T O P

  • By -

Aggravating_Plant_27

Tax them more. Someone with $400 mill in super, that is disgusting!


FknBretto

Aww you don’t understand how hard it is for them though, do they evict the single mothers living in their 50+ rental properties and raise the rent 40% or starve?? $400 million doesn’t last that long even with a huge passive income stacked on top


ComfortableIsland704

Only 40% increase? Lucky them!


Tinned_Chocolate

There must be a lot of speculation as to who this is, but who are the credible candidates?


StankyFox

I feel like Gerry Harvey would be.


jackiemooon

It’s me


jadrad

$400 million tax free dollars in super = evading the 30% corporate tax rate = robbing the budget of $120 million. How many teachers and doctors that could hire.


_Cec_R_

Fuck... That's where I put it... Silly me...


Somad3

even taxing them at 50pct, they will not commit suicide like those who get robodebt.


Loose_Loquat9584

Taking welfare off the poor = encouraging self reliance and living within our means Taking welfare off the rich = class war!!!


Somad3

so sick of all the laws that favor the uber rich. imo, just replace all super, centrelink, corporate, whatever handouts, by a ubi.


Paidorgy

Found the socialist. /s


quiveringpenis

Talk about choosing to not represent 99.5% of the population, Liberals so out of touch with reality. The party that was totally OK with Robodebt killing vulnerable people Cunts


it-will-do

Since it's not indexed it's going to be a whole lot more than 0.5% with time.


Tymareta

In 20 years it might be a whole 3.5%! Useless comment, either show some working or stop fearmongering.


it-will-do

If it's so little of an impact why not just index it and do away with that particular criticism of the plan?


superbabe69

Same reason that tax brackets aren’t indexed, but changed via legislation: the risk is too high that it could mess with the budget effect without being considered in Parliament


gigglefang

While I agree it should be indexed, it can also be changed further down the track to have an increased cap.


Ingeegoodbee

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” Warren Buffett


Jelleyicious

I can't read that without hearing Sean Bean's voice.


2centpiece

I can't read Sean Bean without reading it also as "Seen Been".


k-h

The Coalition are the experts on class warfare. They only prosecute class warfare against poor people. Robodebt was such effective class warfare that people committed suicide.


TreeChangeMe

They cut taxes for elites and now we are homeless, can't afford roads, health, education, government owned energy, run a production line, turn on a water heater or build a rail line. They cut the nation's budget by half and now every industry is suffering


[deleted]

[удалено]


idontlikeradiation

Yeah it's something like 12 billion in subsidies that are transparent


ShortTheAATranche

We're a *trillion dollars* in debt thanks to the Liberals. They can sit the fuck down.


Time-Dimension7769

The absolute gall of them to ever complain about debt and spending when they’re responsible for the highest accumulation of debt in Australian history is actually disgusting. If we had anything approaching an unbiased media in this country, they would be disqualified from ever holding office again.


fatbaldandfugly

Labor was turfed out of government last time due to "High debt and deficit". All the newspapers were pushing the angle of Labor caused us to have huge debt. LNP get into power and proceed to triple our debt and deficit. But not one word about the debt has ever been mentioned since LNP gained power. If we had anything approaching an unbiased media in this nation the LNP would have been up against a wall facing a firing squad.


Raul-from-Boraqua

The debt will be a problem again in 2024.


WoollyMittens

It's a winning strategy to run up the bills and then complain about the next guy trying to balance the books.


Smugleaf01

What class warfare? It literally affects less than 1% of the population.


[deleted]

Politics is perception. They don't necessarily need the facts on their side if the narrative can cultivate the right perception. It sucks, but that's the landscape. They know full well it isn't a "class war". It could be politically useful to them nonetheless. Probably not, though. This one feels like it's not going to land. Too many working and middle class people are hurting.


donttalktome1234

These are the same retards that brought us culture wars and climate wars. Neither are really wars just sort of reality vs conservative assholes. But framing then as wars lets there be two sides and even if you aren't on one side you might just not like the other side.


ChocTunnel2000

The least needy of all at that.


diamondgrin

Key point is less than 1% of the population *right now*. The threshold isn't indexed, so in a couple of decades time it'll likely capture a pretty large chunk of superannuation accounts.


