Labor backing for super plan could see pension increases

Raising super contributions could lead to a pension increase.

Labor backing for super plan could see pension increases

Labor’s plan to support increases in superannuation contributions to 12 per cent could have a welcome side effect for age pensioners.

Apart from reducing future reliance on the Age Pension for hundreds of thousands of Australians, increasing the compulsory Superannuation Guarantee (SG) could also lead to an increase in the base rate of the Age Pension.

Federal shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said this week that Labor would follow through on legislated super increases from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent by 2025. The increases will start in July 2021 with 0.5 per cent increases each year to 2025.

“Let me make it clear that the Labor Party does not regard a 9.5 per cent super guarantee as providing adequacy,” said Mr Bowen.

However, some critics doubt whether the increase is necessary. Recent Treasury modelling showed that the Age Pension is set to cost the nation less than previously thought. The share of GDP spent on the Age Pension will fall to 2.5 per cent by 2038, which is “significantly lower” than previous estimates.

Instead of freezing or scrapping planned increases to the SG, Labor sees the modelling as proof the system works and wants to make it even more effective.

Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) chief executive Dr Martin Fahy agrees with Labor’s plan.

“What that [Treasury retirement income] report appeared to be saying was that the burden of the Age Pension continues to decline, and so the previous Treasury forecasts have been shown to probably be high,” said Dr Fahy.

“That creates a very strong case for saying that superannuation is working, and that by going to 12 per cent as is legislated, it will continue to work, in that people will continue to retire with higher retirement balances, the burden of the Age Pension will continue to fall, and we’ll be able to therefore pay out higher state pensions to those who deserve it and need it.”

Critics of the increase say it will cause problems for low-income workers and that only the wealthy will benefit.

“What concerns us more is that people on very low incomes, forcing them to save 15 per cent of their income might make their life now very difficult because they have to pay their bills and pay mortgages as well,” said Combined Pensioners & Superannuants Association policy director Paul Versteege.

“We accept that if you want to be self-sufficient in retirement, you need to make a higher contribution than the 9.5 per cent that applies at the moment, but as I said, we can see the downside of increasing that compulsory contribution as well.”

However, Industry Super Australia (ISA) deputy chief economist Matt Linden believes increasing the SG will benefit lower income earners.

“It’s particularly important for lower and middle-income workers, because that’s a group who are often not making additional savings,” said Mr Linden.

Dr Fahy agrees: “The beauty of the super system is that everyone has the aspiration to be self-funded, and by going to 12 per cent it means even those on the average industrial income can look forward to having a comfortable and dignified retirement.”

Read more at The New Daily

Do you think lifting the SG could leads to increases in the pension base rate? Who do you think would benefit most from such a plan?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Dave R
    28th Mar 2019
    10:28am
    Who knows. IMO it would be much better and a lot simpler if everyone paid say a flat 10% of their income tax into a government fund which then paid everyone the same livable rate of pension. If people want to retire with a higher income than that then it's up to them to save and invest to provide it. As things stand we have a complex super system of tax concessions and exemptions which provide by far the biggest benefits to the wealthy.
    TREBOR
    28th Mar 2019
    10:53am
    Pretty simple, innit, Dave? Only hard for governments tied up in ideologies and other nonsense.
    Cowboy Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    11:31am
    That is what we had, Dave R, before the 7.5% contribution was incorporated into consolidated revenue and the means and assets test introduced. OK, now you propose 10% which is acceptable but who will stop a future administration do the same all over again?
    Farside
    28th Mar 2019
    6:23pm
    people, surely it's past
    time to get over the National Welfare Fund and everything you misunderstand about it. It was acknowledged over 60 years ago that "Thus the weakness of the present formula is that the income for the fund which it produces is directly and solely related to aggregate earnings and has no regard to likely calls on the fund in varying circumstances." [Hansard, 218, 27 August 1952, p.637.]
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    10:47pm
    Quite right, CJ.
    Farside, you have quoted some bureaucratic gobbledygook which when translated was the kind of failed justification used by Fraser later to justify stealing the people's National Welfare Fund money. Crooked actions by politicians (of both sides) must never be forgotten, as they will repeat such actions in future as CJ has noted.
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    8:24am
    GeorgeM, it is not gobbledygook because you do not understand the quote, let me paraphrase for you: the fund income is not related to calls on the fund. In other words, the fund was a loser from the get go and would be unable to deliver future pension benefits.

    Rolling the remnants of the fund into consolidated revenue in the early 60s simply recognised the failure of the scheme and Fraser just buried a beast long since dead. Even so people have had plenty of time to consider their options and plan accordingly.

    More on the history of the fund at https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22library/prspub/4511255%22
    GeorgeM
    29th Mar 2019
    9:07pm
    No, it is you Farside who does not understand what I wrote. If you want more bureaucratic gobbledygook to sanitize bad actions of politicians, the best way is to go and read links such as you have provided. Fact is Fraser stole the taxpayers money, and Keating shut it down - Liberal & Labor being in it together - to hoodwink the people as they squirrelled away their money. If they had focused on expanding it as a Future Fund, maybe by ensuring Large companies & Rich paid appropriate taxes (latter boosting the 7.5% take), then there would have been no shortage of money. Don't support these crooked actions - perhaps you were a politician!
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    9:14pm
    GeorgeM, cannot argue with someone that embraces the myth and refuses to understand the financial facts but out of interest how did Keating shut down the National Welfare Fund?
    GeorgeM
    30th Mar 2019
    12:29am
    You must have been a bureaucrat, not a politician! Cannot understand facts (avoiding these by labelling them as myths) in simply language without trying to confuse others in bureaucratic gobbledygook! For your education, since you ask, Keating shut down the National Welfare Fund in 1985 through an Act of parliament as the money had already been depleted badly as it was stolen by Fraser earlier.

    You are clearly diverting from my main point which was, to repeat, "Crooked actions by politicians (of both sides) must never be forgotten, as they will repeat such actions in future as CJ has noted", in response to Dave R's suggestion of "a flat 10% of their income tax into a government fund" as that will never be safe in politicians hands.
    Farside
    30th Mar 2019
    10:52am
    Good one George, the National Welfare Fund Act 1943 was long dead by then and so it was only repealing the bill (introduced by Keating's assistant to be precise). All relevant social service payments had been made directly from Consolidated Revenue well before then.

    As it happens I think 10% of tax collections into a fund is a reasonable idea however I would leave it with the RBA to manage as a trusted independent body. My issue with your original comment is that you grabbed hold of the myth of "stealing the people's National Welfare Fund money". It is past time to stop flogging this dead horse and move on, it has been more than 50 years after all. Do yourself a favour and chase down a copy of "Myths of entitlement: a history of the National Welfare Fund" presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference https://www.aspc.unsw.edu.au/node/36/paper/2140
    GeorgeM
    30th Mar 2019
    8:07pm
    Once again Farside you resort to referring to bureaucratic write-ups (which record history in biased terms as they wish to remember) - which are favoured by bureaucrats & politicians as both of them have been beneficiaries of defined benefit pension schemes unlike other ordinary people. Fact is the people's money was stolen by Fraser, and Keating shut down the fund instead of re-instating it as any real "labour" treasurer should have done. So no, 10% into any Fund where Govt can even remotely influence the management is fraught with danger, as history shows.

    RBA can remotely monitor it (remember they also monitor the Banks and note how their behaviour has been controlled), but it would still need to be an independent body managing it with financial experts and representatives of the people dominating it. I don't mind such an independently managed Future Fund if they also introduced Universal Age Pension (so all can benefit), but it should initially include the 7.5% already being paid by taxpayers into it, with additional contributions from the Govt from additional taxes from the rich by imposing Minimum Taxes to stop many of the rich paying Nil or very little taxes. Universal Age Pension would be entirely affordable with these actions, combined with massive savings by shutting down a major portion of Centrelink as the ATO can easily send out the pension payments - say based on Age 65 & Residency (say 15 years) with NO other tests.
    bobby
    28th Mar 2019
    10:47am
    With people living longer, the welfare bill will become a bigger problem for Government. It would be better to use super contribution increases to create a reserve to fund future increases in the age pension?
    TREBOR
    28th Mar 2019
    10:52am
    a) The 9.5% would provide adequacy if it were takenout of the hands of government and of their crony fund managers, and rolled over into a single system - a Genuine Future Fund for all - under a managing body totally divorced from the government and cronies above.

    A new, modern, ramped-up Social Security fund if you like.

    b) Does this mean that Ladie's Labor is now approaching the concept espoused by my good self - that ALL not currently in work should be receiving super contributions (like sprogging women)? Thus a pensioner in retirement would continue to receive fortnightly or whatever contributions into his/her personal 'future fund'....

    Governments twist and turn like trapped snakes over this kind of issue , without ever once approaching reality ..... time for a radical new approach, methinks.... Australia Leads The Way!
    IndyLopos
    28th Mar 2019
    10:54am
    ALP appears to be doing everything they can to disadvantage the existing wage/salary earners and indirectly existing retirees.
    1. An increase in SGC will further discourage wage/salary rises because employers consider the total cost (grosspay+super) when deciding to employ people. Increased SGC will reduce average gross pay or increase unemployment.
    2. Increasing the minimum wage(especially by as much as what the unions want) may benefit some but will undoubtedly increase unemployment.
    3. Re-introducing higher rates for overtime will result in lower average normal wages


    Forcing employers to pay more SGC may result in less people on the aged pension over time but will either cause those who are working to have less disposable income and have less money to spend giving a higher chance of a recession and of lower interest rates!
    almost a grey hair
    28th Mar 2019
    11:23am
    At the end of the day it is up to the individual to provide for a better retirement, the super guarantee only goes so far, everyone including gov knows that it is not going to be enough thats why all the noise about increasing to 12% etc
    Companies can't afford it , the taxpayer can't afford it, The gov can't afford it and money could be spent on other things like infrastructure so we all need to learn to do without and put a bit away each payday. The OAP will become a safety net only, after all the ASG has been in for nearly twenty years are there actually people out there who haven't planned or saved for retirement in nearly twenty years. Or do they expect some nice person to help them out as usual
    Cowboy Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    11:34am
    They expect exactly that. Know quite a few people with high salaries a few years ago and are today totally reliant on the OAP.
    Thoughtful
    28th Mar 2019
    11:39am
    Yes there are. People who have been made redundant on one or more occasions. Single older woman who come from an era when woman didn't work. People who have been forced to be carers for family. Could go on but you get the idea.
    almost a grey hair
    28th Mar 2019
    12:56pm
    Thoughtful I have been made redundant several times as has my wife, last time at 59, I am now almost 63, and have not gained employment, my wife was made redundant 2 months before me and now works 2-3 days a week on a casual as required basis. The only dealing with Centrelink we have is a low income health care card which we are entitled to. We have never ever applied for Newstart. We own our home outright after making it a priority payment. Single older women get a widows allowance do they not. Carers get a carers allowance, chances are the person they are looking after gets a disability pension. If they are on a low income they can live in a taxpayer funded house, if they live in privately owned rental they get a rental allowance, health care card, If a pensioner they get free rego cheap prescriptions, cheap travel and in some states free travel.I could go on but I think you get the idea eh. User pays
    Thoughtful
    28th Mar 2019
    1:12pm
    All true (usually) but no real ability to save for a reasonable retirement. Not that they haven't planned to do so.
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    4:39pm
    And when you provide for a better retirement, Labor steals it with unfair changes to policy that are specifically targeted and disadvantaging those who are NOT WEALTHY but ARE just managing to provide for themselves - while ensuring the wealthy don't lose a cent.
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    4:39pm
    And when you provide for a better retirement, Labor steals it with unfair changes to policy that are specifically targeted and disadvantaging those who are NOT WEALTHY but ARE just managing to provide for themselves - while ensuring the wealthy don't lose a cent.
    Karl Marx
    30th Mar 2019
    5:48pm
    O&W, I have read the latest statements from Mr Bowen & Mr Shorten & what you say is totally incorrect. You keep posting these assumptions about Labor. They aren't the government yet but most likely will be, if they are telling porkies then we will know soon enough, but we do know your LNP do & have for the past 6 years.
    Are you working & being paid by Mr Morrison & the LNP, one would think so from your posts.
    And please stop repeating yourself. Tony Abbott had a bad habit of that as well, all the more reason I believe you are an LNP employee
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:28am
    I am not responsible for the technical glitch that makes posts on YLC duplicate, Mr Ignorant. I delete the duplicates when I can, but it's not easy as the system prevents deletion after a few seconds.

    As to statements by Bown and Shorten,- yes, I've read their lies. And I've conclusively evidenced them to be lies. Firstly, they are based on 3-year-old obsolete data. They do not factor in the impact of the Transfer Balance Cap legislation. Secondly, they ignore the fact that many retirees are, for various reasons, locked into their investment strategy and unable to change it. Legislation actually prevents some changing. Others would suffer major loss if forced to sell their shares now, when the prices are way down. And thirdly, they lie about people who get franking credit refunds not paying tax. It's precisely because THEY WERE TAXED that they currently get a refund. Labor doesn't dispute the tax is paid, because it claims it must be credited to the wealthy. It just insists that battlers should be OVERTAXED on dividend income.

    Then there's the harm they threaten by forcing people into foreign investments, risk investments, property, or to reduce assets and claim a pension. All of which is BAD for the nation - as is taking growth capital from Australian companies that provide jobs.

    And as if that isn't enough, there's the patent unfairness of letting a part-pensioner owner of a $2 million home enjoy franking credit refunds PLUS part pension PLUS concessions while the poor guy who has half as much but had $1 over the asset limit in March 2019 is deprived for the rest of his life.

    Did you know, SFR, that excluding retirees, the level at which Labor will take the most income is $28,000 a year? Did you know that Labor carefully exempted anyone with more than about $2 million from any loss?

    And here's a fact I'll bet you DO NOT know. Half the people being steered into alternate investments don't even know that they will still be robbed of franking credits, because 70% of accountants and investment advisers don't even know how credits work in investment trusts and don't bother to claim them for their clients. The majority of retirees who invest in investment trusts or managed funds don't even know their accountant is doing them out of thousands in refunds they are legally entitled to.

