Nov 2015
    11:56am
    Hey Peter, was reading comprehension studied while you were at school? Perhaps you missed the lessons, or did not take in what was being taught. Seems you have missed the point whatever the reason.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    12:15pm
    A superficial story by a reporter with deadlines is often not worth the paper it is printed on. The media needs to consult with unbiased professionals to get the real story as well as end its relationship with vested interests like the Rupert Murdoch who often dictate how an outlet will run a story.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    3:22pm
    YLC 23 Nov: Super was NOT designed to replace the Aged Pension. Then came a tirade of abuse to those silly enough to think the contrary. YLC 26 Nov: Super IS designed to supplement OR replace the Aged Pension.

    Apparently some YLC readers, especially Batara and maelcolium, can't see the inconsistency!
    Sceptic
    26th Nov 2015
    4:12pm
    The trouble is it suits YLC as it does ABC Fact Check to be pedantic with the statement that Compulsory Super is not meant to replace the pension, when anybody with half a brain would know that the sentence should finish with "for everybody." It certainly will replace the pension for some, and an increasing number of people. That is if the Governments (of all colours) could stop fiddling with the rules and allow people to plan properly for their retirement.

    I worked for 18 years after the introduction of Compulsory Super and lost count of the number of changes that were made in that time. Most of which caused me to change my strategy. They included caps to contributions, and introduction of reasonable benefit limits (RBL). I really objected to the introduction of the RBL as how could someone who was on the then parliamentary pension scheme (no limit), could have the gall to dictate what was reasonable for me.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    4:50pm
    The rich have every ability to fend for themselves. That is what they do really well. The issue is that taxpayers should NOT be putting money in for this. WHilst demanded by those who do not need handouts it is wrong.
    Linda
    30th Nov 2015
    12:47pm
    The ideology of the government changes often, when that happens, what ever was can be different under a different ideology. Yes, they have been messing with super rules since day one. Private Health cover gets the once over too.

    Families can really struggle as even sending children to state schools is very expensive for the family. For probably most Australians, after they get the education bill of their budgets, they look to see how they can fix themselves up for retirement. When the rules change all the time, it leaves people feeling a little cynical and lost.

    Changes should be set in a manner that enables the rules for the most part, going forward, remain the same.

    What is not counted in all of this is the stress and strain put on folks trying to work out what their best options are at a time when they can actually make and realise a goal for retirement.

    Can we trust a financial advisor who is involved with a bank funded association? Who is then, obligated to flog the bank's products?? Can we trust a financial advisor who is looking firstly at their commissions?

    Those who were spooked out of the shares market, took their superannuation and put it into the bank because of the GFC. Now, interest rates are very low and their income is too. One has to have a lot of money to live on three to four percent of their savings. We may last a long time after retirement or not, the future is uncertain. This is how retired people think. Most would like to simply maintain something like their pre-retirement lifestyle and have the funds to get the health care they need.

    What are retired folks concerned about? Health Care, increasing costs of living on limited incomes, downturns in the market and being seen as easy targets for various kinds of predatory and fraudulent behavior by some mainstream services like phone, insurance, health care, and so on. Any service that goes from Government to privitised should come with a toothy tiger consumer protection agency that is funded adequately to protect consumers.

    Again, now that the super has built up to actually have meaning in the economy lots and lots of folks want to get their hands on it, tax guys, services guys, law making guys, and more.

    What we have are agencies with complicated contracts for many standard things, often they write their own laws and create a path into our saved resources.

    I have wondered, and do wonder who funds this publication? As, just like any other media it may or may not be able to stay unbiased.

    The best place to find the facts is looking at the laws, and the policy documents, reading all the tiresome contracts, understanding every danged sentence, and then reflecting and asking questions. This takes a good amount of time and a brain that can spot the dark words in the contracts/rules, etc.

    Cynical here? Yes!!
    eckac
    26th Nov 2015
    10:43am
    The lack of professionalism demonstrated in these reports is both deplorable and diminishing of the message or purpose of the reports e.g.the above reports apparent reference to "rich old men" and the recent burril emotive report referring to 'selfish' baby boomers hogging their lifelong held housing to the detriment of the young.
    The Grattan report should have referred to - affluent retirees or elderly. However its message makes good sense and appears to illustrate how the current super schemozzle could and probably should be made equitable.
    Wstaton
    26th Nov 2015
    12:04pm
    You are right here. That was the first thing that hit my eye when I entered here.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    12:13pm
    Leon, it appears as if you are not going to get many votes for "Flavour of the Week".
    Schony
    26th Nov 2015
    10:45am
    The title for this article is "Super reform to target the wealthy". so why is one proposal to tax the super income stream for pensioners? That's just another tax grab! Money deposited into super used to be tax free, then it became taxed going in. Now they want to tax the income coming out. Centrelink uses deeming rules on your super balance to reduce your Age Pension on top of that. Why do we bother trying to retire comfortably by working hard and putting money aside into super, only to have it taken away again by these constant knee jerk reactions? If you want to target the wealthy, define wealthy as say $250k pa and these people don't get a tax concession for investing income into super. Any earnings in super are still at a better tax rate than personal income tax, so there is still an incentive to put money into super for these "wealthy" people.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    11:48am
    Yep, agree. They speak as if anyone with any super is "wealthy". With super funds returning around 3%, that is certainly not the case. Your idea of defining wealthy is a good one - and your suggestion of say $250k pa is good. :)
    Sundays
    26th Nov 2015
    2:10pm
    I agree completely. There also seems to be a theme lately that says that retirees seem to be on a good wicket (disregard how they may have scrimped and saved for their old age), so this isn't fair and we have to think of ways to reduce their income in their old age.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:02pm
    Pensioners who earn excessive amounts of money should pay some tax. I'd suggest that a tax cuts in for superannuation earnings over $100 000 not $250 000....and that there is an assets test associated with this to be fair.
    Most of us have retired and are now struggling to survive with 3% on investments. In this climate the current government is just evil going after average pensioners with a vengeance like none I have ever see whilst leaving the superannuation tax avoiders alone and refusing to address the big end of town with their offshore tax shelters. This of course starts from the very top: Malcolm Turnbull..........tax shelter user (Cayman Islands).
    mogo51
    26th Nov 2015
    10:59am
    How much longer will Governments reject the reports of sensible, qualified economists on this issue? For years rightly, there has been strong evidence of the need for this to happen.
    Almost instantly, it would put the Australian economy back on its feet!
    Government needs to act, but make sure the pensioner who retires with a meager sum that will give him a few extra thousand each year is not attacked, as is the usual case.
    Of course Politicians super rorts should be at the top of the list.
    leonYLC
    26th Nov 2015
    12:07pm
    Agree with your point about politician super. Poli's super should be weighted by the actual good they do in the community, which would probably equate to a low-income retirement for many! I'm being cheeky, but imagine how much more would be achieved with that type of carrot dangling in front of them. Seems the only time a lot of politicians get off their butts to do something is when they are trying to get into office. Once that happens, it's easy street. Maybe if their super and pensions were rated on their performance, we'd have a better world. Call me a dreamer...
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:05pm
    Governments act for their vested interests. Tony Abbott acted for the benefit of the coal industry when he repealed the Carbon Tax.
    What we all need to understand is that small time pensioners who are not joined as a political force are expendable. WE DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO ELECTION FUNDING so expect nothing.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    5:15pm
    ''make sure the pensioner who retires with a meager sum that will give him a few extra thousand each year is not attacked''

    Never mind the lucky pensioner with money to supplement his pension. What about the poor old ''self-funded'' retiree whose income is less than the pension but who gets no benefits at all and has to constantly erode his savings to live until they fall low enough that he can get a part pension? Some couples who will lose their pension in 2017 have as little as $22500 p.a. income. Should THEY be taxed at 15% of that?
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:29am
    Self funded retirees have been demonised by the current government as it comes after pensioners as a whole. I agree whole heartedly with your post Rainey.
    Pensioners need to band together and get a real Political Party to fight for them. Sadly all that I have seen is skeleton parties which are for the most part just offshoots of the Liberal Party trying to get votes by deceit. Their specialty!
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    11:44am
    Wrong to change rules when people have been planning with particular rules in place. Yes, limit future contribution limits BUT WRONG to tax retirement income at 15%. Many people have gone without holidays, etc so as to put funds into super so as to NOT be a burden & be self funded. they look forward to a tax free income - which THEY have provided for them selves. You can't change rules part way through a "game". Just wrong.
    Batara
    26th Nov 2015
    12:02pm
    Fliss, when the rich have been gaming the system, and now their greed is exposed there is nothing at all wrong with making a correction to the rules to impose equitable outcomes.

