Winners and losers: who really gains from super changes?

Mr Morrison says super changes are vital for a sustainable super system.

In an effort to bring dissenting Coalition members back on-side, Treasurer Scott Morrison has released figures he believes will prove that the Budget 2016/17 super reforms would benefit millions of ordinary Australians.

According to Mr Morrison’s figures, only four per cent of Australia’s 16 million superannuants, or around 700,000 people, will be adversely affected by the $2.5 billion superannuation changes, with the nation’s richest retirees most likely to feel the pinch.

This information comes during the midst of a noticeable rift inside the Coalition, with tensions reaching tipping point during July’s Federal Election. Super tax increases are said to have caused turmoil within the Liberal Party’s own ranks, leading to MPs withdrawing their support at the polling booths due to the belief that over four per cent of Australia’s superannuants would be affected by the changes. Some members even quit the party in protest.

Members of the Government, including Mr Morrison, hope that the release of these figures exposes that dissenters are up in arms over the changes out of self-interest, rather than concern for the Australian populace.

Last week, Liberal backbenchers, including former prime minister Tony Abbott, put pressure on Mr Morrison to remove one of the changes, a planned $500,000 lifetime cap on non-concessional super contributions. The lifetime cap, one of the major focus points for the dissenting Coalition members, would affect fewer than 200,000 people – the majority of whom earn incomes within the top 10 per cent of the nation.

Mr Morrison is hopeful that once the internal politics have been settled, the proposed changes with Labor’s backing will pass as legislation – saving $2.5 billion over 10 years.

Claiming that the super changes are vital to fixing the Budget deficit and making the super system sustainable, Mr Morrison also insisted that they would deliver support to Australians living on lower incomes. Around 3.1 million people, including 1.9 million from the Government’s proposed low-income superannuation tax offset, are set to benefit.

“It’s important that we make changes to make it more sustainable so it’s there for future generations and is doing the job and the purpose it’s designed for,” Mr Morrison told Sydney radio yesterday.

The Government is supposedly intending to make public the new legislation, though the more controversial reforms are not expected to be made for some time yet.

Read more at The Australian

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    mogo51
    7th Sep 2016
    9:59am
    Believe it when I see it.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:00pm
    Yeah. It certainly came as no surprise that the lifetime cap, which affects the affluent top end, was not acceptable. Very hard to take the dummy away once the rich have been sucking on it for so long. I can see the threats of 'no election funding' being rolled out.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:39pm
    They only look after the top end.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    4:43pm
    Nothing is Scott-free.
    ray from Bondi
    7th Sep 2016
    10:12am
    I do not trust politicians and I DO NOT TRUST the Orwellian liberal party
    GeorgeM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:17pm
    Exactly, ray. In fact, I heard Morrison's recording being played by van Onselen on Sky last night when he said "...the $500,000 and $1.6Mil caps only affect around 100,000 people..." at which point the recording was quickly stopped and I can't find news outlets repeating that point. In other words, all this air time is over an issue affecting the rich end with no discussion about the disgusting Asset Test changes from Jan 2017 which as YLC reported "...the changes mean 91,000 Australians will lose their Age Pension entitlement altogether and about 235,000 will have their part Age Pensions reduced".

    All Politicians, Govt Bureaucrats, Judges should have their special Pension entitlements scrapped and should apply as everyone else.

    The best solution I can see is to scrap the current messy rules altogether for all, and simply give age Pensions to all who have paid taxes, say for 10 years, in Australia, and then make all pay taxes from a suitable level on all income. Not sure how, but a people movement is needed, as this issue affects not just current, but all future retirees.
    libsareliars
    7th Sep 2016
    1:23pm
    Agree entirely ray.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:40pm
    Too true Ray, they only look after the top end.
    4b2
    7th Sep 2016
    10:14am
    At last this government is moving back to the Superannuation model set up by Australia's best Treasurer Paul Keating. A good start now they need to remove the freeze on employer contributions.
    GeorgeM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:29pm
    Sorry, disagree, Paul Keating was the worst Treasurer in history as he created the massive recession in 1990 in Australia leading the rest of the world, thereby destroying the jobs and lives of 100s of thousand Aussies, and also allowed / encouraged disgusting Globalization / Outsourcing of jobs to low wage countries - destroying more jobs ever since.
    He also created the Superannuation system as a substitute system while he quietly shut down the original Pension Fund account which has always been funded by 7.5% of the taxes we all paid, as politicians of both sides had destroyed all savings which should have been set aside for pensions as a separate fund.
    Not Senile Yet!
    7th Sep 2016
    10:32am
    You cannot retain your credibility if you continue to give taxpayer dollars to the Wealthy 10% in the form of Tax Sudsidies and/or exclusions whilst claiming to be broke/in deficit.
    Any more than you can give Companies a tax cut whilst Attacking/cutting funding for Aged Pensioners....Education & Health.
    It is the actions of a Party that are HYPOCRITS!!!!!!!
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    12:57pm
    I agree with comments of both NSY and 4b2
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:01pm
    Yeah. Same deal with the tax cuts for the rich Turnbull just cannot let go.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:40pm
    Get rid of the top end I say.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:41pm
    Too true MICK, looking after the top end again.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:50pm
    OK get rid of the top end. So now we have no jobs and no economy.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    8:53pm
    Jobs would go on without the top end. Supply and demand. What would change is the unfair nature of the elites who seem to think it's all theirs.
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    7:14am
    Yes MICK the Capitalist myth has been a great excuse to skim off huge shares of profits for too long.Plutocracy doesn't work.

    Surprisingly employee-owner enterprises are profitable for the community and society. A great pity we have so few of them and there is no word to describe them.

    Mondragon in Spain is an example of this type of company.

    I believe Mr Turnbull has some knowledge and interest in this form of enterprise.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    10:45am
    I certainly don't like that lifetime cap of $500.000. If you can have $1.6 million in pension mode you need to be able to put $1.6 million into super.

    It also limits the amount of super you can wash so that if others inherit your super they don't have to pay lots of tax on it. People will be taking out their super themselves if they get ill to avoid this tax.
    BJ Moose
    7th Sep 2016
    11:06am
    Good point and makes sense but lets not hold our breath on that one...
    Fliss
    7th Sep 2016
    11:10am
    I don't agree with the lifetime cap of $500,000 either. And I find it hard to believe that it will affect fewer than 200,000 people. Many people invest in property for example & upon sale of that property would want to put non-concessional contributions of greater than $500,000 into their super.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    11:28am
    It won't effect me personally because I only hold about 10% of my wealth in super but it will have a big effect on those with most of their wealth in super. It is a timebomb for their heirs.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    11:37am
    The fact is that so far the only people in Australia to give up income for the sake of the deficit have been the defined benefit pensioners.

    Most of whom would have been lucky to have had $500 000 non concessional final lump sum and certainly no concessional amounts as they never got any tax rebates on contributions.

    I see tax concessions as a form of welfare for the wealthy that is no longer affordable.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    11:40am
    Sorry I forgot those now having to pay for tests like breast screens, pap tests, prostate tests etc that is now not claimable from medicare or private health insurers.

    Attacking the elderly, ill and public servants is typical but only when the top 4% look like having to spend some of their millions do the MPs start howling.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    11:51am
    We have had lots of tests and seen specialists but none have changed us anything as yet. So I don't know what people are on about having to pay for these tests. One of us has prostate cancer and the other one has breast cancer so it's lots of tests.
    Hawkeye
    7th Sep 2016
    12:26pm
    OG, if you don't like it, and Abbott doesn't like it, then that's proof enough for me that this lifetime cap is probably a good thing for the rest of us.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    12:34pm
    Hawkeye if you are on welfare then it won't be a problem to you. It only effects those of us who are not on welfare.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    12:41pm
    I paid $50 not claimable from medicare or my top cover health fund for the first time just recently.

    Expect some bills OG. It has only just started.

    In fact all should start saving for the new costs of medical tests if sensible.
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:00pm
    Yes Old Geezer it is a strange dichotomy to on the one had have a max limit of $1.6million but to restrict people to $500,000 contributions. Unfairly favours life time high income earners and discriminates against those who build up assets and can only make contributions later in life.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:03pm
    Good comment Rae. Indeed this government has made it clear since Abbott got into office that ordinary Australians were the targets to be gone after and nothing has changed since that time other than adding tax cuts for the rich onto that agenda. It is what it is.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    2:11pm
    Thanks MICK. It annoys me that the LNP deliberately targetted retired nurses, firefighters, police, teachers. All those who for decades served society, putting up with all sorts of nonsense and forgoing pay rises,forgoing tax concessions because of a promise that retirement would be comfortable.

    The LNP knew these people wouldn't complain or fuss too much. They never do.

    They are the real lifters that kept us safe, helped raise our kids and looked after us when we were ill or injured.

    They should all be on back bencher incomes except for that super promise.

    What happened here is also a warning about putting non concessional amounts into superannuation. The government has just decided that those amounts don't count anymore but they'll allow 10% or something. So if you had 38% non concessional suddenly it is only 10%. Makes no sense.

    Maybe Leon can explain it.

    I don't see how that could even be legal.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:15pm
    I just ask and if they want to charge me I say don't worry about it. I really can't see the benefit of any of these tests anyway so it doesn't matter to me if they get done or not.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:18pm
    I agree with the government with defined benefit pensions as they way they were was double dipping with some getting the OAP as well.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    6:24pm
    I agree with the government that there needs to be a limit on tax concessions for wealthy savers.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    10:16pm
    Don't forget the Diggers - don't forget the Diggers... I've been asked to help out at the Vets association and Sub-Branch, and let me tell you, I'm with Eddie Schultz (RIP) in saying that all damaged Veterans deserve TPI.
    Hawkeye
    8th Sep 2016
    1:27pm
    No OG, I'm not on welfare. I'm a self-funded retiree.
    It won't affect me because I'm not that rich (I'm actually one of the new-poor retiree class that this gov is attempting to create).
    You sound like you are the very epitome of those it should and will affect, and I'm very happy for you.

    However I think that this is just a bait to get the rest of the Liberal Nazi Party's super changes package through. It will be rescinded once that is done, and you rich wingers can once again wallow in your greed.
    Anonymous
    9th Sep 2016
    12:04pm
    Great, isn't it Hawkeye? So much upset over how the rich self-funded will be hurt by minor changes to an obscenely over-generous superannuation tax regime, but stuff the poor old battlers who struggled to get to almost self-funded status and were screwed first by falling returns and then by bastard politicians (supported and endorsed by greedy well-to-do mongrels who want to keep their handouts while denying the more needy and deserving)
    Baby Huey
    7th Sep 2016
    11:25am
    It is time the Government aka Mr Morrison stop the BS and put all their detailed super changes on the table so a proper discussion can take place and Parliament can debate and either pass with the inevitable amendments or reject outright.
    I find the retrospectivity clause especially unconscionable as it does not take into consideration extenuating circumstances. How about the older Australians who lost most or all their super through fund failures and or assets set aside for super through Constructive Defaults by the corrupt banks during and after the GFC, e.g. after 2007?
    Who is Morrison or the shiny backside "experts" at the Grattan Institute to act like BIG BROTHER in Orwell's 1984 to dictate to older Australians about how much they have to live on in retirement.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    11:31am
    Most people who lost money back in 2007 have themselves to blame and I think it is disgusting that they are trying to blame the banks for their greed in investing in such a way in the first place. Hello what happened to the old saying "if it is too good to be true it usually is". I know many people that did this and they have only themselves to blame.
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:05pm
    Old Geezer if you had money in a superannuation fund, as was compulsory for all workers/employees, in 2007 you would know that all funds lost very significant amounts of money, up to 30% of people's balances. It had absolutely nothing to do with personal decisions. Your posts make it appear that you are not retired have no experience of retirement or saving for retirement.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:07pm
    Baby Huey: you have a point and perhaps retrospectivity needs a bit of a tweek. On the plus side the system has been rorted by the top end of town for a long time so I do not feel sorry that they are being targeted now. Certainly an unusual move from a coalition government.
    As far as money lost during the GFC AUstralians had a drop in the value of their superannuation but this has now well and truly been recovered. I am not aware of any of our banks failing though and do not know which one you may be referring to.
    KSS
    7th Sep 2016
    1:19pm
    FM depending on the superfund, losses in 2007 have more or less been made back. It was only a 'loss' if you liquidated at the time, as it is with any investment: profit or loss on on realisation of the funds.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:23pm
    FM I have now been retired for about 25 years and yes I did have money in a super fund in 2007. I did lose a little but it was a small price to pay for the gains I got prior to and after 2007.

    Any losses in 2007 would already have been made back plus some. You only lost if you sold at the bottom of the market in 2007.