    See, SFR, some people actually research and deal in FACT rather than Labor propaganda. Sadly, you are obviously not one of them. But please STOP giving BAD ADVICE and endorsing bad policies that will cause hurt to the nation. You don't know what you are on about at all. And this has nothing to do with Morrison or the LNP - whom I despise and consider to be hideously unconscionable liars. It has to do with POLICY THAT IS WRONG. If you think I'm an LNP employee, you are an idiot. Sorry, but that's fact.
    Karl Marx
    31st Mar 2019
    11:58am
    O&W, I have read the media releases, done my homework, etc, etc, etc. & from what I gather is that very very few retirees on small incomes will be affected. If what you are saying that Mr Shorten & Mr Bowen are lying then we will find out quick enough if they become the government after the next election.
    The ones that have proven they lie & cheat to become & retain government are the LNP, time & time again they have shown the extent of their lies & deceit.
    Yes I do agree that a very small percentage may be affected as in all legislation that's passed not just legislation on a financial basis.
    If you are locked into your investments then that's simply a choice YOU made, You also made the choice on what shares you have so if they are worth less than what you paid then that's the share market isn't it, rise & fall. Don't blame the government or anyone else for bad investment choices. I'm sure if it was the other way round you'd be dancing in the street doing somersaults.
    I made the choice, sold ALL my shares & reinvested & I'll wear the results of my investment & I won't be whinging if it goes pear shaped as it's my choice & if & when more legislation is introduced or put forward then I'll reassess my portfolio.
    I would strongly recommend that you seek good expert financial advice & bite the bullet & sell your shares. If you can't for one reason or another then you need to put in place a strategy so you can.
    To Quote John Lydgate “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:38pm
    OMG, SFR. You really are ill-informed and ignorant.

    labor is NOT taking from anyone with more than $2 million. Libs already took care of ensuring people with that much pay some tax. They will NOT be impacted by Labor's theft.

    Educate yourself about the Transfer Balance Cap legislation and ask an INTELLIGENT accountant to explain to you how the franking credit legislation works because you clearly are swallowing whopping lies and haven't the knowledge to recognise the deceit.

    I don't need financial advice. YOU NEED TO LEARN TO DEAL IN FACT INSTEAD OF LABOR PROPAGANDA.

    The OAP cuts out at a level of just over $800,000 for a couple. That INCLUDES furnishing, personal assets, cars, etc. And it INCLUDES the cash that must be held for day to day living expenses (experts recommend at least 3 years cash to avoid being forced to sell assets at a loss in a downturn). The national average investment return is 5% over a rolling 10 year period (a high return in one year is meaningless!).
    If a person has $750,000 invested (and that would be a lot from an asset base of less than $900,000), their AVERAGE return would be just $37500. That a lot LESS than the OAP when you take into account that pensioners get concessions that the self-funded don't get.

    Now, as to moving investments. If I did that right now, I would lose 20% of my portfolio due to share price falls. The shares that fell are rising again - slowly - and are predicted to recover over a 3 year period, which is precisely why experts say you should hold cash to last 3 years. But Short-on-brains is forcing people to sell in the middle of a downturn by slashing their returns at the worst possible time.

    If you dealt in FACT rather than believing Bowen's lies, SFR, you would see that Labor's policy is cruel and wrong. It's impact is heaviest at earnings of $28,000 a year and at a retiree asset level of under $900,000 for a couple (or about $500,000 for a single). After that, the loss gradually reduces until those with over $2 million are unlikely to suffer any loss at all.

    I would love to have $2 million, and I certainly wouldn't be worried about Labor's cruel policy if I had even 75% of that amount.

    I think you seriously need to stop pretending to know everything and showing gross ignorance.
    Travellersjoy
    28th Mar 2019
    11:40am
    It's time for someone to pay attention to the base rate of the Age Pension for people with small or no superannuation.

    Genuine poverty is always on the horizon - whether you own a house or not.

    28th Mar 2019
    12:10pm
    Labor is great at spending otherpeople's money. The increase comes out of the pockets of employers and as it is a coat on a business there will have to be an adjustment. Will the business increase prices or will it reduce hours of work. Either way the public will pay.

    Same as the proposed living wage. The ACTU and Shorten are rabbiting on about an increase for low income workers of up to $43pw. Do they mean that the amount is before or after tax? Again, businesses will pay. A tax cut will give a wage increase without businesses having to pay but the ACTU and Shorten are aiming at business.
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    10:53pm
    Actually, Old Man, if you look carefully, Bowen is only promising the change from July 2021 which means there will only be one increase of 0.5% in the entire term of the next Govt. Bowen is piss-weak, and is scared to be labelled as irresponsible financially in case he gives out any significant benefits to anyone, while he happily digs into their pockets without a second thought. No problem if he makes businesses pay as well, that's not him!

    We are in for a disaster if he gets in, along with the arm twisting from their mates, the Greens.
    inextratime
    28th Mar 2019
    12:24pm
    With Labor set to raise the minimum wage and the Super contribution rate, thousands of small business will be forced out of business, unemployment figures will escalate and taxes will need to increase to pay the welfare bill. Politics at it best.
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    1:11pm
    Ha ha, so funny! Little people with more money to spend will help everyone. When they have zero spending power that is when all that happens. Trickle down has failed so let’s try trickle up!
    Charlie
    28th Mar 2019
    12:24pm
    Nothing is worth putting labor in charge of the country for a long time yet, especially with so many minority groups all set to demand what they believe is their entitlement.

    Animal rights people attacking grazing properties to Transsexuals getting offended about Mr and Mrs. No thanks
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    1:12pm
    Ha ha, this one is even funnier. Mr and Mrs?
    Trolls are reaching today.
    Charlie
    28th Mar 2019
    7:23pm
    Has nobody read about the guidelines for public speaking where certain words should not be used, lest they offend transsexuals. Words that give people specific gender.

    Also the futuristic preschools where little boys and girls have to dress the same so they will have free choice at puberty about what sex they want to be.

    Paddington in Sydney would be awash with such ideas
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    10:56pm
    Charlie, spot on!
    They are trying to out-bid the Greens by stealing their policies!
    johnp
    28th Mar 2019
    12:57pm
    A good system is to give everyone the old aged pension but then include all income from all sources including super pensions in the normal standard tax system. As done in some countries. Also a Govt controlled fund is too much of a temptation for the Govt to raid which they have done in the past.
    Thoughtful
    28th Mar 2019
    1:25pm
    Yes, yes and yes
    Karl Marx
    28th Mar 2019
    3:53pm
    It's called a universal pension. 99.99% rort free. $ to run the admin minimal so huge savings for the government in admin cost. No robo debt.
    If pensioners still have hardship for one reason or another then they apply for welfare for housing etc.
    Simple system but all politicians can't see that at they make it more complex every year.
    Cowboy Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    5:51pm
    SFR - right on. This was discussed for ever on this site. I come from a place like that and
    it seems to work well there. But do not forget that there are other things these places have going for them to make it work. Like compulsory private health insurance: my mate sent me an email last week. He pays 470 Swiss francs a month as a single bloke (1Swiss is equal to $A1.40). So the medical costs for the Govt there are negligent compared to the cost here for people just on Medicare. I do pay private health insurance here and I find this dear but a look overseas has convinced me that we are not doing too badly. So when we compare pensions overseas with our system we might have to see the full picture.
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    10:57pm
    Quite right, SFR, wish a large numb of people, as well as the YLC, would write to their politicians and push this sensible reform.
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    1:19pm
    LNP are not getting back in. Even they know that. Otherwise, why so many leaving?
    Bashing Labor and the Greens has gotten a bit desperate methinks.
    Some independents will get in. Hopefully no far right like PH and co.
    It would be a good thing to help the poorest of the poor on wages who are in my humble opinion worse off than aged pensioners in many cases.
    Why would anyone begrudge the lowest paid getting a rise which will likely be 2%? When you are that poor you spend it because you need to. When they spend that en masses everyone will benefit as it will flow through.
    For goodness sake, it is no matter who gets it for them, just that they get it!
    Charlie
    28th Mar 2019
    9:05pm
    Well we have seen enough of left wing extremism.... Every Australia day we get useless lefty proposals like "Change the Flag" "Change the date of Australia day"

    Give "first peoples" independent management of their own affairs funded by the government.

    I thought homosexuals getting married was a bit silly, until all of this other stuff started coming along as well.

    Then there's "take male/female gender, off birth certificates because it offends transsexuals

    Don't make speeches using his and hers, Mr and Mrs"

    We have the Animal activists storming steak restaurants demanding their entitlement to protect animals but forgetting everybody else's

    We have greenies over stepping their rights to protest and doing vandalism on mining equipment, belonging to companies that have mining approval. Also gone through long and tedious government approval processes already.

    The list of idiots goes on and on. Extremist feminism, The university justice people trying to make their own laws outside of the normal process.

    No thanks
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    5:33pm
    Couldn't agree more, Charlie. But the lefties are determined to wreck the country, and they will success.
    Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    1:38pm
    To say that lower income earners would be worse off if they contributed more into their own super is not quite correct, it depends on how low income the income is, for instance if a person is paying tax, then they could salary sacrifice, if they are paying 25% tax rate they could actually be better off salary sacrificing, the amount they put into super when they salary sacrifice would only be taxed at 15% contribution tax, so effectively they are paying 10% less tax on the amount going into super. It won’t work in all instances but it’s worth looking at for some.
    Cowboy Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    2:02pm
    @Jim - I was one of the low income earners you mentioned. Did almost every weekend for 10 years just to get the penalty rates. I was prohibited from salary sacrifice because the company was against it. That might have changed now; I was also told what bank account my wages would be paid in (given a choice of 3 institutions, 2 banks and 1 building society). Have to admit I have a better life now as a pensioner. Have a look where one spends the money and stay away from gambling; still enough for a few drinks each day and a meal out every week.
    Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    5:12pm
    Hi cowboy Jim yes you are correct, I retired over 10 years ago, I worked at BHP ( Bluescope ) they did allow us to salary sacrifice which myself and most of my colleagues did, it made a huge difference to our super when retirement came around, maybe the government should have a look at this to ensure everyone can take advantage of salary sacrifice.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:41am
    Jim, people on low incomes can seldom afford to salary sacrifice, tax benefit or no. What the government SHOULD do is correct the unfair superannuation tax concession to be 15% LESS than the person's marginal tax rate, and make if a contribution to their super if that results in a negative. Why should someone earning a high income get a huge tax concession to grow a retirement nest egg that would have been way more than they could ever need even without $1 of tax concession, while a person laying 19% tax only gets a 4% concession? This where the real problem lies, and many economists have highlighted it. We are currently spending far more on superannuation tax concessions than on the aged pension, and 80% of the benefit goes to the richest 20%. Yet that 20% will not be impacted at all by Labor's cruel franking credit policy which will stop low income earners growing wealth by investing in the safest and most accessible investment vehicle available, and will demolish the income of hundreds of thousands of struggling self-funded retirees who have done nothing except CONTRIBUTE to the nation through ethical, honest management of their affairs and sacrificing to save.
    Karl Marx
    31st Mar 2019
    12:26pm
    Still flogging the FC horse I see. Diversify, that's all I'll say.
    There is only one solution O&W & that is a universal pension.
    No more assets or deeming tests, 99.99% rort free, minimal admin costs to the government, no robo debt. And if the pensioner is still feeling hardship then they apply for welfare.

    Cap ALL untaxed super contributions from the current $25k to say $12k. So anyone earning more than $125k per annum contributing over $12k then their super contributions over $12k are taxed at a higher rate.
    No more tax free income from super, taxed at the correct rate based on total income as determined by the ATO as it is now for workers. Maybe give those over 65 a high threshold.
    Sixty-nine Australians who earned more than $1 million in the 2016-17 financial year did not pay a cent of income tax, might catch these too & stop all those multinational companies that don't pay tax but earn money in Australia, get them to & make them pay taxes.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:48pm
    SFR, I agree completely with the universal pension. I also agree with no more assets or deeming tests. And with capping untaxed super contributions. All of those ideas are sensible and fair. So why aren't people demanding Labor withdraw from BAD POLICIES and adopt good ones. Their franking credit policy is seriously flawed, based on incorrect and outdated data, and patently unfair and harmful to the economy. It's NOT going to do anything at all to make those who earned more than $1 million pay more tax. It is going to unfairly hurt a lot of honest battlers who are currently contributing to the nation by not drawing an aged pension. It's BAD POLICY. End of. I actually agree with Labor's stated objective. They may really have had good intentions. But they got it hopelessly wrong. And you have put forward the right kind of answers, and so have I, so why can't they? We pay them enough. Either they are inept and stupid or they are corrupt and have other undisclosed evil motives. Neither would surprise me, and I certainly believe the Liberals are either inept and stupid or corrupt (most likely that latter). But allowing Labor to do harm is not a solution to anything, Multiplying wrongs doesn't make right.

    If everyone stopped focusing on political BS and started examining facts objectively, and standing together for fairness and right, we might actually make some progress toward fixing what's wrong with this nation. But your attitude and Sunday's is precisely what's wrong. Continuing to attack people who point out facts because you can't stand your precious favoured party being denigrated is the cause of Australia's core problems. It shouldn't be about parties. And NOBODY should swallow political propaganda. We should all be exploring the FACTS, and the FACTS are that Labor got it wrong this time and needs to be persuaded to change their policy and address the problems in the RIGHT way.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:49pm
    And BTW. Franking credit policy is not 'a dead horse'. The legislation hasn't been passed and won't be if people deal in FACT instead of being selfish and ignorant and stand up for a fairer and more economically viable replacement policy such as you have suggested.
    Sundays
    28th Mar 2019
    1:47pm
    We keep hearing that Businesses can’t afford to increase wages, can’t afford to hire permanent employees, can’t afford to increase super. Maybe true for some small businesses but while large and medium size organisations continue to pay their Executives obscene salaries this argument has no credibility. Compulsory Super has made a difference especially for people who have difficulty saving. However, the tax incentives unfairly benefit the more wealthy, so a different scheme needs to be looked at
    Cowboy Jim
    28th Mar 2019
    2:11pm
    Surely, you can stay with the present super scheme but remove the hardship access provisions. Only withdrawal allowed at old age or permanent disability in fortnightly withdrawals. Anyone who worked in low wage environments knows that as soon as there are a few hundred dollars accrued in the super account, hardship is applied for. Believe me, I have seen it in my last 10 years of work. These people will never have any super in old age. And we are stuck with the age pension for ever more.
    Sundays
    28th Mar 2019
    2:59pm
    That’s a good suggestion Cowboy Jim because I’ve seen it misused too although now you have to be on Newstart for at least 26 weeks.

    What I don’t like about the current system is that if you earn less than $37,000 there is minimal advantage in salary sacrificing into Super whereas those on higher income get very good tax advantages when salary sacrificing. 15% tax on income up to $250,000 instead of 30- 42% if they make after tax contributions. I think we need a more level playing field
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    5:31pm
    There have been repeated recommendations that the super tax concession be changed to 15% below the member's marginal tax rate, so everyone benefits equally. At present, it's a scheme geared to the wealthy and it's not only patently unfair but economically unsustainable. The nation spends far more on superannuation tax concessions than on age pensions, and 80% of the benefit goes to the rich. But all we see from both LNP and Labor is attacks on battlers. Labor's franking credit policy is squarely aimed at those struggling to be self-supporting, and takes NOTHING from high income earners or very wealthy retirees. LNP attacked those with modest assets. They both keep whining that the OAP is costing too much, but neither will address the superannuation tax concession that is so much more expensive.
    floss
    28th Mar 2019
    2:26pm
    At long last a good idea from a politician bring it on it has to come in.

    28th Mar 2019
    3:29pm
    Shorten is going to put pensioners onto a card system as soon as possible as it worked well for the other no hopers.
    Karl Marx
    28th Mar 2019
    3:55pm
    So where did you get this information from Robbo, can you share a link, or are you just making it up.
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    5:11pm
    Are you calling pensioners nohopers? I hope not as it would be extremely unacceptable to call anyone that. You should not even think like that let alone say it.
    Anonymous
    28th Mar 2019
    6:45pm
    Yes you are all left wing scum most of you never worked and we have to pay for you have a good look at yourself
    Farside
    28th Mar 2019
    6:55pm
    well Robbo said it, cannot unsay it ... so the pensioner keyboard warriors can let loose their rage

    "other" meaning "a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about".
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    7:25pm
    ‘Left wing scum’ and ‘never worked’
    They are very wide sweeping statements to make about a group who contain a wide range of people. Some maybe right wing and vote for PH. Others may be people ho worked all their lives but did not accumulate wealth. Then there are all the groups in between.
    What an unhappy, bitter person would say such words.
    Robbo, you may be less educated than many pensioners. You could also do less for others than the ‘scum’ you refer to.
    People contribute in different ways. Being poor does not mean you are worth less than someone who has wealth. We are not judged by our bank account thankfully.
    If you are right wing you are not a good ad for that group.
    MD
    28th Mar 2019
    7:38pm
    Robbo, I doubt I'm the only one interested to learn where exactly you fit into the scheme of those you've disparagingly referred to as - "no hopers".

    Or conversely, do you consider yourself in another league altogether and if so, what is your (presumably self righteous) classification ? Should I hold my breath whilst awaiting your qualified reply ?
    Anonymous
    28th Mar 2019
    7:54pm
    Well all pensioner s are overpaid bludgers and hopefully on the way out the quicker the better
    Sundays
    28th Mar 2019
    8:19pm
    Paddington, there are a few people on this site who use this sort of language, they are either the same person, or trolls. Miserable people full of self hatred who try and take it out on others. Ignore them. However, maybe YLC should consider a Code of Conduct
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    8:20pm
    Robbo, there will be more to follow as we die off. Do you expect us to hobble off to work in our seventies and eighties. Many of us would if we could I am sure. Maybe you need to hear individual stories of these so called no hopers / bludgers. There would be wonderful stories on here from people you consider of less than yourself.
    Paddington
    28th Mar 2019
    8:23pm
    Yes Sundays, there needs to be a code of conduct. No puts downs, no disparaging words, respect for all, etc. consequence should be not allowed to see or comment for a month or more.
    Karl Marx
    28th Mar 2019
    9:00pm
    You still haven't answered my question Robbo
    where did you get this information from about Mr Shorten putting pensioners onto a card system as soon as possible, can you share a link please as I'm sure a lot of people would like to read it.
    Or are you just making it up & telling lies & scare mongering
    Karl Marx
    28th Mar 2019
    9:03pm
    Robbo can you please tone down your posts & not attack people. You are making assumptions about people that are completely without evidence or warranted.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:17am
    Says he who calls others a 'fool' and tries to tell them how to run their lives, despite having not a clue what he's on about. Put a sock in it, SFR. You are as bad as Robbo.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:17am
    Says he who calls others a 'fool' and tries to tell them how to run their lives, despite having not a clue what he's on about. Put a sock in it, SFR. You are as bad as Robbo.
    Karl Marx
    31st Mar 2019
    12:33pm
    Still repeating yourself O&W. hahahaha, or are you really Tony Abbott.
    You are a very bitter man, I highly recommend you seek professional counselling.
    Maybe then you'll stop name calling & attacking people that don't agree with you
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:56pm
    It's you who is attacking, SFR. Supporting the demolition of other people's lives by endorsing LIES and PROPAGANDA and ignoring every ounce of fact, and then calling me a 'fool' based on your own ignorance of reality. I don't need counselling, but this country needs more people with integrity and brains and less nasty, cruel, selfish people who claim to know stuff they have no clue about.
    Mad as Hell
    28th Mar 2019
    4:26pm
    “What that [Treasury retirement income] report appeared to be saying was that the burden of the Age Pension continues to decline, and so the previous Treasury forecasts have been shown to probably be high,” said Dr Fahy.
    Does that mean the LNP and Greens changes to the 2017 Pensioner Assets Test wasn’t necessary?
    Stolen pensioner assets under the guise of a budget emergency.
    johnp
    28th Mar 2019
    4:47pm
    Yep; I think its time an enterprising Law Firm began a discrimination class action to act in the interests of all disadvantaged Self Funded Retirees !!
    Farside
    28th Mar 2019
    6:56pm
    discrimination class action = split sides laughing
    Captain
    28th Mar 2019
    8:45pm
    Mad As Hell, I seem to remember several years ago that I disputed the Treasury figures re the amount of GDP would be eaten up by paying the Aged Pension. I said that 2038 the Aged Pension payments would decrease dramatically as most retirees from then on would have had a full 45 or so years of superannuation savings. From about 2024 pension payments should begin to slow as people retiring will have a larger super balance then in the past.

    Anyone with an ounce of brain could determine that if they gave it a minutes thought.

    Speaking with our Federal Member last week-end (a Liberal), he admitted that the asset change in the 2014 (implemented in Jan 2017) was possibly an unnecessary move and that with the budget coming back into surplus, "there may be scope to change a few things". I will believe it when I see it!!!
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    11:02pm
    Of course, the Asset Test changes weren't necessary!
    I heard they are now planning to offer more tax cuts!
    The politicians on a Backbenchers Base Salary of $207,000 or so, got the maximum tax cuts from their last budget proposals, hence it went through smoothly. More to come? How disgusting!

    All retirees need to write to their MPs to immediately reverse the Asset Test changes of 2017 as a priority, or else preferably scrap the whole system and change it to Universal Age Pension.
    johnp
    29th Mar 2019
    7:53am
    Universal pension would mean a saving of maybe billions by no longer having to administer the crazy assets and income test. Like SFr said.
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    9:18pm
    johnp, how many billions are currently spent administering the assets and income tests? How much will it cost to administer the universal pension?
    johnp
    29th Mar 2019
    9:29pm
    practically little cost cos just included in the normal taxation system along with all other tax payers or non tax payers citizens
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    9:40pm
    johnp, so you don't know how many billions if any, just that intuitively there should be some savings after making the necessary software and administrative changes to the current systems, paying out the employee redundancies etc.
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    5:26pm
    Well, the cost of the OAP will rise when Labor starts pushing more self-funded retirees onto it by robbing them and making saving futile.
    Karl Marx
    30th Mar 2019
    6:09pm
    O&W, Like I said before, the ALP have no intentions of robbing SFR unless the & you are amongst the small group that have over $2 million in accumulated assets & if you are then if your $2 mill was in an industry pension fund with a minimum drawdown rate of 5% you would be getting a minimum of $100k per year & if your fund achieved more than 5% then your capital will grow.
    You keep harping on about the fact that you income is less than the pension. A couples pension is $1,396 a fortnight before any assets kick so I can't understand why you aren't on an OAP of some sort. If your assets exclude you from any OAP but generating less than $1,396 / fortnight ($36,296 / annum) then you really need to look at your total investments & redirect those investments elsewhere that will give you a decent income. & don't use grandfathering as an excuse for not doing anything.
    I think you need some very serious financial advice.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:37pm
    OMG, SFR. You really are ill-informed and ignorant.

    labor is NOT taking from anyone with more than $2 million. Libs already took care of ensuring people with that much pay some tax. They will NOT be impacted by Labor's theft.

    Educate yourself about the Transfer Balance Cap legislation and ask an INTELLIGENT accountant to explain to you how the franking credit legislation works because you clearly are swallowing whopping lies and haven't the knowledge to recognise the deceit.

    I don't need financial advice. YOU NEED TO LEARN TO DEAL IN FACT INSTEAD OF LABOR PROPAGANDA.

    The OAP cuts out at a level of just over $800,000 for a couple. That INCLUDES furnishing, personal assets, cars, etc. And it INCLUDES the cash that must be held for day to day living expenses (experts recommend at least 3 years cash to avoid being forced to sell assets at a loss in a downturn). The national average investment return is 5% over a rolling 10 year period (a high return in one year is meaningless!).
    If a person has $750,000 invested (and that would be a lot from an asset base of less than $900,000), their AVERAGE return would be just $37500. That a lot LESS than the OAP when you take into account that pensioners get concessions that the self-funded don't get.

    Now, as to moving investments. If I did that right now, I would lose 20% of my portfolio due to share price falls. The shares that fell are rising again - slowly - and are predicted to recover over a 3 year period, which is precisely why experts say you should hold cash to last 3 years. But Short-on-brains is forcing people to sell in the middle of a downturn by slashing their returns at the worst possible time.

    If you dealt in FACT rather than believing Bowen's lies, SFR, you would see that Labor's policy is cruel and wrong. It's impact is heaviest at earnings of $28,000 a year and at a retiree asset level of under $900,000 for a couple (or about $500,000 for a single). After that, the loss gradually reduces until those with over $2 million are unlikely to suffer any loss at all.

    I would love to have $2 million, and I certainly wouldn't be worried about Labor's cruel policy if I had even 75% of that amount.

    I think you seriously need to stop pretending to know everything and showing gross ignorance.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:37pm
    OMG, SFR. You really are ill-informed and ignorant.

    labor is NOT taking from anyone with more than $2 million. Libs already took care of ensuring people with that much pay some tax. They will NOT be impacted by Labor's theft.

    Educate yourself about the Transfer Balance Cap legislation and ask an INTELLIGENT accountant to explain to you how the franking credit legislation works because you clearly are swallowing whopping lies and haven't the knowledge to recognise the deceit.

    I don't need financial advice. YOU NEED TO LEARN TO DEAL IN FACT INSTEAD OF LABOR PROPAGANDA.

    The OAP cuts out at a level of just over $800,000 for a couple. That INCLUDES furnishing, personal assets, cars, etc. And it INCLUDES the cash that must be held for day to day living expenses (experts recommend at least 3 years cash to avoid being forced to sell assets at a loss in a downturn). The national average investment return is 5% over a rolling 10 year period (a high return in one year is meaningless!).
    If a person has $750,000 invested (and that would be a lot from an asset base of less than $900,000), their AVERAGE return would be just $37500. That a lot LESS than the OAP when you take into account that pensioners get concessions that the self-funded don't get.

    Now, as to moving investments. If I did that right now, I would lose 20% of my portfolio due to share price falls. The shares that fell are rising again - slowly - and are predicted to recover over a 3 year period, which is precisely why experts say you should hold cash to last 3 years. But Short-on-brains is forcing people to sell in the middle of a downturn by slashing their returns at the worst possible time.

    If you dealt in FACT rather than believing Bowen's lies, SFR, you would see that Labor's policy is cruel and wrong. It's impact is heaviest at earnings of $28,000 a year and at a retiree asset level of under $900,000 for a couple (or about $500,000 for a single). After that, the loss gradually reduces until those with over $2 million are unlikely to suffer any loss at all.

    I would love to have $2 million, and I certainly wouldn't be worried about Labor's cruel policy if I had even 75% of that amount.

    I think you seriously need to stop pretending to know everything and showing gross ignorance.
    Karl Marx
    31st Mar 2019
    12:45pm
    repeating again.
    Being nasty & name calling me won't help. been called a lot worse, as my dad always said, "I don't care what you call me just don't call me late for dinner" lol
    I just told you what I did & that was to diversify away from shares & FC, but you just constantly whinging about it. If your stuck with your portfolio then your stuck, that's your choice. Everyone has a choice. Same as it's your choice to whinge on every post about the ALP are all liars & about your FC.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    12:54pm
    There you go again with your baseless propaganda and wrong assumptions, and you completely ignored the FACTS. You are showing yourself to be ignorant, selfish and nasty, SFR.

    The ALP ARE liars. So is the LNP. So are nearly all politicians (if not all). But the issue here is that the ALP is LYING ABOUT FRANKING CREDIT POLICY. And you tried to present evidence to support your completely wrong concept of the situation, but I proved you wrong with facts and figure. And all you can do is repeat your WRONG claims and attack me personally. Sorry if it offends you to point out Bowen and Shorten's untruths, but some of us have the intelligence to actually deal in fact. And no, NOT EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE. When Keating told us all to save for retirement, he didn't provide a crystal ball so we would see that his own party would turn around and stab us in the back for doing so.
    Captain
    1st Apr 2019
    2:26pm
    SFR, I have discussed the Franking Credit fiasco with my "Want To Be Federal Member" ALP candidate. Her opinion is that those people (self funded superannuants) with 1 dollar more than the current Asset Limit up to those with $1.6 million dollars will be hit hardest by the Labor policy regarding Franking Credits.

    Please discuss the matter with your Federal ALP member or candidate to clarify before making further comments re the proposed policy.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    8:14pm
    Captain, your 'want to be...' is a rare breed. Most Labor candidates are towing the party line and endorsing the lies Bowen and Shorten are telling. The sitting Labor member in this area would not even discuss the issue, claiming not to understand it 'really', but to know that money is needed for health and education and 'it's only taking a little from rich people'. Of course that's absolutely and categorically untrue, and I'm pretty confident all Labor pollies know it as well as their opposition, but some folk just have no interest in fact or fairness. Try taking a few dollars from them and watch them squeal, though.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    8:14pm
    Captain, your 'want to be...' is a rare breed. Most Labor candidates are towing the party line and endorsing the lies Bowen and Shorten are telling. The sitting Labor member in this area would not even discuss the issue, claiming not to understand it 'really', but to know that money is needed for health and education and 'it's only taking a little from rich people'. Of course that's absolutely and categorically untrue, and I'm pretty confident all Labor pollies know it as well as their opposition, but some folk just have no interest in fact or fairness. Try taking a few dollars from them and watch them squeal, though.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    9:51pm
    Somewhat disturbing to note the gross hypocrisy of a party that CLAIMED to want to defend some 350,000 retirees from the LNP's cruel attack changing the assets test - which Labor declared a rotten thing to do - now planning to steal a massive chunk of the miserable little income the victims of that attack have left. Apparently Labor was so concerned for those poor folk that they now think it acceptable to punish them for the rest of their lives for being victims of an attack that Labor labelled 'vicious and unfair'. And some of you actually trust these hypocritical liars to make Australia a better place for working class people???? Mind boggling!
    cupoftea
    28th Mar 2019
    5:33pm
    12%,NO one seems to mention the 15.5% that the polies get
    GeorgeM
    28th Mar 2019
    11:04pm
    They are a different, protected breed!

    Try writing to your local politician and see how they justify it after also having their salaries regularly increased to around $207,000 Base Salary +++++ perks.
    Rosret
    30th Mar 2019
    7:37am
    You are welcome to stand for parliament any time you like. No qualifications needed other than being an Australian citizen.
    If you want the best you pay for the best. In the mean time let's focus on increased taxes for superannuation acquisition. Now that is just a massive gift to all the foreign hedge funds. That's where the corruption lies.
    Farside
    30th Mar 2019
    10:55am
    A pollies pay $207,000 plus perks ... GeorgeM standing for parliament - priceless! Much easier to have a grizzle.
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    5:24pm
    If you want the best, you REDUCE the remuneration. High salaries just get us egomaniacs with inflated ideas of their own worth. They've proved they are pathetically inept and most are corrupt. What we need is people who are sufficiently dedicated to work for much less remuneration (or none!) because they CARE about the nation and its people.
    GeorgeM
    30th Mar 2019
    8:28pm
    Rosret, what we have is a bunch of buffoons nominated by major political parties who vote like zombies with no brain of their own, as they are governed by their party whips, and who do not care one iota for the people's needs. Haven't you seen them sleeping, laughing, jeering, making catcalls, obstructing debate, raising irrelevant matters, etc, in Question time when they are being paid fat salaries by us? Also, corrupt as OAW has noted, with many arranging their future jobs with no Federal ICAC to watch out for this.
    No, for that kind of a job, it should not deserve one dollar more than the Average Salary. With Superannuation as for average people only.

    Just because their job is overpaid doesn't mean everyone should try to get these jobs - I certainly have no interest to join these buffoons / leeches - much better to campaign to vote them OUT. People deserve better value from their politicians - you need only half a brain to understand that (too much for Farside - the overpaid ex-politician / bureaucrat).
    Farside
    31st Mar 2019
    12:54am
    poor George, I fear you will continue to be disappointed with the make up of our parliament for your remaining years. Good luck with your campaign to vote the major parties out however, in the unlikely event this does happen, I suspect it will be long after you have departed God's waiting room. Altruism is not going to fill the parliament with independent thinking, high calibre individuals doing it for less any time soon. Much better to focus your near term efforts in being relevant and constructive and helping to bring about positive change such as the federal ICAC.

    (And the cheek of you labelling me an "overpaid ex-politician / bureaucrat" - FYI I have never been a politician or worked in the PS bureaucracy)
    GeorgeM
    31st Mar 2019
    4:10pm
    I am not "poor", but you certainly sound like either a fool or one with an agenda which you haven't revealed yet. I believe you are an ex-bureaucrat or politician (or maybe still one), hence your excessive defence of their undeserved perks and bad actions against the people.
    Thanks for the Good Luck wishes - despite all your negative inputs, it might still happen sooner than you think - already revolts are happening in USA (Trump), UK (Brexit), France (yellow vests), Germany and others next, etc, against Major parties who stuff up the people. I will consider your comments about how long I will last as just the comments of an ignorant fool.

    I strongly recommend to all 3 Million+ Retirees to vote OUT all sitting MPs of all Major parties at every election until they start listening - our strength of numbers is there, once people start ignoring negative, agenda-driven bureaucrats / politicians like you.
    Farside
    1st Apr 2019
    1:30am
    my apologies GeorgeM for not making it clear if you thought poor meant impoverished or inferior; I used it in its other definition as "deserving of sympathy" (you can look up the synonyms). Anyhow I sure you will believe what you will George, it is clear that you have some difficulty processing ideas different to your own as evident from your persistent attempts to label me an ex-bureaucrat or politician. I prefer to base my comments upon the facts rather than misinformed hyperbole and rants. As I said above you would be better to focus your near term efforts in being relevant and constructive and helping to bring about positive change such as the federal ICAC. We will see in a few months time how effective your movement to unite retirees and drive government policy is but I think I can already read the tea leaves on that particular .
    cupoftea
    28th Mar 2019
    5:33pm
    12%,NO one seems to mention the 15.5% that the polies get
    Farside
    28th Mar 2019
    6:58pm
    that is because the pollies pension is part of their remuneration arrangements, something long overdue for change
    Captain
    28th Mar 2019
    8:49pm
    Farside, and make it retrospective like the pollies did with the Asset limits.
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    8:32am
    Captain, no argument from me but unfortunately there is no appetite in the electorate for such changes. If there were then this anachronism would be quickly dealt with and politicians would share the same superannuation arrangements as other public servants.
    Captain
    29th Mar 2019
    4:09pm
    Farside, not that there is no appetite in the electorate rather too many voters do not know the remuneration that politicans receive. There needs to be more education with the electorate.

    The issue is that we do not have a say in how their remuneration is arrived at. Vote them all out and maybe those few of the big parties that are left will begin to really understand the anger of the electorate and begin to be more concerned with advancing Australia rather then advancing their own bank accounts.
    Farside
    29th Mar 2019
    9:25pm
    Captain, cause and effect ... the effect is there is no appetite for change, the cause may be ignorance within the electorate but no evidence of this. And voting them out will not change much while the Remuneration Tribunal is an independent statutory authority comprised three part-time members appointed by the Governor-General.
    GeorgeM
    30th Mar 2019
    8:36pm
    Agree with you Captain. People need to vote out every politician in every election if they are not listening (the majority from major parties are in this category as they vote on party lines). That is the way to prevent them building up their own nests and is the only way they will wake up and think about working for the people - may also change the type of people who go for these jobs. This may take more than one election to have this effect. 3 Million+ Retirees can make this happen if they stop listening to negative commentators who say it can't happen as they prefer the status quo.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:15am
    I agree, George, but what does one do when the contenders are a power-mad and corrupt idiot who peddles blatant lies, an idiot extremist who shoots himself in the foot with dumb and unpopular speeches, and an idealistic moron who doesn't understand that utopia doesn't exist?
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    11:15am
    I agree, George, but what does one do when the contenders are a power-mad and corrupt idiot who peddles blatant lies, an idiot extremist who shoots himself in the foot with dumb and unpopular speeches, and an idealistic moron who doesn't understand that utopia doesn't exist?
    GeorgeM
    31st Mar 2019
    9:17pm
    OAW, I understand what you are trying to say - we do have difficult choices. However, the best thing to do in that situation is to be very calm and assign preferences very logically & purposefully - I recommend a strategy as follows:

    Put No. 1 for your favourite candidate (supporting Retirees preferably),
    Put all extremists at the end,
    Put your No. 2 as the one who you think can win and who may be acceptable to you, and
    Put the remaining in between such that the sitting Major party MP is definitely below the alternative Major party candidate (always keeping the Greens, being extremists, near or at the end).

    If enough people do this, you will a) know you did your best, and b) hopefully the useless sitting MP will lose their seat.
    Farside
    1st Apr 2019
    1:38am
    there you go GeorgeM, we are mostly in agreement with your voting strategy except for your little diss on the Greens. Believe it or not there are some electorates with Greens candidates that are not extremists and closer to the sensible centre than other candidates.
    Rosret
    30th Mar 2019
    7:31am
    The entire reason for increasing the superannuation (tax) to 12% is to eliminate the aged pension.
    Does the Labor party not realise that money our Australian earned money is going directly to foreign investments and enormous fees are being creamed off the top.

    The superannuation schemes started in the 1990s are the biggest corporate rip off in the history of capitalism and it is to the detriment of our country.
    The crunch is really going to come when the 30-40 year olds get to retirement age. Their housing loans are on 40 year terms and commodities are now short term obsolescent.

    The 12% tax on super with be devastating for individuals and businesses alike. What should be happening is a huge think tank on how the billions acquired from superannuation acquisition benefit Australians not foreign corporations.
    Adrianus
    30th Mar 2019
    9:33am
    Bill Shorten has acknowledged that superannuation is paid for by employees, not employers. Is Labor using Superannuation to artificially keep wages low???
    NEIL MITCHELL:
    Okay. When superannuation goes up from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, who pays?..
    BILL SHORTEN:
    What happens with superannuation is that people’s pay goes up anyway. It goes up each year, by and large. What will happen is that superannuation, the increases to superannuation, will be absorbed as part of people’s pay rises.
    …they get a pay rise, of which some will probably go in super, yes…
    NEIL MITCHELL:
    Okay. So you’re saying that the superannuation increases will be paid for by absorbing money out of the wage increases.
    BILL SHORTEN:
    That’s the evidence…
    NEIL MITCHELL:
    Well, so, just to get it clear, business will not be paying an extra dollar, right?
    BILL SHORTEN:
    No, I can’t see that business will be paying any more in the future than they otherwise would have been if the superannuation changes hadn’t gone through…
    Anonymous
    30th Mar 2019
    5:21pm
    But Labor voters won't believe that, Adrianus. They see their hero through rose coloured glasses. They will always fool themselves that he's looking after the battler, when in fact most Labor policies are designed to transfer wealth from battlers TO THE WEALTHY. Their franking credit policy is a stunning example of this. Doesn't take one cent from the very well off, but it will cripple struggling self-funded retirees with moderate assets and very low incomes.
    Karl Marx
    30th Mar 2019
    6:18pm
    Wrong on all counts O&W.
    Read my reply to your post earlier. If you have any issue about FC then you need to look at your investment portfolio & diversify. I did.
    Don't whinge about something that may never happen or will only happen in your mind as we've been told what the target is by Mr Shorten & Mr Bowen, read their latest releases on FC.
    You have control over your financial dealings & future so take control like we all have to.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    10:31am
    WRONG WRONG WRONG, SFR. I have consulted no less than 40 expert financial advisers. It's what I do for a living. And every one of them agrees that changing investment strategies may be necessary, but it is NOT a solution and carries MAJOR RISK.

    Labor's policy is WRONG. It's based on 3-year-old outdated data and it targets the less well off while leaving the wealthy totally alone.

    Clearly you are one of those blinded by Labor's spin and lacking the ability to understand what they are really doing. Sad that some people are so arrogant and ignorant.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    10:31am
    WRONG WRONG WRONG, SFR. I have consulted no less than 40 expert financial advisers. It's what I do for a living. And every one of them agrees that changing investment strategies may be necessary, but it is NOT a solution and carries MAJOR RISK.

    Labor's policy is WRONG. It's based on 3-year-old outdated data and it targets the less well off while leaving the wealthy totally alone.

    Clearly you are one of those blinded by Labor's spin and lacking the ability to understand what they are really doing. Sad that some people are so arrogant and ignorant.

    30th Mar 2019
    5:41pm
    What a bunch of HYPOCRITICAL LIARS. Everyone can be self-sufficient in retirement? But they are making damned sure that hundreds of thousands who ARE self-sufficient can't continue to be by STEALING their income. And they are removing both all incentives to save for retirement and the single best mechanism battlers have for building wealth. Labor is enacting the biggest transfer of riches TO THE WEALTHY ever seen in recent history, and they have lied so well that more than half the nation is fooled. Obviously they can't read data and do math to see the truth behind the lies. Or they are just so brainwashed that they can't think past swallowing propaganda.
    Karl Marx
    30th Mar 2019
    6:32pm
    No one is stealing your income. Read the latest media releases by Mr Bowen & Mr Shorten. When it comes to maths I don't think you are the brightest from what i've seen from your posts. You really need expert financial advice, the sooner the better.
    If anyone has a recent history of lying & taking away money from retirees then the LNP win hands down or have you forgotten about people like Mr Abbott, Mr Hockey & even the current PM Mr Morrison, I haven't & many haven't either.
    And I don't vote for either party for your information. For the past 25 years or so I have voted for anyone other than ALP or LNP & will also number every box on the senate ticket & not vote lazily like most voters who by the way are pathetic when it comes to voting as the great majority only see a 2 party system in this country.
    I believe the only fool here is OlderandWiser
    Rosret
    31st Mar 2019
    9:07am
    OlderandWiser the Liberal party has made me and so many others angry. What a mess they have made of what was a very strong party.

    So long as Labor kept quiet people see them as the only option. However if the Liberal party woke up and stop spinning in circles - despite all the Q & A boat people talk - illegal immigration isn't the issue.

    30,000 mortgage brokers are looking as though they will lose their jobs if the bank commission recommendations are upheld as Labor promises to do.
    Thousands of people's jobs and associated industries will collapse if Labor lets Green's power play close coal mines before alternatives are in place.
    Rents will increase, available rental property will decrease and property development will slow when Labor initiates their end to negative gearing.

    Legal immigration rates do matter. Michael Daley (NSW Labor Opp Leader) was quite correct. If you have 100,000 new highly qualified immigrants all coming to Sydney each year and you have 100,000 NSW HSC students graduating each year - guess where their potential jobs have all gone? Its much easier to pick off the shelf than grow your own.

