Comments on Sally Rose "Million-dollar super targets labelled scare campaign", 4/08/2015
The aged pension is too discriminatory against savings from own superannuation contributions, in terms of once a person reaches the threshold, he/she does not get any aged pension. Just compare two persons with almost identical situations in terms of wages and salaries, but one saves, say 5%, more for superannuation and the other doesn't. If the person with own contributions to super just reached the threshold income for aged pension. The person will have the same income with his/her superannuation as the other one with aged pension. The same outcome, but the person with additional contribution to own superannuation has sacrificed its living standard for almost nothing. Worse still, own superannuation may not be index as generously as the aged pension.
Is it fair? Obviously it is not.
As a result, there should be some reforms to the aged pension system to encourage people to save without adversely affecting their entitlement to aged pensions.
Showing posts with label superannuation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label superannuation. Show all posts
2015-07-08
Productivity Commission lost its strategic insight
Comments on Productivity Commission "Superannuation policy for post-retirement", 8/07/2015
I agree with the former Treasurer Mr Peter Costello (who was interviewed by the ABC's 7.30 program that was broadcast yesterday evening) that the public has lost confidence of the superannuation system/policies, given the nature of frequent changes in government policies. In that light the Productivity Commission (PC)'s inputs are not helpful at all.
The Productivity Commission, as its name suggests, should focus on productivity so people work smarter as opposed on force people to work longer and to retire or access their own superannuation more late in their lives.
As a result, the PC has lost its overall strategic insight on good or better policies in Australia.
Has the PC also become simply revenue driven?
Further, the PC may be helpful if it does research on how to improve older Australians' employment in the context of a strong age based discrimination that people over 50 are finding it difficult to find new employment once they are out of employment for one reason or another.
Another point is that even its title is deceptive or misleading when compared to its content and intention. If it is post-retirement, then why do not allow them to access their superannuation after retirement? It is a bit of inhumane, isn't it?
That is regrettable on the PC part.
The Productivity Commission, as its name suggests, should focus on productivity so people work smarter as opposed on force people to work longer and to retire or access their own superannuation more late in their lives.
As a result, the PC has lost its overall strategic insight on good or better policies in Australia.
Has the PC also become simply revenue driven?
Further, the PC may be helpful if it does research on how to improve older Australians' employment in the context of a strong age based discrimination that people over 50 are finding it difficult to find new employment once they are out of employment for one reason or another.
Another point is that even its title is deceptive or misleading when compared to its content and intention. If it is post-retirement, then why do not allow them to access their superannuation after retirement? It is a bit of inhumane, isn't it?
That is regrettable on the PC part.
2013-04-07
Superannuation and tax
Comments on Stephen King "Superannuation needs a sustainable framework", 6/04/2013, http://theconversation.com/superannuation-needs-a-sustainable-framework-13279
While the view and argument of Professor King may be regarded as "right" from a particular point of view or some particular economic theories, it is not necessarily right or correct.
King seems making no difference between one's own money/income with the money provided by other taxpayers.
Any conclusion based on such a view point is likely to be problematic when one take a different view.
The kind of view or thinking is too inducive to laziness and irreponsibility. The reflection in debates in Australia is that some people only talk about how much so called tax concessions that some higher income earners get or would get but not about how much they have paid or would pay tax.
This kind of thinking in terms of per capita entitlement of equal concessions is an extreme view, just as the other possible extreme that per capita tax liability, that is, each person pays the same amount of tax.
Just imagine that latter scenario and how extreme it is, one would understand how extreme and absurd the former is too!
PS: While it is commendable for the Treasurer Swan and the Superannuation Minister Shorten to announce the idea of establishing a semi independent superannuation guardian to consider future government policy on superannuation, it would have been better and more convincing should that had been equally applied to the announced measures, that is, no changes until such a body is set and has scrutinised those changes and got bipartisan support.
While the view and argument of Professor King may be regarded as "right" from a particular point of view or some particular economic theories, it is not necessarily right or correct.
King seems making no difference between one's own money/income with the money provided by other taxpayers.
Any conclusion based on such a view point is likely to be problematic when one take a different view.
The kind of view or thinking is too inducive to laziness and irreponsibility. The reflection in debates in Australia is that some people only talk about how much so called tax concessions that some higher income earners get or would get but not about how much they have paid or would pay tax.
This kind of thinking in terms of per capita entitlement of equal concessions is an extreme view, just as the other possible extreme that per capita tax liability, that is, each person pays the same amount of tax.
Just imagine that latter scenario and how extreme it is, one would understand how extreme and absurd the former is too!
PS: While it is commendable for the Treasurer Swan and the Superannuation Minister Shorten to announce the idea of establishing a semi independent superannuation guardian to consider future government policy on superannuation, it would have been better and more convincing should that had been equally applied to the announced measures, that is, no changes until such a body is set and has scrutinised those changes and got bipartisan support.
2011-10-06
Commenting 'Death and taxes'
Comments on Jack The Insider “Death and taxes”, 6/10/2011, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/jacktheinsider/index.php/theaustralian/comments/death_and_taxes/
I suspect there is some contradiction in your argument somewhere.
If on the one hand, no tax on superannuation after 60 benefits the oldies, it should arguably reduce the burden on the social pension system and hence the burden for the young.
Further, if the non tax of superannuation can encourage people to put aside more of their own money into superannuation, that can work as alternative to increasing superannuation guarantee!
You seem to be as greedy as the government to only see the potential revenue from taxes, but to have forgot the beneficial side of no tax on superannuation after 60!
One needs to be consistent after all!
2009-07-03
Superannuation requires incentives from all sides
Comments on Dennis Shanahan “Fund retirees now or pay for it later”, 3/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724258-17301,00.html
There is an issue of how much superannuation contribution would be enough and this issue has to be settled first.
It seems that 9% is deemed insufficient. But how much would be sufficient? It could be a tricky question, because it can vary from person to person. Of course there should be a minimum level and that level should be a key benchmark to consider and decide how much compulsory super contribution should be made.
There is also the issue of private contributions that has to be taken into account too.
A society should not only make employers to contribute to employees’ super, but also encourage employees themselves to make voluntary contributions. An efficient system should rely more on everyone own initiatives, provided they have enough relevant information to make informed decisions.
It may be the case that the current 9% employer contribution to employees super without employees’ own co-contributions is good enough. The next step may be to consider a co-payment system in which employers should match dollar for dollar of employees’ own contributions up to a set percentage of employees’ salaries. Government can provide further tax incentives to employees, such as those applied to the current salary sacrifice.
A system that involves employers, employees and the government work together seems a more attractive than any other system.
There is an issue of how much superannuation contribution would be enough and this issue has to be settled first.
It seems that 9% is deemed insufficient. But how much would be sufficient? It could be a tricky question, because it can vary from person to person. Of course there should be a minimum level and that level should be a key benchmark to consider and decide how much compulsory super contribution should be made.
There is also the issue of private contributions that has to be taken into account too.
A society should not only make employers to contribute to employees’ super, but also encourage employees themselves to make voluntary contributions. An efficient system should rely more on everyone own initiatives, provided they have enough relevant information to make informed decisions.
It may be the case that the current 9% employer contribution to employees super without employees’ own co-contributions is good enough. The next step may be to consider a co-payment system in which employers should match dollar for dollar of employees’ own contributions up to a set percentage of employees’ salaries. Government can provide further tax incentives to employees, such as those applied to the current salary sacrifice.
A system that involves employers, employees and the government work together seems a more attractive than any other system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
