AM, you have got no idea what you are talking about......I'm not going to answer it until you show an inkling of understanding about the issue beyond reacting simply to headlines!
You are not going to answer because you can't, the reason being that you do not know what you are talking about. You are the one who has blindly repeated headlines without having any understanding of what you are repeating. Very simple request TV, please explain the tax loophole you are talking about and please explain what Howard did to super to benefit the extremely wealthy.
You have disputed this outright. What are the measures aimed at? I know what you are going to say because you have obviously stated it, but why are the measures really taken. You pointed out in one of your previous posts that all "earnings" are taxed at 15%. Think about it now AM. Concessional and non concessional contributions.
AHHH AHAHHAA!!! That was a pretty poor effort at pretending you know something about superannuation TV. You still haven't explained what the tax loophole is. You still haven't explained what Howard did to super to benefit the extremly wealthy. OK, so now it is a given that you know nothing about super. and you know nothing about what John Howard did or didn't do to the superannuation laws. In other words you know nothing, what you have been saying you have been pulling straight out of your arse. 1. There is no "loophole" in the super laws. They operated just exactly as they were supposed to. But people started putting more into super than was originally envisaged and taking more out tax free than was originally envisaged so; 2. John Howard changed the super laws and put limits on the amount people could put into super and introduced excess contributions tax if you went over the limits. He also introduced the idea of 'reasonable benefits' to limit the amount people could pull out tax free, so; 3. Far from doing anything to benefit the extremely wealthy, John Howard curtailed much of the benefits the extremely wealthy were enjoying. So you were wrong on both counts.
Keating introduced the RBL in 90's and Howard abolished it completely in 2006 and now labor are attempting to obviously fix it! Do you understand what a loophole is and the term inequity? I'm not sure you do! If you understand what this means then there is no need to explain further. I'm suspecting you will continue down your line of blissful ignorance!
No, Howard didn't completely abolish it. There are still several withdrawl limits on super but then Kruddy Clown went and even further limited the amount you can contribute! What do you mean "fix it". What is there to 'fix'? What was the purpose of introducing compulsory super in the first place? The basic idea wasn't a bad one, but what we have got now after Keating, Howard, Rudd and now Gillard have stuffed around with it is a complete farking dogs breakfast! One thing that Howard did do was fix Keatings original stupid idea of not allowing workers to choose their own fund. Keating gave employers the absolute right to dictate which fund your super went into. The other really good thing Howard did was allow us to take our super tax free once we turned 60 and retired. Keating wasn't going to let us have it until we turned 65 and then was going to tax it again! Don't forget, it is our money! So explain the tax loophole you talking about and why it is inequitable.
All reports suggest that Howard "abolished" the RBL. Now what does the word abolish mean? Common AM, you can do it, but you cant just make up another meaning for the word! Now, this is where a particular point has gone over your head numerous times in the debate. Individuals have already raised that superannuation was a system to support low and middle class individuals in retirement "obviously". I gave you a hint previously, re: other words and their implications. I'll try again but I'll provide another hint as well! Concessional contribution and marginal tax rate.....If you are unable to at least decipher this you have no idea, seriously! We will get to inequity once we settle on this word. I'm very suspicious! Anyway, now what impact will be as a consequence of the extremely wealthy parking their money in superannuation? I'm sure everybody else knows this answer and I'm sure you will if you take your blinkers off......Now think about the RBL abolishment!
Howard abolished the RBL because it was inequitable and just plain wrong. Everyone was encouraged to put money into super for retirement. The more you put in the more you will have when you retire, we were told. The earnings on your super will be taxed at a low rate to help your retirement nest egg grow so you will have lots of money in retirement, we were told. Then as you tell us, out of the blue Keating suddenly says,"I am not going to let you have it all, I am going to change the laws so you can only have some of it and if you want any more than what I think you should have you will have to pay heaps of extra tax on it. Forget that I told you for years and years that you could have it all when you retired". Howard did the right thing by abolishing RBL's and giving us our super tax free when we turned 60. It had nothing to do with supporting low and middle class individuals, it was an attempt to avoid paying age pensions in the future. By introducing compulsory super, business has been effectively made to fund workers retirement. So can't EXPLAIN what this tax 'loophole' is. You either don't know the meaning of 'loophole' or if there is a loophole you don't understand how it works, probably both.