    1987 was much worse than 2007.
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    3:21pm
    Old G people who had just retired on defined benefit lump sums lost as much as 30% of their super. They did not have the big increases prior to 2007 and have had to live off the remaining lump sum since. The fact that balances have almost recovered after 10 years is not wonderful and people have had to draw down on their capital under super laws and to live in that time. The stock market is still below where it was in 2007. The crash affected many who had adequate amounts in super to support them when the market was going alright but not enough to buffer for market losses and low returns.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    4:14pm
    Defined benefit super is worked out on FAS and can be taken as a lump sum or in some cases taken as a pension. So if it is on FAS then it would have increased with salary increases. If taken as a lump sum then you can cash it out or roll it over into another super fund. So what you are saying that super fund lost 30%. Sure super funds went down but they should have more than recovered now. Yes the XJO market index is below 2007 but the accumulation index XJOA is well above it's level in 2007.

    http://markets.ft.com/data/indices/tearsheet/charts?s=XJOA:ASX

    That's why I have a SMSF. I can have enough cash to pay the drawdowns without it effecting my returns. That is I don't have to sell something to meet the drawdowns.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    5:03pm
    That top end of town has a lot to answer for MICK.
    Theo1943
    7th Sep 2016
    7:25pm
    Mick said
    As far as money lost during the GFC AUstralians

    I like your mistype Mick. You should drop the A, Ustralians sounds very inclusive. Love it. :-)
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    8:54pm
    Geeze cobbers, give an Aussie a break. Love yez all..............

    7th Sep 2016
    11:33am
    New day, same old crap. Another Joe Hockey.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:08pm
    Like life itself Eddie we are all on a cyclical treadmill. Methinks you need a drink and take the rest of the day off.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    1:31pm
    Yes, MICK, I find I am becoming more and more cynical with age, and there is STILL room for further expansion! I have never been one to not resist being trod on, by anyone, but this f__king government takes the bloody cake! We are constantly being shit upon from a great height by them as a result of their "fubaring" of financial policies and inept management of the countries budget. For THEIR mistakes WE, the taxpayers and retirees, are being penalised because they dropped the ball.
    You must have seen last night's news about the ISIS threats to Australia. What is the government doing about these people to protect it's residents? Letting more in AS residents! Sad, sooo SAD!
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    4:21pm
    Yes Fast Eddie
    Same managers running Joe Hockey and Morrison
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    8:56pm
    Join the club Eddie. With age often comes a better understanding of how the system works and who it benefits along with the realisation that things and systems are not random.
    retroy
    7th Sep 2016
    11:46am
    The mandatory 5% draw down for over 70s in a SMSF is stupid. People should be able to draw down what they want to provide their pension. Why the hell should a government tell people what is good for them.
    All those people on $1.6 M will have to draw down $80,000 PA which is far too much for most.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    11:53am
    I don't have a problem with the drawdown as my SMSF earns more than the drawdown and I just invest the drawdown elsewhere.
    retroy
    7th Sep 2016
    12:03pm
    You missed the point OG!
    Why should the GOVT interfere ?
    Let people decide them selves.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    12:08pm
    But you need to draw down your super as it is to be used in your retirement. It is a good idea that the government has set a minimum drawdown. No wonder the government is looking at the OAP asset test and super for extra funds to fix the budget. If people don't use them then they are fair game as far as the government is concerned.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    12:54pm
    They need to look at the superannuation tax concessions as well. These are far too generous. It is costing way too much.

    Investment returns should be taxed over the senior off set amount.

    Some people have millions in super earning lots of money as you say OG and all of it tax free.

    That isn't fair.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    1:04pm
    Agree retroy - bloody bunch of socialists.. nanny stating when and where they feel like it.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:11pm
    Respectfully guys superannuation will end up being 'the pension'. It'll happen slowly....and then one day the government will nationalise that huge pool of (superannuation) money, call it the new pension and tell people what they can and can't have. That is the danger in being in super.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    1:26pm
    Spot on, Mick - absolute control over as much as possible - the dream of all governments, all of whom have the view that things would be ever so much easier to run without those pesky people wanting things their way...

    Couldn't just be satisfied with a common pool drawn from taxation as they had in the past, or with a properly organised pension fund.
    Radish
    7th Sep 2016
    1:33pm
    I also dont have a problem with draw down and I do not have a problem with paying my way.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:27pm
    Yes Mick super will one day be nationalised. That's why I only have a small amount of my wealth in super. I tell my kids not to add to their super but invest elsewhere instead.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    9:08pm
    Zero is better.
    floss
    7th Sep 2016
    11:53am
    ALICE IN WONDERLAND IS A MUCH BETTER STORY.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    1:33pm
    Well, looney, this is tragic drama and no fiction.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:28pm
    I suppose Alice in Wonderland is just what those without super think it is.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:42pm
    Alice in the top end.
    Alexii
    7th Sep 2016
    11:56am
    I wish I had what would be a great sum of $1.5million in super. Instead with my much smaller assets I'll be getting a cut in my part pension from 1st Jan. Ah well, it'll make me feel good that I'm helping out the higher income earners who'll be getting a tax cut. Always wanted to be a philanthropist, and now I'll be one!
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    1:00pm
    Apparently world wide there is the largest transfer of wealth from the savers to the borrowers in history going on right now.

    Thank the economists that add up things they should be subtracting.

    Blind Freddy could see if they can't even keep a set of books straight there would be one hell of a mess eventually.

    pesky consequences.

    I also would like the problem of 1.6 mil concessional and 500 000 non concessional.

    I certainly wouldn't be bitching about paying a wee bit of tax.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:13pm
    That's what happens when interest rates are driven into negative territory Rae. And then see what happens when you walk into your bank and try to withdraw $10,000 in cash: I did this and had to endure a Spanish Inquisition just to get MY money out. Tell me that the system as we know it is not close to collapse. Cyprus here we come......
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    2:30pm
    It certainly is looking incredible volatile and frail.

    Neoliberalism like processes have never worked historically so why it was thought this time would be different evades me.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    2:43pm
    What do you know about Cyprus that we don't MICK?
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    6:45pm
    Check out the bail in laws fred.

    Then go get your $10 000 out like MICK did.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    8:40pm
    I have had no trouble getting a lot more than $10,000 cash out of the bank Mick. More questions get asked when I deposit money.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    9:10pm
    I am surprised given that wealthy Americans are reputed to have around $60 million IN CASH for what is coming. Governments are pretty frightened of anyone hoarding cash. Which bank?
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    9:18pm
    Mick the wealthy in Australia were hoarding cash for 2 or 3 years before the GFC so much so that the mint had to print a lot more notes to keep up with the demand. This was one of the reasons why Rudd panicked like he did.

    Here is an interesting article

    http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2016/02/19/great-100-note-disappearing-act/
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    7:32am
    Germany is advising citizens to store food, water and cash for a coming terrorist attack or catastrophe.

    The US has issued two warnings to do the same.

    With the increasing risk of a financial system liquidity crisis it seems wise.

    Concentrating the wealth in a few hands leads to speculation and eventual cash flow difficulties.

    This time is no different.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    12:56pm
    Statistics - the art of torturing figures until they yield up the required information....

    Now lemme read the article...
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:14pm
    Actually 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' - Benjamin Disraeli.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    8:30pm
    I blame the top end of town.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    1:01pm
    You really have to laugh:-

    "the nation’s richest retirees most likely to feel the pinch."

    Ye-usss, Lord - just gimme ONE day o' dat pinch dere... Ah goes to mah Maker wit' one biiig smile on mah face! What Ol' Rastus'd give fo' ONE day o dat O-ppression dere... gits me outta dis here cotton fiel', gits me that sweet job in da Big House, sit on dat front porch wit' a mint julip evr'a day an' watch dem fiel' hands hard at workin' dat cotton.. dat da life!

    Simple solution - pay everyone the Aged Pension at 65, and tax all income and deemed (fringe benefits) income over and above that according to the tax scales for income tax.
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:08pm
    Yes Trebor.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:15pm
    Come on TREBOR, the media needs to get people to feel sorry for the little dears somehow. Or is that the rich peppering us up to get what they want?
    FM
    7th Sep 2016
    1:20pm
    We have an Omnibus bill before Parliament at the moment that will in the future cut incomes for the most vulnerable such as aged pensioners, job seekers and youth, at the same time as we have a bill to reduce company taxes. So far the Labor Party has made no criticism of this bill. Mr Shorten is swanning around talking up a Banking Royal Commission that, while appropriate, in the long run will achieve little. Reminds me of the accusation perhaps falsely levelled against Nero: that he fiddled while Rome burned. Jacqui Lambie will oppose this bill but people also need to know where Pauline and other Senators stand. The Greens, the great self proclaimed champions of humanity, are also silent.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    1:28pm
    Not the thickness of a cigarette paper between Labor and Liberal on such issues. They're all too busy dealing with the big issues and dispensing billions of dollars to be overly concerned about the plight of the commoners out there.

    I believe they're ordering some cake from Paris... for the soup kitchens.
    Radish
    7th Sep 2016
    1:37pm
    Funny we never heard from those who are doing ok in retirement; the likes of the grey nomads, with their winnebagoes, expensive caravans and four wheel drives.

    Surely you must have seen them...plenty on TV at times showing them having a whale of a time tripping around Oz for the umpteenth time.

