Super changes reinforce Government’s focus on rich

Scrapping the $500,000 lifetime cap will only benefit rich Australians.

Super changes reinforce Government’s focus on rich

When the Government announced last week it would scrap plans for a $500,000 lifetime cap on after-tax super contributions, critics claimed it was a backflip made to appease the “super rich” – the fraction of Australians who could afford to top-up their funds by more than $100,000 per year.

Changing the lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions to $1.6 million and allowing people to shift up to $100,000 after-tax to their funds per year – or bring forward three years’ worth of contributions in a $325,000 lump sum – has only affected 80,000 people, compared to the Low Income Superannuation Tax Offset of up to $500 per year, which affects over three million Australians earning $37,000 or less.

In its announcement, the Government stated that reducing the annual cap from $180,000 to $100,000 would make Australia’s superannuation system “even fairer, more flexible and more sustainable”. However, with estimates from the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia showing the average super balance for a 65-year-old man is $194,633 and $117,144 for a woman of the same age, it begs the question: fairer for whom?

“The Government has caved in to the super rich by abandoning the $500,000 lifetime cap on after-tax contributions since 2007,” said Paul Versteege, policy advisor at the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association.

“After-tax contributions must stop once people have $1.6 million in their super, but this is virtually meaningless as only 1 per cent have that much. To pay for this, the Government robs the poor by abandoning the measure enabling over-65s to make after-tax contributions to their super.”

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) welcomed the “sensible, if modest” proposed caps on high-end super for annual non-concessional contributions, but criticised the loophole to allow the wealthy to shift three years’ worth in a lump sum.

“This means that people can contribute up to $325,000 in any given year, which undermines the intent of the lower annual cap, and will overwhelmingly benefit high income earners,” said ACOSS president Cassandra Goldie.

However, Industry Super Australia (ISA) praised the measure to reduce the annual cap from $180,000 to $100,000, which will “help rebalance unsustainable tax breaks and redirect greater support to lower paid workers who need the most help to save for retirement”.

“The proposed measure will restrict superannuation being used for estate planning, while providing greater support for many more, lower income Australians saving for retirement, including 5 million members of not-for-profit industry super funds,” said ISA chief executive David Whiteley.

“Most importantly, there is cross-parliamentary support for the Low Income Super Tax, which will boost the savings of more than 3.3 million Australians on lower incomes, particularly women.

“We are confident that the commitment of all parliamentarians to better target super tax concessions will lead to a positive outcome for Australia’s superannuation savers.”

Read more at www.abc.net.au

Opinion: Fair for the privileged few

Announcing its “improvements” to the 2016-17 Budget’s superannuation changes last week, the Government proudly declared it would make the system “even fairer, more flexible and more sustainable”. But with one of its prize proposals only affecting 80,000 Australians – the ‘super rich’ – just what is it doing to help the rest of us?

Treasurer Scott Morrison and Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O’Dwyer released a joint statement, saying the $1.6 million lifetime cap would ensure that “we focus the entitlement for after tax contributions to those Australians who have an aspiration to maximise their superannuation balances and reach the transfer balance cap in the retirement phase”.

In this context, the words ‘entitlement’ and ‘aspiration’ smack of patronisation and privilege; when few average Australian workers are able to afford to make after-tax super contributions, let alone $100,000 per year, what good is ‘aspiration’? Australians saving for retirement need policy based on reality, and low-to-average-income earners are the ones who need assistance the most. So, just who is ‘entitled’, Mr Morrison?

What do you think of these super changes? Which measures would you like to see implemented to support the average Australian worker?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login

    20th Sep 2016
    10:02am
    The $100K is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction – but the dollar figure will suck in all the people who can’t see it as anything a perk for the rich – WELL IT AIN’T!

    The $100K is useful to ANYONE – even poorly paid people - who get left money when someone dies if they want to put one-off larger amounts of money into super.

    And the $325K in any one year (it’s only $300K in reality and $25K in concessional) – is using the 3-year bring forward rule – you can’t put anything more non-concessional money in for 3 years This means if you get left money you can use the rule yourself to put larger amounts of money into super – even if you are a low wage earner. In this day and age of high housing prices it is not unlikely you can ‘win’ large amounts from an estate.

    The rules are there for EVERYONE to use if they want to – not just the so-called rich.
    Fliss
    20th Sep 2016
    10:07am
    Agree Reasons. Think we were typing at the same time - and thinking along the same lines . . . :)
    Carole
    20th Sep 2016
    10:14am
    OK - if you are under 65 or over 65 and still fit enough to work. And, of course, have someone good enough to die and leave you an inheritance. On a more realistic basis, for most, having an extra $100000 to put into super is nothing more than a pipe dream.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    10:16am
    Agree the rules are for everyone. Most rich people today were not born rich. I was born into a very poor family that taught me how to live on little and make do. I still do so today in many ways.

    With most people now living well into their nineties then people inheriting their wealth will be over 65 so it is useless for them unless the age contribution age is changed to 75.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    10:33am
    OK Carole – only a few can put in $100K – but SO WHAT!?

    The super rules can provide (nearly) ANYONE with $1.6m in their super – if they try.

    Assume a person earning $60K per year saved $350 per fortnight and compounded it for 45 years at 5% - they would have $1.6m in their super.

    Remember - over HALF that $350 per fortnight is the compulsory super 9% - so you don't have to find it – you have to find $75 per week more – and in reality it is less than that because that $75 is only being taxed at 15%.

    AND before you go on about no-one can find this much – the figure is indicative – not definitive. Nearly anyone can find some money for their retirement if they try (most don’t!) – you might end up with ‘only’ $1m instead.

    So – this poorly paid person now is a rich bastard who needs to be despised at 65 because they have just slowly plodded along for 45 years and saved for their retirement.

    It’s all in your mindset and planning when you are young. Teach your kids and grandkids how to do it if nothing else.
    Tom Tank
    20th Sep 2016
    11:37am
    Unbelievable some of these comments. These rules only apply to the wealthy because only the wealthy can take advantage of them.
    The ordinary Australian simply doesn't have the income to be ably to put that sort of money into Super.
    Whilst it can be argued these rules apply to all the fact is they can only be accessed by a few and the LNP know that only too well, that is why they introduced them.
    The super system is not fair to all despite those contributors, who are obviously recipients of the Governments considerations, loudly protesting otherwise.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    11:39am
    That's the good thing about Australia anyone can become wealthy. So why aren't you wealthy?
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:53am
    The Liberal Party wouldn't let me in !! :-) :-)
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    12:00pm
    The Liberal Party don't want me either. Lucky for me I don't want to be a part of them either.
    Kaz
    20th Sep 2016
    1:12pm
    Anyone can become wealthy? Where have you been? I have worked hard and am comfortable but I have worked in employment with those with disabilities, physical and mental, lower cognitive functioning, victims of abuse, including from poor parenting, etc. and I will tell you not everyone can become wealthy.
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:16pm
    I don't believe you Geezer! Your posts are so right wing and pro government that your statement needs to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

    SUPERANNUATION CHANGES: I know it is easy to slag off at the rich but the reality of life is that rich people have established a system which benefits only people who have money. That is a fact.
    A few of the above posts are clearly from people who have done well in life and for that I congratulate them.
    In regards to fiddling with the super system I see a few issues:

    1. moving the lifetime amount to $1.6 million is not fair on taxpayers who subsidise the rich. Never has been. I might have thought a much smaller amount around $800,000 might have been a suitable compromise.
    2. the after tax contributions are the real issue and few realise that whilst wealthy people miss out on avoiding the high marginal tax rate they gain only paying 15% tax on earnings within the fund. This is a significant amount over 20+ years and is then tax free on withdrawal. A better method might have been for the government to either reduce the annual contribution to a much lower figure ($30,000??) or to close the tax free lump sum on retirement provision.

    In the end the rich use super as but one avenue of tax planning and will milk it for all that it is worth because they have the funds to utilise it. They will of course hold property, shares, businesses, etc. outside of the superannuation system as well and these alone would likely provide multiples of the pension for them.

    Whilst I can see the daggers of the rich being sharpened I do not denigrate rich folk for being rich but I do despise them for accumulating their wealth at the expense of average citizens who stump up taxes to subsidise the wealthy. That is and always was unfair.
    Rosret
    20th Sep 2016
    1:22pm
    Yes, I agree Reasons. Its not appeasing the rich or the poor. Its a worse deal than before. They realised retrospective tax was phenomenally wrong and just like trying to remove the "free" doctor and failing, they introduced something worse.
    The wealthy have portfolios in the private super funds, in property and in other fruitful investments. A second home in Sydney will gross more than most peoples super. Super is just the icing on the cake. For the rest, its our life's savings. Just like all other forms of taxes its the middle income earners who will pay and will always pay. We work, we are ethical and open to the tax revenue department. We are easy pickings will no lobby group.
    We have had politicians on both sides of politics with a moral compass in the past. One day it will happen again.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    1:40pm
    Kaz - I totally agree - some people definitely can't do it - and your example is perfect.

    However, most people can have say $400K when they retire. An example is someone putting $45 into super every week from age 20 for 45 years compounding that at 5%p.a. would give them about $400K.

    Once you add the 9% super guarantee - that person might double that $400K.

    Now when you think about the money we all spend on coffee's, bought lunches, drinks, eating out, etc - I defy most people not finding that small $45 amount IF they want to retire comfortably.

    It just comes down to learning young enough and executing a plan. I did it later and if I could go back and educate my younger self on anything, that would go high on the list.
    Greg
    20th Sep 2016
    1:49pm
    I didn't realise I was so rich...hang on I'm not. Bloody easy though to downsize your home and have a few hundred thousand to put into super. Initially I wasn't happy about the $300000 cap but as it doesn't start until 1July I'll be able to put in my $400000
    wally
    20th Sep 2016
    2:51pm
    What is it with some of our people? Why do people express such concerns and barbed criticism about how other people choose to spend their money. The wealthy (or well off ) people stereotype the spending habits of those less well off as squandering whatever pittance the pension gives them on grog, smokes, poker machines, bets on the races, infesting pubs or clubs on a daily basis and other spending habits the financially better off people look down on.

    So many of those who post on this site take the opposite approach. They reflect the good old "Politics of Envy" the Labor Party loved to encourage among its proletarian supporters. Naughty Mick's post runs very close to expressing the conspiracy theory about how the ( evil ) rich conspire to further enrich themselves by rorting the system and putting tens of thousands of dollars into their superannuation funds to be able to live comfortably as self funded retirees rather than depend on the piddling amount the pension coughs up each fortnight.

    According to Mick, these people are right up there with Ferdinand Marcos and his career of helping himself to $ billions in public funds when he ran the country. So why are some people so obsessed with what other people choose to do with their money? It is almost as foolish as buying gossip magazines at the supermarket check out to see which celebrities are sleeping with who on a weekly basis. It ain't my money and I don't care what anybody else does with theirs, or how many kids Angelina jolie has decided to adopt this week!
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    3:36pm
    Wally - that is a reasonable response/summary of our collective views on this topic.

    Those with assets usually know they could have done even better as they have educated themselves over the years about tax and investing - and because of that they know those without assets in the main could have accumulated some/more.

    Those without assets don't seem to have the same knowledge or interest in tax and investing that those with assets have - and often appear to despise what they know - and it often comes across as frustration, other times egalitarian views - envy is definitely there.

    Each group is playing by two different sets of rules it seems - but those who play the egalitarian rules game are fighting the elites who make the rules - and as the majority are PAYGs - they are playing straight into the ruling elites' hands.

    The wealthier have taken the time to work out the basic rules the elite have set so they can use them to their advantage - and although they might even be lower paid workers, they do the best they can using the elites rules.

    The 'losers' seem to those who play by the egalitarian rules - that is not to say they are not right in their ideals - but they are bringing a blunt knife to a gun fight.

    The Libs have little idea about progressive taxes for addressing - especially when we were under Abbott and Hockey. Most people don't realise it was often the rich that were fighting Abbot's regressive taxes on the poor as it was foolishly promoting high inequality.

    And that is the problem that those with egalitarian views have - they are fighting against the elite of all flavors - who are looking at the cost of welfare and trying to find ways to reduce that huge part of the budget.

    Compliant egalitarian PAYG's tax payers are much easier prey than big business and others.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    4:34pm
    I missed the word inequality in the 3rd to last sentence - it should have read 'for addressing inequality"
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    5:16pm
    Well stop using big words and you wont get Conflabbergated !! :-)
    TREBOR
    20th Sep 2016
    6:56pm
    So instead of all this fiddle-farting around and such - the need for anyone to accumulate, unless they are rich, is to have a full fifty years shot at it?

    Good-O - then why all the despair and hand-wringing in government, when it's only been around for less than half that?

    MOST retirees have had little to no opportunity to accumulate massive super..... and most - as many have said - do not have the income to put a heap away every year.

    Easy solution is to restrict the maximum any individual can put into super, pay everyone the pension, and tax all income above pension.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    7:07pm
    TREBOR - it's not an easy solution.

    The cost of the OAP presently is about $47bn.

    Restrict what people can save for their retirement and that figure will increase to an unsustainable level as there is no incentive for the masses to try and be self-funded.

    MOST retirees have had AMPLE opportunity to fund their retirement without super.

    MOST retirees have waited too long to understand their finances and the level of the OAP before it was too late.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    7:32am
    wally: you miss the point that the system has been set up to benefit the rich far more than average citizens. My position is that very well off people do not need subsidies or handouts of any sort. Nor is it fair that this group of Australians are able to use creative accountants, lawyers and offshore tax shelters to minimise tax to a much lower level or to use offshore tax shelters to avoid paying tax at all.
    By all means call it a conspiracy theory but please acknowledge that all of the things above exist.........including a superannuation system where for decades the rich have laundered their money and gained hug tax savings compliments of average Australians who do pay their rightful taxes. Am I incorrect in any of the above??????
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    8:09am
    MICK - the system is setup for anyone to use. Wealthier people might get more out of it - BAD LUCK - get a better job as that idiot Hockey said...

    OR - OR...

    Just STOP WHINGING - because it AIN'T GUNNA CHANGE - so learn the rules and use them as best you can under you own circumstances.

    Many people on this site like to constantly whine like you MICK - but I don't see them trying to learn anything so they change their lot.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:14pm
    People like you constantly deceive readers Reasons. You paint a 'rosy for all' picture so that the gravy train never changes. We both know that the primary benefactors of the superannuation system are the wealthy.
    Call it whining if you like. I'd like to think that people who have no idea of the social engineering which sees vast amounts of TAXPAYER money go to the top are waking up and seeing how they have been nobbled. Your place in the scheme of things are quite clear. Rich man defending your 'rights' to be subsidised by average citizens. This is how the obscene rich work. And you call yourself an Australian............
    Fliss
    20th Sep 2016
    10:05am
    Tired of hearing that certain changes are only for the "privileged few". Doesn't matter what changes are made, someone always makes this statement. Let's be honest - these so called "privileged few" are the high income earners who pay huge amounts of tax & their tax contributions are paying a huge part of the welfare payments to the not so privileged. Without these high income earners we'd be in a mess! Give them a break. Just my thoughts . . . .
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    10:08am
    Fliss - you are right and very brave - prepare to be flogged to death here :-)
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    10:19am
    I agree with you Fliss give us taxpayers a break. Without us you would not be getting your welfare payments.
    grounded
    20th Sep 2016
    11:22am
    Totally agree with you. This 'privileged few' line has reached tiresome levels...a cop out for those who ONLY want to be carried from the womb to the tomb. It is in their DNA!

    Thank God above we have people in this country who are branded as the 'privileged few'....otherwise we would all be living in caves!

    Given time though...the weight of the non income generating, income dependent 'disadvantaged' will have us all looking for a nice hole in the ground to live in.

    Bloody WORK...the bane of the working classes!
    Rae
    20th Sep 2016
    12:26pm
    Yes Fliss exactly so.

    We need to fix up lower wages though. They have been stagnating for far too long and the excuse that times were tough and belt tightening was needed are long past. So it is time for high income earners to pause and low paid workers catch up a bit.

    That will increase the tax take.

    It's just stupid that you can earn more on welfare than working.

    I have a friend works four days 8 am to 5 pm for a take home pay of $510. That is not much more than she'll get once she hits retirement age.

    In my opinion the government needs to make some jobs for the unemployed. Let's have some money printing QE of our own and employ workers.

    It can't create inflation during a Balance Sheet Deflationary period.
    And if you do terrific because deposit rates might get back to something resembling reality.
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:20pm
    Reality Fliss: high income earners generally pay a very small PERCENTAGE of their income in tax.
    As Warren Buffet once lamented "my secretary pays more tax than I do"........and he was referring to the percentage of income before all the fiddles, creative accounting and loopholes reduced the taxable income to a much lower figure.
    If you doubt what I say then have a look at the top 1000 taxpayers, as a start, in the nation. It is sickening that our government turns a blind eye. But then it has turned a blind eye to collecting OUR money from multinationals as well and that pretty well tells the complete story.
    Kaz
    20th Sep 2016
    1:22pm
    Without workers paying the correct tax, yes, but let's make sure we are all paying the right tax and not avoiding tax required for the infrastructure that EVERYONE uses and the safety net that but for the grace of (something) we will not need. You hate 'someone' making statement about the privileged but you guys are happy to knock down those who cannot get any lower. Double standards. Let's be happy for those who are privileged and can pay their share, (hang those who don't!)???? but show kindness to those who can't ????
    jeffr
    20th Sep 2016
    1:39pm
    Hey Fliss,

    Is that the Cayman Islands where they are paying Huge amounts of tax ?????
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    1:45pm
    Fliss I agree.

    Kaz, "Let's be happy for those who are privileged and can pay their share....", Oh yes! Quite right too so we should.

    ".... but show kindness to those who can't" and we do exactly that by paying various forms of welfare to people of all ages from cradle to grave - and yes that includes the age pension.

    Rae: You are right that welfare needs to be looked at. When most taxpayers - particularly those with familes - get more in welfare handouts than they pay tax - net result a greater debt to society, levels of welfare are far too high.

    Mick you can uses all the weasel words you like but the fact remains that the very top end of town provide the jobs that the rest of 'us' work at. Make the tax/super too burdensome will simply move those businesses off shore or out the door altogether - and there is already evidence of that happening.

    There must be a balance that continues to make working and personal super contributions attractive and not simply punishing those who 'make good', build their own assets and support themselves in old age.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    1:53pm
    MICK - surprisingly you hit the nail on the head.

    PAYG wage earners are an easy target for the government.

    Those people with reasonable assets are often PAYG employees.

    The difference between those PAYG's that end up with more assets is the time they spend learning about investing, the various tax vehicles and their uses and the ATO's tax rules.

    You seem to know what you don't like about what the 'rich' do - if it is too late for you - teach your kids and your grandkids about the pension rates - and make sure they execute a plan to look after their older selves while they still have time.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:00pm
    Kaz - you need to understand that it is ILLEGAL to AVOID tax - anyone who intendeds to accumulate assets learns about and then LEGALLY MINIMISES their tax.

    There are serious consequences between AVOIDANCE and MINIMISATION.

    The government wants you to pay the maximum - but expects Australians to minimise their tax. The ATO will help you if you have a question about minimise tax if you ring them.

    It is TOTALLY up the individual how much they legally pay.
    TREBOR
    20th Sep 2016
    6:59pm
    Get rid of unemployment and broken employment, and include in that the current push from the well-heeled end of town to lower everyone else's wages...

    How are people to accumulate masses of super when all that ever happens is their costs of living go up while their incomes go down?

    How is a person thrown out of work to accumulate a heap of super? Commute to Asia - FIFO - and work for $10 a day?
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    7:09pm
    TREBOR - how about save like hell while they had the huge incomes and opportunity?
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    9:43pm
    The old chestnut KSS: THE BIG END OF TOWN PROVIDES JOBS???? We both know that the big end of town ONLY provides jobs so that IT can make mega profits. No other reason! And when robotics comes the big end of town will refuse to employ even one Australian if it can.
    Your post is the normal rich man's post: full of BS and short on fact.
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    8:54am
    Give it up MICK.
    The neolibs are winning. They won't be satisfied until we are like the US and like me I know you've seem that.

    They are waiting for the consequences of austerity during a balance sheet deflation to cut in.

    Start saving because there will be some amazing buying opportunities as the money dries up in the real economy.

    I'm planning to help open another soup kitchen because we'll need it.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    8:55am
    So let's all think about what you said MICK.

    Someone puts up huge amount of risk money and has a business plan to make money.

    In order to make that money they need employees.

    They then have the audacity to employ these people and pay them - JUST SO THE BUSINESS CAN MAKE MONEY - and keep paying their employees!

    It's just totally unbelievable how all businesses work - and how people get employed and paid.

    Thanks for pointing out the system's fallacy.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:31pm
    A nonsense response. Why does that not surprise me?
    Nobody ever said that people who run large businesses should not get a return. The issue s are as always 'how much is enough', should taxpayer money be used to feed the rich and should the rich pay a fair amount of tax? In the end you have to look at the sort of assets this cohort has and they are doing pretty damn good from what I have seen.
    Your post is a crock Reasons because you are giving a deliberately false account. Oh yes.........a Liberal Party man. I understand now.
    LiveItUp
    26th Sep 2016
    6:58am
    Mick I personally don't know of any business run as a charity just to employ people. You certainly are envious of the rich and successful. I'm certainly not but I appauld what they do. It is a lot harder to run a successful business than just turn up to get paid each week. However if you want to get paid what you are really worth you have to set up your own business.

    Reasons is right Mick.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    10:09am
    It looks like I might be right folks. Your pension will be paid back tot he government on the sale of your house.

    https://stopforeignownershipinaustralia.com.au/2016/09/19/acci-plan-turn-age-pension-into-loan-recoup-from-sale-of-home/
    Rodent
    20th Sep 2016
    4:25pm
    Question for OG

    Another Gem to keep.

    I find it amazing how you jump on anything that even remotely agrees with your views.
    Question -Even if this were to happen? how should this apply to Pensioners that are Non Home Owners or are they just exempt and will be blindly supported . Strikes me as more of the same Unfair and Inequitable and discriminatory type of treatment that Pensioners who are Family Home owners will receive, at the Expense of Non Home Owners as will be when the Asset Test changes take effect on 1 Jan 2017

    This is the same old story about the Direct Cost of Renting verses home ownership (without considering its costs) and listening to the Sydney Centric views of the uninformed, where they complain how much it costs to rent In Sydney - Apologies if offended because it seems you are a Landlord with one or more, than one Rental Properties?

    PS make sure you read the ACCI budget submission
    TREBOR
    20th Sep 2016
    7:03pm
    Never happen - or only over a trail of discarded politicians.

    When they want such things, they need to lead from the front, and have their lovely pensions repaid out of their estate. Fair's fair, after all. They cop a sweet ride from tax money - they can pay it back on death. Solve the budget crisis in one hit.

    But why stop there? Why not expect that on death, the government simply resumes all property owned by any individual, and puts it back into consolidated revenue in exchange for a lifetime of services and such?

    It's a stupid idea with zero foundation.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    7:31pm
    I think it is a great idea of using an individual's stored wealth to pay for their old age. That is what us self funded retirees do so why not extend that to others that have stored wealth.
    Rodent
    20th Sep 2016
    9:45pm
    Hey OG

    I will play your silly game

    If you really think its such a good idea how should Non Home Owning Pensioners be treated under that Proposal, did you read what I wrote, if you did perhaps your might give us your pearls of wisdom.

    Does not seem fair that a Pensioner Home Owner should have to pay back their Pension from their estate BUT a Non Home owner would get of scot free, and was already receiving a far greater Pension than a Home Owner for ANY given asset value!!!
    Rae
    21st Sep 2016
    9:00am
    You would have to do away with negative gearing or make home interest tax deductible if you began classing the family home as an asset. Tax on sales may also need to be introduced.

    I can't see it working. Not without upsetting a lot of investors and changing a lot of tax dodges which you are all so keen about.

    They do it in the US but that isn't a welfare State.

    Sounds like you guys fail to appreciate the benefits the welfare state supply and want to kill it off.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:30am
    NOPE - WRONG - not true Rae - the Yanks have unemployment benefits and food stamps - and are by definition a welfare state.

    Here is one state's example of unemployment benefits...
    http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/ui/calc/figbenamt.html

    About 43m Yanks get food stamps...
    http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

    The family home being used as an asset wold pose some interesting issues. If it was never used for draw down for pension purposes it would not be taxed under present rules, so you could not claim.

    Once it converted to a pension asset - it then becomes interesting as to how it would have to be treated - far too complex for me to get my head around in a hurry when you start thinking about all the variables that might apply.
    ex PS
    21st Sep 2016
    10:04am
    No problem, will never happen, the government that brings this in will be voted out at the very next election and the new government, who would have won by promising to revoke this idiotic idea will get rid of it.
    As usual the government is sending out thought bubbles to try and work out how much they can get away with. Fortunately the so called leader of this government won't have the guts to even try to push it through, even if his controllers let him try.
    If the home is going to be treated as part of a retirement investment tool it is only fair and reasonable that it be treated as an investment and therefore negatively geared. This would probably cost more than the government would gain.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:27am
    What if this idea is supported not only by the government but also by Labor and the Greens? No sense in voting this government out at all.

    The home would not be treated as an investment vehicle because nothing would be payable until after a person dies so nothing to write off.
    ex PS
    21st Sep 2016
    5:53pm
    Reread my comment OG, voting the government out is contingent on the opposition revoking the change, if it doesn't it will have to rely on other measures.
    As to the second part of your comment, negative gearing is all about treating housing as an investment, it is not a stretch to look at similar tax concessions for the home. If the government is going to take my home when I am gone, why would I bother to look after maintenance and renovation issues other than that which had to be done once I was on the Pension? Why would I put money into a property that I did not own? And if all Pensioners took the same approach the government would go broke trying to bring properties up to scratch ready for sale. It would also be interesting to see what would happen to the housing market with all the houses on the market being offloaded by the government.
    As I said this is an idiotic idea.
    Rae
    22nd Sep 2016
    7:43am
    A very small transaction tax would fix the whole thing.

    Everyone would pay tax and it would slow speculation down.

    There would be no need for other taxes or deduction....
    LiveItUp
    26th Sep 2016
    7:03am
    Not a good idea Rae as a transactions tax is like a GST on steroids which will just slow the ecomony down to a near stop which is not good for anyone. Anyone with any sense will just do all their financial trasactions off shore which is very easy to do today. I already do some now myself.
    johnny
    20th Sep 2016
    10:21am
    If it is only going to affect 80,000 Australians, it is hardly going to make any difference to government's budget. That may be the reason why the Government is doing it.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    10:27am
    If you can have $1.6m in your super pension tax free then you should be able to put in $1.6m. Even $100,000 is not enough with houses worth many times that today being passed on to the next generation.
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:21pm
    So let's allow unfair rorting by the elites to continue............
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:04am
    MICK - it is just not your day - you are saying you are self-funded - so pray tell - let us all know how you got to this position whilst ensuring you...

    Never got family benefits.

    Never claimed work or other expenses.

    Never used any methods for reducing your tax.

    Etc, etc - so you could accumulate this wealth?
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:34pm
    Reasons: look up the meaning of the words 'hard work', saving, living frugally, having 2 jobs and sound investments. Unlike you I did not employ creative accounts or utilise offshore tax havens to cheat my way to where I am today.
    So by all means continue with your self righteous mud slinging. I'll stick to the facts.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    8:42pm
    MICHELLE - if you say you had sound investments it means you were not putting your money into interest bearing accounts.

    That means if you...

    Had shares you got franking credits to reduce you taxable income, 50% capital gains tax discounts on profits for anything held for over 12 months, tax write-offs on losses, etc.

    If you had property you got to write off depreciating assets, 50% capital gains tax discounts on profits for anything held for over 12 months, negative gearing, repairs write-offs, etc.

    If you owned a home and sold it - it was capital gains free.

    If you got paid ANY super - you got it at a 15% tax rate compared to your normally higher tax rate.

    In others words - you and most other people - even if you don't realise it are doing EXACTLY what the rich do - using the rules to your advantage.

    Some of you people are in SERIOUS DENIAL that you have not taken the EXACT SAME advantages of the tax system that the rich do.

    It's called cognitive dissonance - the state of having contradictory thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes.

    It is curable - you just have to come to the realisation that you are doing exactly what the rich do - and get over it.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:09am
    The sort of mentally challenged responses one gets from rich right wing trolls.
    Of course one cannot create wealth without accepting minor add-ons. My issue is never with these sensible deductions (depreciation is because tenants wear out a place!) but rather with the blatant outs for the top end: fairlyland tax minimisation, avoidance and tax shelters being at the top of the list. These were designed for the rich and never meant for average citizens to access. If they did these perks would be removed in a day....like the Bottom of the Harbour tax fraud scheme was when too many people got onto that lurk.
    Average people do get a few crumbs and that is what is at the crux of this argument is, they are only offered the crumbs to justify the flood at the top. Your post is for the most part misleading...........the norm for your end of town.
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:07pm
    Ah MICK - YOUR tax deductions (SORRY - let's call them ADD-ONS so we can pretend) - which use the EXACT SAME tax tactics as the rich do - are somehow justified and DIFFERENT than other people.

    You are not the same because you only rort the system AS MUCH AS YOUR DEDUCTIONS will let you - which were not as much as some richer people - so I am a good person because I could not rort it as much - but they are BAD.

    Because you don't earn as much as someone else (by instant definition a rich person) - then the tax rorts (SORRY - ADD-ONS) is OK. You only rorted the system a little bit with ADD-ONS - not a big bit.

    IF you could have earned more - then you WOULD have taken the larger slice - BUT - because you couldn't - then you were only taking what is rightfully yours - a sensible amount of ADD-ONS.

    NOT like these those rich people who GOT MORE ADD-ONS THAN YOU DID - the bastards.

    It's also called duplicitous behaviour - and you have been called out by your self - as a FRAUD.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:46pm
    Rich man giving advice eh. Of course you use the same lie which all rich people do as they milk the system..........'oh everybody else has the same opportunity' and 'you got some benefits'.
    I call these out for the lies they are and I was and still am happy to see most of these go. You? Of course not! You and your wealthy friends live like parasites off the poor and that sickens me.
    The fact that I accepted some crumbs is not the point. The fact that I call the system corrupt and want it fixed is. You of course are another story. A true Liberal Party fraud turning an argument around when you are the prime offender.
    LiveItUp
    26th Sep 2016
    7:05am
    Mick I now know why you are not rich. You lack the mindset of a successful person with your welfare one.
    Poppa Bear
    20th Sep 2016
    10:53am
    Answer this one, Reasons (or should that be excuses?) What if you are 64, only have a part time job that pays about $30,000 per annum? Where would I find $100,000?
    Alexii
    20th Sep 2016
    11:06am
    That's easy, Poppa Bear. You find a rich uncle and ask him to die and leave $100K to you.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    11:15am
    What happened to all you earnt until you got to 64?
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:29am
    Strewth !! I'm glad I spent all of mine and lived a Good Life !! And don't have to spend my Old Age getting my Tits in a Tangle worrying about who is Stealing my Super !! :-) :-) :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    1:23pm
    Poppa Bear - unfortunately it's too late unless you can get it left to you.

    However, if you had any money in super you could use the rule to take out $100K and re-contribute it - as you are 64 you could take out up to $540K and re-contribute it before July 2017 if the new super rules come into play. This washes out the 17.5% death taxes in super to your beneficiaries - 15% plus the 2.5% medicare levy

    And as I said earlier - the $100K is a total furphy - it's like anything - it might work for you - or it might not.

    BUT - it is REALLY all about what your KIDS or grandkids do with whatever part of the $25K concessional super contributions you can put in every year and compound over ~45 years - this the main game in town.

    The more they can put in over your super guarantee % is likely to make the most difference in how rich they are in retirement.

    I am sure you won't believe me - but the sad fact of life is that most people could be a millionaire without any high wages and particularly high finance skills if they use super's tax attractive environment, time and compound interest .
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:24pm
    And that is the argument I have been making for some time. The rich have the spare cash and average citizens are forced to spend all they earn. That is why the super system has been so monumentally unfair and any attempts from vested interests to point out that all Australians can use the super system are nothing more than smokescreens so that the system is left as is. Business as usual!
    LiveItUp
    26th Sep 2016
    7:07am
    Anyone can save in this lucky country Mick but most lack the inclination to do so.
    Sundays
    20th Sep 2016
    11:10am
    Well said reasons. We started with nothing but did plan ahead. Friends said' we don't know what you do with your money meaning why aren't you spending up like us. Now it's, you're so lucky to be comfortable in retirement!
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    11:14am
    Funny that as I had the same comments said to me many times too. If it was lucky I certainly worked for it.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:35am
    I earn my Pension with Community Work ! Not spend my time on here Praising an Incompetent Government !!:-) :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    11:41am
    I too started with nothing and I'm pleased to say that I have most of it left.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:58am
    :-) :-) :-) Good One :-) But we're Happy !! :-) And not worrying about who's Flogging our Super :-) :-)
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:29pm
    I agree with most of the above comments as I too worked like there was no tomorrow, lived like a church mouse and saved like money was going to disappear tomorrow.
    Where I get browned off is that those of us who are now comfortable and who have gained knowledge of how the system works back the big end of town rather than help our fellow Australians by levelling the playing field. I refuse to sell my soul to either side of politics and will call out the rich for the dishonest way they make their money and their political backers who come after average citizens whilst giving the top end our money as a matter of course. That's what people who have a soul should be doing.
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    1:50pm
    So Mick you want to 'level the playing field' for those who refused to help themselves, did not save through the years, did not make sacrifices and spent up big all because the 'top-end-of-town' is fortunate enough to have some spare cash they now put into super?
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:56pm
    Not all had the opportunity to help themselves. Many laughed at my wife and I as we worked 7 days a week whilst they went off for dinners out and holidays and we are now having the last laugh. But that does not make me feel good and my post above is directed at those who earn insufficient amounts of money to even put $20 a week into super. That is why the super system stinks.
    About time that well off folk like yourself had a bit more empathy for genuine battlers rather than lump all into the same basket.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:09pm
    MICK - you are very confused individual.

    I acknowledge some can't save - but the majority of Australians can find MORE THAN $20 per week - but the majority of Australians are really bad at saving - and really good at drinking coffee.

    And that coffee, bought lunch, special treat, etc makes the difference between a comfortable and uncomfortable retirement.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    3:59pm
    The more I read Mick's posts, the more confused I become. He appears to be a man who worked 7 days a week all of his working life, never kept any super, has no money but is well off, won't support any affiliated political party, never took a holiday, didn't drink or smoke, hates anyone who has any money, hates big business, wants to change the tax system (but won't give a clue how this will happen), is married and will attack the character of any poor soul who in any way suggests they support the Coalition. A most complex man but appears balanced in that he probably has a chip on both shoulders.
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    9:40pm
    Now there is a real troll comment Old Man. Glad you are taking notes.
    Like some others it has been a tough life until recently. But unlike some others I am happy to explain how the system works and in whose interests it operates. You can discredit me as much as you like but the facts are the facts Rich Man.
    You may not be happy to have me stick up for ordinary Australians but that is a black mark against YOU. At least I intend to leave my children something rather than blow it all on....me. You on the other hand have made it known that yours can expect little more than your funeral bill.
    As you well know I support neither side of politics, least of the despicable group which calls itself the Liberal Party. Don't get me started. There should be a Patriot Bill so that some of your heroes are put where they belong: in prison.
    jackie
    20th Sep 2016
    11:18am
    Super has always been a blatant rip-off for the rest of us Commoners. Everything has been privatised so abolish government. We don't need the farce.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:31am
    True ! True !! :-) :-)
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:30pm
    Read my comment above jackie.

