Dobbing someone into centrelink.

[KitKat]

If you have a taxable income that is above $300,000 in 2013 you would pay a surcharge on the 15% rate into superannuation even if you stayed within the modest $25,000 or $35,000 capped contribution levels.
That surcharge is still in place.

Yes, this includes the 25k your employer pays for you as part of your wages.... , so the compulsory super (9%-9.5%) your employer pays..to 25k..you have to fork out your own $3750

 

[medhead]

Can you prove they've defrauded the government? Or that's just you assumption?

Similar lines how do you know they don't need welfare? Of course, welfare is not based on whether you need it but whether you pass the eligibility criteria. Which gets back to my first question; how do you know for a fact, 100% certain fact, that they are not eligible for whatever welfare? I know that only my mother and my in laws know enough about my financial situation to be in a position to determine if I'm eligible for government assistance. My friends certainly do not know that information. Are you planning to dob in close family members?

 

[medhead]

"ALL" of their income? it goes in taxed at15%, in pension phase it's tax free ( subject to a few rules on age)
Remember it was originally introduced to encourage older Australians to stay longer in the work force. So NOT a loop hole but a legislated benefit. If my memory serves me the new levels are coming in , in July.
Today the max is $25k PA ( rising to $30k in july) or $35k ( temporary cap) for those over 49

There is a little bit of work to set it up.

Sounds like they are referring to transition to retirement that did indeed allow contributing all the income and then drawing a pension.

 

[Pushka]

A Transition to retirement plan does not allow you to exceed the $25,000 cap which as stated before, also includes the Superannuation Guarantee paid by employers.

 

[medhead]

Then you can call it a Howard surf team as well. I am all for centrelink payments for people that need it but feel that the system is rorted by those who simply use it as a lifestyle supplement. Those that need help often need all the support they can, there is less to go around if the can is already empty.

I feel that attitude unfairly demonizes people. It is a bit of class warfare used to justify changes that hurt people who do need help. It's right up there with Working harder. I worked a damn side harder when I was younger and earned 1/6th of what I currently earn.

 

[medhead]

A Transition to retirement plan does not allow you to exceed the $25,000 cap which as stated before, also includes the Superannuation Guarantee paid by employers.

I'm pretty sure the use of the word 'did' indicates past tense. But I was reading a story in the paper last week that financial planners/tax advisors still currently have clients who do put all their pay into super and then draw a pension while still working. They didn't specify how or which product, but it suggests there is still a way to achieve the same outcome.

 

[drron]

If you are on a Transition To Retirement pension there are minimum and maximum amounts you can take out from your super fund.
If you are retired from your primary job and are over 60(though this age is also due to rise) you are not constrained in what you take out and may start a new account if like me you take up new employment.Though in my case virtually all my employment now is in the public sector hence I get the super levy taken out of my earnings in most states.

 

[medhead]

I researched Transition to retirement extensively, because I worked with someone who desperately wanted to use it. Problem was our super fund didn't offer the option. Mornos was dominated by discussion of transition to work, I thought I better study up to understand the fuss. This was >5 years.

 

[prozac]

I feel that attitude unfairly demonizes people. It is a bit of class warfare used to justify changes that hurt people who do need help. It's right up there with Working harder. I worked a damn side harder when I was younger and earned 1/6th of what I currently earn.

Not at all. If you need assistance or full support it should be available to you. Carers for instance are treated appallingly by all govts. as far as I can see. If the budget for this is stretched because of people making false claims then you are less likely to get the help you need. For the record I was disappointed by some of the changes to benefits (pension etc) touted by current govt.

If you need help it should be available, if you don't and claim benefits you should be investigated.

 

[amaroo]

Yes, this includes the 25k your employer pays for you as part of your wages.... , so the compulsory super (9%-9.5%) your employer pays..to 25k..you have to fork out your own $3750

Depends on the employer. The MSCB is $192,160 pa = max SG contribution of $17,775 pa.

 

[medhead]

Not at all. If you need assistance or full support it should be available to you. Carers for instance are treated appallingly by all govts. as far as I can see. If the budget for this is stretched because of people making false claims then you are less likely to get the help you need. For the record I was disappointed by some of the changes to benefits (pension etc) touted by current govt.

If you need help it should be available, if you don't and claim benefits you should be investigated.

I will share my experience of being on Paul Keating's surfing scholarship. Lived on the Gold Coast and everything. I was also doing full time army reserve work, which satisfied the activity test, on tax free pay. So I could've just done that, rorted the system. But I sure didn't, applying of hundreds of jobs, instead of just collecting all that obligation free money.

Against that I have a [close family member] who has been stuffed up for at least 3 years. They're putting this down to a head knock at football that affected the pituitary gland now. He has a partner working causal in retail and studying, a mortgage, a young son. But he has completely refused to get any government hand outs. I think because he doesn't want to be labelled as someone using the system. Not only that but the partner can't get anything, either for study or family support, because he refuses to sign up.

To me here is a family that needs support. That didn't take that support because of because of the idea you've expressed. At various times the rest of the family have chipped in with loans and free child care and all sorts. But even the fact that we're paying $100s of thousands in tax has not made them take the available government support.

