a whole lot of hooha for nothing ... everyone should get a pension, and every dollar after that should be taxed at normal rates.

The rich aren't going to just give their money away to avoid taxes you know. If they were that way inclined they wouldn't be rich.

And no reduction in the pension just because an OAP does some work. With the retirement of the Boomers you would think work after retirement would be encouraged.

It is fricking sick: someone on $250K a year income from super pays no income tax, someone on the pension pays tax and loses pension if he earns, what, $80 per fortnight or so? The tax office has people monitoring retirees selling stuff on Ebay and maybe making $20K in sales? Sick when we are paying $50Bn and climbing tax exemption on money put into super by about the top 10% on income???

Yup!

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 3:25am:


The idea was to cut out the need for pension, but that has back-fired, and it is only reasonable that once a sufficient amount is in the kitty to provide pension, the concessions stop.


If people were only allowed to break square with spending all their money and doing nothing where is the incentive to save anything in this manner.

I see no reason for people to not make themselves reasonably comfortable when the level of the aged pension is a disgrace.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Nov 9^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:


Exactly right. Defence once had a superfund, outside of consolidated revenue. That changed when a certain Labor government needed money to continue running. It was never put back and remains in limbo in consolidated revenue. Of course by now all the records would be lost.  It has been deemed too hard by politicians of all stripes.

John Smith wrote on Nov 8^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

A very simple solution; but the self funded retirees would not be interested, the tax concessions for many of them are much more than the pension, particularly when they would have to add the pension onto any other income.
I haven't heard any politician to mention a pension for all retirees.

I sent this suggestion to many politicians and the media, none would comment on it.


In 2007 the then Prime Minister John Howard introduced the tax-free super for the over sixties, if the super income comes from a so-called taxed fund.
As a result :

This is how the retirees are treated in Australia.
Retiree: 1)
Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund.
Retiree 2)
Has accumulated assets of $1.5million,mostly with huge tax concessions, and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax.
Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks, and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits.
Should the assets of these retirees fall below a certain level, they will be entitled to the age pension as anyone else, therefore why does the government provides the rich retirees with such huge tax concessions, while punishing the retirees at the lower income scale with the punitive means-test of the age pension?
Retiree 3)
Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals $10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free for the SMSF.
Retiree’s 2) are well represented by the media and the super industry, as well as the Unions, and retiree’s 3) are represented by the government, and ironically by the leadership of various retiree Associations, like ACPSRO and its affiliated Associations,Acoss,COTA, but who represents retiree’s 1) the part- pensioners who are being robbed of a decent standard of living in retirement by the means-test of the age pension.
What is the fairest solution; scrap the mean test of the age pension and scrap all tax concessions for super.

hawil wrote on Nov 10^th, 2015 at 4:34pm:



who cares what they want, they're the reason the budget is screwed.... they're costing us more than they would have before super was ever dreamed off. We spend far more in superannuation perks than we do on the unemployed or pensions.

hawil wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 4:09pm:



Because it lined Labor pockets as well. Wake up and smell the roses. They are all very similar, the difference between them are minor; despite the rhetoric.