    20th Sep 2016
    11:37am
    Here we go again, more stories on super. I won't need to read the responses as all that can have been said has been said over the past few weeks. Can I respectfully suggest that another subject be considered? Could we discuss the pros and cons of same sex marriage and whether a plebiscite should be used? How about whether dole bludgers should lose their payments?
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    11:42am
    No I'm over same sex marriage already. Bury it!
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    12:02pm
    That's what we need !!:-) Some Sodom and Gomorrah Stories to Brighten our day !! :-) :-)
    And some Lounge Lizard Grog Sucking Tales to top it off :-) :-) :-)
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    12:16pm
    Thanks Old Geezer and particolor, do you have any suggestions for another subject? BTW Old Geezer, it is very interesting that the debate on same sex marriage has actually disappeared under the weight of whether to have a plebiscite or not. If you agree with a plebiscite you are now homophobic.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    12:21pm
    Gay marriage does not concern me one way or the other but I'm sick of hearing about minority issues for the small minority of people with the big issues sweep under the carpet.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    12:21pm
    And if they keep the BS up any longer I'll be Phobophobic !!
    Take me back to the 60s when life was a Bowl of Cherry's ! And a **** was a ****
    :-) :-)
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    1:53pm
    Sounds like Geezer and Old Man are playing tag. Come on guys...two different posters or the same????
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:38am
    O DEAR !! :-( Were not anywhere with this lot are we ? :-) :-)
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    11:42am
    Why not?
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    11:49am
    Look out !! I'm in a Bad Mood !! :-( Its the day before Pittance Day !! :-) :-)
    Karenglp
    20th Sep 2016
    12:15pm
    The proposed lifetime limit was discriminatory to those who were not 'rich' and had not been able to put significant amounts into super when buying homes and raising children. It was to prevent ordinary people from having any chance of an independent funded tax effective retirement and definitely no chance of a 1.6 million balance.
    On a personal front I had a husband die recently and received his super which I could not put in total into my super as it was exceeding this threshold. Had we all been older and he in pension phase I could have retained it in super as a reversionary pension. The change means I have a chance of having 1million or more in super with this in addition to hard work and frugal saving. I will NOT be mega rich....just comfortable.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    1:09pm
    I don't care about the Rich being Catered for As long as its the Rich Catering for them :-)
    Karenglp
    20th Sep 2016
    12:24pm
    Yes only a few can put in $100k but there is now the availability to use it with a sensible cap. It lets you put in funds when you have them and for the mega rich restricts how often they can do it. A more equitable policy.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:15pm
    Well said and very logical Karenglp!

    What are you doing on this site? :-)
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    10:39pm
    Actually it does benefit the rich. That is the point...average citizens are paying for the rich to get more. Sick!
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    8:14am
    AND so they should MICK - LEARN THE RULES - or keep whining as they DESERVEDLY keep getting richer.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:37pm
    The "rules" you mention dear Frank are about controlling government and getting legislation which is contrary to both the good of the nation and fair play. But of course you have no interest in either of these. That is the attitude of the elite.
    Carole
    20th Sep 2016
    12:33pm
    The Voice of Reason! I don't despise anyone who "plodded along for 45 yrs". Good luck to them, I say. But everyone's circumstances are different and 45 years ago I was young housewife who had to give up work because I got married - PMG policies at the time. Bring in 2 kids, marriage breakup and although I worked my guts out in Property Management, then Aged Care until I retired at no time did I earn anywhere near $60000 pa.
    You make it sound so easy and logical Reason, but it's not! In saying that I'll add that I saved what I could, paid off a house and have a nest egg to subsidise my pension but as for putting $100000 into super? It's just as much a pipe dream as having $1.6m in super.
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    1:55pm
    So the changes make no difference to you then do they Carole. No need for any complaints then.
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    2:09pm
    Sour grapes KSS.
    Good post Carole. You are stating the plight of many in our society and highlighting the obvious that only the very few are able to throw in $100,000 pa. So who was this clause designed to benefit? Quite obvious.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:23pm
    Carole - and that's the point - you did the best you could under your circumstances, you didn't blow everything and had a retirement plan of some sort - and now you have a house and some money for retirement.

    We all can look back and would do things differently - and that is what we need to do - teach our kids and grandkids using our own mistakes so they are even better prepared for retirement, etc.
    Carole
    20th Sep 2016
    5:36pm
    KSS, the changes don't affect many at all and that's just the point, they certainly don't help those who for one reason or another haven't been able to save enough to become self funded retirees. And that includes myself, I'd actually loved to have been in a position to accumulate $1.6m in super, or put the odd $100000 in on a regular basis. Not complaining KSS, just stating my opinion.
    GeorgeM
    20th Sep 2016
    12:43pm
    Paul Versteege is absolutely correct in the article "“The Government has caved in to the super rich by abandoning the $500,000 lifetime cap on after-tax contributions since 2007,After-tax contributions must stop once people have $1.6 million in their super, but this is virtually meaningless as only 1 per cent have that much. To pay for this, the Government robs the poor by abandoning the measure enabling over-65s to make after-tax contributions to their super." The Work Test change for over 65s was one of very few good changes which is now going to be scrapped.
    ACOSS should be banned from being heard, especially after they cooperated with the Liberal Govt to make the disgusting changes to Assets Test from Jan 2017 affecting part-pensiioners.
    The idiotic Labor party needs to stop cooperating with the Govt and rubber-stamp changes such as above, and actually support people trying to self-fund their retirement.
    I also note that the usual Liberal party trolls are very active on this forum desperately supporting every bad move the Liberal Govt makes - maybe YLC needs to have a look at this.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    12:56pm
    The changes to the asset test was a good move by the government, Labor and the Greens. A couple with over $1m in assets simply don't need the OAP. These changes actually assist many more people to become self funded retirees and not rely upon welfare for their old age. There are way too many people on welfare in this country now and it is economically unsustainable.

    I also think that that all pension payments should be deducted from your estate when you die. I have plenty of support on this too now.

    https://stopforeignownershipinaustralia.com.au/2016/09/19/acci-plan-turn-age-pension-into-loan-recoup-from-sale-of-home/
    GeorgeM
    20th Sep 2016
    1:11pm
    Rubbish as usual from you, OG, supporting the Liberal party. Not going to respond further to your crap as you seem to have unending time and energy to spend on this website and you keep repeating yourself rubbish ad nauseum.
    Kaz
    20th Sep 2016
    1:41pm
    Yes, OG is an OG!
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    1:53pm
    Good don't but I know what's coming so I'm prepared. Are you?
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    2:13pm
    The essence of your argument George is that the government is taxing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.
    Whilst a few posting on this website were able to exploit the system set up to benefit primarily the well to do you have highlighted the facts: ordinary people do not have even $2000 cash pa to spare let alone $100,000. That is the domain of the wealthy.....the ones who the system for all that it is worth.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:19pm
    Your comments about the assets test display ignorance and inability to think logically, OG. First, while you support the idea that a couple should be able to accrue $3.2 million in tax-favoured assets to fund retirement, you also support ATTACKING couples who could only save $325,000 each (beyond their personal possessions and necessary cash reserve for living expenses) and who, in many cases NEVER enjoyed tax concessions or benefits of any kind, let alone opportunity or decent wages. Handouts to the rich are good. Modest support for battlers is bad. Yet the former costs far more than the latter and is grossly unfair by any standard of decency.

    Then you ignore the obvious fact that paying 7.8%+++ to someone to SPEND their savings when they may only be getting as little as 2% to keep them will drive people to save less and claim higher pensions.

    This is totally illogical and UTTERLY STUPID unfairness and it's only the blind and extremely selfish who can't see common sense and refuse to oppose what is clearly WRONG on every level - but has made a few hundred thousand responsible, hard-working Australians whose only sin was to save to retire carry a massively unfair share of the burden of economic downturn. Which other groups lost up to 50% of their income with no recourse other than to take a world cruise or buy a bigger house?
    Rae
    20th Sep 2016
    2:30pm
    I actually think the 20% correction might come first which will give the ACCI something real to worry about OG.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    4:36pm
    Rainey welfare is not income so nobody lost 50% of their income. They are not going to get as much welfare form January 2017. The government is not as stupid as you seem to believe. One look at Centrelink stats would show that people are not using their own money to support their lifestyle they must be getting too much welfare. That is why the asset test limit got reduced.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    7:37am
    Too much welfare? Maybe.
    I listened to Goldie last night who reaffirmed the fact that for every 4 Australians looking for work there is only 1 job. And many of these are part time jobs which cannot sustain a family because they do not provide sufficient income.
    Welfare is indeed crippling this country. The solution from the current government is to try and throw those who are genuinely unemployed off benefits. Perhaps governments of all sort should STOP CLOSING DOWN INDUSTRIES AND BAN OFFSHORE CALL CENTRES AND THE LIKE. About time governments acted for Australians rather than against them.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:31am
    Maybe Mick you could do your bit as well. Don't talk to people from overseas call centres, don't buy any imported goods etc .
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:40pm
    I actually have Geezer and recently changed ISPs. I now use one with a local call centre. Have also left other service providers for the same reason. It costs me more but I want to employ Australians........unlike you and the Frank avatars on this website.
    My challenge to all decent citizens is refuse to deal with overseas call centres wherever possible. We know your response to that one Geezer.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    7:54pm
    OG, the government is not only stupid - driving overheating of the house market and pushing people to stop saving for old age - but they are also grossly unfair. They subsidize the rich generously, feed crumbs to the poor, and screw those in the middle by denying them all the benefits of 5 decades of hard work and going without. And nasty, selfish people like you support forcing people who went without to save for old age to drain their savings prematurely - for the benefit of the greedy rich whose obscene superannuation concessions are crippling the nation - and then to live out their old age in poverty. Heaven forbid battlers should be allowed to get ahead. And when the nation is totally stuffed because people see no value in working, idiots will shake their heads and wonder why. You whinge about bludgers. Well I worked my guts out and I wish I hadn't. I wish I'd been a welfare bludger all my life, because all that slogging got me was a big fat NOTHING. It's all STOLEN to give to the greedy stinking rich tax-avoiding pigs who look down on anyone with less than they have.

