Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation (Read 1597 times)
whiteknight
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9340
melbourne
Gender: male
Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Apr 3rd, 2018 at 8:03am
 
    Apr 2 2018
    Financial Review

Labor planning to top up parents' superannuation


Labor is planning to apply the superannuation guarantee to taxpayer-funded paid parental leave to help address the imbalance in the retirement savings between men and women.

But the ALP is yet to decide whether it will accelerate the increase in the rate of the guarantee from the current level of 9.5 per cent to the target rate of 12 per cent, after the original trajectory introduced by the Gillard government was frozen for seven years by the Coalition.

With the superannuation guarantee to feature in the May budget, Revenue and Financial Services Minister Kelly O'Dwyer warned Labor against meddling with the current trajectory in an environment of flat wages growth.

"Increasing the superannuation guarantee earlier would only mean lower wages for Australian workers," she told The Australian Financial Review.


Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen left open the option.

"The Liberal Party is ideologically opposed to our compulsory super system and the increase in the Super Guarantee – they've delayed it twice now," he said.   Sad

"The Turnbull government will find any excuse to break its commitments on superannuation, which has seen millions of Australian workers with lower retirement incomes as a result."

Labor, however, is definitely considering applying the guarantee to paid parental leave as part of a policy to prop up the retirement savings of women.

Mr Bowen indicated this last week when he pledged Labor would not unveil any more policies tinkering with the tax treatment of super, but there were other areas at which it was looking.

"There are other matters in superannuation, like gender equity and the superannuation guarantee, which we continue to be concerned about, particularly gender equity, we will have more to say in that space," he said.

In 2012, the Gillard government passed legislation to increase the 9 per cent super guarantee by annual increments with the aim of reaching 12 per cent by July 1, 2019.

The Abbott government, which inherited a rate of 9.25 per cent, froze it at 9.5 per cent in the 2014 budget for four years and delayed the increase to 12 per cent until July 1, 2021.   
Tax on contributions

Under a second change legislated later in 2014, it extended the freeze at 9.5 per cent until July 1, 2021 and the 12 per cent rate until July 1, 2025.

The federal budget to be handed down in May will reflect the increase from 9.5 per cent to 10 per cent that is scheduled for July 1, 2021.

The government says it has no plans to change this again whereas Labor is yet to state its plans.

Because the super guarantee is paid to many workers as part of their salary, they pay a lower rate of tax on the super contributions than they otherwise would pay as income tax. Each 0.5 per cent increase is worth almost $2 billion a year in lost revenue to the budget.

In February, the Grattan Institute argued the 12 per cent target should be axed to deliver a budget saving.   Sad

It argued that the current rate of 9.25 per cent was adequate in that it would provide an income in retirement equivalent to 79 per cent of the pre-retirement wage for a median worker.

It further argued that the super guarantee was detrimental for low-income earners because every extra dollar in super would reduce age pension payments in retirement because of the pension assets test.

It also contended that increasing the guarantee would suppress wage growth, meaning lower increases to the age pension which is linked to wage growth.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Its time
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #1 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 8:05am
 
Should put it up to 25% to make up for all the payrises we've lost under libtards
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21340
Gender: male
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #2 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 11:02am
 
whiteknight wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 8:03am:
In February, the Grattan Institute argued the 12 per cent target should be axed to deliver a budget saving.



Oh dear. The leftist, progressive Grattan Institute?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Racist Filth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 90520
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #3 - Apr 3rd, 2018 at 1:14pm
 
Why?  They won't be parenting when they retire....

If they're going to follow this kind of idea, let's take it to the logical conclusions:-  back-pay for those who missed out, and a subsidy for grandparents who look after grand-kids...

We just had to know with Labor today that it had to be a sheila-supporting idea, and an offer of a higher rate of pay per paid hour in a job for the benefit of having their own kids.

e.g. Joe works for Top-Up Industries for fifty years at an average rate of $10 an hour - no matter how many hours Joe works his rate of pay remains the same...

Jo works for Top-Up Industries for fifty years at an average rate of $10 an hour - same rules and conditions - she takes two years off to have kids and is paid for it - that means she has worked only 48 years for Top-Up Industries, yet receives the same remuneration = 2/50 = 4% higher overall income per hour worked.

THAT is what the reality is......Jo receives $10.40 an hour and Joe receives $10 an hour for the exact same job just because Jo is a woman and wants to act like a woman .... you reckon that's fair and legal?

Let us then extend this reasoning to Childcare Allowance...

If Jo receives an average of $4 an hour for Childcare for twenty years of working life that means Jo is on $14.40 an hour compared to Joe on $10 an hour for the same job etc.

Averaged out over a fifty year working life, Jo receives 2/5 of $4 an hour more = $1.60, for a total, including PPL already calculated, of $12 an hour worked across that fifty year working life compard to Joe's $10 an hour - or an extra 20% just for being a woman.

