All taxes up for consideration

Tax concessions that tend to benefit the wealthy may be under threat.

All taxes up for consideration

Tax concessions that tend to benefit the wealthy and were previously ruled untouchable by Tony Abbott, are now back on the table as the new Prime Minister reveals that nothing is off the table in regards to tax reform.

Meeting in Canberra, with unions, business leaders and welfare groups, on Thursday of last week,  the Prime Minister reached an in-principal agreement to review a raft of tax concessions to determine if they were still “fit for purpose’. This means that concessions on taxing of superannuation, capital gains tax on property held more than 12 months and negative gearing, which are all seen to benefit the wealthy, could be on the chopping block.

Business Council of Australia Chief Executive Jennifer Westacott said of the meeting, “There was a very, very strong agreement that concessions needed to be looked at”.

The meeting marked the first ACTU-Coalition discussions since before the Coalition government came to power in 2013. The members of the high-powered group were invited to Canberra by Mr Turnbull to brief his economic on its deliberations, especially those resulting from August’s National Reform Summit in Sydney. While it was agreed that there were issues such as raising GST and removing Sunday penalty rates, would take longer to work through due to opposition from unions and the welfare lobby, these should not hold up progress on issues on which everyone was in agreement.

The Prime Minister was joined at the meeting by several of his cabinet ministers including Scott Morrison, Matthias Cormann and Kelly O’Dywer and while the mood as participants left was positive, there was still a cautionary note, with ACTU union leaders promising resistance to changes on GST and penalty rates.

Read more at The Age

Opinion: About time too

While any kind of tax reform on generous superannuation tax concessions may be some time off, at least the Government has displayed a willingness to discuss the issue.

To understand what type of money we’re talking about, a recent assessment by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) noted that 475 superannuation accounts had balances of $10 million plus. That is money that has been squirreled away at a reduced tax rate and, when accessed after the age of 60, will be tax-free.

But it’s not just the ridiculously rich that are benefiting. ASFA also noted that there were 24,000 accounts with a balance of over $2 million and in total, there are over 60,000 superannuation accounts with balances over $1.5 million. This means that there are over 60,000 people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars tax-free.

Of course, it’s not only the tax-free income after 60 that needs to be addressed for the wealthy, but also, the rate of tax paid on contributions to superannuation. An individual can earn a whopping $300,000 a year and still only pay the 15 per cent concessional rate on their super. This saves 32 per cent in salary sacrificed contributions (including employer contributions), which can be up to $50,000 per annum if over 50 years of age.

Changes to negative gearing and tax concessions on capital gains tax if a property is lived in for more than 12 months, may take some of the heat out of the property market, as well as creating more income for the government.

To blindly refuse to change something is stubborn, to not change something that is of such benefit for  many is downright foolish. Let’s hope Mr Turnbull and his government see sense in what so many others do.

Do you think superannuation concessions for the ridiculously wealthy should be back on the table? Or should those with lower superannuation balances be given more concessions? Is superannuation the best means of saving for retirement?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Ripper
    5th Oct 2015
    10:13am
    The changes to super should focus on the balance not the contribution . You still need to provide some incentive to save or we will all be paying more and more for welfare. Doesn't matter what you earn. Once you reach a particular balance ($1M?) there is no more concessional contribution
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    10:35am
    I like it and you are spot on.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    11:00am
    What about existing accounts and 'public service' accounts?
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:29pm
    Agree I wouldn't put any money into super without the concessions because quite simply the is no incentive or gain for me to do so.
    Sundays
    5th Oct 2015
    1:35pm
    Yes, I agree. Probably need Granfathering rules for those close to retirement. Public Service defined benefit schemes are not tax free, unlike income accounts
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:18pm
    Good one Bonny. Don't. Then when you retire you will get no pension and have to live off your savings. Horses for courses maybe.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    2:21pm
    Guess what I am retired. No pension for me but living quite well off my savings.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    3:24pm
    Enjoy it whilst it lasts. Nothing is forever!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:02pm
    I can't see any reason why I can't enjoy it to my grave. Plugged my figures into a retirement calculator and it stopped at age 110 and I sill had some left. 120 here I come.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:16pm
    These 'calculators' make a lot of assumptions. Good luck!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:57pm
    No sure what you are afraid of Mick but change does happen and will a lot more before I leave this mortal world. Are you up to coping with this change? I know I am as I have to skills.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:16pm
    Sounded like you are in the 'she'll be right' camp. I hope for all of us that your composure does not blow up in your face.
    FYI - the world is awash with 100 trillion dollars of debt. Future productivity is never going to service this level of debt so something is eventually going to give. If you thought 1929 was a party then just wait for this one. With your luck Bonny you may still be around when it starts. Many people think that we are close....but how long is a piece of string!
    There are other possibilities to your money being worth zilch as well and your obvious smugness will be interesting if the crunch comes. Ok....doom and gloom....she'll be right.....steady as she goes.....glass half empty, etc. We live in interesting times and the world goes on.
    LiveItUp
    6th Oct 2015
    11:25am
    Mick why do you think I own a country estate and not live in the city? There are all sorts of possibilities that all sorts of things can happen. Even if doomsday does come then so be it there will be many worse off than me.
    Anonymous
    8th Oct 2015
    7:24pm
    I would think that any changes that come about would or should not affecrt those already retired.
    Ripper
    5th Oct 2015
    10:13am
    The changes to super should focus on the balance not the contribution . You still need to provide some incentive to save or we will all be paying more and more for welfare. Doesn't matter what you earn. Once you reach a particular balance ($1M?) there is no more concessional contribution
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    11:10am
    We will be paying more and more for social security as long as the focus of government pork-barreling goes to limited employment industries and into encouraging what many see as the only game in town at the moment - property shuffling.

