Super nest eggs have emerged as the first major policy battle ground of the election and neither side of politics is covering itself in glory. The Opposition, while promising no “unexpected and detrimental” changes to super, has confirmed plans to axe a tax concession on the super balances of 3.6 million low income earners.

Don't go nicking our eggs…

Meanwhile, in its search for budget savings, Labor is running the ruler over the super balances of high income earners.

After hinting it may tax withdrawals from million dollar super accounts, the government last week backed down and guaranteed the tax free status of all super withdrawals after age 60. That’s only fair. It’s one thing to tax new contributions to super at a higher level, but quite another to retrospectively tax someone who has been saving for years.

The government has earned the ire of the super industry which earns a crust managing the nation’s $1.5 trillion in retirement savings. It’s trial by media as the government floats and then rules out potential changes.

To get a handle on the super stoush, it helps to know a little of the history of super and how it is taxed.

Australia’s superannuation system turns 21 this year. In 1992, the Keating government decided to force workers to put aside 9 per cent of their income into savings for retirement to head off a blow out in the cost of the aged pension as the population ages. By forcing people to save for their own retirement, fewer would need to claim the aged pension.

So out of every pack packet you earn, your employer is forced by law to put aside 9 per cent into a super account on your behalf.

Without compulsory super, that money would instead come to you as income and you would pay tax on it at your marginal rate.

Instead, the portion of your salary paid into your super account is taxed at a flat rate for everyone of 15 per cent.

If you have extra money to save, you can also make voluntary contributions up to $25,000 a year and get this concessional rate of taxation. As that money grows and is invested for you by your super fund, those earnings are also taxed at 15 per cent.

What is immediately clear about the way we tax super today is that it is regressive – providing the biggest benefit to people on high incomes.

If you’d ordinarily pay 37 per cent tax on your earnings, but you pay only 15 per cent when it goes into super, that’s a pretty sweet deal.

Conversely, if you are below the tax free threshold or only pay 15 per cent tax anyway, there’s not much of an incentive. Indeed, for people below the tax threshold who would pay no tax ordinarily, there is a penalty.

To fix this, the Gillard government introduced, as part of mining tax package, a low income superannuation contribution whereby the government effectively rebates the tax paid by low income earners on their super contributions.

The Opposition proposes to scrap this rebate if elected because the mining tax is not raising enough revenue to cover the cost. But the Opposition’s policy would make an already regressive system even more so.

Indeed, most people agree that the super system is too favourable to high income earners.

The Ken Henry tax review concluded as much, recommending that super contributions be taxed at a person’s marginal rate.

Ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that high income people should receive a disproportionate tax break on each dollar of savings?

Some sort of tax concession for everyone on compulsory super seems only fair, given that you don’t have any say in whether to contribute.

And super tax breaks also encourage people to save more for retirement than they would otherwise.

But arguably, high income savers are not the sort of people who would end up being a drain on the public purse through the aged pension anyway.

Treasury estimates the value of all super tax concessions is now worth $30 billion a year to taxpayers. And this is predicted to rise to $45 billion by 2015-16 as the money in our national super kitty grows. Tightening tax concessions on higher income earners would help restore the budget to surplus.

But most people also agree there has already been too much tinkering with super in recent years.

Super has become a political play thing – undesirable for a financial product with such a long time horizon.

Both sides of politics should commit to leave super alone and, if elected, conduct a comprehensive review of the system to address concerns that it is inequitable and unsustainable.

The eve of elections is not the time to be redesigning such an important pillar of Australia’s retirement system.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEDT.

Most commented

72 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Zack says:

      05:26am | 11/02/13

      Poor Labor thanks for showing your desperation.

    • PJ says:

      09:29am | 11/02/13

      Its clear that the Gillard Government intends to come after our Super.

      So desperate are they for funds after such a reckless spending spree to protect us from the carbon tax.

      Many will be retiring on less if this Government is permitted to lead an assault on our retirement plans. The burden for the shortfall will fall on the younger generation to support.

      We should not be surprised at such desperate efforts. After all this is a Government that was caught attempting to take money back that was pledged to the Worlds poor children.

    • Benzo says:

      12:36pm | 11/02/13

      @PJ wow mate, did you even read the article before you started babbling??
      In case you didn’t i’ll summarise the article for you:

      Liberals want to remove the rebate that labor has applied to low income earners so that the needy will be taxed more on there super. but they don’t wan’t to change anything for high income earners that are using the system to dodge tax with voluntary contributions of excess money.

      labor on the other had want to raise that tax paid by high income earners that are making there voluntary contributions to dodge tax.

      So in other words:
      Libs:  Tax the low income earners more so the rich can still dodge tax with their excess money.

