THREE-quarters of Australians support having the superannuation guarantee lifted to 12 per cent, an ACTU-commissioned survey has found.   :)

The union movement is releasing polling results as the Senate prepares to vote on the mining tax, which would fund the lifting of the super contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent.

The online poll of 1000 people found 75 per cent of respondents to be in favour of the policy.

But 35 per cent of those surveyed thought the phase-in period between 2013 and 2020 was too slow.

Only four per cent said it was too fast.

While the Coalition has promised to keep the super changes if it wins government, it has vowed to block the 30 per cent tax on coal and iron ore profits.

ACTU president Ged Kearney said the next few days were the last chance to pass the legislation before Parliament went into a long recess ahead of the May 8 budget.

"It is time for all parliamentarians, including the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents to stop putting at risk the retirement savings of working Australians," she said in a statement.

The ACTU calculates the lifting of the super guarantee would see an average 25-year-old worker gain an extra $143,000 in their retirement savings.

It is sending Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten a petition today, signed by 6000 people, calling on Parliament to pass the legislation.   :)

The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the peak body for the $450 billion non-profit sector, is also delivering the Government several thousand online and petition signatures.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/superannuation/three-quarters-of-aussies-want-more-super/story-e6frfmdi-1226303434871#ixzz1pVYq3MYb

19 March, 2012 | Media Release With a new national poll showing 75% of Australians support lifting superannuation to 12%, the ACTU has joined with the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees (AIST) in calling on Parliament to pass the super legislation this week.   :)

ACTU President Ged Kearney said more than 8 million working Australians would be better off in retirement as a result of the proposed new laws with some workers getting up to $143,000 more.

“Senators should stop dawdling on super,” Ms Kearney said. “The next few days are the last chance to pass the legislation before a long Parliamentary break before the May Budget.

“It is time for all Parliamentarians, including the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents, to stop putting at risk the retirement savings of working Australians.

“The average 25-year-old worker could gain an extra $143,000 in their retirement savings from a move to increase the Superannuation Guarantee from 9% to 12%.

“The Labor Government is again showing great national leadership on superannuation and the protection of workers’ retirements. This is in stark contrast to Tony Abbott’s opposition to the resources tax package and his recent attack on industry superannuation which both show he is not interested in protecting workers and acting in the national interest,” Ms Kearney said.   :(

The ACTU is today sending to the Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten an online  petition signed by more than 6000 Australians calling for the Parliament to pass the super legislation.

The petition states:  ‘Superannuation is an essential part of helping ensure that every Australian worker can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. It helps the nation care for an ageing population and provides a savings pool for investment in Australian companies and major infrastructure.

AIST – the peak body for the $450 billion not-for-profit super sector - will also be delivering to the Government several thousand online and petition signatures to its ‘12% - Now is the time’ campaign.

AIST CEO Fiona Reynolds said lifting the SG to 12% was critical to improving the retirement wellbeing of all Australians, but was particularly important for low to middle income earners, as well as families who took career breaks to raise children.   ;)

“This is an historic piece of legislation that is going to have a very significant impact on generations of Australians,” said Ms Reynolds.

“As well as improving retirement living standards, increasing superannuation savings will ensure that future generations will not be crippled under the tax burden required to support our rapidly ageing population.”

Ms Reynolds said support for the 12% reform was now at its highest level, with a recent poll, commissioned by AIST, showing one-in-three Australians backed a faster phase-in period, than the proposed six year timeline.   :)

The online poll of more than 1000 respondents and conducted by Essential Media in the second week of March, found that an overwhelming majority of Australians – 75% - supported the 12% increase, with 35% thinking the phase-in period was too slow and 36% thinking the phase-in period was about right. Only 4% of Australians thought the phase-in period was too fast. Support for a faster phase-in period (39%) was highest among those aged between 35 and 54 years.

Prolly have to invent a new bogus socialist tax if you want more Middle class welfare and subsidy's.  Either that or you wil have to bring in more people from Africa to racially and economically exploit as slaves if you want another free lunch.  Or, you could just earn it and work for it yourself... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers.

What about lifting the Pensions to minimum wage you welfare bludgers. >:(

Shock as people put their hand up for free money.


Never saw this one coming.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers.

But most Australians are complete cretins who know little about how compensation in large companies work.