    Until some genuine employment opportunities are genuinely created, there will be no change other than downwards.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:32pm
    There re already caps on how much one can out in each year at the concessional rate so that has already been fixed but will take time to move through the system. It wasn't that no long ago people were encouraged to put large amounts into super so to tax them now is just not on.
    Sceptic
    5th Oct 2015
    3:54pm
    Has everybody forgotten that there used to be an item known as RBL (Reasonable Benefit Limit) which was a restriction on tax concessions.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:03pm
    RBL was scrapped as it was too complicated.
    Adrianus
    7th Oct 2015
    2:36pm
    I have noticed that when a good number of superannuants break the rules or exceed limits then often the rules are changed to accommodate them. This is because a change becomes the best option politically and economically. The idea of having a different RBL for the 12m members was madness anyway. Another restriction which falls into that category is the acceptance of borrowings by super funds. It took years to first of all limit borrowings to 30% then to 10% of fund balances and finally to arrive at 0%. All that effort and angst to discover that a good many funds had shares purchased with instalment warrants.
    The problem was handled similarly to the RBL issue. Rather than de register thousands of funds they made it legal. Not only that they also broadened the term "asset" to also mean any asset lawfully held by a fund, which included real estate. Now the ATO gets 15% of the rents on property held by super funds as well as the land tax. The ATO does very well from its Super taxes.
    Patriot
    5th Oct 2015
    10:19am
    They also should focus on "Total Personal Wealth" as a decision factor for qualification of concessional Super treatment.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    10:36am
    Well thought out.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:33pm
    I for one would not tell anyone the total of my personal wealth.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:20pm
    Derrrrr.... Are you kidding Bonny. So you think that the ATO has no idea of your wealth. Next you'll be on about the Tooth Fairy......
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    2:23pm
    They know a bit and they have just found a house I sold seven years ago. I love the tooth fairy.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    10:34am
    A great article Debbie. I have been on about some of the above for several years and you would have read my posts. It is long overdue that the system set up for the rich was dismantled and a fair system for ALL Australians set up.
    Whilst I welcome an end to the Superannuation Tax Shelter for the rich and an end to multinationals choosing not to pay their taxes in this country I hold concerns that what is going to come out of this conference is:
    1. An increase in the GST rate - this will hurt average Australians disproportionately, especially if business gets its way and sees the tax levied on the necessities of like food.
    2. A decrease in company tax and the top marginal personal rate - this is what big business and the wealthy are gunning for...always lower taxes for them!
    As far as CApital Gains Tax is concerned I think that this is right where it is. If this concession is removed then the government needs to return to the past and INDEX the cost base (the cost of an asset) so that one does not end up paying tax on the increase of an asset due to inflation, where the real value has not actually increased at all.
    I have to say that where this government is concerned I expect this to be a shell game. THIS GOVERNMENT WILL LIKELY NOT TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE RICH UNLESS IT IS REPLACED WITH SOMETHING ELSE. To be fair lets wait and see.
    Patriot
    5th Oct 2015
    10:54am
    Mick,
    GST hurts those who can least afford it most!
    $50.00 GST on $500.00/week pay "Hurts like hell"!
    $500.00 on $5,000.00/week pay is "Just another annoying bill to pay"!
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    1:21pm
    mick why would you think everyone reads your posts?? he he he.
    When you consider the reasons for tax reform then it draws us to a much more urgent conclusion. We desperately need workplace reform with a view to increasing productivity.
    RJ
    5th Oct 2015
    1:52pm
    The GST was a big con. It was agreed by a majority of the population because we were told it would get rid of all other taxes!. They forgot to mention levies, tarriffs, tolls, duties etc which stayed (and increased). Really, all they got rid of was "sales tax". Now they want to increase it !!! The cheek! The only thing that comes out of tax reform is us ending up paying more. Don't be conned again. We are never better off after tax reform. We always pay more.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:23pm
    That is one of my points Patriot. Lower income earners are hit the hardest.

    RJ - the one redeeming thing about the GST is that the rich cannot avoid it through creative accounting and tax shelters. Having said that it hurts average Australians the most. But we all need to remember that we were all compensated for the GST just like we were all compensated for the Carbon Tax. Many Australians seem to forget that.
    RJ
    5th Oct 2015
    2:38pm
    Mick, that compensation was peanuts; eaten away by bracket creep, inflation and rising prices. In SA we pay an "Emergency Services Levy" of roughly $3-400 per year. We pay a "River Murray Levy". There are many others. So, after income tax, GST, local council rates, levies, utility bills, stamp duties - the list goes on, I'm surprised that there is anything left over from my average income. And to boot, THEY WANT MORE !!!! Are they kidding ??
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    3:22pm
    You are certainly on the money with local councils. They are always at the trough with extra charges as well as the routine 'above average cpi increases' they play for. I don't see average earners getting an above average cpi increase in their remuneration!
    Patriot
    5th Oct 2015
    10:52am
    My prediction is that this government will "make waves" about it and foreshadow that they "Will look at it" after the next election.
    If this is so, it will be - most likely - "just a ploy" to get back in to govt again!
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:24pm
    You may be right. I feel the same way about claims that multinationals are going to be taxed. Given the last election it is pretty hard to believe anything coming from the most dishonest government we have ever had.
    mark
    5th Oct 2015
    10:58am
    Ripper, 1m this day is less than 25,000 a year. It is less than Government Centrelink pension for two people. And you want this to be tax. I advice my son do no put 1 cent extra to the super because I do not have any trust in government. You can not change rules every year.I save my money all my life in order to have normal life on retirement and do not ask help from state.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    11:02am
    I would expect it to be indexed - however we all know that the costs of living are galloping away far faster than the official rate. So what are the standards for indexation? This is one question that needs to be addressed - and in simple language.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:27pm
    SUperannuation is still by far the best way to reduce the tax you pay on income. That is why the rich are hanging onto the current system they had installed decades ago for dear life.
    We all need to understand that governments of both persuasion have been circling the superannuation pool of money for a while now and both want to get their grubby little hands on some. My bet is that at some time superannuation will be nationalised.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    7:37pm
    If you have a big wage income super might be one way to reduce the tax you pay. However if you not a wage earner then there are many ways to reduce your income other than using super. Anyone under 40 today is likely to see super nationalised with some already not contributing more than they have to.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:19pm
    Super is the gift of the Gods! 48% tax? No way! 15% and then 15% on the fund earnings until retirement. There are few better ways to rort taxpayers than this.
    Anonymous
    7th Oct 2015
    12:49pm
    The cap on superannuation should be 1.5 million and then adjust in line with inflation maybe.
    Anonymous
    7th Oct 2015
    12:51pm
    A 'rort' is "a fraudulent or dishonest act or practice"

    As it stands now it is not a rort. It is perfectly legal and not fraudulent..
    Oldman Roo
    5th Oct 2015
    11:02am
    This will be a very good test to see if the Liberals will dare to touch the real rich for once as their past record has been more along the line of squeezing the poor and bringing the middle class down to poverty levels too . Unfortunately a lot of people working in these days do not know on just how low a salary the retired were , which makes it simply impossible for most to reach present day welfare free requirements .
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    11:04am
    Yes - the philosophy of both sides of our Tag Team government is that the majority can afford to pay a little rather than the minority pay proportionately more. It seems that a pay rise equal to a worker's income is fine, but not the tax burdens involved.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:28pm
    I agree. From this government's point of view do you bite the hand which re-elects it?
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    11:08am
    I had super before it became the rage and I determined that the cost of running it would buy me a house over the years.... I think that having your own property is your best superannuation.

