Labor to forge ahead with super cuts

[Lovey80]

Overnight anyone earning up to about $37,000 had their super contributions were being taxed at 15% while their effective personal tax rate is lower.

Of course the solution to this is to simply lower the super contribution flat tax to the same level as the personal "effective" tax rate of the lowest income earners, then just spend less on rubbish.

 

[Lovey80]

I'd love to know how people like Big A.D. sleep with themselves when they are advocates of someone stealing other peoples money under the threat of force.

 

[bordsilver]

What's happening at the moment is that the tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes.

That sweeping statement supposes that the current progressive tax system is fair - which it isn't because it taxes higher earners with higher rates. Plus higher earners pay additional taxes already that don't apply to most people, i.e, the majority of the flood tax, +15% super contributions tax, plus no doubt an additional 15% Super earnings tax, +30% health insurance cost, etc.

So as you earn more, gain experience, become more valuable in the workforce, add more to the economy, your reward is to pay higher and higher rates of tax, both in real dollar terms and as a percentage of what you earn. But that's not enough for the socialists, they want more...and more and more by eventually taxing their Super at the high earners' marginal tax rate, i.e, effectively making Super irrelevant for high earners.

Why should Super be treated the same as your income, which is what you and other socialists like you want? The goal appears to be to bring everyone down to a level where we can all just 'get by'. Where everyone is equal, no matter how much or how little they have contributed to society throughout their lives. I think that is unfair.

Meanwhile of course, the socialist politicians who will put these unfair measures in place will themselves be totally immune and continue to sponge off the same people they are intent on screwing as much as they can.

I say bollocks.

Why? Because "progressive" is such a "positive" sounding word whereas "regressive" sounds "negative" Nelly-ish.

"Moving forward" ( :lol: ) here's "a new initiative", a "bold new social policy" to "engage the public" "based on the principles" of true "equity and fairness" using our "mandate from the people" - Lower taxation through lower spending applied regressively - it would be one of the best things out.

 

[Big A.D.]

Did you guys all just have some kind of Pavlovian response when you saw it was me who had written that post?

Somebody asked a question and I wrote a fact-based analysis of the issue and kept my personal opinion largely to myself.

Go read my post again because you clearly didn't comprehend most of it.

If you don't like the economic reality, that isn't my frakking problem but the situation exists none the less.


Get over yourselves FFS.

 

[bordsilver]

I'd love to know how people like Big A.D. sleep with themselves when they are advocates of someone stealing other peoples money under the threat of force.

That's easy. Back in the stone age we had sick, disabled children of single orphaned alcoholic mothers drinking carbon dioxide polluted water without access to education being bitten by plagued infected rats whilst working 20 hour days in the fields while being attacked by marauding robber barons and unscrupulous hashish salesmen, only to give the meagre fruits of their toil to the insensitive noble scum in their pretty gowns living in their fancy castles who were more interested in fighting holy wars with their armies than trying to help their fellow human beings.

It is obvious to blind Freddy that capitalism and freedom failed then so it would obviously fail now.

Thanks goodness things are so much better in the modern world thanks to our benevolent Government who tire selflessly in helping the needy and defending us from evil and providing us with a plethora of public goods that useless selfish companies that are fixated on profit are totally incapable of producing. But for responsible citizens to share in this bountiful paradise requires a modest donation (through taxes) from every able bodied person who benefits from their benevolence.

Oh, and please don't eat the apple from the tree in the garden over there or we'll have to call you a terrorist and expel you from our paradise to Guantanamo Bay or similar.

 

[bordsilver]

Did you guys all just have some kind of Pavlovian response when you saw it was me who had written that post?

Somebody asked a question and I wrote a fact-based analysis of the issue and kept my personal opinion largely to myself.

Go read my post again because you clearly didn't comprehend most of it.

If you don't like the economic reality, that isn't my frakking problem but the situation exists none the less.


Get over yourselves FFS.

