Prev
Next

Abbott’s superannuation vision is plain shortsighted

Matt Thistlethwaite

by Matt Thistlethwaite

12 Feb 01:15pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Employment, Low Income, Money, Tony Abbott, Work

100 comments

Louise Arnfield is a part time bank teller who earns less than $37,000 a year.

This is going to hurt. Photo: Herald Sun

If Tony Abbott wins the next election, Louise and others with similar circumstances will be much worse off financially, guaranteed.

That’s because Tony Abbott has promised to get rid of the Low Income Superannuation Contribution.

If there was any doubt about this, Tony Abbott sheepishly set the record straight in his National Press Club speech last week when he confirmed a Coalition Government would abolish this policy.

Introduced by the Gillard Government on 1 July 2012, the Low Income Superannuation Contribution ensures that low income workers pay no tax on their superannuation contributions. Under this policy, workers who earn less than $37,000 per annum, enjoy an effective tax refund up to the value of $500 on their superannuation contributions.

The effect of this policy is to ensure that low income workers do not have their superannuation contributions wiped out by tax. This provides workers with an incentive to stay in employment rather than consider dropping out of the workforce because much of their superannuation contributions disappeared in taxation. 

This incentive-to-work policy is complimented by the Government’s recent increase in the tax free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000, which provides a substantial tax cut for low paid workers.

About 3.6 million Australian workers benefit from the Low Income Superannuation Contribution, many of whom are women working part time.  If Tony Abbott is elected, each and every one of those 3.6 million workers will pay more tax on their superannuation contributions.

That’s the fact behind the false slogans of tax relief for households that Abbott has been peddling in his recent television ads.

Australia has an ageing population. The proportion of Australia’s population aged 65 and over is projected to almost double over the next 40 years. Today there are 5 working-aged people to every person aged 65 and over. By 2050, this ratio will fall to only 2.7 people.

As a nation we must plan and tailor our retirement savings policies to meet the challenges an ageing population will bring. 

That’s why the Gillard Government is increasing compulsory employer superannuation contributions from 9% to 12% over the next 6 years.

This will ensure we relieve some of the inevitable pressure on our social security, health and aged care systems.

The Low Income Superannuation Contribution is an important spoke in the policy wheel to provide Australian workers adequate retirement savings.  It provides low income earners with the tax incentive to save for retirement- a benefit for individuals and our nation’s future.

Tony Abbott’s pledge to remove this tax break for our lowest paid workers is not only unfair for the workers concerned, it will also place greater pressure on all tax payers into the future as the burden of financing an ageing population increases. This is short sighted economic planning at its worst.

Tony Abbott has said he will not make major changes to our superannuation system and most people probably think there is no difference between the major parties when it comes to superannuation.

But for low income workers like Louise there is a big difference, and it will hit them where it hurts.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST

Most commented

100 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Damo says:

      12:22pm | 12/02/13

      So now we’ve seen how little the MRRT is actually bringing in, how is this tax cut for low income workers being funded Mr Thistlethwaite? The Treasurer told us a number of times that the MRRT was important because we needed the funds from it to pay for initiatives like this. Seems logical that we now need to find those funds elsewhere. So again the question, how is this being funded? You criticise the Coalition for policies that are un-costed, yet that’s exactly what we’re dealing with here. What programs will you cut to keep this initiative in place? Who will you tax more to allow this to continue? Funny how you don’t address that at all in your thread.

      Reply

    • Hartz says:

      12:44pm | 12/02/13

      too true… They don’t care though..!! Don’t let blatant hypocrisy get in the way of an opportunity to do a little Abbott bashing…

    • CF says:

      01:13pm | 12/02/13

      Having found the MRRT well to be dry, will Swan himself abolish the policies which it was funding, fill the hole from somewhere else, or go further into defecit

    • mikem says:

      01:36pm | 12/02/13

      CF, the MRRT is ineffective because Gillard and Swan were outsmarted by the miners.  The mining industries’ campaign to thwart the original tax proposal was very effective and the replacement the three big miners negotiated was set up to fail by them, as it has.

      The real issue is why the Liberals are so comfortable with the 83% foreign owned mining industry paying a very low effective tax rate and then sending most of the profits overseas.  Tony Abbott’s unequivocal support of that and his proposal to make them pay even less tax make him a traitor to the Australian people in my eyes.

    • Alfie says:

      01:51pm | 12/02/13

      @mikem
      “Gillard and Swan were outsmarted by the miners.”

      That was not too difficult. One is a ‘young and naive’ lawyer, the other is a dunce with an Art’s degree.

    • Mat says:

      01:52pm | 12/02/13

      How is business going to cop the extra 3% super contribution (especially the manufacturing industry who are really suffering) great policy Gillard. She sets a new policy and says what a visionary leader I am - now business %$@# you, you pay for it (a great strategy which will see the dole que stretch) Abbott is right and I’m sick of consessions, consessions everyone pays tax and that’s that. Sick of getting wacked to prop up everyone else

    • CF says:

      01:56pm | 12/02/13

      Mikem, Gillard implemented policies which would be funded from a fictitious source, and the likes of poor Mr Thistlewaite are now left to attack those who point to the inevitable funding hole - that is short sighted

    • Benzo says:

      02:08pm | 12/02/13

      “CF, the MRRT is ineffective because Gillard and Swan were outsmarted by the miners. ” 
      Not just the miners, but by the liberals as well.
      All liberal state goverments raised mining roylties straight after the MRRT came in, efectivley skiming off all the super profits. The timing was not co-incidence at all and infact the roylties are worse for the miners as they don’t just tax super profits they are accross the board making it harder for up and comming companies as they pay it even if no matter how little they make.

      So again we see the libs going against their own principle to sabotage the government with zero regard for business and the australian people.

    • Mark out West says:

      02:15pm | 12/02/13

      Mikem, hypocrisy sits well with the LIbs.  When the MRRT came in the two Lib states of WA & Queensland hiked up their Royalty rates.  Royalties are based on turnover not profit so those Australian based start ups were being slugged when they weren’t making a profit, I see that as AUSSIE bashing.  You also don’t see anyone adding the increase in what the Libs pull in as royalties being added to the MRRT return.  Hyprocrisy thy name is Libs.

    • Stephen T says:

      02:33pm | 12/02/13

      @mikem:  You may have that a tad wrong Mike, the reality is that the States own the resources the Gillard and Swann are trying to tax, and they extract revenue from royalties, and fees relating to freight, handling at port facilities and shipping that goes back into the States treasury.  Can you give me one good reason why the states should give up direct access to this revenue at the behest of Gillard and Swann only to then have to go cap in hand to the Gillard government to get a pittance in return?  For Gillard and Swann it isn’t so much about getting a fairer distribution of wealth and funding unfunded programs as it is getting their grimy little paws on another revenue stream, I’d ask you where do you think the money will go, what state services are you willing to see go unfunded so that Gillard and Swann can play silly buggers with the revenue.

    • Borderer says:

      02:50pm | 12/02/13

      @mikem
      The real issue is why the Liberals are so comfortable with the 83% foreign owned mining industry paying a very low effective tax rate and then sending most of the profits overseas.

      Yeah, how dare they risk investing billions of dollars in mining projects and not have the government slap them with an extra tax once they start making profit…. bastards….
      You also quickly forget that they pay workers enormous amounts of money that gets taxed in Australia as well as still paying the state government royalties along with the 30% company tax on profits to the feds.
      You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?

    • Tim says:

      03:26pm | 12/02/13

      Stephen T,
      “Can you give me one good reason why the states should give up direct access to this revenue at the behest of Gillard and Swann only to then have to go cap in hand to the Gillard government to get a pittance in return?”

      Because a Rent Tax is far more efficient than the current Royalty system. And a pittance in return? LOL.

      In an ideal world we’d get rid of the states altogether and have the Federal government and very large regional councils. They simply add costs for very little benefit.

    • Stained says:

      03:51pm | 12/02/13

      Dead right there Damo, but what else would Matt Thistlethwaite have t say?  He’s got a long slog to the top and needs to suck to his boss.  It just amazes me these fools are expecting the coalition to lay bare their costings for their policies etc when they have no idea of the deceit this current scum are doing.  Theses bastards are IN power and have no bloody idea what the are doing.
      I’m a worker, but call me a snob if you like, Labor pollies are simply bogans from the “so called working class” pretending to be able to do better than educated politicians.  They are still in their infancy testing out their university days.  Time they gave up and realised that communism does not work.  People are sick of having their salaries stripped for the “low class”, I say that in respect to those who “want” handouts not need them.  In the end, those paying higher taxes give up and join the other line with their hand out and why not, in the end there is zero incentive???  That’s how it went arse up in those countries.  Yugoslavia had a revolt because the bludgers down south got the hard working benefits from Slovenia.
      Governments need to but out of people’s lives!

    • Red says:

      04:11pm | 12/02/13

      It’s a disaster because it raises no money AND because it’s destroying mining. Now that’s hypocrisy and two faced lies for you!

    • Stephen T says:

      04:34pm | 12/02/13

      @Benzo: “infact the roylties are worse for the miners as they don’t just tax super profits they are accross the board making it harder for up and comming companies as they pay it even if no matter how little they make.”

      Just a correction Benzo, Royalties are only payable on minerals recovered from mineral land and sold or intended for sale, or utilised (or to be utilised) for any commercial or industrial purpose.  In order for a company to be liable for royalties it has to be extracting and selling minerals.

    • Stephen T says:

      04:41pm | 12/02/13

      @Tim: I happen to disagree on your points given the current performance of the alternative system. I also happen to think the division of power at federal and state levels provides a nice balance, the system works well in most civilised democratic countries and I see no reason to change it.

    • PJ says:

      05:02pm | 12/02/13

      None of the promises the Gillard Government has made has funding.

      NDIS
      Gronski
      Dental
      More Illegals
      Nauru Repairs
      etc etc

      thats why none have been delivered.

      Gronski is still a research project with only a 9 page document to show.
      NDIS is no more than a small pilot scheme somewhere.

      No money, nothing has been delivered.

      So the Gillard Government and their supporters cannot complain that Abbott will remove something that doesn’t exist currently.

      You should know that Swan originally said the Mining Tax would bring in $3 Billion and we let him revise that down to $2 Billion.

      when he reported only $126 Million had been collected because they are incompetent, what he was hiding was only $88 million revenue had been delivered by the Mining Tax.

      Why does this Government have a problem telling the truth?

    • PJ says:

      05:29pm | 12/02/13

      Benzo

      The States had a right to increase Royalties. The Mining is done in their States, but the Federal Government wanted to ‘dip its nib’ in the pot.

