Having been a long term critic of red tape on small business, it appears all the complaints have finally found their mark, and super can now be paid to one central account, then distributed by the controllers to the designated recipient.

Bravo to who ever made this happen.

Dear Rehctub,

Yes, this is an improvement - but why have super in the first place?

That same money could instead be given to the recipients directly as part of their wages, then they are in a better position to decide themselves whether and how to save or invest it: no need for the middle-man.

Y, I couldn't agree more, but it is assumed these people are incapable of looking after themselves, so the burden, until, now, has been passed on to the unpaid employer.

Next should be income tax, where everyone gets paid every cent they earn, then a small transaction tax would be withdrawn once their wages transfer from my account into theirs.

The day is coming, but i'm afraid it may be too little too late when it finally arrives.

That move was done so checks and balances from employers can be monitored. Not all employers are trustworthy or honest about their employees super.

579, you may well be right as I know a few that refuse to pay super, and although I do pay mine, each month for cash flow reasons, I have made errors simply because employees decide to change their fund.

In any case if it takes bad employers to see a change, then so be it, because either way its a step forward for small business owners and one less unpaid task we have to perform.

Bravo I say!

Rechtub. 'Next should be income tax, where everyone gets paid every cent they earn'.

You wouldn't get paid as much as you do if you didn't pay income tax. Salaries and wages have been set (or evolved over the years) on the premise that you will be paying income tax. If there was no income tax you wouldn't be 'earning' as much.

For example, the tax-free threshold for individuals is $18,200 and the national minimum wage is $656.90 per 38 hour week (before tax) (Fair Work Ombudsman website) - a bit over $34,000 pa. If there were no tax-free threshold, the minimum wage would certainly be higher to provide the equivalent amount to live on.

No Cossomby, those on $34K would be just shy of $3,000 per year better off, as a 2% transaction tax would see billions back in the pockets of tax payers, and that would stimulate the economy on a weekly basis.

Tax is made from every single transaction, and can be varied to allow for the likes of trades. Even those multinationals who are at the centre of the 'anti tax' campaign could not avoid the tax.

While there are suggestions it wont work, a fact that has not been modelled, one known is that the current system is doomed, simply because we re running out of recipients to tax, and those who are carrying the can have had a gut full of the way our taxes are being wasted

Dear rehctub,

Yes in many ways Superstream is a move to commonsense but unfortunately there is a group who is being left behind and that is some rural folk for whom internet connectivity and expertise is a real issue. For instance a farmer who pays a group of shearers now faces severe penalties if he doesn't get his head around the process and get himself to a decent internet sorce to complete the process.

The tax department has until now recognised the problem but said 'tough luck'. This needs attention before I could give the concept my full stamp of approval.

Steel, there is a huge hole in that argument because the majority of shearers are contractors, and as such pay their own tax/super etc.

As for farm employees, how was the farmer paying super previously if not via the net?

Dear rehctub,

You wrote;

“Steel, there is a huge hole in that argument because the majority of shearers are contractors, and as such pay their own tax/super etc. As for farm employees, how was the farmer paying super previously if not via the net?”

No mate, once again you are jumping in without checking your assumptions. The vast majority of shears are paid as employees not contractors. The only difference is the withholding amount is less, from memory about 20%. Many shearers can end the year with around 20 group certificates.

How the farmers have paid the Super owed varies. Some do indeed send off individual cheques, others will get their accountant or financial advisor to disperse the amounts from a single payment.

I'm happy to give you more information if required.

Ok Steel, we will remain divided on the employee/contractor argument.

However, whats to stop the farmer either sending a cheque, or better still having their accountant send a bulk payment? In fact, this would be cheaper in the long run as the accountant spends less time.

Dear rehctub,

You wrote;

“Ok Steel, we will remain divided on the employee/contractor argument.”

Sorry mate there is nothing to be divided about. If a person receives a group certificate, has their superannuation and taxes paid by the person who pays them for work then they are employees not contractors. End of story. If you don't understand that then we have some work to do.

You also wrote;

“However, whats to stop the farmer either sending a cheque, or better still having their accountant send a bulk payment? In fact, this would be cheaper in the long run as the accountant spends less time.”

At least this time you have posed this as a question rather than stating it as fact. What stops the farmer is the new regulations around Superstream. They have to all be compliant directly through the tax office portal. The can no longer just 'send in a cheque'. Their accountants can give some assistance but the actual submitting of the data is the responsibility of the farmer and the penalties for not getting it right or being late are pretty severe.