So Bill Shorten, as suspected, has his eyes on people's super, the top end of cause who usually achieve their high incomes from extreme efforts in the first place.

What a hide they (labor) have, as first they went on their quest of waste and mismanagement, which saw our surplus turned into a massive debt, then they want to tax those who no doubt through their higher taxes provided the most of the wasted funds in the first place.

So hold on to your hats people because this is just the beginning of grubby governments wanting to get their hands on the trillions in super.

Good on you Bill.
Stick it to those greedy crooks using the super system to rip off tax payers increasing their wealth at all our expense. Upper class welfare at its most obscene. Superbludgers they should be being called.

Extreme efforts my foot flesher. The rich are not the ones working hard. Many of them barely work at all. Even when they do they are incompetent as evidenced by the sorry state of many of our major companies.
Parasites the lot of them.

Bring back the 70% top tax rate and stop trying to milk the poor and the desperate.
Better still bring back the guillotine and the revolution and remind the cashchuckers why they(rightly) live in fear and paranoia. Seems they never learn.

We could save a damn sight more by putting all those public servants on a super scheme the same as the rest of us. Compared to the future unfunded liability for our bureaucrats pensions, any saving by attacking the self funded wealthy is peanuts.

We will know Labor is serious about helping any but unionists when we see a reduction in the cost of the unionised bureaucracy. Of course we will be very busy ducking all those flying pigs by then. This is just another bit of social envy utilisation, to keep the low achievers voting Labor. Funny isn't it, they vote for Labor who has a vested interest in keeping them where they are? I guess if they weren't dumb enough to fall for it, they wouldn't be low achievers.

Lol!...butcher, my heart bleeds for you.

Fancy someone putting a stop to Costello's nifty tax minimisation scheme for wealthy individuals.

The super scheme wasn't designed to do that. It's been the elephant in the room that Hockey & Co ignored when they decided to target those least able in society...especially as it seems they're not in favour of chasing down multi-national corporate tax evaders.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/rich-to-lose-tax-breaks-on-supersized-super-under-future-labor-government-20150422-1mq49r.html

"Capitalising on public dissatisfaction at the extent of tax minimisation by wealthy individuals who have been able to park pre-tax income in superannuation accounts to avoid the top marginal tax brackets applicable to other earnings..."

"future unfunded liability for our bureaucrats pensions"

The public servants paid for their compulsory superannuation.

"Unfunded" means that the employer, the government, didn't put in its contribution at the time.

As an occasional contractor to the federal public service it was very, very obvious that the overwhelming majority of public servants who retired or were forced to by redundancy were on quite modest incomes.

For that very large majority the superannuation they receive after the usual forty years or so employment is small and excludes them from receiving age pensioner benefits. It is only relatively recent that their indexing was made six monthly (lag) or so I understand. Previously it was only adjusted annually.

The real sting in the tail however is that unlike the politicians whose indexing in linked to average weekly earnings, the public servants' super is CPI linked, which ensures they rapidly lose the spending power of the super.

That is despite strong criticisms and recommendations by independent parliamentary committees of what they determined was unfair and discriminatory discounting of public servants (and military) superannuation by NOT applying similar indexing as enjoyed by their employers, the politicians.

While the the very top of the Senior Executive Service has increased in salary, it was due to them particularly where politicians removed their permanent status.

I don't have an oar in the water on this. It remains a perfect case example though of the hypocrisy of governments and the parliament. To the credit of the ACT Greens it is something they have criticised as glaringly unprincipled and unethical. The ACT Greens are right to say that.

I should have mentioned the Abbott government recently, passed legislation applying the current pension indexation arrangements to some military superannuation benefits (not to the 'Comsuper' public service superannuation).

The LNP described its 'initiative' as applying ‘fair indexation’ to these military superannuation benefits! It was political cynicism.

If it is 'far indexation' why didn't the government and parliament require the same indexation for the superannuation received by parliamentarians? The indexation applied to parliamentarians' super is fair. However as the employer of those now retired public servants the government knows it can get away as an employer with not being fair to its retired employees.

