The Meeting Place > Political > My Super not yours

My Super not yours

avatar
4b2
2 yrs ago

The LNP Goverment is at it again. Messing with our super. Why is it that the general public have to have the government mess with their super and our choices. Will the proposed discussion on making us spend our money apply to their super? I suggest not.

Another example of one rule for them and another for the rest of us.

And another item in regard to retirees and the pension. Don't include the family home in the assets test. How can you compare a house in Sydney with one in Broken Hill or any other remote location? We shouldn't be penalised for making choices to buy a house when many others decided renting was a better option. Back then you had to have 25 per cent deposit, my wife had to sign a document not to fall pregnant for a time and the interest rate wasaround 7% to 8%. Not easy times then but not as difficult as now.

4 comments
avatar
Sue Ridge
2 yrs ago

The proposed legislation on super, 4b2, centres around trustees being forced to tell clients all of the options about how they can access super. The legislation is not suggesting that anyone is forced to spend more but is forcing trustees to be responsible to the client, not the super fund.

avatar
patti
2 yrs ago

Good luck with that! I have no super.  I had to cash it in to pay my legal fees after I left my husband in the 80s. He kept refusing to respond to court dates.  I have a small house.  No debts.  But very little else. So just keep paying me my pension, and I promise not to bother you again.  

Even if I'd been able to keep my super, it would not have been enough to keep me till I died, I can assure you.

Dream on, Liberal flunkies!

 

avatar
Tom Tank
2 yrs ago

A problem that does exist is the ability of some to take advantage of very generous tax concessions and are using super as a means of wealth creation to the point where they are able to live very comfortably while still building their wealth. 

Some have a range of methods, such as family trusts, that we ordinary folk simple cannot access. All these things are adding to the ever increasing inequalities in this country. I have no problem with anyone reaping the rewards of their hard work but when governments have set up various concessions that very much favour the the wealthy there is a problem that will only increase as time goes by. 

avatar
Sue Ridge
2 yrs ago

Where I get confused about all of these "concessions that very much favour the the wealthy" is that all we ever hear is that phrase but no examples to support the theory. We often hear that income tax reductions favour the wealthy and show how much the "rich" have saved but forget to mention that a reduction is always expressed in percentage terms. It must follow that those who earn the highest amount of income must always receive the highest dollar amount even though the percentage reduction is the same. Surely those who receive the highest income are reaping the rewards of their hard work which you seem to admire.

avatar
KSS
2 yrs ago

Another omission often made (no, make that always) is those same people never define what 'rich' or ' the wealthy'. Most of the time it seems they mean anyone with more than them!

avatar
KSS
2 yrs ago

What you fail to mention Tank, is that concessional contributions to super are open to everyone. Likewise family trusts. Trusts can benefit anyone who wants to manage their money. And all it means is that it is a legal arrangement where one party holds something for the benefit of another. Hardly the sole province of what you deem to be ' the wealthy'.

avatar
Tom Tank
2 yrs ago

The concessions I mentioned are those available above a certain income level. A Family trust is only worthwhile if there are assets to protect. It is only people who have such assets thus suggesting a sufficient amount of wealth in those assets to make them worth protecting.

It requires a certain level of income to be able to afford additional contributions to super that can take advantage of these concessions. 

The fact that there are people able to live a comfortable retirement solely from the income from their investments is an indication of being wealthy.  

It has been shown that people earning in the top 10% of wages/salaries think of themselves as not being well off.

avatar
MjP
2 yrs ago

This legislation doesn't apply to SMSF's which hold large amounts of super, some holding over $100m, so is biased to favour those who are certainly at the top end of town.

4 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment