# Employer Superannuation Contributions



## Duckman#72 (1 March 2006)

Hi All

When is a tax not a tax?

There is an article in todays Australian Financial Review which quotes Paul Keating as saying "the 9% (compulsory) superannuation contribution was never designed to be a tax. I should know as I was treasurer - it should not be considered a tax".

However Dick Warburton,  head of the current inquiry into tax, says "It is a tax impost on employers because they have to pay it. It is a complusory payment so therefore it does become a tax."

Isn't it wonderful how politicians like to view their time in the sun with rose coloured glasses. 

What do others think? Are complusory superannuation contributions a "tax" should they be in their own special category called "complusory government imposed payments"?  

Duckman


----------



## ghotib (1 March 2006)

Of course they're not a tax; they're part of the employees' pay. Might be an impost, but so is annual leave. 

Did you see Gittins' piece on the tax inquiry today? IMO this inane comment from Warburton confirms Gittins' opinion of that the inquiry is pure theatre. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Prospector (1 March 2006)

Yes, it isnt a tax but it is an additional expense that you have to consider when employing someone and it may be just the thing that stops you doing so.

As an employer I got irate the other day when I read that most people dont have enough super to fund their retirement so "of course we must make the employer contribute 16% instead of 9%".  :swear:  How can they blithely say the employer is responsible to fund the difference - how about cutting the Tax on super funds instead of making the employer pay once again.  Who would take on the risk of employing anyone!


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 March 2006)

I'm more worried about the ridiculous gap between wage rises and house price rises in recent years than Super. If the dire predictions of ongoing rampant house price inflation are correct then a major wages breakout is surely on the way. We're talking about a lot more than 9% to simply bring the balance back to the mean and this is a real threat to business IMO.

Boom and bust. We've just had the boom.


----------



## Duckman#72 (1 March 2006)

ghotib said:
			
		

> Of course they're not a tax; they're part of the employees' pay. Might be an impost, but so is annual leave.




I disagree. It may be semantics but it is a tax imposed on employers. The majority of employees may consider it part of their overall salary package but would not see it as their wages (which they see as disposable income).

I'll tell you why it's not an employees pay. Employees do not have access to this money until retirement (except for exceptional hardship). It has been designed to provide for an employees life after work - to ease social security burden. Get it - the government either increases taxes to cover pensions or they get employers to pay a "contribution" for the individuals. Either way the money gets to the retired employee from the employer. In other countries - their are taxes that are specifically allocated towards pension and social security payments - and this is exactly that.

You make the argument that it is the same as annual leave - no it isn't. Annual leave, sick leave and long service leave are all part of disposable salaries that may or may not be used for retirement purposes. The access to it is immediate.

I strongly agree with your comments Prospector. Rates going up to 16% - please!!!! How about they make the employee do some hard yards for a change. Make voluntary contributions more tax effective. The Government is raking in far too much to consider reducing the 15% tax rate so the best thing seems to be to make the employer contribute more. It does nothing to stimulate the job market.

Call it what you like - but it is a tax. 
Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (1 March 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I'm more worried about the ridiculous gap between wage rises and house price rises in recent years than Super. If the dire predictions of ongoing rampant house price inflation are correct then a major wages breakout is surely on the way. We're talking about a lot more than 9% to simply bring the balance back to the mean and this is a real threat to business IMO.
> 
> Boom and bust. We've just had the boom.




Yeah I know - we have spoken before about the problem of serious wage increases. Don't forget wages and super go hand in hand. An additional $5000 a year to an employee means almost $500 extra in super. This isn't always seen as part of the true cost of employment.


----------



## Goin' For Broke (1 March 2006)

Being self employed it irks me to no end why the govt will kick $1500 for every $1000 in extra contributions for employees, but not for the self employed! Why??? Small business is kicked in the guts again. Why do we take it? I don't employ people because of all the red tape and expense of super, work cover, long service etc etc. I don't get any of that. If I don't contribute to my own super then I have nothing, If I get sick and can't work I get nothing. Nobody is paying me while I'm on holidays. Sorry had to get that off my chest.
Cheers.


----------



## bvbfan (2 March 2006)

Self employed do get concessions for contributions to super on their own account and for spouse, I suggest you see a tax agent or financial planner who is able to advise you in more detail.
Maybe the tax office will be off help too


----------



## ghotib (2 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> I disagree. It may be semantics but it is a tax imposed on employers. The majority of employees may consider it part of their overall salary package but would not see it as their wages (which they see as disposable income).
> 
> I'll tell you why it's not an employees pay. Employees do not have access to this money until retirement (except for exceptional hardship). It has been designed to provide for an employees life after work - to ease social security burden. Get it - the government either increases taxes to cover pensions or they get employers to pay a "contribution" for the individuals. Either way the money gets to the retired employee from the employer. In other countries - their are taxes that are specifically allocated towards pension and social security payments - and this is exactly that.



I wish I'd read the article!! 

I agree with you about employee perceptions, but  I still think that compulsory contributions are not a tax because they're not government revenue and government can't spend them. The money doesn't go to government (except for unfunded public service funds, but that's another story); it goes to superannuation funds. From the government point of view, compulsory super is the same as private medical insurance. 


> You make the argument that it is the same as annual leave - no it isn't. Annual leave, sick leave and long service leave are all part of disposable salaries that may or may not be used for retirement purposes. The access to it is immediate.



I was thinking that annual leave etc. and compulsory super are alike from the employer's point of view: they're all part of the cost of an employee, even though they're not a tax as such. I think that's what Prospector was saying, but I don't know if it's the point Dick Warburton was making in the AFR article.


> I strongly agree with your comments Prospector. Rates going up to 16% - please!!!! How about they make the employee do some hard yards for a change. Make voluntary contributions more tax effective. The Government is raking in far too much to consider reducing the 15% tax rate so the best thing seems to be to make the employer contribute more. It does nothing to stimulate the job market.



FWIW I just saw Nick Minchin saying in the Senate that the super tax rate is part of the review. Not that I think the review is a real review, but I'd hate to think something couldn't be true just because a politician said it. 


> Call it what you like - but it is a tax.
> Duckman



Call it what you like - but it's not a tax 

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib (2 March 2006)

Goin' For Broke said:
			
		

> Being self employed it irks me to no end why the govt will kick $1500 for every $1000 in extra contributions for employees, but not for the self employed! Why??? Small business is kicked in the guts again. Why do we take it? I don't employ people because of all the red tape and expense of super, work cover, long service etc etc. I don't get any of that. If I don't contribute to my own super then I have nothing, If I get sick and can't work I get nothing. Nobody is paying me while I'm on holidays. Sorry had to get that off my chest.
> Cheers.



Have you read any of Robert Kiyosaki's books? He reckons that self-employment is the hardest possible way to generate an income for exactly the reasons you talk about. Self-employment on top of a strong investment portfolio is fantastic; self-employment to support a bank or two, a dependant or 4, and yourself was tougher than I cared to think about while I was in it.

Go good!!!

Ghoti


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

bvbfan said:
			
		

> Self employed do get concessions for contributions to super on their own account and for spouse, I suggest you see a tax agent or financial planner who is able to advise you in more detail.
> Maybe the tax office will be off help too




True. I believe every contribution you make comes off your taxable income, generally.

Not much good though if your working yourself into an early grave or have to work in retirement.


----------



## Prospector (2 March 2006)

Goin' For Broke said:
			
		

> Being self employed it irks me to no end why the govt will kick $1500 for every $1000 in extra contributions for employees, but not for the self employed! Why??? Small business is kicked in the guts again. Why do we take it? I don't employ people because of all the red tape and expense of super, work cover, long service etc etc. I don't get any of that. If I don't contribute to my own super then I have nothing, If I get sick and can't work I get nothing. Nobody is paying me while I'm on holidays. Sorry had to get that off my chest.
> Cheers.





Totally with you there Goin' for Broke!  We have an employee who gets paid more than we do, wants to monopolise all the admin support because she has PRIORITIES   and now wants to discuss a pay rise!  Talk about


----------



## Mumbank (2 March 2006)

I'm also self employed and battling to get ahead, although with kids it allows me flexibility of hours to run them around ad nauseum.

