Public backlash following the proposed super changes has both sides of politics seemingly ducking for cover over their respective changes to super.
Each side is focusing on the taxing aspect when the real issue is about the retrospective nature of the proposed changes and how this impacts on the current contributions cap.
Doesn’t seem fair if you are in your 50’s and planned to maximise salary sacrifice super savings over the next 10 years.
Some argue the proposed super changes by government and Labor are a poor choice, so “let’s compare the pair” and if any of this really is retrospective.
Labor's policy: Plans to intorduce tax on super pension earnings above $75,000. Mind you this is on balances accumulated in the past under existing rules, this is also retrospective.
For example, on a pension balance of $1.6 million, if a pension earns say 10%, extra tax of $12,750 is raised.
So is this about equity and fairness or just raising tax revenue? This is what both Treasurer and leader of the opposition said this year about retrospectivity:
Scott Morrison SMSF Association Nation Conference speak excerpt…18 February 2016, “….penalises Australians who have put money into superannuation under the current rules. It may not be technical retrospectivity but it certainly feels that way. It is effective retrospectivity, the tax technicians and superannuation tax technicians may say differently.”
Bill Shorten 13 February 2016,“… when you make a new announcement in the future, it shouldn’t change the circumstances of the people who are already invested under the old law.”
Maybe we would be better if both parties admitted their changes are retrospective and tried to convinced us why the changes are necessary for revenue and equity reasons.
What do you think, have your say!
Comment