    The people using the system realized they were distorting the rules to make themselves even more wealthy. In the final analysis the rich will remain rich. I do not foresee any wealthy citizens becoming destitute as a result of the suggested changes. They will still be rich.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    12:11pm
    I guess it depends on what you consider "rich". I'm not speaking about the "mega- wealthy". I'm speaking about people who have squirred away as much as possible for their retirement - expecting their withdrawals to be tax free. I like Shony's comment above - he says "If you want to target the wealthy, define wealthy as say $250k pa and these people don't get a tax concession for investing income into super." Same could apply for taxing of super.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    3:40pm
    Batara, many who would be impacted are far from rich. Many are battlers with very minimal incomes from a modest superannuation balance. Some of them are really struggling after first having their income slashed by falling investment returns, then being kicked off the pension because they dared to save a little. To now hit them with a 15% tax on their superannuation earnings, while continuing to indulge those with less with generous pensions, is patently cruel and unfair.

    That said, I agree with the proposals, with some qualifications - including making earnings tax free up to a given limit so that low income self-funded retirees are treated fairly.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:06pm
    Fliss: if the rules were fair I'd agree. Unfortunately the casino for the rich has been running for a long time and ordinary people have had a gutful. Sorry if it affects you but WE WANT THE RORTS TO STOP!
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    6:26pm
    Yep Rainey, I agree. Too many people commenting are just pushing for what is in their own best interest. What you propose - making earnings tax free up to a given limit is perfect. And fair.
    Linda
    27th Nov 2015
    12:34pm
    Here we go, a round of changes, then the financial advisers get a fresh income stream from folks needing to see them to figure out their best position.
    The talk (not sure about the walk) is that the changes will need to be fair.

    Keeping in mind that generally the cost of living goes up, completely, but only just, self funded retired people could suffer unless there is consideration for low income.

    Making any change is very complicated because we all have different situations.

    Because of the recent issues in the shares market, many oldies now just want their resources in secure savings accounts, to minimise their risk. With interest rates so low, it pushes the retired into investing in property. When they do that, the prices of limited housing shoots up as do rentals. This leaves lower income people in a bind, as there is less spare money to toss into super. When tinkering with these things, the scope needs to be very wide, with all sorts of situations to consider before measures can be taken that are fair.
    We don't know how things may look in 10 or 15 years.

    We are all interested in our own situations, and I am very interested in how it all works for those who may struggle on low wages compared to expenses, who may face harder times in years to come. Poverty is not good for the country, no matter what the big end of town thinks, it breeds abuse, domestic violence, crime, etc. These things hurt us all.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    2:02pm
    Here's a FAIR system:

    Give those who contribute to their own super a 5% tax break from their top marginal rate and a 5% tax break from the earnings of the fund.
    For people who earn < $100 000 pa add 10% to each of the numbers. For people who earn between $100 000 and $200 000 add 5% to the above numbers.
    Everybody else (high income earners) either take the above or else find investments outside of super which make better returns. This is what they would be doing anyway!
    With the money saved in handouts to the rich governments then pay pensions and part pensions with a fair assets test. Problem solved.
    Don't expect the rich to take that lying down. Take away the feeding trough? Not us!
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    2:32pm
    Closet communist?? ;)
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    3:37pm
    Capitalist actually. Just not a mongrel!
    Wstaton
    26th Nov 2015
    12:03pm
    I fully agree that Supper should be to supplement or replace the pension as original envisaged.

    It was not intended to supplement the riches riches.

    Taking away the concessions away from people who will earn far more that the age pension is not putting a tax on them it is removing the riches welfare that they do not need.

    As far as I am concerned when one retires then receives an income based on their riches whether it is derived from earnings from normal investments or from super should be taxed at the same rate as those working below the retirement age.

    What is the difference between someone earning $250,000PA from investments and super to those earning $250,000 per year from working other than the retiree currently pays less tax.
    Schony
    26th Nov 2015
    12:36pm
    Why are we even contemplating replacing the Age Pension with super now? The real problem is that the employees who only had part of their working life benefit from employer compulsory contributions are in between two retirement possibilities. The "old" way was to rely entirely on the Age Pension. In 1992, compulsory contributions were implemented, so someone starting work then at age 18 has over 50 years for their super to accumulate. By 2042 or so, superannuation could well completely replace the Age Pension. For those retiring any time in the next 10 to 20 years, the continual attacks to diminish super with taxes or tax income from super are ridiculous. It defeats our goal to build up our super to SUPPLEMENT the Age Pension, which appears to be inadequate and diminishing, in relation to the cost of living. Yes reforms are necessary, but it cannot keep taking away from the middle earning population.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    3:43pm
    Wstaton, many who would be affected by a 15% tax on super earnings are far worse off than full age pensioners! Others would be reduced to earning less than the pension if a 15% tax were introduced. By all means tax earnings for higher income earners, but please don't support the proposals based on wild assumptions and without due consideration of the real facts.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:08pm
    The rich will always look after their own retirements. They do not need taxpayer contributions to fatten their nest egg. This notion has been fostered by the rich to milk us all and it is morally wrong and deceitful to the extreme. Are we mugs?
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    12:59am
    Rainey, how did I know that mick would follow up on your comment? Obviously mick has not crunched the numbers. In mick's world anyone who pays 15% tax on Super earnings are 'rich' and are rorting the system! So much for constructive comment! Even if the flat 15% tax on Super earning in the Pension Phase is not introduced those with $1m in Super will become ineligible under the new assets test to claim part Aged Pension and will have a lower income than a couple on the full Aged Pension with 'only' $350,000 cash in Super! No I don't have 1m in Super but I like to crunch numbers!

    Super and the Aged Pension is far more complex than merely reciting the mantra, 'The rich rort the system.'
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    11:18am
    You are twisting and trivialising the argument Peterrj. The issue is that the rich use the system UNFAIRLY.
    Playing the shell game might be an easy way out but it does not change the facts. We all know that there are many 'flavours' and indeed many self funded retirees are doing it tough as they have been targeted whilst the rorts for wealthy Australians are untouched.
    Happy Jack
    26th Nov 2015
    1:17pm
    Well, Well, here we go again, targeting the pensioners and seniors, who being past working age have no recourse in countering the demolition of their quality of life in their final years by the continuing financial imposts caused by these unrelenting attacks by the Lieberal party. Remember; these are the moribund morons who from the very outset and at every turn apposed the introduction and increases in the super levee. They should be thanking their lucky stars they had Hawke and Keating happen along and introduce the super legislation because we'd be in a fine mess now with every retirees relying on the aged pension. It appears that once again those that have saved for their retirement, and I'm not referring to the ultra wealthy, will bear the brunt of savings to be made by this Lieberal Govt so they can cover the short fall in revenue caused by propping up their Multi national mates and Mining companies avoiding tax, Fuel subsidies etc, etc.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    1:31pm
    Who would accept a pension if they didn't need it. I wouldn't. I have some self respect left. Just as I never accepted the dole because I could find my own way when out of work and knew I was capable of earning a living. The dole should be for those who need it. Forget about rights - get some decency and self respect! The wealthy don't need tax breaks on their superannuation. They need to stand up and make a real contribution to this country by putting their fortunate circumstances to some benefit other than themselves. And don't tell me it was all due to your own hard work. You have no monopoly on that front. There are plenty of people on the poverty line who have worked just as hard as you.
    Rae
    26th Nov 2015
    2:56pm
    The way we are going with all this envy we will all be in poverty before it is over except for the politicians and the very wealthy who don't use superannuation anyway.