    This country needs INCENTIVES AND REWARDS to encourage people to work. But the greedy selfish demand the government try to FORCE people to work with cruelty and deprivation, because the filthy disgusting privileged creeps in this nation demand ALL the riches.

    Some IDIOTS think $375,000 is a lot of money to last someone through maybe 30 years of retirement. They same hypocritical morons claim $1.6 million ISN'T an obscene amount and greedy people who can achieve that amount should be propped up by the taxpayer.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:54pm
    You are looking a bit green there Rainey - is that a severe case of ENVY and REGRET I am observing?
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:13am
    The normal rich man's response when somebody challenges the bias in the system. It's always jealousy rather than acknowledgement of a system se up primarily for the top end of town.
    floss
    20th Sep 2016
    12:51pm
    The election before last I recall a funny looking Tony Abbott wearing nothing more than a stupid grin promise THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES TO SUPERANNUATION....Please explain.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    12:59pm
    and you believe pollies?
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    1:11pm
    Ditto ! :-) :-)
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    2:16pm
    That was one of many 'ironclad' promises looney.....and the idiots still voted for the same crew. Maybe I should not be surprised though as Donald Trump is neck and neck with Hillary Clinton and this guy is a real looney (sorry!).
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    3:23pm
    You seem to have a Strange Taste in Polly's Mick ? Hellery is Nothing but a Lying Beech ! :-( And their Media the same :-( :-(
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    7:19am
    Always better to pick a lying bitch rather than a looney who is likely to launch nuclear missiles. I take your point though. Tea Party anyone?
    Kaz
    20th Sep 2016
    12:59pm
    Why do they keep saying people voted for them for the plebiscite so they're pushing ahead regardless of current opinion, but people also voted for the super changes they outlined, but they backed down on that? The well to do and bigoted right are running this low rating show????
    MICK
    20th Sep 2016
    2:18pm
    They also reckon they have a "mandate" after they won by 1 seat. And let's not forget political moron Christopher Pyne getting in front of the cameras and boasting that the coalition was an election winning machine. That gave me a laugh for the day.
    tactful
    20th Sep 2016
    1:28pm
    Those born pre 1960 should just shut up and stop whinging. We may or may not have had the opportunity to pay into super funds and have a good nest egg to retire on.
    Those born after 1960 have the opportunity of really putting money into their super and amassing an amount that will sustain them.
    I also object to those who have heaps of assets apart from their home that can be utilised to fund their retirement and choose to keep these assets so there is an inheritance for their children.
    You are supposed to look after yourself and not rely on the Government, Welfare is NOT a right, your taxes have never been used for Welfare only. I get heartily sick and tired of those who have the capacity to fund their own retirement and choose not to and those who never had the opportunity yet still have their home. Those with nothing but their homes should just sell up and move into a smaller place, live on what is left.
    It is all very simple and relative really.
    Those born after 1960 have opportunity before them to pay into their super, buy investment properties, have managed investments, it is their choice and to imply that they should only rely on Government assistance in their retirement is scandalous.
    We are responsible for our own future and how we manage our money to plan for our retirement.
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    1:59pm
    Watchout Tactful, 'they' will be gunning for you now!
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:12pm
    So taxpayer funded ''welfare'' in the form of obscene tax concessions are fine for the privileged who can accrue $1.6 million in super ($3.2 million for a couple), but a couple who slogged their guts out for 50+ years on pathetic wages, risking health and safety, and had NO super or concessions, should have to live on a pathetic income of HALF the pension or drain away their little bit of savings, suffering harsh punishment for having a mere $375,000 each (after personal items and cash needed are considered) to invest?

    Lots of hypocrites here with double standards and no sense of fairness!

    Tax concessions cost the government just the same as pensions do, and the unfairness of them has created a situation where the genuinely poor are living in conditions most Australians regard as unacceptable. Stop the GREED and make the rich pay their share. They've exploited the battlers to get their money. They OWE A DEBT to those who haven't enjoyed all the tax concessions the rich enjoy. It's NOT charity. It's a DEBT owed to people who haven't been fairly rewarded for their contribution to the nation. And only the selfish and self-serving object to it being paid.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    2:19pm
    Rubbish Rainey.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    2:36pm
    No offence - but you are full of crap Rainey...

    Try this for size about who gets the most tax benefits - a pensioner or 'rich' dude.

    A highly paid person at 35 decides to have $1.6m at 65

    They don't bother with the $100K concessional contribution, even though they could, because it is not tax effective.

    They put the maximum $25K per year of concessional contributions.

    Compounding this at 5% per year would mean they can achieve this over 30 years of contributions.

    Lets assume they should pay 42% tax but get that $25K at a 15% tax concession.

    They should have paid $10,500 tax - but only paid $3750 - a difference of $6750.

    They get this annual tax break for 30 years as mentioned - so they get a total of $202,500 of tax concessions.

    At age 64 they are self funded retiree - and get no more government welfare.

    A pensioner who lives 20 years after retiring - which is actuarially likely today - gets $454,428 in government welfare payments - PLUS medical expenses.

    The poor pensioner gets $251,928 MORE GOVERNMENT money than that evil, rich, tax dodging bastard.

    AND - that EXCLUDES all the pensioners health costs covered by the government!


    So Rainey - give me a break about the rich and their tax concessions when it comes to super.

    It won't stack up when compared to the tax payers costs for pensioner's benefits - even if they are NOT getting the full pension.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    3:26pm
    Reasons and OG, you obviously didn't read what I wrote. People who got ZERO tax concessions and struggled all their lives are still getting ZERO, while fat-cat rich are getting huge tax concessions that they DO NOT NEED and the genuinely needy are suffering.

    I don't care how much pension a poor person gets. That does NOT excuse wasting our national resources on middle class and rich-man WELFARE.

    Stop the tax concessions and restore a compassionate and humane society in which we can all age with dignity and in reasonable comfort. The greed of the haves is sickening!
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    3:55pm
    Rainey - wild statements are not facts.

    The ABC's FactCheck did a review of Hockey's statement that...

    50% of all income tax in Australia is paid by (the top) 10% of the working population.

    It checked out as CORRECT.

    As others have stated on this page - you should be grateful the rich exist - when they don't - your pension is going to look sick(er).

    http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    4:06pm
    Reasons, ''my pension''' isn't looking anything because I don't get one, but what portion of tax is paid by the top 10% has no relevance if it isn't enough to fund the proper operation of the society. The rich get all the resources. They don't pay their share. I don't care if they pay 90% of all tax paid. It ISN'T ENOUGH. And the system ISN'T FAIR.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    4:19pm
    Rainey your poor unfortunate souls would have paid little if any tax but the rich doods pay heaps of tax even if they get a few crumbs because they invest in super and other tax saving measures. So why can't the rich doods get a break here and there because your poor unfortunates pay for nothing or very little tax all their lives. Is simply unfair to expect the rich doods to pay more.

    Yor poor unfortunates are on welfare all of their lives in some cases and in other cases most of their lives. They get more than their fair share of the pie already. Why should we waste more of our resources on such unproductive people?

    All I ever hear from you Rainey is excuses. Well I hate excuses and ask people why not instead. The word can't is not to be used in my house and I don't allow anyone to use the word can't to me any more. The correct word is I don't want to not can't.

    Stopping the tax concessions may not have the effect you desire. Every wonder why people knock back overtime? There is simply no incentive to do it as most of that extra goes in tax.

    I'm suffering too from hearing about unfortunate souls that will want more no matter how much they get.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    4:22pm
    Rainey my guess is that you don't get a pension because you are not old enough.

    I don't think the system is fair either. Way too much is spent on welfare in this country. The sooner people get off their posteriors and forget about welfare the better we will all be.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    4:27pm
    Rainey - there are numerous egalitarian options that you can do to assist the government - I hope you are taking advantage of them all to ensure your ideology is being fully addressed...?

    Ensure you move any capital you have into a highly taxed environment.

    Bequeath everything to the ATO so it can be used in more productive ways compared to your relatives.

    Ensure you never reach the threshold where you might get the health care card - or worse still the pension.

    If you are ever offered the health care card due to age - refuse it.

    If you have money outside super - refuse to accept the SAPTO tax breaks.

    Ensure you never claim any tax deductions.

    Do not have a seniors card to ensure you pay full-tote odds on public transport, the movies, etc where the extra GST will help the government.