    Personally know many of them and they are on part pensions...not going without by the looks of it...and good on them...enjoy your money ...you are only here once and let the kids look after themselves.!
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    3:49pm
    MICK. it's the rich peppering us up, i.e. the top end.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    5:00pm
    TREBOR, let them eat cake!
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    8:53pm
    Bit misleading there FM. To cut something you have to take away something that is there to start with. The Omnibus Bill includes the dropping of the Gillard subsidy to cover her carbon tax costs. The subsidy will continue for existing pensioners but will not be paid to new pensioners. You don't miss what you never had.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    9:13pm
    Yeah Liberal Old Man. Let's bring the tax free threshhold back to $6,000 and let's increase taxes to undo the cuts we all got when the Carbon Tax came in. That was the lie of lies from Abbott and his coal buddies as they did the dirt and entrenched dirty energy as the monopolistic model we cannot seem to get rid of.
    Rosret
    7th Sep 2016
    1:11pm
    700,000 people is an awful lot of people. I would love to see the real stats. How many people are their with self funded super. A lot have retired on government super funds or company super funds set up decades ago. So how many are going to be affected immediately and how many in the years to come. The 200,000 who are affected by the $500K limit is a lot of people. It is so unfair when people who have chosen other reserves for their old age aren't having their money retrospectively taxed. Super isn't the government's pot of gold. It's money that has already been taxed. Surely there must be something in our constitution that prevents retrospective taxation.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    1:21pm
    There is a difference Rosret:
    With a normal investment you get to deduct interest (if you bought the asset with borrowed funds) against your income. If you bought the asset with cash then any earnings are added to your taxable income and you pay tax on those earning at the highest marginal rate.
    With superannuation you get to take money from your income and this money would have been taxed at your highest rate. Going into the super system you now only pay 15% as well as 15% on any fund earnings over the years.
    The issue with super is that it is an extremely generous scheme which is so much better than investing straight into other assets. What this government is trying to do, to its credit, is to claw back a little part of those over-generous tax avoiding deductions.
    There is a difference.
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    7:45am
    I disagree that it is "so much better" MICK.

    A nurse having paid quite large unit amounts of non concessional contributions, and they were all non concessional so the 15% tax never applied as tax was paid at the marginal rate, would have purchased 6 houses or 8 units with that money.

    The government fund turned it into less that $500 000 because of deals with the unions to suppress salary rises.

    That is why back benchers now earn twice as much as that nurse even though they were on par in 1970.

    In other words compulsory super kept public servants in line and controlled them until an over supply was available.

    Just buying one house in Sydney between 1970 and 2005 would have produced three times the final lump sum that the funds came up with.

    Even paying tax you would have been ahead but negative gearing would have helped considerably.
    KSS
    7th Sep 2016
    1:27pm
    Lets say just for a moment that Mr Morrison is correct in the numbers affected by the cap on lifetime concessional contributions. Could he now release another report telling us how many will be affected by the reduction of the $35000 to $25000 per year including employer contributions for those over 50? And a further report on how many will be affected by the proposed removal of TTR arrangements?

    As I have mentioned several times, I do both (salary sacrifice to the max and use TTR as part of my retirement plan) and I am NOT wealthy, I earn well below the national average wage, am single and almost 61. This change alone amounts to $60,000 less (not including the tax advantage and compound interest over the next 6 years). Perhaps Mr Morrison can explain how his proposals will not affect people like me who are making very significant sacrifices in order to not have to rely on the age pension in just a few years from now. BTW I have nothing like $500,000 (or $1.6m) in super.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    2:32pm
    To save $60,000 you need to meet a condition of release. However the other side of the equation is how much will you lose by doing this?
    KSS
    7th Sep 2016
    3:06pm
    Much like the constant fiddling with private health insurance encourages people to drop it and 'go public' so this constant fiddling with Super will encourage more people to withdraw contributions and 'hide it' instead.
    Anonymous
    9th Sep 2016
    12:01pm
    Yes, KSS, we are governed by short-sighted fools who can't see past the noses they have buried in the trough!

    Private health insurance is no longer viable for millions. Saving for retirement is now counter-productive unless you can accrue over $1.5 million before retiring. Super is becoming increasingly unattractive as a vehicle for saving.

    Keep fiddling, idiots. In case you haven't noticed, these changes aren't fixing anything. The economy Is going downhill fast and society is fragmenting. But until greed and selfishness ceases to be the driver of decisions, nothing will improve.
    Polly Esther
    7th Sep 2016
    1:36pm
    Oooh! and sigh, it's great 'Scott', aka 'Mighty Mouse'. Hark and listen carefully kiddies.
    Sorry, just trying to get 'bitchy' off my mind. I'll come good again, I hope.
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    3:48pm
    I blame the top end.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    6:00pm
    fred you did not ask labor mick if you could publish this, see earlier comment 3.49pm
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    8:23pm
    Why do you call him labor MICK, he is a very well off man, always skiing in Colorado or mooching around Europe on holiday, all labor people are poor by definition.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    8:48pm
    I don't know what you have against the Northern Territory fred but you keep telling us that you blame them for something. Then again, it's not the Red Centre so I suppose we've narrowed that down.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    10:20pm
    Well here it comes fred. I sort of knew you were a part of the Liberal Party tag team with our resident moron heemskerk. Or is that Frank? You can change the names Frank but your comments are as sick as normal. Sorry you are so jealous but you too can enjoy things if you could focus on organisation rather than political venom for your Party. They must be paying you a lot of money to produce the same nonsense you routinely come up with. I feel sorry for you.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    11:06pm
    Yes, himjerk is a very lost, lonely, and pathetic malcontent about everything.
    ex PS
    9th Sep 2016
    5:57pm
    fred I think you are confused,it is the working class who are supposed to be poor, and if it wasn't for Labor they probably would be. People are much better off all round because of work done by Unions.

    7th Sep 2016
    3:26pm
    I think I'll wait and see what the changes are and if Labor agrees with them. Not much point speculating on rumour and hearsay.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    4:22pm
    I agree. I think there will be a lot of changes before it is passed by parliament. The only problem is that all this uncertainty is effecting what is going into super at the present and some people are now questioning if it is actually worth the effort knowing that the government can change it especially retrospectively.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    5:45pm
    I don't know how many people would be waiting Old Geezer but my bet is that the number is very, very small with millions still going in every week from employers compulsory super. I think this will prove to be a nothing story when all is said and done. Isn't it supposed to affect only about 4% of superannuation depositors at worst?
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    6:59pm
    Yes I did a search today to see if I could find out how those defined benefit changes were going. Seeing they are the only changes so far.

    Not good.

    The new changes for the 2016/2017 budget don't seem very nice at all. Not as bad as 2015 but changing these locked in contracts at all makes them fragile.

    The actuary report on the wisdom of staying in them suggests there is a point where getting out is good.
    Anonymous
    7th Sep 2016
    7:51pm
    Sorry Rae, I'm confused by your comment. What do you mean by a "defined benefit"? Doesn't that apply to old government super schemes that, in a lot of cases, been phased out? Where does it fit with this topic?
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    8:29pm
    I blame the top end of town.
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    8:00am
    It fits Old Man because the old defined benefit schemes now have hundreds of thousands of public servants retiring who have been in them by compulsion up until 1985. A lot stayed in them. Many are still working.Still paying in considerable after tax contributions each fortnight.

    The government changed the non concessional amount in the budget of 2015 for these workers. They have attempted further changes in 2916.

    I'd be careful with non concessional amounts in your super. If a 46% non concessional amount can be changed by legislation to 10% then nobody is safe. Yes that is what happened.
    So far these retirees are the only ones to lose money, (part pensions) as a measure to fix the deficit.

    So these funds are still very relevant.

    Maybe it is time to get the rest of the population to wear some of the pain.

    Yes fred, that top end just aren't spending enough or sharing as they should. There is a cash flow problem. They have the cash and the government needs it.
    Nomad1946
    7th Sep 2016
    5:12pm
    Just wondering how many politicians are on immense superannuation plans to which few, if any, have made personal contributions. What is the annual cost to the Budget (taxpayer) and what would it be over the next five years?? How do politician superannuation plans compare to that of average Joe Public (the taxpayer)???
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    5:40pm
    A universe of difference.... they cop a nice sweetener for every dollar put in, it is indexed for life, and it is alleged to be a return for their sacrificing so much to enter 'public service', thus wasting opportunities to reap billions out there.

    It was always a source of pondering to me how a 'branch secretary' of a party or fellow flunkey was 'sacrificing' income etc to get elected into a nice little earner with all found and perks for life.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    5:44pm
    Pollies super is not welfare like the OAP. Their super is part of their salary package. If they didn't get super they would be paid heaps more. You can't compare the two at all as they are so very different.
    Rae
    7th Sep 2016
    7:02pm
    Superannuation tax concessions is very much like welfare. It is money from the taxpayer for nothing.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    7:06pm
    Rubbish super tax concessions are there so people will put money into super. What's the point of investing in super without tax concessions?
    Theo1943
    7th Sep 2016
    7:42pm
    Old Geezer, everybody's super is part of their salary package. When I started work in 1961 I was told that the old age pension was part of my taxation package. I was never told it was Welfare and it isn't. I've paid taxes for 50 years and I've damn well paid for my pension.
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    8:34pm
    That's strange as when I started work way back then too I was told that by the time I was old enough for the pension there would not be one as there were far too many people retiring and there simply would not be enough money to pay everyone. I too have paid taxes for over 50 years but as I was told way back then there is not an OAP available for me. So it is complete rubbish that people have worked hard and paid their taxes so deserve the OAP. So it isn't an entitlement as I don't get it even though I paid taxes for over 50 years so it can't be anything but welfare available to only those who are in danger of living in poverty in old age.

