Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

Jump to new
Why doesn't the Government just say, $3m is the maximum an individual can have in super?

Easier to control, easier to administer, easier to audit, easier to understand.

Once a members funds hit $3m, the excess has to be removed.

Oh but then they have lost control of the money, silly me. Lol
 
sptrawler said:
Why doesn't the Government just say, $3m is the maximum
Click to expand...
From July or whenever the Greens in the senate wave Labor's bill through , nobody with half an ounce of nouse is going to cop the 30 % tax on the excess nor the world's first wealth tax on unrealised capital gains .
The lucky country is no more . Get used to it , people . Argentina here we come . We had it good for too long . It couldn't last . Just wait for Labor's extension of taxation on unrealised capital gains . It will not stop until it arrives on the doorstep of the sacred P.P.O.R .

We only get the governments we deserve . Aussies are a gullible , stupid people .Nobody can convince me otherwise . Was it not John Wayne who famously said " Life is hard . It's even harder if you're stupid " ?
 
Bellcose said:
A good read I think.

View attachment 199650
Click to expand...

That document reads like a socialist's road map for wealth equality.

However, these transfers involve trade-offs. Net transfers to one generation must come at the ​
expense of taxes paid by another generation. These taxes and transfers also distort the incentives of ​
Australians to work and save. ​
​
Therefore, the primary goal of this paper is to measure the size of intergenerational transfers made ​
through the tax and transfer system, how this has changed over time, and how this has impacted the ​
age profile of final income (after taxes and transfers) in Australia. By making these transfers more ​
transparent, we hope to improve the policy discussion around intergenerational equity in Australia. ​

What I don't understand is why the author believes that it is ok to think that it is ok to take part of an aging person wealth because they have too much, and that it is then ok to reduce how much those aging persons can leave to their family. Isn't wealth just another type of property?

The relative importance of these factors is debated. Indeed, the appropriate size of the welfare state is one of the defining debates of modern history. However, most (but not all) justifications for redistribution towards older age groups are based on the idea that the spending will finance consumption in retirement rather than fund intergenerational bequests.​

If my parents worked, saved and sacrificed pleasures so that they can invest and build a huge nest egg, is it not their right to do whatever they want with it? After all, it is theirs.

My mother is in that situation now.

Her husband passed away 2 years this July, they lived frugally, first investing in property when it wasn't fashionable, and then selling and investing in shares again when it wasn't fashionable. They purchased only 2 new cars their whole life, they invested in solar to keep electricity costs down, they have traveled overseas twice in their whole life, they didn't eat out, they didn't buy expensive furniture and jewelry. Instead, they build a large investment portfolio that they were proud of, one that they had intended to leave to their 5 children and numerous grandchildren.

Now my mum has been told that she has to make decisions about her superannuation because she has too much. there's not much she can do, other than start spending it or paying more taxes than she already does. for an 80-year-old person who has lost their life partner this has become a stressful situation. She has voted labor all her life, followed their policies of saving for the future, working hard and not being a burden. And now the government want her money because she and her husband didn't piss it up a wall and spend it on themselves these past 50 years.

that document you shared is just an excuse to take money from hard working big savers to pay for the government wasted projects and welfare expansion that has no stop limit.

And the sad thing is that the current young workforce doesn't even realise that they will be in the $3m bracket long before they reach retirement, so they might as well spend big before that time. What better incentive to create bigger consumerism that this is there.
 
and now, another shot across the bow

Peter Downes, Outlook Economics director and a former Treasury modeller, said there was a tension between Chalmers’ productivity agenda and his proposal to increase the earnings tax on superannuation balances above $3 million to 30 per cent from 15 per cent.

The measure, which would initially apply to about 80,000 people, could lead to the early retirement of highly skilled, high-income workers, Downes told The Australian Financial Review.

“The trade-offs between continuing working and retirement become sharper as you get older, so the marginal excess burden of the change could potentially be very high,” Downes said, referring to the common measure for the economic cost of a tax.
“How do you raise productivity? Stop doing things that lower it.”
 
qldfrog said:
From the evil side
We are all reassured our elderly politicians will be spared to both save our precious constitutional rights and allow them the dignity of avoiding queueing at the salvos soup truck
Click to expand...
watch the parade of ousted Federal pollies being appointed to such posts when removed from Canberra ( much like ex-pollies landing ambassador gigs so they can enjoy an overseas life-style )
 
Dona Ferentes said:
and now, another shot across the bow

Peter Downes, Outlook Economics director and a former Treasury modeller, said there was a tension between Chalmers’ productivity agenda and his proposal to increase the earnings tax on superannuation balances above $3 million to 30 per cent from 15 per cent.

The measure, which would initially apply to about 80,000 people, could lead to the early retirement of highly skilled, high-income workers, Downes told The Australian Financial Review.

“The trade-offs between continuing working and retirement become sharper as you get older, so the marginal excess burden of the change could potentially be very high,” Downes said, referring to the common measure for the economic cost of a tax.
“How do you raise productivity? Stop doing things that lower it.”
Click to expand...
Its an important consideration.
Had dinner with some friends on Saturday night, where one of our number was mulling over whether to take the top job at a QUANGO job here in Victoria.
He has been acting in the role for six months, but as he gets closer and closer to the inner workings of the Victorian Government, the more it reinforces his view that damn everything they do and breathe is for political reasons rather than for economic, engineering, or for long term benefit of the state or nation.
One of the salient points was that they want him to commit for a 5 year contract, but he reckons working for 5 more years will add about 2 thousand bucks a year to his super pension.
He says he is not sure it is worth the amount of time, travel and eventual uselessness of his efforts that will make it worth it.
Smart people make smart choices, something that seems to escape the mandarins.
He is an engineer, and has a 35 year working life of engineering knowledge of his industry.
So many of those around him lack this industry knowledge, and ask him to prepare stuff for them on the actual practicalities of the industry, then go pretend to their peers and others that they know the industry.
He says he will most likely not take up the role, and come back as a consultant and charge the parasites for this knowledge at exorbitant rates.
Mick
 
Last edited:
mullokintyre said:
Its an important consideration.
Had dinner with some friends on Saturday night, where one of our number was mulling over whether to take the top job at a QUANGO job here in Victoria.
He has been acting in the role for six months, but as he gets closer and closer to the inner workings of the Victorian Government, the more it reinforces his view that damn everything they do and breathe is for political reasons rather than for economic, engineering, or for long term benefit of the state or nation.
One of the salient points was that they want him to commit for a 5 year contract, but he reckons working for 5 more years will add about 2 thousand bucks a year to his super pension.
He says he is not sure it is worth the amount of time, travel and eventual uselessness of his efforts that will make it worth it.
Smart people make smart choices, something that seems to escape the mandarins.
He is an engineer, and has a 35 year working life of engineering knowledge of his industry.
So many of those around him lack this industry knowledge, and ask him to prepare stuff for them on the actual practicalities of the industry, then go pretend to their peers and others that they know the industry.
He says he will most likely not take up the role, and come back as a consultant and charge the parasites for this knowledge at exorbitant rates.
Mick
Click to expand...
Maybe he could be a good influence. Seems sad he is considering being a parasite.
Hope he takes the job.
 
