Financial Standard Comments - Fund budget surplus with cuts to super tax breaks: Treasury

Comment by Damian Ebzery (Lifestyle & Investment Planning Solutions)

Damian Ebzery (Lifestyle & Investment Planning Solutions) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:49:12 +1100

As usual they focus on the easy target - like Campbell Newman has done in the state system. He is slashing staff and wages. These treasury boffins sitting on their nice 20% per annum contributions to super want to target those in the society that actually are willing to save to fund their retirement rather than rely on the government pension system which is self imploding daily.

If people want $50k a year in retirement they need to save at least $1 Million to do this safely, how can people accumulate this if the governement constantly erodes the earnings on the invested money by increasing taxes on their "captive" slush fund.

Instead the government needs to focus on ways of improving public sentiment and attracting productivity improvements and investment rather than burning the people that are actually protecting them from a pension cost they will never be able to afford to fund via welfare.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Gary C (Gary C)

Gary C (Gary C) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:02:16 +1100

Perhaps if this Government made smarter decisions with the rest of our tax money, fiscal sustainability would not be such an issue now.

So lets plug the cash flow holes by gouging from superannuation....AGAIN.....Is it any wonder the voters already have a total "lack of confidence" in superannuation and look at planners suspiciously when we encourage its use......come to think of it.........I am starting to have concerns as well.

If Govt wants the people to fund their own retirement, it is time to stop jerking the rules around.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Richard B (.)

Richard B (.) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:35:06 +1100

I certainly hope if this government intends taking another pound of flesh from those who are diligently trying to accumulate more to help fund their retirement, they do likewise to their own precious little life-time superannuation pension that we, in the non-government sector, would love to have access to.

Once again, let's ban blue ties, it's fine, we don't wear blue ties anyway says the govt.

Reduce the ability to catch up with additional super contributions. Increase the contributions tax for the higher income earners.Reduce the incentive to place after tax money into super (by 50%) and now put further doubt in the minds of those trying to use super to help ensure they don't need to rely on the aged pension, is hardly a productive conversation to have now is it?

And the objective for this govt is to ensure more Australians have better retirement outcomes...??

Maybe they should consider this objective and then frame their policy with it as the guiding princple..sure..not likely....that's what a good CEO would do.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by kym just (kym just)

kym just (kym just) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:37:21 +1100

The government should learn to spend frugally the money that it extorts from it's citizens in the name of income tax and other taxes by different names. The statement "the budget misses out on over $30 billion annually in tax revenue through super" really says it all. The budget is not "missing out" at all. A 15% contributions tax has already been stolen from the long suffering tax payer when the super contribution is made and a further 15% taken from the fund earnings. One could argue that if this government (or any other for that matter) was really serious about the shortfall in superannuation savings for the average person, the contributions and earnings taxes would be abolished. Articles such as this one by Mark Story are typical of the portrayal of the attitudes of policy makers, public servants etc who have probably never worked for a living in an environment other than the public service etc where their job tenure and income are guaranteed by the tax payer.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Daniel Staines (WealthOne)

Daniel Staines (WealthOne) — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:04:24 +1100

Treasury as become far to embedded in the govt camp to provide objective advice. The expansion of targeted concessions would reduce welfare dependency of an aging population not the constant elimination of incentives to save. A naive view from comfortably cosseted bureaucrat.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.