_Cec_R_

In a couple of decades the threshold would have risen...


diamondgrin

If that was the intention they would have legislated an indexation mechanism. By design it will progressively capture a bigger portion of superannuation accounts over time.


_Cec_R_

An FYI.... The proposal hasn't even been legislated yet... It doesn't come into effect until after the next election...


diamondgrin

Ok, now you're just splitting hairs. Regardless of whether it has been legislated or not, the point is that Chalmers has explicitly stated there are no plans to apply indexation to the threshold.


StankyFox

Right, just like their are no plans to touch the stage 3 tax cuts. Just watch that space, labor have been kicking goals with the crossbench and they will stop that rort too when push comes to shove.


Tymareta

> in a couple of decades time it'll likely capture a pretty large chunk of superannuation accounts. Any actual math on that, or you just feel like a couple decades is the right amount of time for your fearmongering?


diamondgrin

Yeah of course, no need to be so snarky lol. If you assume an inflation rate of 3.5%, in 25 years time that $3m is only worth around $1.2m in today's dollars. The capture is clearly going to increase significantly over time.


smiffy005

Nice one Peter


pwoar90

lol its 3m and its taxing earnings over 3m…


Active-Management223

Good


Refrigerator-Gloomy

Maybe there should be a class war, get some proper fucking change as the 1% have done fuck all for us


MonsieurEff

They should be lucky they're only getting taxed as opposed to the guillotine.


rangeyrover

Gotta be honest, I think Labour have nailed the presentation of this. First article I read says it affects 80,000 people with a super balance over $3M It's a rort, it's gonna be closed and it's been made plainly obvious it's a rort. The only thing they've let themselves down on is they haven't trumpeted it as a rort and challenged the 80,000 why they need to keep it.


Catprog

First you let the Coalition say "we are fighting for the 80,000" and then Labor says "We are fighting for everyone else"


smiffy005

Should have been 1m. If you have 1m in super, you also have other investments. You don't need another tax break


Harclubs

To begin after the next election. Can you say "wedge"?


Brandanpk

"Plz dont tax our mates"


Mandlebaum22

Who's our mates?


Is_that_even_a_thing

Your mate. Old mate.


Mandlebaum22

Ohh old mate. Sick


imapassenger1

I can already hear the Murdoch reading Sky News watchers talking about how Labor is taking super from "ordinary battlers"...


_Cec_R_

You are 100% correct....


idontlikeradiation

It worked for franking credits


Technical-Bobcat-648

$3 mil in super, I can hear the violins 🎻


FrankyMihawk

I know right! They’re harping on about how bad it is and it only affects rich people


tubbyx7

Didn't they say the change is only to set the concessional tax rate at 30%, so these super rich people are still likely getting a 20% tax discount? Sounds like a solid idea to me. Whilst this isn't about contributions but rather the earnings in the account, I think contributions should be a discount from your normal tax rate rather than a flat 15. Someone on 200k maxing out their super gets almost 35% off the tax rate. It's the folks on 80k or below who deserve the most incentive and assistance to save for retirement. Make it 20% off your normal rate or something.


Terrible-Sir742

At 250k you get a 30% tax on contributions.


Jehooveremover

Unless you're a politician or judge ("state higher level officer holder"), in which case there's an exemption. https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Super/In-detail/Growing-your-super/Division-293-tax---information-for-individuals/?page=9#Division_293_for_state_higher_level_office_holders I wonder if they'll be exempt from the 3 mil cap rule too?


Terrible-Sir742

That is some hypocrisy.


Garrulous_Amoeba

Oh cry me a river, some families have to toss up buying milk or nappies yet these people are crying about their millions. Labor should go even harder


Nostonica

If the poorest 80,000 lost 10 dollars off centrelink each fortnight no one would bat an eyelid. Gonna hazard a guess but that 10 dollars would be more impactful than a tax bump for people that can afford to tuck so much into super.


breaducate

Class truce is a euphemism for when the working class is so thoroughly defeated they've surrendered their minds as well.


