Comments on: To Dr. Ken Henry: Government Could Make Employee Voluntary Contributions Compulsory

By: Geoff Murrell

Geoff Murrell — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:56:59 +0000

When commenting on Michelle But’s Superannuation proposals why has no one referred to Productivity or Choices given to Workers and Employers under WORK CHOICES. Only increased productivity will
allow increases in Superannuation Contributions no matter who (Employer or Employee) is the PRIMARY payer eventhough by refusing to recognise productivity, a case may be made that the Employee is the only (Primary) payer. As I see it Workchoices, by definition permitted SBU’s Individual wage agreements as well as Award Wages but increases in productivity were the only real area paying for the choices. Thus by removing choices (WORKCHOICES) AND concurrently STREAMLINING WAGE AWARDS AND NOT GUARANTEEING THAT NO WORKER WILL LOOSE in the process, KEVIN , JULIA , and WAYNE have GUARANTEED increased militancy and disharmony in as many workplaces as possible to cultivate a more favourable climate (CLIMATE CHANGE) in which INCREASED UNIONISM might flourish. If that is achieved, there will be less or no productivity and we should forget or REDUCE compulsory contributions to superannuation so that the individual can avail themself of paid investment/insurance advice and NEVER AGAIN BE SHORT SERVED by an industry super fund again. It is, I claim the ability to recognise PRODUCTIVITY that permitts an employee to successfully make the transition to employer/small business owner or investor. The removal of WORKCHOICES and the pretence that productivity has little or no relevance IS what we have voted for; as is the aquiessence to BIG GOVERNMENT, PROFLIGANT SPENDING and a total inability by our federal government to prioritize political goals, or spending, of any sort. Lets try strengthening regional government by increasing what we now know as local government and completely removing all state governments with only a 2% per 5 year permitted increase in FEDERAL PARLIAMENTARY members. At the very least lets not contemplate any increase in employer super contributions until employees are compulsorily contributing 9%. (that could be introduced increasing 1% per year over 10 years ) I believe that all wages paid for more than 4 hours per month should qualify for 9% compulsory employer super contributions giving a more realistic starting point and protection to workers based on permanent employment or minimal engagement times without reference to hourly rayes of pay. penned by Jeffery of the L’nP

By: cb

cb — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:24:36 +0000

Amen to that, George. But unfortunately, not much of a chance. It is a rather depressing landscape when you comprehend it in any detail.

By: George brouxhon

George brouxhon — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:32:35 +0000

Politicians claim that their remunerations ought to be higher than they are today because larger remuneration packages will encourage brighter people to join the ranks. To assess the merits of a salary rise for politicians one would have to also appraise the value of their pension benefits, perks and sinecures they are offered by government and corporations when they retire from politics.
The current protocol of governance in most democratic countries is essentially based on political sponsoring by corporations or alien political vested interests and a compliant media. This introduces a blatant conflict of interest between the public good which politicians are supposed to attend to and the corporations who subsidize them to high office.
Politicians are essentially well articulated super salesmen who are good at selling themselves, but are not as well qualified to run the country as the heads of government departments are. Neither is the present system of democratic governance democratic in the genuine sense as “government by the people,of the people and for the people”.Tony Blair and George W. Bush were respectively elected with 15% and 35% of the eligible voters.
The moral majority among the warmongering coalition of the willing countries was not in favor of the conflict. Under pressure from lobby groups who sponsored them, politicians have passed laws that allowed financial institutions to take greater risks with investors and taxpayers’ money by repealing former laws that protected them. As such politicians have become a vested interest group more closely allied with the corporate sector than the public. We need integrity in politics more than deceitful salesmanship, if democracy is to be more meaningful than it is today.

By: LB

LB — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Haaaa! Ms. But appears to be suffering from a chronic case of naivety. Does she have a mortgage yet? Does she have children to raise yet? Has she ever run a business? Does she pay tax? How would she like it if I decided I was the one who was best qualified to tell her how to spend her hard earned cash??? (When she starts to earn some I presume……….)
This is a classic example of an over enthusiastic, inexperienced smarty pants who at under 24 of course thinks she already knows everything. For heaven’s sake!

By: cb

cb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:22:43 +0000

MS, and others, I agree that we should be vigilant about the potential erosion of our savings in super, but most of the current disadvantages can be overcome by establishing your own SMSF, namely the danger of wealth managers putting your savings in harm’s way through their investment decisions and charging you fees based on the balance of your savings, even in the face of dreadful performance. Both of these can be overcome if you take control of your money by rolling it over into your own SMSF.

The other issues, such as the raising of age brackets at which we can access our savings, we need to be vigilant about and try to resist through the political and voting process. In the meantime, there are very generous tax concessions that you can take advantage of with regard to money you are able to save from current income (paying only 15% tax on it, instead of paying tax on it at your marginal tax rate at double or worse rate, plus paying only 15% tax on any interest or other income you generate with those savings in your super), and depending on your preservation age, you can start accessing these savings TAX FREE. For example, instead of hitting your account with a lump sum re-draw as soon as you reach 55, you can choose to re-draw only 10% of your total balance annually for five years, until you reach 60, and pay not tax on those re-draws, while continuing to work and earn a wage unaffected by the extra money your started to get from super. So, if you have a 250k balance by the time you are 55, you can start taking out 25k annually tax free, with which you can start making a serious dent in your mortgage, or other debts that you can pay down. And once you reach 60, I think, then you can take out larger lump sums tax free as well.

The incentives are set up to encourage saving and sensible re-draw of those savings as one enters retirement, and if you are mindful of the rules, you can avoid heaps of taxes that otherwise would hit you right, left and centre, had you been trying to save and grow your wealth outside of super. Another good example is capital gains tax that you would also not pay on assets, such as shares or property, if sold from within your superfund following your retirement.

So, all in all, as things stand, super is a very good investment vehicle to make use of, and chances are that future changes will continue to be more of the carrot than the stick variety. For example, if the govt wants to use some of our supersavings for infrastructure investment, or mortgage lending, they are more likely to offer guaranteed minimum returns for those who voluntarily choose to invest parts of their savings that way, than to actually legislate that, say, 20% of your savings in super must be in infrastructure, as in Sayce’s example. So, while the dangers of adverse legislative changes are there in general, it is more likely than not that investment flows will be encouraged into various areas by providing attractive options that you may and may not decide to take up as a manager of your own savings in a SMSF.

By: cb

cb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:01:40 +0000

thieves and scoundrels they are, etch, and liars to boot.

By: cb

cb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:00:15 +0000

I’ll second that, PF. Long live Bacchus!!!

By: etch

etch — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:47:31 +0000

yeah makes real sense …………………………..GIVE THEM MORE MONEY SSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO they can penny pinch of the common worker as that turd howardice tried & on top of that CONSTANTLY MANIPULATE “OUR FRICKEN SUPER ”
they are doing quite well with all their lurks & perks & done well as they have been for years
why give em more dough ?,,yet the low incomers get freezed
wat a pathetic joke
dont worry once they get the super they will come after other people with other assetts ………..thieves

By: Peter Fraser

Peter Fraser — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 07:42:57 +0000

cb – this is one of those “you can’t please anyone” situations I’m afraid.

I’ll offer more wine to the Gods, perhaps they will have an answer.

By: cb

cb — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:55:23 +0000

Me suspects there are not too many people to be good politicians, and those who would be good, are the last ones who would want to be politicians. Ergo, since you cannot get good politicians in any case, cutting their pay by at least 50% would be a good place to start. Same for public fat cat servants, after all, job security itself is of considerable value, especially in tough times like these. They take a cut, or take a hike – is what me says on the matter.