Apart from Compulsory Super, LSL etc etc making employers think twice about employing staff what about all the carry on about PAID maternity leave, PAID kids sick leave, and PAID child care!!!!!!!!!!!  For heaven's sake I'm not against women, or men for that matter, being able to take unpaid leave to have a child, but why oh why does anyone think they should be paid to stay at home and bring up their children.  Get a grip! soon young women will be totally unemployable unless they can produce a Dr's certificate saying they are sterile!!  

PS  I am a woman, I just don't believe in the welfare mentality of take, take, take.


----------



## Prospector (2 March 2006)

We are a small company - 2 personal assistants.  One is currently on maternity leave and we have hired someone who is very good on a 12 month contract to cover ML.  I know the girl on ML wants more than 1 child and wants another as soon as she can, which I suspect will be when her first child is 6 months old (15 month age gap).

This is the scenario we will be facing in a few months time - ML person returns to work after 12 months, and is already 3 months pregnant with the second.  She will then take another 12 months ML approx 4.5 months after she returns.  In the meantime we have had to let our contract person go because we cant afford to have 3 assistants (nor do we have the space), but in less than 5 months we will need her again.  But she will have picked up work elsewhere so we will have to go thru the recruitment and then training process with another contract person!  Only to have the cycle repeat itself!



We cannot afford all this - small business cannot afford this


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

Hate to say it, but women tend to rort the system in this respect, and you can't legally fire them.


----------



## Prospector (2 March 2006)

Ah, but you see it isnt considered as rorting the system, just obtaining their entitlements!  Which is true, but obviously no-one ever thought of how ML would operate in practice!  Or maybe they thought that people would only have 1 child  

Whatever, it sucks and like you say there is nothing anyone can do!


----------



## Rafa (2 March 2006)

i thought with the new IR changes, small businesses can now sack people, free of the burden of unfair dismissal claims...


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

bvbfan said:
			
		

> Self employed do get concessions for contributions to super on their own account and for spouse, I suggest you see a tax agent or financial planner who is able to advise you in more detail.
> Maybe the tax office will be off help too




Yes I think Goin for Broke's point may have been that while self employed people can in certain circumstances claim a tax deduction for their personal contributions they are not eligible for additional funding from the Government like the $1.50 per $1 deal for employees.  

Cheers 

Duckman


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

They are if they are sole traders.


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> They are if they are sole traders.




What do you mean Crackaton?


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

a business operating as sole trader gets the 1500$ if they contribute 1000$ and are within the limits for that supa contribution. So if you run a small business, say Dick Grass Lawn mowing, and make only say 35K for the year, and contribute 1000 to your supa government will chip in 1500 and your income is 34k. Pretty sure but check because I am no accoutant.


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> a business operating as sole trader gets the 1500$ if they contribute 1000$ and are within the limits for that supa contribution. So if you run a small business, say Dick Grass Lawn mowing, and make only say 35K for the year, and contribute 1000 to your supa government will chip in 1500 and your income is 34k. Pretty sure but check because I am no accoutant.




That is incorrect to my knowledge. If you are eligible to claim the super as a self employed person you are ineligible for the co-contribution regardless of income limits and whether you are operating as a sole trader. The only exception is if you had both a salary/wage job as well as your own business - there is potential for the claim inthat case.

And I agree with your earlier comments Crackaton and Prospector about the fairer sex rorting the system! And yes it does sux!


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

My understanding is you can. What I am talking about is putting supa into some industry fund, not your own. Correct me if I am wrong....


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> That is incorrect to my knowledge. If you are eligible to claim the super as a self employed person you are ineligible for the co-contribution regardless of income limits and whether you are operating as a sole trader. The only exception is if you had both a salary/wage job as well as your own business - there is potential for the claim inthat case.
> 
> And I agree with your earlier comments Crackaton and Prospector about the fairer sex rorting the system! And yes it does sux!




oops sorry did not read all your post. Yes what I meant was you have a part time job paying supa, and your own business. Even if the job is some sh!tkicker job but they put supa in, then you chip in 1K from your own pocket, it comes off your overall income, and you get 1.5K as bonus. 

Think I got it right that time.


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

ghotib said:
			
		

> I agree with you about employee perceptions, but  I still think that compulsory contributions are not a tax because they're not government revenue and government can't spend them. The money doesn't go to government (except for unfunded public service funds, but that's another story); it goes to superannuation funds. From the government point of view, compulsory super is the same as private medical insurance.