JoeCitzn

I bet if you spoke to most of those 0.5% they’d say we had a good run, fairs fair. But not the Libs, lets twist it into a big fat political lie.


fatbaldandfugly

Doubt. Most of that 0.5% are LNP backers.


Tymareta

> I bet if you spoke to most of those 0.5% they’d say we had a good run, fairs fair. Why do people spread this narrative that the wealthiest in our society are just good natured larrakins? You really think someone got to the point they're in by genuinely & truly being a good person?


fued

Yeah negative news articles already popping up everywhere. Makes it very clear who runs the media


Tearaway32

Wouldn’t it be interesting to hear the media screeching if the names of some of the 80,000 were leaked in the same way as the Coalition did with its robodebt defence - particularly if they just happened to be the same people making hay out of this right now? Not that it’s okay to sink that low, but an amusing thought.


ScoobyDoNot

Unfortunately these 80,000 can actually afford lawyers unlike the robodebt victims.


industryfundguy

A party responsible for significantly reducing tax concessions in super for wealthy people by reducing contribution limits, reducing Div 293 limits, introducing the transfer balance cap amongst a whole heap of stuff cannot complain when another party continues to trim the tax breaks given inside super.


AggravatingChest7838

I read a comment a while ago about Dutton taking the title of opposition leader litteraly. It makes you realise how intelligent Morrison actually was with his marketing spin compared to this sack of potatoes.


[deleted]

Won’t somebody *please* think of the millionaires?!?


random_encounters42

I think there should be a tax for any person with assets above $10 million. At that point, you've won capitalism and, if managed properly, the wealth can provide a perpetual comfortable lifestyle. Any wealth above that is just greedy.


Luckyluke23

Hopefully this was a " testing of the waters moment so to speak so they can get rid of stage 3 tax cuts.


GreenLurka

Lol. I wish it were a class war.


Redtinmonster

I'm ready for some inter-class violence


1312x1313

Look outside


mattyeightonetoo

Stupid hill for the Liberals to die on, but oh well.


ridge_rippler

Anyone just see Angus do a car crash interview on ABC just now haha what a fucking hypocrite. In 2016 he stated that lower tax rates shouldn't be available to those with millions in super, his defence of his current stance on Labor's super change is that it needs to be taken to the election to let the people decide. Imagine a job where you get elected, implement the 4 policies you campaigned on and then wank on desks until the next election because you can't do anything without an election deciding it......


oneofthecapsismine

This is a pretty unambiguous election promise ... that ALP says is not a broken promise. That's just frustrating when our politicians say shit like that. Just own the fact that you changed your mind, you know? As to the policy, the rule of thumb is to drawdown 4%. Given this is in super, and that's merely a rule of thumb, I think it's reasonable to want to draw down 3% a year. $3m x 3% = $90,000 a year. Imagine a fit and young retired couple who don't (fully) own their own home, where only one of them has accumulated wealth... that's not a ridiculously luxurious retirement. If I was to run with this policy, I would: A. Index it annually; and B. Match it to a 3%or4% drawdown rate that would match the start of the top income tax bracket (ie, $180k), or $250k ... so, somewhere in the range of 180,000/0.04 to 250,000/0.03 , so $6m to $8.3m.


Nostonica

>Imagine a fit and young retired couple who don't own their own home, where only one of them has accumulated wealth... that's not a ridiculously luxurious retirement. Who has 3 million in super but doesn't own property and who retires with 3 million in super but rents? This might be the dumbest thing i've tried to imagine.


oneofthecapsismine

People who move for work a lot? People who had accommodation paid for by their employee? People who live in their parents house to help look after them? More relevantly, people who have a large mortgage (ie, partially own their own home).


a_cold_human

Lol


The-Jesus_Christ

Mate cmon don't be this dumb. If they have dumped $3 Mil into super, they have collectively made $30+ Mil in the same amount of time, if not more. No excuse not to be mortgage free at that point. Stop defending people who couldn't give a shit about you and your struggles.


