[Steve355F1]

Chris Pyne, how good is this man!

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4004718.htm

Will be PM one day, without any doubt.

[98octane]

Super already has thresholds.
This applies this tax year.

Under 59 = $25,000 a year
Over 59 = $35,000 a year

That is total contributions from all sources including any superannuation guarantee that you ask a tax deduction (concession) for. So if you are on a basic $130,000 a year your employer contributes $12,025 (9.25%) which only leaves $22,975 left.

I don't see this as over generous, particularly for people playing super catch-up. A few years back we could put $100,000 into super and get a tax deduction. Which I did. Now that was too generous, but I don't see $35k as being a lot.

And exactly what was a Family Trust used for except to avoid paying excess tax and to protect assets? Pretty much what they are used for today.

Those thresholds are still pretty high when you consider what yearly $25k contributions at 15% tax will amount to over 30 years, assuming a modest return of say 8% pa.  Over $3m (rough calcs).  Why should tax payers subsidise that level of investment?

Even $12k pa contributions in the same scenario would add to over $1.5m.  Sure, you're not going to retire in luxury for 30 years on that, but tax payers shouldn't subsidise luxury - just the minimum for living, no more.

Hewson commented on this is April:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-24/john-hewson-urges-reform-of-tax-concessions-on/5409400

As for family trusts - I'm not an expert but understand on their face they're meant to be for a specific purpose, e.g. kids education. I bet the funds distributed under many such trusts aren't used exclusively for the specified purpose.

[98octane]

Chris Pyne, how good is this man!

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4004718.htm

Thanks. He's significantly improved his manner over the years. Now a polished performer.

[anotherforumuser]

Yes I like Pyne he seems to love his job and he's very good at it.
Sarah Henderson is out of control lately.

She's another journo turned pollie, enough said  ..... Pyne loves his job because he is a total snake. He is truly scum, IMHO.

[anotherforumuser]

If I could change one thing about the budget I'd leave petrol alone and tax the churches, their schools, their rental properties and any income they get like any other business. Very few do real charitable work any more. They could claim any charity costs on their tax like the rest of us, so long as they have receipts. The rest can be taxed like any other business because that's what they are.

Three years of taxing churches would probably have us back in the black.

[scud]

If I could change one thing about the budget I'd leave petrol alone and tax the churches, their schools, their rental properties and any income they get like any other business. Very few do real charitable work any more. They could claim any charity costs on their tax like the rest of us, so long as they have receipts. The rest can be taxed like any other business because that's what they are.

Three years of taxing churches would probably have us back in the black.

just tax sanitarium?

That's a start.

[amgsl55]

If I could change one thing about the budget I'd leave petrol alone and tax the churches, their schools, their rental properties and any income they get like any other business. Very few do real charitable work any more. They could claim any charity costs on their tax like the rest of us, so long as they have receipts. The rest can be taxed like any other business because that's what they are.

Three years of taxing churches would probably have us back in the black.

and some 'churches' are questionable

scientology, hill song, rocco leo

[amgsl55]

Those thresholds are still pretty high when you consider what yearly $25k contributions at 15% tax will amount to over 30 years, assuming a modest return of say 8% pa.  Over $3m (rough calcs).  Why should tax payers subsidise that level of investment?

I understand your argument here, but the people that would be putting $25k+ pa into their super are the ones that pay largish amounts of tax, and come retirement age are likely to have other sources of income making them ineligible to pension and seniors cards.  Over their life as a tax payer they contribute significantly and are the least burden on the public purse.

There are bigger fish that the government can target to get revenue -  Google, Apple, and has been mentioned, Churches

Lower socioeconomic welfare also needs to be cleaned up, there are many benefiting from the public purse whilst working in the cash economy.  If there were a financial reward for " dob in a cheat" I'd say there would be a reduction in welfare payments.

[app]

I personally think that compulsory super and contributions into super should be tax free up to $1m.  It would at least give people incentive to save up for the retirement and lower the burden on tax payers.

[TomE]

and some 'churches' are questionable

scientology, hill song, rocco leo

Some are just outright money machines with the Pastors “salary sacrificing" their entire living costs so they don't have to pay personal tax. Scam.