    I find it bizarre that not only does a property investor get negative gearing - which may be fair enough - but getting a concession on capital gains? Does any other business work that way - and all arguments to the contrary - the current setup has done nothing to alleviate the 'housing shortage' - only made it worse through sky-rocketing prices.

    We need a government of true vision - not the same old again and again.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:36pm
    One more reason why the house should be included in the assets test as it's seen as super by many.
    melbgirl
    5th Oct 2015
    1:18pm
    As I struggling tenant I agree, by making housing a means to wealth, those unable to buy are just not in the picture. Of course the house should be included in assets, it is unfair that my taxes are going to those so much better off; along with over half my income going in rent also building somebody's wealth. I hope this government tackle the housing affordability issue.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:34pm
    Trebor: Property has been going up in our lifetime. That does not mean that it cannot go down!
    Property investment is just like any other investment and interest on loans is a tax deduction. It would bring the system down, including the incumbent government, if this was removed let alone the court challenges.
    Capital gains used to be indexed against inflation so that you did not pay tax when the value of your property down the track was really the 'same' as when you bought it (in terms of the value of your money and what this could buy). Paying capital gains tax on HALF of your gain still tilts the scales in the favour of governments so it would be a real rort to take this away. Ultimately government have to be fair or else investors will invest in countries when fairness and common sense exists. Just think about what that would do to our economy. And that about states WHY the current system is not going to be tinkered with too much.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    6:39pm
    Investment properties I will accept as assets - family home within reason at market value is fine - above that needs a careful look. I've said before - it's not the owner's fault that they bought a fibro majestic for $40k and it's now worth $950k.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:25pm
    The point you miss Trebor is that when you bought the fibro majestic for $40k you were earning maybe $5000 a year. Inflation may have increased the value of your dive but when you sell you still have the 'same' spending value as you did when you paid $40k. The real problem with now applying capital gains tax is that YOU HAVE MADE NO REAL GAIN because what you get will buy you the same amount of goods.
    The issue is that governments in time gone by did away with honest indexation and now offers that you pay tax on HALF of the capital gain. Not a real good deal for those who sell goods down the track but great for government coffers.
    If you take away the small concession then you force people to find other investments. Housing will crash as will shares and investors will find jurisdictions in the world where they get a fair shake.
    If the world were only that simple Trebor.
    Desiree
    5th Oct 2015
    11:09am
    Instead of worrying what tax is paid on super, which is built up by smart management and salary sacrifice, lets attack the politicians trust accounts, Which must be a better tax haven as they all have them. Pollies don't have to worry about super tax saving as we silly tax payers give them a pension for life. Do you get a pension paid to you for life?
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:37pm
    Whilst you have a point Desiree the real issue is that the rich are using the superannuation system to avoid paying the correct amount of tax (48%) tax and then getting it out down the track (including earnings over the years) at essentially 15% tax. In the meantime average citizens are getting little out of the system BECAUSE THEY CONSUME ALL OF WHAT THEY EARN IN EXISTENCE!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:05pm
    Mick most rich people I know only have a small amount of their wealth in super. Too many rules and restrictions for them.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:15pm
    Funny Bonny. So they are hanging on to their tax rort because they have little or nothing in this? Yeah right.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    6:27pm
    There are very few people with big super accounts.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    6:36pm
    Bonny according to mick anyone who has a top marginal rate of 48% is rich and needs to be slowed down. I agree after treasury revealed that less than 20 people have $10m or more in super and it represented less than 10% of their wealth. Not worth the angst created by the likes of mick and the "anti rich lobbyists".
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    8:01pm
    Our legislators are not going to waste their time on items of little financial value unless there are political points to be be made. Further legislation on only 84,000 super accounts would only be worth it for political points certainly not financially.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:32pm
    The Superannuation Tax Shelter is NOT small change. It represents a large sum of money which average taxpayers have to make up. Your attempt to turn this into 'small change' is what the rich do when they are about to lose a cash cow.
    For the benefit of our own government troll I repeat what Warren Buffett said a couple of years ago: "my secretary pays more tax than I do". He meant AS A PERCENTAGE of his income. This is where people who are in the 48% tax bracket play the game. Perhaps instead of looking at the $10m or more group lets look at the $2m+ group. This is a large group and most would be on the 48% tax...before paying into super as well as all the other outs they have. Lets have a discussion!
    LiveItUp
    6th Oct 2015
    11:34am
    There is one big flaw in your argument Mick. That wealthy people have big incomes. This is not always the case. I know of people who are multimillionaires and pay little if any income tax. Even 15% is a lot on your super when you pay little or no tax. These people could be better off if their super contributions were taxed at their marginal rate.
    Rosscoe
    5th Oct 2015
    11:30am
    Yeah!! And pigs might fly! This PM made an absolute mess of the NBN. Now we've got the "fixer" aka Christopher Pyne, in the NBN seat. Let's see how he does. I don't expect much of this mob and I'm rarely disappointed.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:38pm
    The NBN was supposedly going to cost taxpayers much less after this government butchered it but in reality is costing much more. They should have left it alone. And now the media says nothing about the matter.
    Janus
    5th Oct 2015
    11:50am
    Problem is that this government (same pile, different shovel) is hell bent on taking away anything that resembles welfare. That is the Liberal way. Reducing the cap to below $900,000 was devastating for a huge number of potential pensioners - now they don't get one.

    Sounds like a lot, but if a couple has a super fund of $900,000, at the REAL return of 3% you get less than the normal full pension. That removes any incentive to save to super. Many would have been better off to have spent it on partying, travel and boats etc and get a pension plus its benefits in rate reductions, medical etc. Too late, because they have done it, to our cost, and Labor seems to accept it as well.