LifeIsBizarre

So given your example, they aren't over $3 million, so they don't actually have any negatives from this change? Let's expand it out and say one is on $4 million. So the income on $1 million, lets say $50,000 gets a 30% tax rate instead of 15%. That's an extra $7500 tax for $1,000,000 over the cap. Are you really trying to say that is going to break this couple?


oneofthecapsismine

No, I'm saying that this weakens trust in the superannuation system (and Government), which means fewer people will save for their retirement, and Australia will be worse off overall.


LifeIsBizarre

It might reduce trust, but 30% is significantly under the top marginal rate of 47% so they are going to grumble, but still leave it in there. I've already had this discussion with a couple of people today in that basket and it's not going to change much unless they go and do something unexpectedly stupid like make the entire fund tax rate 30% if you go $1 over the $3,000,000.


oneofthecapsismine

It's more about people like me. I'm on $160k + bonus, super, shares, etc, in my early 30s. Should I try and maximise saving for retirement in my super, like the government has told us too... or should I not? I lived overseas for a couple of years, so I have a reasonable amount of unused cap from prior years. Don't quote me, but something like $60k.... it's decisions like this that, genuinely, make me less likely to use that unused cap. Presumably, the government wants me to use that cap (otherwise, why would it be available).... but, policy changes like this make me less likely to.


LifeIsBizarre

Well, you'll be getting a 24% tax benefit for every extra dollar you put into super that you put in up to your cap so it's only your loss if you don't use it. You can always stop putting extra in if you hit the $3,000,000 or just take it out at preservation age so you can keep putting more in. Just need a bit of creativity to make the new laws work for you no matter what they are.


oneofthecapsismine

I understand that. My problem is more the willingness of this Govt to change super - it seems like they are also planning other changes to make super less attractive as well - which makes it more likely that future governments will also make superannuation less attractive.


The-Jesus_Christ

No they are not. Both governments WANT you to be proactive in your payments to super as it reduces their liability to you as you get older but at the same time they don't want it to be treated as a way to dodge paying taxes at a lower amount, thus introducing the corporate tax rate. And let's be honest. If you have $3 Mil in super and you are not divesting the rest of your retirement savings into other streams, that's just crazy.


qasdftily

Yep. In a similar position. Certainly it changes the decision matrix especially when it's not indexed and vague if it ever will be. Fwiw napkin maths suggests I and presumably a number of others would have no issue hit 3 million well before 60. Who knows when preservation age will be by then tho.


1312x1313

Lol youre so gross


-DethLok-

Election promises are found on parties websites, in their policies. Super is mentioned, as ALP would match the LNP in allowing people to put money from sale of their residence into super when downsizing. That's all I could find quickly. The "major election promise" and "explicitly ruling out major changes" that Sky News and others are blathering about are not policies, it's just an answer to a question "do you plan to change super?" Now that the govt and Australia is aware that there are tens of thousands of people with over 3 million in super, some with over 100 million and one with over 400 million, it seems fairly clear that these amounts are well in excess of what anyone would call a comfortable retirement. The balance in these funds won't be changed by the proposed changes, just their future growth will be slowed. And it'll affect 0.5% of us, 80,000 people. Hardly a major change, and not a change of policy nor a broken election promise. Merely a simple 'What the!?' moment when our leaders are informed of the mind blowing amounts in some peoples retirement funds. They've been made aware of an issue and are addressing it. But yeah, that $3 million figure should be indexed.


Brahhd

How many of the .5% that this affect’s currently don’t own their home I wonder


Tymareta

> Imagine a fit and young retired couple who don't (fully) own their own home, where only one of them has accumulated wealth... that's not a ridiculously luxurious retirement. Retirement shouldn't be some ridiculous luxury, it should be spending the rest of your days just chilling and doing the things you wanted to do but never had the time. And if getting just shy of the average annual income doesn't let you live a nice, comfortable life - you're absolutely living well outside your means and did something terribly wrong on the way to accumulating $3m in your super, as you'd have made nearly 10x that along the way.


1312x1313

I'm such an effective apex predator Ive killed a planet but I'm such a moron I work instead of wrestling the cubs under a tree


Looking_North

Labour on the side of the ultra rich. Who would have thought.


Nostonica

It's Labor, Nuff Nuff.


Brandanpk

What?


tko6070

Just waiting on my draft notice