In your previous statement you said Howard didn't completely abolish the RBL and now in this statement you said he "abolished it because it was inequitable. (As I already stated, I don't think you know what inequitable means.) You're seemingly stabbing in the dark trying to make sense of what isn't making sense for you. I will suggest it one more time: Superannuation was not intended to be a scheme for super rich to lob their money to simply dodge marginal rates of tax! It was a system to support low and middle income workers and take pressure off the welfare system that would have got out of hand due to the ageing population. The government is losing a great deal of taxes due to this "loophole".....you with me now? The inequity is people on lower marginal rates are disadvantaged due to the contributions flat 15% tax rate, which means that investing money in super funds is no advantage due to their marginal tax rates and the flat rate contributions tax! I was hoping I didn't have to be "explicit" about it, but obviously you have no idea and were simply guided by headlines for simplistic reasoning. Yes, the government is taxing those with earnings of over 100k, but should be simply doing more to drive out those that can live well in retirement without dodging taxes through super funds. By picking up these lost taxes from this loophole will enable government to support low and middle class individuals to at least provide super earnings that will enable them to live comfortable lives. 2 million dollars in super accounts is simply ridiculous IMO and should never have occurred in the first place.
Yes he did abolish the RBL, sorry, I was thinking of limits on contributions. It was inequitable and wrong to have encouraged people to pour money into super, telling them they would have it all for retirement and then once they put the money in, turning around and telling them no, we have changed our minds and you can't have it all for retirement after all. If you take more than a certain amount we are going to tax the sh!t out it. People put money into super so they can have a comfortable retirement. That is what super is for. Some people had more to put in than others, good luck to them. It never was a scheme for the 'super rich' to dodge marginal rates of tax. It was a scheme for everyone to save for retirement, as I said, some had more to put in than others. Don't forget, when you put money into super you can't touch it again until you retire, there are far better ways to 'dodge' marginal rates of tax than locking your money up in super!! Rubbish! There is no 'loophole'. There are far better ways to lower your tax bill than locking your money up in super. Most people with large amounts in their super funds have contributed their own money which they have already paid tax on. They put it into super to get the tax conssession on the earnings so they will have more for retirement. That's what super is for! People on lower marginal rates haven't got extra money to invest in super anyway! But having said that, there is no tax on contributions made after tax, it is only compulsory employer super and salary sacrfice contributions that are taxed. People who work for themselves can put money into super and claim a tax deduction but those contributions will then be taxed in the fund. No businessman is going to lock up too much of their money in a super fund. Superannuation for retirement is for everyone, some will have more than others but that's life mate! You should talk to bowerbird, she is another one with an irrational hatred of 'rich people'! I don't see anything wrong with people reducing the amount of tax they pay, we pay far too much tax as it is. I bet when you put in a tax return you try to dodge as much tax as possible!
You could possibly put me into the category of an irrational hatred of rich people except you would be wrong. I don't hate anyone for a start, hate to me is a cancer of the soul, I do however find that a lot of "rich" people are R. Soles. Most of the rich don't just become rich, yes they take risks, yes they may invent things, yes they may help with the economy and employment, balance of trade etc. Most however do not become rich as an aside from helping the economy, or from a deep desire to help employ people or such, they become rich because they want to become rich. A lot of rich people will put off workers or move their manufacturing or whatever off shore, or install more labour efficient plants and such, to maximise profit, often though they are already in the high profit area. Let's look at banks. Now most banks are not an entity unto themselves, they are owned by shareholders, a large proportion of which are rich. With most rich, it is the bottom line they care about, long before they care about employees or the economy, except of course where it affects them. I have said it before and I will say it again, there are many ways people can avoid tax, and personally I am against them all. Do I like paying tax? of course not, I don't like paying for rent, food, clothes, cars, fuel either to a degree but then I am glad to be able to pay them. I used to say my greatest ambition in life was to pay 40+% tax, why you ask, because I would be making big money. I would have everyone pay tax, and have tax brackets, but have no "loop holes" where they could stash money, yes have deductibles, they are fair, but things that people use to lower their tax obligations, like super,negative gearing and salary sacrifice are aimed specifically at those in higher brackets to lower their taxable incomes. Firstly, low income people do not have the disposable income to use such schemes so therefore the more able you are to pay taxes, the more likely you are to be able to avoid paying taxes. The second problem is that before such things, especially things like negative gearing, people invested in shares for their retirement. Therefore they were investing in business, in their country, in productivity. Now they invest millions in things like negative gearing which does not increase the availability of rental properties to any great degree, well not as much as negative gearing has forced up property prices, causing more people to enter the rental market. Does it seem fair that a person earning 40K pay 6K tax whilst some one earning 400K pays 160K tax, no it doesn't seem fair, but then think about it again. The one on 400K presumably employs or manages some of the 40K people so they have some obligation towards them, besides their wages really, wages are not a gift from the employer to the employee as a lot of employers would have us think, they are payment for services rendered. The people, employers etc earning big money have more need for a stable economy, a good police force, better roads, better foreign affairs, greater overseas trade etc so they have a higher stake, they SHOULD pay a greater rate, not be given more opportunity to lower their obligations. It's about fairness and equity. Let's take my second best friend, Gina, you will all be aware of the crap that occurred when the children's trust fund came of age, she tried to stop them getting it and was quite open that it wasn't a personal thing, but meant to stop the taxation office (that's you and me really) from getting their (our) cut, like she and they can't afford something to the country and it's people that allow such wealth to be accumulated in the first place. Look .... don't want to tax everyone into equality, but I believe those with greater means should morally want to contribute more towards their country and the people who in one way or another help them to get to that position... People like Perth-based billionaire and philanthropist, Andrew Forrest (Twiggy), FORTESCUE Metals Group chairman. This man I have time for and those like him, but there are a lot I don't too, hello Gina .
I'm not sure what you are on, but I think it is safe to say that everyone knows its not a scheme for the wealthy to dodge tax, but this is basically what is happening! Seriously, do you know what loophole means? What would be the best solution for people on the lower marginal tax rates tin supporting them to invest in super?
Your opinion only. John Howard was supporting low income earners to invest in super by providing up to $2,000 in co-contributions. His government matched every dollar extra contributed by low income earners with $1.50 government contribution. But then along came Kevy and then Juliar, now the co-contribution for low income earners is just $500. Read back a few pages and you will see how I have explained Juliar's deceit and how she is further ripping off low income earners.
Not my opinion, it's the opinion of the government, opposition, economists and many journalist who look at the broader issue regarding superannuation......you're the only one that seriously sees no issue! As I have already stated, stop simply looking at headlines, you have to dig a bit deeper AM! In response to your second paragraph: Have you heard of the " Low Income Superannuation Contribution"? Again, you have to stop simply basing your self proclaimed wisdom on shallow newspaper headlines! You came out all guns blazing but didnt realise your gun was loaded with blanks!
An extra $500 in your super if you earn less than $37K Whoopee Doo!!! Guess what TV, when those people retire the $500 will have made almost no difference at all. Does that make up for the loss of $1,500 co-contribution? You have nothing to say about that? Does it make up for the loss of the $2,500 dependent spouse offset? You have nothing to say about that either? How much do you think $500 will be worth in 20 years? 40 years ago my take home pay was $160 per week and that wasn't a low pay. So $500 was more than three weeks good pay. Today $500 is barely one weeks pay for a low income earner. Do you get the drift mate? Are you starting to understand why those who can, stack money into super? 15% tax on the earnings is the bonus reward for putting money in and goes some way to lessen the devaluation of your super over time.Superannuation is a disaster, every government, every year has farked with it and as I said, it is now just a bloody dogs breakfast!
An irrational dislike then... In my experience R. Soles are distributed pretty evenly through the population, perhaps leaning a little more toward the lower socioeconomic end actually. You forgot, make sacrifices, work long and hard and exercise lots of self dicipline and self control. That is those that have build their own wealth as opposed to those who inherited it. And you don't want to be rich DV? You're talking about businesses, not individuals. Businesses make decisions to ensure survival and make profits. The more profit they make the greater likelyhood of survival. Banks are a different kettle of fish though, they really are R. Soles. So you have got something against people putting money into super to save for their retirement? If you have a high disposable income whats wrong with putting some of it into super for your retirement? Would you rather they put nothing into super and lived on the pension when they retired? You didn't read some of my previous posts did you, where we did a couple of little exercises with people on different incomes. The more you earn the more tax you will pay, despite any tax minimisation schemes you might enter into. And many of them lost everything on the share market. Bricks and mortar is a far safer investment. Where do you get this rubbish from DV? To invest in negative gearing you have to build a house. That's investing in jobs, in business, in productivity, in your country! Go back and read my earlier reply to your carry-on about negative gearing. You're not happy that someone pays $160k tax? you want them to pay more??!! How much tax did you pay last year DV? What a load of rubbish DV! people on high incomes DO pay a greater rate. But yes, the need for government services is dependent on your income, the lower the income the more government services you access!!! The system is fair and equitable, the more you earn, the more tax you pay. Don't want to tax everyone into equality?? it sounds like that's exactly what you want. You're spouting pure marxisim, the rise of the proletariat and war against the bourgeoisie! But there's a problem DV, what sort of society would you have if there was no incentive or reward for hard work, risk and sacrifice?
Sorry, that was thirty years ago, 40 years ago I was taking home $85 a week, so $500 was nearly 6 weeks pay!
Time to give up buddy, why do you continue to do this! Again, you are simply taking a snippet from headlines and putting all your eggs in a basket without no bottom. Simply flabbergasting! Right, I'm expecting a "oh sorry, I didn't mean to say that! Are you suggesting the automatic $500 is a one off contribution! Now remember, you've stated: "what is $500 going to be worth in 20 years?". Now the government has lifted the tax free threshold from $6000 to $18,500 and still provides a co-contribution of $500. You still have no idea AM......seriously, stop listening to phony, you know he is not honest in how he represents figures, he only provides half truths and unfortunately people like you continue to fall for him! Now the dependant spouse offset changes relate only to those that don't have children, are carers or disabilities themselves etc etc! What's wrong with this? I thought you being an extreme righty would be fully supportive of pushing people out into the workforce if they are capable to do so! Keep trying AM, go and half read another document and keep coming back! The government must do more to stop the wealthy from abusing the superannuation system, but believe more can be done to reduce concessional taxes for low income. How about increasing the earnings tax for the wealthy and reduce the contributions tax to "zero" for low income workers, say those working for under 70k.....it's just a thought!
You really don't have a clue about superanuation do you TV? You are just saying anything you think will support the Gillard. Do you even know what the super co-contribution is?
I know you have a serious comprehension problem so I quess I will have dumb it down a bit more. I did not suggest the $500 was a one off payment, I was suggesting that $500 per year now and into the future is next to nothing. In twenty years time $500 will be the equivalent of probably less than $100 today. $500 per year is a patheticaly small, token amount that won't help anybody. Before Labor you could contribute an extra $1,000 and get a co-contribution of $1,500, now after Labor if you put in an extra $1,000 you will get a co-contribution of $500. Ripped off baby! You haven't been following this thread have you? I explained earlier how the $18,200 tax free threshold is a con job. You see, at the same time the tax rate after the tax free threshold was lifted from 15% to 19%, the low income offset was reduced from $1,500 down to $445 and for some couples the $2,500 dependent spouse offset was wiped and for families with children the education refund was wiped. The result, most people are worse off now than before. Ripped off again buddy! Why shouldn't people get a small tax break when their one wage is supporting two people? I know being an extreme marxist, Laborite lefty you are dedicated to the destruction of the family unit but taking away a tax offset of $2,500 is not going to push anyone out into the work force. You need to stop blindly believing everything your pointy nosed God tells you. Taking away the dependent spouse offset was just a grab for extra money for Labor to waste. How can anyone be abusing the superannuation system when they doing just what the government has been encouraging everyone to do, put more into super for your retirement? As for your second sentence, you must be a mate of DV because that is pure marxism, punish the bougousie and uplift the proletiarate!
"$500 now will be the equivalent to less than a hundred dollars in twenty years"???? You are getting worse AM. So all those tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands people have invested in super now are going to become a 5th of what they are?? My goodness gracious me!!! Those on low incomes weren't taking advantage of Howards superannuation co-contribution and he knew they wouldn't. Howards tax bracket was too high. Rudd/Gillard lowered this bracket and therefore allow people to at least have a better chance at investing in super as well as providing low income automatic and co-contributions of 500k. What was the education refund replaced with?? I'm a little over you sharing half stories and having to respond to it AM. It is getting a little ridiculous. Why should child free couples and without any other responsibilities receive a tax break. If either he or she wants to stay at home while partner works they can, but don't expect a tax break....it's simple. I've got no problem with this arrangement but have a problem with couples receiving a tax break in these circumstances. Surely you are not that deluded to see this. You simply have no idea what you are talking about and keep digging yourself a bigger hole...... You've missed the point once again, i'm going to put it in bold so you can read it once and for all.........are you ready???? SUPERANNUATION WAS A SYSTEM TO SUPPORT "LOW" AND "MIDDLE CLASS INDIVIDUALS IN RETIREMENT...............IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A TAX HAVEN FOR THE WEALTHY!!!!! Can't get any more simple or clearer than this AM........DV tried to convey this message numerous times, but it just goes over your head every single time!! Surely your not that challenged buddy??
That's dead right TV, maybe less than $100. You are obviously not old enough to have experienced the devaluation of money first hand. When I was a young man I could go out on a Friday night, have a feed in a chinese resturaunt, go to the pub and get tanked, buy some peanuts or chips and still come home with change out of $5, that's right, less than five dollars for whole night. Got the idea now? WTF!!! you really don't know what you are talking about!! The dependent spouse rebate was there to recognise the value of work done by stay at home spouses. House wives don't get paid so they don't get the tax free threshold and they don't get super. The DSR went some way toward sharing the single income between two people, one of whom works but gets no income. It recognised that the one income was actually earnt by two people, one staying at home the other going out to work and went some way to affording some of the tax benefits enjoyed by the working spouse with the working but unpaid one. So the spouse rebate was a very equitable rebate. By dumping the spouse rebate the red witch has effectively said that she believes the work done by house wives has no value. But then again, what would she know? The "deliberately barren spinster". Each year you can put a maximum of $25,000 concessional contributions in super and a maximum of $150,000 AFTER TAX contributions, that is money you HAVE ALREADY PAID TAX ON. Contributions in excess of these limits will be taxed at the top marginal rate, even the money you already paid tax on. Please explain how this makes a tax haven for the wealthy.
In 1953 Holden released the FJ holden, it sold for around £1023 or approximately 68 weeks wages Today the average car costs $30,000, average wage $1035. So an average car is approximately 30 weeks wages. So in real terms a car is cheaper today, but all this has nothing to do with TV's answer, just yet another strawman. I remember when I could go to the pictures for 20 pence. So what OH and you're either a cheap drunk, or a bloody lot older than I am
