How do we make Super fairer?

[So_Cynical]

and what is fair, what is fair for you isnt fair for me vice versa

That's a bit silly.

There is a concept of universal fairness, 6 people in a life boat and 3 bananas...please give us your spin on what's fair, im thinking half a banana for everyone.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Sorry I'm a worker.

What is stage 1 thinking?

gg

No answer.

Agree. But it would be very unreasonable to apply that to the portion of Super contributed by the individual.


Yep, goes to the fundamental concept of whether it actually makes sense to provide for one's own retirement.
We will, however, keep on wanting to be self funded in the knowledge that the government pension will become less and less adequate over time.

+1

I'm an existentialist, and would prefer the dosh to go to babies, pregnant girls, and partners.

Just my thoughts.

The elderly should provide for themselves, otherwise they become a chain around the necks of youth.

Look at Japan, a nation of old farts with zero growth.

We have lost this concept since Whitlam and his acolytes decided that social workers were more important in policy planning than workers.

Then maybe I'm a misogynist.

gg

Could you explain what you mean by stage 1 thinking?

Do you dispute the figures I've quoted?

Still no answer.

If there was no Govt subsidy for super I would agree with you.

But why do 12% of super account holders get 50% of the tax breaks?

If the policy is to maximise the number of people with reasonable savings for retirement, then I think it's logical to stop providing such a big subsidy to those who will have a reasonable retirement anyway.

Do you think it's an efficient use of public funds to provide someone on 500K annual salary (historically at least) 75% of the current pension to enoucrage them to save for their retirement. Where's the cost savings in that?

Yes.

Because they have supported people, who pay bugger all tax, in a lifestyle of sloth, with their taxes, over many years.

gg

 

[medicowallet]

That's a bit silly.

There is a concept of universal fairness, 6 people in a boat and 3 bananas...please give us your spin on what's fair, im thinking half a banana for everyone.

I fixed your quote by deleting "life"

That is a bit bloody harsh to the three who actually built the boat while the other 3 were canoodling in a cave nearby.

MW

 

[sydboy007]

No answer.



+1





Still no answer.



Yes.

Because they have supported people, who pay bugger all tax, in a lifestyle of sloth, with their taxes, over many years.

gg

So you're saying everyone who earns under 80K a year is slothful?

You're saying a partner in a marriage decides to work part-time so they spend more time with their children is slothful?

There are many reasons why people are not on high incomes, and from my experiences in life few of them are due to sloth.

The rich already get the lions share of capital gains tax relief, tax effective trusts.

I would say I have a higher average tax rate than most of them.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That's a bit silly.

There is a concept of universal fairness, 6 people in a life boat and 3 bananas...please give us your spin on what's fair, im thinking half a banana for everyone.

Typical socialist.

What about pairing off .

1 banana each for 3 couples.

Make bikinis and budgie smugglers out of the skins.

You socialists are so .... I won't say it.

That is why your ideology sucks.

Say 2 bastards don't want to row.

It is stuck.

Universal distribution is a way to degeneration.

gg

 

[sydboy007]

Typical socialist.

What about pairing off .

1 banana each for 3 couples.

Make bikinis and budgie smugglers out of the skins.

You socialists are so .... I won't say it.

That is why your ideology sucks.

Say 2 bastards don't want to row.

It is stuck.

Universal distribution is a way to degeneration.

gg

How about sticking to the topic rather than slinging insults at strangers.

Better yet, say high to Mrs Pailin next time you're having a Tea Party.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

How about sticking to the topic rather than slinging insults at strangers.

Better yet, say high to Mrs Pailin next time you're having a Tea Party.

Sad Syd.

Post the whole post and reply in context, and do not cherry pick.

It was on this thread.

I merely replied to it.

And.

I don't want what you are having at the moment.

We are enjoying a family re-union here and having a ball.

Bugger off you sad sack.

gg

 

[burglar]

Sad Syd.

...

gg

I believe the topic is super!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I believe the topic is super!

Agree , lets get back to it.

Some silly bastards just post stuff on threads and I reply and then I get done.