    Now they want to increase GST, which will provide nothing but pain for the retired person on a fixed income. I simply don't trust this government to provide anything at all for us oldies - their attitude is "hurry up and die" but leave your money to the young so we can tax it.

    Problem is, I see no positives in the Labor govt either.

    Woe is us.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:39pm
    I agree with the government reducing the assets test limit as people need to spend their capital as well as the interest on that capital in retirement. It is not fair on the taxpayers. After all you can't take you capital with you.
    Sundays
    5th Oct 2015
    1:45pm
    All a retiree with an expectation of receiving the aged pension has to do is spend some of their capital on themselves and reduce their assets to qualify for a part pension and the health card. Who wants to be a starving millionaire anyway
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    1:59pm
    Exactly. I just can't understand why some people will do anything just to qualify for the pension.
    Peterrj
    5th Oct 2015
    2:17pm
    Janus, most will only see a mish mash of empty words with meaningless symbols flashing before their eyes!
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:42pm
    Fairly spot on Janus. The reality is that cash strapped governments could get an absolute motza if they MADE MULTINATIONALS PAY TAX and CLOSED THE SUPERANNUATION TAX SHELTER SO WELL USED BY THE RICH. Add to that a bit of tough love for those who make welfare a life choice and you have a huge amount of money freed up for sensible decisions.
    The reality is that most Australians would be happy to live off the their investments rather than the capital....which will be gone, possibly well before their days are over.
    Sceptic
    5th Oct 2015
    4:13pm
    Janus, Super was not established to live off the interest and preserve the capital. A couple with $900,000 in super fund can draw the pension equivalent for 30 years, even if no interest is earned. As the long term earnings in super funds is in excess of 5%, I think that the hypothetical individual that you refer to will not have any trouble in drawing in excess of what a pension would have paid.

    As far as the rich using super as a tax shelter is concerned. It can only realistically be applied to existing balances that were accumulated in the 90s, as there are now maximum annual contributions that can be made without attracting tax at the marginal rate.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:06pm
    Agree Sceptic.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:14pm
    INFLATION, INFLATION, INFLATION. There goes another theory!
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    6:40pm
    I see by your avatar that you've been reading Michael Crichton's 'Swarm'....
    Not a Bludger
    5th Oct 2015
    12:18pm
    MEMO TO:- All Governments; sundry Accounting firms; sundry Economists, sundry Superannuation Advisors/Managers & the like.

    My super has been earned by me and saved by me.

    It is MY repeat MY money.

    Keep your greedy fingers off it.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:40pm
    Agree. Any attack on super is a welfare burden.
    Peterrj
    5th Oct 2015
    2:26pm
    Not a Bludger, why should you have while others have not???? This is a democracy, so let's put that to a vote!!!!!

    Which reminds me: The animals were starving and only three remained, 2 wolves and a plump chicken .... they put it to a vote what to eat next .... Can you guess the result? Those who have saved for their independent retirement are looking more like a plump chicken every day!!!! Where is the polling booth????
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:45pm
    With the exception of retirees who have over $2 in investments (not including family home) or whose annual income is greater than $200,000.
    Fair is fair. And for the record many Australians understand that the superannuation tax shelter is completely unfair and has nothing to do with saving for retirement. This is about AVOIDING THE REAL TAX SYSTEM!!!!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    3:21pm
    There are such small numbers with big super balances it is hardly worthwhile enacting legislation just for them. Any super adjustments will be across the board and that will effect everyone and thus shift the burden back to the taxpayer.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    4:25pm
    I dare say more than you think. Anyway, a fair system demands that all contribute a similar percentage. Fair is fair!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:08pm
    Communism is where all people are equal but like most systems some are more equal than others.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:12pm
    George Orwell: :Animal Farm". Wonderful author!
    The trouble with wealthy people Bonny is that they suddenly divorce themselves from society and move to blond planet where 'it is all theirs'. This is how the mining industry works when it walks onto the wealth of other countries, develop a site, and then stand there excLaiming that ITS THEIRS.
    A fair and just society is not about sharing equally. A fair and just society is about an equitable distribution. Those who create something ALWAYS deserve more.....but never all.
    Bluey53
    5th Oct 2015
    12:35pm
    Just wanted to make a comment about a few of the readers' obvious misconceptions;
    1. A few tend to be confusing the term "politicians pension for life" with their "Senators and Members Superannuation Act 2004". The politicians scheme is not a pension scheme like the Aged Pension. It is a normal Superannuation Income Stream accessible after they retire from the workforce just like our Superannuation schemes. It is not a bottomless pit, they can only draw out what the have put in. Albeit that what they are allowed to put in is more than what we are ever allowed to with Reasonable Benefit Limit (RBL) restrictions.
    2. Speaking of RBL's, I would have thought that they would apply to ALL Super accounts. So how come there are funds out there with more than 10M in them? I didn't think that was possible. If it is, it needs to be changed, at least the tax arrangements part of it anyway.
    3. The original GST concept has put forward by Paul Keating at his Tax Summit in the late 90's (and later adopted by John Howard) placed the intended GST on ALL products with a compensation that ALL other indirect taxes would be eliminated. I am talking about taxes such as those on alcohol, tobacco, land, death, Bank account debits tax, Financial Institutions Duty, the lot. The introduction of this idea would simplify our tax system greatly. The welfare lobby may disagree with a GST on food but really, it is the only fair way. If they want to be fair dinkum, then also agree to the government being allowed to give aged and other welfare recipients a "food and clothing allowance". The equivalent of this amount would then be deducted from their benefit. The dollar amount would be agreed to with the recipient at a Centrelink interview with their Case Officer. As a rule of thumb, use their average grocery bill as a guide to how much will be deducted, ex-GST.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    1:03pm
    Bluey RBLs were abolished. However, I would like to see 'it' reintroduced in a different format. One RBL for everyone! I would also like to see contributions tax abolished.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    1:25pm
    If contributions tax is abolished then people will only put what is compulsory into super. I have already told my kids to only put what they have to into super as it's just too risky not knowing what the rules will be when they retire.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    1:32pm
    Bonny my feeling is that it would encourage more contributions, particularly from low middle income earners. The result would be that all eligible members have the full impact of their top marginal rate on their contribution instead of having it reduced by 15%. I agree with you about all the rule changes.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    12:48pm
    There are only 2 ways to make money, so the two should be separated when assessed for tax liability in my opinion.
    Personal exertion income should not be lumped together with non personal exertion income.
    This would put a stop to negative gearing of property because investments would stand on their merits. I believe property values may decline in the short term because of this change but it would level the playing field. I do hope it is raised and given serious consideration.

    Secondly I would like to see some rationalisation with inflows and outflows to the ATO/Centrelink. It has never made sense to me why we may tax a worker then give it back in welfare. This would mean an income tax reduction and welfare reduction, particularly for low and middle earners. We desperately need to reintroduce positive incentive for productivity. Welfare should never be used as an incentive because it flys in the face of what we are trying to achieve.

    Thirdly, it's clear that Super needs a fair, reasonable and flat dollar RBL. This is one time when a "one size fits all" approach can work. It can be say AWOTE x Average Life Expectancy at 65, with exceeding balances taxed as non super.

    Of course what makes sense for Australia and its citizens may not be politically wise.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    12:59pm
    Why should there be any difference in the way income is made? After all it's all income whether one uses their brain or their body to make it.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    1:12pm
    Bonny there is a difference already. We keep them separated then, we join them together for the ATO to assess. Why should a high income earner get a reduction in their personal income tax because they have the capacity to gear into a mostly passive investment? Why not assess the investment separately? If it runs at a loss why should other taxpayers foot the bill?
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    1:22pm
    Self funded retirees only have passive income. Also there are rules in place to deal with losses from gearing so people with them don't access welfare. Many more middle class people use gearing than high income earners. So I can't see why there is any problem with them being both lumped together as income.
    mangomick
    5th Oct 2015
    3:54pm
    So Frank (the owl), when you say get rid of negative gearing of property does that include farming property and businesses. They can all be used to minimise tax paid by PAYG employees or are you just against negative gearing of rental properties.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    4:27pm
    Not sure why you are bothering mango. You know who Frank is. Waste of time really. Cheers.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    4:33pm
    mangomick you misinterpreted what I meant. I'm not against buying property of any kind. I just think that the two incomes should be separated and assessed for tax purposes separately. Would you have bought your "run at a loss" mango farm otherwise? Why provide incentive for investors to lose money??
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:08pm
    I really do not want to bite but you are gross Frank. Crawl back under your right wing sponsored rock mate.
    mangomick
    5th Oct 2015
    6:10pm
    Frank, When you buy a rural property the ATO acknowledges that if the property is going to be developed then it is going to take some time before it is up and running and there fore allows a loss to be negatively geared against other income. it is no different to BHP buying a property and developing a mine and being able to write the losses off against the income it makes from another income producing scheme. it's the same for rental properties. These properties don't stay negative geared forever and eventually they will be sold and CGT tax will be paid. Mean time the Government saves itself a motza on welfare housing it doesn't have to buil;d with your tax dollars.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:34pm
    Agree mango. I'll buy a couple of trays off you any day. Cheers.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    10:17pm
    Yep youre doing us all a favour. And the 457 holders you underpay? Are they getting a fair deal too?
    mangomick
    6th Oct 2015
    9:37am
    No longer in the fruit growing business. government decided to spend some excess tax dollars and bought out 170 farms so a shale oil plant that eventually went broke could get an unfettered run at polluting the atmosphere and neighbouring properties without any dissent from all those who lived within 10 km of them.
    Out of farming and into negative geared properties. As they say there's only two things certain in life and that's, Death and Franks undying love for Tony Abbott's Policies. Tax ,as the very wealthy will tell you, is optional.
    jackie
    5th Oct 2015
    1:38pm
    It's about time.

    5th Oct 2015
    1:54pm
    If the RBA continues to reduce interest rates there is no reason whatsoever to put ANY money into super if you are opting for a term deposit-like investment. You would be much better off putting your money into an ADI where you would get a higher return.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:50pm
    You are forgetting that superannuation is invested primarily in the share market and that there are some pretty good returns there. Telstra for instance offers more than 5% plus franking credits...which cranks it up to over 7%. Not bad. Ok.....there are risks. But then I would suggest there are greater ricks with money in the bank. Anyone who is familiar with a Cyprus style 'haircut' should understand that the SAME PROVISIONS are in place in all western countries. Our prudential regulator APRA has this waiting for us should there be a run on the banks (big banks!).
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    6:40pm
    Gee it's a good thing I owe the banks more than they owe me then. Do I get a haircut on what I owe them?
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:35pm
    Life never works that way...but you'll never get off.
    mIKER
    5th Oct 2015
    2:00pm
    The reform of taxation is such a broad subject and so nuanced by the conflicting interests of business and the rest of the community, from billionaires to those on welfare, that it is impossible to please everyone. So increasing the GST won’t please everyone, but it does deliver some rewards for everyone, that aren’t readily considered. With the strict proviso that any increase in the rate and coverage of GST must be compensated for the less well-off the benefits include a rapid increase in revenue that is shared amongst the States for health, education, infrastructure and so on.
    GST also means that everyone pays including those in the “cash economy” like tradesmen, contractors for labour hire companies, or sadly the underpaid engaged in convenience stores, petrol stations, food production etc. who do not pay the appropriate level of income if any at all.
    Increasing the GST should not be traded off for retaining negative gearing, massive discounts on CGT or over generous superannuation allowances or making multi-nationals and some Australian companies pay their fair share of tax for the services provided by Federal and State Government.
    However, we have a massive deficit and by the time this or any other parliament actually gets round to addressing the long overdue tax reforms the interest bill will be much higher and essential social services will have been reduced accordingly. Take your pick, more GST now or suffer from lack of funds.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:52pm
    The point you miss is that those who finance politicians are at the head of the queue. First and biggest bite of the cherry always goes to the rich. Why do you think the current Superannuation Tax Shelter was put in place, has been in place for so long and is facing fierce opposition to its removal?
    mIKER
    6th Oct 2015
    11:57am
    mick should read what I wrote before launching an ideological attack on increasing GST. I am very much aware that a increase in GST impacts the lower income households to a greater extent and recommend that provision is made to compensate them.
    mick should also consider the upside of collecting tax from the cash economy, across all segments including criminals and having funding to improve the lot of the less well off via funding for health and education by the States.
    and mick I am very much aware of the superannuation rort and strongly support changing the rules. So next time you criticise me read what I said and offer a rational argument in opposition, not just the party line.
    Kaz
    5th Oct 2015
    2:46pm
    An increase in GST is not tax reform! Neither is removing Sunday penalty rates! There will never be true tax reform - it is just too hard and complicated to do in three year terms - there will need to be bipartisan agreement to carry it on by each party. Also, why is it so surprising that a liberal leader may consider looking at wealthy dodgers of fair tax - that Is what we so blindly accept, so that we all unwittingly support their belief in entitlement, no matter how wealth is earned.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    2:54pm
    This is just moving the goalposts. Increasing the GST will hurt average and poor citizens the most and collect huge sums of money. The rich invest much more than they consume so they will not be hurt anywhere the same. All that the rich want is more tax cuts (always the same cries!!) and to leave their superannuation tax shelter alone.
    RJ
    5th Oct 2015
    3:06pm
    Precisely Kaz, and with three levels of government, Federal, State and Local it will be impossible to reach a consensus. The only thing that will come out of this so called tax reform is an increase for most of us. Sure they will give us some small token recompense, but in the long run we'll all pay more. In my opinion government needs to concentrate on finding new ways to generate employment and stimulate the economy and we wouldn't have to worry about being punished with more taxes. And that's what it is, punishment - the economy struggles so the masses have to pay the price via increased taxes. Not our fault - but we are the mugs that have to pay because of poor government which lacks innovation and foresight to get our country moving.
    So I say to Mr Turnbill, look at ways to get the country moving. We need innovative, flourishing industry and cashed up workers who have no fear of spending. The economy will look after itself.
    niemakawa
    6th Oct 2015
    5:14pm
    Mick, and all the so-)"poor" want is more Government handouts. ( "always the same cries") . Don't knock the "rich" without them you would not be receiving a "pension".
    Lookfar
    5th Oct 2015
    3:10pm
    Hi Frank, I notice you say, "When you consider the reasons for tax reform then it draws us to a much more urgent conclusion. We desperately need workplace reform with a view to increasing productivity." below is a link to an article where the obscene overpayment of CEOs of big companies is discussed. And mention that big companies are always trying to "increase productivity" whilst paying their CEOs a hundred times more than their workers, usually for doing extremely little and that paying CEOs more does not make them more productive as they already have so much. This is not the case for workers, nor does just squeezing the workers harder and harder increase productivity, it seems that other areas need to be discussed and at a much wiser level than these cliches!

    https://theconversation.com/why-everybody-knows-ceos-are-overpaid-but-nothing-happens-47769?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+October+5+2015+-+3542&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+October+5+2015+-+3542+CID_996f6fcbb19dbcc930ab3b7dac73bcc0&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Why%20everybody%20knows%20CEOs%20are%20overpaid%20but%20nothing%20happens
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    3:19pm
    You will notice over time that Frank's posts align with this government. I can only believe that Frank is likely paid for his comments in the same way that Vladimir Putin has a whole building where his trolls pump out pro government propaganda.
    I agree with your post as it is factual. This government of course is after average citizens to prop up the rich. That is why it has so far REFUSED to close the superannuation tax shelter for its rich supporters and REFUSED to tax multinationals....probably for the same reason.
    Adrianus
    6th Oct 2015
    6:09pm
    Looky, I'm not talking about Big business and CEO remuneration. I'm talking about the little café which must choose to stay closed on a public holiday or Sunday because it cannot afford to pay a waiter $50 per hour. Meanwhile there are young people looking for pocket money who would gladly do the job for a lot less. What a pity :(
    Lookfar
    5th Oct 2015
    3:28pm
    Yes Mick, I have certainly noticed that Frank always sneaks in the party line, whether it is relevant or not, and I feel he is showing contempt for us and yourlifechoices and wish he would stop.
    mangomick
    5th Oct 2015
    3:46pm
    Take it easy on Frank will you. He's only just getting over the shock of Abbott meeting his demise and he's still very very fragile.
    Sceptic
    5th Oct 2015
    4:27pm
    What a load of whinging whining contributors to this site. It seems to me that the only party line that is followed by the majority of the posters is the communist party line. I do not know who Frank is, but I find that despite my often disagreeing with his sentiments, his posts seem to be well considered. So unlike those that only praise those that agree with their creed and rant against anyone not following their line.
    Lookfar
    5th Oct 2015
    5:00pm
    Sceptic, you totally lost credibility when you blanket judged all contributors as whining, whinging, etc, and even more so when you labelled almost everyone communist. From my observation, this discussion has sensibly and openly explored many of the aspects of this all taxes up for consideration debate/discussion.
    In regards to Frank, I only criticised his one cliche comment, the other ones were more human, - I think you should take the time to read through all the comments, - not to see if you can categorise them when they are different to what you say, but to try and understand all the points of view and the breadth of the issue.
    I am personally more an anarchist, - probably more on the side of Tolstoyan Anarcho-Syndicalism than the American Max Stirnerite side, eg. Nestor Makhno etc. although I come from a less materialist approach in all of this, but you will no doubt know, or should know, seeing as you think everyone is communist, that the First thing the communists in Russia did was to exterminate the Anarchists.
    These days, with the development of individualism, Anarchistic (not the bomb throwing cliche, but the each person wants to be responsible for her/his own actions, definition) would be a better description of most people's vaguely help opinions on this and on many issues and sites, - so Sceptic, you have learned something today, (I hope).
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    5:06pm
    Lookfar: Judge the posts by who they come from. Frank and Sceptic always tow the government line. Never a rational post. They are what they are: cash for comment I would think.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    5:36pm
    Sceptic when you said "What a load of whinging whining contributors to this site." I would like to add bleat-ing and baa-ing. It would be nice to see some individual thought from them once in a while. :( Very disappointing.
    mangomick
    5th Oct 2015
    6:20pm
    I told you lot to take it easy on Frank. Now he's losing the plot again. Will you lot never learn. It looks like he even found a little friend to bring back to the forum to go off topic with.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    6:48pm
    .. and enter stage right Sceptic with the same old drum-beating.... "ye're all Commos if yez want a fair go!"
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:39pm
    I have been missing the "union", "Labor" and "commie" (under the bed?) rants. Has Malcom given a different direction to the trolls? And where is the last one of the trio (3 Stooges?)? Pete? Hello....
    Sorry, I am having a blond evening. Too much of the turps and the Sydney heat is affecting my judgement. Where are the smilies........
    mangomick
    6th Oct 2015
    9:55am
    There was silence at the Forum for the word had got around that Tony "budgie" Abbott had been sacked .
    And his most trustworthy writers, Sceptic .Frank and Pete weren't even seen or even heard from for a week.
    Now we know the lines they're writing ,bout Unions and Commies under every bed, and then they whinge about some whinging they perceive,
    But the truth you see is clear, if you take the time to read
    They are just a bunch of angry grey haired men.
    niemakawa
    5th Oct 2015
    5:13pm
    The only tax that should be changed is the GST. Leave everything else as is. Increase the basic GST to and then a tiered rate up to 25% on some "luxury goods. Then scrap all other State Governments charges. Introduce a flat rate on personal tax, no concessions.I do not understand why those that commit to putting more aside for their retirement through investment in Superannuation or property should be taxed differently. Australia in on a slippery slope to becoming a "third world" nation if they take away people's incentive to prosper.
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:45pm
    More taxes for the masses. Put the GST up to 20%. Leave the superannuation tax shelters for the rich alone.
    Really niemakawa......how do you think the roads you drive on are funded, the hospitals you use and their staffing is paid for, the teachers and the schools they work in to educate your children are paid for??? Need I go on? That is why the idiotic political acting from this government about 'less tax' are a sham. The only way to reduce taxes is by transferring the burden. YOU HAVE TO TAX SOMEBODY ELSE MORE. No other way.
    The reason we are turning into a third world nation in not tax. It is because we are flogging off absolutely EVERYTHING to offshore investors. We own close to NOTHING. And now both sides of politics are selling our FREEHOLD FARMING LAND to China. This is the slippery slope. And you ask why there are so few jobs in Australia? Obvious dear boy.
    niemakawa
    6th Oct 2015
    5:17pm
    Mick, well you can do something about it personally. Buy only Australian made products. See how you go at the cash register. Are you prepared to do that?
    Lookfar
    7th Oct 2015
    2:23pm
    Niemakawa, the article is about all taxes being up for consideration, and to give you credit you have been the only one to advocate serious changes in the GST, although unfortunately you don't seem to have any understanding of what the rest of the taxes do or don't do.
    A major issue behind this consideration is that through the Internet, most of us have come to understand that a tiny group of people control nearly all the money, and not only that but most of them evade paying Tax, - easy when you are that rich, even though they use the planes, airports, roads, water, electricity, etc. infrastructure that the rest of us have paid for.
    Again not only that but they generally don't give a fig about the environment as they can easily afford to move to the less affected parts of the earth as the climate slowly deteriorates. It would appear to be almost a direct relationship, the "richer' you are, the less moral and caring about future generations you are.
    Morality is a thing each of us have to develop or fail to, giving the immoral a huge say in the future we all have to live in is a worry, so we talk about changing the tax system to exclude those parasites, and maybe GST is a part of that, but only if we look at the rest of the taxes. imho.
    Income taxes are paid almost exclusively by the 99% that own 1% of the earth, let's get rid of them, the super rich who own 99% of the earth do not generally pay them, but they do buy stuff, - mainly imported stuff in huge quantities that negatively affect Australia's balance of trade, so looking at the wider picture, GST if rigorously applied to ALL would generate far more Tax to the Govt, and would probably be able to be therefor DECREASED.
    Let's toss that one around a bit, obviously many other changes would need to be considered, maybe even how our money is valued, but huge changes will need to be made to leave our grand children even a semblance of our current environment.
    niemakawa
    5th Oct 2015
    5:22pm
    Why always this obsession and seemingly hatred for the "rich". I am glad that there are such people in our society and they deserve to receive tax concession the same as any other taxpayer. Instead why not concentrate on achieving a higher standard of living using one's own initiative, instead of sitting back hoping that Governments will slug the "rich" to provide income for those not willing to do more for themselves.
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    5:53pm
    Agree why should the rich pay more or get less concessions than anyone else? Everyone has the opportunity to become rich but don't have the mindset to make it happen. Our school system take us imaginative kids and turns us into factory workers. With the demise of factories even the school system is now failing us.

