Federal Coalition Government 2013-?

[redstragic]

It hits revenue now though based on that income being taxed at marginal tax rates vs 15% in the super fund.

This I don't get because the LNP were saying workers can expect bigger pay rises over the next few years now the super has been held back. Therefore the economy will be better off because people will spend the extra pay now.

None of this is mandated though in any way and is up to employers to pay workers this extra? I am sure some may but in no way will it be industry wide.

 

[Sully]

It hits revenue now though based on that income being taxed at marginal tax rates vs 15% in the super fund.

That doesn't really apply though as they still get their revenue from wages and the super contributions are a separate thing

 

[Lindommer]

Bh, I think the expression is "penny wise, pound foolish", or something like that.

 

[Braveheart81]

That doesn't really apply though as they still get their revenue from wages and the super contributions are a separate thing

Let's say that you earn 100k including super. That puts your marginal tax rate at 39% including Medicare levy.

If sgc goes from 9.5 to 10% that is another $500 the government is only collecting 15% of instead of 39%.

 

[Sully]

Let's say that you earn 100k including super. That puts your marginal tax rate at 39% including Medicare levy.

If sgc goes from 9.5 to 10% that is another $500 the government is only collecting 15% of instead of 39%.

But they are still collecting extra. and wages growth wouldn't change. It's not an either or situation.

 

[No4918]

BH, your assumption only works if companies pass on the money meant for super as pay rises. If they do not then the government is actually worse off as they lose the 15% tax on the extra super.

 

[Runner]

https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/super...-works/super-contributions/how-much-is-enough

Most Australians at this time have insufficient super as they approach retirement due to it's commencement date and the low level that the compulsory super was set at. It was a wage trade off as part of the Accord process.

In places like Singapore it is around 20%.

So for some time into the future the government will have to top up super with pensions. The real hassle is that 12.5% or 15% or 17% is not enough. The goevernment will still have to contribute.

Most Australians are unaware of this till it's late in the day believeing that they will be OK.
The income from super is also unprotected.

If you have a self funded super you can control your investments to some degree e.g. property purchases. For those on industry or retail funds most is in the stock exchange and thus is like going to Randwick and punting by using a pin.

If I have the funds in my pocket I can choose what I do with it and also don't pay fees.

The above site might prove interesting to see where you stand in this situation.

 

[Ruggo]

This I don't get because the LNP were saying workers can expect bigger pay rises over the next few years now the super has been held back. Therefore the economy will be better off because people will spend the extra pay now.

None of this is mandated though in any way and is up to employers to pay workers this extra? I am sure some may but in no way will it be industry wide.

More wages in peoples incomes is the sales pitch. Tomorrow it will be a wages explosion, all the fault of Labor and the Unions.

Maybe the conservatives just can't accept super because it was a massive national reform made possible by Labor and the trade union movement.

 

[Ruggo]

https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/super...-works/super-contributions/how-much-is-enough

Most Australians at this time have insufficient super as they approach retirement due to it's commencement date and the low level that the compulsory super was set at. It was a wage trade off as part of the Accord process.

In places like Singapore it is around 20%.

So for some time into the future the government will have to top up super with pensions. The real hassle is that 12.5% or 15% or 17% is not enough. The goevernment will still have to contribute.

Most Australians are unaware of this till it's late in the day believeing that they will be OK.
The income from super is also unprotected.

If you have a self funded super you can control your investments to some degree e.g. property purchases. For those on industry or retail funds most is in the stock exchange and thus is like going to Randwick and punting by using a pin.

If I have the funds in my pocket I can choose what I do with it and also don't pay fees.

The above site might prove interesting to see where you stand in this situation.

I get what you are saying but the issue is how many of us will volunteer wage towards our retirement? Ideology aside, the reality is not much. I understand this as the harsh reality is life your life could end at any moment and reaching retirement age just might not happen. Why would somebody want to put away money for a hypothetical that just may not come? Some find it hard to cope with cost of living pressures and a volunteered retirement nest egg might just not be possible.

You are right in that we are well behind in super and that only builds the case we can not stall the planned rises in the minimum contribution any longer.

The rate must rise and it should always have risen in line with the original policy framework.

I ask why was it left to the Gillard government to raise it in times when the government was battling falling terms of trade, yet nothing happened during the good times in the Howard years?

The positive the Howard government did make was the self determination adjustments in giving the worker the freedom to select his own fund or self manage to a degree.

For very good reasons, our country and our society owes it to retirees who have been economical and social contributors their entire working lives and without doubt, it is becoming harder to afford and honor these responsibilities, so it is a terribly short sighted move to be hampering super rises.

 

[boyo]

More wages in peoples incomes is the sales pitch. Tomorrow it will be a wages explosion, all the fault of Labor and the Unions.

Maybe the conservatives just can't accept super because it was a massive national reform made possible by Labor and the trade union movement.

The Coalition can't accept anything enacted by the ALP (good or bad) - it's not in their ideology.

 

[boyo]

Interesting.

Show us your citizenship: why the Tony Abbott 'birthers' want to believe

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-why-the-tony-abbott-birthers-want-to-believe

 

[Braveheart81]

This I don't get because the LNP were saying workers can expect bigger pay rises over the next few years now the super has been held back. Therefore the economy will be better off because people will spend the extra pay now.

