Superannuation: Labor to announce new set of proposals

Federal Labor to put forward a proposal that would see steeper cuts to super concessions.

With just three weeks of Parliament left this year, Labor is expected to put forward a proposal that would see steeper cuts to super concessions to help repair the budget.

This news comes just days after media reports that suggested the Opposition was likely to support the Federal Government's modified superannuation changes.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, sources close to Bill Shorten say that an alternative set of proposals to make the superannuation system fairer will be unveiled today. These measures are intended  to help increase the speed of the budget repair and are expected to hit high-income earners harder.

Mr Shorten has said for some time that the Federal Government hasn’t gone far enough in its crackdown on high income superannuation tax concessions.

"The current superannuation system delivers half of all tax concession to the top 20 per cent of income earners – that isn't fair or economically sustainable," he said.

Among the proposals, it is expected that the government's $100,000 annual post-tax contributions limit would be reduced to $75,000, as well as a reduction in the High Income Superannuation Contribution threshold to $200,000.

The Government is hoping to have its superannuation package legislated before Parliament closes for the year on 1 December and if this doesn’t occur, it’s likely to delay the expected 1 July 2017 start date.

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    phantom
    8th Nov 2016
    10:26am
    Bill Shorten would rather see the country go broke than vote with the Coalition. He's just vote buying.
    Happy cyclist
    8th Nov 2016
    10:58am
    Well, I guess he learned a few tricks from Tony Abbott who blocked every single thing the government wanted to do when he led the Libs in opposition. Did Abbott really think there would never be any reprisal for that? What goes around comes around and all politicians would do well to remember that -- but they never do.
    KSS
    8th Nov 2016
    12:36pm
    So you are an advocate for tit-for-tat then Happy Cyclist?

    Assuming what you say is actually correct (although how Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd can claim to have got record numbers of legislation changes through Parliament if that were the case is debatable) playing politics helps no one.
    Happy cyclist
    8th Nov 2016
    1:48pm
    No, KSS, I am not advocating -- merely stating how it was.
    How Labor, particularly Gillard got record amounts of legislation through was by working with the Greens and Independents, to get the numbers without the help of the Libs. Really, I credited you with more knowledge of how Parliament works. Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?
    Sceptic
    8th Nov 2016
    3:18pm
    If Tony Abbott really blocked every single thing that the then Governmen wanted to do, how come PM Julia Gillard was boasting about the number of bills passed, and that 80 odd% of all bills were passed.

    Although I am virtually repeating what KSS said, I still cannot equate the use of the word blocked with passed.
    Eddy
    9th Nov 2016
    12:50am
    phantom, you ae forgetting 1975 when the libs in the senate, with their DLP fellow travellers, held the country to ransom by withholding supply from the government.
    floss
    8th Nov 2016
    11:07am
    IT is being used as a tax dodge for the wealthy not as a super pension so why not modify the present rules , the wealthy must pay their share of tax.
    Kaz
    8th Nov 2016
    12:17pm
    I found super helpful and yes, it should just be what it was meant to be - retirement support - not a tax haven.
    Sceptic
    8th Nov 2016
    3:20pm
    As well as not a tax haven it should not be an inheritance benefit at the cost to other tax payers.
    Rosret
    8th Nov 2016
    11:12am
    Hehehe - why should we be worried! Its all one big mess.
    The superannuation proprietors have no intention of giving their clients (us) anymore than the bare minimum return. Like insurance companies - they want our money but don't want to give it back at days end.
    The banks don't want us putting all our spare money into the super accounts because then they won't have enough money to loan potential home loan customers.
    So the politicians - who are maneuvered by the big players (not us) will flip flop back and forth at the whim of the most influential lobbyist.
    I may not be a socialist, however as soon as we privatize any of the human essential services (Medibank, electricity, super, trains etc) the price goes out of control and the service plummets. Somethings are better protected by the government.
    Super is one of them.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    11:20am
    That is why I run my own SMSF. I get to keep everything that earned.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    11:21am
    The $100,000 is a bit low especially for those trying to catch up in later life. If you can have $1.6 million in super it should be easy to get it in.
    KSS
    8th Nov 2016
    12:39pm
    The $1.6m goes out the window if Mr Shorten gets his way with these delaying tactics since it is not yet legislated.
    Eddy
    8th Nov 2016
    11:44am
    While I understand politicians speak in antonyms (ie when the say something is 'fair' I take it to mean it isn't), in this case I am going to lose little sleep worrying about the high wealth individuals who use superannuation as a tax minimisation mechanism.
    kev888
    8th Nov 2016
    11:49am
    Superannuation is a forced savings plan engineered by the govt to grab more from you, engineered to cover govt s mismanage of the the pension fund our entitlement . Scrap the whole super system and introduce a one tax fits all say 60% of every dollar you earn . Fact is with the 120 different taxes you are currently paying more that 60% in the dollar. One tax fits all evens the field .
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    11:55am
    Super is great if you mange it yourself. If you don't then too many others benefit and you get left with the scraps. I had a look at a few industry funds a few days ago for a young lass and the amount of fees even in those was not good.
    Happily retired early
    8th Nov 2016
    12:05pm
    The best way to save large amounts of money for budget repair is to reign in the over generous politicians super scheme which is fully taxpayer funded and the lerks and perks that are out of control.
    Nomad51
    8th Nov 2016
    1:05pm
    Marvelous idea; I thoroughly agree. These clowns get way too much and no matter how they destroy OUR super, their entitlements will never be affected. Add to this free flights and so on and the bill for the taxpayer is quite hefty. Worst of all, no matter how badly they perform, the taxpayer foots the bill for mediocrity for the rest of their lives.
    Do they really deserve all this? I don't think so. Most of our polies are fairly ordinary and best described as underachievers.
    Turnbull is a chronic waffler and Shorten is still looking for some sort of relevance. The sad thing is that they are playing politics with our money. What a pathetic lot to choose from.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    3:40pm
    Not enough of them to make any difference. Lots of welfare people though.
    Retired Knowall
    8th Nov 2016
    4:50pm
    It may not be much OG (pension plan alone for retired pollies is over $40m) but it would send a clear message that everyone is doing the lifting. It's called Leading by Example, but I guess first you need to be a Leader.
    Nomad51
    8th Nov 2016
    5:28pm
    Too right; but we don't have a leader and look at the options.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    6:17pm
    Rubbish I certainty wouldn't go into politics for the amount they pay even with their pension. Much better off out of the public eye in big companies or the public service.
    ex PS
    9th Nov 2016
    1:41pm
    OG, when people go into politics it is supposed that they are performing a public service, they quite often claim that they are giving back to society.
    If you are going into politics with the aim of making money maybe you should think again about doing so. There is plenty of money to made in politics if you are not too worried about ethics, the big pay off seems to be after your political career where old debts are paid in the form of Board Appointments and Advisory Positions.

    The point that leaders lead by example is a very valid one, it is so short sighted to make statements that examples need not be made because the monetary value is not material. Such logic does not stack up, it is like saying do not prosecute thieves if they only steal small items, they are still doing the wrong thing and if you steal 1000 small items it mounts up.
    john
    8th Nov 2016
    1:20pm
    It seems to be that Shorten has absolutely no interest in Australia. he is ONLY anti Turnbull and grandstanding himself.
    Tom Tank
    8th Nov 2016
    1:39pm
    Seems to fit both sides of politics that statement.
    Nomad51
    8th Nov 2016
    1:56pm
    They should both be in Bunnings with the rest of the tools.
    Retired Knowall
    8th Nov 2016
    4:52pm
    Both sides need to wake up or the next election will see more Independents and radicals, (see Pauline and Hinch)
    Captain
    9th Nov 2016
    6:12pm
    I like that statement Nomad 51.

    Looking at exit polls and voter comments in the USA our professional politicians should begin looking over their shoulders as the Aust voting public realizes that both major parties, as well as the National Party and the Greens are totally unworthy of governing our wonderful country.

    It will come down to whom we distrust and dislike least.

    A total overhaul of our income and taxation systems in in dire need. As I have said in this forum before the party that promises to reform our system (an iron clad promise) will get my vote. I believe that personal and business tax would be lower if a comprehensive review of our systems were undertaken and implemented.

    A three year review with submissions taken from all sectors of the community and a three year implementation time line would be acceptable. One stipulation would be that once the process is commenced, politicians would have no further input.
    floss
    8th Nov 2016
    2:32pm
    Bill is not in power how is he to blame.
    Nomad1946
    8th Nov 2016
    2:39pm
    I would welcome cuts to the extravagant superannuation paid to politicians and public servants .... In my opinion they should be subjected to EXACTLY the same rules as those they purport to represent. Contributions of 9% pa and non acces until reaching the age of 65.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    3:41pm
    It would not have any effect on the budget's bottom line.
    CindyLou
    8th Nov 2016
    9:43pm
    To the best of my knowledge, individuals can access their super at 55 years of age if ceased employment - don't have to wait till your 65.
    Old Geezer
    9th Nov 2016
    10:55am
    When you can access super depends when you were born. I accessed mine at 55 simply to save paying tax.
    ex PS
    9th Nov 2016
    1:49pm
    As an ex Public Servant I would like to ask where my extravagant Super Scheme has gone to? As far as I can see I am no better off than my friends who had private sector Super.
    Any extra money paid into my Super was paid in liew of pay rises or came from my own pocket, I accessed my Super at 55 just like a lot of my friends private enterprise.
    Nomad1946, can you give an example of the extravagance of average Public Service Super, if I missed out I would like to be re-reimbursed.
    retroy
    8th Nov 2016
    5:19pm
    What the lefties and critics leave out of the argument is that most of the top 20% also pay the most taxes any way.
    If you take the time to analyse the situation carefully with both eyes open you will find that the ratio or monetary value of concessions to tax paid is no more advantageous to higher paid people.
    It is just the have nots, the anti rich, and the envious that want to keep crying wolf.
    Nomad51
    8th Nov 2016
    5:31pm
    And Bill; you forgot him. He fuels that sort of classism.
    Old Geezer
    8th Nov 2016
    6:15pm
    I agree the wealthy and high income earners pay most of the tax. Why not give them some breaks? Let them build up their super as 15% tax is better than nothing. If they don't put their money into super then they will look for other ways of reducing their tax.

    Most families today get back more than they pay in tax through the welfare system.
    Eddy
    9th Nov 2016
    1:01am
    How do you know this? I thought that for the wealthy paying tax is optional. Wasn't that the main rationale for bringing in the GST, so the wealthy could not avoid paying a consumption tax. I understand even our esteemed PM has parked his wealth in a tax haven to avoid paying Australian tax (I don't know this for a fact but it sounds like a good story).
    Old Geezer
    9th Nov 2016
    10:54am
    It is better to have people pack their wealth into super than some off shore tax haven. I'll admit that I have money invested both in super and off shore myself for both tax and better returns.