Interesting points of view Ghotib although I have to disagree. From the governments point of view compulsory super is not the same as private medical insurance.

Compulsory superannuation is exactly that - compulsory. Taxpayers can choose whether to be in private health cover. If they choose to be in it - they pay their fees and then they will pay exactly the same medicare levy as the next person who chooses not to be in private health. There is no difference whether you are in or out of the private health system - everyone pays the same rate. However, if you are over the income limits set by the ATO and you don't have private health cover - you are hit with a Medicare Levy "Surcharge". And what is a surcharge I hear you ask? That's right - another name for TAX!! So maybe I am agreeing with you Ghotib!!! 

Call it what you like but it is a tax. ha ha


----------



## Prospector (2 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Call it what you like but it is a tax. ha ha





And while the Govt doesnt directly receive monies paid into super, they still receive 15% on any profit; the same on any CGTax, and until recently tax from the high earner's surcharge.  And the only reason why the Govt has become proactive about super is because they can't afford to pay the high rate of pensions once us lot reach the retirement age.

So having said all that, actually, it IS A TAX!


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> And while the Govt doesnt directly receive monies paid into super, they still receive 15% on any profit; the same on any CGTax, and until recently tax from the high earner's surcharge.  And the only reason why the Govt has become proactive about super is because they can't afford to pay the high rate of pensions once us lot reach the retirement age.
> 
> So having said all that, actually, it IS A TAX!




You're right. Supa is dead money. Better places to put.


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> You're right. Supa is dead money. Better places to put.




Super does have advantages. For investments (except for borrowing money) why would you have equities invested outside a superannuation vehicle? The system could be redesigned but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Super does have advantages. For investments (except for borrowing money) why would you have equities invested outside a superannuation vehicle? The system could be redesigned but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## crackaton (2 March 2006)

I honestly can not see the system working much longer which is good. This country has well and truly met it's obligations and I believe it is time for everything to go quiet or reverse.

Well done to Packer and all his media  BS. You've totally enthralled the mindless majority.


----------



## Duckman#72 (2 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate?




Well for starters - let's say you were a taxpayer on 50K per year. 

Let's also say that you have $100,000 to invest and you think Westpac, RIO, Telstra and Woolies shares are a great investment opportunity over the next 5 years. It's much better to invest in the super fund. Income is taxed at 15% and capital gains at 10%.

The only disadvantage being you don't have access to the money and you cannot use as equity for borrowings.


----------



## Julia (2 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Well for starters - let's say you were a taxpayer on 50K per year.
> 
> Let's also say that you have $100,000 to invest and you think Westpac, RIO, Telstra and Woolies shares are a great investment opportunity over the next 5 years. It's much better to invest in the super fund. Income is taxed at 15% and capital gains at 10%.
> 
> The only disadvantage being you don't have access to the money and you cannot use as equity for borrowings.




Quite.  Where else can you only pay 15% tax on your investments?
However, I think for younger people it's a disadvantage to lock the funds away too soon.  When one is beginning to look at retirement on the horizon it makes a lot of sense.


Julia


----------



## anon (3 March 2006)

Regardless of what classification superannuation is placed in, it is a cost to the employer which has to be recouped if he is to stay in business. Thus, since neither the Treasury nor the Tax Office will refund that money, the employer has to pass this superannuation expense on to the consumers in form of higher costs. 

Great stuff if his goods/services are exported because consumers in some foreign country will pay. Most of the 
stuff, however, will be consumed locally - with the super component increased by overheads etc. And the GST on top of the lot.

Since every employer has to pay super, they are all on the same footing competition wise. Not so, however, if they have to compete against imported goods, especially from Asia, where there is no such stuff as super. 

The next increase in compulsory (to the employer) superannuation could result in some businesses becoming 
uncompetitive and having to shut up shop, or moving their businesses off-shore. Maybe the time has come for the next increase in super rate to be a compulsory contribution by the employee and not by the employer.

anon


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 March 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> Regardless of what classification superannuation is placed in, it is a cost to the employer which has to be recouped if he is to stay in business. Thus, since neither the Treasury nor the Tax Office will refund that money, the employer has to pass this superannuation expense on to the consumers in form of higher costs.