    A 15% GST on everything and a 15% tax on superannuation pensions. You would be better of incorporating and paying the piddling amount of tax that would cost you.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:09pm
    Yeah Jack.....leave the system in place so that the rich can continue to feed at the public feeding trough.....with their snouts shoved deep into the trough.
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    1:24am
    At last, some sane comments: Happy Jack .... These changes are 'targeting the pensioners and seniors.' Refreshing words instead of the misleading heading above, 'Super reform targeting the wealthy.' Forget the wealthy, these changes are going to get you in the hip pocket!!! And I speculate that the real 'wealthy' really don't read this site!!!! We are all in that fight together and all we can do is bitch with envy about each other!!! Further, comes the reality that just because you have saved for your retirement you are not necessarily 'ultra rich'. Why continually attack those who have saved for their retirement? Rae comes along and states the obvious, 'this envy will put us all on the poverty line'! Then there is mick who misses the point completely!
    I think that we have to accept that 'the wealthy' are those with more than 2m in Super and have an income of more than $200,000 and that rule changes should be directed towards them. Otherwise these ever changing rules will catch us all out. And for heavens sake, don't accuse me of having this sort of money!
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    11:22am
    Peterrj: I am not exactly poor. Have considerable assets but am in there batting for a system where the top end of town has the same opportunity as the bottom end. Nothing more.
    We often hear the wealthy crowing about ALL Australians being able to use the super system like the rich do...whilst NEVER mentioning that only rich folk actually have the funds to squirrel away into super to avoid tax and only rich folk are able to use tax shelters and Trusts and only rich folk are able to send money to offshore tax havens where tax rates are zero.
    Please tell me about 'jealousy'..........and then start a conversation about privilege and control of politics to get what you need.
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    11:57am
    Yup, title of article very misleading - proposed changes will not alter anything for the wealthy but will effect seniors & pensioners. And agree "wealthy" wouldn't even be reading this.
    If someone has saved for their retirement then good on them. If they have seen opportunities & worked hard then good on them. If they have accumulated funds successfully then good on them.
    Seems to me that some people ideally would like everyone's available funds to be put in a huge melting pot & distributed amongst all - those who have worked & those who haven't bothered. NOT going to happen. :)
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    1:56pm
    You are describing my family's life story but you missed out the long hours 7 days a week and holidays working as well.
    The place I have issue is when the rules of the game disproportionately advantage those whose needs are least. A bit like having a 100 m race with two equally matched people and deciding to give one a 30 m head start. Then at the end the winner says that the other guy could have caught him if he wanted to. A nonsensical argument!
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    2:25pm
    Seriously Mick? What a crazy idea to imply. We are not all created equal & the same. How boring would our existence be if we were?
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    2:30pm
    You are again changing the subject. I never said that we were all born equal. What I have been saying in almost every post is that THE SYSTEM SHOULD BE FAIR, not advantage those who need it the least by shoving money into their banks accounts whilst taking it out of the accounts of average citizens. Please do not water down the facts. They are clear.
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    2:35pm
    wasn't deliberately changing the subject, but simply commenting on your views (which I agree were off the topic).
    Over & out. ;)
    Linda
    26th Nov 2015
    1:43pm
    At our house, superannuation does supplement the aged pension. As such, we save the government money. What ever is done, should target several important issues. One is the affordability for housing for young folks starting out, and the property investment game with tax incentives is a problem there. Foreign investment in property is also a problem, as cashed up non citizens ease our own citizens out of the market. Older people rely on way more services than young people do, health, home and garden maintenance, legal and financial. Moves to make changes should consider what grows and what contracts the economy. Impoverishing the oldies and the continuous churn of ideas about how to get into their savings and threaten the security they tried to build for themselves is a disaster for election time. If, as it does seem, oldies face the prospects of paying more for health, paying more for medicine, and perhaps even more for GST on food, etc, then coming in with big new tax story again places some in a hardship double, tripple whammy. I feel uncertain about the details of the proposed ideas. In any change, some will win and some will lose.

    Clearly, if these anointed ones on huge salaries and expense accounts and travel allowances are asked to sacrifice nothing while they rearrange the prosperity of the general population is a bad smell.

    We are looking at a big change re recent trading agreements. With that, I gather all our foods will now cost more, then more taxes, more, more, more from every direction.

    Education and renewal of industries and services, innovation can create wealth. A real plan must be made, there and a govenor should be placed on ... the idea that just take it from the elderly, because it is easy pickings.

    Old people can easily be ripped off, especially in these days of competition for basic services like electricity, telephone, where contracts are so tricky one has no notion if they are making good choices.


    Looking at the failed american model as a way forward is a terrible mistake.

    The government has the responsibility to spend well, enforce the existing tax laws, find the areas where intent does not match reality and make adjustments. At every turn, all I see as a retired person is .... this will cost more, that will cost more, and you will have less to pay for it.
    Happy Jack
    26th Nov 2015
    1:45pm
    Perhaps pauloddpotter should ask the question- why, in this country that produces so much wealth, do we have people living below the poverty line. Remember the Abort led Lieberal govt's budget and their cruel attack on the least fortunate and poorest in our 'VERY LUCKY COUNTRY'. Were is the logic here- apart from looking after your own selfish interests and those of your wealthy contributors to your coffers.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    2:26pm
    That's a question I have asked myself. You only need to ask it once because the answer is obvious. We have a system of government that favours the wealthy under the mistaken belief that if the rich get richer, those below the poverty line will also benefit. The trickle down effect. Trickle is correct. I would not pause for a moment in accepting the pension if I needed it. I hope I never require it as there are many people worse off than myself who would benefit from it. I am just very annoyed that there are so many who don't need it that cry it's their right to have it and decry any move by government to ensure the rich pay their dues. Of course, that's something this government would never do, but we must be vigilant that they don't disadvantage those who require the pension to live a decent quality of life.

    26th Nov 2015
    2:00pm
    Personally I wouldn't take a pension unless I was desperate and in need so I don"t agree with people who connive and cheat to obtain a pension because they think its their right.
    If you don't need it show some respect for yourself and don"t take it leave it for someone that is worse off than you.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    2:27pm
    Hear! Hear!
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    3:35pm
    Super balances should be taken into consideration when applying for a pension. Currently if one person in a couple is below the pension age then their super is not counted in the assets test. So their super is loaded up just so they can qualify for the pension with their partner. Wrong.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    3:45pm
    For once, I agree with you Bonny. That is a disgraceful rort and it's sad that many well-to-do exploit it, while unfortunately the less well off rarely take advantage of it, either because they have little or no super, or because they don't have access to the fancy advisers who know about these loopholes.
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    4:07pm
    Unfortunately this is only the tip of the iceberg regarding what one can do with super.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:11pm
    Agreed robbo. Likewise.
    This is how decent Australians think. Sadly I am wondering if there still a lot of us around these days.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    6:50pm
    Agree that super balances should be taken into consideration. Definitely. But anyone deliberately doing that would have no real benefit because while the older partner may get themselves a pension, they would have missed out on tax free earnings in their super fund which they could have been accessing rather than transferring it to younger partner.
    mollie
    26th Nov 2015
    2:00pm
    There should be a means test on medical services too where wealthy elderly folk can just have treatment in a hospital and medicare foots the bill; there is a lot of money wasted by not checking to see if a patient has private health cover and if they are getting a pension, esp aged people who may look a bit downtrodden but in fact have quite a lot in the bank. Also the follow up services are free like rehab which is provided free in public hospitals whereas if this is means tested, many a patient could quite easily pay for the service. I know as I was a nurse for 50 years.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    2:34pm
    Agreed Molly, but even those on the highest rate in private health cover are feeling the pinch because not only are they paying high insurance premiums they are not covered adequately. Many pay their high premiums and decide to access the public health system because of expenses not covered by their health insurance. Recently my daughter who has no private cover accessed public health for a health emergency. Her treatment was exemplary and she paid zilch. Had the same event happened to me and I accessed my private health cover it would have cost me at least $1000 extra in doctor's & specialist's fees and medication. I pay private health because I can and I do it in the knowledge that it helps relieve the burden on the Public System.
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    3:06pm
    Medicare is for everyone. If you insist on people with private health insurance or private wealth not using medicare then you can't tax them with a medicare levy.
    Rae
    26th Nov 2015
    3:07pm
    A step further would be to take a good look at not only what people have saved in the bank but what they have earned during their lifetime. If they have squandered the money taking holidays, going out to dinner, going to clubs and pubs. Buying expensive clothes, shoes or anything other than essential items maybe we don't treat them.

    I'm NOT serious just trying to make a point here.

    Why should savers be penalised. The only result will be no savers.
    Better to put cash into a safe and tell no one you have it. And that has been done plenty of times before.

    Or spend the lot.

    Then again with the economy in a funk and relying on consumption that may be the idea.
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    3:26pm
    Checking one's bank account. Good heavens. No wonder people have anonymous credit card accounts.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    4:04pm
    I agree, Rae. Forget the stupid, destructive and unfair ''assets test'' and apply fair income tax to retiree income, PLUS use the income test to determine pension entitlements, with a sensible deeming rate applied to assets to ensure people with hefty assets don't deliberately lock them into non-returning investments to qualify for pension benefits.

