Hang on, didn’t this mob run an election on not messing with retirees and super?

Remove this Banner Ad

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
68,437
126,003
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
as highlighted above it has tax implications

further you can't use your superannuation to buy dope, hire whores or any other purpose than investing for retirement. If people want to give money to unions, then pay union fees or give donations. Paying fees to unions out of your super is not appropriate use of funds.
but coke and hookers for CBA execs is?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rob R

Club Legend
Aug 17, 2009
2,547
2,516
AFL Club
Hawthorn
what entities are allowed to own super funds then? are you prohibiting only unions, or any other type of organizations?

there is already a mechanism to manage this, self choice super. if you dont want to be a member of a union owned super fund, go to one of the many others out there

love how the free trade people are in favour of free trade, except when its against their preferences
Well said!!! These changes and the flip flopping on increasing minimum super are beyond stupid and speak to an agenda not what is best for the nation.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
71,824
62,326
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
what entities are allowed to own super funds then? are you prohibiting only unions, or any other type of organizations?
1) No entities own super funds other than the benefices being the members
2) I am not suggesting any entity should be banned from being the Trustee or the Fund Manager

there is already a mechanism to manage this, self choice super.
2a) I am suggesting superannuation funds should retain the integrity of their purpose to maintain their tax status
3) No this is not about choice, it is about purpose, so self managed or other will be and should be captured

if you dont want to be a member of a union owned super fund, go to one of the many others out there

love how the free trade people are in favour of free trade, except when its against their preferences
This is not about choice.

4) People do not have a choice as super is compulsory.
4a) They may have a choice in which super but.............
5) Super has special tax status given its purpose
6) If super is funds are no longer using members funds for the purpose, it is no longer compliant thus at the very least the funds tax status changes
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
68,437
126,003
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
1) No entities own super funds other than the benefices being the members
2) I am not suggesting any entity should be banned from being the Trustee or the Fund Manager



2a) I am suggesting superannuation funds should retain the integrity of their purpose to maintain their tax status
3) No this is not about choice, it is about purpose, so self managed or other will be and should be captured



This is not about choice.

4) People do not have a choice as super is compulsory.
4a) They may have a choice in which super but.............
5) Super has special tax status given its purpose
6) If super is funds are no longer using members funds for the purpose, it is no longer compliant thus at the very least the funds tax status changes
bullshit

you want to kill industry super funds so that everyone can join up with a corporate owned super fund. even though the fees are less, the returns are better, apparently in your world its bad because a union owns them (as opposed to a bank or a hedge fund or an PE group)

on choice you can choose any super fund you want. My work has an arrangement with BT, but i had a better deal with CBA so I stayed with them. I later chose to switch to a self managed super fund

people have choice, but your last statement clearly shows you are one of these peeps who want to destroy super and then b*tch about all the leaners retiring on a pension
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
71,824
62,326
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
bullshit

you want to kill industry super funds so that everyone can join up with a corporate owned super fund. even though the fees are less, the returns are better, apparently in your world its bad because a union owns them (as opposed to a bank or a hedge fund or an PE group)

on choice you can choose any super fund you want. My work has an arrangement with BT, but i had a better deal with CBA so I stayed with them. I later chose to switch to a self managed super fund

people have choice, but your last statement clearly shows you are one of these peeps who want to destroy super and then b*tch about all the leaners retiring on a pension
1) your imagination is running wild this is an integrity of super issue
2) you’re a slow learner.....corporates nor unions own superannuation funds
3) union members and unions being aligned to the interests of society, the economy and work place is a great thing
4) just increase the management fees and call for a direct individual payment rather than out of the fund......problem solved
5) I believe super is a great thing for most ordinary people
 
Last edited:

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
81,211
38,202
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
So the bill got through minus most of the nasties.

but it appears only some funds get audited for performance.

I wonder if the coalition will take the items knocked back to the next election. I imagine there’ll be a bit of opposition payback anyway
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
18,090
12,644
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
for anyone else t siphoning funds out of people's retirement is called corruption, stealing or at best inproper use of funds. it is only reasonable that superannuation funds are used for the purpose of investing for retirement. This is why they have special tax treatment.

If they want to become operating entities for the purposes of unions or any other entity, superannuation should lose its tax status just as a family trust or unit trust would.

and no it does not need to be taken to an election as this principle is in place for ordinary trusts already.
fund management fees which are also non transparent i would also call that the same level of corrupt as funding unions from the fees.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
71,824
62,326
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
fund management fees which are also non transparent i would also call that the same level of corrupt as funding unions from the fees.
you're right

they are corrupt if not transparent and thus the reason why they are illegal

So just like fund management fees, we need laws on corrupt union payments and all other "not proper use of funds".

The only solution is to disclose kick backs to unions and all payments not associated with superannuation investments to be
1) disclosed
2) to be called upon for payment outside of the super fund. Essentially send an invoice to the members and they pay it out of their savings or place on their credit card.......it should not come out of super as it is not a proper use of funds
 

Crankyhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
18,090
12,644
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
you're right

they are corrupt if not transparent and thus the reason why they are illegal

So just like fund management fees, we need laws on corrupt union payments and all other "not proper use of funds".

The only solution is to disclose kick backs to unions and all payments not associated with superannuation investments to be
1) disclosed
2) to be called upon for payment outside of the super fund. Essentially send an invoice to the members and they pay it out of their savings or place on their credit card.......it should not come out of super as it is not a proper use of funds
I'm not sure how transparent you think the retail fund fees are. All you get told it "we are taking away x% as management fees" and then theres some report which could well be collusion amongst the big 4 in terms of "auditing". I don't buy that it is more transparent than monies paid to union in union super funds.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Oct 15, 2004
71,824
62,326
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm not sure how transparent you think the retail fund fees are. All you get told it "we are taking away x% as management fees" and then theres some report which could well be collusion amongst the big 4 in terms of "auditing". I don't buy that it is more transparent than monies paid to union in union super funds.
in every prospectus and every disclosure statement, fees are disclosed

if there is collusion, then one has the massive balance sheet of the big 4 to pursue and retail finance laws favour retail investors. One could make a claim for $10k with little reason and one would simply just get paid out as happens in telecommunication and insurance
 

Gigantic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 31, 2014
10,748
13,143
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Rabbitohs, LFC, PHX
Don't agree with the vast majority that comes out of this bloke's mouth but I think he raises some good points here

 

Remove this Banner Ad