While there are scum who use the system, I cannot support the sentiment expressed because there are genuinely needy people who do get hurt by the sentiment, even if it is out of pride.

 

[vet]

Don't forget the St Vincent De Paul CEO Sleepout is coming up if you want to support a genuine cause. Cut our the middleman bureaucracy.

I recall a lot of young politicians with A Current Affair, knocking on the doors of Pentridge in Bob Hawke's Seat with an army of pensioners all chanting to let them 'in' because they'd get 4x better funding.

I recall Carmen Lawrence taking on an old Reg on tv as she justified why her dept was right and judges were wrong. She was stunned as old Reg handed her a tin of Pal dog food and the reciept in the same amount that her dept was funding 3 meals a day for old folk.

I recall 'brilliant bureaucrats' ran a case with mega lawyers and QCs to justify policies ....that were closing beds which the Salvos relied on as their last resort.

In short, we should dob in bureaucrats as well.

 

[Pushka]

I'm pretty sure the use of the word 'did' indicates past tense. But I was reading a story in the paper last week that financial planners/tax advisors still currently have clients who do put all their pay into super and then draw a pension while still working. They didn't specify how or which product, but it suggests there is still a way to achieve the same outcome.

If you are over 55 and decided to permanently retire then you have access to your Super Fund. You pay tax on withdrawals until you are aged 60. There might be a time when you then have to or want to, return to work and then you can commence a new Super Fund, like drron has described.

People can put all the money they like into Super but if they exceed that limit of $25K (older people have a higher limit) then the penalties are high.

I researched it too - as I am on one. Current. And we set up our SMSF to ensure we could do this - way back in 1992 before SMSF's became the flavour of the month.

 

[prozac]

I will share my experience of being on Paul Keating's surfing scholarship. Lived on the Gold Coast and everything. I was also doing full time army reserve work, which satisfied the activity test, on tax free pay. So I could've just done that, rorted the system. But I sure didn't, applying of hundreds of jobs, instead of just collecting all that obligation free money.

Against that I have a [close family member] who has been stuffed up for at least 3 years. They're putting this down to a head knock at football that affected the pituitary gland now. ........
........................
While there are scum who use the system, I cannot support the sentiment expressed because there are genuinely needy people who do get hurt by the sentiment, even if it is out of pride.

Good on you for being in the Army Reserves. What you did was not working the system, you were putting back into the community. You must have been having too much fun it just didn't seem right. You apparently benefited from the experience, something more young people should consider.

Sorry to hear about your family member. I bet he gets alot of flack because to anyone looking at him he has nothing wrong with him? People expect to see bandages and blood before they'll acknowledge a disability.

Medhead, I really can't see what you are arguing with me about as it seems we are in agreement! Really.
You think there are people who really need assistance, so do I. You think there are people who don't apply that should, so do I. You think there are "scum" using the system, so do I. You think there are people who get hurt by sentiment, so do I ... more than you might know.

If there were not people taking advantage of the system various govts might be better placed to look after those disadvantaged better than they do now.

 

[medhead]

My issue is that expressing the idea that people are rorting the system paints everyone with the same brush. I take issue with expressing that sentiment publicly even if I privately agree.

Anyway, I'm not really having a go at you, more that I just cannot support that line which is basic propaganda by the government that does hurt people in need.

 

[prozac]

My issue is that expressing the idea that people are rorting the system paints everyone with the same brush. .............

I think if any govt took significant steps to weed out false claims then public perception of recipients would change.

 

[markis10]

I think if any govt took significant steps to weed out false claims then public perception of recipients would change.

They already have IMHO, and those steps often delay your first payment for two-eight weeks. The only way to completely stop such activity would be at the complete loss of privacy, perhaps 1984 should have been 2014?

 

[medhead]

I think if any govt took significant steps to weed out false claims then public perception of recipients would change.

I think the government has a vested interest in maintaining a public perception of widespread rorting. It leads to presumption and lack of questioning. Take the OP I wonder if they are just assuming the person is rorting, as opposed I knowing.

Noted that the OP's standard is the friend doesn't need the money. I compare that to my situation where I'm fully entitled to $3 a week from the government. Clearly that $3 would make no difference, and I don't need the money. Should I assume that claiming the money would be rorting the system? I think the government wants people to have the view that I would be ripping off the system.

 

[prozac]

.............................................
Noted that the OP's standard is the friend doesn't need the money. ...................

Still quite a different situation to that mentioned by the OP.

...cut a long story short I'm in two minds if I should dob this person in or not. This is a close friend who has been defrauding the system for several years and is quite capable of not requiring welfare for income.

The OP doesn't say the friend is not entitled to the benefit, he says the friend is defrauding the system. The OP certainly started a debate.

 

[medhead]

Still quite a different situation to that mentioned by the OP.


The OP doesn't say the friend is not entitled to the benefit, he says the friend is defrauding the system. The OP certainly started a debate.

It still raises two key questions: how does he know they are defrauding the system? None of my friends and not even family would know my finances that well.
Is not needing the support the same as not being entitled to it? The second half does pretty clearly say the friend doesn't need the money, with the implication that they are not entitled to the welfare payments.