It's pure misogyny according to the Macquarie Dictionary and the PM's head honcho McTernan.

I'm a victim.

I'm being bullied.

It's worse than 50 shades of red.

Do you have the Workcover phone number by any chance?

gg

 

[Bill M]

At 40 I'm reluctant to lock my money away that long as it makes achieving my semi retirement goal by age 50 rather difficult.

Then don't put into it, make investments outside of it. That's what I have been doing the last 15 years. It is only now that I am selling off some assets and putting it into super, reason being it's close to cash in time and we both want to draw a pension. If I had to wait 20 years I wouldn't be loading my super right now either. The guarantee money you get is untouchable but everything else is entirely up to you.

 

[Julia]

How about sticking to the topic rather than slinging insults at strangers.

Better yet, say high to Mrs Pailin next time you're having a Tea Party.

Agree , lets get back to it.

Some silly bastards just post stuff on threads and I reply and then I get done.

It's pure misogyny according to the Macquarie Dictionary and the PM's head honcho McTernan.

I'm a victim.

I'm being bullied.

It's worse than 50 shades of red.

Do you have the Workcover phone number by any chance?

gg

You will, of course, now have to endure Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the unkindness shown to you on this forum.
In the meantime, I've at least had a laugh.

 

[drsmith]

Like much of our tax stystem, superannuation has become so complex that it is now severly compromised by conflicting interests. Governments either want to tax it more or abuse it through vote buying concessions. Fund managers just simply want to clip the ticket and for the vast majority of workers, it's just to complex.

I would like to see a back to basics approach. It obviously can't happen overnight, but as economic policy, it should be where we are aiming.

1) Abolish all superannuation tax concessions.
2) Provide a non means-tested basic government pension upon reaching retirement age. This retirement age should be flexible depending on overall population longevity and useful working life.

Depending on where the retirement age is set, the result would be a tax savings which could be passed on as lower marginal income tax rates. If people wish to retire early and/or supplement their pension income upon reaching retirement age, then they can provide for it through saving during their working life.

 

[banco]

Like much of our tax stystem, superannuation has become so complex that it is now severly compromised by conflicting interests. Governments either want to tax it more or abuse it through vote buying concessions. Fund managers just simply want to clip the ticket and for the vast majority of workers, it's just to complex.

I would like to see a back to basics approach. It obviously can't happen overnight, but as economic policy, it should be where we are aiming.

1) Abolish all superannuation tax concessions.
2) Provide a non means-tested basic government pension upon reaching retirement age. This retirement age should be flexible depending on overall population longevity and useful working life.

Depending on where the retirement age is set, the result would be a tax savings which could be passed on as lower marginal income tax rates. If people wish to retire early and/or supplement their pension income upon reaching retirement age, then they can provide for it through saving during their working life.

I think problem with 2) is if you don't means test it the amount of money you can provide as a result isn't enough for the seniors with nothing to live on while it's a nice bonus for the richer retirees.

 

[drsmith]

I think problem with 2) is if you don't means test it the amount of money you can provide as a result isn't enough for the seniors with nothing to live on while it's a nice bonus for the richer retirees.

2) is what provides the incentive to save during your working life to suppliment the basic pension as you are not hit with high EMTR's on other income in retirement that generally result from means tests.

In a broader context, neither measure cannot be looked at in isolation. They together would deliver post retirement income support system in a much simpler way. Aslo, by removing middlemen and crude political incentives, it would be much more efficient.

 

[Julia]

I think problem with 2) is if you don't means test it the amount of money you can provide as a result isn't enough for the seniors with nothing to live on while it's a nice bonus for the richer retirees.

New Zealand have a non-means tested age pension. But it's included in one's taxable income and there is no tax free threshold as there is here. It seems to work pretty well and has been thus for many years so I presume it's economically viable.

 

[Judd]

I've solved any angst over superannuation. I don't have any. All my investments are directly in the sharemarket, I don't give a rats about tax and I am close on a six figure income from dividends. Since I am now a single person without any dependents, I need no more.

 

[sydboy007]

I'm starting to think I should have made this thread title "How do we achieve the goal of retirement income with the greatest efficiency and lowest cost to Government revenue"

I suppose the term fairness can be misconstrued.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think we can agree that current superannuation policy was set up to help us all save for an adequate income in retirement.

I would argue we are now costing the budget more in tax foregone than the aged pension costs.

I would also argue that for the next 20-30 years the majority of people retiring will be receiving at least a part pension, and forecast indicate the number of true self funded retirees is only going to increase by a few percent at best.

So my question is how do we make the saving for retirement as efficient as possible ie the highest retirement income at the lowest possible price.

i would argue the current policy and system is certainly not cost effective, and is going to become a considerable burden to gen x and y as they are funding both the old and new systems with little of the benefits.

Lets not forget the financial industry itself is making close to $30 billion a year out of it - once again a figure pretty close to the current cost of the pension.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I'm starting to think I should have made this thread title "How do we achieve the goal of retirement income with the greatest efficiency and lowest cost to Government revenue"

I suppose the term fairness can be misconstrued.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think we can agree that current superannuation policy was set up to help us all save for an adequate income in retirement.

I would argue we are now costing the budget more in tax foregone than the aged pension costs.

I would also argue that for the next 20-30 years the majority of people retiring will be receiving at least a part pension, and forecast indicate the number of true self funded retirees is only going to increase by a few percent at best.

So my question is how do we make the saving for retirement as efficient as possible ie the highest retirement income at the lowest possible price.

i would argue the current policy and system is certainly not cost effective, and is going to become a considerable burden to gen x and y as they are funding both the old and new systems with little of the benefits.

Lets not forget the financial industry itself is making close to $30 billion a year out of it - once again a figure pretty close to the current cost of the pension.

Just post a new thread mate.

Fairer to me = sharing it with crusties and lazy bastards, and I'm buggered if I'll ever do that.

The day I have to share my super or a mini van on a guided trip to a shopping centre via a disabled parking spot with a bloody social worker is probably the day I'll take the Socratic option.

That to me would be hell.

gg

 

[sydboy007]

Just post a new thread mate.

Fairer to me = sharing it with crusties and lazy bastards, and I'm buggered if I'll ever do that.

The day I have to share my super or a mini van on a guided trip to a shopping centre via a disabled parking spot with a bloody social worker is probably the day I'll take the Socratic option.

That to me would be hell.

gg

I may end up doing that.

I will ask these questions though

If someone chooses to retire early - at 55 or 60 if you are entitled to - should they feel they can access the same level of pension as someone who works all the way through to 65 and has save a lot more?

If someone still has a mortgage and rather than taking a super pension uses their super to pay off the mortgage and then gets a full pension - is this fair on those who were more frugal and paid off the mortgage and use their super as a retirement income?

The present system allows people to build up massive wealth within super, while accumulating large private debts and then to turn what should be retirement income into a payment for those debts. These same people then feel entitled to a full or part pension. Why should I have to pay that for them?

For a smart person who wants to own their own property, it seems you can salary sacrifice the maximum into super, pay interest only on the home loan, and then use funds that have been significantly paid for by other tax payers who don't milk the system.

i see it as no different to someone loosing their job, selling all their shares and assets to pay off the mortgage then expect to get the dole because they have nothing else to provide and income.

I don't care if some people don't do this, others do. These kinds of loopholes in the system need to be closed. Rules are generally not for the honest, rather for the ones who wont play with a reasonable level of decency.

 

[FlyingFox]

Can't comment on the fairness.

The reason it may not change is that it is in the governments best interests to offer these concessions.

1) Since the higher income earners are significantly increasing their super balances, more money stays in Oz super funds that is invested back into oz stocks and bonds. This goes back to the reasons mentioned before why compulsory super was created in the first place.

2) The high income earners are also more likely to employ tax reduction strategies as mentioned earlier. Better to get at least 15% ....?

3) I guess most importantly, the money stays in OZ and is at least taxed at 15%. So easy to "invest" overseas and in tax havens.

So while you are right about the cost to the economy, the measured cost is relative to full tax received from this super. This will certainly not happen so it would be good to see how much the cost is when discounting for some of the above points.