    I used to help an organisation train people to change their mindsets and didn't realise that this was what was holding everyone back until I saw the before and after performance of these people. Even today I cringe when someone says I can't do something but can't tell me why not. Seems to me like there are all these hidden rules in society that no one seems to know why they are there or worse still why they are even needed. Are people so scared of upsetting others that they don't want to help themselves? Sort of like the old buying things to impress people you don't like anyway sort of idea.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    6:29pm
    very well said niemakawa!!
    It is so inspiring to hear that sort of sentiment on here.
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    6:50pm
    All of which would be fine if the rich had the same concessions as everyone else..... which they do not - they have many, many more avenues for tax avoidance and tax reduction.
    Patriot
    5th Oct 2015
    6:52pm
    niemakawa
    I'm not against the rich "On Principle".
    There always has been and always will be a layer of the population that has farr more "Money & Assets" than they can/will even consume.

    The problem is that they are EXTREMELY GREEDY and are NOT HAPPY unless they (personally) have "lucked Up ALL WEALTH and have not left anything for others to be able to lead a "Dignified & Comfortable" life.

    It is their Unadulterated GREED and DEMAND for CONTROL that is the disturbing element in the equation!
    LiveItUp
    5th Oct 2015
    7:29pm
    It certainly not the impression I have of the wealthy people I know. Most wealthy people are generous and go out of their way to help others without asking anything in return. It's more likely to be a pensioner who is extremely greedy and not happy with their lot where the more they get the more they want.
    Patriot
    5th Oct 2015
    8:03pm
    Bonny,
    Just keep dreamin '
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:50pm
    I see a bit of team strategy here.
    The issue is that ALL need to pay their fair share. Wealthy people paying effective tax rates of 10% are GROSSLY UNFAIR. I do not accept the above arguments from the rich.
    The Superannuation Tax Shelter needs to be closed. Immediately. Multinationals need to NOT have an out and need to NOT be permitted to transfer profits to Ireland and then pay zilch tax. The process is corrupt and always has been. And last of all the Tax Office needs to have teeth to go after those who are rich enough to choose to pay tax if they do not pay a fair share. Many don't.
    niemakawa
    6th Oct 2015
    5:20pm
    Patriot how many "rich" people do you know personally and have as friends. I think you are making the "widely" held but false assumption that the "rich" are those things you mention.
    Adrianus
    6th Oct 2015
    6:12pm
    Well we know you and mick don't have any rich friends. If they heard the way you despise them.
    Patriot
    6th Oct 2015
    6:59pm
    niemakawa & Frank,

    Read my post properly and you'll detect that I do NOT hate rich people at all.
    I just dislike the GREED that the Current Crop of despots display.