None of this is mandated though in any way and is up to employers to pay workers this extra? I am sure some may but in no way will it be industry wide.

But they are still collecting extra. and wages growth wouldn't change. It's not an either or situation.

BH, your assumption only works if companies pass on the money meant for super as pay rises. If they do not then the government is actually worse off as they lose the 15% tax on the extra super.

I'm not sure how my posts were confusing yesterday evening but I'll have another go now that I'm in front of a computer rather than trying to type on a mobile phone.

Let's assume that wage growth remains fairly stable regardless of the mix between take home pay, gross salary and superannuation. Whilst the LNP might have said that slowing down SGC increases will lead to faster wage growth, there is no evidence to support that.

The average worker's wages would ordinarily rise faster than the SGC rises were going to increase. These were generally 0.5% per year until it got to 12%. This is what the LNP is delaying. We have had two increases so far in the SGC, firstly to 9.25% a couple of years ago and 9.5% from 1 July 2014.

Superannuation contributions are considered a cost to revenue because they are concessionally taxed. If that money goes to someone's superannuation it is taxed at 15%. If it goes to the individual as salary it is taxed at their marginal tax rate. From the government's perspective, most people whose superannuation now won't be rising automatically as a portion of their overall salary will be at the 34.5% or 39% tax rate. Those at the top marginal tax rate are at 49% (the 2% budget repair levy makes it even more tax advantageous to salary sacrifice the maximum possible into super).

So by delaying the SGC increases, a greater proportion of someone's overall salary package will remain in the taxpayer's hands and be taxed at their marginal tax rate rather than the concessional 15% when contributed to superannuation. I have no idea about the exact figures, but each year a 0.5% SGC increase is delayed will increase tax revenue by at least a billion dollars. It's quite significant.

 

[boyo]

Indeed.

Only a strange person would believe super delay will mean pay rises: former Reserve Bank head Bernie Fraser

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/only-a-strange-person-would-believe-super-delay-will-mean-pay-rises-former-reserve-bank-head-bernie-fraser-20140910-10esm9.html#ixzz3CsVkuwWq

 

[boyo]

What is the Coalition about?

(1) It uses the term "open for business" while rejecting business approaches to Australia.

(2) It declares a war on red tape, then promises new noise regulations on wind-farms.

(3) It drums into the population for three years that debt is evil and then increases the debt ceiling.

(4) It insists government should "do only things people cannot do for themselves", and then stubbornly refuses to rule out PPL.

(5) It promises not to break its promises, and then breaks its promises

(6) It promises to be a government of "no excuses", but blames every little thing on Labor, or the media, etc., etc.

(7) It claims to champion individual freedom and entrepreneurship, yet cashes in most on its political capital on stopping the free movement of people who have demonstrated the guts, the determination and the ability to make it to Australia against all odds.

(8) It promises to be a government of "grown ups", yet its representatives cannot speak a sentence or express a thought without alliteration or name-calling.






They have

(1) lied about the NBN and the Mtm ("we have a policy fully costed, bulletproof, and ready to go")

(2) lied about Gonski and continually change it, in spite of claiming to be on a unity ticket

(3) lied about why the food rating website was taken down

(4) lied about why funding was removed from the drug and alcohol harm minimisation group

(5) lied about the impact of the carbon tax

(6) lied about the impact of the mining tax

(7) lied about not touching superannuation (on SBS TA said on the night before the 2013 election: “No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.”)

(8) lied about asylum seekers and what is happening in our and Indonesia's territorial waters

(9) lied about TA spending his first week as Prime Minister in Arnhem land.

(10) lied about the size of Australia's debt, and then increase the debt

(11) lied about not doing deals with minor parties

(12) lied about why they support Cadbury and not SPC

If the government was a public company on the ASX and the CEO lied to its shareholders such as promising and then going back on the plans & promises they would not only be sacked but also called by ASIC, and possibly be charged.

As Karl Rove said “the key to winning elections is to scare the shit out of stupid people"

A YEAR IN POWER​

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-10/tony-abbott-one-year-anniversary/5726140

 

[Gnostic]

Open for business, so long as it doesn't involve making anything. Just my thought on the strong reports of the Japanese getting the contract for building the next generation of Australian Submarines. A multi billion dollar contract off shored.

The myth of the Collins class subs will be raised as a reason why Australia can't build it, just as the Millennium Train issues in NSW were used to justify accepting the Downer big to build the last train upgrade in China. The fact they conveniently forget is that both issues in the Australian Product were not due to workmanship but one of design and suitability to purpose.

 

[Pfitzy]

[What is the Coalition about?

You used the word "lie" a lot.

So I'm assuming this is just politics at work.

 

[boyo]

You used the word "lie" a lot.

If the shoe fits, etc.

 

[boyo]

 

[redstragic]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...t-raised-to-high/story-fnihslxi-1227056606585

Go Team Straya!!

 

[Sully]

The PM stressed “this does not mean that a terror attack is imminent.”
“We have no specific intelligence of a particular plot,” he said.
“What we do have is that there are people with the intent and capability to mount attacks.”

Something could happen. We have no idea what it is. It probably won't happen. What ever it is.

What are we being distracted from?