^ Noted. If a loophole exists where people are incentivised to consume super now rather than accumulate then (on the face of it) it seems to be a flaw.
Are you referring to people that are already over the retirement age? If so, this is a fantastic idea because if I had enough to live on in retirement and there was any chance what so ever that I was going to get taxed @37 or 45% I would stop working and so would many others. Instead of looking at them and thinking they are relying on government, how about a change in attitude to one that says thank you for not relying on government for a hand out and still being a productive part of society. And thank you for the 15% you are still paying but don't have to be. I love it how someone being able to fend for themselves ONLY if they aren't being raped by the tax office counts as "relying on the government". You're only relying on the government not to rape your wallet. It's exactly the same thing as saying "you rely on the government to keep you alive because the government has decided not to send the army in to shoot you in the head". What do you mean they aren't relying on younger generations to pay for everythingexcept pensions? Who do you think is going to pay for the 75% of retirees that haven't had super their whole lives? Or do you mean their own pensions? Either way they are. Also on the super concessions approaching the cost of pension contributions. Remember that those numbers are peaking right now because the boomers are approaching retirement. They will curb back down once the boomers start retiring and the pension costs will start curbing up. It will be a moot point in 10years.
3% of the income tax we pay is for our pensions. It was supposed to be put aside however some thief from the "Greatest Generation" decided that it'd be better managed if that money was put into consolidated revenue. That knowledge has been lost down the memory hole.
+1. WTF? They aren't really self funded because the govt isn't thieving enough from them? What kind of logic is that? Infact these people are self funded, only because the govt. isn't raping them.
The facts are they did build the nation ,they did work hard & pay tax for 50 years A lot of todays generation dont want to get their hands dirty .. Jingoism designed to make you open your wallet ..... lol Just appreciate what others before you accomplished & be thankful they did . You guys all crap on about hypothesis you dont know what will happen when your at retirement age . ..Show me where its fact where you will not get a pension ? your all blowing it out your butts . You guys get a sniff of something then hype it up into fact .I'l give you a tip . Just because you think it doesnt mean its true .
Total Federal government revenue for 09/10 was under $270billion, not just income tax = total revenue according to the ABS? Income taxes were only $187billion. The pension cost just under an estimated $35billion in 11/12. That's a long long way above 3%.
No one said we weren't greatful for what those that went before us achieved. He was simply making the point that he is rightfully pissed that, that is somehow a lone excuse for many decades of previous politicians selling the younger generations down the road. Hypothesis? Would you prefer we lived our lives like our super is going to be commandeered by the government and given back some sort of shitty already failed pension scheme? I hope not, and I hope there is never a government funded pension scheme ever enacted. This one is an absolute failure, why wouldn't a future one be any different?
We all travel the same road .(or got sold down it ) as you put it . Thats life .... My grandparents did my parents did ,I did ,,my kids are doing it , their kids will do it & so it goes on & on & on ....nothings changing anytime soon .
My point is that they're not "self funded" in the way that my lifestyle is self funded because they're not required to pay for all the same things I'm asked to pay for - roads, schools, hospitals etc. - and that age is the only difference between us. Again (for those who are having trouble), I'm not saying that is a bad thing given that the demographics make funding the retirement of the Boomers a very tricky problem. What I am saying is that just because someone came up with the term "self funded retirement" doesn't mean those peoples' retirements actually are self funded because they're getting a lot of assistance that isn't available to everyone else. Superannuation won't be a completely effective way of paying for retirement until we've had a generation that has had it for their whole working lives (which the Boomers didn't) and until that happens the younger generations will still have to contribute towards the retirement of the older generations.
Back when income tax was introduced, most people only lived for a few years after retiring (5 years if they were lucky). Someone who retires at 60 now could easily live until they're 85 (five times longer).
Back when the pension was introduced the life expectancy of a male who had worked until pension age was less than one year.
Their kids wont do it at all because your kids will hopefully have a full funded superannuation system and no pension system to support them. So it doesn't go on and on and on. It stops right here with this boomer generation.
And none of that has any relevance to the point I was making to nugget. Actually I wasn't making a point just clarifying that probably 5 times the 3% figure that Nugget was quoting is going towards the pension scheme.
All I was saying was that 3% of our tax rate is supposed to go towards paying our pension. If that money had been put aside there'd be a pot of cash for when the Boomers retired.