mullokintyre said:
Its an important consideration.
Had dinner with some friends on Saturday night, where one of our number was mulling over whether to take the top job at a QUANGO job here in Victoria.
He has been acting in the role for six months, but as he gets closer and closer to the inner workings of the Victorian Government, the more it reinforces his view that damn everything they do and breathe is for political reasons rather than for economic, engineering, or for long term benefit of the state or nation.
One of the salient points was that they want him to commit for a 5 year contract, but he reckons working for 5 more years will add about 2 thousand bucks a year to his super pension.
He says he is not sure it is worth the amount of time, travel and eventual uselessness of his efforts that will make it worth it.
Smart people make smart choices, something that seems to escape the mandarins.
He is an engineer, and has a 35 year working life of engineering knowledge of his industry.
So many of those around him lack this industry knowledge, and ask him to prepare stuff for them on the actual practicalities of the industry, then go pretend to their peers and others that they know the industry.
He says he will most likely not take up the role, and come back as a consultant and charge the parasites for this knowledge at exorbitant rates.
Mick
Click to expand...
Of course, why even wondering
 
mullokintyre said:
Its an important consideration.
Had dinner with some friends on Saturday night, where one of our number was mulling over whether to take the top job at a QUANGO job here in Victoria.
He has been acting in the role for six months, but as he gets closer and closer to the inner workings of the Victorian Government, the more it reinforces his view that damn everything they do and breathe is for political reasons rather than for economic, engineering, or for long term benefit of the state or nation.
One of the salient points was that they want him to commit for a 5 year contract, but he reckons working for 5 more years will add about 2 thousand bucks a year to his super pension.
He says he is not sure it is worth the amount of time, travel and eventual uselessness of his efforts that will make it worth it.
Smart people make smart choices, something that seems to escape the mandarins.
He is an engineer, and has a 35 year working life of engineering knowledge of his industry.
So many of those around him lack this industry knowledge, and ask him to prepare stuff for them on the actual practicalities of the industry, then go pretend to their peers and others that they know the industry.
He says he will most likely not take up the role, and come back as a consultant and charge the parasites for this knowledge at exorbitant rates.
Mick
Click to expand...
You mean like this Mick:
www.afr.com

Super tax hike may force early retirement of skilled workers

Labor’s tax increase on $3 million super balances is unlikely to raise the predicted revenue and clashes with Chalmer’s productivity push.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
 
qldfrog said:
You mean like this Mick:
www.afr.com

Super tax hike may force early retirement of skilled workers

Labor’s tax increase on $3 million super balances is unlikely to raise the predicted revenue and clashes with Chalmer’s productivity push.
www.afr.com www.afr.com
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Get at least half your money out of super, and invest it in other areas where you have greater control of what where and how.
Super is heading more and more towards a tool of government.
Mick
 
mullokintyre said:
Its an important consideration.
Had dinner with some friends on Saturday night, where one of our number was mulling over whether to take the top job at a QUANGO job here in Victoria.
He has been acting in the role for six months, but as he gets closer and closer to the inner workings of the Victorian Government, the more it reinforces his view that damn everything they do and breathe is for political reasons rather than for economic, engineering, or for long term benefit of the state or nation.
One of the salient points was that they want him to commit for a 5 year contract, but he reckons working for 5 more years will add about 2 thousand bucks a year to his super pension.
He says he is not sure it is worth the amount of time, travel and eventual uselessness of his efforts that will make it worth it.
Smart people make smart choices, something that seems to escape the mandarins.
He is an engineer, and has a 35 year working life of engineering knowledge of his industry.
So many of those around him lack this industry knowledge, and ask him to prepare stuff for them on the actual practicalities of the industry, then go pretend to their peers and others that they know the industry.
He says he will most likely not take up the role, and come back as a consultant and charge the parasites for this knowledge at exorbitant rates.
Mick
Click to expand...
'exorbitant ' ?

no i don't know many top level engineers , but have met some very skilled IT people

and most can quickly justify their fees by showing how much earnings/revenue is leaking away .. whilst discussing the fees being charged ( somewhere around 1% of the profits being actively lost during the discussion .)

but of course IT folks get an accurate situation report from the logs ... good luck getting that from government reports/documents on a bridge/tunnel/power station

it seems the only real benefit of staying on the Government gravy train .. is the super/pension fund ( am not sure Victoria has a special health-care/benefits fund the Queensland higher level staff were rewarded with .. in the past )

now of course being an engineer ( and independent ) , he might choose to just invest straight into the market in selected stocks ( say the companies he has worked with in the past , and observed in action ) and be-damned with SMSF honey-pots
 
www.smh.com.au

Super funds good at making money but face rising challenge

High-profile court cases and cyberattacks have underlined the pressure on super funds to improve their service.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
From the article:
The challenging year for the industry continued in April when thousands of Australians’ accounts were accessed in a cyberattack on five super funds. Four customers of AustralianSuper lost a combined total of $500,000.

In a report published on Tuesday, KPMG says meeting the growing expectations of customer service from members would be a key focus for funds, while they also grappled with higher operating costs. The KPMG report, which analysed data from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, shows per-member operating costs across the industry increased from $230 to $237 in the 2023-24 financial year.

Head of asset and wealth management at KPMG, Linda Elkins, said that with costs creeping up, super funds needed to manage their spending while continuing to improve customer experience and mitigating risks like cyberattacks.

Australia’s super assets grew from $3.5 trillion to $3.9 trillion in the year to June, and figures from APRA show the sector’s assets hit $4.2 trillion at the end of December.
The report showed not-for-profit industry funds expanded their share of the super pool in 2023-24, from 38.2 to 40 per cent, while industry funds’ share has swelled by about 10 percentage points in the past five years.
Another key trend in super has been the rise of “mega funds” (funds sized over $100 billion) – partly due to a spate of mergers.

The KPMG report highlighted the addition of Hostplus to the now eight-strong group of mega funds after reaching $115 billion in assets under management. Without making predictions for whether there will be more mega funds, Elkins said it was possible, especially with more mergers of mid-sized funds.

The eight mega funds are comprised of four industry funds, one public sector fund and three retail funds. A further six funds are sized between $50 billion and $100 billion, which was the same in the 2022-23 financial year, and there are twice the number of funds since the 2022-23 financial year that are now sized between $25 billion and $50 billion.

The merger between CareSuper and Spirit Super was the largest transaction last financial year, with the combined CareSuper having had a more than 150 per cent growth rate for assets under management and for members. It now has 590,000 members.
 
We are so lucky the people party took control of the democratic republic of Australia :1000025602.jpg
Our estimate leaders of the politburo have thought everything for us commoners
 
www.smh.com.au

Chalmers ‘confused’ about veteran MPs’ super tax escape clause: Bragg

A spokesperson for the treasurer pushed back against the Liberal senator’s claims, saying Bragg’s contributions to the debate had become “desperate”.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

This new tax on super is a classic, apparently politicians, high court judges and senior public servants can be exempt till later and it is causing an uproar.

I went to a my union lawyer 20 odd years ago, about the unfairness of the super surcharge and that politicians, high court judges and senior public servants were exempt.

I was told, who says it has to be fair, so best of luck getting the politicians to hit themselves in the face, the union didn't want to hit them in the face. LOL


In its first Budget delivered in August 1996, the new Howard Government introduced a surcharge on superannuation contributions made by high-income individuals.


The Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (the Surcharge) was introduced in 1996–97 to make superannuation arrangements fairer, more equitable and better suited to the needs of the modern workforce.


The claim that the superannuation contributions surcharge (often called the "super surcharge") was unfair and that politicians were exempt from it is largely true. The super surcharge was a tax on superannuation contributions of high-income earners, aimed at those earning more than $160,000 in a financial year. However, due to constitutional limitations and the nature of some pension schemes, particularly for politicians, some were able to defer or avoid paying the surcharge.
 

Attachments

  • 1748331728728.png
    1748331728728.png
    463 bytes · Views: 0
Doesn't affect me but thought i would share............

Petition-CTA-email-to-database-1.png

Good afternoon,​

We invite you to stand with us and sign the petition to stop the Australian Government’s proposal to tax unrealised gains.

Under the proposed changes, superannuants with balances over $3 million would be required to pay tax on the increase in the value of their assets, even if the assets are not sold and no cash has been generated to fund the tax.