    FIGHT THE ISSUES & NOT THE PERSON!!!
    niemakawa
    6th Oct 2015
    7:40pm
    Greed is the issue with you, but where is the evidence? It is just a mindset in some, jealousy being the main motivator. Long live the rich, they are so needed in society as an inspiration for us all.
    Adrianus
    6th Oct 2015
    9:09pm
    I've heard many on here complaining that Abbott took away their incentive to save a few dollars. They regard welfare as an aspiration. :-(
    Adrianus
    7th Oct 2015
    3:35pm
    Patriot your view of the rich is well established on these forums!
    What you find hard to accept is as niemakawa eluded to, if we slow down the rich the poor will not benefit exponentially or otherwise.

    5th Oct 2015
    6:29pm
    want a good laugh, just read the comments of labor mick and his newest clone the one and only, by his own description, tolstonyan, anarcho, syndicalism, the great???? "lookfar", a better question, how far, the new clown on the block, oblivious labor mick's other clones, the likes of tia maria, plan b, jen etc, did not perform well on labor mick's labor party ideology and had to make way for the new drone, sorry to say, intelligence does not run far in labor mick's family if we have to look at " faraway's" comments.
    Lookfar
    5th Oct 2015
    6:42pm
    Heemsjerk, obviously I look a lot further than you, - I have been posting on this site for over a year, and often I confine myself to commenting on people who insult rather than discuss, unfortunately you fall into that category, so please remember, a person who falls into insulting and denigrating others in a discussion has run out of truth, i.e. has no argument, is a dead parrot, deceased, kaput, not sleeping but is with the angels. credit to Monty Python.
    When you have an actual argument, please come back. I will look at it.
    Adrianus
    5th Oct 2015
    6:50pm
    heemsy, you know I have not seen that sort of post before and I'm left wondering if in fact it could be the work of an anarchist, - probably more on the side of Tolstoyan Anarcho-Syndicalism than the American Max Stirnerite side, eg. Nestor Makhno etc.?
    What's your interpretation?
    TREBOR
    5th Oct 2015
    6:51pm
    .. and here comes Heemskerk with the same old, same old.... anything to distract from the issue under discussion...
    MICK
    5th Oct 2015
    8:55pm
    And here we have the other redneck: heemskerk99. Unlike you dear boy my IQ is pretty high, and I have a university degree....and much more. Unlike you I am not a prostitute of either side of politics. Unlike you I am happy to debate a topic on its merits and on the evidence.
    So what do you have other than a foul mouth and brain dead comments?
    LiveItUp
    6th Oct 2015
    11:41am
    Umm I too have enough of those bits of paper to paper one of my walls. Do they make me smart? Nope but the right education helps. You are not going to get that from any uni etc either because quite simply those who teach teach because it's easier to teach than actually do things.

    6th Oct 2015
    7:43pm
    to far away look, my comments were not insulting just a true reflection on your comments, as for comparing yourself to monty python, I have not stopped laughing, talking about having tickets on yourself!!!!!!
    trebor's comment really made me laugh, whatever the issue, his obsessions and hatred towards those who are better off, or so he thinks they are, read all his comments on the different issues, may be they looked after their money better than p......g it up the wall, love to have seen his tax returns if he ever had any and see his claimed reductions.
    as for labor mick's claims of his superior i.q, his university degree and more, after reading his comments I am more and more convinced, his to be a arts one, graffiti, by the way he has found another word to use when you oppose his views, instead of being a troll, paid up member of the liberals, being paid by the libs, you are now a redneck, yet they still believe they contribute to these issues, I believe it is time for labor mick and his cronies to again consult the fairies at the bottom of his garden and maybe they can come up with some interesting points to this issue, either for or against, one can only live in hope.
    Lookfar
    7th Oct 2015
    1:57pm
    Dear Heemsjerk, sorry you could not understand me, perhaps if I explain you will understand a bit more. Your assertions, cliches, bagging every body that you disagree with, are collectively and individually the dead parrot, the dead parrot was a comedy skip by Monty Python - Monty Python - Dead Parrot - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
    I can't imagine by what convoluted series of internal "logical" thought processes you arrived at to think I was claiming or comparing myself to Monty Python, just let it go, you were being a fool, tomorrow is a new day and maybe you will have something sensible to say.

    7th Oct 2015
    1:00pm
    There is a calculator at the bottom of this article where you can find out where you rank on the rich scale in Australia.

    Only need to put in your annual income and how many in your household.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/really-mr-abbott-185k-not-especially-high-20150510-ggyeuh.html
    LiveItUp
    7th Oct 2015
    1:40pm
    I got 4% on that calculator so I must be poor.
    Adrianus
    7th Oct 2015
    3:05pm
    Very interesting.
    The Institute found that 51 per cent of people who earned between $100,000 and $150,000 a year thought that the average Australian earns between $100,000 and $150,000.
    They obviously were unaware that the "average" income of $76,000 meant "average"
    Gee I hope they weren't the most outspoken critics of the so called rich, only to realise they are those same rich people. How embarrassing :)
    Saalbach
    7th Oct 2015
    4:06pm
    I would like to know what super fund will give hundreds of thousands of return on a balance of $1.5 million -that's a return of at least 20% pa. Bonny, good luck to you if you have so much you could live to 110. The thing is, if it was in a super fund (and therefore tax free after 60) you could probably have a lot more left at 125! Mick has it right.
    The solution is to introduce a sliding scale of tax payable on super - easiest way to do that is to make the first (say) $50,000 tax free, and normal tax rates apply above that. Simples, as the meerkat would say.
    LiveItUp
    8th Oct 2015
    11:09pm
    More rules on super exactly the reason why I don't have all my eggs in one basket. With only a small part of my wealth in super if the rules change adversely or it gets nationalised then it just a minor inconvenience not a disaster. Yep I'm OK with first $50,000 super tax free and a tax threshold of approx $18000 is enough spending money for me.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.