    Regarding super as being part of a person's salary. Most professionals do have super as part of their salary package. I did before I retired about 25 years ago now. It is the same as having a car as part of your salary package. Back in those days it was worth taking a salary package instead of just wages as you got much more for the same money. Charites and churches use salary packages for their employees now as they are exempt from lots of taxes and their employees get far for less money that it costs the charity or church.
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    10:23pm
    Geezer: "Pollies super is not welfare like the OAP"
    That sounds a bit like the argument that a personal contribution is different to a political party contribution. All semantics same as your comment suggests.
    Just because you have a parliamentary entitlement doesn't mean it is 'special'. In the end it is welfare.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    10:24pm
    Why would pollies be paid more without their lovely super fund? The current consensus seems to be that we are paying far too much to receive truck-loads of monkey manure....

    "Regarding super as being part of a person's salary. Most professionals do have super as part of their salary package. "

    Good-Oh! Fringe Benefits Tax....
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    8:14am
    Old Geezer the PAYG have to invest in super. They don't have a choice.It is compulsory.

    Only business owners, contractors and self employed have a choice.

    Tax is not the main concern in investment anyway. Not losing capital is.

    Changes to non concessional portions of super are worrying because of the increased risk to the capital and risk of double taxation down the track.

    As far as I'm concerned I am happy to pay a fair share of tax once but damned if I want to pay it a second time.

    You see they could levy tax on the concessional part of super using the excuse that concessions were given but the non concessional is a problem. I think that is why the changes to non concessional are being tested out now.

    I don't trust this government one little bit.
    Rodent
    7th Sep 2016
    5:39pm
    Dear Old Man, Old Geezer and others this may be helpful, with a link behind a link

    http://sjm.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/094-2016/
    Old Geezer
    7th Sep 2016
    5:47pm
    These changes are the better ones.

    Isn't Labor opposed to most of these?
    roy
    7th Sep 2016
    8:26pm
    Mr Bean AKA Dastyari has resigned from the front bench but is still enjoying his MP salary and all the benefits.
    TREBOR
    7th Sep 2016
    10:26pm
    Been panning Dastardly Sam on another forum....
    MICK
    7th Sep 2016
    10:27pm
    Thanks for the observation fred. You forgot to mention that Dastyari acted WITHIN THE RULES or does that not concern you when it is a Labor MP involved. I'm sure you would not be concerned if it was one of your own.
    The problem is the political donations system. It should be made illegal FROM ALL SOURCES and FOR ALL PARTIES. Agreed?
    Rae
    8th Sep 2016
    8:16am
    MICK it seems we have ended up with a whole raft of immoral but legal rules.

    When rules are corrupt they need revision. So yes I agree.
    roy
    8th Sep 2016
    2:25pm
    He's going to be known as Dim Sam Dastyari from now on and what do you mean MICK by one of your own, please explain and don't bring Hitler's name into it as you did recently.
    AlbertC
    8th Sep 2016
    8:21am
    why do you liberal suporters still follow a corupt party who pins the blame on the other parties whats next put shackels back on normal working people and gold necklaces around necks wake aus ./
    Gee Whiz
    8th Sep 2016
    12:13pm
    Seriously! How can anyone believe anything this drop-kick says.

    Apart from Joe (know nothing) Hockey, Morrison is the dumbest treasurer this country has ever had.

    It must a rub-off from his dumb-ass boss Malcolm Turnbull.
    chris
    8th Sep 2016
    3:14pm
    Pollies are concerned about their own back pocket here not mr. and mrs. pensioner. Money always has and always will grease wheels!
    Blossom
    28th Sep 2016
    9:03am
    For several years there has been little to encourage us to save.
    Seems I should have spend a lot of my money instead like many others did. Salaries are always paid into bank accounts now and attact interest. Taxed on wages and on the interest they earn. Prior to being able to salary sacrifice you paid normal tax on the money you put into Super too.