Hardly too late for self funded retirees, as most pensions aren’t counted as taxable income. You would be hard pressed to find someone that doesn’t qualify unless they own heaps of shares in their personal names or are still working.
How the Fark is telling the truth about what Peter Dutton has said and what he did in Government a scare tactic ?
Even I don’t support spreading BS in elections but this is solid. And Davo, I would argue that you should be asking why Dutton wants to downgrade Medicare.
2 Likes
bOth SiDsiz bAd aS tHA otHeR
2 Likes
2 Likes
You can’t trust any of them Tezza. ALP or Coalition. They’re both untrustworthy. Both as bad as each other.
Oh I think most self funded retirees are ok only skimming 150k off the pile each year.
And if they need to skim more well heck it’s because they are having that European riverboat cruise and have no need for 2.50 public transport.
Won’t be here to use it!
Plus they own their own 3 million dollar home bought on their public service or bank job wage in the 1980s.
You know the job they managed to get with maybe just their year 10 leaving certificate
1 Like
Funny way to admit you were wrong.
3 Likes
Coalition backbenchers want to allow the superannuation guarantee paid by employers to be reduced from the legislated 12 per cent in July 2025 to 9 per cent, putting back that money back into workers’ paypackets.
But the ACTU says that could cost the average 30-year-old worker $165,000 by the time they retire in their 60s.
1 Like
stupidest ■■■■■■■ idea I’ve ever heard
3 Likes
Considering lots of people and the ones who could use it most are all wages plus super (kents 
) not on inclusive salary packages, do you honestly think employers will voluntarily give their employees a pay rise when they are not mandated too?
If you do, I have a bridge to sell you?!
4 Likes
why the fk are the lnp so hellbent on throttling super? its supposed to reduce the amount spent on pensions, which is something else they want to do
usually its malice but in this instance its definitely just fkng stupid
5 Likes
sell the future for short term wins
it’s their mantra
2 Likes
Reducing the the rate of super from 12% to 9% (and allowing workers to take the difference in salary now) would hardly throttle super. It was 9%/10% for nearly 20 years and lower before that and the super industry grew very well. If you were saying super would drop from 12% to 3% I’d agree, but 9%or 10% worked very well for a long time.
The super industry that can’t buy property(ie not SMSFs) largely funds the ALP.
It’s also another cost to business. The Libs would prefer it’s not there.
Regardless if it’s good or not
The workers won’t get the difference. Why would they?
1 Like
In the same way workers on a package get a take home pay cut when the super component is increased:
Under the libs proposal
Package $100,000 incl super
Now $12,000 super
Wages $88,000
Package $100,000
with super reduced to 9% - $9,000
Wages $91,000
Oh yea those donations via the industry funds. Nobody is too concerned about that but let people access their super now to buy a home and people scream blue murder.
Btw using super to buy a home might actually outperform the return you get on keeping your money in super anyway. Plus you get your own home to live in. There’s a middle ground that would work well (not a free for all on drawing from super) but the debate had become far too politicised
2 Likes
That’s great for the packaged workers
Well, not for their futures
1 Like
That’s the policy and it would need to be legislated - the workers get paid the difference 3% in their salary. I might have it wrong but I thought it was going to be limited to divorced women and those in financial distress