http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-23/super-saving-idea-could-end-up-costing-taxpayers/6962498

Introducing a lifetime cap on superannuation — a proposal being floated as a potential saving — could actually cost taxpayers more, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).

The finding will put a dampener on enthusiasm for the idea, adding to concerns about the potential problems with implementation.

Greens treasury spokesman Adam Bandt said high income earners tend to pour money into superannuation shortly before retirement to maximise subsequent tax benefits.

"[They] put it into superannuation knowing that they can then draw it out again in couple of years tax free," Mr Bandt said.

To counter that, some people have argued for a cap on lifetime superannuation contributions.

Mr Bandt said recent reports suggested the measure was being considered by the Treasury.

It is thought the measure might stop that problem of people putting a lot of money into superannuation in their final working years in order to minimise tax when they are already looking very healthy for their retirement.

The Greens had the PBO calculate the savings if there was a $500,000 lifetime cap on voluntary contributions.

Mr Bandt said the measure might only save about $165 million over four years.

That would not generate the required savings, he said, "when the cost of super tax concessions as a whole is set to be $170 billion over the same period".

"We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said.

"Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do."

The figures showed a cap of $600,000 would cost the budget $85 million over four years.

Introducing lifetime cap 'problematic'

John Daley from the Grattan Institute also warned about the problems of administering a lifetime cap.

"We only really have very good records back to about 2003, so anyone who has put any money in before 2003 will probably get a free pass," Mr Daley said.

"And superannuation which has of course already delivered phenomenally large tax breaks to an older generation will effectively deliver even more."

Mr Bandt said he was still open to a lifetime cap but argued the real savings, adding up to potentially $10 billion, would come from making superannuation tax rates more closely aligned with income tax rates.

Mr Daley argued for a lower cap on the amount of pre-tax dollars that can go into superannuation, from $35,000 to around $10,000 or $11,000 a year.

He said that, over a lifetime and combined with other savings, that was likely to provide enough to retire on without needing the aged pension.

"That's the point at which support from the taxpayer for your retirement really ought to stop," he said.

"Our suggestion is cap the amount you can put in at $10,000-$11,000 in any one year.

"It is also then administratively reasonably simple — you don't have to be keeping track of people over their entire lives."

So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying:


Quote:

"We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do."

I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves.

Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money?

Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work.

I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:32am:

So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying: Quote: "We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do." I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves. Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money? Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work.

Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget

The stupidity is the $500K life time limit

It shows the Greens have no freakin idea

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:35am:

I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important.

What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on?

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:35am:

I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important.

Cods

So far in the 30 years of existence Greens have fluffed around the edges with motherhood statements. This can only fool so many people. At 10% that's the saturation of the amount of people who they can fool

If they want to go beyond that - they have to put some numbers down

The Greens' biggest weakness is finance and the economy - this is why you are starting to see them come up with specific numbers and figures

So far - failed both times

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:43am:

cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on?

9.5% of the income earnt

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:42am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:32am: So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying: Quote: "We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do." I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves. Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money? Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work. Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget The stupidity is the $500K life time limit It shows the Greens have no freakin idea Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

Neither (considering the median house price is over $1m), but it's more than enough as a tax-free bonus. I don't think that the life-time cap is the right way to go as it requires complex tracking.

They had an idea, costed it, and are now considering the implications. Is that really a bad thing?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:46am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:43am: cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on? 9.5% of the income earnt

Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:47am:

Neither (considering the median house price is over $1m), but it's more than enough as a tax-free bonus. I don't think that the life-time cap is the right way to go as it requires complex tracking. They had an idea, costed it, and are now considering the implications. Is that really a bad thing?

Now we are talking sense in terms of $1M

The home is exempt from Pension calculations

So if someone had $1M home they can still get a pension. But if they sell their home to generate an income - they lose their benefits

So does Bandt's limit benefit these people who are not rich but caught in his ill-conceived idea

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:49am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:46am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:43am: cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on? 9.5% of the income earnt Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this.

What gender pay gap is that?