      Labor:  restructure the system so it’s less regressive and doesn’t favor high income earners.

      Can you give me a good reason why super should benefit the rich more then it benefits the needy??

    • PJ says:

      02:26pm | 11/02/13

      It’s a fact that in this world there are people better than you. Natural top performers.

      They can be born in any Australian family. And thanks to a classless society, as long as the opportunity exists, they’ll succeed.

      As these top performers push to self actualise for the reward, they also leave opportunity for the others in their wake.

      The problem comes when the top performers develop the attitude ‘whats the point’ because 75% of what they earn goes to others, whom have no desire to self actualise.

      Those of us with less skills but a desire to succeed are then robbed of opportunity, that is normally created by our top performers, because our top performers have gone elsewhere or just haven’t bothered.

      We should accept that the top performers should have the best as a reward, as we should expect reward for our endeavours.

      Killing top performers Super, or making them share what they have earned with others incapable or unwilling to earn it, is detrimental to opportunity and reward.

      The Gillard Government is planning to tax Super. It has no money and is likely to come right down to the Modest pension. To prove that Labor is coming for as much Super as it can grab consider…..

      There have been 10 substantial changes (10!!) to the superannuation system in the past five years of Labor, that have already robbed away $8.3 billion in revenue. They just keep coming and coming and coming after it. And they will continue to do so.

      That $8.3 Billion is gone into the black hole of Gillard Government reckless spending.

      - There is a future danger people will not adopt Retirement Funds and become a problem once the job market is finished with them.

      - The Association of Superannuation Funds yesterday warned further changes will just drive investors away from the sector.

      Financial Services Council chief executive, Mr Brogden said.
      “If superannuation becomes a political issue no one wins. ....we’ve had enough.”

    • Greg says:

      02:55pm | 11/02/13

      @Benzo,

      “Can you give me a good reason why super should benefit the rich more then it benefits the needy??”

      How about because people should be entitled to their own money that they have earned themselves, rather than accept other people’s money that they haven’t themselves earned?

      Or how about because the government should support those who provide for their own retirement instead of relying on a government pension?

      The superannuation rebate has only become an issue because the ALP have more than tripled the tax free threshold for low income earners this financial year. So they pay even less tax, if any, than ever before.

      To compensate them for this reduced level of taxation, the ALP now wants to given them another handout via a superannuation rebate.

      And then, when they eventually retire, they will receive a government pension, unlike all those other people who actually made both a significant tax contribution as well as provided for their own retirement.

      So, in other words:

      Labor: Tax those who already pay the most tax even more, and then deny them a pension, so that they can given even more benefits to those who already pay little or no income tax, and give them a pension to boot.

      Libs: Tax all super at the same rate, even though this still raises more tax from “rich people” who have more superannuation account earnings. Then give a pension to the people who haven’t contributed much in taxes, but not to those that have.

      So the ALP pays ever increasing election bribes to their own constituency.

      The liberals also pay the bribes to the ALP’s constituency, but occasionally throws a bone to the people who actually earn their own money.

    • bailey says:

      03:07pm | 11/02/13

      Benzo
      PJ gets paid by the word to babble-on
      Substance nor relevance is never a requirement.

    • GROBP says:

      06:25am | 11/02/13

      Forty years ago you paid tax and then got a pension.

      Ten years ago you paid in to super, paid tax, no pension.

      Now we pay in to super, pay tax, no pension, then pay more tax. Wow. How about I just give the government all my money to hand to other people that didn’t earn it.

    • Greg says:

      02:02pm | 11/02/13

      “How about I just give the government all my money to hand to other people that didn’t earn it. “

      Well, that is the ALP’s plan, so that their welfare dependant voters get the other option that you didn’t mention:

      Don’t pay tax. Don’t pay into super. Get a pension anyway.

      And call it “social justice”.

    • Al says:

      07:00am | 11/02/13

      Over governed, over regulated and over taxed.

      Time to find another place to live.

    • Tim says:

      07:43am | 11/02/13

      Bye.

      Oh what? You didn’t really mean it? Such a shame.

    • Al says:

      09:50am | 11/02/13

      I hope you enjoy living in what will soon become another Greece Tim

    • Don says:

      09:56am | 11/02/13

      Don’t laugh Tim, with the Aussie dollar so high going overseas to retire has never looked so good and lots of people are planning to do just that. It is just a matter of picking the right place.

      As for super - as I have written before - get your claws on it asap. It is just a matter of time before the lump sum payout is reduced or eliminated and then the balance can only be used for a pension. Later on down the track, the government will just take that balance and use it to calculate an indexed pension and finally super will end up where it was always meant to be. In government coffers.

      Business spectator had an article recently regarding the union run funds asking for the lump sum to be reduced to 250k - google it.

    • Tim says:

      10:51am | 11/02/13

      Greece,
      LOL.

      So what country are you moving to Al?

    • maria says:

      07:11am | 11/02/13

      Hey pollies, leave our super alone - for now
      why for now?
      anyway if you really want to protect your own saving DIRECT DEMOCRACY a la Switzerland is the best answer and why?

      Switzerland’s direct democracy means that all proposed amendments to the constitution are decided by referendum. Any other federal law can be put to a referendum if 50,000 citizens sign a petition - meaning that Switzerland’s federal system can be changed by its citizens and not just by a few people and their cronies.

      What we have today a political class who are in essence a dictatorship who are cut off from real world, manipulate the truth, enrich themselves at the tax payers expense.

    • GROBP says:

      07:34am | 11/02/13

      You are entirely correct maria.

      It will not change however until it collapses because a tipping point occurred a few years ago where more people were on the government teat than not and will of course. Humans being humans will vote accordingly with greed instead of brains..

      Apathy, greed and stupidity will completely destroy Australia. Over the long term, there is no other credible possibility.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      07:45am | 11/02/13

      Maria, seriously.  Every post you go on about the true democracy in Switzerland, blah blah blah. If things are so bad here and so good there perhaps you should buy yourself a one way ticket over there.

    • Fiddler says:

      08:22am | 11/02/13

      @ Wayne, yeah I remember seeing one using the name “Rick” who used to do the same thing on some other sites a while back. I’m certain it is the same person.

      As for me, I’d rather just buy an island and sit on my front veranda with a shotty to keep the damn kids away than go to Switzerland

    • GROBP says:

      09:42am | 11/02/13

      @Wayne Kerr

      ...“If things are so bad here and so good there perhaps you should buy yourself a one way ticket over there. “.......

      That’s such a ridiculous statement.

      It’s she’ll be right apathy such as yours that is Australia’s problem. maria is right in what she’s said. Do you have a vested interest in the status quo Waynker?

      ...........” I’d rather just buy an island and sit on my front veranda with a shotty to keep the damn kids away than go to Switzerland “...........

      Yeah sadley Fiddler, there’s not enough islands to go around, so maybe maria’s making sense huh. Maybe it’s not maria and Rick but “Fiddler” and “Wayne Kerr” are one of the same, or very closely related.

    • Wayne Kerr says:

      11:20am | 11/02/13

      @GROPB   I have no problem with people bringing up topics of how things can be done better or suggesting change in the status quo however it get’s very tedious when the same diatribe is regularly repeated in every Punch article even if the topic is about gerbils and toilet rolls.  It tends to lose it’s effectivensss.

      As for ridiculous statements….people in glass houses and all that.

    • Jenny says:

      04:20pm | 11/02/13

      Maria… Rick….Tom…. etc…..are spot on to mention direct democracy a la Switzerland because I’ m sick and fed up too to hear lies after lies.
      Isn’t it the same topic we hear everyday?

      If you have a better SYSTEM to keep the bastards honest than tell us instead of complaining everyday about Juliar .. the left .. the green ... no border than the illegal boat people and all the perks and lerks they get .

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

      What’s wrong with you guys?

      Maria or .... have every right to express their opinion like anybody else at least she is not lying like our Prime Minister and has a better answer to resolve most the problems we have.

      Who has created all the problems we have?

    • R White says:

      05:10pm | 11/02/13

      Maria has a right to her opinion and 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. Commonly, less than half of them bother to turn out or lodge a vote. Less than half.

      So, a “direct democracy” in which less than 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.

    • Just one law from Utopia says:

      08:08am | 11/02/13

      how depressing when a good idea is put forward the sheeple attack it, lets not try to improve our country shall we, we’ll just leave that will certainly help things here….

    • GROBP says:

      08:14am | 11/02/13

      ............“The Ken Henry tax review concluded as much, recommending that super contributions be taxed at a person’s marginal rate.”..........

      Yes, along with many, many other tax reforms. It’s not okay for the government to cherry pick the tax that affects their least favourite people.

      Do Not forget. A tax imposed today for the $1m crowd will eventually gobble us all up when inflation makes $1m the norm..

    • Davo says:

      02:45pm | 11/02/13

      Good idea, you pay tax on your income and then decide to invest it in Super, you are taxed again…....................... the horses look very attractive!!