      Unlucky for them they set up the Mining tax poorly and are now looking for scape Goats. But as Rudd says, there is no one to blame but Gillard and Swan. It’s the SURPLUS disaster all over again.

      Swan lied when he reported that it had only brought in $126 million instead of $2 Billion. It actually only realised $8 Million.

      Cannot even lie straight in bed this mob.

    • bruser says:

      06:14pm | 12/02/13

      It’s a great policy and stop crying Damo, if I was to use your logic, the opposition promises are nothing and mean nothing especially when there’s a multi billion dollar black hole out there somewhere created by incompetent morons who have no idea.
      Now their coastings have already hit a snag and their promise to show us their figures was another lie, yet they’re prepared to give a tax break to the rich!! We are in serious trouble unless they change all the people on front bench, and you know it….

    • snob says:

      06:27pm | 12/02/13

      @stained. You’re right, those working class bludgers don’t deserve any handouts let alone more super money. Why not just import more visa workers to Australia on permanent basis and let these bludgers go back where they came from. I reckon anyone who hasn’t got a degree behind them don’t deserve a single penny from the government so if you don’t fall in to this category, get the hell out!!

    • mikem says:

      06:59pm | 12/02/13

      Doesn’t matter how you dress it up the issue of Tony Abbott and the Liberals selling us out to the miner’s remains.  They are putting the interests of the foreigners who own most of the mining in Australia ahead of those of Australia’s citizens.

    • I hate pies says:

      12:29pm | 12/02/13

      The current policy is nothing more than another example of middle income earners propping up the rest.
      Why shouldn’t low income earners pay tax? Shouldn’t we all contribute in some way?

      Reply

    • dovif says:

      12:47pm | 12/02/13

      Actually no, this is a classic case of middle income welfare, as if people on income of $39,000 can afford a spare $1000. This is mainly use by one of the spouse of middle income families

      It has nothing to do with the poor, this is a big rort

    • Jim says:

      02:12pm | 12/02/13

      Dovif, the policy you are talking about is co-contribution, the article is talking about the Low Income Super Contribution.

      http://www.ato.gov.au/content/00245688.htm

      But I agree with what you said about the co-contribution.

    • I hate pies says:

      02:33pm | 12/02/13

      Maybe people on low incomes should look to better themselves or work more to improve their income, rather than being propped up by others. Someone on 37k is only paying less than $3k a year in tax anyway ($238 a month)
      This money is superannuation as well, it isn’t taken out of their pocket. They don’t need to afford a spare $1,000. It should be taxed.

    • Borderer says:

      03:05pm | 12/02/13

      In essence, complicate the obvious to provide no disernable benefit to the intended group yet still manage to waste money while not really helping anyone and promoting it as sticking up for the battlers….
      Sounds like standard ALP thinking of the last few years….
      Here’s an idea, stop pissing away money on ineffective ideas and govern for a change… Give that a try….

    • JoniM says:

      03:31pm | 12/02/13

      Yep !
      Maybe those whinging middle income earners can set up a family trust instead ? They might be able to avoid all taxes ?
      Check with Eddie !

    • PJ says:

      05:24pm | 12/02/13

      It is typical of Socialist Governments to create a large base of a low income class, some of which live permanently totally dependent upon Benefits.

      This is why Socialist Government are always pushing Mass Immigration, especially from countries that are developing or under developed.

      After 13 years of Labour in the UK, there are 4 million people of working age, whom have never had a job. Up to 60% of the UK was receiving some level of Government handouts.

      All Socialist models require a large cheap resource base to exploit and like to get large amounts of the population benefit dependent.

      They seek to perpetuate themselves through the Threat of the loss of Benefits, should another political party take control.

      But voters should realise that this Government is broke and has delivered 130 years worth of debt that we have to repay.

      The freebees cannot continue because this debt cannot grow anymore.

      Those with good pensions have already seen this Labor Government change superannuation 10 times in 5 years. So the fact that further interference is coming is very dangerous.

      The Gillard Government has already pulled out $8.3 Million out of these Super schemes.

      - it could have a negative impact on the Super schemes
      - it could drive away investors
      - when they Gillard Government comes after the Moderate pensions, a large number of Australian pensions will face some level of austerity.

      to tax our Super is unfair. Gillard and Swan will keep raking in absurd levels of super we pay for and then tax us.

      You see that the Gillard Government is sell money grab as taxing the rich, but it is not.

      It is taxing potentially people who work hard and save well.

    • PJ says:

      05:33pm | 12/02/13

      Please don’t worry about Gillard and Swans pension being taxed.

      Gillard and her crew will remain immune from paying an increase in superannuation contributions tax, - despite federal government claims the rise would hit all high-income earners. (bull - it will hit anyone whose built up a good Super)

      A loophole has allowed Gillard to avoid paying $151,000 in annual tax on her generous post-career pension. Wayne Swan avoids paying $80,000.

      He’s laughing at you Aussie

    • Blazes says:

      12:33pm | 12/02/13

      Be honest, Mr Thistlethwaite, you’re just bitter that no one thinks you should be the next Pope, and you’re taking it out on Abbott’s superannuation plan. Shame.

      Reply

    • Anubis says:

      12:35pm | 12/02/13

      And others will be much worse if Gillard and Swan get their claws into superannuation. So what is the point of your story again? Oh that’s right you are a Labor member so, because your Government has proven to be so inept and incompetent in executing polices (and has a huge corruption cloud hovering over it - HSU, AWU, Obeid, Slipper) and no wins on the board you need to run a negative campaign.

      All makes sense now.

      Reply

    • Smith says:

      01:08pm | 12/02/13

      Worked for Anna Bligh… oh wait…

    • JoniM says:

      03:23pm | 12/02/13

      Yep !
      I see Shorten is tackling more big issues in the House today !
      Another greatest moral challenge of our time .......workplace bullying !
      And tommorrow legislation against torturing of kittens !
      Gotta love the distraction strategies of this desperate government !
      Quick !  The drugs in sport is losing momemtum, hit the 6 pm news with this new beauty, and get it on before the Obeid & Thommo segments !

    • Anniebello says:

      12:37pm | 12/02/13

      I have a couple of problems with this article.

      The $500 dollar for dollar super plan was inherited as $1500 dollar for dollar super plan. It was cut by Labor to $1000 and now ‘rebadged’ as a new policy at $500. Maybe the Libs see the value in $1500 (an extra $3K in the super kitty) but see the $500 as being eaten by fees and charges and not good value for taxpayer dollars. And if super is such a good idea for the low income people, why is Labor capping contributions for all workers at $25K. One more self-funded retiree is one less the taxpayer has to support - surely a good thing?

      The increase to the tax-free threshold was announced with much noise but the taking away of the low income tax rebate was whispered - one counteracts the other so how much benefit is there?

      The increase in compulsory super might be implemented by Labor but they’re not paying for it. Employers are, and by extension the workers will be. The only ones better off will be super-industry shareholders.

      Regardless of the spin, it is fact that low income earners like your “Louise” will pay for Labor’s supposed help with less wage rises, possibly less hours of employment and unnessary cost of living increases. Couple this with the usual “no incentive to improve your own wealth” welfare policies, and “Louise” will always be a battler under Labor.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      01:18pm | 12/02/13

      Anniebello,
      “$1500 (an extra $3K in the super kitty) but see the $500 as being eaten by fees and charges and not good value for taxpayer dollars”

      Ah no. The Libs don’t think any such thing.
      If $1500 is good value for taxpayer dollars then $500 is even better value. The $500 isn’t going to be eaten up by fees either, that’s just silly.

      “And if super is such a good idea for the low income people, why is Labor capping contributions for all workers at $25K”

      Because the only people who can afford to put extra money in Super are those who have enough spare money to do so. ie. not low income earners.

      “One more self-funded retiree is one less the taxpayer has to support - surely a good thing?”

      The problem is, that at a certain point it becomes cheaper to pay the pension than it does to forego the tax receipts. We’re currently nearing that point.

      “The increase to the tax-free threshold was announced with much noise but the taking away of the low income tax rebate was whispered - one counteracts the other so how much benefit is there?”

      Yep, they simplified the old system and the total benefit was exagerrated.

      “Employers are, and by extension the workers will be. The only ones better off will be super-industry shareholders.”

      And people with Super accounts. I think there’s currently about 10 million of us.

      “it is fact that low income earners like your “Louise” will pay for Labor’s supposed help with less wage rises, possibly less hours of employment and unnessary cost of living increases”

      No, it’s not a fact under any definition.

    • Jess says:

      02:09pm | 12/02/13

      The $18000 tax free threshold wasn’t meant to benifit workers making more than 18000. It was to benefit the part-time workers like students who work to pay rent and to study…
      That’s where the real benefit comes in students can work less to cover their expenses and have more time to study.

    • jtz says:

      06:23pm | 12/02/13

      @Tim i currently earn 55000 a year and still can put 200 a month to my super.

    • Ben says:

      12:40pm | 12/02/13

      Thanks for that column, Matt. On the subject of being shortsighted, can you tell us how the world’s best treasurer is going with his forecasts?

      Reply

    • dovif says:

      12:40pm | 12/02/13

      How many person earning $37,000 per annum has spare cash lying around that can be put into Superannuation? Fact are people people on less then $37,000 have enough problem putting food on the table, paying their rent and electricity, and have very little left after that

      The only people I know, who takes advantage of the generous goverment scheme are the house wife of the really well off, where the couples are on a good salary, and they gets a 100% profit on any contribution made for a spouse on low income.

      This is actually more of a middle class welfare that your government keep harping on about and do nothing to help with the poor at great costs to the government

      Reply

    • andrew says:

      12:55pm | 12/02/13

      agree 100% dovif. However without the co-contribution I won’t be putting any money into my wife’s super and would just keep it in a savings account instead. Anyone earning under 70K/ year for most of their career will struggle in retirement, the pittance in super anyone earning under $37K will end up with will be gone in a flash anyway - Super is really irrelevant for those on lower incomes.

    • centurion48 says:

      01:29pm | 12/02/13

      @dovif & @andrew: This rebate is not for co-contribution but for the employer contribution that is taxed at 15% when paid into a super fund. It is currently set at 9% of wages (soon to be 12%). The tax on contributions for a person on salary of $37000 is currently $499.50.

      Now that is clear, the whole point is that a person on $37000 (or less) a year is never going to contribute enough into superannuation to be able to provide for their retirement so they will (probably) still be able to claim the age pension. Added to this is the uncertainty of returns from any superannuation fund unless you are on defined benefits (as politicians are). Your whole sum might evaporate if another GFC occurs and you will get 4/5s of FA back.

      What would be better for low income earners is to pay them the money now that would have gone into superannuation ($3300 for the person on $37000 per annum) so they don’t have to rat through rubbish bins for food or sleep on a mattress with the springs poking through.