In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience

There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination

If you believe there are inequality then report it

I don’t care how much people put into super.

But:

1. Only the first 9.5% of income can be invested at concessionary rates. Amounts above that get taxed at the appropriate marginal rate.

2. Income from super gets taxed, full stop. I don’t care if it is taken as a lump sum or annuity etc.

3. Those on the old age pension should be able to work without losing the pension. You get the pension because you are of retirement age. They get taxed on their earnings but keep the full pension. The savings from 1. & 2. will allow everyomne to get the pension, simplifying Centrelink work.

The Greens will NEVER introduce any sensible reform of super because their wealthy, inner city base save way too much tax under the existing rules.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:54am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:47am: Neither (considering the median house price is over $1m), but it's more than enough as a tax-free bonus. I don't think that the life-time cap is the right way to go as it requires complex tracking. They had an idea, costed it, and are now considering the implications. Is that really a bad thing? Now we are talking sense in terms of $1M The home is exempt from Pension calculations So if someone had $1M home they can still get a pension. But if they sell their home to generate an income - they lose their benefits So does Bandt's limit benefit these people who are not rich but caught in his ill-conceived idea

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

I don’t care how much people put into super. But: 1. Only the first 9.5% of income can be invested at concessionary rates. Amounts above that get taxed at the appropriate marginal rate. 2. Income from super gets taxed, full stop. I don’t care if it is taken as a lump sum or annuity etc. 3. Those on the old age pension should be able to work without losing the pension. You get the pension because you are of retirement age. They get taxed on their earnings but keep the full pension. The savings from 1. & 2. will allow everyomne to get the pension, simplifying Centrelink work. The Greens will NEVER introduce any sensible reform of super because their wealthy, inner city base save way too much tax under the existing rules.

Then why would anyone put ANY money into super at all?  You get no benefits plus you get taxed on the way out and you cant take your money when you want to.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:49am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:46am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:43am: cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on? 9.5% of the income earnt Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this. What gender pay gap is that? In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination If you believe there are inequality then report it

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed.

This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

You can take your money anytime anyway, you just pay tax on your income.

People would save using super, using a SMSF or buy shares etc to prepare for retirement and for financial security.

Shouldn’t be tax free except for the first 9.5% of income (or whatever the Labor govt will increase the rate to in 2016/17.)

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:01am:

What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have?

The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home.

If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income

If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months

If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:49am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:46am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:43am: cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on? 9.5% of the income earnt Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this. What gender pay gap is that? In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination If you believe there are inequality then report it

thats not true... women are still lower paid than males....unless you are in the highly qualified fields...

women lose more work time than males....if they take time off for their families their super stops...

females at the present time a retiring with far less money than a male...almost as if it cost less to keep a female.....

the gender pay gap you claim doesnt exist can be explained in other ways..

I have a friend who is a female engineer...she has worked in the mining industry for about 15 years and now has her master degree....she along with another female have just been made redundant at the smallish coal mining company they worked for.... they are reducing left right and centre..

they have however kept on a male engineer... whom the girls ran rings around....most of their co workers were horrified...but what can they do....its a male industry  speaks for itself..you have no idea the discrimination that goes on in the work place that women have to face   NOT men..

oh they got their pay out so no whinging...however being that type of industry it will mean both of them have to move if and when they find new employment.....as the downsizing happens you can betcha the females will be first off the line..

and so will their super.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed. This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

So now you are referring to enforcement of the law

The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions

If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same

cods wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:12am:

thats not true... women are still lower paid than males....unless you are in the highly qualified fields... women lose more work time than males....if they take time off for their families their super stops... females at the present time a retiring with far less money than a male...almost as if it cost less to keep a female..... the gender pay gap you claim doesnt exist can be explained in other ways.. I have a friend who is a female engineer...she has worked in the mining industry for about 15 years and now has her master degree....she along with another female have just been made redundant at the smallish coal mining company they worked for.... they are reducing left right and centre.. they have however kept on a male engineer... whom the girls ran rings around....most of their co workers were horrified...but what can they do....its a male industry  speaks for itself..you have no idea the discrimination that goes on in the work place that women have to face   NOT men.. oh they got their pay out so no whinging...however being that type of industry it will mean both of them have to move if and when they find new employment.....as the downsizing happens you can betcha the females will be first off the line.. and so will their super.

As I said - family decisions

So the pay gap here is simply based on age in the absent of any other fact

They compare 55 old male against a 55 years old female

Education in training requires dedicated time. If they allocate that time to family then they won't be as trained or educated

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:14am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:07am: Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed. This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry. So now you are referring to enforcement of the law The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same

How does who stays at home affect how much working people are paid?

Yes cods, most females get paid less than males even now (except in the PS) and there is the problem of females leaving to have kids and care for their kids. Part time work is much more common for women too and that results in lower super on retirement. (In my first business I employed 2 full time and five part time employees, sometimes 7 part timers. All the part timers were women.)

Dunno a simple way to fix that. The Australian Age Pension is pretty mean compared to most other OECD nations. Lifting that would help. Women sometimes are asset rich, getting the house because of the kids in a divorce or death of spouse.

I support removing all tests on the Age Pension, it should just be “Are you 65yo? Here is the form to apply for the Age Pension.” Then the woman could downsize the house and not lose pension etc. This would only help some but not help women who are single etc.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:56am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:49am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:46am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:43am: cods wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:35am: I see they are not more concerned with getting female super into line with male.....yeah I can see thats not important. What? Super is based primarily on income and the greens certainly do seem concerned with that. I'm not sure what you are basing this on? 9.5% of the income earnt Therefore reducing the gender pay gap would be the best way to bring Super into line. The greens often argue in favour of this. What gender pay gap is that? In Australia, jobs are advertise with salary bands depending on education and experience There are laws ensuring equality and non-discrimination If you believe there are inequality then report it Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed. This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry.

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory.

I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:42am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:32am: So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying: Quote: "We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do." I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves. Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money? Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work. Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget The stupidity is the $500K life time limit It shows the Greens have no freakin idea Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"????

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough.


At least use an accurate example droopy.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:27am:

Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory. I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now.

The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist.

When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:14am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:07am: Just because laws exist, does not mean that they are followed. This is the latest fact sheet, which gives a detailed break down by state and industry. So now you are referring to enforcement of the law The research for gender pay gap does not take into account the differences in family decisions If the male stayed at home to look after the children then the situation would be the same How does who stays at home affect how much working people are paid?

Training and education requires time and money

Staying at home means less time to be trained and educated

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:27am: Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory. I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now. The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist. When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

The issue with studies is you have to look at the assumptions they use

We are highlighting the gaps in the assumptions

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:42am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:32am: So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying: Quote: "We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do." I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves. Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money? Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work. Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget The stupidity is the $500K life time limit It shows the Greens have no freakin idea Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"???? An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy.

Nor over 30 years are they rich either.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:32am:

An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy.

Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:27am: Maqqa makes a valid point. There are virtually no jobs anywhere where there are gender-pay differences. Most of these gender-pay gap claims emanate from AVERAGE salaries across industries or industry segments. That is a very different bit of data. It MIGHT reflect gander discrimination in opportunity - but not in salary. The problem in these kind of determinations is that it seeks to equate a man with a life-time career trajectory and a woman with a life-time career trajectory and assume that they are the same. Many women dont want a life-time career and so dont pursue the higher paid jobs. Many women leave to have children and raise them and thus put their careers on hold for many, many years and thus retard that trajectory. I've worked in HR for several companies and Ive seen the very real difference between men and women's career aspirations. However in general, if a woman wants a whole-of-life career, her salary and promotion prospects are not different from those of men in an significant way. 40 years ago, yes, not now. The problem is this is speculative and anecdotal. While I have no doubt that some people are paid less due to career aspersions I am also extremely sceptical that problems of the past have been eliminated, especially when studies show that these attitudes still exist. When there are less women in senior roles than junior roles in an industry is that because choice they have made, or choices the bosses have made? It's often difficult to tell, especially as a general trend.

It can be difficult to tell, but that doesn't seem to stop people claiming that anything less than 50% women in senior roles is discriminatory. I can recall being in a position where a company wanted to internally promote a woman to a senior role because of pressure to have more women. The reality, is that there were ten more qualified and experienced men for the position. But they were accused of sexism just the same.

Sexism still exists in employment. We all know that, but it is being eliminated over time. There are not many examples of women being denied a senior position because they are a woman. There are some, but likewise the reverse is now also becoming a problem especially in government. They demand 50% women in senior roles and so less qualified candidates beat more qualified ones all in the pursuit of this mythical 'equality'

It should be equality of opportunity, not equality of gender.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:44am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich??

You are comparing oranges with apples droopy.

Would you say a person who doesnt own a home is rich or super rich?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:42am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:32am: So you are criticising the greens for getting a policy idea costed, then saying: Quote: "We're concerned that the PBO costings suggest that if you put the cap any higher than $500,000, it might actually cost the budget money," he said. "Now that would be an extremely counter-productive thing to do." I mean clearly they don't intend to implement the policy in a way that will cost more money than it saves. Do you expect people to know ahead of time is if a policy will save money? Taxing super at certain levels makes sense, otherwise it's just a tax-free ride for the well off, but that does not mean creating a huge amount of administration work. Costing proves how much it cost/save the budget The stupidity is the $500K life time limit It shows the Greens have no freakin idea Would you say a couple in Sydney with a $500K house as "rich" or "super rich"???? An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Nor over 30 years are they rich either.

Did i say rich?  I said not struggling.   Rich is a relative term and im not using it, but what's clear is if a person can afford to pay voluntary contributions > 500k then surely they can pay more tax on those contributions.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:58am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich?? You are comparing oranges with apples droopy. Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich?

Why do you think its apples and oranges

You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:00am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:58am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich?? You are comparing oranges with apples droopy. Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich? Why do you think its apples and oranges You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid

We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.

Droopy will get there eventually

What about people who put away $500K in voluntary super but have no other super - no super guarantee or employer super ?

The comparison could be that a high level employee may have $700K of employee superannuation plus have paid in $500K of voluntary super and have that $500K subject to this $500K cap.

A self employed person may have zero employer paid super and $500K of voluntary super also capped at this level.

IMO this method of capping superannuation seems to be flawed.

I think that a cap on over all superannuation is not a bad idea but I would be thinking of it being set at a min of about $1.5 to $2M.

Now this makes sense



Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:10am:

What about people who put away $500K in voluntary super but have no other super - no super guarantee or employer super ? Correct. Or those who only have their home as their only asset. The comparison could be that a high level employee may have $700K of employee superannuation plus have paid in $500K of voluntary super and have that $500K subject to this $500K cap. And I would say this would be a small number. A self employed person may have zero employer paid super and $500K of voluntary super also capped at this level. But a self employed person has taken more risk compared to a PAYE so why should they be penalised for taking the risk? IMO this method of capping superannuation seems to be flawed. Correct. Bandt's is trying to cast a wide net over a problem that's specific to a targeted few I think that a cap on over all superannuation is not a bad idea but I would be thinking of it being set at a min of about $1.5 to $2M. Good idea. However there's an existing total small business CGT and CGT cap of $2M

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:03am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:01am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. Droopy will get there eventually

So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ??

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:01am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:00am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:58am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich?? You are comparing oranges with apples droopy. Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich? Why do you think its apples and oranges You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth.

And the article refers to someone nearing retirement dumping money into Super

If you don't think the Age Pension is relevant then you've got a long way to go in understanding this issue

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:03am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:01am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. Droopy will get there eventually So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ??

The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free.


At the moment if you have superannuation savings over the limit you have the option of taking it out of super or being fined at a 49% tax rate.