    People should NOT be penalized for saving while the wasteful are rewarded with generous pensions.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    3:39pm
    On the money there Rainey.
    mysay2016
    26th Nov 2015
    2:56pm
    The ALP has spoken about taxing fund earnings for members when the annual earnings exceed $70,000 approx. This seems fair enough to me as there is margin in that figure for when the share market has good times. When tax needs to be paid it should be deducted from the member's account in the fund and paid direct to the ATO. But Defined Benefit Funds should not be exempt and our elected representatives should be required to pay tax on their pension funds like everyone else.
    Anonymous
    26th Nov 2015
    4:08pm
    I agree with taxing earnings over $70,000 pa., but NOT with a tax on all super earnings as that would unfairly hurt those self-funded retirees who earn very little. At the time of the ALP proposal, I was strongly supporting that in preference to changing the assets test, and I still believe the assets test change was patently unfair, cruel, and economically destructive. It will INCREASE the cost of retirement over the long term. Any savings resulting from it will be very short term.

    Common sense and fairness dictates that people should be allowed to keep what they go without to save for future needs, but ALL those earning more than they need should contribute fairly - and in accordance with their means - to the cost of running the nation.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:14pm
    These days $100 000 would be a lot fairer. It should happen. It would have happened were it not for one Tony Abbott who killed off the Bill Labor had introduced before it left office. A familiar path from this government and its behaviour fits the same model from day one.
    Alexia_x
    26th Nov 2015
    2:57pm
    How about taxing Gina on her income of millions? Why is that woman exempt when she is a billionaire?
    I really don't understand a system that taxes the poor and lets the rich and big foreign companies get away with exemptions on tax and then complains about a deficit in the budget.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:15pm
    Not sure Gina is making any money at the moment. She has poured billion of dollars into developing her iron ore project Alexia.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    5:30pm
    I don't think the wage she pays hereself is diminishing though. She just sticks it into a trust and pays minimal tax.
    LiveItUp
    26th Nov 2015
    3:00pm
    Would I keep my money in super if it was taxed at 15%? A definite No on that one. Reason is that I would be paying more tax in super than outside super.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:16pm
    Unlikely. 15% is a bargain!
    Rae
    26th Nov 2015
    5:49pm
    No mick 15% is not a bargain for an investor.

    Australian franked shares pay returns with a 30% discount for example.

    In fact the astute investor could probably wangle a tax rebate out of such a silly plan as this.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    8:28pm
    A flat tax of 15% on earning in Super is a bargain??? A tax payer with the low income earners tax rebate can earn about $22,500 before they pay 1 cent in tax. That's an combined income of $45,000 for a couple. Now if the fund earnt $45,000 then the couple must now pay $6,750!
    If the cash was invested in both names out side of Super then the interest of $45,000 is tax FREE but if earnt inside tne Super Fund then they have to pay $6,750 due to the proposed flat tax!

    mick, I am glad that I don't send you out shopping for me looking for bargains!!
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    9:47pm
    Exactly Peterrj!!
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    9:53pm
    Rae: respectfully you do not know what you are talking about.
    The equities market is wrought with risk. Very few shares increase and many actually go down and/or go into liquidation. The returns: a good share might return a bit above 4% and you then have franking credits attached.....which is what you are talking about.
    Superannuation: a 15% cost on entry, 15% tax on dividends and ZERO capital gains tax on exit. A good deal. And the sweetener of course if that wealthy people avoid paying a 48% tax rate.
    You need to understand how the system works. You don't.

    Peterrj: it all depends where you are on the income scale and your age. You might actually tell me where you get a great return on capital as the current bank rate is around 3% whilst funds are still cranking double that. If you go it alone you also get the benefit of zero capital gains tax when you withdraw as a lump sump after you retire.
    I'd suggest that super has its place, but it depends on your income. The more you earn the better the perks.
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    12:38am
    mick, you accuse Rae of not know what he/she is talking about????

    What has capital gains tax and lump sum withdrawals got to do with the proposal of a new flat 15% tax on Super Earnings in the Pension phase????
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:25am
    Read Rae's post again. Then read my response. I stand by what I have written in the absence of more clarification.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    3:22pm
    Yes mick for high income earners you may be right. I have never been one. I'm very happy with the returns from my independent investments in bond and share indexes and direct property.

    Those returns have been far better than my superannuation fund so I suspected it was fees and charges and tax but I could be wrong there too. Maybe the formula they use isn't as nimble.

    26th Nov 2015
    3:33pm
    Sound logic, but hopefully there would be generous concessions for those self-funded retirees who are on low incomes. Retiree couples with around $830,000 in assets have just lost their pension, despite some earning much less than the aged pension - as little as $22,500 per annum in some cases. To now take 15% of their superannuation earnings would be grossly unfair and cruel. But this government appears to hate retirees, so I wouldn't trust them not to proceed without due consideration for fairness to low income earners.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    5:18pm
    Many can relate to that Rainey. You have to understand that THIS government wants people to SPEND their money on survival, not keep it locked up in investments. Also, the wealthy expect a monopoly on the ownership of assets and this is a way for them to shake out the middle class and own everything.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    5:38pm
    Interesting analysis Mick, but I'm not sure it stacks up as a generalisation. This government wants the support of the rich and prosperous and that's a generalisation without weakness. Confusing the less well off with clever manipulation of truth and fairness may be another. I'm not sure the wealthy give two hoots about the middle class one way or the other. They don't have to. They're well looked after by the government of the day.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    9:58pm
    Agree with most of what you say Paulodapotter. I'd suggest the current government is in the pocket of the rich and big business and will do anything it takes to strip wealth from the middle class whilst delivering tax cuts to the big end of town.
    The rich have already had company tax rates lowered once since this government took office with the business lobby screaming for more of the same and the government talking up lower taxes.....which will benefit the rich VERY disproportionately. Do I understand we have a "budget emergency"? Or so Joe Hockey and others claim. So how can we reduce taxes for anyone?
    The game is clear to all but the feeble minded or those who believe everything they hear in the media.
    niemakawa
    26th Nov 2015
    6:41pm
    According to the report, “The proposed reforms are fair. Younger and low-income people would not have to pay so much in other taxes if super tax breaks for rich old men were wound back.”

    Isn't that gender discrimination?

    1. So they propose reducing "salary sacrifice - A NO from me
    2.Lifetime contributions from post-tax limited - A NO from me
    3.Retirement income from Super to be taxed at 15% - A NO from me.

    Back to the drawing board ladies and gentlemen.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    8:10pm
    niemakawa, you must be one of those targeted as being wealthy????

    You won't get any sympathy on this site!!!
    niemakawa
    26th Nov 2015
    8:29pm
    Peterrj,