      If any politician gave a rat’s arse about low paid workers they would stop ripping them off with payments into a fairyland union-backed super scheme. Different story for better paid workers but still a con job.

    • Jenny says:

      01:48pm | 12/02/13

      According to yesterday ‘s the telegraph
      ONE IN TWO households is struggling to stash cash and has no extra money left over at the end of the month…

      There is greater household concern about how rising cost of necessities influence their ability to save or to have money left.

      ONE IN TWO or 50% OF THE WORKING FAMILIES.

    • Chillin says:

      12:40pm | 12/02/13

      Someone’s concerned they will be in the Opposition next year.

      Reply

    • tez says:

      02:45pm | 12/02/13

      Again

    • AdamC says:

      12:41pm | 12/02/13

      Matt, low income workers’ super contributions are not ‘eaten up’ in tax. What your junior staffer no doubt meant to say is that, as super contributions and earnings are taxed at 15%, low income workers do not receive the benefit of concessional taxation, given that is their marginal rate anyway. Which is not unreasonable given that, assuming the person remains a low paid worker, they are going to be dependent on the state for their retirement anyway.

      Here is a stimulus idea for your superiors, Matt. Why not exempt low income workers from super altogethe? Rather than make them ferrett away the money until they are 65, why not give it back to them with their annual tax refunds? That will get them spending and stimulating the economy. And the loss to future budgets will be minimal. Win, win. In fact, it makes so much sense it will certainly never happen!

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      01:24pm | 12/02/13

      I don’t think placing that kind of a burden on future generations is a good thing at all.

      We need to minimise inter generational wealth transfers. Each generation should be reliant on itself to fund it’s own retirement.

      It’s not ideal but the best way I can see of doing that is promoting Super for lower income workers and giving them incentives like the co-contribution scheme and reducing disincentives like taxing them on otherwise non taxable income, which is currently the case with Super.

      It’s the equivalent of paying them part of their pension now rather than later.
      Ideally everyone would be self sufficient but we both know that’s simply impossible.

    • AdamC says:

      01:50pm | 12/02/13

      Not really, Tim, because a lifetime low-income earner is going to need to draw a pension anyway. That is, the future generations are going to have to foot the bill anyway. So what is the social benefit of concessionally-taxed super for them?

      Why not let them have the money in the here and now, rather than force them to save it?

    • Tim says:

      02:28pm | 12/02/13

      Adam C,
      “a lifetime low-income earner is going to need to draw a pension anyway”

      Yes and if they already have some savings through larger Super then that pension can be set at a lower rate placing a lower burden on future generations.

      “Why not let them have the money in the here and now, rather than force them to save it?”

      Do you seriously have faith that the money will be A) better spent now than saved and B) won’t be wasted?
      I most certainly don’t.
      It’s a bad thing that these people will be a drain on the public purse at any stage but I don’t think forcing that bill on to future taxpayers is fair.

    • tez says:

      03:02pm | 12/02/13

      Incentive does not pay the bills Tim

    • Tim says:

      03:12pm | 12/02/13

      tez,
      Perhaps you need a better job then?

    • tez says:

      05:23pm | 12/02/13

      @Tim; Never received welfare although at time could have. Have kept at least 12/15 people fully employed on well above the award for the last 30 years, and totally understand the difficuties of the lower paid. AdamC presents a very reasonable scenario, it is better for people to have their bills paid now than have a pittance in super when they give up work

    • Lyla says:

      12:49pm | 12/02/13

      I stopped reading at complimented. You meant complemented?

      Reply

    • Dolly says:

      02:30pm | 12/02/13

      Still they haven’t corrected it. I hate bad spelling and sloppy editing

    • Dave says:

      03:49pm | 12/02/13

      Yet you bothered to write a comment. You sound like a really exiting person. Whats wrong?

    • SAm says:

      12:49pm | 12/02/13

      How exactly is it a good thing that the tax free thing will be abolished for low income earners on Super? Please explain to me how this is in any way different than a cut in Super tax that rich people pay? You all squeal like pigs if thats going to get a look at.
      Just another example of blindly accept that whatever Tony says is right, so long as it doesnt affect you (yet).
      Super should be TAX FREE for ALL, PERIOD
      PS To answer the funding issue, I think this is a far better use of budget money than some other hairball ideas both parties float. id take this over the maternity scheme Abbott wants to put in place, for starters, or Gillards education refund

      Reply

    • Alfie says:

      12:57pm | 12/02/13

      I will agree, if you agree not to means test the pension. Fair is fair…isn’t it?

      Reply

    • tea says:

      01:33pm | 12/02/13

      You do not understand fair Alfie! In Canberra speak fair means “help {insert special group name here} who I like (ie vote for me) and scr*w everyone else”

    • SAm says:

      02:12pm | 12/02/13

      Why should someone get my money when theyre drawing a decent Super payment Alfie?
      Fairs Fair

    • Alfie says:

      03:21pm | 12/02/13

      @SAm
      Why not? I will have contributed the same (if not more) to the system. In fairness, I will ‘deserve’ a pension more than you do.

    • Tim says:

      03:29pm | 12/02/13

      Alfie,
      welfare payments like the pension are meant to be a safety net for the needy, so no the pension shouldn’t be available to everyone.

    • maria says:

      01:02pm | 12/02/13

      $$$UPERANNUATION the $UPER topic and the $UPER way to rob the battlers.

      No wonder that Tony is happy with the system we have and wants to keep it when you read article like this.

      SENIOR politicians and judges remain immune from paying an increase in superannuation contributions tax, - despite federal government claims the rise would hit all high-income earners.

      The loophole has allowed Prime Minister Julia Gillard to avoid paying $151,000 in annual tax on her generous post-career pension, while also gifting Treasurer Wayne Swan and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott $80,000 and $70,000 respectively…...

      in his National Press Club speech last week when he should have confirmed that a Coalition Government would abolish this policy.

      Democracy, you either hate it or loath it and Switzerland is a federal republic with a system of direct democracy, in which the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people not just poliyical parties and their cronies as it is here.

      Justice is achieved when citizens live in an environment in which all citizens are treated equally and accorded dignity and respect.

      The Swiss constitution is characterised by its federal system and by elements of direct democracy.

      As extreme laws will mercilessly be blocked by the electorate in referendums, parties are less inclined to radical changes in laws and voters are less inclined to call for fundamental changes in elections.

      100,000 Swiss can make the demand, via referendum, for the revision of the Constitution and 50,000 can repeal or modify any phony laws or phony acts of parlement and “This is short sighted economic planning at its worst” woulnd’t exist.
      .

      Reply

    • R White says:

      02:24pm | 12/02/13

      Maria: all the uncritical cut ‘n’ paste democracy you can eat.

      “extreme laws will mercilessly be blocked by the electorate “

      simply copied, silently and uncrtiically, from
      http://www.democracy-building.info/switzerlands-political-system.html

      Maria has a right to her opinion. She also has an obligation to present it fairly.

      The Swiss are unique in their system, whihc -as they still have a parliament - is at best, half-direct democracy.

      Their system is extremely complex, with its various votes for members, laws/referendums, and officials. The details vary across the country, and in some cantons voting is compulsory.

      The result is that the Swiss are called out to vote four times a year. I’ll repeat that: four times a year. Not once or twice every three years - four times a year.

      There are about 6 million Swiss voters.  Being called out to vote up to four times a year,  by pressure groups of as few as 50,000 activists. The result? Commonly, less than half of them bother to turn out or lodge a vote. Less than half.


      So, a “direct democracy” in which not even a simple majority can be bothered to take part.

      That’s nothing like the democratic Utopia that Maria endlessly and inaccurately parrots as her opinion.

    • Jack says:

      03:33pm | 12/02/13

      @R White

      from Greek demo( People) kratia( power)  people power.

      definition of democracy: rule by the people.

      Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.
      A democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives.

      OLIGARCHY from Gk. oligarkhia
      a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few…..

      WHAT ARE WE?

    • PsychoHyena says:

      03:36pm | 12/02/13

      But R White, maybe we can give Direct Democracy one go… We’ll make the topic the removal of maria from Australia.

    • R White says:

      04:55pm | 12/02/13

      Hmm. Psycho Hyena describes a witch hunt by the mob. Very funny.

      Jack seems to think, perhaps thanks to Maria’s obfuscations, that the Swiss actually have direct democracy. They don’t. They still have a parliament of representatives.

      As I’ve already said, Maria is entitled to her opinion.  No more and no less so than anyone else, with a different opinion.

      Maria, though, chooses to present, repeatedly, on any and every topic,  an inaccurate and misleading summary of the Swiss system.

      In a democracy, in a free country, in our country, Maria must expect to see her views subject to comment, check and debate. She must expect to be called to account if she repeatedly makes a poor case, by presenting inaccurate and misleading information.

    • Sandra says:

      05:27pm | 12/02/13

      democracy….oligarchy….plutocracy…..mafiacracy…mafiocracy…..
      bullshit….shit happens…... what about shitocracy used to express surprise, anger, or extreme displeasure when we all get screwed up with nasty policies.

    • R White says:

      05:32pm | 12/02/13

      Postscript.

      Like Maria, trying to deceptively over simplify a complex issue, Jack trotted out his little dictionary look-ups. Too cute by half, Jack.

      Might be better to actually consider the implications of such an over-simplificatio. They range across a spectrum from mob rule to paralysis.

      So, as a starter, seeing as you like doing look-ups, here’s one for you -and Maria -  to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.  It’s an article on democracy. Enjoy. 

      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157129/democracy

      Cheers

    • Stan says:

      06:14pm | 12/02/13

      @R White
      What’s wrong to put the truth the way it is when Maria is telling as extreme laws ( stealing people saving something never mentioned in any newspapers)will mercilessly be blocked by the electorate in referendums, parties are less inclined to radical changes in laws ...Ordinary citizens may propose changes to the constitution 100,000 petitions and 50,000 petition to modify or repeal a crooked law.

      Do you have any better solution ?
      Sound to me that you are member of a political who would rather hide the truth and exterminate her once and for all.

    • Loxy says:

      01:07pm | 12/02/13

      On paper this may look like it will hurt the poor, but in reality it will make very little, if any difference for two reasons. Low-income earners would be using every last cent of their income for living expenses and would have none left over to contribute to super. Secondly, for the very small majority of low-income earners that are able to make some personal contributions to their super, it won’t matter in the long run as it won’t even come close to being enough to support them in their retirement.

      The way super is structured now, it’s really only the upper middle and rich that will be able to retire off their super, the rest will either be partially or fully funded by the pension.

      All the tinkering that both parties want to do will achieve nothing long-term and instead fill their coffers in the short-term.

      A significant review and overhaul of super is needed to bring us into line with other western countries such as Canada, UK, USA, Switzerland etc but I can’t see that happening anytime soon under either Gillard or Abbott.

      Reply

    • AL CHunk says:

      01:11pm | 12/02/13

      As super is just a compulsory play money and bonus scheme for finance services executives - it doesn’t really matter either way.

      Reply

    • mikem says:

      01:25pm | 12/02/13

      The problem with super is that it doesn’t achieve its objective of providing money for all in retirement thereby reducing the future demand for pensions.  Notwithstanding those good intentions it has instead become a cash cow for those in the ‘super business’ and institutionalised tax evasion for the wealthy. 

      The benefit for average and low incomes is eroded by the rip off charges and commissions paid irrespective of fund performance, and the very little tax benefit they get.  The Liberals proposal to wipe out that tax benefit will make their super even more worthless and guarantees that they will then rely on government pensions in their retirement. A policy that create an increased pension burden in the future is not a good outcome for this country.

      Messers Abbott and Hockey need to tell us how they propose to solve the pension dependence and government capacity to pay problem that their policy will create for future generations.

      Reply

    • Stephen T says:

      04:22pm | 12/02/13

      @mikem:  You’re arguing a mote point, considering the parlous state of my finances I would consider that I would be lucky to retire a 75 or 80 [if I last that long] and I would suspect that many others would be in the same circumstance.  From a personal perspective everything that the Gillard/Swann government has initiated in the way of tax and super policy reform has been detrimental to my income and my ability to help my immediate family.  Where they have given they have taken back several fold to the point that I am seriously worse off in real terms than I was six years ago,  I truly pity the young and the poor souls in their middle years the way governments keep upping the retirement age they will never qualify for retirement.  I also feel for the public servants, the future fund that was setup through the sale of public assets was designed to meet their superannuation needs, thus far Labor has been prevented form dipping into it but it is only a matter of time [if they remain in office] before they work out a way of tapping into it, lol there are worse things than another GFC.

    • Tim says:

      04:46pm | 12/02/13

      Steven T,
      If your finances are in such trouble can you name what the government has done to make it so hard for you.

      As a high income earner I know that the government have only brought in measures that have cost people in my income bracket and people over 80k a year. They haven’t really stung lower income earners at all.
      I have no idea how it could possibly be the government’s fault if your finances are in such a bad state and you earn a high income?

    • Al says:

      01:31pm | 12/02/13

      The funny thing is that the increase in the tax free threshold is and has always been promoted as a cut in tax for the low income earners when in reality it is a cut in tax for ALL income earners.
      Not that I don’t agree with it, it is just a bit silly to continue to promote it for other than what it is.
      Re: Super, I actualy think it would be better for all contributions to come from pre-tax earnings (yes, even voulantary contributions) and tax it as earnings (including any interest/earnings from the fund) at the time it is paid. But that would result in screams of it being a tax dodge for the rich.

      Reply

    • God is Watching says:

      01:31pm | 12/02/13

      So hard working people who earn a high income get no breaks and get more tax and zero benefits. I work hard to subsidise others? Try flying a plane and the stress that goes with it week after week after years of training then ask the whinging bank teller whether she has any complaints in her no stress job which she still got afters years of party-hardy fun! Pay your tax and attack Labor for wasting your money!

      Reply

    • Debbie says:

      01:33pm | 12/02/13

      Superannuation in its current form is nothing more than a tax dodge for the more well. For lower than average income earners it has no advantage whatsoever.

      Reply

    • Anubis says:

      01:47pm | 12/02/13

      So what you are saying Debbie is that the lower than average income workers would be able to save for their retirement if it weren’t for this dastardly superannuation. At least that way they would have something a bit more than the pension to look forward to. But because of compulsory superannuation they will have to struggle on the pension and the pension alone.  No advantages for them whatsoever. Oh wait….that’s not quite right is it?

    • gof says:

      01:34pm | 12/02/13

      “Abbott’s superannuation vision is plain shortsighted”
      You’re being way too kind..it’s more like “blind”!

      He will probably just pass it on to the nanny’s working for the women on his new 75k maternity scheme.

      Reply

    • Mat says:

      01:58pm | 12/02/13

      @gof grow up idiot - your jealous because you were a failure

    • gof says:

      03:16pm | 12/02/13

      #Mat ,
      Nice Mat real nice, you’re a class act champ!

    • Dave says:

      04:02pm | 12/02/13

      Mat just stop and think for a second. You are writing on a computer to someone you don’t know, summing up their entire life as a failure. And you’re the one telling them to grow up? By the way if you call someone an idiot, male sure you don’t misspell “you’re” in the same sentence.

    • TheRealDave says:

      01:40pm | 12/02/13

      Only 26 comments so far?

      I’m guessing they are awaiting a stinging retort from Menzies House to cut and paste about the place wink

      Reply

    • jb says:

      01:50pm | 12/02/13

      Hey Matt hows those lies the government are telling us, sorry I mean the policies the Govt has been promising us about their rise in super contributions and the cuts for small business, lots of other lies about, sorry promises about unfunded policies too.
      Yeah how are all of those going?

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      02:03pm | 12/02/13

      Hey Matt, do you remember making these comments?

      ************************

      “The Labor Government believes it’s about time our wealthy mining companies paid their fair share, which is why we have introduced a Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) into the Parliament.

