Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[cove]

It would be unlikely to be repealed if it gets legislated as the deficit will take ages to fix. All the money has been spent or delayed until next year so a new Treasurer would need to be very careful in what he says.
I knew Labor could not resist the 1.4 trillion stash. The 30% contribution rate for high income taxpayers has not been legislated either so this is a second hit attempt at being a bit clumsy.
Whatever these Labor guys say from now on probably won't happen .....I hope!

 

[Pushka]

which means there is nothing to worry about.....

Exactly
Even the doom and gloom articles I've read about the super changes put in the rider that the legislation won't be ready before the next election.

 

[Deleted member]

Probably because it has little Shorthorn's finger prints all over it.

An independent thought from billy the lap dog!? Mmm the unions won't have seen that coming

 

[Pukka]

Indeed, only low income earners should pay tax. Really the indignity of rich people paying tax really is beyond the pale.

Why the hell you shouldn't pay tax on earnings however earnt is beyond me. And yes superannuation is for your retirement, well guess what I'll bet your demands for medical care don't decrease, nor will a heap of other demands yet you're unwilling to pay reasonable taxes to fund those needs.

I know we've all paid taxes all of our lives but who said taxes stop at a certain age? Or a certain high level of income? Especially when you're going to consume more?

And we're talking about an income of >$100,000, not exactly a small income and better than most people will ever attain in their working lives.

Still Abbott and co will be in government in about five months and then you can start at least three years of whinging about how bad Labor was and why paying any tax is a bad idea. There will be no nation building or long term planning. Tony Abbott has already said no to trains and yes to more freeways. That will be the tone of his prime ministership. More for his mates and less for the taxpayers who should be thankful they can breathe the same air as the rich people.

By then Work Choices Mark II will be implemented, no more carbon tax and most importantly the small level of tax credits for low income earners' superannuation will be repealed and the possibility of taxes on high levels of superannuation income will be but a bad dream. The world will be as it should be. However, the whinging that all people should fund their own retirement will go on with no thought to the absolute hypocrisy some people display.

As for the poor people complaining, well 'let them eat cake'!

What the hell have you been smoking.

This affects people who have paid lots of tax all their lives AND have already paid tax on the contributions to their superfund. How many times do you have to pay tax to support the great unwashed.

Can't even be bothered to argue anyway as Julia & Co are finished so whatever she does now is irrelevant.

 

[Pushka]

Can't even be bothered to argue anyway as Julia & Co are finished so whatever she does now is irrelevant.

That's really the bottom line. Except a commentator mentioned today that this Govt is so inept that having stated their position that now they think the money is going to come in from this and so they will start spending it.

 

[Hvr]

What the hell have you been smoking.

This affects people who have paid lots of tax all their lives AND have already paid tax on the contributions to their superfund. How many times do you have to pay tax to support the great unwashed.

Can't even be bothered to argue anyway as Julia & Co are finished so whatever she does now is irrelevant.

I don't smoke and weren't many of these contributions made by salary sacrificing? I.e. before tax was paid?

As you've noted it probably wont be put into legislation but the idea has been put out there. And again I ask, why should you stop paying tax on income just because you've reached a certain age?

Still, wont be long now until Tony Abbott actually has to perform for the Liberal party as the Prime Minister and his constituents. I think he'll be a failure and he'll be rolled after his first term when he can no longer live off the excuse "it's all Labor's fault!".

 

[amaroo]

I don't smoke and weren't many of these contributions made by salary sacrificing? I.e. before tax was paid?

As you've noted it probably wont be put into legislation but the idea has been put out there. And again I ask, why should you stop paying tax on income just because you've reached a certain age?

Still, wont be long now until Tony Abbott actually has to perform for the Liberal party as the Prime Minister and his constituents. I think he'll be a failure and he'll be rolled after his first term when he can no longer live off the excuse "it's all Labor's fault!".

If Honest John can win 4 terms........Tony will go way more than one!

 

[Pushka]

I don't smoke and weren't many of these contributions made by salary sacrificing? I.e. before tax was paid?
!".

Ah. No. Everyone gets slugged 15% contributions tax whilst in the accumulation phase. Rich and poor alike.

 

[whatmeworry]

If Honest John can win 4 terms........Tony will go way more than one!

Oh come on, Honest John? The same bloke who lied about refugees throwing their children off boats to win an election?

[video=youtube_share;E3WJ10xGkas]http://youtu.be/E3WJ10xGkas[/video]

People earning less should encouraged to save more for their super yet the system is skewed to the wealthy. Personally I think if you under 55 you should not get as much tax concessions and yet I see the argument of baby boomers who currently had it good for so long that they the need money taxed at a lower rate whilst the majority of the working public can pick up their slack.

Treasury says that in 2009-10 the top 1 per cent of earners received an average super tax concession of $19,200 and middle-income earners received $800. The top 5 per cent of income earners get 37 per cent of the cost of super tax concessions, it says.

Such is life under flat tax rates, says Alex Dunnin, director of research and editorial at superannuation research firm Rainmaker. ''Someone earning $300,000 gets a better tax break in dollar terms than someone earning $50,000, that's just how it works out. The question is, when someone becomes wealthy, to what extent do they keep needing tax concessions?''

Super industry gets out the claws, but happy with result

 

[dfcatch]

Whatmeworry - just a quick question....

You harp on about that low-income earners should be encouraged to save more then complain that the system is geared to support the rich.

These proposed reforms do absolutely nothing to assist low-income earners saving more!

They are just increasing taxes on those receiving a higher-level pension from super (which of course you may support).

But it is erroneous in fact to suggest or link these proposed changes with anything to do with increasing super for low-income earners.

 

[eastwest101]

Treasury says that in 2009-10 the top 1 per cent of earners received an average super tax concession of $19,200 and middle-income earners received $800. The top 5 per cent of income earners get 37 per cent of the cost of super tax concessions, it says.


Read more: Super industry gets out the claws, but happy with result​

And how much revenue did Treasury say that the MRRT would raise? Treasury have proven that they are just as able at cherry-picking statistics and making misleading distortions/assumptions as either political extreme. I wouldn't be quoting Treasury numbers to support your arguments if I were you.

Further down in that same article:

Garry Weaven, another pivotal player in the development of super, said the Treasury figures were based on the idea that if you took away superannuation these dollars will magically find their way to a fully taxed vehicle

Read more: Super industry gets out the claws, but happy with result

But - as others have pointed out - its all just posturing and election campaign material to try to wedge the opposition, they have no intention of bringing those proposed policies to the current parliment anyway.​

 

[browski]

Whatmeworry - just a quick question....

You harp on about that low-income earners should be encouraged to save more then complain that the system is geared to support the rich.

These proposed reforms do absolutely nothing to assist low-income earners saving more!

They are just increasing taxes on those receiving a higher-level pension from super (which of course you may support).

But it is erroneous in fact to suggest or link these proposed changes with anything to do with increasing super for low-income earners.

You have (again) conveniently missed this part:
For those aged 60 and over, super contributions at the concessional 15 per cent tax rise from $25,000 to $35,000 per year from July 1. Those aged 50 and over get the same benefit in 2014.

 

[Pushka]

At which time, IF these changes go ahead (and they won't, but lets presume they do) 2014 will be too late as people will have ensured they don't go over the $100,000 limit and invest their monies elsewhere. This Govt doesn't seem to realise that when they make changes, people adjust the way they do things to, just like the Mining Companies did to mitigate the effects of the mining tax. They are always playing catch up because they have never had to manage a business and what that means. And too many "unintended consequences". And just today the NBN has blown out, again,

 

[lovestotravel]

At which time, IF these changes go ahead (and they won't, but lets presume they do) 2014 will be too late as people will have ensured they don't go over the $100,000 limit and invest their monies elsewhere. This Govt doesn't seem to realise that when they make changes, people adjust the way they do things to, just like the Mining Companies did to mitigate the effects of the mining tax. They are always playing catch up because they have never had to manage a business and what that means. And too many "unintended consequences". And just today the NBN has blown out, again,

Indeed!

As for the NBN that is going to continue to go way way way over budget, but as it's an ALP managed project, who is really surprised

 

[leemin]

As for the NBN that is going to continue to go way way way over budget, but as it's an ALP managed project, who is really surprised

The NBN will provide a RoI of around 7%. Delivering major national infrastructure and a profit to the taxpayer - it really doesn't get much better. But don't let any facts get in the way of parroting the typical tripe...

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The NBN will provide a RoI of around 7%. Delivering major national infrastructure and a profit to the taxpayer - it really doesn't get much better. But don't let any facts get in the way of parroting the typical tripe...

Based on what cost-benefits analysis and timeline?

 

[11sjw]

The NBN will provide a RoI of around 7%. Delivering major national infrastructure and a profit to the taxpayer - it really doesn't get much better. But don't let any facts get in the way of parroting the typical tripe...

Is that based on the same assumptions or assumptions made by the same people that showed a budget in surplus this year?

 

[Pukka]

The NBN will provide a RoI of around 7%. Delivering major national infrastructure and a profit to the taxpayer - it really doesn't get much better. But don't let any facts get in the way of parroting the typical tripe...

It will only be a fact when it's done.

I suspect it will be in the same category as those other well known facts like

There will be no carbon tax

The Mining tax will spread the benefits of the boom etc etc etc

 

[Pushka]

Il be dead before NBN reaches Adelaide.

 

[leemin]

Is that based on the same assumptions or assumptions made by the same people that showed a budget in surplus this year?

No. NBN Co's corporate plan is not developed by the Treasury (you know, the same public servants that would develop the Budget under Abbott...)