Dumb as a bag of spanners they are.

The Socialist Government welfare state uses black people to provide massive superannuation for upper middle class racist whites... 8-)

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:10am:

Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers.

Um......no. Workers can decide to contribute, but the current 9% is not taken from wages, it is direct contribution from the employer.

It may be put into a contract being "part" of a package, but does not come from ones wages.

I could be wrong...... :-/

All this would do is add more impost on the employer.

Why not force employees to add to their own super. 8-)

Maybe not a bad idea for some, but very hard for low income workers.   ;)

The white middle class welfare state keeps its negro labour force for its superannuation on new housing estates in Ferntree Gully - these are modern slave huts - its appalling that people are treated like this because of their skin color... 8-)

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 9:17am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 8:10am: Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers. Um......no. Workers can decide to contribute, but the current 9% is not taken from wages, it is direct contribution from the employer. It may be put into a contract being "part" of a package, but does not come from ones wages. I could be wrong...... :-/ All this would do is add more impost on the employer. Why not force employees to add to their own super. 8-)

Really? Pretty sure my pre-tax salary dropped 9% when the superannuation guarantee came in. My overall package remained the same but I ended up with less take-home pay.

EDIT: I take that back. With another 10 minutes thinking, I remembered that I would have been receiving employer funded super payments at the time. So these would have been factored into the 9% SGC and my pre-tax salary dropped by whatever the difference was. In any event, I did end up with less take-home pay.

Gist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:17am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 8:10am: Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers. Um......no. Workers can decide to contribute, but the current 9% is not taken from wages, it is direct contribution from the employer. It may be put into a contract being "part" of a package, but does not come from ones wages. I could be wrong...... :-/ All this would do is add more impost on the employer. Why not force employees to add to their own super. 8-) Really? Pretty sure my pre-tax salary dropped 9% when the superannuation guarantee came in. My overall package remained the same but I ended up with less take-home pay. EDIT: I take that back. With another 10 minutes thinking, I remembered that I would have been receiving employer funded super payments at the time. So these would have been factored into the 9% SGC and my pre-tax salary dropped by whatever the difference was. In any event, I did end up with less take-home pay.

You do know of course that employer contributions didn’t start at 9%?

i remember we got super instead of a pay rise when it came in. i was a bit pissed off about it as it my money, its part of my pay and being a bloke having a shorter life expectancy then females and the fact i have no kids to leave money too, plus i smoke. i wasn't planing on being round requiring someone else to wipe my ass for me. why cant i have my money to do with what i wish?

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

You do know of course that employer contributions didn’t start at 9%?

Are you talking about the phase in period? Yes, I know it phased in and I don't see how that changes what I said in any material way. My employer funded super went towards the SGC. The balance came out of my pre-tax. As the SGC ramped up, this was made up for either by cuts in pre-tax OR (as per a previous post here) by putting wage rises towards it. That was back in the days when we actually did get wage rises.

Gist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 10:33am: You do know of course that employer contributions didn’t start at 9%? Are you talking about the phase in period? Yes, I know it phased in and I don't see how that changes what I said in any material way. My employer funded super went towards the SGC. The balance came out of my pre-tax. As the SGC ramped up, this was made up for either by cuts in pre-tax OR (as per a previous post here) by putting wage rises towards it. That was back in the days when we actually did get wage rises.

Can't remember a year when i didn't get a pay rise.

Definately never lost on my pay packet due to employer super contributions.

Perhaps you need to work harder?

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 11:37am: FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 10:33am: You do know of course that employer contributions didn’t start at 9%? Are you talking about the phase in period? Yes, I know it phased in and I don't see how that changes what I said in any material way. My employer funded super went towards the SGC. The balance came out of my pre-tax. As the SGC ramped up, this was made up for either by cuts in pre-tax OR (as per a previous post here) by putting wage rises towards it. That was back in the days when we actually did get wage rises. Can't remember a year when i didn't get a pay rise. Definately never lost on my pay packet due to employer super contributions. Perhaps you need to work harder?

So is this about super now or have you just decided to become Andrei's little understudy?

