Superannuation tax concessions on the block?

JulieW

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
Joe Hockey may have just let the cat out of the bag.

The Treasurer has an awful problem. Government revenue is falling well short of expectations and is about to slide further. Since his May budget, the iron ore price has slid 40 per cent. The oil price, which sets the price of exported gas, has slid 50 per cent. The lower dollar will not come close to offsetting the hits to export income and tax revenue. They are yet to reach the budget.

The really big dollars have to be found where the government hands out money and where the government forgoes money by handing out tax concessions. The really big dollars are in superannuation.

Already, as Hockey puts it, "the government is spending $100 million more than it collects every day. It has to borrow that $100 million per day just to pay its bills".

The $100 million figure comes from dividing the forecast budget deficit by the number of days in a year. It's accurate, and unless Hockey comes up with something clever it's about to grow.

He can't hack into it by slashing spending on education and health as he tried last time. His Prime Minister won't let him. Abbott says "with the wisdom of hindsight" that Hockey's first budget bit off more than it could chew. And in any event the economy is weak. It's the wrong time to rip money out of it.

Nor can he do it by further trimming the public service. Finance department chief Jane Halton went out of her way on Friday to debunk what she said was a myth: the idea that "if we just get efficiency of government working well, we could actually manage all of this".

The cost of running the government is on track to slide by a third over a decade, and it's not that big anyway in relation to total government spending.

The really big dollars have to be found where the government hands out money and where the government forgoes money by handing out tax concessions. The really big dollars are in superannuation.

The government's latest Tax Expenditures Statement puts the cost of just one of the two big superannuation tax concessions at $16 billion per year, set to grow to $19 billion in three years. It's the concession that taxes super contributions at just 15 per cent, instead of the employee's marginal tax rate. (The other big concession, the lower tax rate on earnings within super funds, costs $13 billion. The Treasury says that cost is set to double to $26 billion in three years.)

By way of comparison, the government spends $20 billion per year on Medicare.

The easiest concession to axe would be the one on contributions. It would be simply a matter of collecting the tax from employers through PAYE at standard rates instead of from funds at 15 per cent. No one's take-home pay would be cut. The employers would take the tax out of the money they set aside for contributions to super. Hockey would have made billions (a fair proportion of the Medicare budget) without ripping anything much out of the economy.

This column put forward the idea in December. Its beauty is its simplicity. Everyone would be taxed at their standard tax rate, and the tax would be collected where tax is usually collected, from employers through PAYE.

However, it took the great simplifier, broadcaster Alan Jones, to put the case at its simplest. Here's what he said on Q&A last Monday night: "The notion that someone like me should be getting concessions - I pay 48 in the dollar tax but if I put my super in, I pay 15. I get a 33 in the dollar concession ... now, someone somewhere along the line has got to say, look, in an ideal world that would be terrific, but we ain't in an ideal world."

At the time, the government minister on the program said only that super would be considered in the forthcoming tax review. On ABC radio on Friday, Hockey said more. Asked about what Alan Jones had said he referred not to the forthcoming tax review but to the Murray financial system inquiry already concluded, and to the May budget.

"We have obviously got a report from David Murray about the banking system and about retirement income; we are considering that," he said. "I am not ruling anything in or out. I am not playing those sort of games but we are looking far and wide for the opportunity to get the budget back to the point where we, as a nation, live within our means."

I read that as confirmation that Hockey is looking at superannuation tax concessions in the context of the May budget.

Murray endorsed the recommendation of the Henry Tax Review that super contributions be taxed as ordinary income, offset (for contributions or up to $25,000) by a flat rebate of 15 per cent; meaning that high earners would no longer get obscenely bigger concessions than low earners.

Labor ignored the recommendation. It had designed the system that taxed super unfairly. Only at the 11th hour, when it was about to lose office, did it attempt modest modifications.

Hockey can't overturn Labor's tax system just yet. In 2013 he promised no change to super for threeyears. That commitment is about to expire. He can announce changes in this year's budget that will take effect from late 2016 and begin booking the much-needed extra revenue. I think he might.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...for-treasurer-joe-hockey-20150216-13f1cu.html
 
A valid savings policy, but it has to measured up against what it will pay for. I think spending waste should be addressed first. Foreign Aid, overseas company tax rorts, all the money being pissed up against the wall on ludicrous subsidies and handouts. You can not take future retirement investment from working people so that mismanaged spending can continue.