You would be really stupid to save superannuation over the upper limit.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:48am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:01am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:00am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:58am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:44am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:32am: An Individual who can put away 500k as voluntary contribution is hardly doing it tough. At least use an accurate example droopy. Would you say a couple in Sydney with a house $1M as rich or Super rich?? You are comparing oranges with apples droopy. Would you say a person who doesnt kwn a home is rich or super rich? Why do you think its apples and oranges You don't even understand how Age Pensions are paid We are talking super and someones capacity to pay tax. Not age pension or how much someones house is worth. And the article refers to someone nearing retirement dumping money into Super If you don't think the Age Pension is relevant then you've got a long way to go in understanding this issue

Currently at over 55 your super contributions are increased from $30K to $35K per year but there is a trick where if you over contribute you can bring I think up to 5 years forward meaning that it can be $175K over 5 years. This can be used even in the last year of work I believe and is useful to people with insufficient savings for retirement but it can also be abused obviously.

I doubt that this is particularly wide spread.

Brant is trying to squash a pea but is going to hit it with a sledge hammer while it is sitting in a glass bowl.

He may squash his pea but there is going to be a load of collateral damage.

Really silly idea.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:21am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:03am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:01am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. Droopy will get there eventually So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ?? The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. At the moment if you have superannuation savings over the limit you have the option of taking it out of super or being fined at a 49% tax rate. You would be really stupid to save superannuation over the upper limit.

Since the idea is to address the system in place, I'm sure more than one thing can be adjusted.

The amount of tax paid varies.

The system should be designed so that it minimises cost to the taxpayer where possible. This means providing tax incentives now for super, but only so far as it reduces reliance on the pension.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:29am:

Brant is trying to squash a pea but is going to hit it with a sledge hammer while it is sitting in a glass bowl. He may squash his pea but there is going to be a load of collateral damage. Really silly idea.

It's bandt. What more could anyone expect?

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:57am:

Since the idea is to address the system in place, I'm sure more than one thing can be adjusted. The amount of tax paid varies. The system should be designed so that it minimises cost to the taxpayer where possible. This means providing tax incentives now for super, but only so far as it reduces reliance on the pension.

Let me explain that link based on someone earning $1M - they pay about $430K in tax

Annually you can make 2 types of contributions
(1) $30K to $35K in Concessional contribution (made from before tax dollars)
(2) $180K in Non-concessional contribution (made from after tax dollars)
(2a) You can bring forward 3 years of the Non-concessional

Their Super Guarantee stops when their income hits $203K i.e. beyond this point the employer do not have to pay SG. Google it - its called maximum superannuation contribution base

This means about $20K goes into your Super as Concessional contributions. This means they can only put in an additional $10K or $15K depending on your age

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:57am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 11:21am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:47am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:03am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:01am: Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:11am: Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. Droopy will get there eventually So which portion does Bandt want as tax free that is not at the moment ?? The limit is not on how much super you can have, but on much super you can have tax-free. At the moment if you have superannuation savings over the limit you have the option of taking it out of super or being fined at a 49% tax rate. You would be really stupid to save superannuation over the upper limit. Since the idea is to address the system in place, I'm sure more than one thing can be adjusted. The amount of tax paid varies. The system should be designed so that it minimises cost to the taxpayer where possible. This means providing tax incentives now for super, but only so far as it reduces reliance on the pension.

They keep money which is not advantaged as Superannuation out of super accounts because it becomes almost impossible to know how the funds should be treated. The fact is that if there is no tax advantage to you it is just savings and better off in a straight investment account.

The policy is not without merits.  I think a few posters previously have misunderstood the policy.

I believe 'voluntary contribution' means, that its contribution made from after tax income, or in other cases after employer agreed salary package arrangement where the employer pays the fringe benefits tax.

If you are self employed, then as a small business, you can still (abit voluntarily) pay yourself a 9.5% of total net profit (e.g. your personal income), that will only be taxed as 15%, and plus deduct the amount as an expense.  If you have a larger business, or a company, the company can pay you - the director that 9.5%. 

I think the Greens want to limit the amount of 'voluntary contribution' that people can put into their super account, where it can generate tax free profits.   Whereas, if you put the same money into shares or bank interest, the profits are taxed.   