Its always the same thing from the welfare state - when they need more handouts and super, they ship in more black slaves and put them in slave huts & chains.... :D :P :D

Gist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 12:14pm: Gist wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 11:37am: FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 10:33am: You do know of course that employer contributions didn’t start at 9%? Are you talking about the phase in period? Yes, I know it phased in and I don't see how that changes what I said in any material way. My employer funded super went towards the SGC. The balance came out of my pre-tax. As the SGC ramped up, this was made up for either by cuts in pre-tax OR (as per a previous post here) by putting wage rises towards it. That was back in the days when we actually did get wage rises. Can't remember a year when i didn't get a pay rise. Definately never lost on my pay packet due to employer super contributions. Perhaps you need to work harder? So is this about super now or have you just decided to become Andrei's little understudy?

LOL

THREE-quarters of Australians support having the superannuation guarantee lifted to 12 per cent

It's always been about super.

:D :D :D

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 2:40pm:

LOL THREE-quarters of Australians support having the superannuation guarantee lifted to 12 per cent It's always been about super. :D :D :D

I don't remember saying anything about the pros and cons of increasing it to 12% - in fact, in my case I don't mind either way. I was simply pointing out that the 9% had been at no additional cost to my employer since it was funded either by existing payments or by my sacrificing salary. I'd expect many employers would do the same if the minimum was lifted to 12%.

wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:01am:

THREE-quarters of Australians support having the superannuation guarantee lifted to 12 per cent, an ACTU-commissioned survey has found.   :) The union movement is releasing polling results as the Senate prepares to vote on the mining tax, which would fund the lifting of the super contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent. The online poll of 1000 people found 75 per cent of respondents to be in favour of the policy. But 35 per cent of those surveyed thought the phase-in period between 2013 and 2020 was too slow. Only four per cent said it was too fast. While the Coalition has promised to keep the super changes if it wins government, it has vowed to block the 30 per cent tax on coal and iron ore profits. ACTU president Ged Kearney said the next few days were the last chance to pass the legislation before Parliament went into a long recess ahead of the May 8 budget. "It is time for all parliamentarians, including the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents to stop putting at risk the retirement savings of working Australians," she said in a statement. The ACTU calculates the lifting of the super guarantee would see an average 25-year-old worker gain an extra $143,000 in their retirement savings. It is sending Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten a petition today, signed by 6000 people, calling on Parliament to pass the legislation.   :) The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the peak body for the $450 billion non-profit sector, is also delivering the Government several thousand online and petition signatures. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/superannuation/three-quarters-of-aussies-want-more-super/story-e6frfmdi-1226303434871#ixzz1pVYq3MYb

The compulsory super is the biggest fraud ever forced on the Australian worker, and the ACTU bosses are in on the cut, by sitting on boards of Industry super funds.Here is an E-mail I sent to the office of ACTU, and I,am still waiting for a reply.As long as the means test of the age pension stays in force, the average worker will benefit very little from super.

Cut super tax breaks: ACTU
UNIONS and welfare groups have vowed to push the government to overhaul $16bn in yearly tax breaks on super contributions.

Ms Gillard's support for the union movement came in spite of a direct dispute with the Australian Council of Trade Unions over superannuation reform.
The Australian revealed today the ACTU wants the government to overhaul its plan for tax breaks on superannuation contributions, believing they are unfairly skewed to give the most benefit to people earning more than $180,000.
I pointed this out on my website “Hawilspoint” The great Australian super fraud in 2009.
But Ms Gillard said the ACTU was misguided and that the government's superannuation plan, which includes an increase to the superannuation guarantee levy from 9 to 12 per cent partly funded by the mining tax, was designed to benefit the most disadvantaged.
Ms Gillard said her government’s proposals were “out there and a settled policy”.
“We’ve settled our policy. I can of course understand that there are many people arguing for different policy conclusion,” she said.
"Our policy, to make sure that we are assisting low-income workers through better co-contributions, a contribution from government to help them along, is out there and is a settled policy," Ms Gillard said.
"We've moved to change the system to better benefit low-income workers. I want all Australians to have a decent retirement."
Could the PM please explain how can the government give all Australians a decent retirement when the “Means test “ of the basic Centrelink pension punishes any part-pensioner once they reach a rather modest income, while the top 20% of retirees can pocket more than 100k in income and not pay any tax.
The compulsory super was badly designed from the beginning, skewed in favour of the very high income earners and otherwise rich. The means test of the basic pension should be scrapped as should all the tax concessions for super.
Yours truly
Hawil

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Its always the same thing from the welfare state - when they need more handouts and super, they ship in more black slaves and put them in slave huts & chains.... :D :P :D

Australia is hardly a social Paradise for 70% of the retirees, but the top 30% are doing very well with the tax=free super for the over sixties.
I wish the Bill Shorten would respond to my correspondence, and either tell me that I,am completely wrong with my calculations, or admit that the super industry is only set up for the elite 30%.