Thankyou for everyones contributions. 

The general consenus seems clear enough - employers/small business are sick of having costs forced upon them, that are eating away at margins and do nothing to encourage employment fo more staff. 

Duckman


----------



## crackaton (3 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Thankyou for everyones contributions.
> 
> The general consenus seems clear enough - employers/small business are sick of having costs forced upon them, that are eating away at margins and do nothing to encourage employment fo more staff.
> 
> Duckman




Sad really but that's the way things are headed.  Small business can not compete.


----------



## robert toms (3 March 2006)

Were not wage rises bargained away for superannuation contributions by the employer?


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 March 2006)

robert toms said:
			
		

> Were not wage rises bargained away for superannuation contributions by the employer?




How long ago were you referring Robert?


----------



## Goin' For Broke (3 March 2006)

I don't know about a sole trader, as my wife and I are operating as a partnership, but I am pretty sure my accountant is no fool and would have told me about any concessions. In anycase Duckman is right I am talking about the buck fifty for free the govt gives out to employees, who I just found out today have income limits to get the full benefit. 
ML is totally scary! I haven't even considered that one. As someone (was it Mumbank or something) mentioned above, I bet small business would really think twice about hiring women, just in case. That's just not right. 
I had an employee who I trained up in the business who up and left to start his very own business...in direct competition with me! Who saw that comming? All's good though, turned out he made way more working for me than running his own business and I eventually bought him out, just to get rid of him. I haven't hired anyone since. Yes I have read Robert Ky-what-his-name's book. And his second, and his third. I think I'm in Quadrant 2 from memory. It's all good on paper but abit harder in practice. It was a good book though eh. A pity I read it after I bought my first negatively geared property!


----------



## Odduna (4 March 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> However, if you are over the income limits set by the ATO and you don't have private health cover - you are hit with a Medicare Levy "Surcharge". And what is a surcharge I hear you ask? That's right - another name for TAX!! So maybe I am agreeing with you Ghotib!!!




Hmm, i thought the medicare levy and medicare levy surcharge rates and thresholds are set by the Medicare Act 1986, administered by the Health Insurance Commission.

The ATO is just the collection agency. 

Now for my general comment:

I see TAX as the cost of living in a society. 
If you don't like it, you have a choice - bugger off to a different country!

(hope i can say bugger)


----------



## crackaton (4 March 2006)

Yesthat's fine, when the tax is spent wisely, unlike the recent 400k pay out to Iranian illegals.

Or all the other stuff ups that seem to be the burden of the tax payer.


----------



## Duckman#72 (4 March 2006)

Odduna said:
			
		

> Hmm, i thought the medicare levy and medicare levy surcharge rates and thresholds are set by the Medicare Act 1986, administered by the Health Insurance Commission.
> 
> The ATO is just the collection agency.
> 
> ...




Yes - the ATO advise the of the limits and collect the tax. No arguments here.

As for your comments to bugger off to another country - thanks for contributing to the debate in such an intelligent and insightful way. 

Hmmm, i thought living in a democratic country we could discuss, debate and vote in and out of Office those policies that affect our taxes without having to leave the country. 

I don't think anybody on this thread is seriously suggesting that we can do without paying taxes - more like questioning the amount of tax people pay and the various "forms" and "disguises" it comes in (payroll, income, medicare levy/surcharge, fringe benefits,capital gains, GST, compulsory super(ha))


----------



## KaiserBun (4 March 2006)

I see a few small business owners on here are worried about ML.
Another headache maybe on its way. 

I've been told that a government department (mentioned within this thred) is currently in negotiations for a new EBA. 

It is expected that PAID adoption leave will be given for a 6 to 12 week period for employees. Reason: parents need time to bond with their adopted child! 

If this gets a hold within the public sector, it will force the private sector (inlcuing small businesses, to offer a similar scheme in order to attract the necessary staff. 

Whats the point of More Choices which is suppose to help us, when the government offers conditions that we know we will have to match in the end.


----------



## anon (5 March 2006)

robert toms said:
			
		

> Were not wage rises bargained away for superannuation contributions by the employer?




That was the case - some 15 years back, and the rate if I recall correctly was 4.5%. Now it is 9% and will go higher, and it is still a compulsory contribution by the employer only. 

Employment conditions are changing rapidly with a lot of manufacturing previously done here going to countries with cheaper labour costs. Add to it maintenance jobs (Qantas), IT jobs from a growing list of companies, Call Centres (I really object to getting frequent calls from India), etc.

We just got to get smarter, leaner and hungrier if we want to retain our prosperity. There has to be a rethink on the way we do things, something that the new IR laws have made a start on. Superannuation needs to be looked at as well. 

No, I am not an employer and have never been one.

Have a look at Europe. In France and Germany the older generations provided themselves with good pensions and retirement conditions which they refuse to change in order to meet the curent employment situation. The younger generation is faced with big unemployment. 

We got to be smarter than that.

anon


----------



## crackaton (5 March 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> That was the case - some 15 years back, and the rate if I recall correctly was 4.5%. Now it is 9% and will go higher, and it is still a compulsory contribution by the employer only.
> 
> Employment conditions are changing rapidly with a lot of manufacturing previously done here going to countries with cheaper labour costs. Add to it maintenance jobs (Qantas), IT jobs from a growing list of companies, Call Centres (I really object to getting frequent calls from India), etc.
> 
> ...




Outsourcing maybe wanning:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/01/magazines/business2/costofoutsourceing/index.htm


----------



## Prospector (5 March 2006)

KaiserBun said:
			
		

> I see a few small business owners on here are worried about ML.
> Another headache maybe on its way.
> 
> I've been told that a government department (mentioned within this thred) is currently in negotiations for a new EBA.
> ...




Well, as an adoptive parent, if birth parents are entitled to it, why not adoptive.


----------



## Prospector (5 March 2006)

Odduna said:
			
		

> Hmm, i thought the medicare levy and medicare levy surcharge rates and thresholds are set by the Medicare Act 1986, administered by the Health Insurance Commission.
> 
> The ATO is just the collection agency.
> 
> ...




I just cannot agree with that!!!  Did you know great reforms have resulted from people refusing to pay inequitous taxes - as well as Wars!  Like the American Revolution, the French Revolution to name a couple.  As a thinking society we should not put up taxes that are unfair or unjust, and not have to move countries!  Good grief. That is just stupid.


----------



## KaiserBun (6 March 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Well, as an adoptive parent, if birth parents are entitled to it, why not adoptive.




There is a major difference between the two. 

Paid ML was introduced for health reasons for the birth mother. 
Even now, most businesses do not give paid ML to fathers when their partner has their child. 

The paid adoption leave that a government body is looking at introducing is for bonding time between the child and the parent of between 6 to 12 weeks.

I do not believe business (especially small businesses) should have to pay for adoption leave. The government gives other sorts of finanical assistance such as the $3000 maternity allowance (soon to be $5000 and increased to $7000).

Please note: i am not trying to belittle what a great job adoptive parents do, however, i do not believe a business should pay.


----------



## Prospector (6 March 2006)

I don't think that anyone should receive paid leave for having a baby.  Why should small business have to pay for that!  If it is all about  health issues for the mother then that is what sick leave is for. 

But if paid ML is granted to birth parents (and the length of time of some payments is well beyond the recovery part anyway) then adoptive parents should be given the same respect financially.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 March 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> I don't think that anyone should receive paid leave for having a baby.  Why should small business have to pay for that!  If it is all about  health issues for the mother then that is what sick leave is for.




I agree Prospector. As with everything - people abuse the system and adopt the mentality of "going after everything they can get". I'm not saying couples are getting pregnant just to get the paid maternity leave but, like you, I am sick of being taken advantage of by employees who feel as if the employer is a golden goose - continually handing out money with no apparent correlation to how valuable or productive the employee is.

I believe in rewarding valuable employees and being fair. But to steal a famous line from John Howard and turn it into a mantra for employers.....
........"We will decide who will be paid maternity leave, bonuses and above award wages and the circumstances in which they are paid". 

(My apologies to any boat people posting)


----------



## anon (7 March 2006)

KaiserBun said:
			
		

> There is a major difference between the two.
> 
> Paid ML was introduced for health reasons for the birth mother.
> Even now, most businesses do not give paid ML to fathers when their partner has their child.
> ...