The greens argue that those who are able to contribute to their super - aftertax - to the tune of 500k, are wealthier people.  Note, in contrary to what others believe, this policy does not specifically targets those who pump their income into super in the final years prior to retiring unless of course their post tax disposable income is very significant. 

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 12:37pm:

The greens argue that those who are able to contribute to their super - aftertax - to the tune of 500k, are wealthier people.  Note, in contrary to what others believe, this policy does not specifically targets those who pump their income into super in the final years prior to retiring unless of course their post tax disposable income is very significant.

As in other posts - you will see the average home in Sydney is $1M.

If the person/couple sold this $1M home - less cost - they will have $900K. They then are able to make $500K to Super

This is where the Greens have totally misunderstood the problem

If they want to get it right - they need to Asset Test for this limit.

I think a good possible approach would be to design super to replace the pension for people who work most of their lives.

By 2023, the retirement age is set to be 67.

Assuming about 20 more years @ 642 a fortnight, it's about 340K.

So basically providing (tax-free) support for much more is basically a losing proposition at least from a welfare standpoint.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 4:11pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 12:37pm: The greens argue that those who are able to contribute to their super - aftertax - to the tune of 500k, are wealthier people.  Note, in contrary to what others believe, this policy does not specifically targets those who pump their income into super in the final years prior to retiring unless of course their post tax disposable income is very significant.  As in other posts - you will see the average home in Sydney is $1M. If the person/couple sold this $1M home - less cost - they will have $900K. They then are able to make $500K to Super This is where the Greens have totally misunderstood the problem If they want to get it right - they need to Asset Test for this limit.

I think its a proposal to get the debate going.   
I do not think, your example is what the debate is about.  Let me remind you that the family home is already capital gains tax free.   So thats already the first advantage there. 
The question here is that if the elderly couple wants to invest this money, should that then be tax free investment - as per the current super rules. 
The green's augment is that: well, they still can, but the tune of max 500k.  Anything on top of that, they would have to invest the money themselves, and pay tax if they get any additional profit.
I think this is a very valid argument given the budget situation currently. 

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

The question here is that if the elderly couple wants to invest this money, should that then be tax free investment - as per the current super rules.

That should be contribution tax free, any income from the investment would be taxed.

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 8:15am: The question here is that if the elderly couple wants to invest this money, should that then be tax free investment - as per the current super rules.  That should be contribution tax free, any income from the investment would be taxed.

Please note: "voluntary contributions', e.g. contributions after tax, is already contribution tax free.  What we are talking about is should the profit from these investment be tax free, as it is the case right now. 

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

lee wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 9:38am: tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 8:15am: The question here is that if the elderly couple wants to invest this money, should that then be tax free investment - as per the current super rules.  That should be contribution tax free, any income from the investment would be taxed. Please note: "voluntary contributions', e.g. contributions after tax, is already contribution tax free.  What we are talking about is should the profit from these investment be tax free, as it is the case right now.

Correct

The impact on the Budget won't be felt until this generation of supernatants dies

Given the expectant life is 85 - a typical 65 years old has another 20 years

Through Beneficiary Nominations - you can extend this benefit to the next generation when this generation dies

So the figures from Bandt are wrong

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

What we are talking about is should the profit from these investment be tax free, as it is the case right now.

Really? Can I have a link for that please. Preferably from ATO.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Seniors-and-retirees/Super/Taxation-of-super-benefits/

So, if you are over 60s, the income stream and lump sum from super is consider as tax free. 

This is why alot of will be retirees are putting lump suns (after tax) into their super.  Normally if these are put in to other investments, then the earnings would be taxed at their marginal income rate (year on year).  However, if you are over 60, then both lump sum and income stream are tax free.    Although, there is a limit of around 180k a year for such contributions.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 1:20pm:

So, if you are over 60s, the income stream and lump sum from super is consider as tax free.

