Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

[Julia]

I see your point, and in a perfect world, they wouldn't.

But we live in an imperfect world. A similar analogy can be seen in the office - people who are efficient and prioritise their work will get all their work done within time and maybe even have a bit to spare. Those who are inefficient become unable to handle any other work, which then gets shifted to the efficient workers because they have 'spare' time.

There are plenty of other sources from which to obtain the shortfall, Tyler. See SCM's post above.
Do away with the damn baby bonus for a start!

Some of us have all our working lives invested carefully and saved in order to have a self funded retirement. Meantime, we've watched friends spending on luxury extensive travel, new cars, designer clothes etc blithely saying stuff like "oh the future will look after itself' etc.

I'm just so sick of the prudent having to subsidise the wasters.

 

[banco]

There are plenty of other sources from which to obtain the shortfall, Tyler. See SCM's post above.
Do away with the damn baby bonus for a start!

Some of us have all our working lives invested carefully and saved in order to have a self funded retirement. Meantime, we've watched friends spending on luxury extensive travel, new cars, designer clothes etc blithely saying stuff like "oh the future will look after itself' etc.

I'm just so sick of the prudent having to subsidise the wasters.

In other words keep the benefits for older Australians and pay for them by getting rid of benefits directed at the younger generations?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

In other words keep the benefits for older Australians and pay for them by getting rid of benefits directed at the younger generations?

Why is allowing people to save money for retirement without having it taxed harshly considered a benefit?

As a younger person, I am more than happy to have every benefit for "younger" people removed. I didn't ask for any damn welfare to have children or speculate on property, and I sure as hell don't need it.

 

[StumpyPhantom]

In other words keep the benefits for older Australians and pay for them by getting rid of benefits directed at the younger generations?

Hay Starcraftmazter - I'm with you on the Banco comment. It's quite ironic - what he's saying about all this - and yet he's the one who most needs to listen to Joe Hockey's recent speech in London about getting rid of this 'entitlement culture'.

Here it is Banco - http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3480665.htm - knock yourself out!

 

[drsmith]

Why is allowing people to save money for retirement without having it taxed harshly considered a benefit.

The Greens would like to tax super more harshly than it is now.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The Greens would like to tax super more harshly than it is now.

For everyone or the rich? Citations would be good.

 

[drsmith]

For everyone or the rich? Citations would be good.

Given that you have described the Greens as a good minor party and that you feel we would only get real governance when the two major parties are marginalised, I would have thought you would know.

What income level do you consider to be rich ?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Given that you have described the Greens as a good minor party and that you feel we would only get real governance when the two major parties are marginalised, I would have thought you would know.

I really can't be familiar with every single policy of every single party. Mostly, I am familiar with the ones I consider most important (this would not be one of them).

What income level do you consider to be rich ?

Rich enough to salary sacrifice purely for tax reasons.

 

[drsmith]

I really can't be familiar with every single policy of every single party. Mostly, I am familiar with the ones I consider most important (this would not be one of them).

You're against it then ?

It's harsher than what Labor will likely dish out.

Rich enough to salary sacrifice purely for tax reasons.

What income level is that ?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

You're against it then ?

It's harsher than what Labor will likely dish out.

I don't know - I have not seen the policy details yet. Either way, it is inconsequential compared to the bigger evils perpetrated by major parties.

What income level is that ?

I doubt it depends on income as much as the amount of super that is contributed annually. I am unsure of what that level is as I have not given it much thought.

 

[drsmith]

I don't know - I have not seen the policy details yet. Either way, it is inconsequential compared to the bigger evils perpetrated by major parties.

That's not the impression I got from your earlier comment,

Why is allowing people to save money for retirement without having it taxed harshly considered a benefit?

As a younger person, I am more than happy to have every benefit for "younger" people removed. I didn't ask for any damn welfare to have children or speculate on property, and I sure as hell don't need it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it depends on income as much as the amount of super that is contributed annually. I am unsure of what that level is as I have not given it much thought.

That's what I thought.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

That's not the impression I got from your earlier comment,

I really don't see how the two relate.

It's bad if the government chooses to tax super contributions more harshly. But it's nothing compared to giving people money to speculate on property or creating a welfare state - which are my two biggest criticisms of the major parties.

I have not seen the Greens legislation you mentioned, and you have failed to link to it anywhere so I can't really comment on whether I think it is designed indeed to increase tax for people contributing to their super, or deal with the tax loophole whereby the rich avoid paying tax through super. As such, I can't really make any comprehensive comment on it.

 

[drsmith]

The Green tail wags the Labor dog again.

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...ation-tax-change/story-e6frfkur-1226263630449

If the super tax rate is changed, it will also be another Julia Gillard lie.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Tuesday stressed that the superannuation rates were not up for review.

http://afr.com/p/home/greens_call_for_review_into_super_XS1g98qc3yPZk5pg0GyA7O

 

[So_Cynical]

The Green tail wags the Labor dog again.

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...ation-tax-change/story-e6frfkur-1226263630449

If the super tax rate is changed, it will also be another Julia Gillard lie.



http://afr.com/p/home/greens_call_for_review_into_super_XS1g98qc3yPZk5pg0GyA7O

Greens leader Bob Brown said he had spoken to Treasurer Wayne Swan about raising the tax rate on superannuation for high-income earners and cutting it for those on low incomes.
Senator Brown said that at present about $30 billion in revenue was foregone because of the tax break on superannuation - and will rise to $40 billion in four years.
"Half of those tax breaks go to the 12 per cent of top income earners and there's no real advantage for lower income earners in that set-up,"

Taxing the rich would seem to make perfect sense to me....beats the hell out of taxing the poor.

 

[drsmith]

Taxing the rich would seem to make perfect sense to me....beats the hell out of taxing the poor.

Labor has allready been reducing super concessions for both. See items 1 and 2 from the image attached to the first post of this thread.

Labor is only interested in Green dogma to the extent that it raises revenue. They don't give a rats about low income earners.

 

[Bill M]

I personally think that Super is taxed currently just about right. Any tinkering on the present could drive away further investment, particularly by the younger people. I don't think the government will interfere with it too much at this point in time.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The Green tail wags the Labor dog again.

http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...ation-tax-change/story-e6frfkur-1226263630449

Hmmm

Greens leader Bob Brown said he had spoken to Treasurer Wayne Swan about raising the tax rate on superannuation for high-income earners and cutting it for those on low incomes.

Senator Brown said that at present about $30 billion in revenue was foregone because of the tax break on superannuation - and will rise to $40 billion in four years.

"Half of those tax breaks go to the 12 per cent of top income earners and there's no real advantage for lower income earners in that set-up," Senator Brown told reporters in Canberra today.

"So instead of a general 15 per cent tax break, the tax break would be 15 per cent off the marginal tax that the income earner pays."

Just like almost all policy proposals by the Greens, that seems extremely sensible to me.

 

[So_Cynical]

I personally think that Super is taxed currently just about right. Any tinkering on the present could drive away further investment, particularly by the younger people. I don't think the government will interfere with it too much at this point in time.

I agree..just about right, though perhaps some sort of additional tax on accounts above say 2 million (per person for SMSF's) would be appropriate IMO.

 

[drsmith]

Just like almost all policy proposals by the Greens, that seems extremely sensible to me.

Low income earners allready get government assistance for super in the form of a government co-contribution.

In a broader context, tax on super should be reformed, but not necessarily as a wealth redistribution exercise as the Greens would like. Any reductions in super tax concessions higher up the income scale should be reflected in lower marginal tax rates.

 

[drsmith]

I agree..just about right, though perhaps some sort of additional tax on accounts above say 2 million (per person for SMSF's) would be appropriate IMO.

Labor will dig deeper than that in its attempt to balance the budget.