    Do not negotiate any lower prices on any goods to ensure you pay the maximum so the highest GST amount is paid.

    And any other ideas you can think of to ensure your egalitarian views are fully assisting society.

    That sounds FAIR to me!
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    6:24pm
    OG - are you sure people don't say 'You CANT' when addressing you?
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    6:42pm
    They are not game because I'll have a go at anything which frightens people at my age.
    Circum
    20th Sep 2016
    10:19pm
    OG.You say that people turn down overtime as most of the extra money goes in tax.
    Your statement is not correct and shows a lack of understanding of the tax system.Tax is calculated on your annual earnings.Any tax overpaid is a particular pay period (and this can happen based on assumptions which may not be correct) will be refunded when your tax return is submitted.
    My experience has been that most people jump at the opportunity if offered overtime.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:23am
    Maybe some do Circum but they whinge like hell when they get a tax bill at the end of the year. I'm currently helping a fellow in that very situation and although I have managed to get his tax bill down to $200 he is still not happy. Even though he is better off doing overtime he is no longer keen to do any due this this tax bill.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:43pm
    You are on the money Rainey. Geezer and Reasons seem to be the new avatar of Frank and Solomon spouting the same old right wing elitist garbage.
    The rich just cannot accept that the public does not want to subsidise their excessive lifestyles. Pass the caviar........?
    LiveItUp
    26th Sep 2016
    7:16am
    Unforttunately there are now too many Micks and Raineys making our country way too welfae dependent for our own good.
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    1:33pm
    For goodness sake, can we stop bashing those who are fortunate enough to have a good job with a good salary and stop trying to denigrate those who worked and saved hard to fund their retirement.

    Life is NOT fair: some people work harder and longer than others, some people are prepared to make more sacrifices than others, some people save and others spend, some defer gratification and rewards, others want it all now.

    The point is I would bet for most on this site, these new maximum NON-CONCESSIONAL - that means AFTER tax amounts of $100,000 will have absolutely no impact at all (unless of course you win it in lotto, inherit from a dead relative/friend or sell your assets). SO what exactly are you all complaining about. You have lost or gained nothing! Oh that's right, if you don't have it no-one else should have it either right!

    The new LOWER CONCESSIONAL annual contributions (which includes employer contributions) at $25000 (down from $30000 and $35000 depending on age now) will/could have a far greater reach as I have said several times before now. I personally will be considerably worse off than under the current 'rules'. I might point out also that the legislation has not been drafted/presented/passed yet and so detail is still not known. I have been advised briefly that there will be a deferred implementation for those 'catching-up' on contributions (i.e. those closer to retirement) until 2018.

    Under the new all sides agreement, any retrospectivity has gone, people will not have to withdraw any existing excess over $1.6m and maximum contributions for the fortunate have been reduced. So quit complaining and being so divisive between those you think are 'have's' against those you think 'have nots'.
    Kaz
    20th Sep 2016
    1:46pm
    You forgot that there are those who are just poor or unemployable and that is who need our support.
    KSS
    20th Sep 2016
    2:02pm
    No I haven't Kaz. I have frequently said that there will always be those few who for whatever reason were unable or incapable of looking after themselves. That is the sole reason for have any form of welfare at all, to provide a safety net for those that truly need it.

    Welfare is not and should not be a lifestyle choice.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    5:00pm
    KSS - I totally agree it is not a lifestyle choice - it has ALWAYS been a fall back to ensure no-one lives in poverty since the early 1900's. The present OAP rate is arguable to that degree for some pensioners.

    I get the firm impression though that a certain number of Australians have really not thought about finding out what the actual OAP rate is until they get close to retiring.

    I also have the distinct impression they know their parents lived on pension OK - so it must be good. Possibly they forgot their parents lived through the depression and adapted to a lifestyle that boomers don't/can't relate to.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    7:22am
    What we are "bashing" KSS is a system set up to specifically benefit those with highly paid jobs.
    If you earn a lot then you SHOULD be contributing rather than having taxpayers give you all sorts of subsidies. Of course you would never agree to that.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:48pm
    Is this the same MICK - the one who uses NEGATIVE GEARING - which just happens to be high on the rorting scale - and ONE BIG TAX SUBSIDY for the rich!
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:22am
    And is this a colleague of Malcolm Turnbull with an offshore tax haven set up to rob the country of tax revenue. Do you use the trains as well when you avoid your taxes?
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2016
    4:22pm
    People have been told many times they need to do "retirement planning"....most never do.

    Too late when you are at retirement age to realise you cannot live on the OAP.
    floss
    20th Sep 2016
    2:29pm
    Check out the Jan.2017 new asset test, you will now loose more than you think plus the loss of all your benefits .The upper limit is now $816.00. Some people will be losing roughly $19.000 if you include the pension benefits.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    3:55pm
    People with the current high asset levels should not be getting the OAP anyway. It's a great move by the government, Labor and the Greens.

    The benefits should only be given to those on the full pension.
    Anonymous
    20th Sep 2016
    4:13pm
    I agree people with HIGH asset level should not get the OAP, but a mere $375,000 in returning assets for each member of a couple IS NOT HIGH. In fact, if the couple is in their 60s and has significant special needs, they will quickly be ground into poverty. Those worst hurt will be the underprivileged who were denied educational opportunities or make risk averse by abuse or deprivation or crisis in early life and are now suffering 2% returns on their savings.

    But the cruel, heartless privileged bastards of this world persist in blaming the victims of injustice and wishing hurt on those who have already suffered unfairly, while endorsing and supporting the filthy greed of the privileged.
    Old Geezer
    20th Sep 2016
    4:49pm
    $375,000 is plenty with the full pension. Most couples in their 60s do not have significant special needs.
    Rodent
    20th Sep 2016
    5:04pm
    Hey Looney

    Given that a Home Owning Couple will lose $13,770 pa at the cut off point, I guess your assumption is that the Pension card Benefits = the difference of about $5230, which sound about right.
    particolor
    20th Sep 2016
    5:05pm
    FFS !! They are OLD not DEAD !! :-( :-(
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    7:26am
    I agree with Geezer here. Whilst my wife and I are nowhere near rich we will not be able to access the OAP but that is as it should be. Now let's find some real revenue by collecting tax from the rich and their multinational business interests, but don't expect the current government to go there.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    4:35pm
    Bit of a SOOK - eh MICK?

    If you are self-funded you either:

    1. Got the money by accident through a will - so therefore you have no idea how money is made and retained - which would be congruent with most of your comments.

    2. You actually DID make it yourself by hard work - therefore you have received tax breaks in the form of capital gain discounts, possible negative gearing benefits, franking credits for reducing your tax, tax deductions, etc. If you own your own home you can sell that tax free - so you are using tax vehicles that are made for the rich.

    If you did any of the second point - you and most others are doing EXACTLY the SAME as the rich do - you are just in denial!
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    8:34pm
    The difference between us Reasons: I am not a prostitute. You are. Your spiel as as believable as Tony Abbott's (your Fuhrer!) election speech.
    What can I say other than find out what the truth is and work on it. I know.........no hope.
    Before you line up for the next round of mudslinging I did not line at the feeding trough like you and your colleagues. There are other ways of doing well although a negative gearing helped a bit. Have a go at me for that!
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    8:54pm
    MICK - I don't have to have a go at you - I KNOW EXACTLY what you and other sanctimonious posters on this site are doing - especially if you are supposedly an SFR.

    BUT nearly everyone has done something the rich do at some point - they just don't realise or want to acknowledge it.

    You are just doing EXACTLY what the rich do - albeit at a lower level - but you are using the system to your advantage -THE SAME AS THE RICH DO.

    It's just that your so-called rich don't try to deny it and get on sites like this and pretend to be something different.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:57pm
    BTW - if I was a prostitute - I would have all your money.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:25am
    You don't have to have a go at me???? You seem to be making this a regular event rather than addressing the facts.
    You continue to lump me into the same category as the real rich who BLEED the system. I am not and my issue is that the current rich man's government in particular needs to change the rules so that only fair and moderate deductions are made allowable and that schemes designed to avoid tax are made ILLEGAL even if they meet the letter of the law. That is where our paths differ dramatically!
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:13pm
    MICK - your name and facts in the same post - would be akin to military intelligence - unlikely - and an OXYMORON.
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:40pm
    Unfortunately you offer no facts. Just BS and troll activity at best which lines up with the big end of town. Why am I not surprised.
    ex PS
    21st Sep 2016
    9:39am
    There is an opportunity for middle income earners to take advantage of this system. If a couple earning $40K and $60K respectively have their house and car paid off it is quite realistic for them to salary sacrifice $70K and live off $30K a year.
    This will put a very respectable extra $350,000 plus earnings into their Super over 5 years. I know this works because I have done it and it allowed me to retire at 55, all it takes is a bit of planning and of course spending restraint.
    I see no problem with allowing those who can, to try to finance their own retirement. It does not have a negative effect on those who can not. It is also an effective way of investing other windfalls that come along such as inheritance.
    The biggest single thing any government can do for Super is to stop meddling with it, as every time they do, they undermine it a little bit more.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    10:05am
    HELLS BELLS ex PS - do you realise you are crunching numbers and planning - and actually think you can help yourself!

    Don't you know what you actually did is not possible - or if you did do it you rorted the system? :-)

    In all seriousness, what you did is what most on this site don't seem to understand - even though you did it late in life I assume - you still got a plan and executed it.

    The main difference between people that accumulate some money for retirement and those who don't is their mindset and drive to succeed. Regardless of how much they get paid.
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    11:18am
    I agree Reasons. Most people just adjust their lifestyle to what they earn and in some cases more than they earn.
    ex PS
    21st Sep 2016
    11:55am
    Don't be too hard on me Reasons, I only started this late as it was the second time round. There was a divorce in between that set me back a bit.
    My parents did not leave me much, but they left me this advice, "Think about what you want and then decide if you need it, if you don't need it, it can probably wait". I did not always wait because I am human, but most times I did.
    I got a lot from my parents little of it in the form of money, but little gems like "Enjoy your good fortune, but don't gloat about it to people who are not so fortunate" have always been in my mind. This does not mean that people unwilling to even try to help themselves should be given a free ride.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    12:14pm
    I think you know I was not having a go at you ex PS.

    It must be a pain having to restart your retirement plans - but at least you did it which is impressive.

    All good advice on your parents part.

    We similarly did not not get much from our parents either, including financial advice, but we have taught ourselves a fair bit about investing over the years and trained our own kids from a young age about money so hopefully they can do even better than we did.

    Actually that training of our kids will likely never stop - until we lose it :-)
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    1:52pm
    Don't take it personally Ex PS. You are dealing with a right wing well to do here and when challenged about dishonesty and unfairness you'll get both barrels. Rich people generally cannot handle justifying their financial behaviour because they know what they are. Crooks for the most part!
    ex PS
    21st Sep 2016
    6:06pm
    I hardly ever take comments on this site personally, if you put an opinion out there you have to take some criticism from those with a different point of view.
    I only ever take offence when people engage in childish, uninspired vitriol because they can't think of an intelligent reply, none of that so far on this subject.
    My response to the behaviour is to just stop reading the comments made by those involved, life is too short to waste on that sort of thing.
    MICK and Reasons, I have agreed and disagreed with both of you at times, but I always interested in what you have to say.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    8:38pm
    Your post is appreciated ex PS.
    I invite people to pick the holes in my arguments as long as they are not right wing trolls voicing vile points of view with facts which do not stack up. None of your posts have ever done that from memory.
    My comment above was referring to the shellacking that the trolls were handing out, not your comment.
    Cheers.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    3:22pm
    Dear OG
    Surprised y haven't commented about my earlier Posts (re posted below) but I can see you are busy "interchanging" with others, especially Rainey

    Question for OG

    Another Gem to keep.

    I find it amazing how you jump on anything that even remotely agrees with your views.
    Question -Even if this were to happen? how should this apply to Pensioners that are Non Home Owners or are they just exempt and will be blindly supported . Strikes me as more of the same Unfair and Inequitable and discriminatory type of treatment that Pensioners who are Family Home owners will receive, at the Expense of Non Home Owners as will be when the Asset Test changes take effect on 1 Jan 2017

    This is the same old story about the Direct Cost of Renting verses home ownership (without considering its costs) and listening to the Sydney Centric views of the uninformed, where they complain how much it costs to rent In Sydney - Apologies if offended because it seems you are a Landlord with one or more, than one Rental Properties?

    PS make sure you read the ACCI budget submission

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Hey OG

    I will play your silly game

    If you really think its such a good idea how should Non Home Owning Pensioners be treated under that Proposal, did you read what I wrote, if you did perhaps your might give us your pearls of wisdom.

    Does not seem fair that a Pensioner Home Owner should have to pay back their Pension from their estate BUT a Non Home owner would get of scot free, and was already receiving a far greater Pension than a Home Owner for ANY given asset value!!!
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    3:49pm
    It is simple if the non home owner has assets then the pension is to be paid back from them the same as if they were the proceeds of a house sale. A good example would be the bonds taken by nursing homes.

    So if people have assets that can't be turned into cash then the can request the pension but it has to be paid back out of any assets they have on their death. Because they have told Centrelink their assets then they can't be disposed of unless Centrelink is notified and agrees.

    So they don't get off scot free.
    Rodent
    21st Sep 2016
    4:25pm
    OG . Thought you might give us your insights, and I thought you of all people would let Non Homeowners/Renters of the hook, silly me

    So lets go all the way and make EVERYBODY included SFR pay back to the Govt the tax deductions they received for Super Contributions or credits of ANY kind - WOW
    Old Geezer
    21st Sep 2016
    4:39pm
    As I didn't get any tax deductions for super it is not a concern to me.
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    4:53pm
    Rodent - and while we are at it - let's pay back the tax we should have paid on any sale of our tax-free private homes, and tax deductions we got, any franking credits we got, any family benefits we got, any capital gains discounts we got, any fringe benefits we got, any RUDD $1000 giveaways we got, etc?
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    8:44pm
    On the money Rodent. And let's make retired pollies pay up too.
    Geezer and Reasons are just two sides of the same coin: trolls supporting their side of politics.
    The reality is that average people are done over all of their lives. The idea the above mental midgets have is to take everything they own when they die..........and likely put it into Liberal Party coffers.
    If we use the arguments above then how about the rich are taxed at their top marginal rates with NO DEDUCTIONS other than concrete business deductions. No concessional superannuation. No capital gains tax sweeteners. No offshore tax shelters. No share imputation credits. I can see them squealing like two little rats on the floor. Fair enough: you'll get as much as you give!
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    8:46pm
    Before you throw in some pink batts and school halls let's have a discussion about Baby Bonuses of $5,000 a la Peter Costello. REMEMBER?????
    Mad as Hell
    21st Sep 2016
    6:10pm
    Old Geezer - re post 20th September 3.55pm. It was the Liberals and Greens who made the changes to the OAP. Bill Shorten rightly argued against the changes to the assets limit and taper rate. Tony Abbot promised no changes to pensions on the eve of the 2013 elections. I will never vote for the Liberals of Greens.
    MICK
    21st Sep 2016
    8:46pm
    Thanks for the clarification. As though the above cretins did not know! Trolls!
    Anonymous
    21st Sep 2016
    9:02pm
    MICK - I wonder who the troll really is - you are an SFR - and have now admitted to using the tax tricks of the rich?
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    9:28am
    Trolls seek to cause havoc and post a view which is not truthful. Suits you to a tee Reasons.
    Throw as much mud as you like but the fact that I continue to call for fairness rather than top end rorts says what I stand for. You on the other hand are a right wing battler fighting to maintain your privilege at the expense of average citizens....and that is plain obscene. Readers will see it for what it is!
    Anonymous
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:18pm
    MICK - I make no bones about who I am - BUT any reader on this site - who has an ounce of analytical skill - can see straight through you - and knows exactly who you REALLY are
    MICK
    22nd Sep 2016
    10:38pm
    Actually you need to explain yourself. Readers know that I support honesty and fairness. You? Of course not.
    Old Geezer
    25th Sep 2016
    6:56pm
    I thought Bill Shorten was also in favour of the new asset test. That said even if I was wrong I can't see him reversing it if he gets into power. In fact it would not surprise me if he tightens it up further.
    Not Senile Yet!
    27th Sep 2016
    12:57am
    Was their Big Chance to save Real Money......taxpayers money.....by NOT SUBSIDISING THOSE THAT DO NOT NEED IT!!!!!
    Instead chose to Wilt on committment and reneg on yet another Election Promise!
    No Credibility Left Now.....NONE!
    Cannot Vote for this Mob.....not when they plead poor.....attack pensioners.....then cave in on issues like this!
    Totally Corrupted by Big Business & Top End of Town OWN THEM!!!
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2016
    9:44am
    OK - Not Senile Yet! let's have a look at these rich bastards who are ripping you off.

    A big-end-of-town rich bastard gets taxed at 45 cents in the dollar.

    Lets assume they have no money in super and start from scratch.

    They put in $100K every year for 16 years.

    This $100K is called a non-concessional contribution - so they pay $45,000 in tax to get that $100K into their super.

    That stinking rich BASTARD paid enough tax every year for 16 years - to ensure TWO SINGLE PENSIONERS got paid their pension - EVERY YEAR.

    Ya jus' gotta' HATE how those RICH BASTARDS rip of poor pensioners - eh!
    Anonymous
    27th Sep 2016
    12:37pm
    And Not Senile Yet! - this person now has $1.6m in their super.

    Now - let's look at the tax breaks this particular rich bastard got.

    OOOPs - NONE!

    They now don't need any government pension money as they are self-funded.

    Compare that to a pensioner who lives 20 years after retiring - which is actuarially likely today - that person gets $454,428 in government welfare payments - PLUS medical expenses.

    The poor pensioner gets $454,428 MORE government subsidy money than that evil, rich, rascally tax dodging bastard - who paid $720,000 IN TAX to get that $1.6m in their super.

    AND - that excludes all the pensioners health costs covered by the government!

    Go figure.
    john
    8th Nov 2016
    12:06pm
    What a Headline ...Super changes cater to the wealthy.... everything caters to the wealthy!