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


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.

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


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.

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


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.

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


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:



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

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



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 8:56am:


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.