The Daily Wire: Superannuation - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2

Superannuation

#21 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 30 March 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 29 March 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

simple solution. withdraw all income topups and pensions for those working. suddenly your complaint about effective taxation rates evaporates.

And when these income top-ups are withdrawn, what's the effective tax rate? I'll give you a clue - it's a lot more than 50 cents. Epic fail.

Quote

of course if you actually bothered to venture beyond the bottom 5% of earners and students you might discover there is a little more to tax reform that your myopic vision.

Why do you insist on making these unfounded false accusations?

I said this, in the post that you responded to:

View PostBam, on 29 March 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

It doesn't matter if you're wealthy or poor. I have identified different scenarios where this is not the case, for wealthy people, for people on middle incomes and those who cannot buy food and pay rent in the same fortnight.

Now tell me, despite this clear evidence right in front of you, how do you somehow obtain the false viewpoint that I don't, as you put it, "venture beyond the bottom 5% of earners and students"?

I've got to ask - did you learn English as a second language?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by Bam: 30 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

0

#22 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 31 March 2013 - 04:31 PM

View PostBam, on 30 March 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

And when these income top-ups are withdrawn, what's the effective tax rate? I'll give you a clue - it's a lot more than 50 cents. Epic fail.


Why do you insist on making these unfounded false accusations?

I said this, in the post that you responded to:

Now tell me, despite this clear evidence right in front of you, how do you somehow obtain the false viewpoint that I don't, as you put it, "venture beyond the bottom 5% of earners and students"?

I've got to ask - did you learn English as a second language?


do you somehow need to believe that income topups are the norm? they aren't. it is a well known problem in getting people off welfare and one that has no solution other than for the recipient to simply improve themselves and their income and get off welfare entirely. Income topups create this problem because there is no way around it.

and I object to the invalid assertion that it is an effective tax rate. taxation is the taking of money that is earned not the retention of money given. pedantic maybe, but that is the way you normally operate.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#23 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

View Postlongweekend58, on 31 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

do you somehow need to believe that income topups are the norm? they aren't. it is a well known problem in getting people off welfare and one that has no solution other than for the recipient to simply improve themselves and their income and get off welfare entirely. Income topups create this problem because there is no way around it.

It's easy for you to say. "Get off welfare". I can tell you've never really done the hard yards. In Australia, about 1.5 million people are chasing after 100,000 jobs at any time, and many - even most - of those jobs do not go to people that actually need them, but to people that are simply switching from one job straight into another.

Quote

and I object to the invalid assertion that it is an effective tax rate.

Invalid? That's handwaving, not proof.

Quote

taxation is the taking of money that is earned not the retention of money given. pedantic maybe, but that is the way you normally operate.

What an inconsistent position, given your unbelievable insistence that "net tax" is the same as "tax", so much so that you confuse the two. You cannot on the one hand discount the concept of "effective tax" with weak arguments and on the other hang on to the "net tax" argument. Both concepts are actually fairly similar in that they model the movement of funds into or out of general revenue.

Earn a dollar, keep 19.5 cents. The mechanism doesn't matter. Either way, one earns a dollar and loses 80.5 cents of it. If high tax rates of over 50 or 60 cents in the dollar are a disincentive to work - a common mantra of conservatives - what then is losing 80.5 cents of each dollar earned? An incentive? Where the incentive in working for seven hours at minimum wage for a total of $21.79?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#24 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 31 March 2013 - 07:44 PM

Emerson backs debate on super tax for wealthy

Quote

Federal Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson says there should be a debate about the superannuation tax breaks available to those he describes as "fabulously wealthy".
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#25 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:11 AM

Breaking News



Quote

From July next year, superannuation earnings from assets above $100,000 will be taxed at 15 per cent instead of being tax-free.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#26 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:03 AM

View PostHDMC, on 05 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:



I would reword that quote. It is allready causing confusion. It is not the assets that have to be over $100,000 but the earnings over $100,000 pa from super fund assets that will be taxed. Not clear yet if this is combined earnings (couples) or if it is on the whole $100,000.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#27 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:46 AM

View PostHDMC, on 05 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:



Looking at the ALP News site,
http://www.alp.org.a...nuation-system/

the changes are explained in more detail.
It seems only earnings over $100,000 pa will be taxed at 15%. Also earnings from defined benefit schemes e.g politicians will get the same treatment. Not mentioned is that many retired federal public servants allready pay tax on all their superannuation earnings, although at a reduced rate.

I think it has been discussed elsewhere but most annoying is the continuation of calling extra taxation a saving in the budget.

Quote

These two measures combined will save over $10 billion over the next decade.


Who started this ridiculous pollie speak for income from extra revenue calling it savings to the budget?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#28 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 05 April 2013 - 10:52 AM

View Postlenxyz, on 05 April 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I would reword that quote. It is allready causing confusion. It is not the assets that have to be over $100,000 but the earnings over $100,000 pa from super fund assets that will be taxed. Not clear yet if this is combined earnings (couples) or if it is on the whole $100,000.


It was a direct copy/paste. If it's causing confusion I'd lay the blame at the feet of the journo who wrote it.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#29 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:14 AM

View PostHDMC, on 05 April 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

It was a direct copy/paste. If it's causing confusion I'd lay the blame at the feet of the journo who wrote it.


I believe you. That is why it is always best to check original sources. The link no longer has that quote. It has been updated. Seems the journo realised his mistake.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#30 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 05 April 2013 - 11:50 AM

After a bit of sabre rattling earlier in the week, John Brogden is broadly supportive
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#31 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 05 April 2013 - 01:13 PM

This change appears to have originated in a report published by the Australia Institute on August 15 last year which was the subject of an earlier discussion thread.

Can the taxpayer afford ‘self-funded retirement’? (The Australia Institute)

Why self-funded retirees are a burden on the taxpayer (ABC Online: The World Today)
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by Bam: 05 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

0

#32 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:53 AM

Quote

If Mr Abbott calls the Government's reforms "a $1 billion hit on people's retirement savings" as he did on Friday, what does he call his own policy that hits 225 times as many people and is four times the size?


http://tinyurl.com/cjclab2
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#33 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:22 PM

This debate might have some actual value if it weren't that everyone moves solidly to their ideological position and remains there. 'tax the rich!' some cry - because they are poor.

it never changes. it is quite amazing really. when you lot leave uni and get real jobs with real incomes you might discover how simplistic your arguments are and the real world where SOMEONE has to pay every single bill.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply