Will the Aus. gov. attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super?

Do you consider it likely the Australian government will attempt to 'expropriate' funds from private Super to fund their budget?

Especially if revenue from Resource Extraction activities drop precipitously as foreign demand fades? Current tax revenue models do not seem to account for the possibility.

If its not an outright seizure, or some type of coercive/punitive measure like a 80% tax on incomes to force a 'voluntary' conversion into a 'government-backed' pension scheme while the proceeds of the scheme go into general revenue.

If so, when do you expect this to occur? What will be the warning signs?

If you have another POV, feel free to share it with us below.

European Nations Begin Seizing Private Pensions
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/T...ropean-nations-begin-seizing-private-pensions

Hungary Forces Private Pension Fund Members Back To State Scheme
http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope...te-pension-fund-members-back-to-state-scheme/

(I'm deliberately choosing sources only from mass-distribution media. Let no-one accuse me of being gullible, hysterical and whipped into a frenzy by a mere errant blogger!)

 

No, but I do expect them to implement other means of increasing revenue to cater for budget spending ... as always.

 

Gillard has already publicly stated last year that she wants to release funds from the Australian super pool to allow it to be used by banks instead of it "just sitting" around.

 

Thats a real worry if SHTF which could very well happen.
Am doing some divesting atm with my smsf out of the sharemarket into physical
Gold and Silver. Stored at my place of course in case of a quick get away.

Cheers markcoinoz



http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

 

.

 

In one form or another - yes.

 

Did you not see the budget? They are already expropriating funds from Super to fund their budget, via an additional 15% tax for those earning over $300k. Or is that not included because they are so "rich" (and don't need the money)?

 

They have already stollen all of the super from Temporary workers, what makes anyone think that ours isn't next?

 

It's not an "additional tax", it's a "reduced discount".

If you're earning $300k/year, you're now paying 30% on concessional contributions for the portion of your income that is over $300k instead of 15%.

Given that your normal tax rate is 45% on income over $180k/year, you're still saving 15 percentage points on income over $300k/year, which is the equivalent of getting 33% discount on your tax bill if you put money into super instead of taking it as regular income. You lose the 66.6% discount for the portion that's over $300K (an of course you still get that rate for contributions from income under $300k), but you "only" get a 33.3% discount on contributions from the portion that's over $300k.

 

Mate, it doesn't matter which way you like to present this argument, there is no excuse for introducing disincentives to personally fund your own retirement.

You will have to do a lot better than that to make this current government appear to possess anything other than the highest degree of incompetence possible.

 

Well, that's the question: is taking a generous discount and reducing it to a less generous, but still quite substantial discount actually a disincentive or is it merely a reduced incentive? That is, is anyone on $300k/year going to say "Bugger superannuation, I'm going to spend that money on a Ferarri instead and go on the aged pension when I get old"?

Probably not.

Oh, but I do think the government is incompetent. The "highest degree of incompetence possible" is a characterisation I'd probably save for the current opposition (given their budgetary "black hole" contains more than $70 billion worth of spending they don't know how they're going to pay for), but this government certainly isn't going to win any awards for brilliance.

For me personally, the fact that both sides keep mucking around with superannuation is actually the biggest disincentive for putting money into the scheme.

 

You can split hairs if you want to, doesn't change the fact that it is still inexcusable.

Makes no difference what the income rate is. Begrudging and penalising someone because they reap the rewards of their effort is typical ALP socialism. It serves nothing but to make the envious and resentful feel better about, and justify, their lack of the same success.

Australia, the land of opportunity.... but not too big an opportunity, or we will demonise you.

 

The Lib/Nat' s will pay for it the same way they did for the 96 Billion black hole that the Keating mob left.....increased taxes and less welfare though that will be a bit more difficult with an extra ten thousand illegal boat people on the public teat.

Agreed it is only a matter of time before you will be forced to take your super as a pension and of course the banks and the insurance industry will bribe both sides of government to ensure that you are requirred to have part of that money in an annuity.

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

If we show symptoms of turning Japanese (uber long deflation), then government will likely:
increase age of pension, reduce govt contribution, tax the younger workforce more, eliminate lump sum payment, revamp medicare (reduce cost), maybe tax the elderly for existing. Etc etc.

But Australian population is small, so a simple immigration drive can "reduce" the average age. It depends on how much water we can provide though (desal should solve this issue).

 

Getting any tax discount on money going into super is a pretty damn good deal in the first place.

The whole purpose of concessional tax rates is to encourage people to put money into super. If people are doing that anyway without encouragement then the concession is unnecessary.

People earning $300k/year need less encouragement to put money into super than people earning $75k/year do, so people earning $300k/year get less concessions.



What if we got rid of "typical ALP socialism" and scrapped concessional tax for super contributions and dumped the old aged pension as well? You know, so people can reap the rewards of their effort without being penalised. Oh yeah, we'd be back in the 1820s with slums and disease and open sewers and people nicking stuff off each other in order to survive.

 

Calling it a tax discount in the first place is such a cop out. Since WW2, the public was conned with promises of pension schemes and all the rest for allowing gov't to rape them of their hard earned money. Without these promises the amou nts of tax raped off of the public we pay now would have caused a violent overthrow of government. Then Keating came along and forced people to start putting money away for retirement (all the while being a complete hypocrit by not funding up front the same super contributions for public workers). But these people that are taking themselves off the burden of government by paying for their OWN retirement are also paying for the retirement of the generations that don't have super. They are getting stung twice all for the priveledge of ONLY having 15% of their retirement money taxed. Until now that is.

You have to be kidding mate. So much for a fair go in this country when people like you are continuously supporting the attacks on people that have made a go of themselves in life.

 

Rubbish governments are the worst money managers going that is why they fight so hard to prevent a return to the gold standard. They want to play games by manipulating the money supply and keep us dependent on them; a pox to your social welfare.

You never feed a poor man by screwing the rich

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

Bring it on bud. That's the first sensible thing you have written.

Me and my Mrs together would be $10K a year better off according to this: http://www.news.com.au/money/federa...ting-5000-a-head/story-fn84fgcm-1226351467594

And guess what, we don't get any Family A or other handouts for our 3 kids at school - apparently Swan reckons we're loaded since she earns $35K per year!

 

But you always screw a poor man by feeding the rich.

The Protestant work ethic - for want of a better description - encourages one to become prosperous and share the wealth amongst one's fellows. It accompanies 'a fair day's work for a fair day's pay'.

I object to government interference and the abrogation of our responsibilities, by that interference, to the well-being of our neighbours. The guy who whipped the money-changers out of the temple also said there will always be poor people and it is up to us to share our bounty with them. Not be ordered to by a deceitful and lying government bureaucracy who cares for the poor not by need, but by political lobby.

I'd rather pay a person to mow my lawns than have the government take that $30 from me and give it to someone without obligation.

 

Well, I guess welcome to the 19th century then.

Mind the typhoid.