I'm not sure why people think aspects of the tax system are immutable. Tax rates change all the time based on Government revenues, priorities etc.
I take all your points Julia but will still fight against an ALP Government retrospectively changing the rules on my Super.
I have had very few sick days in a work life of nearly 40 years, and when I was sick for longer than a month, had sickness insurance, which I paid for, to tide me over.
I resent an ALP Government strapped for cash taking MY MONEY, for mine it is, to get themselves out of a political hole.
Second rates like Wong, Swan and Roxon retiring on $200,000 a year from the age of 45 indexed for life is obscene, and it is not good enough to say it will be addressed. It is obscene.
And I do think it is fair for people to be taxed at only 15% on the way in to Super, 15% in the whole of the accumulation phase, and then nothing at all thereafter once pension phase is entered.
Because that is what we were promised.
gg
I'm not sure why people think aspects of the tax system are immutable. Tax rates change all the time based on Government revenues, priorities etc.
Agree completely and while you are working you can adjust to changes, someone who is 65+ can't.
They are captive and fairly well helpless to adapt.
.
I think with all that you still managed to avoid saying whether the current policy settings are sustainable.
You may have a point in theoretical point but we can't go back in time and increase taxes on super during the accumulation phase.
It also strikes me as a self-serving argument for the older generation. "Well we're over 65 now so it would be unfair to make any changes to how super is taxed in the pension phase but we recommend you tax super more heavily at the point of entry"
Question for you sails, gg, and anyone else who is saying the recent announcement is unfair:
do you really think it's fair for people to be taxed at only 15% on the way in to Super, 15% in the whole of the accumulation phase, and then nothing at all thereafter once pension phase is entered?
I know when I first learned about that, I couldn't believe it.
Perhaps it's the 'thin edge of the wedge' in which case we have reason to be concerned, but on face value of what has been announced it seems to me to be simply addressing a tax dodge of the reasonably wealthy who would otherwise have still accumulated sufficient funds to fund their own retirement anyway.
Further, they will not be people who would have even considered voting Labor.
Firstly, let's not forget, the loss of tax is on savings that prior to compulsory super, wasn't there and wouldn't be there now. It is a percieved loss of tax.
I take all your points Julia but will still fight against an ALP Government retrospectively changing the rules on my Super.
I resent an ALP Government strapped for cash taking MY MONEY, for mine it is, to get themselves out of a political hole.
Second rates like Wong, Swan and Roxon retiring on $200,000 a year from the age of 45 indexed for life is obscene, and it is not good enough to say it will be addressed. It is obscene.
And I do think it is fair for people to be taxed at only 15% on the way in to Super, 15% in the whole of the accumulation phase, and then nothing at all thereafter once pension phase is entered.
Because that is what we were promised.
Will the suggested changes reduce workers benefits,yes
Will they be thrown out in the next gfc event, yes.
Will they increase the dependence on welfare.yes
All my opinions.
How?
Read this if you think this will stop high come earners from saving and increase dependence on welfare
http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/ret_savings.html
So you think taxing the income and reducing compounding, is better than placing a cap and returning excess to the normal taxation system?
This IMO isn't about taxing high income earners, it's just another middle class tax.
If you think the ultra rich are going to be caught out by this crap, your dreaming.
Same as you won't catch the pollies paying it.
So you think taxing the income and reducing compounding, is better than placing a cap and returning excess to the normal taxation system?
This IMO isn't about taxing high income earners, it's just another middle class tax.
If you think the ultra rich are going to be caught out by this crap, your dreaming.
Same as you won't catch the pollies paying it.
Well, that's just going to push people towards fully franked dividends even more.
Agree, mate, I thought I might have been in the 16,000, incredible to me as it may have seemed.
But on looking at it more closely I'm nearer to the 250,000th.
Many of my winners are growth not income assets, and I now plan to take the max from retirement super pension in case these silly bastards of the ALP ever get re-elected in my lifetime to implement this complete balls up of a policy, so that I end up below the 2mil.
And anyone who ends up in the 16,000 is a mug imo.
gg
And what proportion of the population do you think are in the same boat as you and sptrawler?
What is the typical super return? I suspect it more in the vicinity of 10% than 30%.
Well as the ASX has gone from 4000 to 5000 in the last 6 months, blind freddy would expect an index linked fund to do better than 10%.
Firstly the changes are only on the pension phase. The compounding thing does not matter much in this case. I don't mind them doing it either way. I think most will prefer the tax on income to going to the normal taxation system which will either have a much larger impact for them or have no increase in tax for the government.
.
This is an aspect that probably deserves more focus than the presently discussed policy. I wonder, though, how many retirees actually do this? If someone makes the effort to be self funded, it seems unlikely they'd want to spend up to $1M just to then eke out an existence on the meagre age pension.Very little preventing you from taking out the money in lump sum and then getting a pension.
So far, despite the intense interest in what is simply Labor's election policy, rather than something that will definitely happen, there has been relatively little focus on the Coalition's proposal to remove the small assistance in Super presently offered to low income earners. That seems a retrograde step to me, but I might be missing something here?
My semi-retired parents have all their savings in property and term deposits. They get ~ 6%. They couldn't care less about the market.
So far, despite the intense interest in what is simply Labor's election policy, rather than something that will definitely happen, there has been relatively little focus on the Coalition's proposal to remove the small assistance in Super presently offered to low income earners. That seems a retrograde step to me, but I might be missing something here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?