Now - is that fair or legal?

guaranteed the next demand will be that childcare payments also accrue a super component - so as to 'equalise' women out by paying them more and more per actual hour worked.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Apr 3rd, 2018 at 1:39pm by Grappler Racist Filth »  

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #4 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 6:51am
 
Who would believe the LIES coming out of the union controlled Labor Party ?


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Its time
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #5 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 6:54am
 
53 %  Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Racist Filth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 90520
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #6 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 7:39am
 
Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Apr 3rd, 2018 at 1:14pm:
Why?  They won't be parenting when they retire....

If they're going to follow this kind of idea, let's take it to the logical conclusions:-  back-pay for those who missed out, and a subsidy for grandparents who look after grand-kids...

We just had to know with Labor today that it had to be a sheila-supporting idea, and an offer of a higher rate of pay per paid hour in a job for the benefit of having their own kids.

e.g. Joe works for Top-Up Industries for fifty years at an average rate of $10 an hour - no matter how many hours Joe works his rate of pay remains the same...

Jo works for Top-Up Industries for fifty years at an average rate of $10 an hour - same rules and conditions - she takes two years off to have kids and is paid for it - that means she has worked only 48 years for Top-Up Industries, yet receives the same remuneration = 2/50 = 4% higher overall income per hour worked.

THAT is what the reality is......Jo receives $10.40 an hour and Joe receives $10 an hour for the exact same job just because Jo is a woman and wants to act like a woman .... you reckon that's fair and legal?

Let us then extend this reasoning to Childcare Allowance...

If Jo receives an average of $4 an hour for Childcare for twenty years of working life that means Jo is on $14.40 an hour compared to Joe on $10 an hour for the same job etc.

Averaged out over a fifty year working life, Jo receives 2/5 of $4 an hour more = $1.60, for a total, including PPL already calculated, of $12 an hour worked across that fifty year working life compard to Joe's $10 an hour - or an extra 20% just for being a woman.

Now - is that fair or legal?

guaranteed the next demand will be that childcare payments also accrue a super component - so as to 'equalise' women out by paying them more and more per actual hour worked.




Then there's family benefits and tax concessions along the way....... so the reality is much higher wage difference per hour between Jo and Joe...

Joe, BTW, is Joeleen, a single woman with no kids...

Where is all this money coming from?  retirees again?
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #7 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 8:41am
 
Whether it's Andrews or Shorten - you can bet they're after OUR savings !

Shorten is going after OUR savings.

When Australians salary sacrificed in good faith into Super it was because they knew they wouldn't get a pension in later years.

We've already paid our taxes on Super contributions and the current laws on franking credits are correct and just.

Any change by any government that impacts on Superannuation is dipping their hands into OUR savings. So bugger being polite.

Shorten is way too confident, so confident in fact that he thinks he can waltz into our bank accounts and freely withdraw OUR money.

Well, no. This bloke must not get anywhere near the Lodge. And Bill, here's a tip. Governments must cut spending before sticking their grubby hands on our savings.


Shorten’s cash grab ‘to manage budget’

Malcolm Turnbull has savaged Bill Shorten’s “cash grab” in axing cash refunds for franking credits, arguing the Opposition Leader was “robbing” pensioners and retirees and was wrong to claim the policy would mostly impact the wealthy.
THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #8 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 8:51am
 
As Bull Shorten sends Labor down the tube and alarms the sleeping Lefties.

Pensioners BEWARE Labor will rob you blind!!!!



Bill Shorten’s plan to dismantle ‘millionaires’ welfare’
The Australian1:41PM March 14, 2018

...

Federal Opposition leader Bill Shorten has defended his tax reform plan against attacks from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that it will hurt pensioners, insisting his policy would dismantle “millionaires’ welfare”.

Visiting Brisbane to sell yesterday’s announcement to abolish cash rebates for tax credits on shares, Mr Shorten rejected Mr Turnbull’s criticism that Labor would hurt battlers not the rich.

“There are some people who will lose some government money, but they’re getting this government money and they’re paying no income tax … I think most Australians when they discover this system exists will probably want to know why they didn’t know about it before, and secondly say that doesn’t make sense,” Mr Shorten said, at a mechanics workshop in the Brisbane electorate of Oxley, held by Labor’s Milton Dick.

“Labor’s up for a tough debate.”

“How can it be fair that a few people, are able to get a tax refund when they’ve paid no income tax? That’s effectively the loophole we’re shutting,” he said.

“Now, we’re not saying it’s illegal. We’re saying it’s a tidy little arrangement the nation can no longer afford. Why should the mechanics here who are supporting their kids, working hard at their trade, they pay their income tax. Why is it that they can’t get a tax refund if they pay no income tax? This is a particular benefit which is created by John Howard, at a particular time when the Commonwealth government had a lot of money.”

“Well, times have changed.”

He described the current system as “millionaires’ welfare”.

“When you give millionaires hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money, that’s not welfare for the low income, that’s millionaires’ welfare,” Mr Shorten said.

“We are going to stop multi-millionaires’ welfare funded by the taxpayers of Australia.”

He ruled out offering an exemption for full pensioners, under the policy.

“When we talk about full pensioners, a very small number — it’s not even one per cent — will be marginally affected,” Mr Shorten said. “We’re offering the best deal for pensioners in this country.”

Shorten’s cash grab ‘to manage budget’

Earlier, Malcolm Turnbull savaged Bill Shorten’s “cash grab” in axing cash refunds for franking credits, arguing the Opposition Leader was “robbing” pensioners and retirees and was wrong to claim the policy would mostly impact the wealthy.

The Prime Minister said the Opposition Leader’s $59 billion crackdown on dividend imputation would barely touch the rich, with nearly all those impacted by the policy being retirees earning less than $87,000 a year.

“Bill Shorten is robbing pensioners and self-funded retirees of tax refunds. He’s effectively taxing them twice,” Mr Turnbull said.

“This is an attack targeted on people on lower and middle-incomes. It is taking money from people who have worked and saved all their lives and are battling.

“So he can dress this up as much as he likes, but I tell you Australian pensioners, self-funded retirees, know who it’s targeted at. It’s targeted at them.

“Bill Shorten is coming for the savings, for the incomes, for the lifestyles, for the affordability of the cost of living of people on lower and lower middle-incomes in retirement.”


Mr Shorten said this morning Labor’s policy would have a “marginal” impact on “a few pensioners”, declaring his policy was targeted at ending largesse to the “top end of town”.

“How can we have a system where someone gets a $2.5 million refund from the government to pay no income tax, it is ridiculous,” Mr Shorten said.

“This scheme, while it will have a marginal affect on a few pensioners, is (mostly) going to the top end of town.

“How can it be that tax payers — mums and dads, nurses, teachers and doctors — are going to work, paying taxes to the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Taxation Office is cutting a tax refund cheque to multi-millionaires who pay no income tax?”

Mr Shorten said he would fight the government’s “scare campaign” because his policy was about fairness.

“I’m going to choose the battler over the top end of town and Mr Turnbull is using a few pensioners as a sort of human shield to justify featherbedding the very rich who are getting a tax loophole which is simply unsustainable,” he said.

Mr Turnbull said the policy would hit 200,000 pensioners and Labor was pursuing it because the party was not able to manage the budget. He said taxes would increase by $200bn over a decade under Labor, equating to $8,000 per Australian.

“It’s a cash grab because he cannot manage the budget. He knows that his spending plans need a huge tax grab,” Mr Turnbull said.

“Fifty per cent of the individuals that will be hurt by this tax grab are on incomes of less than $18,000. These are pensioners and retirees ... he’s coming after them and to dress this up as some sort of an attack on the wealthy is nonsense.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bill-shortens-cash-grab-robbin...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Racist Filth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 90520
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: Labor Planning To Top Up Parents Superannuation
Reply #9 - Apr 4th, 2018 at 12:16pm
 
Allow me to re-visit PPL in terms of realities - I apologise for my previous error...

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/parental-leave-...

PPL is payable for 18 weeks at the rate of $695 = minimum wage.

Where no other PPL is available - i.e. for daughter working in daddy's firm - and let me stress there will be NO double dipping - if you are paid one, you do not get the other - that is clearly a drop in pay for many over that 18 weeks.

Therefore I amend my former position and say that not only is it Right for government to include PPL in super payments - but there may also be cause for actually making up the super loss from reduced income over that period.

Of course - for the thinking person here (LMAO) - that raises the very real question of whether or not there should be an absolute bottom line super guarantee for all - home engineers, unemployed, pensioners, and so on - starting from a specified age.

Now some may argue that the cost of going down this route - and I do stress that I infinitely prefer a single roof superannuation/retirement packaging scheme well out of the grasping hands of both politicians and businesses - will be prohibitive to government. 

To suggest this is to clearly show zero business sense at all, since the total cost of goods may only be calculated correctly when the final goods are produced.  That, indeed, is the cause of the current desperate rush to 'cure' superannuation 'issues' - namely, the failure to see the project to its end over a working lifetime of fifty years before hitting the panic button at twenty-five years, as is now happening.

In any case - while there may be initial cost, at the end of the day the savings will be much greater... and not only that, but there will be a growing pool of cash available for applications - and I stress that term since all applications from any direction including government will be assessed on merit by an elected board - for funding that will materially benefit this nation first and foremost - in terms of infrastructure and genuine job creation through providing actual jobs in rising numbers......

(wonder how much of that little speech we'll see coming from a parliamentarian... seen it before with a nicely turned phrase or thought....)
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print