I for one appreciated the effort you went to to try and make me understand. So thank you.

In the end though it is only increasing current taxes for current expenditure (and creating a future liability). (Except potentially for public servant liabilities) it doesn't solve anything. The tax base will narrow irrespective of the super tax quirks purely because of ageng. In the end they'll simply not increase the tax thresholds as fast as inflation and Bob's you're uncle there's no funding gap. Any other explanation is using waffle to baffle the public into thinking there's a hole in revenue not simple overspending based on current taxes.

 

[jparrie]

I wrote a fact-based analysis of the issue and kept my personal opinion largely to myself.

Maybe you did, but my selective vision picked out one of your oft quoted little gems where you state that "... tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes."

That is a statement that you wrote based on your views that the current tax system is fair. Maybe in your mind it is, but don't expect people who are currently getting screwed by your "fair" tax system to sit back and cop more sh*t from you socialists who don't think that we pay enough already.

 

[XB]

I wrote a fact-based analysis of the issue and kept my personal opinion largely to myself.

Maybe you did, but my selective vision picked out one of your oft quoted little gems where you state that "... tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes."

That is a statement that you wrote based on your views that the current tax system is fair. Maybe in your mind it is, but don't expect people who are currently getting screwed by your "fair" tax system to sit back and cop more sh*t from you socialists who don't think that we pay enough already.

He actually said "... at the moment tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes." - I read nothing as condoning the current situation in his statement, just a recitation of what it is.

 

[Lovey80]

I wrote a fact-based analysis of the issue and kept my personal opinion largely to myself.

Maybe you did, but my selective vision picked out one of your oft quoted little gems where you state that "... tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes."

That is a statement that you wrote based on your views that the current tax system is fair. Maybe in your mind it is, but don't expect people who are currently getting screwed by your "fair" tax system to sit back and cop more sh*t from you socialists who don't think that we pay enough already.

He actually said "... at the moment tax breaks give a significant advantage to people on higher incomes." - I read nothing as condoning the current situation in his statement, just a recitation of what it is.

The second you condone the use of the phrase "a tax break" you are condoning the current situation. If everyone is getting the same percentage of tax taken from their super contributions then there is hardly a "Tax break" is there? It's not like super contributions over a certain dollar amount are only paying 5% in tax instead of the 15% is it? It is only when you compare the flat rate of tax with the tyrannous "progressive" tax rates on income that it ever looks like some sort of tax break.

 

[XB]

So you disagree with the current situation? Or do you disagree with someone saying this is the current situation? I'm confused.

If the situation is, as you say, then your dispute seems to be with the situation yes? It should change in your view.

Why therefore does what (or even how) Big AD presented the situation change your dispute with that situation?

Seems to me you're playing the man not the ball....

Just my observation of this thread

 

[Lovey80]

Im playing the man because the man is suggesting that everyone getting stolen from equally is somehow a break given to the "rich". It comes with the pre-concieved notion that if you do better for yourself than someone else that you should have your retirement curtailed to "level the playing field" in order to pay for government spending. It's only when you compare it to income tax (which it is not) that you could ever come to that conclusion.

So I am not disagreeing that this is the situation but that the situation is being portrayed in a light that has preconceived bias against one sector of the work force.

And yes the situation should change so that there is a flat tax on income also.

 

[jparrie]

He said what he said. I'll play anyone who thinks its OK to steal my money, then think they can steal a bit more. Big A.D. is a serial repeater of these sorts of claims; that high tax payers get get some sort of advantage because they aren't taxed on other income at the same marginal rate; that this is somehow "unfair". Funny how there's never any mention of the myriad of other additional taxes high earners pay, nor any of the benefits that they don't receive.

What's unfair is the current continued attack on high earners when they pay enough already.

And I just reread this:

...50% of the the funds that are taxed at concession rates come from only 20% of wage earners - the ones on higher incomes.

Pretty obvious when high earners earn more and therefore contribute more. But even that has been capped at a poxy $25k p.a. Its pathetic.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Did you guys all just have some kind of Pavlovian response when you saw it was me who had written that post?

Lathering at the chops hey?

Not me all the time or in fact most days really when I see you post A, but it really does depend on my mood. Generally no, but sometimes you elicit an automatic aggressive charge response from me. More like a bull and one of those red coloured flags. :lol:

 

[AngloSaxon]

Get over yourselves FFS.

Just looking back I'd feel a bit hemmed in by all those comments were they addressed at me, I admit.

Only the paragraph where I named you was addressed to you, the rest was following on from the context of what you'd said in terms of the whole issue we're discussing.

I still stand by my criticism of the ALP/Green Government in this issue - using the unintended consequences of their own policies to try destroy something and achieve a short term cash grab.

 

[Shaddam IV]

Labor have a habit of taking to finely tuned systems with a hammer. Whether or not our super system is fair it is quite finely tuned. Labor are about to hit it with their blunt instrument. We have already seen what happened when Labor took their only tool in their box to our economy, our tax system, our industrial relations and our national borders.

If Super needs changing let someone with some economic credentials adjust it carefully. Because letting the economic neanderthals at it will simply break it.

 

[wrcmad]

Labor have a habit of taking to finely tuned systems with a hammer. Whether or not our super system is fair it is quite finely tuned. Labor are about to hit it with their blunt instrument. We have already seen what happened when Labor took their only tool in their box to our economy, our tax system, our industrial relations and our national borders.

They do have one "fine" precision tool for extra delicate work, and they seem to be able to use it quite compitently to extracate their members from corruption charges.

 

[jparrie]

I just wanted to say on the subject of playing the man, not the post. I have nothing but respect for Big A.D. as a human being, because I know he's kind to pussy cats. And I love pussy cats. But his politics suck and that's what I'm playing, not necessarily him.

 

[JulieW]

This would be a really boring forum if everyone sat around agreeing with each other.

Keep the different perspectives coming Big A.D. - and everyone else who disagrees. I take forever to make up my mind and even then it's rarely absolute.

 

[JulieW]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...ht-against-super-tax-slug-20130331-2h1dz.html

The big four banks have joined a push to stop the Gillard government raising taxes on superannuation.

A delegation will go to Canberra next week to lobby Treasurer Wayne Swan to leave the super system alone.

The Financial Services Council, headed by former NSW Liberal Party leader John Brogden, will unite the banks and super industry bodies to push back against any move in the budget to raid the retirement savings of the wealthy.
Changing tack: Trade Minister Craig Emerson.

Changing tack: Trade Minister Craig Emerson. Photo: Paul Jones

The government is considering a raid on super to help rein in the ballooning deficit but faces resistance from within as well as from respected figures such as Bill Kelty, considered one of the architects of the superannuation system.

Trade Minister Craig Emerson gave the clearest hint yet that the government will shift the goal posts, saying there should be a debate on the tax treatment of the ''fabulously wealthy''. ''We are not seeking to impose new taxes on the superannuation accounts of ordinary Australians. But there is a legitimate debate about the very top end.''

Dr Emerson's view provoked an angry response from the industry. Duncan Fairweather, chief executive of the Self Managed Superannuation Fund Owners Alliance, said the government was likely to sell any change as a Robin Hood-type hit on the wealthy.

''It is poor policy to raid people's super savings to patch up the budget and poor politics to try to justify it as an attack on the wealthy,'' he said.

The super industry said a $1 million nest egg - thought to be in the sights of the government - provided a modest annual income of $50,000, assuming a 5 per cent return on investments.

The alliance and the Industry Super Network, which represents more than 5 million members, called on Sunday for a greater consultation period than the six weeks until the budget allows

 

[Nugget]

This would be a really boring forum if everyone sat around agreeing with each other.

Keep the different perspectives coming Big A.D. - and everyone else who disagrees. I take forever to make up my mind and even then it's rarely absolute.

I agree