    • SAm says:

      08:17am | 11/02/13

      To simplify super wouldnt the only fair way to do it be:
      Compulsory contributions (9%) - Tax free
      Voluntary taxed at whatever your marginal tax rate is.
      Would this discourage people putting money into Super? I dont think so. People on lower incomes would benefit by having additional funds in super at no further expense, which would in turn reduce government burden in the future, High earners would most likely still have enough in super anyway to not be burden, and although the tax rate is highetr than the current 15%, your still reaping the ‘benfits’ of compound interest (this of course assumes Super is a good investment).
      No more concessions for some, same rules for everyone but make the rules simple

    • andrew says:

      02:49pm | 11/02/13

      If voluntary contributions were taxed at marginal tax rates, there would be no voluntary contributions. Why would anyone lock money away for up to 40 years with the associated uncertainty in government policy changes over that time? It would encourage people to invest that money elsewhere such as shares or property - or simply spend it and rely on a pension instead.

    • Al says:

      08:48am | 11/02/13

      I can only realy see 2 options regarding taxing of Superannuation contributions.
      Either:
      1) All contributions come from post income tax income and as such only interest/earnings could be considered income, tax at the applicable rate in the year the income is earnt; or
      2) Superannuation contributions come from pre-tax income and superannuation is taxable as income at the time of payment.
      Of course neither of these will satisfy everyone.

    • Che says:

      05:00pm | 11/02/13

      Isnt option 1 just called my daily bank account?

    • St. Michael says:

      05:47pm | 11/02/13

      @ Che: no, because a bank account can have its rate of return arbitrarily messed around by the government.  As in: when the government listens to the screaming hordes of overcommitted mortgage holders, they tend to cut interest rates.  That generally means the interest rate on your money does not keep up with inflation: 3% or better, currently.  Superannuation’s kind of hideous, but historically at least the share market gets more than double that over the long term.

      If you are not earning at least the rate of inflation in interest on your money, in real terms you are actually losing money, not gaining it—because inflation is turning the $20 in your account into $17, or even $10 depending how bad that inflation gets.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      08:55am | 11/02/13

      Super…super…ah yes.  That extra tax that comes out of my wage that will no doubt end up paying for some idiotic scheme politicians think of and I’ll never see it by the time I retire.

    • sirenp says:

      09:14am | 11/02/13

      Leave our super alone!
      We have not started to collect it yet, but we have salary sacrificed and saved for many years sothat we will be able to be comfortable, but not extravagantly so, in our retirement. No overseas trips, no major house renovations to the house we built 35 years ago, just kept steady as she goes.
      We have done our bit, no it’s our turn to enjpy those benefits, even though we will be subject to the normal fluctuations in the super industry
      Yet lazy bugs who have never done much work or who have squandered their funds or expected to be kept by the taxpayer will qualify for a taxpayer funded pension for the rest of their lives

      LEAVE OUR SUPER ALONE - WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD FOR IT!

    • dan says:

      12:05pm | 11/02/13

      Completely agree, why is it that these policies target and punish people who have planned ahead, done the research, done the hard yards, invested their money smartly, followed the rules, and all in all been pretty wise and had good foresight? Why punish these people? Why reward the lazy and ignorant by robin hood tactics?

    • Che says:

      05:08pm | 11/02/13

      Dan,
      Cos people the first lot of people you described are inclined to vote liberal?
      Oh was that a rhetorical question?

      The best summation of Australian democracy:
      “If you’re under 30 and don’t vote labor or greens you don’t have a heart,
      If you’re over 40 and don’t vote liberal, you don’t have a brain (or a pot to piss in, hence needing your share of someone else’s money.)”

    • lostinperth says:

      09:25am | 11/02/13

      Super funds should not be tax free once a pension starts.

      Once in pension mode, a person with $500K invested in shares gets approx $25K in dividends plus the government has to pay them an extra $10,700 in franking credits. Over $35K tax free.
      If the fund was taxed at 15% the government would collect tax of $3,750. So the government is about $14,000 worse off.

      They are receiving more per fortnight in tax free refunds and benefits then a married pensioner receives as a pension which is taxable.

      The poor are subsidising the rich person’s super.

    • E says:

      10:25am | 11/02/13

      <The poor are subsidising the rich person’s super.>

      Err, no, other rich and middle income people are subsiding both the “rich” persons super and “poor” persons pension. 

      The poor pretty much pay no tax, get most or more of it back in benefits (bonuses etc etc), and are therefore not subsidising anyone.

    • Yellowfly says:

      12:16pm | 11/02/13

      A agree that taxing earnings in pension phase is the most sensible option.  Cheaper for super funds to administer because they are not tailoring their investment strategies based on two tax rates. Also it is less likely to be felt by the individual.
      Anti-detriment would also be an easy place to crape back some revenue - most people don’t understand it anyway.
      I think too much has been made of the ‘disproportionate concessions to the rich’ - one thing that is forgotten in this debate is that higher income earners pay more tax in the first place. Also their ability to rort the system is severelly limited by the $25,000 concessional contribution cap - those on the top MTR are probably hitting their cap with SG alone, - this leaves very little scope for using super as a tax-haven. Besides, $25k is a drop in the ocean for the super-rich.
      It is the middle class and those in their fifties who are hurt the most by all the changes, - only had super in the last part of their workning lives and now trying their best to save for retirement (to not be a burden) now that the kids are gon and the mortgage is paid.

    • lostinperth says:

      01:14pm | 11/02/13

      Do the maths

      A person with half a million dollars a year in super costs the government exactly the same as it pays a pensioner. Plus they get it tax free and are entitled to all the same benefits as the pensioner gets.

    • marley says:

      02:01pm | 11/02/13

      @LostinPerth - okay, I admit I don’t entirely understand the Aussie super system, since my super is Canadian based.  I certainly pay taxes on that, I might add.  But how is a self-funded retiree entitled to everything a government pensioner is? I know I get absolutely zilch in entitlements, and my partner is in the same boat.

    • wm says:

      09:27am | 11/02/13

      Oh cmon Jessica, what else would you put in the ‘too hard’ basket? What a copout. If its a good policy, as you seem to agree, then DO IT! NOW!

      God knows why any government would want to encourage rich people, who would never need a pension to retire anyway, to lock their money in super. It makes no sense. These people should be spending their money now, helping the economy tick over.

      Its the middle/low classes who need the incentive. They will be the drain on our purse.

      Sorry, but labor’s right on this one…its a good call

    • SAm says:

      09:36am | 11/02/13

      If I designed Super, it would work like this:

      Keep the 9% Compulsory contribution, but Tax Free contributions
      Any voluntary contributions are taxed at the marginal rate
      Upon retirement, no lump sum payouts
      Super is withdrawn at a set rate such that your account should last 20 years at a steady withdrawl rate (calculated at earnings percent of day this starts).
      You can opt to have a lower withdrawl amount to make super last longer, Withdrawals attract no tax, however if one wants to withdraw extra money, this would be taxed at the marginal rate of the total withdrawal (thereby discouraging people using their super too fast).
      The Pension only exists where someone cannot withdraw enough from Super on a weekly basis to meet a set amount (Im thinking somewhere around the current pension mark, enough to live on but not luxurious).
      This way, people will be encouraged to put extra money into super as early as possible, in order to increase retirement income, or extend its life. It will also ensure people don’t just buy up assets or ‘play’ items (mobile homes for example) then cry broke and expect the government to feed them every week. It will ensure no-one is left behind, yet at the same time encourage us all to take responsibility for our own futures. If it means working longer to pay off a house if your super wont cover it, then so be it.
      I know this wouldn’t be popular with everyone but I see it as an excellent idea, with a much smaller government burden, and fiscal responsibility etched in from an early age in the workforce. It will force people to live within their means, both while working and in retirement, will result in less tax paid for everyone if the savings are enough. Any thoughts?

    • PW says:

      11:02am | 11/02/13

      Yep, I have a thought, Sam. Why on earth would anyone with half a brain contribute to your scheme?

    • Daniel says:

      12:03pm | 11/02/13

      Nobody who had an ounce of common sense would put any money into that scheme.

    • SAm says:

      12:08pm | 11/02/13

      Probably cause the missing half would have thought about it? So what dont you like about it?
      I came up with this over a coffee. In hindsight I think coluntary contributions should also be tax free, or at most, the current 15%.


      Good talk pal

    • SAm says:

      01:22pm | 11/02/13

      Tax free Daniel.. thought that would be a good idea?

    • Daniel says:

      03:22pm | 11/02/13

      Well it’s not tax free SAm, nobody will want their investment money locked into a 20 year trickle system. Most people will be trying to grow their super so that such a system would keep their balance steady (due to continued growth). So they’ll only be getting paid out with the gains. Leaving a massive lump sum in their super to be hugely taxed when it’s passed onto their next of kin when they inevitably die.

      The problem with your idea is that no one is withdrawing all their super in a lump sum at the moment, and then going broke. It’s just not happening. People who can manage their own finances don’t want or need the government to do it for them. They will direct all their money as far away from super as possible if such a system was implemented.

    • PW says:

      03:42pm | 11/02/13

      You want to tax people on entry at their marginal rate, then again on exit. Money can’t be touched until retirement. People could take their tax-paid dollars and invest it anywhere they want, or just piss it against the wall and put their hand out when they retire.

      No-one will tie up money for decades without some pretty decent incentives. Super at present is grossly inequitable, mainly due to the marginal income tax rates. Concessional contributions should be taxed at marginal rate minus 15%, with a co-contribution for those below the tax free threshold.

    • Debbie says:

      09:36am | 11/02/13

      Peter Costello bringing in the changes that saw ‘no ‘withdrawal taxes’ from age 60 onwards was the biggest act of economic vandalism ever. This one measure which benefits the wealthy is responsible for the biggest hole in budget revenues now, and increasingly so going forward.

    • PW says:

      03:50pm | 11/02/13

      This might eventually go (in increments) to 65 but to abolish it altogether would completely undermine the confidence Australians have in super, and it would be counterproductive anyway, as more and more retirees apply for the pension, having had their super white-anted by taxes and fees. After all if the Govt is going to take a chunk of my life savings why shouldn’t I take a world trip and put my hand out for welfare upon my return.

    • Vince says:

      04:45pm | 11/02/13

      Yes, and remember the one-time $1m rollover into super he gave to the wealthy over-50s?  Oh no, they don’t mention that little tidbit as they fume at the mouth complaining about “government waste”.  Howard and Costello were the worst vote-buying pair this country has ever, ever seen.  And yet we think they are so fantastic because they created a budget surplus.  Yeah, great.  They also increased spending, grew the government, pump-primed middle-class welfare, created a housing bubble and lead us straight into the eye of an “economic tsunami” right before bailing out, passing it all over to Labor to deal with.  And now people complain about Swan as if this ugly mess was all his fault (and the rest of the world gives him Awards).  Hilarious.  This country is so one-eyed we should change our name to Cyclopia.

    • TrevorA says:

      09:55am | 11/02/13

      I believe the Government should set a maximum benefit based on salary and tax the remainder at the marginal tax.
      I am aware of big names who have between 15 and 17 million in their superannuation, with wives who have never worked having in excess of 10 Million each. These funds are set up as pension funds. The contributions are made each year but converted to pension fund which pay no tax, after the contribution.
      Ten years ago the ATO allowed funds based on earnings and the maximum was 7 times annual salary.
      I am suggesting that ten times either $100000 or up to $150,000 should be the maximum tax free ,and anything else is fully taxable.
      Costello killed the working forces need for super, it needs to get back to where it was before he destroyed it.

    • dan says:

      03:31pm | 11/02/13

      A withdrawals tax simply doesn’t make sense. Why pick $1M as well? That’s not a lot of money these days, most people have that balance in their house! Compare a withdrawals tax on super with a house:
      1. $1M House: bought with taxed income, appreciates in value, sell, pay capital gains.
      2. Withdrawal tax on $1M Super: Super grows with taxed income payments, you pay capital gains and tax on interest earned as you go. Why then pay another tax?!? You don’t have to pay another tax on your house! It’s like paying capital gains twice, but on super.
      Too many people do not have a clue how finances work, to anyone that does, this discussion is incredibly scary simply because of the astounding levels of ignorance.

    • Emgee says:

      10:01am | 11/02/13

      What annoys me is this paragraph :“Ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that high income people should receive a disproportionate tax break on each dollar of savings?”
      I’m in my mid-40’s, work very hard, long hours and take on massive responsibility for my employer. This is entirely my choice becasue I want to get ahead and provide more opportunities to my family. Ive just cracked 6 figures this year for the first time. It seems like I’m squarely in the cross hairs of Punchers lately as receiving ‘unfair’ distribution of the moral wealth pool.  Why is it unfair that because I work harder I get more? Isn’t it better for the country that I work harder and pay more tax back into the system to help support essential services like roads and hospitals?
      Don’t parents tell their kids to work harder at school to get better results to be rewarded with more opportunities? Do you think we should penalise the high achieving kids and reward the ones who study less so the underachievers receive the same moral reward they deserve as being equally valued human beings?
      I think its unfair that people who choose (and some do choose) to work less and earn less get disproportionate concessions which encourage them to stay exactly where they are. Don’t we want an Australia where you are encouraged to work harder and contribute more, rather than one which rewards you for doing less?

    • andrew says:

      03:11pm | 11/02/13

      I still think that hard workers such as yourself are fairly rewarded. I’m in a similar situation myself, though younger. I’m currently earning $90K for more than full time work but have just applied for casual work on some of my remaining weekends. My wife will probably return to six day weeks shortly. Why work this hard? Because living expenses stay the same, but the extra we earn goes into the mortgage and savings. We will be careful not to go over $150K combined though, don’t want to fall into the “rich” category and get slugged a massive medicare levy surchage etc. Keep up the good work.

    • Richard says:

      10:11am | 11/02/13

      The trouble with Super is that it is within the grasp of a greedy pollie regardless of political persuasion. The lower paid need their Super guaranteed , otherwise we will all need the age pension which defeats the purpose of Super. What we need is a “Pollie proof Super Future Fund”  or as SAM put it
      Compulsory contributions (9%) - Tax free
      Voluntary taxed at whatever your marginal tax rate is.