    No I am not " wealthy" I am happy with my lot and certainly do not want sympathy from anyone. One makes ones life and the consequences that go with it. I do admire the so-called "rich/wealthy" and do not agree that they should pay excessive tax for their own endeavours. Unfortunately, today our society has too many takers and not enough givers. The Governments over the past 30 years have, quite intentionally, encouraged this by providing far too many services and "handouts" and now people are unable to look after themselves. There is a method in their "madness" so to speak. Wait until all the go-getters have gone elsewhere, then you will see.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    10:03pm
    The question needs to be asked WHY taxpayers are contributing the vast sums of money they are so that the rich can save for their retirements. Do you not think the rich will be ok in retirement regardless? They most certainly will!
    All of your wants are self interest niemakawa. Whilst it is nice to get a free ride governments are (supposedly) elected to serve the interests of the nation. Not small self interest groups. The rhetoric about helping out the pension system is such a worn out lot of BS as poor and many middle class Australians will never be able to make ends meet on the pension. That is an illusion to hide the reality of what is happening: the rape of public funds by those who should have the decency to keep their snouts out of the feeding trough.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    10:12pm
    Mick, What do you mean :_ "The question needs to be asked WHY taxpayers are contributing the vast sums of money they are so that the rich can save for their retirements."
    Tax payers are not contributing vast sums of money to enable the "so called rich" to save for their retirement. I really do not get what you are trying to say.
    p.s. Wish someone would decide what determines "rich".
    and p.p.s. Like your comment niemakawa :- " One makes ones life and the consequences that go with it. I do admire the so-called "rich/wealthy" and do not agree that they should pay excessive tax for their own endeavours. Unfortunately, today our society has too many takers and not enough givers. The Governments over the past 30 years have, quite intentionally, encouraged this by providing far too many services and "handouts" and now people are unable to look after themselves." So well said!!!
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    10:52pm
    Another poor generalisation Fliss. You leave out "consequences" which make up the majority of decision making. Consequences allow us to be able or unable to achieve our goals. Some just want to be rich and are able to do it, but not all of us seek wealth. Some prefer to contribute in other ways to make this a better world. Should they be penalised? Generalisations sound good, but they often disquise reality. You cite such generalisations, particularly your last rediculous statement.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    11:14pm
    Which statement, in your opinion, is ridiculous? Do you mean niemakawa's statement that I quoted? If so, it is not my statement but nemakawa's, however I think it is spot on. ???? By the way, Consequences are the results of actions. Actions are the results of decisions. Decisions are made according to opportunities, which we all have. Of course those who do not seek wealth should not be penalised, just as those who do should not be either. Can't believe I needed to explain that.
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    1:32am
    niemakawa, I tried to warn you!!!! Only Fliss and your good self have made worthwhile contributions in this section!
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:23am
    Sounds a bit like the rich protecting their patch rather than seeing the forest for the trees.
    One of the very few things I respected Wayne Swan for was his statement about the LIberal Party ..... "I won't sell my soul to the devil". Makes a statement.
    Happy Jack
    26th Nov 2015
    6:45pm
    Don't knock Gina! look what she's done for this country. Her old man coughed up the cost of four pegs and they've been living off the royalties ever since- poor buggers. Now that she's built her own mine, even money says when it's operational she'll go the way of the big miners and shaft the haul truck and locomotive drivers. Where's the jobs there? Bloody disgrace- iron ore trains just short of three kilometres long, pulling a few million bucks worth of iron ore and too lousy to put a train driver in the cab. And while we're at it, what a snow job Newman mining did on the Newman folk- sold the houses to the employees and now they've upped fly in fly out their value has plummeted. Not to mention the social fabric of the town being scuttled.
    niemakawa
    26th Nov 2015
    6:57pm
    That's life, the luck of the draw.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    10:07pm
    Never be jealous of those who do well Happy Jack. I have very little time for Gina and many like her who are of the opinion that its all theirs. But I do have the utmost of respect for Gina and others who work their guts out to achieve something and then benefit many Australians by creating jobs and national income.
    I do loath people lie RUPERT MURDOCH. These low life have taken what this nation has to offer and removed the wealth to another country so that they can pay no tax....here or anywhere. The scumbags of the world!
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    7:15am
    I hope she enjoys her wealth and power. Personally all the money in the world would not compensate me if I lost the love and respect of my children and grandchildren. I actually pity her.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:20am
    I agree Rae. Gina might be rich and powerful but her family has imploded. I often wonder if Gina is happy with what she has done. Money is so corrupting and frequently cracks families apart. Sad.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    8:03pm
    "Super reform to target the wealthy" ... I'm not financially wealthy (in my opinion) so who cares? So yes, let's get stuck into tne rich ... chich is the common thread of many who make YLC comments. BUT, and it's a BIG BUT, many who have been recipients of Part Aged Pension payments will lose all Aged Pension entitlements or have their part Aged Pension payment reduced. By pure logic, Part Aged Pensioners who will be very adversely effected by changes to the pension scheme must now be consider part of tne wealthy class, otherwise why have there Aged Pension payments ceased or been reduced???? So there is part of the definition of who is wealthy: Those of pensionable age who are unable to claim part Aged Pension due to having too much income or too many assets! However, that is not tne no of tne story. The proposal is to tax at 15% earnings in Suoer in tne pension phase. If these proposals are directed to the wealthy' then, again by iree logic, anyone with any earrings from a Super fund is 'wealthy'. What a load of rump bosh!!!!
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    8:07pm
    Oops,there goes tne wrong button, again. Last sentence Con't: What a load of rubbish, but hey, I don't make up the rules 'targeted to the wealthy'!!!!
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    9:49pm
    Again spot on Peterrj.
    Wish somebody Ne would define wealthy.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    10:11pm
    Attacking the rich is not a fad. It is about time that the rest of society stopped being the slaves of a small group who believe that THEY need their own special rules to tilt the tables and permit them to gain wealth whilst paying little or no tax. It is wrong.
    The problem you are talking about Peterrj is not wealth. It is the rich using their government to push the middle class into brackets which cannibalise them. Nothing to do with real wealth at all.
    niemakawa
    26th Nov 2015
    8:11pm
    Why this unhealthy obsession against the so-called "rich"? They are the cornerstone of our society and bring wealth to others, provided one is prepared to take risks in life. Sitting back and wanting someone else to pay for your own "lifestyle" is not very commendable.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    8:48pm
    niemakawa, it's called the politics of envy! And YLC readers have plenty of green eyes!!! It's almost impossible to nave a rational discussion and all you read is the same old same old. What is totally disappointing is that some clearly wrong statements are made and not ever corrected??? How this site is supposed to assist those in retirement, other than learning that all politicians are B's, that the wealth should be taxed more and that the pensioners have all worked hard and should be paid more.

    Me, I make the most wildest of assertions, that the Super Scheme is nothing but a fraud being perpetrated upon a gullible public. But no one gives constructive comment about such an assertion that has any factual basis except Abbott hated retirees and Labor will look after the aged ... provided they are not rich!!!!

    Check out my next comment and see if anyone has a clue of what I am talking about .... if wrong the it would be nice for the experts, YLC, to correct me. And me, I'm nothing but a mug who has been taken for a ride with every change to the Pension/Super schemes.
    MICK
    26th Nov 2015
    10:14pm
    No gentlemen. NOT envy. Its about fairness.
    Call it jealousy all you like but the rorts are there for all to see and for the rich to use. They do. And then there is the tax system which the current government is direct at average Australians whilst lowering even further what the big end of town pays........assuming that most pay anything given the growth industry of overseas tax havens and the refusal to close the rort.
    So lets have a real discussion.
    Fliss
    26th Nov 2015
    10:19pm
    and you know all this (re rorts to see & the rich - there's THAT word again! - to use, overseas tax havens, etc) because . . . . .
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    12:18am
    OK mick, you go first, 'What do you say exactly is one of these rort's you speak of?' And what evidence do you present to prove that it is a rort?" And don't say that the rich are rorting the system and think that motherhood statements will win tne day. Spell out just one of these rort's you speak of???
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    12:30am
    ????. Where's the "like" button? ????
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:14am
    So what have we here gentlemen? A matter of ignorance or a part of the problem? Ok I'll bite. Here goes:

    1. Superannuation - I have already covered this one well. Wealthy folk milk this one for all it is worth: pay money into their super account to avoid the 48% tax rate on a part of their income. Tax going into super is 15%. Tax on fund earnings is 15%. No tax on withdrawal. Tell me that is not tax avoidance. And before you say that average Australians can use this to help them too I remind you that average Australians are not in the top tax bracket and that they do not have the spare cash to use the superannuation tax shelter....which was set up specifically for the rich.
    2. Companies and Trusts - most rich people use both of these to again avoid the top tax rate. Current company tax rate is 30% with business screaming for another cut. What they don't tell you is that there are heaps of business deductions, many of which are not exactly anything to do with business and that Trusts are used to, among other things, split income between the family even when other members have NOTHING to do with a business.
    3. Tax Havens and Transfer pricing - this is the current rort which has been exposed but strangely enough this government has refused to fix it. Wealthy Australians and multinationals send income to lower or zero taxing environments. The PM has his in the Cayman Islands. Others use many others. This is downright TAX AVOIDANCE using loopholes which are not fixed because that would end the game for the rich. Whilst the big end of town all say they are doing nothing wrong the reality is that when you send money to YOURSELF in an overseas shelf company then this is not 'business'. IT IS BLATANT TAX AVOIDANCE. Nothing more. Check out the following link from the Sydney Morning Herald:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/global-crackdown-on-tax-havens-fails-to-sway-australian-companies-20140928-10l7zp.html

    Did you notice the paragraph "Did you notice the paragraph "The report also reveals nearly a third of the ASX 200 are now paying less than 10 per cent tax on profit compared to the statutory corporate tax rate of 30 per cent".  BUt read the whole article.

    There it is gentlemen. So what outs do you have? Or maybe just stick your heads in the sand like this government and ignore the facts.
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    11:36am
    I'll "bite" back. LOL
    1. Superannuation - Yes, I will tell you that is NOT tax avoidance. Those rules were put in place to ENCOURAGE those who could afford it to put dollars into super so as to fund their own retirement. Brilliant strategy - and it works! Less people of retirement age being dependant on the gvt paying them a pension. So where is the rort??
    Neither 2 nor 3 warrant commenting on since they are nothing to do with the initial topic, but I'll add a little . . . .
    2. Companies & Trusts - Crapola Mick. People set up companies because to work as a sole trader does not work with the type of business they have. There are very specific rules in place to ensure tax is paid - & as soon as a wage a paid then tax must be paid & any profit left in a trust STILL has tax paid on it - EVEN if the trustee doesn't actually receive the funds!
    3. Tax Havens & Transfer Pricing - Transfer pricing is covered by their Arm's Length Principal & well . . . tax havens - which the ATO has always endeavoured to stop, more so than ever recently. Just this year ATO chief Chris Jordan, announced, “We are really seeing the end of these tax havens around the world . . . such as Cayman, Bermuda and so on . . . . do what is required under the tax transparencies. . . Singapore has become very transparent. . . . Switzerland has agreed to automatically exchange foreign resident banking information. So in 2017-18 we will expect the Swiss to automatically, annually, provide data to us on bank accounts held by Australians.”
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    1:50pm
    Fliss: I have to smile when I see your outs.