0020d147>?
e Hon
Bill Shorten
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

9’th of June 2011

The Australian government provides everybody of pension age a safety net in the form of the basic pension, so why should the government give such huge tax concession to the self funded retirees?
If a retirees income falls below $41,719.60 he/she can apply for a part-pension, and for a couple it is $63,824.80, which are very generous limits, particularly as most of the self-funded retirees pay little, or no tax if their incomes come from taxed super funds.
Consider the part-pensioners at the lower end: as soon as a single person income reaches $3,796.00 his/her pension is reduced by $0.50 for every dollar extra, and for couple it is $6,656.00, hardly a very generous standard of living.
Currently the Australian government pays some $25 billion in age pension, but at the same time allows some $25 billion in tax concessions. As the compulsory super starts maturing, the tax concessions will by far exceed the cost of the age pension, although at least 70% of the retirees will be still dependent on a part age-pension, but where is the government get the tax revenue to sustain such expenditure?
As the self funded retirees are enjoying extreme wealth, paying little or no taxes, they will travel a lot more overseas, which will again strain the Australian budget and affect the local business, because more money will be spent outside Australia. This will widen the gap between the have’s and have not’s enormously, particularly among the retirees, as the 20-30% with incomes above the age-pension, but always the assurance of a part-pension, should their incomes fall, and the 70% on a full or part-pension, who will be prevented to a large  degree by the means test of the basic pension, to a decent standard of living.
Australia is the only country among the OECD countries which means tests the basic age-pension, and allows such generous tax concessions for super, which benefits mainly the upper 30% of the population, and as a result the average Australian retirees are the second poorest after Ireland.
The means test for the basic age-pension should be abolished, but so should all the tax concessions for super, and the compulsory super should be scrapped.
Australia also spends a larger percentage of the GDP on military, more than most European countries, to go fighting in other countries, to establish Democracy, yet Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy. I probably will not see it in my life time, but if Australia does not become more egalitarian and democratic, it will have similar riots that other countries experience now.
This are the tax savings for a person who can use the maximum super contributions if under 50 Years of age.
Concessional contribution at 30.June 2010
$25,000 *0.465=$11,625
$25,000*0.15=3,750 Tax saving= $11,625-$3,750=$7,875
$450,000 in super fund
$450,000*.06=$27,000 Interest
$27,000*0.465=$12,555
$27,000*0.15=$4,050 Tax saving $12,555-$4050=$8,505
Total tax saved = $8505+$7875=$16,380 for this year.

If the person is over 50 contribution is as follow.
$50,000*0.465%=$23,250
$50,000*0.15=$7,500 Tax saved= $23,250-$7,500=$15,750
Total Tax saved==$15,750+$8505=$24,255 This is well above the age pension

As the persons super balance can exceed the $500,000 limit for the over 50’s the contribution drops to $25,000, but the person contributes $450,000 non concessional into the fund so that the fund now holds $900,000

$900,000*0.06=$54,000
Tax= $54,000*0.465=$25110
Tax= $54,000*0.15=$8100 Tax saved= $25110-$8,100=$17,010
Total tax saved=$17,010+$7875=$24,885

The tax savings for a person in this position will only increase further as the balance in their fund increases and therefore the income which is taxed at 15%. And when the person reaches the age of 60 and starts drawing down the super, there will be no tax obligation at all. Assume a fund balance of $2million*6% =$120,000 income completely tax-free and this is a very conservative approach by having super balance in a term deposit.

If a person starts to contribute the maximum concessional contribution at the age of 30, by the time they reach the age of 65, he/she will have saved more in tax concessions than what he/she would get in the form of age-pension, even if they live to the age of 100.

Yet you talk about a “sustainable social system” and you have been challenged by the Australian Taxation Office for breaches of the contribution limit.

