That is a different argument to the one I answered previously,...

First 10 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Hittman

2,624 Posts.

225

13/10/19

09:11

Post #: 40855733
Share

Originally posted by occam ↑

Hittman,
there is a big difference between taxing somebody now when their salary is paid into their bank, and taxing a contribution tax which is 15% and 30% depending on income when they don’t get to receive it for up to forty years or more. By then it could be worth considerably less. The compound effect alone of this tax mathematically is greater than the tax on present day salary.
Incidentally this magnifies if you are on a higher salary and are paying the 30% contribution rate.
It might not even be constitutional to have a contribution tax .
Anyway , as I said ,....why not do as many other countries do and just tax super once at the pension stage at normal rates. Simple, no concessions , no politics of envy .
All this be as it may, any political party that decides to meddle once more will pay a heavy price.

Expand

That is a different argument to the one I answered previously, in that you said Superannuation was not taxed at a concessional rate when it clearly is.

I agree the Super system could be administered differently and in a better manner.

I actually wrote to my local minister and the minister for Superannuation with my concerns/opinions and got a reply.

I'm in my 50's and have seen many changes to Superannuation regulations that have all limited our ability to get our own money,

My fears are that those restrictions on getting our own money will increase.

I stopped putting additional funds into my Super Account over 10 years ago due to the changes I saw and changes I expected to see before I hit preservation age and can access my own money.

Pretty much the only change they made that I agree with is the $1.6M cap limit for tax free status.
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply