Labors Super changes

[nut]

Ok … so I get free Skynews because I live regionally.
I Just watched Paul Murray go full r……d over Jim Chalmers attack on super.
Apparently the biggest change in super in 30 years…!!!!!
Can some one explain the outrage?

 

[Schneebly11]

Ok … so I get free Skynews because I live regionally.
I Just watched Paul Murray go full r……d over Jim Chalmers attack on super.
Apparently the biggest change in super in 30 years…!!!!!
Can some one explain the outrage?

Paul Murray is a right wing blowpipe who’s sole purpose is to get his right wing audience fired up and angry at Labor for every single things they do.

Labor’s super plan is to ensure superannuation is a way to provide for Australian’s in retirement without having to rely on a government pension and higher taxes. If Sky News was ideologically consistent they would support less government welfare and lower taxes, but their schtick is anti ALP hate.

 

[nut]

Paul Murray is a right wing blowpipe who’s sole purpose is to get his right wing audience fired up and angry at Labor for every single things they do.

Labor’s super plan is to ensure superannuation is a way to provide for Australian’s in retirement without having to rely on a government pension and higher taxes. If Sky News was ideologically consistent they would support less government welfare and lower taxes, but their schtick is anti ALPA hate.

I get all that … and I use watching Paul Murray as a type of self harm and torture.
I just want to know what these changes they are crapping on about are.

 

[Father Jack]

Here's an outline of the situation from The Guardian:

What are Australia’s tax concessions on super and are they a problem?

 

[Schneebly11]

The Liberals want to raid people’s super to prop up the housing bubble. Of course this will force taxes up in 20-30 years when no one has any retirement money, but given their voter base is mostly elderly they won’t be around to suffer the consequences.

The other proposal was to tax concession on accounts over $5million, held by about 11,000 people. 0.05% of the country.

 

[nut]

Ok so they want to stop people withdrawing form super before they retire…. Which is the reason why we have super!!!

They want to cap super!!! … super is designed to replace the pension and shouldn’t be a wealth creation scheme to avoid tax!!! I’m stated to see the outrage

They want to reduce tax benefits for high income earners!!! Outrageous !!!!

 

[Rustin Cohle]

This is why needed reform never happens in Australia. The media goes full LNP mouthpiece trying to sway public opinion.

Wonder why Labor is on the fence about stage 3 tax cuts? The reaction here is just a taste of the propaganda if they were to commit to that.

I'd like to think they're using this super stuff as a test case to see how the polls react to the media's bullshit as a means of allowing for future reform but I'm not sure they're that smart.

 

[QuietB]

Ok … so I get free Skynews because I live regionally.
I Just watched Paul Murray go full r……d over Jim Chalmers attack on super.
Apparently the biggest change in super in 30 years…!!!!!
Can some one explain the outrage?

I would have thought the biggest change to super in 30 years happened in covid when Morrison turned super accounts into ATM machines.

Breast enlargement surgeons everywhere loved it - which given the slimy nature of the Morrison government was probably their intent all along.

 

[peetoo]

Yep not the biggest change in 30 years.

Allowing people to use it to buy a house would be LNP policy

 

[peetoo]

Retrospective changes hit those who saved in super not homes​

Australians are living longer and many will spend 40 years in retirement. The days of work until 60 and drop dead at 70 are long gone. Since the introduction of compulsory super in 1992, Australians have been encouraged by the superannuation system and governments of the day to forego current day consumption to save for retirement. The system has legitimately allowed annual contributions (concessional and non-concessional) over 30 years plus one-off injections of up to $1 million.

The most obvious personal investment alternative over years is to upsize the family home. In my own case, I lived in the same house from 1989 to 2020, or 32 years. Instead of trading up to a more expensive home, savings went into superannuation. Is Stephen Jones telling me I should have bought the fancier house capital gains tax-free and now worth the GDP of a small Pacific nation?

So why is the person who decided to forego the extravagant home, Ferrari and lifestyle spending for 30 years and invest in a government-sponsored retirement system now forced to take out an excess? As Chief Executive of the SMSF Association, John Maroney, argues:

“Constant changes to the superannuation tax settings erode confidence in the system and discourage members from making long-term savings plans.”

$5 million cap punishes 30 years of super saving

The ATO Commissioner called large super balances "accidents of history" but the industry has rolled over on a $5 million cap. Wealth compounds remarkably over decades and long-term saving should be encouraged.

www.firstlinks.com.au

This makes me feel better

 

[peetoo]

February 20, 2023
I wonder how many of the large balances are held by individuals in their 70s - I suspect the vast majority.
I wonder if the Govt has forgotten the taxable component sitting in these large funds that is taxed at 15% to non tax dependents on the member's death (likely 95%+ of recipients) - ON THE CAPITAL!
As these large funds have grown organically the taxable component will be large.
From husband to wife there is an ejection of funds out of super but there will still be a large component left to be taxed.
Sure, you can attempt to cash it out before you die to save the tax, and some will be lucky enough to do that.
But....Tax on a large portion of capital vs higher tax on income. The Govt will probably be better off doing nothing!

 

[Hornberger]

Retrospective changes hit those who saved in sup poer not homee​

The author of that article clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what retrospective means. The changes are not retrospective. People are not being required to repay tax concessions previously received. Limits are being placed on the amount of tax concession they will receive in the future.

 

[peetoo]

The author of that article clearly doesn't have the slightest clue what retrospective means. The changes are not retrospective. People are not being required to repay tax concessions previously received. Limits are being placed on the amount of tax concession they will receive in the future.

Also, super transfer on death: 15%
House transfer on death: no %


Article goes on to say those people will move out of the system, balances largely built under former generous concessions

So if someone managers to put away $27500 annually for 20 yrs with 6% returns, that’s 1 million max. 40 years 4 million.

Nobody has had 40 years in super yet. It’s not the concessional caps to blame. There must be an after tax top up component where tax has already been paid at marginal rates


Some of the savings being suggested (not just from chalmers) are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted

 

[kickazz]

I would have thought the biggest change to super in 30 years happened in covid when Morrison turned super accounts into ATM machines.

Exactly.

And you know what happened? The COVID induced market decline meant those poor bastards sold low, and the rest of us (who were employed) for a while there got more bang for our buck because the relevant shares/securities were cheap. So we got to buy lots of them with our 9%. And when the upswing comes, yay, we get lots out of it.

The poor buggers though who sold low.......

For shame ScoMo.

 

[Home Alone]

February 20, 2023
I wonder how many of the large balances are held by individuals in their 70s - I suspect the vast majority.
I wonder if the Govt has forgotten the taxable component sitting in these large funds that is taxed at 15% to non tax dependents on the member's death (likely 95%+ of recipients) - ON THE CAPITAL!
As these large funds have grown organically the taxable component will be large.
From husband to wife there is an ejection of funds out of super but there will still be a large component left to be taxed.
Sure, you can attempt to cash it out before you die to save the tax, and some will be lucky enough to do that.
But....Tax on a large portion of capital vs higher tax on income. The Govt will probably be better off doing nothing!

The key component in this is non dependent! Different rules for a dependent spouse.

Part of this our view of super balances is treated as an asset rather than a vehicle to provide income during retirement.

Which then manifests itself as you never ever draw down on the capital. You must live off the income.

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[peetoo]

I do agree by the way

 

[peetoo]

That’s the headline, but underneath we know treasury is looking for savings, and the measure is a fraction of the savings they are looking for.

If we are all jumping at shadows as is being suggested, then the criticism is Chalmers has been naive allowing speculation to grow

Note that politicians and govt mandarins don’t lose out personally.


Is it becoming apparent that the teals and other independents not liberal and labor are the friends of the super holders? If so it would be a tangible reason to vote for them rather than majors going forward?

 

[nut]

There are some safeguards they need to work out before they bring it in to stop stupid outcomes.

However the hysteria from the smsf and others show how dumb our media is our own knowledge of financial issues.

There is no reason for providing tax subsidies to super funds above 3m. If we can’t all accept this is a long overdue and reasonable change, it shows how the country refuses to change anything due to the fear of missing out on a rort.

And that’s reason we have had s**t governments … because we have s**t media.

 

[peetoo]

Genuine question

If these huge super balances might be the product of past super conditions, which have been tightened considerably, will all this wealth just get passed down and aren’t in danger of being replaced going forward. Ie be annoyed but not needed to be addressed from a structural point of view

I’m sounding like a cracked record, but 2 or 3 million balance on retirement won’t be quite so outrageous in 20 to 30 years time

 

[peetoo]

Comments on this story suggest costello opened the rbl stable door Chalmers is seeking to close.

Thing is, has the horse bolted in the meantime

Yes, that Costello who created the future fund, became head of it and saw it invest in other countries assets including brothel property?

Nothing wrong in investing in other countries infrastructure assets? Maybe not but much of it came from the sale of our public assets

 

[dockerfemme]

I would very much like to see the politicians step up and apply similar equitable and affordable caps to their own superannuation, which I believe are far more generous than those available to the general public.

In fact, I would like to see all new MPs go onto exactly the same system as the general public.

 

[peetoo]

I saw it suggested the $400k annually for pollies is equivalent to $8mill in a super account. Could be bulldust, but it doesn’t sound that wrong

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I saw it suggested the $400k annually for pollies is equivalent to $8mill in a super account. Could be bulldust, but it doesn’t sound that wrong

I heard it put that Wayne Swann's pension is the equivalent of having either $6 or 8 million in a super fund.

 

[peetoo]

Scheme is a raging success by some measures (sheer size)

It not doing much for battlers is not so great

 

[Home Alone]

I saw it suggested the $400k annually for pollies is equivalent to $8mill in a super account. Could be bulldust, but it doesn’t sound that wrong

It is far more wrong than right.

They are valuing the pension on a return of 5%.

When the recipient dies, a reduced income is then provided to their dependent spouse. On the death of the spouse, that is it. There is no asset to distribute to any beneficiary.

In the other case, there is $8 million to distribute to the deceased estate. Which is a pretty significant factor in valuing an income stream that the capital is still available

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app