To take an example, it appears that the 'handsome'(sic) CPI indexation the retired public servants may eventually receive for the quarter ended December 2014 and for the quarter ended March 2015 ie for both quarters will be 0.37594%.

Not a windfall is it and definitely not what the politicians themselves would find acceptable. No rush either.

Again, it is only the ACT Greens who have been prepared to criticise the obvious unfairness and hypocrisy of BOTH sides of the parliament.

Rehctub "So Bill Shorten, as suspected, has his eyes on people's super, the top end of cause(course!) who usually achieve their high incomes from extreme efforts in the first place.."

Never mind Bill Shorten Rehctub, who is not in a position to change anything at present, you should be more worried about what the present Government is doing with our retired health services consumers.

All but the poorest in our society are expected not to be on a full aged pension even more often these days. But beware, unless you are on a full pension when you retire and then need some home help or personal care to stay at home, you will be paying big dollars for any help at all.

It is best to just have the roof over your head when you retire, and nothing else , so you can get a full pension. Otherwise you won't be able to afford to get old and sick....

So given these high income earners are already paying at least $84,000 in income tax, more than. The so called average wage, you lot want even more out of them. Unbelievable!

If you are one of the 70+% who rely on welfare to live, just ask yourself, who do you think provides that welfare you so heavily rely on?

As for the comment 'most of them don't work hard', do you think they left school at grade 9 and fell into their jobs?

Also, for every individual who earns $250K plus, how many jobs do you think are supported by this persons efforts/skills?

Of cause to earn $250K plus usually means one is pretty clever and, if you try to tax their super on the way in, on earnings and on the way out, they will simply stop using super as an investment tool.

Suze, couldn't agree more. The next thing governments will address is to stop those who retire at 55, spend their super on trips, cars, motor homes, boats etc, then claim the pension at age 65. That's most certainly one thing I'm considering. It's just a shame that these spend thrift adventures are actually spending the kids inheritance, meaning most of them will then be reliant on the pension as well.

Talk about pissing into a fan.

Hard work and effort should be rewarded, not punished and, if someone on $80 K a years is entitled to something, why should the person on three times that amount, paying more in tax than they earn, miss out.

The whole system is ars about.

In summary, you can't ask people to make themselves self sufficient on the one hand, then tax them mid field. Shifting the goal posts just because governments give too much out or waste too much is not the answer. Accountability of governments would be one place to start because to have two ex pm's on half a million a year for life combined when they caused so much chaos is a joke.

rehctub,

"The whole system is ars about."

At present, yes.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/4/23/tax/alps-tentative-steps-towards-super-reform?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=BusinessSpectator&utm_medium=Twitter

"According to the Murray inquiry, the wealthiest 10 per cent of Australians receive 38 per cent of superannuation tax concessions -- more than the concession to the bottom 70 per cent of income earners combined

Superannuation tax concessions are designed to benefit those who don’t need them and, as a result, has effectively become a tax avoidance scheme for wealthy Australians. The purpose of these tax concessions is also unclear; it certainly has little to do with the sustainability of the superannuation system or relieving pressure on the aged pension."

Now, perhaps you might like to stop your squealing and foot stamping and consider a fair system for your country.

P,

It is probably worth noting that the richest 10% also pay nearly 50% of the income tax and receive less than 1% of the benefits.

SM,

It's probably also worth noting that they live and derive their affluence in a first world industrial society with advanced infrastructure and relative peace and prosperity - cheap at half the price in my book.

Piorot, are you a candidate for this years Turing prize ?

"But they were all deceived" - As his Mentor Howard explained to young Tony it is easiest to hit them [the chattering class] when they are too busy chattering so The Mad Monk "threw the pensioners overboard" by muting these nasties while edging in the "Grandfather Rules", just before The Murray Report would have had to explain what was going on.

So with the help of BigSuper screaming out "beware of the D Word" TMM cleaned up $10 billion pa from the Age Pension Account with as Murray said "the old folk shivering in their boots and leading a frugal life", BELIEVING what they were told about Grandpa.

It is just so easy when people do not think [as Hitler pointed out]

rehctub, "The next thing governments will address is to stop those who retire at 55, spend their super on trips, cars, motor homes, boats etc, then claim the pension at age 65. ..It's just a shame that these spend thrift adventures are actually spending the kids inheritance, meaning most of them will then be reliant on the pension as well"

Maybe you are unthinkingly spreading a wee bit of disinformation aimed at fostering intergenerational jealousy with that one.

For many years through recreational interests I have been encountering what are now called 'grey nomads' (an advertiser's invention to stereotype). I can remember similar folk back in my late teens when the girlfriend and I toured with just a hikers tent and the old 4X4. The greatest majority always had interests similar to my own, to find and care for beautiful places, preferably away from the herd, or at least if there are others they know how to behave.

For some years we have noted among them a significantly higher proportion of elderly folk who could not afford to keep and maintain the family home in which they raised their family. User pays, higher local government taxes, higher insurance, homes requiring expensive trades repairs, noted loss of physical abilities and so on all conspire against them.

Shortsighted government policies do not support the established wisdom of assisting the aged to remain independent in their home of a lifetime, in their familiar surroundings.

tbc..

contd..

The opportunist advertisers and feckless talking heads on The Box build the image of thousands of well-to-do self-supporting Boomers (another misleading advertisers' categorisation) spending up big on themselves and living the wild life of Riley, while spending their children's inheritance. Doubtless some grey nomads say the same with tongue in cheek.

The truth is otherwise, the greatest majority are the poorly educated working class who ceaselessly strived all of their lives to pay off a home, all of the time eschewing any leisure and entertainment for themselves to support family and home.

For many the only trade down in abode they could afford was the secondhand Toyota minibus or Jayco caravan and 'free camping' to pay for the fuel.

In all honesty they are actually saving the government money while they remain capable of taking care of themselves.

What is it about Australians that we have allowed ourselves to become such judgmental minders of others backyards? It seems to be a national pastime encouraged by the awful political correctness that has become systemic and pervades society.

We really shouldn't suspend our own critical judgement while swallowing the spin of politicians, columnists and entrepreneurs who foster intergenerational jealousy, wedge politics, while serving their own secondary agendas.

Bazz,

"Piorot, are you a candidate for this years Turing prize ?"

That one is getting quite stale.

It's about time you accessed some new material, I reckon.

Never mind Poirot, it is an oldie but a good one.
It is an annual event and it gets to the point.

P, are you aware that the amount one can put into super and claim the tax break is aged based. Even now in my mid fifties the most I can contribute is about $150K per annum, combined as a couple and this includes any rents received on our super investments and and dividends/ earnings from shares.

Super was always intended to replace the old aged pension, but as usual governments are too useless to implement anything without holes, so many such as 'grey nomads' sell off their surplus assets, buy their half mil motor home, travel until they are 70/80's then retire on the pension.

What's thrown the largest stick in the works is our new life expectancies as most if us enjoy an active life for up to 20 years beyond retirement age. So if we deter their savings, they will be on the pension earlier than expected. Then what?

Of cause the Abbott government wants to address this, but got knocked down as usual. If one does the math, we should be eligible for old age pension at about 103 years of age. So 72 or 5 aint that bad but it seems nobody wants it and would rather wait for the day it all crumbles, and it may well as out health system is destined to fail. Nobody wants to charge fat junk food acids, smokers, or excessive drinkers to see a doctor for their self inflicted problem either. We can't have it all but that won't stop many from trying, especially the under achievers.

sell off their surplus assets, buy their half mil motor home, travel until they are 70/80's then retire on the pension.

---

Well their "half mil motor home" is still an asset so no pension.

You need to get your facts straight.

Also you SAY they die in 80s so your issue is solved as as dead folk don't get Age Pension

Good on you Bill, go get them I say!
The richest group in the luckiest country in the world (yes, it still is in comparison) are now cranky, spitting chips and bawling like big cry babys because they don't get it all their way! TOO BAD! grin n' bear it!

Tough cookies I say, these folks have totally lost all perspective on just how super lucky they are in the first place to be blessed with benefits of living and earning a living in one of the most stable democracies in the whole world. Why is this? bascially because of our social security system. If we didn't have this, we'd be having our own Australian version of the 'Arab spring' with all its riots and violence in the streets of cities and towns. When folks in these desperate circumstances have basically nothing, then they have nothing to loose, so violence to achieve an ends is justified. This could very well happen in Australia , IF there was no social security system funded by a WIDE spread of taxation.

This rich group have become so 'fat' on their arrogance and self entitlement it beggars belief! borders almost on psychopathy. How high a standard of living do they need? seriously, when is enough, enough!! The standards of living are capped and only capped by the rest of us standing up and setting this 'cap'.

From the few people whom I know as being rich in their old age, few of them spend their money on themselves. It doesn't matter whether the church and or the establishment owns and manages rental properties or private citizens own and manages rental properties. Wealthy investors after owning their own home they live in, have very little else to spend their money on. When rich people do spend their money, a working class labour content is earning an income. If rich people would spend their money rather than invest their wealth in share speculation, the private business sector would be larger while the public sector government financed take up system would be smaller. Superannuation savings money for old age retires I believe is not being spent. Large business growth seems to have stopped, while speculating on business never ends. My belief is that saving money slows consumer consumption while product advertising are mostly products few people want to buy and or very expensive and or have ongoing charges.

LOP, I didn't say they die at 80, I said they stop living an active lifestyle.

So the best retirement plan is to sell off your surplus assets and go on a spending spree until you are inactive as such, then move I to a retirement home and collect the pension. Sure beats retiring at 65 and living on crumbs for twenty odd years.

Bills idea if implemented will rob many of their rightful inheritance. If only he knew that for every action there is a reaction.

Bill Shorten is playing the class war from where Gillard left off.

It will rebound on him as it did with Gillard.

If only the so-called wealthy aged had the retirement golden handshake of leftist 'Progressive' politicians like L'il Willie and Ms Julia.

It is the politics of envy and jealousy so favoured by the left.

Yes OTB, I often refer to as comments from the under achievers in life, those who willingly accept the finical support they rely on for their every day lives, yet despise those who provide that support.

For every action there is a reaction, if there was no reaction the action would be pointless. Action is all about creating a reaction, like the reserve bank lowering interest rates it is only good for so many reductions for the economy to be stimulated, beyond that it sends people broke, which is not it’s intended reaction. It’s the by product of an action when the action no longer works. Like Abbott’s budget action it got an unintended reaction which makes you think the action was not well thought out. Australia is now in limbo, a reaction of a failed action, which desperately needs action to refresh the pm’s inaction. The great ship AU is acting dangerously, floating aimlessly around the pacific ocean without any action to correct it’s reaction of being allowed to drift un attended without corrective action.

There is no such thing as rightful inheritance, you can give away your assets in any manner what so ever. Inheritance is not a prerequisite of life, it is your will to give or not to give.
Superannuation has become a haven for the under-taxing of assets, and is long overdue for for a reassessment. The coalition does not have the supporter base for such action, labor is the only one’s to alter tax at the big end of town.
As with the coalition budget, which was shouldered by the small end of town and had full support of the big end of town. The financial parents welfare was not exactly overwhelmingly knocked down by coalition supporters now was it.
Hockey says we are going to live to 150, not any time soon. Our medical system is in decline, the fat cats need to pay their fair share of tax, and quit them budging on the system to support their bank balance.

Hockey now faces a dilemma on myriad fronts. In opposition, he railed against profligacy and continually denounced the previous government's "debt and deficit disaster". That was with net debt at about 12 per cent of GDP.
That's all changed. After the community backlash from last year's budget and with the crash in commodity prices punching a $25 billion hole in annual government revenue, Tony Abbott reckons "a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result".

It is not only Labor who have eyes on our super. The Coalition are the same. There is $1.8 trillion in super in Aust and they will take a large portion when our crisis happens.

BTW there won't be much left after the next financial crash anyway.