The "income stream" is what you withdraw from super. You are taking the benefits. If you pay the money into super without accessing benefits, that is still in the "accumulation stage", and is taxed.
As the link posted shows - super benefits.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:11am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:01am: What does that have to do with how much untaxed super you can have? The Age Pension is calculated based on the Assets you have over and above your home. If Bandt put a limit on the Super mean people are forced to sell down your house to get more income If you sell your home - the proceeds are counted towards the Asset Test within 12 months If you sell down to increase your income - you are hit with the Assets Test

The simple solution: scrapping the means-test of the age pension and scrapping all tax concessions for super, no one wants to look at, including Grattan Institute, because the top brass are benefitting most from the tax concessions.
There was hardly anything mentioned in 2007 when Howard introduced the tax-free super, as far as I know, no other country provides its rich citizens with such a huge legal tax-dodge.
Bruce Brammall  described it in his book "Debt Man Walking" on page 220

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:56am:

If you believe there are inequality then report it

That isn't how the gender pay gap works. When looking at overall trends and qualifications and experience, women due to sexism in society and the workplace, face many more hurdles than men in achieving decent pay rates and well paid positions. A female with the same qualifications and experience as a male, will generally only earn 70-80% of what the male earns over a career.

A company wouldn't just pay a female who does the same work as a male less, but a lesser dudebro "alpha" male employee generally will have a much easier way of working up than your average woman, companies at higher levels are generally always boyclubs and women who do get in generally have to internalize that misogyny or they get kicked out (which is why you get so many corporate women saying poo like "boys will be boys!", "just learn to play by their rules!"). I've been in organizations were women were hired simply based on the fact the male managerial staff wanted to have something to manipulate and bugger. I've seen in huge organizations at the executive level literal coke and hooker parties (idiots don't know Wall Street was satire and try to copy it), how many females will be happy with that?

There is also the issue that female dominated fields, even specialty skilled fields, generally pay less than male fields, even if that male field is far less specialized or skilled.

To put it at the most simplest analogy: if a company is a 30 story building and hierarchy is based on floors, generally a woman will never be able to get pass floor 20 no matter if she's a super genius and the entire company relies on her.

Your assertions about looking for trends is obsolete. Why?

Because trends/stats are used to back theories.

We know that there are inequalities - that's why laws have been passed to stop these inequalities

Implementation is immediate. But the effect takes time. So lets present stats and trends that are post implementation.

It's interesting you quote "a female with the same qualification and experience will earn 70-80% less"

The fallacy are as follows
(1) There are probably heaps of males who went for the same job who may or may not be more qualified and experienced
(2) Experience is subjective
(3) Qualification mix is different
(4) Experience mix is important
(5) Personality
(6) It's not what you know - it's who you know

Companies don't give out information why they hired or not hired someone

So if we use the "qualification and experience" as a criteria it's such a shallow vetting process of candidates.

Qualification and experience gets you through the door. After that it's up to you to sell yourself

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 11:33am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:56am: If you believe there are inequality then report it That isn't how the gender pay gap works. When looking at overall trends and qualifications and experience, women due to sexism in society and the workplace, face many more hurdles than men in achieving decent pay rates and well paid positions. A female with the same qualifications and experience as a male, will generally only earn 70-80% of what the male earns over a career. A company wouldn't just pay a female who does the same work as a male less, but a lesser dudebro "alpha" male employee generally will have a much easier way of working up than your average woman, companies at higher levels are generally always boyclubs and women who do get in generally have to internalize that misogyny or they get kicked out (which is why you get so many corporate women saying poo like "boys will be boys!", "just learn to play by their rules!"). I've been in organizations were women were hired simply based on the fact the male managerial staff wanted to have something to manipulate and bugger. I've seen in huge organizations at the executive level literal coke and hooker parties (idiots don't know Wall Street was satire and try to copy it), how many females will be happy with that? There is also the issue that female dominated fields, even specialty skilled fields, generally pay less than male fields, even if that male field is far less specialized or skilled. To put it at the most simplest analogy: if a company is a 30 story building and hierarchy is based on floors, generally a woman will never be able to get pass floor 20 no matter if she's a super genius and the entire company relies on her.

That's because she doesn't work the same hours etc over a career, and only wants the sweet ride.

There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors.

Are you suggesting that since women work average 32 hours to men's 41 (2011 Census), women should be paid at a higher rate?  They already are in many cases due to affirmative action that has slotted them into the soft jobs with the good salaries and perks.

Wake up and get with the program - one in twelve Australians is out of work - and women continue to whine about a 'wage gap' that accurately reflects the average hours worked?

Do the figures - if everyone is on $10 an hour (no 'wage gap') - women EARN $320 a week for hours worked - men earn $410... what is the percentage difference?

Easy.. just ask Longy.....  I'll do it for you:-

32/41 x 100 = 78.05%.. what is the alleged 'wage gap'?  "women only get 78%$ of men's wages"..... exactly right!  They EARN only 78% of men's wages by working.....

Well - Bug Army!!

Now can we all drop this non-issue and move on to the real issues and stop feeding whining women for a change?  Enough people have suffered as a result of this never-ending nonsense and insanity - are we to forever feed women more and more to the detriment of men in our society - let's move forward on reality for a change.

Most PEOPLE never get past floor one.. get with the program here... there is zero support for any of this ranting about 'poor women'.

hawil wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 11:24am:

The simple solution: scrapping the means-test of the age pension and scrapping all tax concessions for super, no one wants to look at, including Grattan Institute, because the top brass are benefitting most from the tax concessions. There was hardly anything mentioned in 2007 when Howard introduced the tax-free super, as far as I know, no other country provides its rich citizens with such a huge legal tax-dodge. Bruce Brammall  described it in his book "Debt Man Walking" on page 220

It was Keating that brought in the unlimited Super. Alan Bond took advantage of that loophole. LIBs closed the loophole

As for getting rid of the tax concessions - you are not saving any money in the immediate term. There's always a phasing in period.

If you don't have a phasing in period - you are going to have every accountants (about 50,000 of them) telling each one of their clients the government is screwing them. About 1 million votes impacted directly. Then these 1 million voters will tell their friends and families.

The whole idea about Super is the tax concession as per my initial post. Take that away and you won't win government for 20 years

lee wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 1:20pm: So, if you are over 60s, the income stream and lump sum from super is consider as tax free.  The "income stream" is what you withdraw from super. You are taking the benefits. If you pay the money into super without accessing benefits, that is still in the "accumulation stage", and is taxed. As the link posted shows - super benefits.

As per my initial post - it's about tax on the income. You can virtually have the same investment.

For example
$1M under your name invested into a Term Deposit compared to $1M under Super invested into the exact same term Deposit

The interest you earned under your name is taxed at your margin tax rate whereas the same interest you earned under Super is tax at 15% and in the Pension phase it's taxed at zero

A couple with $1M to their name earning $100K would pay about $4K in tax

The same couple with $1M in Super/Pension would not pay any income tax

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:08pm:

There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors.

No economist or sociologist worth their weight will agree with you. The gender gap is an absolute fact proven across literally thousands of studies. It is caused by structural sexism and misogyny.

Also Sociologists already account for issues such as part time work and whatever, Literally everything is taken into account. Women earn less due to sexism and it's worse if you're a minority.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G6zKUEYYpwQC&pg=PA382&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kiron22 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2015 at 12:22pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 1st, 2015 at 12:08pm: There is NO gender wage gap - only differences in earnings caused by many factors. No economist or sociologist worth their weight will agree with you. The gender gap is an absolute fact proven across literally thousands of studies. It is caused by structural sexism and misogyny. Also Sociologists already account for issues such as part time work and whatever, Literally everything is taken into account. Women earn less due to sexism and it's worse if you're a minority. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=G6zKUEYYpwQC&pg=PA382&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

I also note they are citing references to the 80's and 90's

The data does not explain the difference in pay gap for a male CEO compared to another male CEO.

But if it's male vs female then the easy conclusion is gender gap