    Your pay packet will be further reduced as the screws are put on superannuation acquisition and businesses who are barely afloat will be forced to reduce staff and profit.
    Labors policies will cripple Australia and while I am really really cross at the Liberal party I know while Labor shakes hands with the Greens they aren't looking after the workers at all.
    Anonymous
    31st Mar 2019
    10:27am
    SFR, surely you are smarter than the idiots who swallow Shorten and Bowen's propaganda and lies.
    (1) Their statements are based on OUTDATED DATA - 3 years old and totally obsolete. The Libs introduced the Transfer Balance Cap which makes Labor's nonsense just that. NONSENSE.
    (2) Their policy hits hardest at just $28,000 a year of income. That's mathematical FACT. It does NOT hurt the wealthy at all. As for their lies about it targeting retirees with $2.45 mil, only a complete fool fails to notice that those with $2.4 mil in super pay tax and therefore will retain their credits.
    (3) Anyone who understands franking credits knows dividends are taxed before distribution. Even Labor admits that - and says that tax should be credited to WEALTHY PEOPLE. But if you are a low income earner or struggling retiree, Labor says the ATO should retain it and pretend it isn't tax. Either dividends are taxed at source, like wages, or they are not. You can't have it both ways. Nobody with either a brain or a sense of fairness claims it's tax if it's taken from a rich man's income but not tax if it's taken from a poor man!

    Yes, the LNP did lie and take money from retirees. That's a fact. And it made me very angry. A lot of other things the Libs have done have made me very angry. That DOES NOT make a cruel and unfair attack on battlers by Labor okay. They are STEALING the retirement savings of hundreds of thousands of battlers, yet they refuse to address the real budget problem - which is 80% of an amount MUCH higher than the total cost of the aged pension being paid in superannuation tax concessions to high income earners. Fix that and the budget is fixed. Overnight! And not one single person is unfairly hurt.

    Call me a fool if you wish. I'm actually an expert on this particular subject and have studied it in great depth. I am very good at math and economics. And I would NEVER be FOOLISH enough to believe Shorten or Bowen. They are two of the most dangerous hypocritical spin doctors ever to enter the Australian political scene.

    And BTW - Bowen and Andrew Leigh BOTH recently admitted to a prominent financial advisor that they did not understand superannuation and had no real comprehension of who their franking credit policy impacted or how.

    Rosret, you are spot on. Illegal immigration isn't the most important issue. The nation's economy is. Thankfully, Libs have backed off implementing the recommendation that threatens mortgage brokers. Labor, on the other hand, has arrogantly refused to even LISTEN to the people and consider changing it's policies. That arrogance and ignorance alone is reason enough not to trust them to govern. GOOD LEADERS LISTEN AND PAY HEED.
    Adrianus
    31st Mar 2019
    1:01pm
    Labor's methodology is to find links with their ideology which they then use to sell to people who are silly enough to listen. They took many of the same policies to the 2014 election and they will take them to the 2022 election, because they are not policies which are sensitive to prevailing economic conditions. When Swan, Gillard, Bowen and Shorten were running us into a cul de sac the RBA governor had to demand that they stop their fiscal policies working against the RBA's monetary policy. These fools may be dangerous but the real danger is in their followers.
    Paddington
    31st Mar 2019
    8:08pm
    Adrianus,
    So you think the LNP are the answer?
    That would be why there is a rush to leave the sinking ship!
    Maybe you like PH? Far right is your preference?
    There is the gun mob coming along nicely too.
    There are a few good independenrs for sure but not all are truly independent.
    LNP are on th nose for all the reasons in the media at the moment.
    The environment is number one concern for many people and people are basing their votes on who will start to take this seriously.
    Jobs are always top of the list because folk live in the present with their family need to be fed and housed.
    LNP are not taking global warming seriously enough and are not in the business of making sure everyone is employed and well paid.
    Hence, you have why Labor and the Greens are the choice of many.
    The super wealthy and the big banks and companies are not caring of those less fortunate needing a job and a roof over their heads.
    There was a time that LNP was okay with Howard e.g. but at this point in time they have stuffed up big time and in many ways and they know it.
    SFR, I am with you on the O&W threads. I have just given up hitting my head against a brick wall like a few others. No logic there!
    This time I am voting Labor and I vote at the time with all available info. The Greens will be second. Not much about the present LNP to be proud of!
    Farside
    1st Apr 2019
    1:46am
    O&W "And BTW - Bowen and Andrew Leigh BOTH recently admitted to a prominent financial advisor that they did not understand superannuation and had no real comprehension of who their franking credit policy impacted or how." ... Do you have a reference to support this comment?
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    7:21am
    Unfortunately it was a 'member only' website so I would be useless posting the link.

    Common sense SHOULD evidence that both Bowen and Leigh have got it all wrong, Farside, if only people put emotion aside and focused on FACTS.

    (1) Tax IS deducted from dividends before they are paid. That's PROVED by the fact that you have to declare the full dividend as taxable income - not the amount you actually receive. If I get $70, my statement says my taxable income is $100. Where did the other $30 go if it's not tax? And Labor agrees high income earners should get a credit to avoid double tax - so it MUST be tax. So they are saying it's tax if you earn a lot but it's not tax if you only earn a little. IDIOTIC NONSENSE!

    So Labor says someone with minimal income should pay no tax if they have income from other sources, but 30% if they invest in blue chip shares - which re the best and safest investment available for most of the less well off in our society. In other words, favour the rich. They get to benefit from the good investment opportunities. Battlers are screwed.


    (2) They claim people with high incomes declare minimal or no taxable income and get refunds that aren't affordable. I agree!

    But that's nothing to do with Howard or Costello's CORRECT change to franking credits that allowed low income earners to invest in blue chip shares with the same benefits the rich enjoyed. Rather, it's largely to do with Keating devising a scheme to let rich people hoard masses of money in superannuation with huge tax concessions that now cost the nation more than the aged pension (about $35 billion last time I checked the numbers) of which 80% of the benefit goes to the richest 20% of the nation.


    (3) Labor relied on 3-year-old outdated data. They completely ignored the recent Transfer Balance Cap legislation that requires people with over $1.6 million in super to pay some tax. Because of that legislation, Labor's claim to be targeting people with $2.4 mil or more is total garbage. Those folk will retain their franking credit benefit as a tax cut.


    The people Labor is hurting most are those (not retired) with earnings of around $28,000 a year. The loss reduces gradually from that point upward, until middle income earners generally lose NOTHING unless they are rorting (which should be fixed by stopping rorting - not by impoverishing honest folk!).

    When it comes to retirees, those who will suffer most are those with less than $500,000, and incomes of less than or equal to the OAP.

    I agree completely with what Labor CLAIMS it is trying to do, but the problem is that it IS NOT DOING WHAT IT CLAIMS. It's figures are completely wrong because they are based on outdated data, and it's claim about people not paying tax is wrong. Dividends ARE taxed. The problem is that superannuation tax concessions are way too generous to the well off, and basically useless to battlers. And combine that with the pension means test and you create a situation where saving to retire is futile and those with moderate savings are worse off than if they didn't have them. That is quite simply ludicrous. Either Labor wants suppression - all but the rich being equally poor so they can't resist corruption - or they are inept fools.

    The budget solution has been put forward time and time and it's simple. Change the 15% superannuation tax - which was Keating's gift to the wealthy and is the real largesse (not franking credits and not anything Howard did) to a 15% discount on the member's top marginal rate. If that results in a negative, contribute that amount to the member's super from tax revenue. Everyone benefits equally. The rich lose a little that they have no need of and low income earners have a better chance to save for retirement.
    And if the tax is extended to super in retirement phase, but the assets test is abolished and pensions paid to all FAIRLY, franking credits cease to be a problem because any cost is soaked up in tax on incomes AT A FAIR RATE rather than bashing low income earners with a massive loss and letting the wealthy retain their nice tax concession.

    What Howard and Costello did was actually to open the way for battlers to take advantage of the most accessible and lowest risk investment opportunity available to people of minimal wealth. It was a great thing for the nation. It's unfortunate that because of Keating's largesse, it became a huge expense. But Labor is reversing the wrong policy. They are attacking battlers and reducing the opportunity for people to achieve financial independence. And to then grant an exemption to pensioners is reprehensible when hundreds of thousands of retirees are much worse off than their part pensioner counterparts ONLY because they were more frugal, bought lower cost housing, etc. to avoid being a burden on taxpayers. Yet those who were honest and frugal will be punished for life - even if they had only $1 more than a part pensioner and within weeks of the March 2018 date suffered a huge expense or loss.


    And BTW. I do NOT support the LNP. I haven't yet found any party I think worthy of my endorsement, but certainly not the Libs. But the fact is that Labor, which always claimed to look after the worker/battler, is now focused on massive transfers of wealth TO THE RICH. From Keating's time onward, they have pretended to stay true to their core principles but have actually done the opposite of what they pretend is their focus. What's really scary though is how well they deceive the populace. Their lies about franking credits have really struck a nerve and they have masses believing their nonsense and supporting a totally unfair and unnecessary attack on battling retirees who are contributing to the nation substantially by self-funding - albeit many are actually worse off for doing so.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    7:21am
    Unfortunately it was a 'member only' website so I would be useless posting the link.

    Common sense SHOULD evidence that both Bowen and Leigh have got it all wrong, Farside, if only people put emotion aside and focused on FACTS.

    (1) Tax IS deducted from dividends before they are paid. That's PROVED by the fact that you have to declare the full dividend as taxable income - not the amount you actually receive. If I get $70, my statement says my taxable income is $100. Where did the other $30 go if it's not tax? And Labor agrees high income earners should get a credit to avoid double tax - so it MUST be tax. So they are saying it's tax if you earn a lot but it's not tax if you only earn a little. IDIOTIC NONSENSE!

    So Labor says someone with minimal income should pay no tax if they have income from other sources, but 30% if they invest in blue chip shares - which re the best and safest investment available for most of the less well off in our society. In other words, favour the rich. They get to benefit from the good investment opportunities. Battlers are screwed.


    (2) They claim people with high incomes declare minimal or no taxable income and get refunds that aren't affordable. I agree!

    But that's nothing to do with Howard or Costello's CORRECT change to franking credits that allowed low income earners to invest in blue chip shares with the same benefits the rich enjoyed. Rather, it's largely to do with Keating devising a scheme to let rich people hoard masses of money in superannuation with huge tax concessions that now cost the nation more than the aged pension (about $35 billion last time I checked the numbers) of which 80% of the benefit goes to the richest 20% of the nation.


    (3) Labor relied on 3-year-old outdated data. They completely ignored the recent Transfer Balance Cap legislation that requires people with over $1.6 million in super to pay some tax. Because of that legislation, Labor's claim to be targeting people with $2.4 mil or more is total garbage. Those folk will retain their franking credit benefit as a tax cut.


    The people Labor is hurting most are those (not retired) with earnings of around $28,000 a year. The loss reduces gradually from that point upward, until middle income earners generally lose NOTHING unless they are rorting (which should be fixed by stopping rorting - not by impoverishing honest folk!).

    When it comes to retirees, those who will suffer most are those with less than $500,000, and incomes of less than or equal to the OAP.

    I agree completely with what Labor CLAIMS it is trying to do, but the problem is that it IS NOT DOING WHAT IT CLAIMS. It's figures are completely wrong because they are based on outdated data, and it's claim about people not paying tax is wrong. Dividends ARE taxed. The problem is that superannuation tax concessions are way too generous to the well off, and basically useless to battlers. And combine that with the pension means test and you create a situation where saving to retire is futile and those with moderate savings are worse off than if they didn't have them. That is quite simply ludicrous. Either Labor wants suppression - all but the rich being equally poor so they can't resist corruption - or they are inept fools.

    The budget solution has been put forward time and time and it's simple. Change the 15% superannuation tax - which was Keating's gift to the wealthy and is the real largesse (not franking credits and not anything Howard did) to a 15% discount on the member's top marginal rate. If that results in a negative, contribute that amount to the member's super from tax revenue. Everyone benefits equally. The rich lose a little that they have no need of and low income earners have a better chance to save for retirement.
    And if the tax is extended to super in retirement phase, but the assets test is abolished and pensions paid to all FAIRLY, franking credits cease to be a problem because any cost is soaked up in tax on incomes AT A FAIR RATE rather than bashing low income earners with a massive loss and letting the wealthy retain their nice tax concession.

    What Howard and Costello did was actually to open the way for battlers to take advantage of the most accessible and lowest risk investment opportunity available to people of minimal wealth. It was a great thing for the nation. It's unfortunate that because of Keating's largesse, it became a huge expense. But Labor is reversing the wrong policy. They are attacking battlers and reducing the opportunity for people to achieve financial independence. And to then grant an exemption to pensioners is reprehensible when hundreds of thousands of retirees are much worse off than their part pensioner counterparts ONLY because they were more frugal, bought lower cost housing, etc. to avoid being a burden on taxpayers. Yet those who were honest and frugal will be punished for life - even if they had only $1 more than a part pensioner and within weeks of the March 2018 date suffered a huge expense or loss.


    And BTW. I do NOT support the LNP. I haven't yet found any party I think worthy of my endorsement, but certainly not the Libs. But the fact is that Labor, which always claimed to look after the worker/battler, is now focused on massive transfers of wealth TO THE RICH. From Keating's time onward, they have pretended to stay true to their core principles but have actually done the opposite of what they pretend is their focus. What's really scary though is how well they deceive the populace. Their lies about franking credits have really struck a nerve and they have masses believing their nonsense and supporting a totally unfair and unnecessary attack on battling retirees who are contributing to the nation substantially by self-funding - albeit many are actually worse off for doing so.
    Farside
    1st Apr 2019
    12:27pm
    O&W, notwithstanding that common sense does not represent evidence, there will always be opposing views to what you wrote above. There is no doubt that some investors have gamed the superannuation changes better than others but that is history. Low income investors can be thankful for the ride since then and can adopt different strategies as they did before the amendments were introduced.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    1:22pm
    Farside, I don't deal in 'views'. I deal in FACT. Why is Labor lying about who their policy will impact? Why are they quoting data that is 3 years out of date and irrelevant? Why are they lying about a tax refund being a 'gift' when it is clearly a refund of tax paid but not owed? Why are they attacking battlers instead of targeting the people they SAY they are targeting (but who in fact will be minimally affected or not at all)?

    'Views' are formed based on information that is available. Some people rely on political spin, and others actually research to get to the real facts of the issue. Facts that are apparent and easily checked by anyone with the brains to stop listening to spin and actually do some research.

    Low income investors can perhaps do all sorts of things. Self-funded retirees are NOT investors. They are people who saved and are now FORCED into an unwanted and difficult position by low interest rates and a mean pension system. Blue chip shares have traditionally been the most accessible and lowest risk way for battlers to build wealth, and the best way for retirees who don't qualify for a pension to support themselves given poor bank interest, but Labor wants to make blue chip share investment the exclusive province of the well off. Why? Not to save money, because you don't save money be preventing people from becoming, or remaining, self-sufficient. You don't save money by stopping investment in the growth of Australian companies.


    If you read what I wrote, you would see that there is a solution to Australian's budget problems that would hurt nobody, and automatically largely resolve the franking credit issue (WITHOUT hurting low income battlers).

    Just what do you suggest there are opposing views on? That tax is tax when it's taken from a rich man but not when the same percentage is taken from the same income source and paid to the same ATO but the recipient is poorer? That's not something you can an 'opposing view on'. Regardless of Shorten's and Bowen's lies, TAX IS TAX. No matter who pays it. If it's deducted from income and sent to the ATO, it's TAX and should be refunded to anyone with no tax liability.

    Or do you dispute that Labor used outdated data? How do you explain their BS claim that they are targeting people with more than $2.4 mil, when those people PAY TAX and will keep their credits. That's not opinion. That's FACT.

    Or do you dispute that rich people are getting massive tax reductions on their superannuation contributions while low income earners get little or no benefit from the super tax concession. That's just pure math. Read the tax tables and do some sums and it's obvious.

    I realise for some their political affections make them blind to reality and determined to believe the lies their beloved pollies tell, and others simply don't care because they think it won't affect them. Think again. The economic fall out will damage all of us!

    I don't care about 'low income investors', because investors are, by definition, people who look for ways to profit by investing. I care about retirees who should NOT be forced to become investment gurus just to survive old age, after having worked and paid taxes for a lifetime specifically so that they would not suffer the indignity of financial hardship in their winter years.

    And I care about honesty and good leadership. I am shocked and appalled at the extent of Labor's socially divisive lies and their stubborn refusal to look at the issues their proposed policy will create and consider modifications that would avoid unfair harm. Shorten has declared outright that he is not a leader and not qualified for the job he seeks.
    Farside
    1st Apr 2019
    5:59pm
    O&W, perhaps if you wound back the rhetoric it would be easier to be more objective and see that your views and opinions result from the particular way you see the "facts". For example you question "Why are they lying about a tax refund being a 'gift' when it is clearly a refund of tax paid but not owed? " –– this is a view and not one that is shared by those that understand the history behind the introduction of franking credits and its intentions.

    You say you don't care about low income investors yet investment in the share market is the act of investing.

    Good luck with persuading the government around to your solution to Australia's budget problems but don't hold your breath.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    8:10pm
    Farside, any claim that the deduction from dividends is not tax is absurd. It is required to be declared as income. It is taken from the dividend before the dividend is paid. It is sent to the ATO. How the hell is it anything other than tax? That's just the most absurd and idiotic LIE ever told.

    If you earn $50,000 a year and get $10,000 in share dividends with $4286 in franking credits, you are REQUIRED by law to declare an income of $14,286 from share investment, and the ATO says you have already paid $4286 in tax. How does that $4286 suddenly morph into something other than tax paid if your other income reduces to $20,000 a year?

    Try dealing in FACT instead of propaganda!

    Anyone who says it is not tax is LYING for political purposes. Those who know the history of franking credits know that it IS tax and ALWAYS WAS TAX, and Howard and Costello acknowledged that it was unfair to treat it otherwise and that it was harmful to the economy to obstruct lower income earners investing profitably in blue chip shares.

    Self-funded retirees are saving the nation around $50,000 (for a couple) by self-funding. What the hell are they supposed to live on if they can't invest profitably and they are being ripped off with unfair taxes? Labor is happy to give pensioners TRIPLE handouts, yet a retiree who is nowhere near as rich as thousands of part pensioners is to suffer for life because they bought a cheaper house and didn't put their hand out. And you call that fair?

    Yes, investing in the share market is investing, but vast numbers of retirees who do it are NOT INVESTORS. They are people who are struggling to find ways to survive retirement without the handouts other retirees receive. What the hell are these people supposed to live on? If they spend their savings, they might as well not have saved at all. Labor says it wants to save tax dollars. Labor created the means test to ostensibly save taxpayer dollars. Now it wants to force everyone onto the pension and into hardship with unfair taxation. It makes no sense. And it's a reflection of appalling greed that pensioners don't support a fair deal for people who are saving the nation money by not drawing a pension in retirement.

    But don't worry. Obviously you are okay and that's all that matters. Stuff everyone else. The concept of a fair go is history. Now it's 'I'm okay Jack and you can go to hell."

    There is no way any government will EVER be persuaded to do what's good for the nation because the populace refuse to stand up for what is right and demand that governments listen. They would rather abuse others for highlighting facts that don't fit with the lies their preferred pollies are telling. It sickens me that retirees are not prepared to stand together for a fair deal for all, but are so utterly selfish and self-absorbed that they are happy to see others suffering unfairness and cruelty. What a shameful indictment of our society!

    BTW. I note you didn't respond to the fact that Labor is relying on outdated data, nor to the fact - easily proved by anyone who cares to do minimal research - that Labor's policy will hurt very low income earners and poorer self-funded retirees most, and the rich not at all.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    8:10pm
    Farside, any claim that the deduction from dividends is not tax is absurd. It is required to be declared as income. It is taken from the dividend before the dividend is paid. It is sent to the ATO. How the hell is it anything other than tax? That's just the most absurd and idiotic LIE ever told.

    If you earn $50,000 a year and get $10,000 in share dividends with $4286 in franking credits, you are REQUIRED by law to declare an income of $14,286 from share investment, and the ATO says you have already paid $4286 in tax. How does that $4286 suddenly morph into something other than tax paid if your other income reduces to $20,000 a year?

    Try dealing in FACT instead of propaganda!

    Anyone who says it is not tax is LYING for political purposes. Those who know the history of franking credits know that it IS tax and ALWAYS WAS TAX, and Howard and Costello acknowledged that it was unfair to treat it otherwise and that it was harmful to the economy to obstruct lower income earners investing profitably in blue chip shares.

    Self-funded retirees are saving the nation around $50,000 (for a couple) by self-funding. What the hell are they supposed to live on if they can't invest profitably and they are being ripped off with unfair taxes? Labor is happy to give pensioners TRIPLE handouts, yet a retiree who is nowhere near as rich as thousands of part pensioners is to suffer for life because they bought a cheaper house and didn't put their hand out. And you call that fair?

    Yes, investing in the share market is investing, but vast numbers of retirees who do it are NOT INVESTORS. They are people who are struggling to find ways to survive retirement without the handouts other retirees receive. What the hell are these people supposed to live on? If they spend their savings, they might as well not have saved at all. Labor says it wants to save tax dollars. Labor created the means test to ostensibly save taxpayer dollars. Now it wants to force everyone onto the pension and into hardship with unfair taxation. It makes no sense. And it's a reflection of appalling greed that pensioners don't support a fair deal for people who are saving the nation money by not drawing a pension in retirement.

    But don't worry. Obviously you are okay and that's all that matters. Stuff everyone else. The concept of a fair go is history. Now it's 'I'm okay Jack and you can go to hell."

    There is no way any government will EVER be persuaded to do what's good for the nation because the populace refuse to stand up for what is right and demand that governments listen. They would rather abuse others for highlighting facts that don't fit with the lies their preferred pollies are telling. It sickens me that retirees are not prepared to stand together for a fair deal for all, but are so utterly selfish and self-absorbed that they are happy to see others suffering unfairness and cruelty. What a shameful indictment of our society!

    BTW. I note you didn't respond to the fact that Labor is relying on outdated data, nor to the fact - easily proved by anyone who cares to do minimal research - that Labor's policy will hurt very low income earners and poorer self-funded retirees most, and the rich not at all.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    9:46pm
    Farside, did you fail to notice that the grossly hypocritical Labor Party that is now planning to demolish the incomes of struggling self-funded retirees is the very same mob that PRETENDED to oppose the LNP's change to the assets test? They PRETENDED to want to defend some 350,000 retirees who suffered what THEY called 'unfair' reduction of their income - and now they want to take a further 30% of the income of the exact same people they claimed weren't left with enough. In fact, they want to now punish them for the rest of their lives for being victims of an attack by the LNP that Labor said was wrong. And you excuse that sort of hypocrisy? You believe the garbage people who can lie like that spit out?
    Farside
    2nd Apr 2019
    12:27am
    O&W, "If you earn $50,000 a year and get $10,000 in share dividends with $4286 in franking credits, you are REQUIRED by law to declare an income of $14,286 from share investment, and the ATO says you have already paid $4286 in tax. How does that $4286 suddenly morph into something other than tax paid if your other income reduces to $20,000 a year? "

    You misunderstand the franking credits. Before dividend imputation was introduced a company pays tax on its profits. Dividends from these profits were then taxed a second time in the hands of the shareholder at their marginal tax rate. Dividend imputation was introduced to avoid double taxation by giving a credit for income tax paid at the corporate level to tax-resident shareholders. The refunds to non tax-payers are paid for by current taxpayers and effectively result in those company profits not being taxed. The refunds were only afforded because of the resources boom, that is no longer the case, and winding this benefit back is a sensible thing to do.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    6:58am
    It's not me misunderstanding, Farside. It's the fools who say tax is only tax if it's taken from a richer person's income and poor people should forfeit their income with no recourse. The low income earners suffers the exact same reduction and it's paid to the exact same ATO. The only difference is that in the case of a retiree it is NECESSARY INCOME FOR SURVIVAL, whereas in the case of the allegedly 'double taxed', they have plenty of other resources to pay their bills. But it seems that is irrelevant to the greedy Labor votes who have ample other resources - courtesy of the folk they intend to steal from.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    7:08am
    And the resources boom had nothing to do with the recognition that it was economically sound to allow lower income earners access to the best and least risky investment opportunity available in Australia, because allowing them to build wealth reduced welfare costs and increased the tax take and living standards overall.

    The LNP recognized that GROWTH was good for the nation, and fair tax drives growth.

    If winding back is 'the sensible thing to do' because the cost has allegedly become excessive (and it hasn't, while ever the Labor Party can continue to give $30 billion to the 20% richest in superannuation tax concessions they have no need of) then why not wind back the concessions TO THE RICH instead of TO THE PEOPLE WHO DESPERATELY NEED THE INCOME AND WILL BECOME PENSIONERS OR CUT THEIR PRIVATE HEALTH TO KEEP PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE.

    Only a Communist attacks the poorer people and gives more to the rich.

    And the refunds to 'non-taxpayers' are paid for by 'taxpayers'!!! BS. The refunds of TAX PAID BY SHAREHOLDERS are paid for by the shareholder themselves. The tax never belonged to the government in the first place - any more than PAYE or PAYG tax taken from a low income earner belongs to the government. But in the case of retirees, the shareholder is being slugged THREE TIMES, and losing MORE THAN 100% OF THEIR INCOME TO THE TAXPAYER. First, they lose tens of thousands in pension because they tried to live independently by investing in shares. Second they are taxed unfairly at 30%. And thirdly they lose all the pensioner concessions. In my case, it adds up to 120% of my income going to the ATO.

    DO NOT accuse me of taking money from other taxpayers. And DO NOT pretend to be intelligent or ethical claiming this is 'as sensible thing to do'. It's as disgusting and vile as stealing my identity and withdrawing every cent I have ever saved. No, it's worse. Because it's done with a PRETENCE of decency and good intent.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    7:11am
    And you continue to ignore the question of why the Labor Party steadfastly refused to release data based on CURRENT FIGURES instead of obsolete 3-year-old data. But I'll tell you. Because the CURRENT DATA shows that the LNP has already substantially fixed the problem the Labor Party claims exists (though I think they could have gone further) and the Labor Party is basically REVERSING the LNP's reform TO GIVE MONEY BACK TO THE RICH AT THE EXPENSE OF BATTLERS.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    7:30am
    And one more thing, Farside. How can Labor afford to give yet more away in massive tax concessions to the high paid (which they will do if they increase the superannuation contribution to 12% - as they currently grant a tax rebate of 30c in the dollar to high income earners on every cent contributed to super AND on the investment income from those contributions) yet they can't afford - apparently - to let people who saved to enable the government to avoid pension costs enjoy a decent standard of living.'

    Transfer of wealth FROM BATTLERS TO THE RICH. Communism at its finest. And deception at its best. Clearly, a lot of fools are too dumb to see through their very obvious self-serving LIES.

    Take the super guarantee to 12% and the poorer workers and businesses suffer because somebody has to pay for that increase, yet the $30 billion cost to the taxpayer to subsidize the higher income earners goes to $40 billion, and continues to rise as the investment earnings of the high income earners increase from the added contributions.
    Blinky
    31st Mar 2019
    12:32pm
    This has already been mentioned before. It will only help people who end up w a super of $800k or more as they can then have their own pension n not rely on the Aussie pension. That would give them an income of some $50k p.a. To have such a big super balance, u would have to have a pretty big salary!
    Those who end up w a smaller super (yeah, u got it: Aussie battlers) will find that a super balance of, say $400k will be detrimental, or counter-productive as they will be over the skinny asset test n centrelink will help itself to $3 out of every $1k they have over the threshold which means they will get a smaller pension. If Labor really wants to help Aussie battlers, they should either exempt the first $100k in super from the asset test or,simply, raise the asset test by $100k.
    In sum, raising the super contribution will only help those who dont really need any help, it will not help those Aussie battlers who are usually those who support Labor, it's a real oxy-moron!!!
    Cowboy Jim
    31st Mar 2019
    12:59pm
    Blinky - your $3 out of every $1000 in assets mention made me pay next year's health insurance premium of $5378 in full and so I will get $15 extra in the fortnightly pension. All you guys on part pension should do something like that instead of complaining about the increase. The more you pay in advance the better off you are in the eyes of C/Link it seems. Pay the rates in full now as well as the body corp fees. Power bills are prepaid.
    Of course it only works for part pensioners, the others have nothing to worry about. Do your maths.
    GeorgeM
    31st Mar 2019
    9:20pm
    Smart approach, CJ - if you have already decided not to change your Fund for next year.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    7:28am
    "The others have nothing to worry about" Cowboy Jim. Really? You are deluded I'm afraid. Part pensioners are the ones with nothing to worry about. A secure income, concessions, scope to fiddle their budget for extra benefit, and no fear of Labor totally demolishing their income and forcing them to drain their hard-won savings prematurely, while lying to turn other Australians against them and accuse them of 'rorting'. And many part-pensioners are way, way richer than many of their self-funded counterparts. We have a STUPID system that punishes hard work and responsible living harshly. And one that loads the coffers of the very rich with massively expensive tax concessions that Labor refuses to even think about reducing - but they are very happy to attack battlers who are struggling to self-fund despite being a long way from wealthy.

    Watch what happens when hundreds of thousands more are forced onto age pensions by idiotic tax policies sold with horrendous lies. Pensioners, beware! They ARE coming for you next.
    Cowboy Jim
    1st Apr 2019
    8:58am
    OlderandWiser - you are right about some part pensioners being better off than SFRs. But then the writing was on the wall for years, more so after the GFC. I never aspired to be self funded. When I started work at 16 I was told that at 65 I would get a pension and I believed it then and in the country where I started it is still the case. Just because our government here changed its mind after signing an agreement with my old country to pay me a pension here did not alter my belief in my pension. In hindsight I should have kept on with my old country's pension scheme. Hindsight is of course 20-20 vision. I was dudded and there is nothing I can do apart from playing by the new rules. That said: I feel sorry for all these people having saved and scraped all their lives to have a better retirement and now finding themselves not much better off than the spendthrift and gambler. Voting in a new Govt in May will not change a thing.
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    10:39am
    No, Cowboy Jim, a new government won't fix things. But you can be confident a Labor government will make things much worse. Their policy on the environment will send electricity prices skyrocketing faster than they have been. Their tax policies will make renting much more costly. They will wipe out the retirement of over $380,000 self-funded and push them onto the OAP, and slash the spending power of another $880,000 - which of course will reduce growth, tax revenue and jobs.

    What irks me is that the solution to our problems is so simple. Stop giving over $28 billion in tax concessions on super to the 20% richest citizens! Take the LNP's efforts to tax retirement income a little further. Franking credit issues disappear automatically WITHOUT hurting battlers. Why doesn't Labor do it? Because they really want to transfer wealth TO THE RICH. They the rest of us to be equally poor and subservient, because that's how you get power.
    Adrianus
    1st Apr 2019
    1:07pm
    "Adrianus,
    So you think the LNP are the answer?"

    Paddo, that depends on the question. At the moment they are a huge improvement on the other mob from their last attempt. The waste and incompetence witnessed by us was mind boggling. If you want to see a repeat of that then all I can say is .. you must have amnesia lol!!
    Anonymous
    1st Apr 2019
    8:49pm
    I hate the LNP, Adrianus, but at least they've managed to get us back into surplus. Labor will destroy the economy. Rents will skyrocket. Electricity prices will rise much faster than ever before. Employment and tax revenues will fall as people are forced to withdraw from domestic investment and try to achieve a living income by investing abroad. The cost of the OAP and health will skyrocket as attacked retirees cut their private health and eventually resort to the aged pension because they simply cannot get by paying 30% tax on the meagre income their savings generate.

    A little over a year ago, I would have laughed if you'd said I would consider voting LNP, but they are clearly the lesser of two hideous evils now.
    Adrianus
    1st Apr 2019
    9:29pm
    The real problem Labor has is that they are never in charge. Their loyalties are steadfastly with the Greens and Unions. We come last. At the moment for me , its anyone but a Greens/ Unions/ Labor government.
    Adrianus
    1st Apr 2019
    9:29pm
    The real problem Labor has is that they are never in charge. Their loyalties are steadfastly with the Greens and Unions. We come last. At the moment for me , its anyone but a Greens/ Unions/ Labor government.

    2nd Apr 2019
    7:47am
    So the claimed (though probably non-existent) savings from robbing struggling self-funded retirees DOES NOT go to health and education at all. It goes to massively increased costs of providing tax benefits to high income earners who will now enjoy huge additional tax concessions on an extra 25% of super contributions.
    No wonder Labor isn't worried about reduced investment in Australian companies. The rich and privileged will have 25% more to pump into blue chips shares WITH FRANKING CREDITS ATTACHED TO DIVIDENDS, while poor struggling self-funded retirees are forced to drain their savings and resort to the OAP. And of course the struggling low-paid worker still gets bugger all tax concession on his extra 25% contribution.

    The party for the battlers? Labor voters are the most deluded fools on earth.

    2nd Apr 2019
    7:47am
    So the claimed (though probably non-existent) savings from robbing struggling self-funded retirees DOES NOT go to health and education at all. It goes to massively increased costs of providing tax benefits to high income earners who will now enjoy huge additional tax concessions on an extra 25% of super contributions.
    No wonder Labor isn't worried about reduced investment in Australian companies. The rich and privileged will have 25% more to pump into blue chips shares WITH FRANKING CREDITS ATTACHED TO DIVIDENDS, while poor struggling self-funded retirees are forced to drain their savings and resort to the OAP. And of course the struggling low-paid worker still gets bugger all tax concession on his extra 25% contribution.

    The party for the battlers? Labor voters are the most deluded fools on earth.
    Adrianus
    2nd Apr 2019
    9:02am
    In a Marxist utopia there are only two classes. The ruling class, which includes big business and elite public servants. The other class is of course us, the idiots who allowed this to happen.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    10:56am
    Exactly, Adrianus, and Labor supporters either are or will become that other class, as will the unfortunate helpless victims of Marxist policy.

    2nd Apr 2019
    11:06am
    Farside repeated a nonsense Labor claim in relation to franking credits, claiming people who earn taxable income apart from dividends would be taxed twice if they weren't allowed a credit, but those who have no other income pay no tax so should get nothing back. He justifies this argument by claiming the tax paid from dividends is paid by the company - not the individual.

    Okay, let's agree on that point. Then the tax SHOULD NOT be counted as part of the dividend for ANYONE and NOBODY should get either a refund OR a credit.

    The argument is totally illogical.

    X - earns $80,000 a year plus $10,000 in franked dividends ($4000 approx. franking credits)

    Y - earns $20,000 a year plus $10,000 franked dividends ($4000 approx. franking credits)

    Both are required to declare $14000 a year dividend income. That does not put Y into a tax-paying situation because he is a self-funded retiree.

    So what Labor and Farside are saying is that the $8000 was COMPANY TAX, not personal, so Y can't claim a refund.

    Then how can X claim to have paid $4000? $8000 went to the ATO. If it was company tax, then has nothing to do with either X or Y and neither should be required to declare it or pay tax on it. But equally neither should receive a credit for it. It simply doesn't exist. Both declare $10,000 dividend income and that's the end of it. X pays tax at his marginal rate on that $10,000.

    If the tax is added to the dividend as additional income - which Labor says it is and so does the ATO - then yes, X should get a credit for having paid $4000 tax and SO SHOULD Y. Either they BOTH were taxed, or neither was. You can't make the exact same income paid to the exact same tax office 'tax' in one situation and not in another. There is simply no logic to that idiotic argument.

    Now, if X is entitled to a tax credit to avoid paying tax twice, then why isn't Y equally entitled to a refund in consideration of the fact that that income has already been 'taxed' (by default) by it disqualifying him from tens of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded benefits that he would otherwise be entitled to. Clearly it's one rule for the favoured and another for those Labor despises. Nothing fair, equitable, logical or sensible about it, and certainly nothing economically beneficial - since it kills the spending power of poorer folk while over-feeding the wealthy.
    Farside
    2nd Apr 2019
    12:52pm
    O&W, ask your advisor to explain double taxation to you. Prior to introduction of dividend imputation there was no credit for the tax paid on company profits when distributed as dividends. A company would pay tax on profits and then distribute some of the remainder to shareholders, typically 50-60%, as dividends, which in turn would be taxed again at the shareholder's marginal rate i.e. taxed twice. In contrast a company could pay interest on bonds from pre-tax profits and that interest taxed in the hands of the investors i.e. only taxed once.

    This encouraged lazy capital management by companies. Debt was favoured over equity for capital management because personal tax rates were higher than company tax rates. This anomaly was an impediment to formation of equity in Australia, where equity was now taxed twice and debt only once.

    Dividend imputation gives the investor a credit for the tax paid by the company so the dividend is then taxed once at the investor's marginal rate.

    The taxpayer should not fund your investment choices.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-12/franking-credits-dividend-imputation-retirement-tax-explained/10799230
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    5:34pm
    Farside, I don't need anyone to explain taxation to me - particularly as it pertains to retirees, as I specialise in that area. I know how franking credits work. What I do struggle to understand is how some Australians can be so disgustingly selfish and support blatant unfairness. Taxpayer shouldn't fund my investment choices? Excuse me you abusive person. I AM FUNDING SOMEONE ELSE'S AGE PENSION - someone who has more income than I do.

    I paid tax all my life. My partner paid tax for 50 years. We now live on our savings - saving the government around $50K a year. And all I ask is FAIR taxation so that I can survive on the meagre income our life savings generate. You must be a very selfish and unreasonable person to support demolition of our income by unfair taxes that will put our annual contribution to the Treasury at well over 120% of our income.

    Don't you date accuse me of asking anyone to fund my 'investment choices'. I could be like hundreds of thousands of others and buy an expensive home and claim a pension. I could take an expensive cruise and claim a pension. I don't, out of respect for the mean, greedy, selfish folk like you who falsely accuse and support disgraceful abuse of people who are contributing far more to the nation than most working Australians.

    I'm guessing you don't hesitate to take tens of thousands a year in pension and concessions. Yet you are so selfish and nasty that you begrudge me a few thousand in refunds of tax that was TAKEN FROM MY DIVIDENDS, so that I can keep a roof over my head and food on the table in my winter years. Shame on you!
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    5:39pm
    And yes, dividend imputation gives the investor a credit so tax is paid at their marginal rate. My marginal rate is 0%, so I should pay no tax. But the tax IS taken from my dividend and is stated as income, and that income reduces my entitlements and is counted in all assessments of income - but under Short-on-brains rules I would be deprived of benefits because of having income I would never receive.

    I have said it before and I'll say it again - this is a transfer of wealth TO THE RICH, clearly aimed at funding increased tax concessions to high income earners and not 'health and education', because Shorten is promising to raise the superannuation levy to 12% which means high income earners will get a much higher tax reduction on their super. Those concessions already cost more than total cost of the aged pension - and 80% goes to the richest 20% of Australians. Yet you want struggling retirees robbed to give that 20% more.
    Anonymous
    2nd Apr 2019
    5:39pm
    And yes, dividend imputation gives the investor a credit so tax is paid at their marginal rate. My marginal rate is 0%, so I should pay no tax. But the tax IS taken from my dividend and is stated as income, and that income reduces my entitlements and is counted in all assessments of income - but under Short-on-brains rules I would be deprived of benefits because of having income I would never receive.

    I have said it before and I'll say it again - this is a transfer of wealth TO THE RICH, clearly aimed at funding increased tax concessions to high income earners and not 'health and education', because Shorten is promising to raise the superannuation levy to 12% which means high income earners will get a much higher tax reduction on their super. Those concessions already cost more than total cost of the aged pension - and 80% goes to the richest 20% of Australians. Yet you want struggling retirees robbed to give that 20% more.
    Farside
    3rd Apr 2019
    12:45pm
    O&W, the stream of invective in your comments does little to make your arguments any more persuasive - mean, greedy, selfish, unreasonable, falsely accuse, support disgraceful abuse, selfish and nasty ... well look in the mirror. And how this leads you to "guessing you don't hesitate to take tens of thousands a year in pension and concessions" is your own fiction.

    Company tax is not paid on your behalf and banging the caps lock and repeating your claims ad nauseum does not make it so. Refunding non-taxpayers for tax paid by a company on its profits is a boondoggle that should have been addressed long ago. HIstory will show this to be an act of ideological madness. Nobody would be complaining if the franking credit amendments had not been introduced in the first place.

    Your real gripe appears to be one of fairness based on the assumption if Labor wins and removes this perk then some investors will still be able to use their franking credits while non-taxpayers, like SFRs, might not. Would you be just as agitated if franking was further restricted so it could only be applied to income taxed at the highest marginal rate.

    If low-income SFRs need more cash then they can spend some of their savings, that's what the rest of us do rather than whinging and begging for handouts.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2019
    8:47pm
    Why bother to save to hand it all to the ATO to give to people who didn't, Farside? We saved to meet future expenses - not so we could gift it all to others. What is the point of sacrificing lifestyle to put an extra $300K aside for old age when not one cent of that benefits you and you would be better off with $300K less and a part pension? If all that extra $300K does is top up your income to where it would be if you didn't have it, what is the point. But that's the UTTER STUPIDITY of greedy and envious people. Just keep stealing and justifying the theft, because the truth is they are so green eyed their brain is addled.

    But you keep ripping off the taxpayer and lying about SFRs who are GIFTING to you greedy pensioners and making false accusations, Farside. You really are disgusting.

    No, I would not think it fair to end franking credits altogether. It would certainly be fairer to stop pensioners collecting them, since they are already getting huge benefits. SFRs DESERVE a little, as they have paid tax all their lives to be shat on by Labor and cursed by society as 'rorters'. What a disgusting thing for a would-be leader to do - to turn society against the people who are contributing most.

    SFRs are NOT begging for handouts. They worked hard, paid tax, are kicked in the teeth at every turn, and merely ask for FAIR TAXATION - i.e. no tax on income from dividends for people who are SUPPOSED TO BE TAX EXEMPT and who SHOULD BE supported and encouraged in the interests of REDUCING the overall burden on taxpayers. We pay tax on everything we buy. We paid tax on earnings that we saved from (I never got a cent of superannuation tax concession! Every cent I have was saved by personal sacrifice, from after tax income). And now we are not just shat on and robbed, but have to suffer Short-arsehole lying to turn our friends and neighbours against us - the very pensioner friends and neighbours who BENEFIT from the fact that we support ourselves and their taxpaying offspring who should be thanking us for not further burdening them.
    Anonymous
    3rd Apr 2019
    8:47pm
    Why bother to save to hand it all to the ATO to give to people who didn't, Farside? We saved to meet future expenses - not so we could gift it all to others. What is the point of sacrificing lifestyle to put an extra $300K aside for old age when not one cent of that benefits you and you would be better off with $300K less and a part pension? If all that extra $300K does is top up your income to where it would be if you didn't have it, what is the point. But that's the UTTER STUPIDITY of greedy and envious people. Just keep stealing and justifying the theft, because the truth is they are so green eyed their brain is addled.

    But you keep ripping off the taxpayer and lying about SFRs who are GIFTING to you greedy pensioners and making false accusations, Farside. You really are disgusting.

    No, I would not think it fair to end franking credits altogether. It would certainly be fairer to stop pensioners collecting them, since they are already getting huge benefits. SFRs DESERVE a little, as they have paid tax all their lives to be shat on by Labor and cursed by society as 'rorters'. What a disgusting thing for a would-be leader to do - to turn society against the people who are contributing most.

    SFRs are NOT begging for handouts. They worked hard, paid tax, are kicked in the teeth at every turn, and merely ask for FAIR TAXATION - i.e. no tax on income from dividends for people who are SUPPOSED TO BE TAX EXEMPT and who SHOULD BE supported and encouraged in the interests of REDUCING the overall burden on taxpayers. We pay tax on everything we buy. We paid tax on earnings that we saved from (I never got a cent of superannuation tax concession! Every cent I have was saved by personal sacrifice, from after tax income). And now we are not just shat on and robbed, but have to suffer Short-arsehole lying to turn our friends and neighbours against us - the very pensioner friends and neighbours who BENEFIT from the fact that we support ourselves and their taxpaying offspring who should be thanking us for not further burdening them.
    Farside
    3rd Apr 2019
    9:33pm
    O&W, "But you keep ripping off the taxpayer and lying about SFRs who are GIFTING to you greedy pensioners and making false accusations, Farside. You really are disgusting." ... and there you go again, says it all really.

    Your passion is admirable but along the way you have become the epitome of the disgruntled SFR. Your uncontrolled rants and tendency to blame others for your own particular self-righteous misery and choices does not make your argument persuasive. Superannuation was never going to be a panacea for low-income workers and others that wanted control of their savings. Like you, they made choices and saved and invested outside of superannuation according to the ever changing investment landscape. They saved for their futures then along the way life happens and do not complain when necessary to spend those savings.

    I do not for a moment think all SFRs are begging for handouts, most just get on with life, play the cards dealt them and do what they can to achieve a better hand next time round. A lifetime paying taxes does not make you deserving of special treatment, despite life obviously giving you more than your fair share of lemons.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2019
    9:12am
    And that, Farside, is my point. I am not asking for special treatment for anyone. I AM ASKING FOR SIMPLE FAIRNESS. Nothing more.

    If a high income earner is credited with the tax the company paid, then a low income earner should be also. Either it's company tax - and the dividend is totally separate and taxed accordingly - or the shareholders own the company and it's their income and tax. It should NOT be one way for some and one for the other.

    My concern is that it's bad for both the economy and society to discriminate against SFRs. Currently, an SFR loses $3 for every $1000 they have over the threshold. If they are just barely outside the pension limits, they will lose another $5000-$9000 if Labor has it's way. That means that a couple with just $430,000 each in savings loses $35916.40 as 'punishment' for having saved. They lose $2012.40 per year as penalty for having saved an extra $20,000.

    At very best, that couple might earn an extra $2,000 a year from that $20K, so they are worse off for having saved it even BEFORE Labor hits them. And if they were not part pensioners prior to the assets test change, they ALSO lose around $4000 a year in pensioner concessions.

    Under Labor's STUPID AND UNFAIR change, they would lose an average of $7012.40 per year for having saved an extra $20,000, PLUS if they live another 25 years, they will lose some $125,000 in today's money (probably a lot more with indexation)

    So for having saved $20,000 more than another couple - a couple whose home may well be worth hundreds of thousands more, so may be very much wealthier - they are punished with a hit of 6+ times that amount.

    The message is very clear. DO NOT SAVE FOR RETIREMENT. If you did, SPEND IT FAST. How does that make any sense at all? It's exactly the opposite of what governments have been saying for decades (and are still saying) is good for the nation. It's the opposite of what BOTH parties support encouraging via superannuation tax concessions.

    It's pure idiocy! And on top of losing a minimum of 6 -7 times their extra savings, they ALSO suffer socially because Labor is characterising them as 'selfish', 'greedy', 'rorters', 'taking tax payer money unfairly' etc. etc etc.

    How can you - or anyone with a brain - justify taking 6 -7 times someone's savings just because they saved a small amount over a magical threshold - a threshold that nobody knew would even exist at that level?

    Companies BELONG to the shareholders. They do not exist as a separate entity. If the company shareholder is tax exempt, then there should be no tax. If the company is to be regarded as a separate entity, then tax the company AND the shareholders. To discriminate against poorer shareholders (especially poorer shareholders who do not benefit from welfare income) is patently unfair and both socially and economically harmful.

    Under Labor, SFRs ARE receiving special treatment - special denigration and massive grossly unfair deprivation. They are already denigrated and deprived. Labor will make it 10,000 times worse.
    Farside
    4th Apr 2019
    2:58pm
    O&W, "Companies ... do not exist as a separate entity." This is the nub of your misunderstanding, they do. Shareholders are not held liable for the actions or obligations of companies. Good luck with trying to rewrite the Corporations Act.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2019
    10:08am
    Fine, Farside. I'll go with that view. If so, then company tax is separate from personal tax and NO franking credit should exist for anyone.

    My point is that discrimination is wrong. Let's see how good Labor's chances of election are if they are compelled to introduce a FAIR AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY policy. Vast numbers of disgustingly selfish and hypocritical Australians are more than happy to attack selected groups. They will vote for a policy AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HURT THEM. This has never been the Australian way, but this is what Labor and the Greens have created with their disgusting attack on people who work hard and live responsibly.

    From the Report on Inquiry into Franking Credits:

    "(Labor's policy does) not take account of the introduction of the transfer balance cap in the 2017/18 financial year that applied a 15 per cent tax rate on income earned on
    balances above $1.6 million. These funds will continue to enjoy the use of franking
    credits to fully offset their tax liability, while those under $1.6 million will not.

    Such inconsistency will apply an effective 30 per cent tax rate on the income of
    those with superannuation balances below $1.6 million, and a maximum 15 per
    cent on those above $1.6 million.

    Abolition of refundable franking credits is fundamentally regressive. Australia has
    a tax free threshold of $18,200 for workers, yet the abolition of refundable franking
    credits would apply an effective 30 per cent tax from the first dollar earned."

    TTHIS IS THE ISSUE. Labor is unfairly changing the entire tax system to make low income earners pay 30% tax from the first dollar earned, while high income earners pay 15% or the legislated marginal rate (which gives them a huge reduction over people paying 30% from the first dollar)

    It's DISCRIMINATION. It's PATENTLY UNFAIR. And it favours the WEALTHY - though Labor is lying to sell it, claiming it taxes the wealthy.

    And I'll say again - Labor is creating a situation where nobody who isn't very wealthy will want to retire self-funded. Pensioners are the 'new elite' and every low to middle class citizen will want to be an aged pensioner in retirement. That's NOT SENSIBLE ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT. It will destroy our economy and our society.

    Time for the Marxists to wake up to reality. People won't work and save to be robbed so that those who didn't can receive handouts. A robust welfare system is necessary - but it SHOULD NOT punish people for working and living responsibly. It should BE WELFARE - very modest support granted only to the GENUINELY NEEDY. Any other benefits should be EQUAL to ALL.

    Bring in a universal age pension on fair terms and self-funded retirees, I'm sure, would happily give up their franking credit refunds. They should NOT have to pay tax on their dividends while their children support people who may be far wealthier but receiving tax-free pensions. They should NOT have to sacrifice their modest lifestyle to fund a bonus of hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who were, at best, only a few dollars poorer - and more likely considerably better off.

    Supporting Labor's policy is PURE UNADULTERATED GREED AND SELSIFHNESS, discriminatory, unfair, and in opposition to everything this nation used to - and should still - stand for.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2019
    10:26am
    Farside, there was NEVER any "double-taxation'. Pre Keating 'reforms', company income was taxed once and shareholder income was taxed once. It was not 'double taxation' in the hands of wage earners. The individual only paid once.

    What Labor plans to do is make the individual exempt from paying if they are well off.

    But retirees have already been effectively 'taxed' by being denied a pension because they have income. So they are being taxed again - at exorbitant rates if they have to compensate for that income loss by investing in shares.

    Tell me why pensioners - who are often better off than SFRs - should get TRIPLE HANDOUTS while SFRs get absolutely nothing and are effectively taxed 30% on income generated from savings that have already been taxed - often quite heavily and often, for the current generation of retirees, with ZERO concessions applied?

    Tell me why someone who earns $18000 a year from wages, property, foreign investment, etc. should pay no tax but someone who earns $18000 a year from blue chip shares should pay 30% tax.

    Labor claims to be all about 'fairness', but it's patently UNFAIR to tax people higher because (a) they have LESS wealth; and (b) they didn't contrive to be part pensioners unnecessarily.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2019
    10:32am
    Keating said, of his policy, " it will improve the climate
    for productive investment and enhance economic growth for
    Australia; and it will provide increased incentives for all Australians to participate in the ownership of Australian companies by significantly reducing taxes on dividend income."

    BUT NO. Not ALL Australians. Only those privileged enough to have other taxable income. The policy made investment in blue chip VERY attractive for them, but it barred battlers.

    Labor plans to restore that elitist society - limiting the opportunity to access what is undoubtedly the most accessible, easy to understand and risk free investment opportunity in the country to the WEALTHY and those privileged enough to have significant other income and to the pensioner elite! It has given NO consideration to need or fairness. It is an elitist policy that everyone who claims to subscribe to the stated values of Labor and Greens should vehemently oppose, because it's a transfer of wealth TO THE WEALTHY and an unfair attack on honest battlers that will leave many in serious financial difficulty, cause stress-related illness, and force hundreds of thousands more onto pensions (but still suffering massive discrimination).
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2019
    10:35am
    And BTW. Labor FULLY SUPPORTED the Howard/Costello reform - acknowledging the Keating policy was inequitable and overtaxed low income earners.
    Karl Marx
    5th Apr 2019
    11:00am
    Blah blah blah blah blah, ramblings of one 1 person. never stops, poor me poor me. Diversify, get rid of anything that gives you FC. problem solved if this is your issue & don't whinge that you can't because of so called grandfathering which, by the way, is another piece of legislation that should be gotten rid of. You have control over your investments & if you don't then aren't you a silly sod.
    Election very very soon & out go your LNP buddies & your pay by the post income
    Farside
    5th Apr 2019
    1:00pm
    O&W,"there was NEVER any "double-taxation'. Pre Keating 'reforms', company income was taxed once and shareholder income was taxed once. It was not 'double taxation' in the hands of wage earners. The individual only paid once." ... once again you misunderstand the concept of double taxation and how this applies to franking credits.

    The company profit distributed as a dividend was taxed twice - first as company tax before distribution as dividend and then as personal tax when received as dividend. This was in contrast with debt interest which was only taxed when received by the investor/lender. Introduction of franking credits addressed this anomaly so that all elements of company capital management received the same tax treatment and so influenced companies to be more savvy about capital management. Perhaps talk to your advisor about investing in bonds and notes rather than franked shares and avoid the franking credit confusion altogether.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2019
    2:05pm
    Farside, advisers can't help. Bonds and notes pay much less than blue chip shares, and right now many blue chip shares are well down in value so selling means not only a massive cut in income but also a reduction in the capital balance, which further reduces income.

    The policy is WRONG. That's the bottom line, and you can't make it right with legalese arguments. It pulls the rug from under people who planned their retirement responsibly and are now struggling, due to low investment returns and a harsh pension means test. It looks after the privileged and bashes battlers. It's unfair and unAustralian, and nothing you can say justifies it.

    And only idiots (and possibly the unaffected rich) will support it, because intelligent Australians recognise that the middle and upper working class who have achieved retirement savings are folk who have 'been there and done that' and understand struggle and risk. They face worries that they might again have to rely on a pension. The rich don't have that worry. They don't NEED to care about battlers.

    Pensioners would be very smart to be concerned about attacks on lower income self-funded retirees and low income workers - because these are the people who care about battlers, understand struggle, and support being kinder to the needy.

    You would have to be thoroughly STUPID to think it will help the disadvantaged to create more disadvantaged and deprive battlers of any reward for their effort. Labor wants to gift hundreds of thousands to younger part-pensioner retirees who are well off, at the expense of workers and struggling SFRs who are nowhere near as well off. Naturally, this will turn the tide AGAINST pensioners - especially those who benefit from this unfairness. When the next attack comes, and it targets those who escaped hurt this time, do you seriously think those you wanted to suffer hurt will support demands for fairness to pensioners? Wake up to reality, Farside. Communism has failed everywhere it was tried. The rich don't give a hoot about the poor. Kill the middle class and marginally more successful working class and NOBODY WILL CARE
    Jezemeg8
    2nd Apr 2019
    10:13pm
    Super plan will increase pensions, hmmm. what about those who'd retired BEFORE universal superannuation came into effect and who now are reliant solely on the Centrelink Aged Pension. When Sir Robert Menzies first saw to it that the Aged Pension was established he organized that a percentage of our taxes went to fund the scheme and so provide a liveable aged pension. Well Mr Turnbull and his cohorts stole the money set aside for our pensions because "it was no longer required, we have Universal Super" Too bad that there are still many trying to survive on LESS than the minimum wage.

    5th Apr 2019
    11:05am
    A further comment on the impact of cancelling franking credit refunds on those who have saved for retirement:
    ACOSS supported Labor's policy, claiming (correctly) that taxable income is not a fair indication of wealth.
    ACOSS clains: "According to the PBO, a large share of the revenue that would be
    gained from this measure—the removal of imputation credit
    refunds—if it were implemented, would come from the top 20 per
    cent of SMSFs by assets which have balances of $1 million and
    above."

    WRONG actually. The figures show that less than 45% of Self-managed super funds that would be negatively affected have total balances of more than $1 million. That balance is typically shared between at least 2 and up to 4 members. Since the impact begins to reduce at a $1.6 mil individual balance and individuals with a balance over $2.4 mil are unlikely to suffer any loss at all, the major loss will be suffered by people with considerably less than $1 mil. and incomes in the range $0 to $35,000 per year.

    Why doesn't Labor address ACOSS's concerns by addressing the rorts used to declare minimal taxable income while enjoying a high income, instead of depriving 1 million battlers who RELY on dividend income to survive without a pension?

    Increasing superannuation contributions WILL NOT benefit workers if they then suffer massive deprivation in old age for having accrued extra superannuation. The system needs to ensure savings ARE A BENEFIT. If Labor continues on its path to make savings a disadvantage, what's the point of boosting the SG?