The Malevolent Morrison Muppet Goverment

[doriswilgus]

I’m sure people who have more than $3 million in super will be able to cope with the rise in tax.If it means they have to have five overseas hols a year instead of six,I’m sure they’ll manage.It’ll be tough for them to make the sacrifice,but I’m sure they can do it.

[think positive]

I hate that Labor have dug themselves into such a hole on that one. Obviously they made a decision to go to the election on that policy and are now stuck with it, but CGT and negative gearing absolutely need to be in the gun. Undoubtedly most ALP politicians realise that, so it's frustrating that (at least, in the view of the brains trust in charge of the party) doing something about them is seen as politically impossible.

you know if they cut out all the benefits for rental properties, you might have to buy yourself a house!

[think positive]

Labor has always been money hungry, rasing taxes to fund their programs.

I don't have a problem with the proposal to increase taxes on super funds over $3M from 15% to 30%, but ideally they wouldn't make it effective on current funds only from now on. People invested money in good faith based on the rules at the time.

I'd be more concerned about the Fwit treasurer wanting to "encourage" super funds to invest in government programs. Super funds should exist to maximise ROI for their members, not fund Government programs.

This, exactly this, this is why Super shits me, they keep changing the rules! Its not fricken fair!

And re the bottom paragraph, the best thing we did was go self managed. I wouldnt trust the government to change a toilet roll!

[watt price tully]

Labor has always been money hungry, rasing taxes to fund their programs.

I don't have a problem with the proposal to increase taxes on super funds over $3M from 15% to 30%, but ideally they wouldn't make it effective on current funds only from now on. People invested money in good faith based on the rules at the time.

I'd be more concerned about the Fwit treasurer wanting to "encourage" super funds to invest in government programs. Super funds should exist to maximise ROI for their members, not fund Government programs.

This, exactly this, this is why Super shits me, they keep changing the rules! Its not fricken fair!

And re the bottom paragraph, the best thing we did was go self managed. I wouldnt trust the government to change a toilet roll!

Under Morrison people rushed to take out the retirement funds and that leaves the Supercompanies needing to invest more short term than capital acquiring long term.

People with millions should not be tax exempt. Costello encouraged those with $ without limits to put $ in super thereby avoiding what would have been have been more fairly taxed. Tax avoidance / minimization.

Super was established for retirement not to be legally rorted as the Libs did so the wealthy can save on tax being subsidised by the rest of the country. By doing this for the next election people have time to shift their $ if they so choose. Tax payers should not be subsidising those who can afford to pay. Super is for retirement not an endowment to the children for those with millions in Super.

Professor John Quiggin nails it here:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ntouchable

[think positive]

Firstly, people should not have been allowed to access their super unless it was critical.

Secondly, I don't have a problem with this change in particular, it doesn't affect us, I just don't think something that is mandatory should have fluctuating rules that only the current Government get a say in!

At what point does it actually become MY money? after it's been taxed 20 times?

[stui magpie]

The whole point of super was for people (and employers) to fund people's retirement and reduce the cost of the Age Pension, which it's done.

Keating didn't invent it, he just expanded what already existed in a lot of Public Sector roles to be across the board.

This Chalmers git talks about tax concessions as if they were an expense. They're not. They're still making money from taxing people, they'd just make more if they taxed more, people would have less to retire on and the cost of the Age pension would go up as more people would need it.

[watt price tully]

The whole point of super was for people (and employers) to fund people's retirement and reduce the cost of the Age Pension, which it's done.

Keating didn't invent it, he just expanded what already existed in a lot of Public Sector roles to be across the board.

Chalmers git talks about tax concessions as if they were an expense. They're not. They're still making money from taxing people, they'd just make more if they taxed more, people would have less to retire on and the cost of the Age pension would go up as more people would need it.

Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph because you omitted the Costello largesse.. It is exactly because the whole point of super is to fund retirement was in fact changed by Costello to allow millionaires to to use super as a tax miminzation scheme thereby avoid paying more (and rightful tax) and at the same time be subsidised the Joe public. It is not to pass on to your children (see more than $3 million) but as you rightly observed it is to fund retirement. It is an expense that Costello created for a few wealthy people and one we can ill-afford.

Don't be so mealy mouthed about Keating

[What'sinaname]

Is ramping up the tax rate to 30% telegraphing future reform around franking credits?

[think positive]

The whole point of super was for people (and employers) to fund people's retirement and reduce the cost of the Age Pension, which it's done.

Keating didn't invent it, he just expanded what already existed in a lot of Public Sector roles to be across the board.

Chalmers git talks about tax concessions as if they were an expense. They're not. They're still making money from taxing people, they'd just make more if they taxed more, people would have less to retire on and the cost of the Age pension would go up as more people would need it.

Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph because you omitted the Costello largesse.. It is exactly because the whole point of super is to fund retirement was in fact changed by Costello to allow millionaires to to use super as a tax miminzation scheme thereby avoid paying more (and rightful tax) and at the same time be subsidised the Joe public. It is not to pass on to your children (see more than $3 million) but as you rightly observed it is to fund retirement. It is an expense that Costello created for a few wealthy people and one we can ill-afford.

Don't be so mealy mouthed about Keating

You don’t have to have $3million in super to use it to minimise tax, anyone can and should, it’s an incentive to save more so you cost the system less,or preferably, nothing in your retirement years.

As for your use of the word ‘millionaires’ almost anyone who owns their house and has a decent car and furniture is a millionaire these days! So yeah, as I said, everyone can use it yo their advantage on some scale.

Rightful tax! Hey you have more apples than me, give me some! Why? I climbed a ladder In The hot sun and picked them while you reclined on the beach! So what,you should still share!

It’s not just have and have nots, it’s the can, cants, and wants too!

[watt price tully]

The whole point of super was for people (and employers) to fund people's retirement and reduce the cost of the Age Pension, which it's done.

Keating didn't invent it, he just expanded what already existed in a lot of Public Sector roles to be across the board.

Chalmers git talks about tax concessions as if they were an expense. They're not. They're still making money from taxing people, they'd just make more if they taxed more, people would have less to retire on and the cost of the Age pension would go up as more people would need it.

Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph because you omitted the Costello largesse.. It is exactly because the whole point of super is to fund retirement was in fact changed by Costello to allow millionaires to to use super as a tax miminzation scheme thereby avoid paying more (and rightful tax) and at the same time be subsidised the Joe public. It is not to pass on to your children (see more than $3 million) but as you rightly observed it is to fund retirement. It is an expense that Costello created for a few wealthy people and one we can ill-afford.

Don't be so mealy mouthed about Keating

You don’t have to have $3million in super to use it to minimise tax, anyone can and should, it’s an incentive to save more so you cost the system less,or preferably, nothing in your retirement years.

As for your use of the word ‘millionaires’ almost anyone who owns their house and has a decent car and furniture is a millionaire these days! So yeah, as I said, everyone can use it yo their advantage on some scale.

Rightful tax! Hey you have more apples than me, give me some! Why? I climbed a ladder In The hot sun and picked them while you reclined on the beach! So what,you should still share!

It’s not just have and have nots, it’s the can, cants, and wants too!

You can muddy the waters by using that narrow definition of Millionaires. In this context and as you know it is the liquidity of $ not property.
The millionaires in the context it should be seen as and what most people most of the time refer to is mostly accrued from an uneven playing field. A number of factors make it uneven:

Inherited wealth;
Being male;
Access to a system of tax minimisation which favours the (relatively) well off;
Tax policies which favour the well off;
Discounted loan interest rates for the well off compared to the average punter;
Less of disposable income and income per se going on tax such as GST for the well off;
Amongst others….

Spare me the I had to work hard palarva. At the same time this is not to diminish your and your husband’s hard work or my family’s hard work. However we also need to recognise the environment that our hard work is located in.

If you want to continue to live in an increasingly polarised community with increasing disparity between a few wealthy people and a lot more poorer people then support this current inequitable form of superannuation; you might even be able to deduct the gates from the gated community you’ll be forced to live in due to the social consequences of the increased inequality which the current form of superannuation encourages.

[watt price tully]

[think positive]

Your first paragraph contradicts your third paragraph because you omitted the Costello largesse.. It is exactly because the whole point of super is to fund retirement was in fact changed by Costello to allow millionaires to to use super as a tax miminzation scheme thereby avoid paying more (and rightful tax) and at the same time be subsidised the Joe public. It is not to pass on to your children (see more than $3 million) but as you rightly observed it is to fund retirement. It is an expense that Costello created for a few wealthy people and one we can ill-afford.

Don't be so mealy mouthed about Keating

You don’t have to have $3million in super to use it to minimise tax, anyone can and should, it’s an incentive to save more so you cost the system less,or preferably, nothing in your retirement years.

As for your use of the word ‘millionaires’ almost anyone who owns their house and has a decent car and furniture is a millionaire these days! So yeah, as I said, everyone can use it yo their advantage on some scale.

Rightful tax! Hey you have more apples than me, give me some! Why? I climbed a ladder In The hot sun and picked them while you reclined on the beach! So what,you should still share!

It’s not just have and have nots, it’s the can, cants, and wants too!

You can muddy the waters by using that narrow definition of Millionaires. In this context and as you know it is the liquidity of $ not property.
The millionaires in the context it should be seen as and what most people most of the time refer to is mostly accrued from an uneven playing field. A number of factors make it uneven:

Inherited wealth;
Being male;
Access to a system of tax minimisation which favours the (relatively) well off;
Tax policies which favour the well off;
Discounted loan interest rates for the well off compared to the average punter;
Less of disposable income and income per se going on tax such as GST for the well off;
Amongst others….

Spare me the I had to work hard palarva. At the same time this is not to diminish your and your husband’s hard work or my family’s hard work. However we also need to recognise the environment that our hard work is located in.

If you want to continue to live in an increasingly polarised community with increasing disparity between a few wealthy people and a lot more poorer people then support this current inequitable form of superannuation; you might even be able to deduct the gates from the gated community you’ll be forced to live in due to the social consequences of the increased inequality which the current form of superannuation encourages.

LOL You ain’t seen my gate!

Hubby built it in our workshop!




Like I said, I don’t have a problem with the increase, but as Stui said it should not be back dated, it should only be applied to money added after the start date. You should not be able to change the rules during the game.

Your incorrect about liquidity of dollars, smart people invest in property, it’s far less volatile than other forms of investment. Stui mentioned that too!

[think positive]

Considering there's a contributions cap of a bit over $25k pa, which includes employer contributions, the only wage earners who I can see getting a balance over $3M would be Surgeons/Anesthetists, Lawyers, CEO's and those with self managed super funds who struck it lucky with some property investments.

Agree with DB that those who have those balances will already be in touch with their accountant, but provided the extra 15% only applies to the portion over $3m, their options may be limited to stop putting money there and invest it eslewhere.

Fair enough of Albanese to take it to the next election rather than implement now, but the language they're using has potential to allow for a scare campaign on what's next? CGT on the family home? Back to the Franking Credits?

The other thing that has been noted is that the $3M cap isn't going to be indexed at this stage, so over time that very small number of people impacted would potentially become bigger and bigger.

This in a nutshell. All of it.

[stui magpie]

Don't be so mealy mouthed about Keating

Hey, I liked Keating, met him once and had a chat at a Collingwood v Melbourne game when he had resigned as Treasurer and was on the back bench, I was a guest of the Melbourne sponsor at the time, Drake.

Just pointing out that it's common for Labor acolytes to claim that Keating invented the concept. He didn't. When I started with Telecom in 1985, 5% of my salary went to the Commonwealth Super Scheme, which was a defined benefit scheme. All Keating did (which was smart BTW) was expand the concept to everyone, make employers pay for it (at the expense of salary increases) and save the Government a shitpile of coin in the future by not funding an old age pension at a liveable level.

[What'sinaname]

Under Morrison people rushed to take out the retirement funds and that leaves the Supercompanies needing to invest more short term than capital acquiring long term.

People with millions should not be tax exempt. Costello encouraged those with $ without limits to put $ in super thereby avoiding what would have been have been more fairly taxed. Tax avoidance / minimization.

Super was established for retirement not to be legally rorted as the Libs did so the wealthy can save on tax being subsidised by the rest of the country. By doing this for the next election people have time to shift their $ if they so choose. Tax payers should not be subsidising those who can afford to pay. Super is for retirement not an endowment to the children for those with millions in Super.

Professor John Quiggin nails it here:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ntouchable

You do realise the wealthy are the tax payers in this country. The top 3.6% of people pay 32% of the tax. The next 16% pay another 37%. So the most wealth 20% are paying 70% of the tax. So the wealthy are subsidising for those who can not afford to pay. Stop pretending it's the other way around.