Could the government prove that my calculations are wrong, or else admit, that it governs only for the benefit of the elite 30% of the population.


lYours truly
W.Hawil

hawil wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

corporate_whitey wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 2:01pm: Its always the same thing from the welfare state - when they need more handouts and super, they ship in more black slaves and put them in slave huts & chains.... :D :P :D Australia is hardly a social Paradise for 70% of the retirees, but the top 30% are doing very well with the tax=free super for the over sixties. I wish the Bill Shorten would respond to my correspondence, and either tell me that I,am completely wrong with my calculations, or admit that the super industry is only set up for the elite 30%.

No you are right but it is a Welfare State for the upper Middle Class, built on the sell out of Australian jobs, foreign investment, and consumption & Resources taxes of which the upper middle class are the only beneficiary.  We used to have a fairer system before they forced us to have a consumption based economy and then forced us to pay consumption taxes to pay the shortfall in revenue and black hole they created by their false economy.  We manufactured our own goods - the upper middle class sold us out because they want cheap fridges imported from China but Harvey Norman screwed them... :D 8-)

wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 8:01am:

THREE-quarters of Australians support having the superannuation guarantee lifted to 12 per cent, an ACTU-commissioned survey has found.   :) The union movement is releasing polling results as the Senate prepares to vote on the mining tax, which would fund the lifting of the super contribution from nine per cent to 12 per cent. The online poll of 1000 people found 75 per cent of respondents to be in favour of the policy. But 35 per cent of those surveyed thought the phase-in period between 2013 and 2020 was too slow. Only four per cent said it was too fast. While the Coalition has promised to keep the super changes if it wins government, it has vowed to block the 30 per cent tax on coal and iron ore profits. ACTU president Ged Kearney said the next few days were the last chance to pass the legislation before Parliament went into a long recess ahead of the May 8 budget. "It is time for all parliamentarians, including the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents to stop putting at risk the retirement savings of working Australians," she said in a statement. The ACTU calculates the lifting of the super guarantee would see an average 25-year-old worker gain an extra $143,000 in their retirement savings. It is sending Superannuation Minister Bill Shorten a petition today, signed by 6000 people, calling on Parliament to pass the legislation.   :) The Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the peak body for the $450 billion non-profit sector, is also delivering the Government several thousand online and petition signatures. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/superannuation/three-quarters-of-aussies-want-more-super/story-e6frfmdi-1226303434871#ixzz1pVYq3MYb

"ACTU-commissioned". For that reason alone, I would not take any notice of this survey whatsoever.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

Shock as people put their hand up for free money. Never saw this one coming.

exactly. whata totally pointless 'survey'. people want more money.  cant imagine why.

Gist wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:17am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 8:10am: Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers. Um......no. Workers can decide to contribute, but the current 9% is not taken from wages, it is direct contribution from the employer. It may be put into a contract being "part" of a package, but does not come from ones wages. I could be wrong...... :-/ All this would do is add more impost on the employer. Why not force employees to add to their own super. 8-) Really? Pretty sure my pre-tax salary dropped 9% when the superannuation guarantee came in. My overall package remained the same but I ended up with less take-home pay. EDIT: I take that back. With another 10 minutes thinking, I remembered that I would have been receiving employer funded super payments at the time. So these would have been factored into the 9% SGC and my pre-tax salary dropped by whatever the difference was. In any event, I did end up with less take-home pay.

the SGC started at 3%

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 10:22am: FriYAY wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 9:17am: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 8:10am: Most workers super is paid from their own pay package, any increase will reduce take home pay of most Australian workers. Um......no. Workers can decide to contribute, but the current 9% is not taken from wages, it is direct contribution from the employer. It may be put into a contract being "part" of a package, but does not come from ones wages. I could be wrong...... :-/ All this would do is add more impost on the employer. Why not force employees to add to their own super. 8-) Really? Pretty sure my pre-tax salary dropped 9% when the superannuation guarantee came in. My overall package remained the same but I ended up with less take-home pay. EDIT: I take that back. With another 10 minutes thinking, I remembered that I would have been receiving employer funded super payments at the time. So these would have been factored into the 9% SGC and my pre-tax salary dropped by whatever the difference was. In any event, I did end up with less take-home pay. the SGC started at 3%

Fan-TAS-tic. Now read the rest of the thread.