This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

Firstly, I personally think that Labors suggested cap on super is brilliant, but I doubt they actually will push it through, mainly because how will the industry funds keep the ponzi going when there is a cap on how much members can have in it.
but would they also apply it to politicians and senior government officials and their generous retirement fund
 
but would they also apply it to politicians and senior government officials and their generous retirement fund
I doubt it, the same as when the super surcharge was enacted, politicians, high court judges and those in senior management roles were exempt. ? ? ?

IMO politicians and their cheer squads, work on the principal of do as we say, not as we do.

What is the superannuation contributions surcharge? The superannuation contributions surcharge (“surcharge”) is a Commonwealth Government tax that was levied on surchargeable superannuation contributions of higher income individuals in the financial years from 1997 to 2005
 

We should keep in mind it isn't only politicians and think tanks which are voicing support for a cap. Support is also coming from superannuation funds such as AustralianSuper and the body aka lobby group, representing industry funds. Behind a paywall.

"More of Australia’s biggest super funds have joined the call for a $5 million limit on account balances, while Mercer is pushing for an even lower cap of $3.4 million, suggesting the savings could be diverted into schemes to help reduce the retirement savings gap between men and women.

CareSuper, HESTA and Aware Super have joined behemoth AustralianSuper in backing a $5 million cap amid debate ahead of the May federal budget"


Now should you get support for a concept from industry players..............
 
To give some context to many of the thought process being applied, known by some of those possibly impacted as which group to target, if you feel inclined go through this data from the ATO and APRA.



It may shed some light on why a number of superannuation funds are expressing support for some form of cap. Short story, it isn't likely their members who will be impacted given the really big money is in a few of the SMSF's.
 

I haven't had the time to do a full deep dive into the different suggestions, but off the top of my head I would think a cap of 5mil with anything above 5mil be taxed at the corporate tax rate. the tax advantages for those with less than 5mil would still be there and it wouldn't be too disadvantageous for those who have built up a large amount.
 

Discussions are now revolving around a $3m cap.

Could get interesting with a few permutations applying. Living in Canberra I know of some former public servants who have relatively large defined benefits pensions (lucky them!) as well as a SMSF. With the introduction of the balance cap, the calculations meant the SMSF reverted to accumulation phase. I was mulling over a possibility if the SMSF is say $2.5m and the calculated balance cap of the DB is $1.6m or whatever it is, would that amount be added to the amount in the SMSF to bring the total to $4.1m and if the cap is $3m, what happens? I'd like to be in that position by the way and I am certainly not shedding tears on their behalf.

I should add it there are a many former public servants who don't live in Canberra who could be in the same position but my exposure is to those where I live.
 
I'm in Canberra myself and I dare say there would be a few with their DB rather high. I always thought if a super or DB was partially funded by gov (think ADF, also probably APS) that it was generally exempt from a lot of things. I'd assume they would seperate the DB from super -- but that's just speculation.

I know of some ADF members who have reached their cap long ago. I'm unsure how it is managed as the whole ADF and super is another complex beast.
 

DB pensions are, in the main, sourced from Consolidated Revenue and so considered for the purposes of a personal tax return as an untaxed element so are subject to marginal tax rates although I think there is a 10% rebate on it for some reason.

You're correct it is complex and I got lost when I did some work in the past for a FP firm.
 
I would be happy if they put whatever limit they like on super, as long as those with more than the limit are allowed to extract it without penalty.
They will have to invest in something else that attracts tax, preferably above the 15% they were paying prior to taking it out.
Mick
 
Or Robert could do what someone I know is doing, going to be on welfare all their lives, lucky Robert worked all his to pay for it.
Now Robert is retired he can pay for his own pension and a welfare one while he is at it, it isn't as though he hasn't had a lifetime of practice. ? ? ? ? ?
 

Yea, that's why I was thinking the corporate tax rate. That way, if they still want to keep it 'in super' for whatever reason, they can but even with a trust/corp structure outside, it'd be relatively the same.

but who knows what will happen or the tinkering that will happen with the next go.
 
They've read the room. 30% above $3m looks like a goer.
Around 80,000 people are expected to be affected by the change, or 0.5 per cent of those with super accounts.

The change will come into force in 2025-26 and will not be retrospective. It also won’t limit funds in the accumulation phase.

The government expects the change to generate revenue of about $2 billion in its first full year..
 
I posted this in the wrong thread. Sorry. Is this enough incentive to stop putting extra into super? It's still below the marginal tax rate threshold but it might be too big a jump for rich people to not put it elsewhere. Dunno.

 
As with so many government initatives, it is the unexpected (to them) consequences.
It assumes that the people with over 3 mill will keep their money in Super.
If they can find a more productive return outside of super, then they will shift it.
Perhaps move it via compliant countries into lower tax havens if the amount is sufficiently large.
Whatever happens, you can guarantee that the take they expect will be somewhat lower.
They may pick it up if those extracting funds put it into other investing regimes that attract tax.
And of course, it must be remebered that Anthony Albanese, like Dutton and a few others, will not be affected by this move.
As Robert Gotliebson points out in The Australian
I will give Chalmers more credence were he to treat all the pollies and public servants in the same manner in which he does the private sector.
But I will not be holding my breath.

Mick
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...