      What ever the the solution remember
        ” TO ALL POLITICAL PARTIES SUPER IS NOT YOUR SLUSH FUND.”

    • Hartz says:

      10:13am | 11/02/13

      I bet they’re not touching their own unbelievably generous super, that they don’t need to wait until retirement to take - as always, one rule for the politicians and one for the rest of us….

    • Distraction man says:

      10:15am | 11/02/13

      Class warefare to the rescue!

    • St. Michael says:

      11:24am | 11/02/13

      “Ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that high income people should receive a disproportionate tax break on each dollar of savings?”

      That’s horseshit, all due respect.  Superannuation is the government’s get-out card for having to devalue our currency to pay for a full aged pension for everyone.  All the projections are clear as crystal that by the time retirements hit their apogee, it won’t be the “greedy rich” bleeding taxpayers dry, it’ll be every second pensioner.

      The simple cynical fact is that the government is going to slowly raise retirement age and reduce the amount of the aged pension in real if not unadjusted terms—because they can’t pay for it any other way.  There’s been analyses that if they did try to maintain the aged pension as it presently is for the whole retiring baby boomer workforce, you are looking at Australia going over the 100% debt-to-GDP ratio to do it.  The aged pension is simply too expensive to pay for out of government coffers, so people are going to wind up having to have their own arrangements for retirement anyway.  The US is already in the toilet on this: their single biggest spending item on the budget is Social Security, so much so that it’s actually close to matching their entire Federal tax intake per year.  As in, it’s costing the US its entire tax revenue to pay for pensions alone.

      Labor, stop screwing over your children and grandchildren.  Leave super alone, in fact remove all taxation on it: you’ll get much of the revenue back in GST later on anyway, just not now when you want to pay for big, showy crap like an NDIS which has full capacity to be as expensive as the aged pension.

    • Debbie says:

      02:11pm | 11/02/13

      GST doesn’t apply to overseas holidays so how will the govt get it back.

    • St. Michael says:

      04:45pm | 11/02/13

      Departure tax, arrival tax, and all the GST spent in this country on copies of “Eat, Pray, Love” before the Grey Haired Nomad flees the nation.  Oh, and Viagra.

    • TheFatMan says:

      11:35am | 11/02/13

      Whilst it was well intended the Super laws are just another giant stuff-up and con.  The comment about paying tax for a pension is right.  If I am forced to cough up 9% for super and then have more than the maximum allowed to qualify for a pension - that I paid for - is that my fault - NO so pay it up.

      There should also be NO tax on super, or at least what the 9% earnt, and no allowable fees charged on the 9% (because they get it for nothing) and the law should clearly state that it, the 9%, must be capital guaranteed ie the Super mobs can’t lose it on dodgy investments.  Anyone who entered the workforce at the full 9% who will NOT qualify for a pension should get that portion of their tax back.

      I am another who is looking hard at going O/S - I dislike the people who think they run the country, the people who want to think they run the country and, while admiring them in some respects, hate the fatcat rape artists who actually do run the country.

    • PW says:

      04:03pm | 11/02/13

      You are free to put your super into a strategy that has 100% iron clad security. It is called cash. You will make about 3% per year on it (about 1% in real terms if that), while those in a balanced strategy make 6% or 7% on average, but they do risk losses in a GFC-like crash. Your money, your choice.

      Unfortunately fees are part of life, but you can certainly shop around for those that are lowest.

    • St. Michael says:

      05:49pm | 11/02/13

      @ PW: Assuming, of course, the government does not do something stupid like hyperinflate the currency over the 30-40 years or so you have to hang onto the cash.

    • Fincon says:

      11:41am | 11/02/13

      :“Ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that high income people should receive a disproportionate tax break on each dollar of savings?”

      Is it fair that the top 15% of income earners in Aust. pay 45% of all tax?

      The ALP we be the end of this countrry.

    • PW says:

      03:55pm | 11/02/13

      “Is it fair that the top 15% of income earners in Aust. pay 45% of all tax?”

      Probably not. It should be higher.

    • Bruno says:

      11:56am | 11/02/13

      Only a hack or a well fed pig doesn’t describe super as one of the biggest rorts ever imposed on us. Sure it had well meanings, but whats that saying about things that begin with good intentions. Since I don’t have an option regarding super shouldn’t i be charging them for the privilege of gambling with my money. Based on overall performance Benno from the pub has a better history of picking winners. It must be that inside information. Look after yourself put it in cash. Interesting the lack of articles from media people, the champions of Australianess, commenting on the rattiness of financial institutions coming up with more and more ways of stealing our money. It must be best for the economy I suppose. Fark I cant wait to get out of here. What a farken rort this place is. We would’ve been better of where we came from.