      The MRRT is a tax that will fund superannuation increases for Australian workers lifting the compulsory contribution from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. It will fund a decrease in the company tax rate and allow small businesses to instantly write off any asset valued less than $6,500. And it will fund the building of new critical infrastructure in regional Australia.

      The MRRT will not smother growth in our resources sector or our economy, rather in the long run, it will increase savings, fuel investment and growth, and ensure our tax system is fairer than ever before.”


      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-mining-pie-is-more-of-a-magic-pudding/

      Magic pudding, you reckon? We have a whole $126M so far, which - when you take away the establishment costs and the government’s botched advertising campaign - leaves us just enough money to buy two Redskins.

      Reply

    • A Real Job Creator says:

      02:58pm | 12/02/13

      I wish you plebs would just shut up and be damned greatful for the crumbs we allow you to have!

      Reply

    • Leigh says:

      03:12pm | 12/02/13

      Didn’t Gillard say that election campaign had not yet started? Is this politician paying for his politicing?

      If Labor gets back in, nobody is going to be worried about superannuation; they won’t have jobs to contribute to it.

      We don’t know what Abbott will do: many things politicians ‘promise’ never come to fruition. But we should have learned by now that Labor means big spending of other peoples’ money, big borrowing, followed by big taxing and cuts to essential services just before an election because they have stuffed up as they always do.

      No Labor politician should be talking about another party putting the boot into low income workers.

      Reply

    • Liberal lackey says:

      03:26pm | 12/02/13

      I dont know what it is but I agree with whatever it is.

      Reply

    • nofunintended says:

      05:32pm | 12/02/13

      Well you haven’t heard what ever it is from Abbott.

    • Fed Up says:

      03:48pm | 12/02/13

      As a low/fixed income earner.. i say what a load of rubbish.
      Who cares if i can get an effective tax refund up to the value of $500 on my superannuation contribution.
      I dont make any because there’s no money left after i pay living expenses.
      Thanks to Labor the cost of living has gone up 30%....electricity,gas,water,rent.
      If Labor were serious about helping low/fixed income earners they would dump all middle class welfare and use the money on those who really need it and not those bluggers to ensure a vote.
      It’s obvious they have lost touch with reality thinking one can live off $45 a day.I suppose i could invest 5 of those dollars in a super fund.
      As for your idiotic tax cut..stick it…tax cuts only serve those on higher wages.
      If you really want to help…resign.

      Reply

    • Stained says:

      03:55pm | 12/02/13

      @ Ben: “Magic pudding, you reckon? We have a whole $126M so far, which - when you take away the establishment costs and the government’s botched advertising campaign - leaves us just enough money to buy two Redskins”

      Wrong, that at least paid for the digital top sets for the tellies, lol
      Another suck job “vote for me” idea!!!

      Reply

    • Achmed says:

      04:23pm | 12/02/13

      In less than 12 hours Hockey made two conflicting statements.  He said the Libs would not increase super to 12% - “absolutely not”.  Then on the same day he stated the Libs would increase super to 12%.  We need to know from Hockey/Abbott which statement is the truth. 
      MRRT is a profit based tax so when the miners start making “super” profits there will be an income, And as the Libs are going to do away with the MRRT how are they going to fund the increased superannuation

      Reply

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      04:45pm | 12/02/13

      Super for a lot of low paid workers is just a separate scheme for ALP and Union aligned vampires to extract more money by being on the boards of the funds. The cutting down of these positions to professionals who actually know what they are doing instead of syphoning off money for a new deck or apartment would provide better returns for the fund holders and reduce the inherent corruption that is being exploited on a daily basis by the Unions leadership and this must stop.

      The author is not at all concerned about Louise, Mr Thistlewaite is concerned that the reduction will prevent another Union Leader from boarding the gravy train.

      Reply

    • Libtool says:

      05:06pm | 12/02/13

      I feel so sorry for me more than anything. Poor bloody me. I wish I had been born in lucky country.

      Reply

    • BL says:

      05:41pm | 12/02/13

      “Matt, 39, entered the Senate as a Labor Party representative for NSW in July this year.”

      And there goes the credibility of this biased opinion piece from a Labor rep.

      Reply

    • the aussie pope says:

      05:45pm | 12/02/13

      Abbott will leave Parliament soon to become the next Pope !

      Reply

    • jtz says:

      06:17pm | 12/02/13

      With the number of anti liberal articles on the punch I am wondering if the election is on.
      Was it not labor who reduced the super rebate for low income earners from 1500 to 500.

      Reply

    • Sticks says:

      06:28pm | 12/02/13

      What the article fails to state is that if you earn $37,001 you get nothing back. I earn $35,000 but due to investments I have made through saving over time, my taxable income is $38,500 so I get nothing. The incentive is for me to sell my investments or work less in order to get more government money. This is not an incentive to work more as the author suggests.

      The author also fails to mention the cut in the super co-contribution from $1000 to $500. It has essentially gone from a savings incentive to a handout for nothing.

      This article is a puff piece written by a Labor cheerleafer or simply somebody who has no idea what they are talking about.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      06:43pm | 12/02/13

      After 5 years in government, this is all you have? After all of Labors other stuff ups, bungles and dodgy deals, why would anyone believe one word that dribbles out of a Labor MPs mouth?

      Reply

    • Wayne says:

      06:59pm | 12/02/13

      Where is the money coming from to keep contributing to super, this government has a habit of spending money before it comes in, if it comes in at all.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter