Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

[k.smith]

Not necessarily, as long as a member has the option of removing after tax personal contributions, no one should be able to complain.
Other than that, grandfathering of funds in the pension phase would probably be required, as the pension was commenced with existing rules.
Somewhat like what would happen if a change was made to negative gearing.

That would put super back to just a savings account, see how that works.lol

On the other side of the equation, how many low income Australian workers paying their compulsory 9.25% into Super - costing them 15% PLUS costs - have complaints about the co-contribution scheme being withdrawn ?

Especially when they're told that super is all about saving for their retirement, but oops...they're paying up to 15% more than if they were to take their meagre 9.25% $$ (which will become 12% in 2019 ) home and pay their loans off... while at the same time funds with over $10million has reportedly doubled over the last three years?

And then to be told that whether low income earners receive the co-contribution or not will make no difference in the end because they will get the pension anyway ?

it's all in the transcript
http://www.financeminister.gov.au/transcripts/2014/0613-radio-national.html

 

[sptrawler]

On the other side of the equation, how many low income Australian workers paying their compulsory 9.25% into Super - costing them 15% PLUS costs - have complaints about the co-contribution scheme being withdrawn ?

Especially when they're told that super is all about saving for their retirement, but oops...they're paying up to 15% more than if they were to take their meagre 9.25% $$ (which will become 12% in 2019 ) home and pay their loans off... while at the same time funds with over $10million has reportedly doubled over the last three years?

And then to be told that whether low income earners receive the co-contribution or not will make no difference in the end because they will get the pension anyway ?

it's all in the transcript
http://www.financeminister.gov.au/transcripts/2014/0613-radio-national.html

I thought we were talking about getting super down to a basic system where there is no unequal benefit.
If the personal contribution is removed, and contributions are taxed at your marginal rates, there is no benefit.

Now you are talking about co contributions, to people who supposedly have none of their own money left over, to put in anyway.

Also the last statement is correct, someone with no money, recieves a pension income similar to having $600,000 in term deposit and it is indexed.

The difference is, if a person who saved $600,000 couldn't get any pension, why would they save it?

 

[sydboy007]

Absolutely, if the system requires overhauling then it has to be fair to those that have also placed money in super, in good faith.
Super is made up of taxable and taxfree components, those with large sums in super would have mainly taxfree money in there.
The taxfree component is generally money that has been put in after tax, therefore if it is to be taxed differently the member should be given the optoin of removing it.
Then what is left is the taxable component that was placed in with a tax concession, the government would then be able to do what it likes with it.
The problem is the taxfree component is such a large proportion in the large super balances , the removal of it would probably leave a lot of super funds embarrassingly short of funds.
Isn't the excessive earnings tax still comming in to being, whereby earnings over $100k get taxed at 15%.

If you are going to take money out of peoples take home pay at their marginal tax rates, then give it to fund managers who have no responsibilty to look after it, people won't be happy.

The issue isn't so much the after tax income put into super, though the 15% earning rate is a nice bonus for those on the top marginal rates, but the very generous tax savings on concessional contribitions. As it stands if you're in the top 2 marginal rates and able to have 35K of concessionally taxed super are able to save between 8225 and 11025 in tax. We're talking around half the cost of the aged pension each year as a tax break to the very wealthy, while those < 37K a year are pretty much getting no benefit. It's a massively expensive system that's doing little to actually reduce the need for the aged pension.

This issue mainly came about due to Howard removing the RBLs as they basically stopped excessive savings within super. Bring back RBLs with a higher level of annual concessional super contributions and that way it makes it relatively easy to save within super in your later years without being overly generous.

 

[sptrawler]

The issue isn't so much the after tax income put into super, though the 15% earning rate is a nice bonus for those on the top marginal rates, but the very generous tax savings on concessional contribitions. As it stands if you're in the top 2 marginal rates and able to have 35K of concessionally taxed super are able to save between 8225 and 11025 in tax. We're talking around half the cost of the aged pension each year as a tax break to the very wealthy, while those < 37K a year are pretty much getting no benefit. It's a massively expensive system that's doing little to actually reduce the need for the aged pension.

This issue mainly came about due to Howard removing the RBLs as they basically stopped excessive savings within super. Bring back RBLs with a higher level of annual concessional super contributions and that way it makes it relatively easy to save within super in your later years without being overly generous.

I don't disagree with the reasoning of what you are saying.
However if the person is going to be taxed at 47% on the $37k, why would they want it put in super? Why not negative gear a property with it?

I know the super is compulsory, but I think there would be grounds for a legal challenge, to at least have the option to opt out of the system. The changes, would be enough to give rise to, change in intended pupose of the original scheme.
As I said in the last post, there is a big difference between people willingly giving their money because it is treated concessionally, to fund managers.
Than taking it at their marginal rate, never to be seen again untill you are given permission, that's if the money is still there and hasn't been lost by shonky planners.lol
I think there would and should, be a backlash by all working people.

They are putting away money, that will cause them to lose some if not all the pension, and you say they should do that at their marginal rate.
Because it is unfair on low income earners who pay little or no tax and in all likelyhood will get a full tax payer funded pension.

It's a noble thought, best of luck with that.
Just my thoughts.

 

[craft]

The issue isn't so much the after tax income put into super, though the 15% earning rate is a nice bonus for those on the top marginal rates, but the very generous tax savings on concessional contribitions. As it stands if you're in the top 2 marginal rates and able to have 35K of concessionally taxed super are able to save between 8225 and 11025 in tax. We're talking around half the cost of the aged pension each year as a tax break to the very wealthy, while those < 37K a year are pretty much getting no benefit. It's a massively expensive system that's doing little to actually reduce the need for the aged pension.

This issue mainly came about due to Howard removing the RBLs as they basically stopped excessive savings within super. Bring back RBLs with a higher level of annual concessional super contributions and that way it makes it relatively easy to save within super in your later years without being overly generous.

Syd the tax savings on contributions are chicken feed to the large funds. If you have a 10M fund and make 10% return the tax savings between marginal rate and super earnings rate is $340K.

If your wealthy its not about how much you can save by putting money into super but about how much you can lend your fund to access the 15% earnings rate.

Lend your fund 10M at an arms length rate (many loans are not even made at arms length rates and I have not heard of that being tested in court by the ATO yet - it actually appears they are accepting of it) and make a 5% return above the lending rate and that's 500K pa. of profit taxed at 15% rather then higher personal or corporate rates.

Concession caps - pffftt, the're just for the poor workers.

The earnings rate in conjunction with the easing of borrowing restrictions is the honeypot.

 

[Ves]

If your wealthy its not about how much you can save by putting money into super but about how much you can lend your fund to access the 15% earnings rate.

Lend your fund 10M at an arms length rate (many loans are not even made at arms length rates and I have not heard of that being tested in court by the ATO yet - it actually appears they are accepting of it) and make a 5% return above the lending rate and that's 500K pa. of profit taxed at 15% rather then higher personal or corporate rates.

Most legal professionals and SMSF advisers that our office has had discussions with had a really cautious attitude towards the "zero interest" rate loans between related parties and their SMSFs. The "non-arms length" and "non-commercial" nature of these loans was a pretty big red flag. It was always a do-this-at-your-own-peril situation and considered to be "too good to be true" by a lot in the industry.

The ATO appeared to be accepting of them, but did not come out and say it in certain terms. What they did say seemed to allude to the view that they generally accept that it might be possible.

However recently they have been making some noises. There was a private ruling for a related party non-zero loan to which people doing it should pay attention.

Here is a link to the ATO private ruling.

Here is an article from Aaron Dunn's blog that explains the ramifications of this.

(Aaron Dunn's blog is a good source of information by the way)

In short: If the non-arms length income provisions are applied to the assets linked to these loans, then any income derived from these assets would be taxed at 45%. Non-arms length income does not qualify for any pension exemptions, either.

 

[craft]

Most legal professionals and SMSF advisers that our office has had discussions with had a really cautious attitude towards the "zero interest" rate loans between related parties and their SMSFs. The "non-arms length" and "non-commercial" nature of these loans was a pretty big red flag. It was always a do-this-at-your-own-peril situation and considered to be "too good to be true" by a lot in the industry.

The ATO appeared to be accepting of them, but did not come out and say it in certain terms. What they did say seemed to allude to the view that they generally accept that it might be possible.

However recently they have been making some noises. There was a private ruling for a related party non-zero loan to which people doing it should pay attention.

Here is a link to the ATO private ruling.

Here is an article from Aaron Dunn's blog that explains the ramifications of this.

(Aaron Dunn's blog is a good source of information by the way)

In short: If the non-arms length income provisions are applied to the assets linked to these loans, then any income derived from these assets would be taxed at 45%. Non-arms length income does not qualify for any pension exemptions, either.

Hi Ves

That ruling was very interesting because it contradicts previous rulings on non-arms length implications of zero interest rates (change of heart maybe). For example:

https://www.ato.gov.au/rba/content/?ffi=/misc/rba/content/1012414213139.htm

https://www.ato.gov.au/rba/content/?ffi=/misc/rba/content/1012396819768.htm

You only get edited versions of private rulings so there may be other detail that sent the verdicts in two different ways. In any case the whole topic is begging for a public ruling but probably requires a test case in the courts before we see one.

Putting completely juicing the loop hole with a zero interest rate to the side - its still a great way of circumventing the contribution limits and getting serious money exposed to the lower earnings rate.

 

[sydboy007]

Syd the tax savings on contributions are chicken feed to the large funds. If you have a 10M fund and make 10% return the tax savings between marginal rate and super earnings rate is $340K.

If your wealthy its not about how much you can save by putting money into super but about how much you can lend your fund to access the 15% earnings rate.

Lend your fund 10M at an arms length rate (many loans are not even made at arms length rates and I have not heard of that being tested in court by the ATO yet - it actually appears they are accepting of it) and make a 5% return above the lending rate and that's 500K pa. of profit taxed at 15% rather then higher personal or corporate rates.

Concession caps - pffftt, the're just for the poor workers.

The earnings rate in conjunction with the easing of borrowing restrictions is the honeypot.

That's why RBLs were so effective. Before Howard got rid of them there was no incentive to go over the RBL because after that the tax effectiveness was minimal. For the financial year ending 30 June 2005, the lump sum RBL was $619,223 and the pension RBL was $1,238,440. I think around 600K for a single person and 1M for a couple is a reasonable amount in super. It should provide a higher income than the pension without costing a fortune in tax expenditures.

 

[sptrawler]

That's why RBLs were so effective. Before Howard got rid of them there was no incentive to go over the RBL because after that the tax effectiveness was minimal. For the financial year ending 30 June 2005, the lump sum RBL was $619,223 and the pension RBL was $1,238,440. I think around 600K for a single person and 1M for a couple is a reasonable amount in super. It should provide a higher income than the pension without costing a fortune in tax expenditures.

If $600k/single or $1m/couple was all that was allowed in super. I would upgrade the house and car, then aim for the max allowable, that gives full aged pension. Also I would start taking the o/s holidays I was putting off untill retirement.

 

[sydboy007]

If $600k/single or $1m/couple was all that was allowed in super. I would upgrade the house and car, then aim for the max allowable, that gives full aged pension. Also I would start taking the o/s holidays I was putting off untill retirement.

Go for it. At least with RBLs there's a chance income taxes can be reduced because the super tax expenditures aren't growing at 12% a year. I doubt there's any other part of the budget growing at that rate.

600K at 5% interest is 30K. The single aged pension is 19916 - 50% increase over the aged pension ain't a bad deal. 5% on 1M is 50K. The couple aged pension is 30K - 66% increase.

Under the current expensive system people are already blowing their super on renovations, cars and holidays. It's all about getting things so they can get the maximum pension. What's the point of providing all these tax benefits if people can blow their super and still get the full pension?

 

[k.smith]

Syd the tax savings on contributions are chicken feed to the large funds. If you have a 10M fund and make 10% return the tax savings between marginal rate and super earnings rate is $340K.

If your wealthy its not about how much you can save by putting money into super but about how much you can lend your fund to access the 15% earnings rate.

Lend your fund 10M at an arms length rate (many loans are not even made at arms length rates and I have not heard of that being tested in court by the ATO yet - it actually appears they are accepting of it) and make a 5% return above the lending rate and that's 500K pa. of profit taxed at 15% rather then higher personal or corporate rates.

Concession caps - pffftt, the're just for the poor workers.

The earnings rate in conjunction with the easing of borrowing restrictions is the honeypot.

it seems that the bigger the smsf is, the bigger the likelihood of achieving higher returns. win and win...
isn't the super system supposed to encourage all to save for retirement, including the poor worker, who really needs the most encouragement, rather than the least? Make a big song and dance that the low paid don't pay tax, then just take their 9.25% and tax it inside super ! All while the big fat elephant keeps growing with zero interest rate loans and $10million funds which double every three years...because they are saving for their retirement

That's why RBLs were so effective. Before Howard got rid of them there was no incentive to go over the RBL because after that the tax effectiveness was minimal. For the financial year ending 30 June 2005, the lump sum RBL was $619,223 and the pension RBL was $1,238,440. I think around 600K for a single person and 1M for a couple is a reasonable amount in super. It should provide a higher income than the pension without costing a fortune in tax expenditures.

I agree with what you say, and that such figures seem reasonable limits.... what about indexing???
http://inside.org.au/two-indexes-two-very-different-prospects-for-pensions/

If $600k/single or $1m/couple was all that was allowed in super. I would upgrade the house and car, then aim for the max allowable, that gives full aged pension. Also I would start taking the o/s holidays I was putting off untill retirement.

The reason I saved for retirement in the first place was because I worked out long ago that existing on the pension alone would be just that ...existing ! Blowing savings on holidays and home improvements would be like going back to square one. Would you really go on a big cruise and come home to stare at the new wallpaper just to qualify for a pension?

Go for it. At least with RBLs there's a chance income taxes can be reduced because the super tax expenditures aren't growing at 12% a year. I doubt there's any other part of the budget growing at that rate.

600K at 5% interest is 30K. The single aged pension is 19916 - 50% increase over the aged pension ain't a bad deal. 5% on 1M is 50K. The couple aged pension is 30K - 66% increase.

Under the current expensive system people are already blowing their super on renovations, cars and holidays. It's all about getting things so they can get the maximum pension. What's the point of providing all these tax benefits if people can blow their super and still get the full pension?

I agree.... lump sums should be discouraged.

 

[Julia]

Under the current expensive system people are already blowing their super on renovations, cars and holidays.

Are they? Can you provide stats to that effect?
Why use the pejorative "blowing their super"? Perhaps people have during the last decade or so of their working lives saved more than ever in order to replace their car, do necessary upgrades for mobility or other reasons to the house etc, when they retire. How is that not their right?

It's all about getting things so they can get the maximum pension.

Says whom?

What's the point of providing all these tax benefits if people can blow their super and still get the full pension?

Seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about the way people plan their retirement. I've not ever heard any expert in the field attest to your assertion that people just blow what they have saved in a tax advantaged situation in order to access a government pension.

Most people I've ever known who have worked and saved diligently to be independent in retirement would have absolutely no intention of wasting it just to access the meagre age pension.

You seem to be somewhat judgmental about how other people manage their money. Perhaps just look after your own situation and be a little less accusatory about others.

 

[sptrawler]

Would you really go on a big cruise and come home to stare at the new wallpaper just to qualify for a pension?
.

No I wouldn't, just hate young people telling me how much money is enough.
They will be just as annoyed as me when they become self funded and some young person is telling them they have had it easy.

There is plenty of evidence to show, that people who were carefull with their money pre retirement, remain carefull post retirement.

I would also hazard a guess that no matter how much money you throw at welfare, it will never be enough.

Reminds me of Bob Hawke saying, "no child will be living in poverty by 1990". Just because you mean well and throw more money, doesn't translate into those on welfare spending wisely.

Where Syd is getting wires crossed, is thinking those who have saved with the ambition of becoming self funded and independent, are the ones spending their money to access a pension.

Nothing could be further from the truth IMO.

I think you will find those that spent all their money through out their lives. Spend their super as soon as they get access to it, it is common sense IMO.

 

[Junior]

I've written 100s of retirement plans over the past few years, and I can tell you, folks do not blow all their cash to access age pension. Full age pension for a couple is roughly $35k per annum. Say you only have $200k in super, you can still access full age pension....so why would you spend your $200k in one go??

Better to draw a pension of say 7% from super to supplement age pension...now your income is $49k per annum. If markets perform OK this is sustainable and Age Pension is indexed.

 

[FxTrader]

Most people I've ever known who have worked and saved diligently to be independent in retirement would have absolutely no intention of wasting it just to access the meagre age pension.

True in my experience as well, yet many elderly property millionaires expect to be paid an age pension as an entitlement and live a subsistence lifestyle in their multi-million dollar homes. Watching 92yo Zara Grayspence on SBS Insight last night telling a national audience why she deserves to receive a government pension while living in a 2 million dollar home in Mossman was revealing. Zara could live quite comfortably on a reverse mortgage yet chooses to live below the povery line on an age pension out of ignorance of other options or in spite of them. Incredibly many people on Facebook, ignorant of Zara's options, believe she is entitled. This notion of universal entitlement to a government pension for property millionaires by many should be a real concern for an aging society.

 

[craft]

True in my experience as well, yet many elderly property millionaires expect to be paid an age pension as an entitlement and live a subsistence lifestyle in their multi-million dollar homes. Watching 92yo Zara Grayspence on SBS Insight last night telling a national audience why she deserves to receive a government pension while living in a 2 million dollar home in Mossman was revealing. Zara could live quite comfortably on a reverse mortgage yet chooses to live below the povery line on an age pension out of ignorance of other options or in spite of them. Incredibly many people on Facebook, ignorant of Zara's options, believe she is entitled. This notion of universal entitlement to a government pension for property millionaires by many should be a real concern for an aging society.

I like the idea of recouping the pension paid from the estate in these situations. It means those that want to stay in their expensive property because it is their HOME with all the sentiment attached can do so and don’t need to worry about any complexity of entering the private market for reverse mortgages etc.

Those whose primary purpose is to maximise intergenerational wealth transfer whilst living off the pension will be thwarted. (from my observations this is a large and sometimes sad driver of why many people stay in large and inappropriate housing in their old age – Its probably more about being selfless for their kids benefit then gaming the pension for their own sake but if it wasn’t possible a lot of older people may make different decisions for themselves)

 

[McLovin]

Those whose primary purpose is to maximise intergenerational wealth transfer whilst living off the pension will be thwarted. (from my observations this is a large and sometimes sad driver of why many people stay in large and inappropriate housing in their old age – Its probably more about being selfless for their kids benefit then gaming the pension for their own sake but if it wasn’t possible a lot of older people may make different decisions for themselves)

I was speaking to someone a few weeks ago who was bemoaning how unfair including the family home in pension eligibility was. His grandparents had already had to transfer their holiday home out of their name so that they could claim the pension. When I pointed out it wasn't really fair to expect taxpayers to fund those who can support themselves I was told of the sentimental value of the holiday home and that they had worked hard all their life.

 

[Judd]

I was speaking to someone a few weeks ago who was bemoaning how unfair including the family home in pension eligibility was. His grandparents had already had to transfer their holiday home out of their name so that they could claim the pension. When I pointed out it wasn't really fair to expect taxpayers to fund those who can support themselves I was told of the sentimental value of the holiday home and that they had worked hard all their life.

Yes. The funniest situation I heard was from a work colleague. He purchased this house and the family was waxing lyrical about how wonderful the family home was, the emotion they felt for the place and the grand time they had had in it. He kept silent and after they disappeared round the corner, fired up the D8 and knocked the heap of rubbish down.

 

[sydboy007]

Are they? Can you provide stats to that effect?
Why use the pejorative "blowing their super"? Perhaps people have during the last decade or so of their working lives saved more than ever in order to replace their car, do necessary upgrades for mobility or other reasons to the house etc, when they retire. How is that not their right?


Says whom?

Seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about the way people plan their retirement. I've not ever heard any expert in the field attest to your assertion that people just blow what they have saved in a tax advantaged situation in order to access a government pension.

Most people I've ever known who have worked and saved diligently to be independent in retirement would have absolutely no intention of wasting it just to access the meagre age pension.

You seem to be somewhat judgmental about how other people manage their money. Perhaps just look after your own situation and be a little less accusatory about others.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...238.0&issue=July 2012 to June 2013&num=&view=

Of those who had made contributions, 55% had received all or part of their superannuation funds as a lump sum payment (54% of men and 57% of women). Many of those who received a lump sum payment used it to pay off or improve their existing home or purchase a new home (32% of men and 31% of women) or to buy or pay off a motor vehicle (14% of men and 11% of women).

Pretty much the MSM is full of tips on how to milk the super system. Whether it's re-contribution schemes to use transition to retirement pensions to increase concessional contributions via receiving tax free super income, or how to spend a bit of money tarting up the house so as to get more pension.

I am only questioning a system that has the stated goal of reducing the cost of the aged pension so the tax system is able to cope with a doubling of the over 65s by 2030. With the current system nearly costing the same as the aged pension, more if we add the $20+B cost of running it, and quite likely from 2016-17 to cost more, what is the logic of it? How is that sustainable over the long term? Why are we encouraging super balances in the millions? I'd say before Howard removed RBLs the number of individuals with super balances over $1.2M would have been close to 0 because there was notax incentives to accumulate over the RBL.

With the reduction in the participation rate, less tax payers per pensioner, combined with tax free super meaning a growing share of the population not contributing much in the way of revenue to keep the country running, it's not sustainable. Income taxes are higher than they need to be to pay for this. Every dollar in super tax expenditures equates to a $ extra of other taxation.

It wouldn't be such an issue if we taxed land / consumption / resources appropriately because at least then the burden of providing the necessary revenue for the services we expect would be more fairly shared. Overly taxing income and company profits while encouraging speculation via NG and half CGT is not the way to make an economy that is able to compete on the global stage.

 

[FxTrader]

Of those who had made contributions, 55% had received all or part of their superannuation funds as a lump sum payment (54% of men and 57% of women). Many of those who received a lump sum payment used it to pay off or improve their existing home or purchase a new home (32% of men and 31% of women) or to buy or pay off a motor vehicle (14% of men and 11% of women).

Indeed, lump sum withdraw should be limited to deter such behaviour. The other contributing factor is the primary residence exemption from the age pension assets test as discussed here already. Structuring of finances to draw the maximum age pension possible is becoming a significant source of business for advisors assisting those about to retire. This is hardly surprizing and quite prudent for those with small super balances.

Pretty much the MSM is full of tips on how to milk the super system. Whether it's re-contribution schemes to use transition to retirement pensions to increase concessional contributions via receiving tax free super income, or how to spend a bit of money tarting up the house so as to get more pension.

Use of the pejorative phrase "milk the super system" is quite unnecessary. Retirement planning is important to everyone and more so for those approaching retirement. It's those who don't plan or save for retirement you should be more concerned about.

I am only questioning a system that has the stated goal of reducing the cost of the aged pension so the tax system is able to cope with a doubling of the over 65s by 2030. With the current system nearly costing the same as the aged pension, more if we add the $20+B cost of running it, and quite likely from 2016-17 to cost more, what is the logic of it? How is that sustainable over the long term? Why are we encouraging super balances in the millions? I'd say before Howard removed RBLs the number of individuals with super balances over $1.2M would have been close to 0 because there was notax incentives to accumulate over the RBL.

The current super system needs adjustments to deter high income/wealth individuals from unfairly exploiting its tax advantages no doubt. However, without it the age pension will certainly be unsustainable.

With the reduction in the participation rate, less tax payers per pensioner, combined with tax free super meaning a growing share of the population not contributing much in the way of revenue to keep the country running, it's not sustainable. Income taxes are higher than they need to be to pay for this. Every dollar in super tax expenditures equates to a $ extra of other taxation.

Taxation reform is required but any such reform should contain tax incentives to save for one's retirement via superannuation contribution. The foregone tax revenue should be quantified but not in the context of cost comparisons with the age pension as the lowest common denominator. The age pension should be a safety net for the poor and not used as a lifestyle benchmark for all retirees.