    • dan says:

      12:01pm | 11/02/13

      Why on earth would there be a withdrawals tax??? If I compare it to similar systems, lets say a simple bank account, I pay tax on my income (as does super - though at the lower rate), i earn interest, and pay tax on that interest, then I can withdraw my full balance at any time.
      Compared to shares, I pay tax on my income (like super), then I make earnings (in capital gains and in dividends) which I pay tax on, then I can sell and collect my full balance (minus capital gains previously accounted for).
      Now super; I pay tax on my income, then I pay tax on my interest gains, capital gains, and dividends, and now they’re saying they want to tax the withdrawals??? What?! Why?

      This is a disgusting cash grab, Australia doesn’t have much in the way of retirement plans, but at least super is half-way there. Why try and destroy it?

    • Sunray says:

      01:55pm | 11/02/13

      Desperation is a bad motivation for last minute pre election raids on the super of the “rich”. All we get from this GreenLabor Mob is dishonesty and class warfare.

    • Jenny says:

      05:08pm | 11/02/13

      Every post I read go on about
      “All we get from this GreenLabor Mob is dishonesty and class warfare.”

      Do you think if we ad a direct democracy we would read the same complain all the time ????????

    • Greg says:

      02:31pm | 11/02/13

      Jessica, considering that you are supposed to a finance and economics reporter you really should develop an understanding of basic maths.

      “What is immediately clear about the way we tax super today is that it is regressive – providing the biggest benefit to people on high incomes.”

      That is just blatantly wrong. A 15% super tax means that those super accounts with higher earnings pay more tax. It is not a “regressive tax”, or even a flat tax.  It really isn’t that difficult to understand.

      And do you really believe that people should be grateful to the government for letting them keep a bit extra of their own money? If a psychopath chops off your finger, are you grateful that he didn’t chop off your entire arm? Would you consider that “a pretty sweet deal”?

      As for low income earners, they have just had their income tax threshold more than tripled this financial year, with no tax payable on earnings up to $18,200. Are we really supposed to feel sorry for them for paying 0% income tax, instead of 15% if they were to use some of their income to make a super contribution?

      Here is another mathematical concept that you might want to understand:

      Having super taxed at 15% is not as good as having income taxed at 0%.

      Then low income earners are rewarded even further by getting a pension, that other people who pay into super will not receive.

      So yes, ultimately, the taxation of super is a moral issue. Is it fair that low income people should pay little or no income tax, make little or no contribution to super, and still receive a pension?

      What makes them so entitled to money that other people have earned?

    • PW says:

      04:13pm | 11/02/13

      “That is just blatantly wrong. A 15% super tax means that those super accounts with higher earnings pay more tax.”

      I think what Jessica was trying to say was that a person on the top marginal rate receives a tax break of 31.5% on their concessional super, while someone below the tax free threshold receives a penalty of 15%.

      Greg, you would be right at home in the US, as a member of the Tea Party. Here in Australia we support those of lesser means than ourselves. It’s a bugger, but that’s what we do.

      In any case, its highly likely that your lovely high income is in some way derived from those you so begrudge a share of the pie, however small. So you’d only be penalising yourself.

    • Greg says:

      06:12pm | 11/02/13

      @PW, the superannuation “penalty” of 15% only arises because of an income tax advantage of 31.5%.

      Most people would be happy to be “penalised” by 15% on their super earnings if their income was taxed at a 31.5% lesser rate.

      Government policy is not justified by geography or by past precedent either. In fact relying on such feeble justifications just highlights the lack of any genuine justification.

      Nor is the argument all about me. The principle I have argued applies regardless of any potential impact upon myself.

    • True Blue Ozzie says:

      04:06pm | 11/02/13

      Our greedy pollies are ” discriminating ” against ordinary every day Australian tax payers. Not content with there perks and hudge supers after parliment life, they guard there supers for dear life never paying tax on there super as equals like normal Australians do. DISCRIMATION !

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

RT @leysie: Kate Legge on the last days of Hazel Hawke and Bob's farewell serenade. Warning: it will make you cry. http://t.co/iBDFBw74DJ

ToryShepherd

@TomRichardson @891adelaide That one is definitely a keeper #misheardlyrics

ToryShepherd

@TammyMLC @891adelaide @matt_gilbertson Oh I much prefer a gherkin to a virgin #misheardlyrics#springgully

ToryShepherd

“@JessAdamson7: @jhwakelin I like Grace's version. I learned the hard way Alex the Seal was actually Our Lips Are Sealed”#misheardlyrics

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

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?

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”

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]

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