    1. The current superannuation rorts were NEVER put in place for working Australians. Neither are Tax Havens or the Bottom Of The Harbour Scheme. All are/were examples of mechanisms which average AUstralians are too poor to take of advantage of. Those who put these things into place knew that.
    What you even fail to state is what the subsidised treatment of superannuation is costing taxpayers. This year $25 BILLION. Boy, that could pay for the whole pension system I would think!
    2. You are not to be believed Fliss. Really, are you stupid mate or what?
    Companies are set up for a whole heap of reasons and you have missed some of the most important. First to ESCAPE LIABILITY if the business fails. Second, to reduce tax down to 30 cents in the dollar. Third, to get at the plethora of deductions available.
    3. Arm's Length Principle? Really? Did you bother to read my post above....."less than one third of companies are paying more than 10 cents in the dollar" and we are talking about highly profitable companies who make huge sums of money. In case you have not noticed that is what has been in the media for the past year.
    You want to contact the ATO and tell it that Malcolm Turnbull still has his Tax Haven. I imagine none of the big boys will leave theirs either, until legislation gives them nowhere to move. So why has this not been fixed in the past????? Of course.....political donations and then legislation with (intentional) loopholes.
    Your credibility is showing Fliss. Clearly you are in the wrong camp and are addicted to the 'toys' provided for the big end of town. Un-Australian! Shameful.
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    2:32pm
    Hey Mick, everything in your comment here is SOOOOO off the topic that it doesn't warrant commenting upon, however am happy I can put a smile on your face. :) Enjoy your day. :)
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    3:42pm
    Please forgive me but did you not ask? Sorry that you cannot handle the truth.....might make a good line for a movie. By all means live in ignorance Fliss or worse still try to defend your patch with irrelevance and/or denial.
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    6:17pm
    No, I didn't ask . . . . . but I forgive you anyway. ;)
    You have highlighted a major problem with so many issues these days - and that is people feel a need to make them personal. I don't feel in the slightest way any animosity toward you or anyone else adding comments here - certainly don't want to label you ignorant, irrelevant, or any thing else.
    MICK
    28th Nov 2015
    9:51am
    Nothing "personal" about the issues. What is personal is when people turn away to avoid the facts or push a wagon they know to be wrong....but in their interests.
    Happy always to argue the facts. We all should be.
    Peterrj
    26th Nov 2015
    9:10pm
    OK boys and girls, please don't hesitate to get stuck into me but make such criticism based upon a fact we can check. One of the common YLC treads I read is that those who receive a Defined Pension DON'T pay any tax on their pension. That's not True! Those who received a Defined Pension usually have a Surcharge Tax to pay to the ATO. Such tax is payable on retirement and can amount to several thousands if not 10's of thousands of dollars. Point of order, they do and have paid Tax on their Pension. Further, a Definded Pension is usually a percentage of their final income. Various schemes have different ways to come up with this figure. In any case, to make tne maths easy, final income of $100,000 at 50% entitlement is a pension of .... If you guessed $50,000 then you are wrong!!!! Before you are paid this agreed percentage the fund then puts a tax on your entitlement and that tax lasts for the life of the Defind Pension! This tax will reduce the Defined Pension payment by thousands of dollars per year.

    So can we have a rational discussion about these issues but don't say that those on the Dedined Pension don't pay any tax, OK.

    If you do recieve a Defined Pension and did not realise that your entitlement was reduced for tax purposes for tne life of tne DPension then contact you fund for clarification!
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    11:16pm
    Would that I could afford a Defined Pension? Hope you pay heaps!
    Peterrj
    27th Nov 2015
    12:27am
    Paulodapotter, do you really think that your rely is some how responsive to this particular commentary section???? First I did not say that I receive a Defined Pension but merely requested that the lie that those on a Defind pension don't pay any tax be stopped forthwith! On the basis that you accept my assertion, because you don't challenge that those on a Defined Penaion do pay tax, you then conclude that those on a Defind Pension pay 'heaps' more in tax???

    That makes a whole lot of sense aka nonsense!
    Fliss
    27th Nov 2015
    12:32am
    "Hope you pay heaps!" . . . . WTF??
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    7:50am
    You could have afforded a defined benefit pension if you had been prepared to save after tax for 35+ years.Investing the money in compounding market funds or rental properties.

    We are talking nurses, police, teachers, ambulance, bank tellers here.Pretty average income earners.

    I ran a spreadsheet once to compare a defined benefit pension with direct investment in real estate. Just based on the payments made after tax by a fund member.

    That worker could have purchased 8 houses during the life of the contributions and I did not include negative gearing into the equations.Just current purchase prices, costs and rental returns.
    I added tax at marginal rates. You can easily figure this out for yourself.

    Defined benefit pensions may appear generous but in reality those paying into them could have made much more money investing in other assets.In fact $10 000 just invested and left to ride in the Australian Share Index would have beat most super funds over 40 years.

    The fact that the media keep saying these pensions are terrific does not make it true. Compared to accumulation funds there is much less risk providing the whole sum is handed over and you live a long life. That lump sum is very small however compared to the wealth than can be created with just a little more risk.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    11:26am
    Rae: one of us is living in the past. Defined benefit schemes were killed off in the public service decades ago because they were too generous. That is not to say that politicians and senior public servants do not have these....but Indians do not.
    Rae
    27th Nov 2015
    3:37pm
    !983 mick so there are still a lot of public servants retiring now or just retired that were in these schemes. They were compulsory until that time.

    I ran the spreadsheet in 2002 as I had to complete one as an exercise for a Tocal Farm Management Certificate course and chose that topic as my good friend was a nurse in the old scheme and had all the payslips and such. The local real estate agent helped with the historical prices and rents.

    Maintenance and rates were not in it either so the returns would have been less but still better than her super fund ever achieved I'm sorry to say.

    You are right that they are obsolete schemes with very few members and as such the government should have just left them alone.

    If it blows up after 1/1/2016 I won't be a bit surprised.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    3:45pm
    It has been clear from day 1 that the current government is after the 'little' people and who knows what will happen down the track. Worry about IF this crew get back in as the pain is always delivered at the start of a term when a government cannot be kicked out for several years.
    Linda
    28th Nov 2015
    3:21pm
    For every action there is a reaction. So, when deciding on fair and efficient and helpful reform, one must look at all the reactions to a given action.

    Think, the smugness of a person claiming to invest in property to prop up their wealth scheme is in one way inspiring, in another a cause for concern. Those who are investing in property are perpetuating a circumstance where our young people and low wage people in this country are being cut out of the chance to own a home.
    The current negative gearing and such of government policy encourages this kind of speculation. The property story then has a bubble, with folks relying on loan money and stable upward property values and rents. A bubble occurs and a subsequent decline in property value could cause a lot of trouble in a lot of places.

    Foreign investors can come in to help keep the property buoyant, at the expense again, of the low end of town.

    Investing in property by folks who have the nerve and the right attitude to risk can be a winner for some but set up like it is at the moment, it reduces tax revenue, locks some out of the market for a home, drives up prices and from that loan values.

    Who wins? The banks, stamp duty revenues for states, rates for local government, work for property managers, maintenance and building folks as wage earners.

    Who loses, family home buyers, overall economic strength and hence Australia as a nation, people who need a place to live, tax revenue collection at the federal level, shops and stores trying to sell goods to those impoverished trying to pay to keep a roof over their heads. Balance, that is what we need, balance.

    Long term this may be good for some in Australia while not being very good for the country in general.

    My view is this, without knowing too much about the details, just how it looks from my spot in things. I would sooner support a program that aims to make things better for all Australians, instead of just a few.

    This overt 'I got mine", 'I vote based on the party with the best bribes for me' mentality seems rather selfish and in some ways futile, as in the long run, as we know, what ever is, will be seen from the perspective of the reactions across a huge range of scenarios, and where the big honey pot sits vs where the votes are.
    Happy Jack
    26th Nov 2015
    10:23pm
    Hey, HeemsJERKgg! "bet your a fully paid up member", hovering around the coat tails of those on the "UPPER CRUST" to which you most likely aspire but will most undoubtedly never quite mange to get there. If you have the re-call and are man enough to remember-: your mate, Tony Abort, leader of the Lieberal party and at the time, the Prime Minister stated leading up to the Election- "THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON THE LINK" and yet your useless do nothing for three years, mates, in The Lieberal party introduced legislation two weeks prior to polling day to build the link and threw our money away. They stand condemned - we could have built a new hospital for that.
    Paulodapotter
    26th Nov 2015
    11:04pm
    Oh dear, Heemskerk99 won't like that. He thinks he's done well because he deserves it. Fact is, if cirumstances had been different, ie, he had been born in Afghanistan or Syria or maybe had brain damage at birth, or been hit by a truck or maybe had learning difficulties, life could have been so different. He said he pulled himself out of poverty by his bootstraps, so those who didn't are simply laggards. Fact is, he was able to and that goes for so many, his achievements are incredibly unremarkable.
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    9:17am
    It was a pretty sick post and looks like it has been pulled. Thanks YLC.
    Things get a bit heated at times on this page but we are mostly old enough to make a point but know where to draw the line.
    Happy Jack
    27th Nov 2015
    9:28am
    Well said, Mick.
    jjjadams
    27th Nov 2015
    6:19pm
    Will this government have the intestinal fortitude to overhaul a system so very long overdue for reform ? ... or does it have too many vested interests in maintaining the status quo ?
    MICK
    27th Nov 2015
    10:48pm
    Probably the latter. The money trail is pretty well established from what I see.
    niemakawa
    28th Nov 2015
    12:49am
    The current system works well. And what are your vested interests?
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    9:51am
    I can't think of any vested interests that I have in maintaining the status quo, nor is any reform likely to provide me with any. niemakawa clearly has unexpressed interests. Care to explain ?
    MICK
    28th Nov 2015
    9:54am
    The current system works well for those who have the financial ability to milk it. The vested interests are the big end of town. Without wanting to sound like a broken record (CD?) the money trail is there to see if you want. Talking the 'leave it alone' and 'she'll be right' rhetoric only tells me that you also benefit from an unfair system set up for the top of society.
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    9:55am
    Agree niemakawa. The current system does work well. It encourages those who can afford it to put funds into super so as to be self funded in their retirement, thus minimising the burden on the government to support all retirees. Simple & effective.
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    10:10am
    Fliss, you have no idea of what you're on about.
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    10:14am
    lol at you jjjadams, what a silly blanket statement to make. :)
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    2:03pm
    Have to say Fliss, you have summed it up perfectly. The current system does exactly as it was designed - removes the burden of supporting an ageing population by encouraging those who can provide for their own retirement to do so.
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    12:06pm
    Deloitte Access Economics ­director Chris Richardson has argued for a progressive tax on super contributions, replacing the flat 15 per cent rate with a contributions tax that is 15 per cent lower than a worker’s marginal tax rate.

    Under this proposal a worker in the top income tax bracket, where the base rate is 45 per cent, would pay 30 per cent on super contributions.

    Mr Richardson estimates this would raise $6bn a year, which would be enough to fund some ­income tax cuts as part of a wider tax reform.
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    12:35pm
    mick, take a lesson from The OT about 'kicking against the ......'. You've as much chance of convincing niemakawa and Fliss as you do of changing their views on religion and for which political party they support.
    Lol and fuggeddabouddit.
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    1:16pm
    "Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid". ;)
    WTF does religion or political parties have to do with superannuation reform???? Teeny word of advice : try to stay on topic if you are going to comment. :)
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    1:44pm
    Oh dear, Fliss asks what "political parties have to do with superannuation reform".
    Isn't she cute ?
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    1:50pm
    I'm not cute - don't be misled by the name I'm using ;) . . . . and again, try to stay on topic . . . . . don't deviate with trying to change peeps political/religious views.
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    2:37pm
    Aw gee, Fliss. I wouldn't dream of trying to change your views, which clearly are strongly held.
    Be like asking Daesh to convert to Judaism, Peter Fitzsimons to become a Royalist, and Phillip Adams to embrace religion.
    <3
    jjjadams
    28th Nov 2015
    3:50pm
    Michael Pascoe, SMH Nov. 26, 2015
    "The real money to be made from exploiting the ridiculously generous system set up by John Howard and Peter Costello (methinks they wanted to be sure of being popular at the golf club in retirement) is via post-tax contributions.

    This is where the wealthy get to sock away millions in the world's best tax haven by lobbing $180,000 a year into their super fund. Thus a couple can contribute $360,000 a year – in 10 years, $3.6 million. What those millions earn in the super fund is taxed at only 15 per cent until the contributors reach 60 or start partial pensions when the tax on earnings drops to zero – matching the non-existent tax when the super fund starts paying out. The Cayman Islands really can't offer anything that good.

    The Grattan Institute headlines the concessionary contributions but would also like to limit post-tax contributions to a life-time limit of $250,000 – which is going from one extreme to the other. Their focus seems to be more on targeting rich old men on the basis of inequity of opportunity than a system that provides the right balance of incentives to encourage long-term savings.

    It's true that the very wealthy don't need any incentive to save and invest – like dogs knowing how to bury bones, it's what they do. "
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    11:27pm
    Hallelujah! We agree on something jjjadams! :) Great comments by Michael Pascoe, totally agree with what he says, especially like "Their focus seems to be more on targeting rich old men on the basis of inequity of opportunity than a system that provides the right balance of incentives to encourage long-term savings." Perfectly said.

    28th Nov 2015
    6:42pm
    don't say anything to upset labor mick, your comment will be pulled off this site, I believe this site to be another labor or union mouthpiece, shorty is looking over your shoulder!!!!!!

    28th Nov 2015
    9:26pm
    labor mick must be taking a afernoon snooze, as is paulodapooper, oliviously still on the thunderbox , my comments has been on this site for more than an hour and still not pulled, how those pesky riches must annoy labor mick and paulodapooper, would you not love to be one of them
    Fliss
    28th Nov 2015
    11:34pm
    See comment posted by jjjadams just above? Is a quote from Michael Pascoe . . . . " . . . The Grattan Institute . . . focus seems to be more on targeting rich old men on the basis of inequity of opportunity than a system that provides the right balance of incentives to encourage long-term savings. It's true that the very wealthy don't need any incentive to save and invest – like dogs knowing how to bury bones, it's what they do. "
    Like it! So true, especially like ". . . targeting rich old men on the basis of inequity of opportunity . . . ".
    That is what seems to upset so many on this site - the fact that some have a greater opportunity to invest than others. But they have earned that right - whether by education/experience - and often are the ones keeping the economy of this country from sinking.
    jjjadams
    29th Nov 2015
    11:53am
    Someone I won't name thinks that all wealth comes from one's own endeavours. That includes inheritance and lottery wins ?
    You don't need to be that smart if you have enough to afford lawyers and accountants to minimise taxes via e.g. family trusts, negative gearing and superannuation benefits.
    Sure, investment can create jobs (not necessarily), but only if it's likely to provide profit. Profit down ? Close it : let them eat ----.
    Fliss
    29th Nov 2015
    1:00pm
    Oh lord please stop these stupid people from breeding. ????
    Of course the majority of wealth comes from one's own endeavours.
    I can't believe you want to discuss lotto winnings.
    LOL, that so funny. ????
    Why are you so jealous of wealthy people?
    Hang on . . . please don't answer that.
    I suspect you are jealous of both wealthy people & intelligent people.
    Ever considered that there may be a connection between the two? ????
    Perhaps it will be your turn in your next life.
    Best of luck to you. ????
    You may win lotto!!
    jjjadams
    29th Nov 2015
    1:32pm
    Hi Fliss,
    "they have earned that right - whether by education/experience" - your quote.
    All doesn't equal majority.
    Me discuss lotto ? I didn't .
    Some would say that I'm wealthy; I just know I'm comfortable, but I did want to be a philanthropist.
    R u a self-made person who joined Rotary to worship your maker?
    There's a strong relationship between wealthy and intelligent people, many of whom I've met; tends to run in families for a number of well - recognised factors.
    Do you understand regression to the norm ?
    You've put a continuous smile ( no, not smirk) on my face since your most recent post. Thank you.
    Fliss
    29th Nov 2015
    1:56pm
    OMG! Love it!
    Ok . . one point at a time - and I'll do it s l o w l y for you.
    Yep, I posted "they have earned that right - whether by education/experience" . . . read it again, s l o w l y - see, I didn't say "all".
    And you did bring lotto into the discussion.
    Not commenting on your next couple of points as I'm not interested in your personal situation nor am I interested in telling you mine.
    I simply believe that current super'n rules encourage those who are able & have the desire can fund their own retirement thus removing much of the burden from the Austn. gvt.
    Happy that I have made you smile. Unfortunately there is so much going on in our world today that does not bring a smile to our faces, so that has to be a good thing. Thanks to you too.
    jjjadams
    29th Nov 2015
    3:03pm
    Hi again, Fliss.
    Your open-mindedness, comprehension and incisive comments have been wondrous to behold.
    You must be in constant awe of your maker.
    That ability, to avoid answering uncomfortable questions, hints at political ambition.
    Thanks again. I leave you with the following.

    Sheryle Bagwell, The Drum, 27 Oct. 2015

    The tax concessions cost the budget too much - how much is debatable. Treasury says they will cost $36 billion this financial year in terms of lost tax revenue. Deloitte says the figure is closer to $11 billion. That's still a lot of money.

    The tax concessions also go to those that need them less. According to the Financial System Inquiry led by former banker David Murray, only $1 in every $200 of the cost of super concessions goes to the bottom 20 per cent of income earners, whereas more than half goes to the top 20 per cent.

    Given the objective of compulsory super was to decrease dependency on the aged pension, it makes no sense to give the biggest tax break to those who were never going to be on the aged pension in the first place - i.e. people who earn $180,000 a year or more.

    With the value of the tax breaks set to grow by as much as 18 per cent next year as our super accounts get bigger, it also makes no sense for the Federal Government to keep handing out this largesse when it's staring into a $35 billion budget black hole.
    Not Senile Yet!
    29th Nov 2015
    3:00am
    What a bunch of short-sighted wanks on this site!
    Labor are this! Liberals are that!
    Why don't you all grow a brain?
    Both Parties have sold off everything.....to avoid investing.....which they see as an expense they don't need!
    Both Parties are now Right Wing controlled and want to copy the Yankee Doodle Dandee Policies of Greed is Good!!!!
    As for the current Super set-up......let's get real .......it only suits or feeds the people who can afford to take advantage of it as a Tax DODGE!!!!!
    Yes it needs changing!!!!
    Why????
    Because it is the Masses subsidising the Few through tax Breaks....that's why!!!!
    You all know it....so do the MP's!!!
    But most importantly.....it is costing the Government Revenue!!!
    As for the Lefties and Righties on this site....you need to understand one thing......Your Parties are controlled by the American Big Business Interests......Banks and Insurance Corporate Conglomerates.....that have only one interest.....PROFIT!!!!!!
    Both the Left and the Right need to understand one simple thing......We are Not America.....nor do we desire to become a State of America!!!
    We are Australia.....We demand our OWN Policies...not copies from other failed economies!
    But most of All......Our Pension System was not only fair but also completely financed through the Tax System BEFORE Both Labor & Liberal DISMANTLED it by raiding the cookie Jar to build their new White House...their New Parliament House in Canberra!!!!
    Aged Pensions were never Welfare....and they were always Separate to Welfare....which was Disability, Unemployment and Single Mothers Benefits!!!!
    They were all joined together for Administration Cost Savings under the Human Services Umbrella!!!
    How convenient to now label Aged Pensions as WELFARE!!!
    Total Propaganda Garbage to inflate the Welfare Costs.....but worse still you all have fallen for it!!!!!
    We are 30 Million Not 3,000 Million.in population......our taxes simply cannot keep going up and money spent to keep up with the Yanks or buying more and more Defence Equipment to assist them as we have done in the last 30 years!!!
    Per head of population our Defence Budget is the one out of line!!!
    As for the Welfare Budget.....it has blown out because the Govts. refuse to count people Part-time employed as unemployed or Part Unemployed!!!!
    Our previous Govts have all hidden from the people to real Unemployment figures...the Real Inflation Rates and their inability to stop or even slow down the Closing of Manufacturing that increases the unemployment problem.
    Instead they wish you all to believe that the Welfare Costs have accelerated due to the Ageing Population....plain Propaganda Crap!!
    No one chooses to become unemployed at 50 to 55......it has been forced upon people as a direct result of Governments ill-informed So - called Free Trade agreements!!!
    We know it.....they know it.....but no-one wants to tackle it Head on!!!
    One can no longer whinge about people lying to the Government....when in fact none of the Mp's or Parties have told the truth in the last 25yrs....in fact the current Liberal Party has Lied to get elected by making promises it had no intention of keeping...so why would are they now targeting the people for doing the same back to them?????
    Salary Sacrifice should be removed altogether.....unless you are employed by a Not For Profit Charity!!!!
    Let's get real...it is after all done to dodge paying Tax!!!!!
    Adrianus
    29th Nov 2015
    9:23am
    Not Senile Yet, I envy you. You have found something that keeps you awake at night. I see Bill Shorten is going to Paris to garner some political support.
    Adrianus
    29th Nov 2015
    9:35am
    "As for the current Super set-up......let's get real .......it only suits or feeds the people who can afford to take advantage of it as a Tax DODGE!!!!!
    Yes it needs changing!!!!"- NSY

    It is similar to a bank account, it only advantages those who have some money to deposit.
    Fliss
    29th Nov 2015
    10:54am
    Love it Frank - the comparison. So true. We could go on & on . . . . drop in fuel prices only advantages those who own & drive a car . . . . .
    Fliss
    29th Nov 2015
    1:57pm
    . . . . drop in dental service costs only advantages those who have teeth . . . .
    POLLIE BACKFLIP
    30th Nov 2015
    2:57pm
    As stated above "its original purpose – to assist retirees in saving to supplement or replace the Age Pension". I have always planned to be self funded in retirement, so now more penalties being proposed to make it harder to achieve this. I must be missing something or maybe I am just to greedy or self centered. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
    jjjadams
    30th Nov 2015
    4:56pm
    Pollie Backflip,
    Our Fed. Gov/t reasonably generous. Have you checked how you'd fare under current legislation ?
    There are different rates of Age Pension payments for single people and couples. Your rate also depends on your income, assets, and other circumstances.

    Family Situation
    Pension rates per fortnight Single Couple each Couple combined Couple each
    separated due to ill health
    Maximum basic rate $788.40 $594.30 $1,188.60 $788.40
    Maximum Pension Supplement $64.50 $48.60 $97.20 $64.50
    Energy Supplement $14.10 $10.60 $21.20 $14.10
    TOTAL $867.00 $653.50 $1,307.00 $867.00

    Your self-funded, plus any part pension from Gov/t, unlikely to see you starve.
    jjjadams
    1st Dec 2015
    9:51am
    Peter Martin, The Age, Dec. 1 2015

    “The tax concession on superannuation contributions will cost the government $17.35 billion this financial year. By 2018-19 it will cost $20 billion. The treasury believes it would grab most of it if it taxed contributions at marginal rates. Very little would leak elsewhere, in part because most super contributions are compulsory. The concession on the earnings of super funds costs $16 billion, but by 2018-19 it is set to almost double, costing $30 billion.

    Left unchecked, these extraordinarily generous concessions will make our tax system increasingly leaky, especially as more and more high wealth Australians retire and move into the phase of life where they pay no tax whatsoever on their super fund earnings, no matter how big.”
    Fliss
    1st Dec 2015
    10:21am
    Quote : " . . . . will COST the government . . . . ".
    Disagree - concessions are not COSTING anything.
    REMOVAL of the concessions will possibly INCREASE revenue.
    And I say "possibly" because it's not known until it's implemented.

    Here's another idea:- Announce plan to stop all aged pension payments by year 2050 - now that would save a heap once implemented.
    And will encourage/force all people to budget for their own retirement. Now let's see how many complain about concessions on super'n contributions. . . . . . wink, wink
    jjjadams
    1st Dec 2015
    11:56am
    Fliss, your erudition continues to astound.
    Concessions don't cost, nor will the money go to Treasury.
    Please explain s l o w l y how removal of those concessions will possibly increase revenue.
    Fliss
    1st Dec 2015
    12:05pm
    How about . . . . . . . . https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/15192/20151201/age-pension-no-guarantee?
    etty44
    2nd Dec 2015
    12:31am
    I agree with you Fliss..." Disagree - concessions are not COSTING anything. REMOVAL of the concessions will possibly INCREASE revenue. "
    etty44
    2nd Dec 2015
    12:34am
    And I doubly love your comment about the predictable change in tune if everyone had to count on their Super, and not be complacent because they "know" they will get the Pension.
    Fliss
    2nd Dec 2015
    8:40am
    Thank you etty44.
    Some people are so 'close minded', they refuse to see logic.