|
Post by Banjo on May 18, 2015 6:38:07 GMT 7
The $100 billion question: can Australia afford our retirement bill as the ‘grey vote’ booms?
Reining in the rising costs of an ageing population is politically perilous, as successive federal governments have discovered – and it’s about to get even harder as the proportion of older voters rises. As the latest budget shows, the age pension is Australia’s single biggest welfare payment. It costs $44 billion in 2015-16 and will grow to $50 billion by 2018-19 - or about 10% of total federal budget spending. But superannuation tax concessions – which benefit wealthier retirees more than others – are fast catching up. The latest budget shows that forgone revenue from two superannuation tax concessions will cost the federal government $36 billion this coming financial year, jumping to $50 billion in 2018-19. Within three years, Australians will face a $100 billion-plus bill, just to cover the age pension and super tax breaks. Without action, that bill will be much higher as more baby boomers head to retirement. theconversation.com/the-100-billion-question-can-australia-afford-our-retirement-bill-as-the-grey-vote-booms-41492
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 13:14:44 GMT 7
theconversation.com/the-100-billion-question-can-australia-afford-our-retirement-bill-as-the-grey-vote-booms-41492Stephen Morey Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Linguistics at La Trobe University . "the huge subsidies that the taxpayer is giving to superannuation,expected to be $50 billion per year in by 2018-19, just three years away. As we all know, at the so called 'top end', the extremely wealthy end, the subsidies per person are enormous. I have read that subsidies for the wealthiest 75000 people are equally to an average of more than $100,000 per year per person. Average income earners are in effect working one extra week a year just to subsidize extremely wealthy people. This is an outrage and needs to be changed."
|
|
|
Post by Denis-NFA on May 18, 2015 22:07:31 GMT 7
I think a better question and focus is, "does superannuation work for or against people?"
And I would argue that most ordinary workers would be better off with the 9.5% in their pay packet, even if taxed at their current rate of tax.
The main beneficiaries of superannuation seems to be the 'finance' sector and those that have enough money to buy 'financial' advice.
And if Australia cannot afford to look after Pensioners and the unemployed, then it is not Australia.
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 10, 2015 16:19:41 GMT 7
thegreenman is right those on a limited superannuation are losing some or all there pension rights.Its working against us and not for us.Fees and taxes on super help big companies and not the small man.
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 18, 2015 11:58:42 GMT 7
ABC fact check has confirmed that superannuation is not designed to replace the Old Age Pension when it was introduced. Hawk and Keating have confirmed it was designed to in prove the standard of living for those on the pension. NOT keep them in poverty. The Liberal government has set out to use it to cut Pension entitlements in stead of enhance it.
|
|
|
Post by dave3478 on Nov 18, 2015 16:26:05 GMT 7
I have just read the ABC Fact check site and this is the conclusion to the assault by the liberal party on Australians.
The claim: Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer says that Australia's superannuation system "was set up to be an alternative to the aged pension so that people didn't have to rely upon the aged pension or even the part pension".
The verdict: Key figures in the introduction of compulsory super in Australia say it was introduced for a number of reasons, including a desire to relieve pressure on the social security system as the population ages. But the governments of the day did not sell the policy as a way to get people off the pension and instead said that most people would still get at least a part pension. Ms O'Dwyer is ill-informed.
|
|