Having said that, I know we have to reduce and ultimately end the deficit, and accept it has to be tackled at both ends by reducing the spending and increasing the income, but it has to be fair and transparent. The argument that it has to be increased from 15% to the marginal tax rate seems to leave out everything in between, why not just 20%? Will those low income workers not paying tax have it reduced to their marginal rate of 0%?
 
-1 to that article JulieW.

I try not to attack the personal credibility of those putting forward a case, but sometimes it's hard to ignore. Especially when a career bureaucrat argues in favour of protecting her own job that is paid for using other people's money that is taken from them without consent or choice.

Finance department chief Jane Halton went out of her way on Friday to debunk what she said was a myth: the idea that "if we just get efficiency of government working well, we could actually manage all of this".

The average family weekly income in Canberra is higher than any other capital city in Australia, government employees are obviously overcompensated for the goods they produce. Poor old Ms Halton, she actually believes governments can be efficient as well.

Re: Allan Jones, (who is an economic fool) and the notion that tax concessions is revenue that is waived is absolutely ridiculous. If we were to follow that line of logic then raising all income tax rates to say 75% would be justified because to not do so would be to exempt earnings that the government is entitled to collect. The topic of tax concessions and the erroneous understanding that it is a cost has been beaten to death on this forum previously.

And he doesn't pay 48c/$ tax anyway - hasn't he heard of a progressive tax rate???????????

Peter Martin wrote: Australia needs a big, untapped revenue stream to balance its books, and superannuation ticks all the boxes.

Didn't we have that with the Mining Tax? Or when we introduced the GST? No, I think it was CGT. Hang on, or was it when they decided to collect Income Tax on a permanent basis?

Maybe Martin is right? Superannuation ticks all the boxes, it will be able to provide a huge income stream allowing the Feds to balance their budget books - for now. :/
 
Alan Jones is right (and fortunately my head didn't just explode from typing that) - he doesn't need such a large concessional tax rate on his super.

Personally, I think people should get a concessional tax rate on the money being put aside for their retirement. Some of it comes from foregone pay rises, but more importantly the more capital they can build up, the greater the compounding effect is.

The way the discounted rate is calculated right now is ridiculous. On the one hand you've got people earning under $18,000 paying no tax in income but paying 15% on super contributions. They're actually worse off putting extra money aside for their retirement than if they just kept or spent it all. On the other hand you've got people like Jones putting in as much extra as they can to drop their tax rate from 48% to 15%. When you get to his sort of income level, chances are you're going to be doing pretty nicely in retirement whether you get the concessional rate or not.

The bleeding obvious solution is to set the concessional rate at x percentage points under the marginal tax rate (e.g. minus 1000 basis points) so the super tax rate is also progressive like the income tax rate is.

For example:

$0 - $18,200 = 0% on income, -10% on super (a simple replacement for the low income super co-contribution)
$18,201 $37,000 = 19% on income, 9% on super
$37,001 $80,000 = 32.5% on income, 22.5% on super
$80,001 $180,000 = 37% on income, 27% on super
$180,001+ = 45% on income, 35% on super
 
Super is nothing more than an extra tax - just like the Medicare Levy - and anybody who contributes more to it than is mandated in state theft tax legislation needs their bluddy head read! :lol:
 
Big A.D., why does every post you write about governments/tax/wealth etc involve taking more from those who earn more and distributing it to those who earn less? Now if that doesn't sound like socialism I don't know what does.

Edit to add: and what you fail to understand is that there will always be a shortfall between government revenue and the government's/electorate's/corporate crony's/Union's/media's desire to spend the taxpayer's hard earned and stolen $$.

Big A.D. said:
The bleeding obvious solution is to set the concessional rate at x percentage points under the marginal tax rate (e.g. minus 1000 basis points) so the super tax rate is also progressive like the income tax rate is.

Why? Please try to justify this statement without making any appeals to false notions such as "for the good of the country" or "if we all value equality" etc etc. It's only obvious if you believe government's have a right to take and distribute the earnings of individuals.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Big A.D., why does every post you write about governments/tax/wealth etc involve taking more from those who earn more and distributing it to those who earn less? Now if that doesn't sound like socialism I don't know what does.

Edit to add: and what you fail to understand is that there will always be a shortfall between government revenue and the government's/electorate's/corporate crony's/Union's/media's desire to spend the taxpayer's hard earned and stolen $$.

Big A.D. said:
The bleeding obvious solution is to set the concessional rate at x percentage points under the marginal tax rate (e.g. minus 1000 basis points) so the super tax rate is also progressive like the income tax rate is.

Why? Please try to justify this statement without making any appeals to false notions such as "for the good of the country" or "if we all value equality" etc etc. It's only obvious if you believe government's have a right to take and distribute the earnings of individuals.

I thought it was perfectly obvious... Isn't he the head-commie/socialist on this blog?? :lol:
 
Daily Reckoning today:

The super cash grab is about to begin

Currently, there is $1.8 trillion in the super system.

But frustratingly for Aussie governments, it's just out of their reach. Not that governments haven't tried to snatch it.

They're just being careful. They don't want to 'frighten the horses' by grabbing it in one go. That's why they're using taxes and regulations to make super as unattractive, cumbersome, and complicated as possible.

It's why they've tightened the rules on the type of investments you can make in super. It's why they've cut back on some of the tax breaks.

It's why they've launched a campaign via the tax office and vested interests to demonise anyone who uses the super system to heaven forbid save money.

Make no mistake, this is a slow-burning issue. One day the government will grab every cent you've saved in super. But until then they'll take small steps.

The next opportunity for the government to raid the super industry is in the May federal budget. If the government plans to do something to super in the budget, look out for a series of messages leaked to the press in the coming weeks.

It's an old tactic. Leak a proposal so they can gauge the public and media response. If it's a positive response, they'll go with it. If it's a negative response, they'll deny they had ever proposed it.

The Age says that 'The really big dollars are in superannuation.' That's right. There's no doubt about what will happen. Super will be a targetand it won't be for the last time either.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Big A.D. said:
The bleeding obvious solution is to set the concessional rate at x percentage points under the marginal tax rate (e.g. minus 1000 basis points) so the super tax rate is also progressive like the income tax rate is.

Why? Please try to justify this statement without making any appeals to false notions such as "for the good of the country" or "if we all value equality" etc etc. It's only obvious if you believe government's have a right to take and distribute the earnings of individuals.

Yes, well, I was naively assuming that we're beyond the childish questions about whether we should have a government and a taxation system. We have and we do. The budget that pays for all the stuff we need and want needs to be sustainable over the long term. Currently, it is not.

As Alan Jones himself said, he doesn't need tax breaks to the extent that he's getting now. In fact, he's doing very nicely for himself thank you very much.

And no, I don't think super contributions should be taxed at regular income rates. The trade-off for not being able to spend the money now is that you don't get taxed as much. There should be a reward for delaying gratification.

Like I mentioned above, people should get a discounted rate on their super, but the way we calculate the discount at the moment is silly - some people get way more of a discount than they need and others who need all the help they can get preparing for their retirement are actually penalized for saving.

That's just inefficient.
 
Articles like this just attack people who know what the rules are and have played within the rules to their benefit. Much like the plethora of SMH/Age/Guardian/ABC articles arguing for the end of lump-sum retirement payments to force everyone into long-term regular pension payments. As people who get lump sums know that using that to pay off any remaining mortgage will let them still get a pension - which is entirely playing by the rules as they are set. And, people know best how to spend their own money, which the central planners and wannabe-central planners hate.

What is argued here will make saving in superannuation more costly as it will become even more complex to administer. Who believes that changing the rate of concessional tax will be the limit? One of the beautiful things about superannuation is its' flat tax, within well publicised limits. 15% tax on concessions, 15% tax on investment income, with the exception of capital gains on investments held over 1 year that has a lower rate.

Change the tax on contributions today, and a change to the investment income tax rates is the next logical step for the looter commentators to argue for the thieves in the government tax departments to implement.

Today, a SMSF with 4 members may receive a $4000 dividend. Less one tranche of 15% tax ($600), the remaining $3400 is apportioned to the members according to their share of capital in the fund. In future, if Members 1-4 are all on different personal tax rates that need to be accounted for in their super, which is inevitable in the real world, the trustee has four calculations to make to generate the investment tax payable, and apportion that $4000 less four separate tranches of tax into four tranches of apportioned income to the members.

Annoying while achievable at my SMSF level, but imagine how many more actuaries the big super funds will need to employ when they receive $4 million dividends that need to be divided amongst 500,000 members all taxed across the income tax rate spectrum, further complicated by the dozen risk classes that most funds now employ.

At the end of this comment I'd like to say I'm thinking big picture here - I just foresee the whole system becoming more complex, costly, with less money left for actual retirement of members.
 
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.
 
SilverPete said:
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.

So start a self managed fund and take control of your own and your families' future.
 
AngloSaxon said:
SilverPete said:
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.

So start a self managed fund and take control of your own and your families' future.

that wont help you one bit! my situation is a case in point.
The scum sucking guvmunt keeps changing the super laws and moves the money further away from you with each stupid new law they pass.
I cant touch my super until I'm 60, and the barstads will no doubt keep pushing that age up and up and up as time goes by.
Gen X and Y will NEVER see one cent of their super!
 
lurk@l0t said:
I cant touch my super until I'm 60

That is entirely the point. Your point of view seems limited to today. There is more to life than right now. Take that to heart, GenX/Y/Z's.
 
AngloSaxon said:
SilverPete said:
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.

So start a self managed fund and take control of your own and your families' future.

Exactly what I am thinking of. Gotta get off my butt and do something about it. What's the first step? Where do I start?
 
SilverPete said:
AngloSaxon said:
SilverPete said:
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.

So start a self managed fund and take control of your own and your families' future.

Exactly what I am thinking of. Gotta get off my butt and do something about it. What's the first step? Where do I start?

Courtesy of bloomst :) Setting up my SMSF, Q&A
 
SilverPete said:
AngloSaxon said:
SilverPete said:
Australian superannuation is simply legalised theft designed to benefit financial industry funds and to transfer wealth from future generations.

So start a self managed fund and take control of your own and your families' future.

Exactly what I am thinking of. Gotta get off my butt and do something about it. What's the first step? Where do I start?

Talk to me.
 
Caput Lupinum said:
Esuperfund
Clear Docs
ASIC

A relative is with Esuperfund with a reasonably large portfolio including a few properties owned outright and it suits his purposes.

I used ClearDocs: https://www.cleardocs.com/ doing it myself, and never looked back.

Read Bloomst's guide and scan through the collected threads on this forum and what is on http://www.aussiestockforums.com

I read through everything I could online for about a month before I started, so I understood what I was getting myself and my family into.

I've recommended here before, also get one or two books on SMSF's and SMSF operating. As long as the book is relatively recent, or a new edition of a long established book, it is a good reference to answer questions of things you don't have any success in googling.

Also, start to think about other investments than bullion, such as what are called 'blue chip' shares.

Good luck and use the forum to ask any question.
 
Big A.D. said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Big A.D. said:
The bleeding obvious solution is to set the concessional rate at x percentage points under the marginal tax rate (e.g. minus 1000 basis points) so the super tax rate is also progressive like the income tax rate is.

Why? Please try to justify this statement without making any appeals to false notions such as "for the good of the country" or "if we all value equality" etc etc. It's only obvious if you believe government's have a right to take and distribute the earnings of individuals.

Yes, well, I was naively assuming that we're beyond the childish questions about whether we should have a government and a taxation system
. We have and we do. The budget that pays for all the stuff we need and want needs to be sustainable over the long term. Currently, it is not.

I see, it's childish now to question the legitimacy of an organisation that has no contractual agreement with anyone and enforces their authority utilising a legislative system that is self-beneficial????? :rolleyes:

Big A.D. said:
As Alan Jones himself said, he doesn't need tax breaks to the extent that he's getting now. In fact, he's doing very nicely for himself thank you very much.

That's great that Alan doesn't need the tax breaks. But that's not the point, I don't need to drink but I do, the bloke across the road didn't need to buy 2 new cars but he did, my sister didn't need to go on holidays to HK last year but she went anyway. It's got nothing to do with need because it's got all to do with freedom and protection of property.

Just because I drink doesn't mean I think everyone else should, just because I don't need 2 new cars shouldn't mean the bloke across the road shouldn't buy 2 new cars and just because Alan or Big AD don't need concessional tax breaks doesn't mean Alan or Big AD can dictate to others what they need.

And every time I hear a socialist (you, Phransisku, peter etc) talk about what others need or don't need I ask the same question - Who decides what others need and what specific basic level of needs are required?
 
Back
Top