This hits the nail on the head. If ML is given for health reasons - then Medicare should pay for it. 

Poor old Kim Beazley is being accused of being policy free. A good cause for him to take up would be to have the  Government meet all the Maternity Leave and the Paternity Leave payments. A better policy than the one they ran with in the last election - that of paying all medical expenses for people over age 75.

A couple of years back I met a man who was a committed social worker with  young people. In his opinion the $3,000 maternity payment that was announced at the time would attract many single young girls to have babies.

anon


----------



## grumpee boi (7 March 2006)

With respect to claiming deductions as a sole trader having part time employment there is what is known as the 10% rule for unsupported or substantially self-employed people:

To qualify as substantially self-employed, assessable and exempt income from elgible employment (plus ‘reportable fringe benefits) must be less than 10% of total assessable income (plus reportable fringe benefits). To qualify as unsupported, a person must not be elgible to receive any employer superannuatiun support in the financial year the deduction is claimed. An unsupported person may include a spouse receiving only spouse contributions.

If you meet that definition then you can claim a deduction on the first $5,000 plus 75% of the remainder up to certain limits.  So to claim the govt. co-contribution you must fail this test.  There are ways to deliberately fail it for those that are borderline.

In general I think that the super system is pretty good but a reduction in contribution taxes is needed.  And as someone said earlier it is not that effective for younger people to lock away access to money (by contributing over and above what their employers do).  I do think that it can be a burden on small business but if you factor it in to a salary then at least it becomes part of the package.

Regarding small business in general, I think that this government is happy to appease big business (who can absorb the hidden and not so hidden costs of their policies) at the expense of smaller business.  This in itself is a real shame because it is from small business which big business grows.

To force small business owners to offer paid maternity in any form or concept is absolutely disgusting. It is a cost that cannot and should not be borne by the section of the community that can least afford to.

Adam


----------



## Julia (7 March 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> This hits the nail on the head. If ML is given for health reasons - then Medicare should pay for it.
> 
> Poor old Kim Beazley is being accused of being policy free. A good cause for him to take up would be to have the  Government meet all the Maternity Leave and the Paternity Leave payments. A better policy than the one they ran with in the last election - that of paying all medical expenses for people over age 75.
> 
> ...




Does anyone remember being read fairy stories when a child?

There was one which started:  "Once upon a time, long, long ago, couples only decided to have a baby when they could afford to look after the child,all by themselves, without outside help other than family members doing some babysitting."

Julia


----------



## Prospector (8 March 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Does anyone remember being read fairy stories when a child?
> 
> There was one which started:  "Once upon a time, long, long ago, couples only decided to have a baby when they could afford to look after the child,all by themselves, without outside help other than family members doing some babysitting."
> 
> Julia




Oh yeah, I am with you there!  I guess the big question there is have we (partner and I) been lucky enough NOT to have any government assistance whatsoever (no baby bonus, family payments - dont even know what they are called!) even when mortgage interest rates were 17%

or have we simply been wise in the way we manage our finances, which also includes only having two children because we knew that we could only afford to properly raise 2 (both time resources and money) even though we would have liked more

I was listening to the radio the other day and this woman was winging because she had five children aged 5 to 15 years and they liked to play sport on Saturday mornings.  Well, there were only 2 parents (duh!) and so not all the kids could play sport because the parents couldnt be in five places at the same time.  She was winging because the school (the Govt I guess) wouldnt provide the transport to get her kids to sport.   :swear:  :swear:   Isnt that called planning ahead!

Have I got off topic here?  I cant remember what it was    sorry, but maybe it is all part of the same issue!


----------



## Julia (8 March 2006)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, I am with you there!  I guess the big question there is have we (partner and I) been lucky enough NOT to have any government assistance whatsoever (no baby bonus, family payments - dont even know what they are called!) even when mortgage interest rates were 17%
> 
> or have we simply been wise in the way we manage our finances, which also includes only having two children because we knew that we could only afford to properly raise 2 (both time resources and money) even though we would have liked more
> 
> ...




You raise a point which often causes me irritation:  i.e. "being lucky" .
This really annoys me.  What did luck have to do with it?  You have planned carefully, been thoughtful about the choices you've made, and ensured those choices have been within your financial resources.

When people say to me how lucky I am to have what I have, I try to just let it go, but sometimes can't help myself pointing out that the assets I presently enjoy are the result of careful investment, a lot of hard work, and considerable sacrifice in the early stages.

Re the baby bonus - soon to be $7000 - for the most part the type of person who will respond to this bribe does not have the best genes to make a positive contribution to the gene pool and the progeny often continues in the cycle of welfare dependency.  

Julia


----------



## basilio (20 June 2021)

*With regard to employer super payments  to employees.*

I'm hearing from some friends that the nominal super payments they are supposed to be getting just aren't actually  reaching their super accounts. This is now over a matter for 5 months and more. The pay slip notes the amount of super .. but it hasn't been paid.

On checking on the net it seems millions of employees are in similar situations.  What is the experience of others on ASF ?  As an employer, employee or just interested onlooker.









						Unpaid superannuation: tax office should better police employers – Senate report
					

Committee finds ATO should have more power, and workers recourse to sue employers for failing to pay super entitlements




					www.theguardian.com
				












						How much unpaid super is really out there? | INTHEBLACK
					

An estimated $2.3 billion in superannuation is tangled and unpaid in the Australian system. Here’s how to keep track of your crucial lifelong investment.




					www.intheblack.com


----------



## Gunnerguy (20 June 2021)

basilio said:


> *With regard to employer super payments  to employees.*
> 
> I'm hearing from some friends that the nominal super payments they are supposed to be getting just aren't actually  reaching their super accounts. This is now over a matter for 5 months and more. The pay slip notes the amount of super .. but it hasn't been paid.
> 
> ...



I believe ones employer doesn’t have to pay your super in to your super account immediately. But I believe they have to do it within 12 weeks.
Gunnerguy


----------



## Dona Ferentes (20 June 2021)

Super payment due dates
					

Employers must pay super for eligible employees to avoid the super guarantee charge. See the listed quarterly super payment due dates.




					www.ato.gov.au
				




You must pay super for eligible employees to avoid the super guarantee charge. Payments can be made at least 4 times a year. This applies from the day employees start working for you. Payment due dates occur quarterly.

Quarterly super payment due dates

QuarterPeriodPayment due date11 July – 30 September28 October21 October – 31 December28 January31 January – 31 March28 April41 April – 30 June28 July

When a super due date falls on a weekend or public holiday, you can make the payment on the next business day.

You can also make payments more frequently than quarterly, for example fortnightly or monthly. If you do, ensure you pay your total super guarantee (SG) contribution for the quarter by the due date.


----------



## basilio (20 June 2021)

I did check out the administrative timetable as noted.  However in my friends case the quarterly payment deadline is well overdue. The company has already missed a couple of wage payments to staff so I don't think they are that financially flush. The owner also has  form with company fraud  some years ago...

I was also interested in other experiences around this issue.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (20 June 2021)

yes, but how does my friends case, my friend's case (?) morph into


> _On checking on the net it seems millions of employees are in similar situations._


----------



## Belli (21 June 2021)

Single Touch Payroll
					

Learn about Single Touch Payroll (STP) and how it changes the way employers report their employees' tax and super information to the ATO.




					www.ato.gov.au
				




Even small business are supposed to be using this which also has the ability to track superannuation payments. 

"With STP, you report employees' payroll information to us each time you pay them through STP-enabled software. Payroll information includes:

salaries and wages
pay as you go (PAYG) withholding
superannuation.
STP started on 1 July 2018 for employers with 20 or more employees and 1 July 2019 for employers with 19 or fewer employees and is a mandatory obligation."

Not working as well as expected?


----------



## qldfrog (21 June 2021)

Belli said:


> Single Touch Payroll
> 
> 
> Learn about Single Touch Payroll (STP) and how it changes the way employers report their employees' tax and super information to the ATO.
> ...



Another level of red tape where the employer has to do the gov job.
The last straw which see me close my business in the coming year
Instead of paying super, you now have to pay super then record it to the ato via an it platform..so here goes another set of hundreds of bucks in smoke


----------