A lack of indexation on the $3 million means that 8.1 million Australians, or half of all current superannuants, will be captured by 2053 due to the impact from ‘bracket creep’.

Sign the petition today and share with friends and family.
Petition-CTA.png
Why we are taking a stand
  • It undermines the Australian superannuation system: The proposed changes penalise a lifetime of saving and erodes trust in the $4.2 trillion superannuation system.
  • It is illogical and bad policy: Paying tax before you sell an asset is a breach of the social contract - the unwritten agreement between the government and its citizens to encourage self-funded retirement. This is especially problematic for illiquid assets such as start-up businesses, energy infrastructure and farms, which cannot easily be sold to cover the tax bill.
  • It will damage the economy: Superannuation will become the only part of the tax system where individuals are taxed on unrealised gains, distorting capital allocation. Our modelling indicates $94.5 billion would be removed from the Australian economy and $155 billion of superannuation savings would be redirected into tax-free structures such as principal places of residence, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis that already weighs on younger Australians.
  • The “$3 million” cap is not indexed: More than 8.1 million Australians are on track to be captured by 2053.
Every signature sends a clear message to all Parliamentarians, who are yet to vote on the proposed legislation: rethink the taxing of unrealised gains and protect Australians’ retirement.
Sign-the-petition-CTA.png
Thank you for standing with us and adding your voice.

Kind regards,

Geoff Wilson AO
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Wilson Asset Management​

 
ShareSuccess said:
Doesn't affect me but thought i would share............

​
​
View attachment 200509
​
​

Good afternoon,​

We invite you to stand with us and sign the petition to stop the Australian Government’s proposal to tax unrealised gains.

Under the proposed changes, superannuants with balances over $3 million would be required to pay tax on the increase in the value of their assets, even if the assets are not sold and no cash has been generated to fund the tax.

A lack of indexation on the $3 million means that 8.1 million Australians, or half of all current superannuants, will be captured by 2053 due to the impact from ‘bracket creep’.

Sign the petition today and share with friends and family.
​
​
View attachment 200510
​
​
Why we are taking a stand
​
​
  • It undermines the Australian superannuation system: The proposed changes penalise a lifetime of saving and erodes trust in the $4.2 trillion superannuation system.
  • It is illogical and bad policy: Paying tax before you sell an asset is a breach of the social contract - the unwritten agreement between the government and its citizens to encourage self-funded retirement. This is especially problematic for illiquid assets such as start-up businesses, energy infrastructure and farms, which cannot easily be sold to cover the tax bill.
  • It will damage the economy: Superannuation will become the only part of the tax system where individuals are taxed on unrealised gains, distorting capital allocation. Our modelling indicates $94.5 billion would be removed from the Australian economy and $155 billion of superannuation savings would be redirected into tax-free structures such as principal places of residence, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis that already weighs on younger Australians.
  • The “$3 million” cap is not indexed: More than 8.1 million Australians are on track to be captured by 2053.
Every signature sends a clear message to all Parliamentarians, who are yet to vote on the proposed legislation: rethink the taxing of unrealised gains and protect Australians’ retirement.
​
​
​
​
View attachment 200511
​
​
Thank you for standing with us and adding your voice.
​
​

Kind regards,

Geoff Wilson AO
Chairman and Chief Investment Officer
Wilson Asset Management​

Click to expand...
It doesn't either but i had to sign against the idiocracy of unrealised gain.
It will mean countless farms small business properties etc will be sold for the only benefit of bigger global corporations
It is a tool of big business, but good luck explaining that to the leftists .
 

Similar threads

basilio
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Value Collector
Value Collector
JohnDe
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
12K
Telamelo
T
bigdog
Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
tech/a
tech/a
bigdog
Credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship
Replies
0
Views
2K
bigdog
bigdog
bigdog
How to avoid Shorten's plan to abolish the refund of excess franking credits
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
15K
Value Collector
Value Collector
Top