Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

sptrawler said:

I agree they will be squeezed, but I disagree with how it will be done, the trajectory of income tax and business tax is down, not up.
So how they get the money from the boomers without just taking it off them is limited, much more difficult to tell people work your ar$e off for a better retirement, then when they stop working take that retirement off them.
Much easier to say, you enjoy that retirement and we will take a piece of your estate when you pass away, to help cover the cost.
That is why the Government is starting to make reverse mortgages more attractive, they don't want people inheriting a house, they want people gagging for a job, so they don't have to keep importing labour.
Even the ACTU mentioned the re introduction of death duties, when Labor were floating all the super changes and franking credit changes, one thing for sure something is going to happen.

Click to expand...

Spending taxes most likely. They've been calling for a GST increase for years.

My, my. Are some going to be in for a surprise. Hope all their personal tax returns are up to date as well as being true and correct. Commences 1 November 2021.

"A director identification number (director ID) is a unique identifier you need to apply for once and will keep forever. It will help prevent the use of false or fraudulent director identities."


And not only covering Corporate Trustees but other companies such as those involving Testamentary Trusts, and the list goes on.

PS: The ATO will be taking over this role.

From today's AFR.

Challenger's chairman Jeremy Cooper says the $ 3.3 Trillion in superannuation is set to grow to $ 34 Trillion in 40 years....twice the size of the ASX.
By 2061 Australians' super would be a comparable size to Norway's sovereign wealth fund which at nearly 3 times the country's economy, is banned from further investing in the Scandinavian economy as it may risk overheating.

But also:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-managers-circle-retiring-boomers-190000418.html

Belli said:

My, my. Are some going to be in for a surprise. Hope all their personal tax returns are up to date as well as being true and correct. Commences 1 November 2021.

"A director identification number (director ID) is a unique identifier you need to apply for once and will keep forever. It will help prevent the use of false or fraudulent director identities."

About director ID | Australian Business Registry Services (ABRS)

A director identification number (director ID) is a unique identifier you will keep forever. It will help to prevent the use of false or fraudulent director identities.

www.abrs.gov.au

And not only covering Corporate Trustees but other companies such as those involving Testamentary Trusts, and the list goes on.

PS: The ATO will be taking over this role.

Click to expand...

And as usual, where the ATO is involved its a complex difficult pain in the arse project.
So to get a Director Identification number, firstly , you have to download an app.
I have no idea why it needs an Ap, I see no reason the application could not be made online as so many others are.
Unless of course its another way to track your every movement.
The reviews of the Android version are most unflattering.
A standard ATO balls up.
I think I will submit a paper version of the application and wait for them to screw that up as well.
Mick

It is highly likely myGovID will eventually replace myGov. See the hint in the reference to myGovID in this link.


Should that occur, people will have great difficulties (if not impossibilities) in accessing these services which will expand over time.

Belli said:

It is highly likely myGovID will eventually replace myGov. See the hint in the reference to myGovID in this link.



Should that occur, people will have great difficulties (if not impossibilities) in accessing these services which will expand over time.

Click to expand...

Services, a great con job like military intelligence or criminal Justice.
I never asked for, nor required, any of these so called services, they are impositions by the plutocrats.
Mick

qldfrog said:

But also:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-managers-circle-retiring-boomers-190000418.html

Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread we talked about the super ponzi scheme, where more are putting into super, than are taking out, when that point is reversed then we will really see how well your super is really going.
The super funds will be pushing for the re introduction of RBL's and min-max drawdowns, watch this space, that is why the percentage of your balance that is taxable and tax free is so critical IMO.

it is funny as australian super is actually checking all the boxes of a Ponzy scheme, just a bit of creative accounting with private assets valuation: a city office tower empty after covid but valued increased by RE index "Et voila"
We will soon see where are the emperors with no clothes

Despite market volatility, savers in for the long haul, allocated another $ 100 billion into the (now) $ 3.4 Trillion superannuation pot in the September 1/4, up 17 % over the year.
Local equities allocation of 21 % has not changed much over the past 6 years, but the international investment has gone up from 24 % of the total to 30 % now.
AustralianSuper had 1/3 rd of its assets, $ 80 Billion invested in better performing growth stocks off-shore. Over 10 years the average international equities super fund investment option delivered 11 % p.a. after all fees and taxes.
Industry super funds are now at almost $ 1 Trillion in the September 1/4, 23 % higher over the year.

Oh boy, it had to happen. Even with an election looming, calls to limit large super balances to just $ 5 million came last week from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and this week it's the turn of the peak lobby group for SMSF's.
Treasury figures show about 11,000 Australians would be affected, were the government ( Labor, maybe ? ) to wind back generous tax concessions.
Labor financial services spokesman, Steven Jones is keeping quiet ( so far ) but last election, his party proposed to raise $ 30+ Billion over a decade, by limiting contributions into superannuation.
Sooo...the writing looks to be on the wall, folks.
Still, $ 5 Mill will be alright.
Albo ?... mate, can that be five mill each ?

Like most politicians and public servants, there is no understanding how the rich work.
If they take away the generous super concessions, people will shift into other tax advantageous positions.
To get the 30+billion over a decade assumes that the wealthy will not change their behaviour, something that is fraught with danger.
Trouble is, they usually frame their budgets on the assumption that they will get the 30Bill and complain when the takings a re somewhat less.
Mick

dyna said:

Oh boy, it had to happen. Even with an election looming, calls to limit large super balances to just $ 5 million came last week from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and this week it's the turn of the peak lobby group for SMSF's.
Treasury figures show about 11,000 Australians would be affected, were the government ( Labor, maybe ? ) to wind back generous tax concessions.
Labor financial services spokesman, Steven Jones is keeping quiet ( so far ) but last election, his party proposed to raise $ 30+ Billion over a decade, by limiting contributions into superannuation.
Sooo...the writing looks to be on the wall, folks.
Still, $ 5 Mill will be alright.
Albo ?... mate, can that be five mill each ?

Click to expand...

$5 million ?? not for long ... inflation is coming ( and it isn't using a walking frame )

mullokintyre said:

Like most politicians and public servants, there is no understanding how the rich work.
If they take away the generous super concessions, people will shift into other tax advantageous positions.
To get the 30+billion over a decade assumes that the wealthy will not change their behaviour, something that is fraught with danger.
Trouble is, they usually frame their budgets on the assumption that they will get the 30Bill and complain when the takings a re somewhat less.
Mick

Click to expand...

OR the super-rich will slow down the earnings/spending

i once worked for a bloke that limited his income to $1 million ( after tax ) it paid his bills , put his children through Uni. ( without burdening them with HECS debt , bought a new car as needed

yes he was unusual in 1990 , but his wasn't secretive about the strategy ( the Japanese were desperate to loan him money to expand the business at the time, so he could go international ) , maybe that strategy was a little ahead of his time

dyna said:

Oh boy, it had to happen. Even with an election looming, calls to limit large super balances to just $ 5 million came last week from the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and this week it's the turn of the peak lobby group for SMSF's.
Treasury figures show about 11,000 Australians would be affected, were the government ( Labor, maybe ? ) to wind back generous tax concessions.
Labor financial services spokesman, Steven Jones is keeping quiet ( so far ) but last election, his party proposed to raise $ 30+ Billion over a decade, by limiting contributions into superannuation.
Sooo...the writing looks to be on the wall, folks.
Still, $ 5 Mill will be alright.
Albo ?... mate, can that be five mill each ?

Click to expand...

As it will be unindexed.. my bet, with a 15% inflation for a couple of years, your 5 millions or 3 millions with labour might not that big....

remember the subtle push to get retirees to get a reverse mortgage on their home , to fund the retirement spending , that could be a very slippery slope if interest rates were to rise , ( you can bet some taxes will increase as well , they won't just rely on indexation and bracket creep )

Had a long chat with an FP. Seems actuaries are having conniptions with the indexation matters involved with the balance cap.

It is due to there being no single cap which applies to all individuals. Every individual will have their own personal transfer balance cap, somewhere between $1.6 and $1.7m, depending on their circumstances.

Not a personal concern for me as it was set at $1.6m back in 2017 as I was already drawing a pension from the SMSF, although the $1.6m is now way higher as a result of investment returns.

Article on SMSF results.
From the article:

Self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) with balances of less than $200,000 and those with big cash allocations tend to underperform other DIY funds and large industry and retail super funds.

However, after DIY funds with less than $200,000 and those with big allocations to cash were removed, the typical return of the remaining SMSFs outperformed a typical large fund’s return in two of the three financial years.

Financial authorities, including the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, recommend that SMSFs should have a balance of at least $500,000 to have competitive returns.

However, the research found that the way the ATO calculates SMSF returns produces lower estimates than when the researchers applied the same methodology they apply to large super funds to the returns of DIY funds.

I wouldn't mind a dollar for the times this has been suggested in this thread. It still is a good read and makes a lot of sense.

From the article:
Australia’s refusal to implement such a scheme hampers retiree confidence to go out and spend, instead of hoarding cash and assets, says Mr Henschke.

“That’s the beauty of a properly designed universal pension. It takes away the year-on-year risk, but ensures it is fiscally sustainable and fair,” he said.

A universal basic income could, over time, also be good for the government’s bottom line, as it would eliminate the need for massive administration costs.

“It would get rid of the pension assets and income tests, doing away with the need for unfair taper rates, deeming rates and work restrictions, and end the need to engage with Centrelink,” Mr Henschke said in May last year.

“If everyone of pension age received a pension, retirees could just add this to their other income and pay tax. Means testing is costly to administer and leads to perverse outcomes, which are more apparent in the current crisis.
Compulsory superannuation acts like a tax and forces people to forgo current consumption, which is especially pernicious for lower-income earners.

Moreover, because superannuation balances at retirement depend on how long one works and how much they earn, the system inevitably misses lower income earners and those with broken work patterns like mothers.

Compulsory superannuation has also created a massive trough, worth some $30 billion a year, that has attracted snouts across the financial services industry like the big four banks. Australian management fees are among the highest in the world with Australian households spending twice as much each year on superannuation fees as they do on electricity.

Superannuation concessions already cost the federal budget around $43 billion a year and are very poorly targeted to high income earners, who receive the overwhelming majority of taxpayer assistance through the retirement system:

By extension, the massive costs and inefficiency surrounding compulsory superannuation means there are less funds available in the federal budget to lift the Aged Pension – Australia’s genuine retirement pillar.

Given the obscene cost, inefficiency and poor targeting of superannuation concessions, optimal public policy dictates unwinding these concessions and using the money saved to boost the Aged Pension.

Abolishing the compulsory superannuation system in favour of a universal aged pension has merit and should be given detailed consideration.

sptrawler said:

Australia’s refusal to implement such a scheme hampers retiree confidence to go out and spend, instead of hoarding cash and assets, says Mr Henschke.

Click to expand...

While Mr Henschke may have a point, he does seem to overlook the wish to leave a nest egg for their beneficiaries, hence the tendency to frugality by many retirees. A trait which has been ingrained for many centuries.

I've said it a few times here and in discussion with a number on the financial industry, having an pension based on the value of an asset which fluctuates from minute-to-minute let alone year-to-year was one of the dumbest concepts for a retirement income I could ever think of.

Anyway, what does he think is on the back burner by many industry funds at least? They have been slowly cooking that issue for a number of years. A few actuaries have been having some sleepless nights especially working within the transfer balance caps.

Now whether it could be implemented for an SMSF is an entirely different matter unless there is an approach of allowing via the Trust Deed the ability to purchase an annuity including where the provision of a reversionary pension benefit. However, would any of it be attractive given the rubbish conversion rate for the purchase of currently available annuities from a number of providers.

Some SMSF Trust Deeds already provide for a Reversionay pension but as usual it's only payable to someone classed as your death benefit dependant under superannuation law.

sptrawler said:

By extension, the massive costs and inefficiency surrounding compulsory superannuation means there are less funds available in the federal budget to lift the Aged Pension – Australia’s genuine retirement pillar.

Click to expand...

That'll be a goer politically for a section of the population. Just as much as Labor's previous election bid of doing away with the refund of excess franking credits. So ya propose to effectively close down SMSFs. See how well that would be as a conversation starter at the next SMSF dinner party gathering.

With removing all the concessions for superannuation can the good man explain what he expects what will happen with the present $3.4 trillion in superannuation? Just pay it out to the members? Industry funds will most certainly be eager for that to happen. And if it did happen can the author of the article ensure this:

• the wish to leave a nest egg for their beneficiaries, hence the tendency to frugality by many retirees. A trait which has been ingrained for many centuries;

will not apply?